Talk:Svādhyāya/Archive 1

message: :I have completed a rewrite in which all of the unsourced material was eliminated and replaced by a sourced definition of the basic term, along with a few mentions of notability in the Yoga Sutras, the Bhagavad Gita, and by Madhva.  Because the study of scripture is an important part of orthodox practice, there are extensive commentorial views on exactly what the practice includes.  The article could be expanded easily by quoting some of the notable commentators to show a range of views, which would bring in two additional ideas that I have not yet sourced in.  One is that the practice includes japa and mantra recitation (recalling that most scripture can be considered mantra), and the modern Westernized view that it means "study of the self" (as opposed to "study on one's own", which is the traditional view).  I will add a few of the more notable variant views in the next week or so.  The redirect of Svadhyaya to Syvdhyay should be removed, and the direction reversed, as this is a Sanskrit technical term. Can someone help with that? Buddhipriya 05:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good job Buddhipriya! I added a category and wikilinked a few terms so that an interested reader can be guided to related items. Do you think the  navigational template will be useful for this article ? A possible benefit od adding it would be that it will prevent the article from gaining a bloated "See Also section sometime in the future ... Abecedare 06:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some sort of "first strike" approach to the See Also section is a good idea, but I am not sure if the Yoga template is a good one, as there is a vagueness about the Yoga category that bothers me.  This term is really more a matter of day-to-day religious observance.  I am not sure what template would work.  Perhaps Indian Philosophy is an option.  I'm not sure what to do. Buddhipriya 06:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that Yoga template is not necessarily the best fit since it pigeon-holes the concept, which I believe is more general - that is the reason I didn't add it myself. Anyway, this issue is not that important, so we can decide it if/when we need to. Abecedare 06:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Some recent additions to the article have added a number of scriptural references and statements about orthodox practices that I feel are generally correct, but I have a concern about the use of only primary sources to make these points.  All primary scriptural sources are open to interpretation.  Thus secondary sources must be brought into the mix to explain the interpretations given here.  Since I believe that the content is generally correct, I have not removed the new material as WP:OR, and over coming weeks I will try to work on upgrading the sourcing to get a more verifiable academic version of it.  However some of the sourcing will need to recognize that some of the traditional practices are not well-documented in the academic literature.  If others have opinions about the use of primary scriptural sources I would enjoy discussion of them specifically for use in relatively poorly-documented areas such as this one. Buddhipriya
:The problem of sourcing mentioned by Buddhipriya was twofold : (1)I had to cite from Sayan's commentary of Rgveda (in svadhyaya) which is world's best commentary but has been translated in no other Indian or non-Indian language as yet(as far as I know), excepting into German (by Max Müller). I know little German. Moreover, quoting German on English-Wiki is worse than to quote from an original source in Sanskrit. (2) My second problem is more complicated, in which I need help from other editors : as I had told to DAB, "I have not mentioned the publishers of Taittiriya Aranyaka and Upanishada because Wikipedians will like English translations while I use Sanskrit originals". Taittiriya Aranyaka and Taittiriya Upanishada have English translations, but I have always studied from the originals, and it is not possible for me to procure English translations of all Sanskrit works I quote from (although it is not difficult to find out English trasnlators and publishers to be added in reference). Hence, I quoted small clauses and gave literal translations which cannot be contradicted by anyone because all my literal translations (which are not my personal POV) are based solely on the Sanskrit-English Dictionary of Sir Monier-Williams who is regarded as the best English lexicographer of Sanskrit and worked for 50 years on it : this is not against Wikipedia:Verifiability. Other editors may help in finding English sources which are easy to find with the help of any search engine, instead of removing important contributions made by me. Fortunately, Buddhipriya has acted in a cooperative way, but in future I anticipate problems from less tolerant editors. Instead of deleting my contributions, editors should add tags like "citation needed" and discuss the matter first on talk page. 
:As far as I know, the traditional meaning of Svādhyāya cannot be found in any English work except in that of Pattābhirām Shāstri whom I quoted. Pattābhirām Shāstri wrote in Sanskrit, but the publisher added two translated versions as well, in Hindi and English. I was fortunate to find this great book by Swāmi Karpātri, otherwise my contributions to this article might have been branded as OR, although all traditional pandits would support the statements made my me. Pattābhirām Shāstri was also a traditional pandit, one of the greatest Vedic scholars during modern period. Is it not deplorable that many important traditional concepts like svādhyāya do not find any place in Western works on India ? Wiki policies of RS, NOR &c do not mean that only Western sources can be branded as reliable sources. If one finds reliable sources in English, they are welcome, but if some areas crucial to Indic studies have been neglected by Western academics, we would have to rely upon either original Sanskrit sources or their translations in Hindi &c (otherwise, these important areas of Indic studies will have to be removed from Wiki, which is not advisable). In this article I have quoted from Sanskrit version of Sayan's introduction to his commentary of Rgveda published by an organisation which is most reliable as far as reliability of text is concerned (this organisation was established nearly a century ago merely for procuring all availavle manuscripts and find out the most reliable version fit for publication together with all other variants in other manuscripts, and it was published with government assistance); Hindi translation of this 'Introduction' has been published under the title 'Rgveda-Bhāshya-Bhoomikā', which is part of post graduate (Vedāchārya) syllabus of all Sanskrit universities in India. If other editors desire, I can quote this Hindi version also. 
:(citation needed) : It has been said countless of times by modern scholars that Vedas were orally transmitted till the end of first millenium AD when they were written down. Memorization was the only means through which this oral transmission could have taken place. That is why I added : "svādhyāya had a unique meaning for Vedic scholars and it was the principal tool for the preservation of the Vedas in their original form for millenia orally". Svādhyāya was the tool for memorization is made clear by sources cited in rest of the article. I am presently shifting this passage to a more appropriate place where citation will not be required : to the end of second para  in the section 'Traditional Uses'. If this passage is to be placed in introductory section, citations will be needed which are not impossible to find but may be time-consuming. Such citations are necessary, and may be kept in a TO DO list by editors. 
:I generally do not like to change contributions by other editors and prefer to add mine separately. Secondly, I never take a recourse to reverting, unless vandalism is encountererd which I recently faced in brahmarishi.Changes made by Buddhipriya to my contributions to svadhyaya are fine, and I will add wanted citations.  -Vinay Jha Vinay Jha 08:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have raised a lot of points at once, which can make it difficult to absorb and react to your issues.  As you settle in on this article you may find that picking one point at a time and working it out is the easier way to get results.  I will reply to just a couple of the points right away.  
*According to WP:OWN, none of us has the luxury of writing content just for ourselves.  Anything anyone adds can be removed or changed by anyone else.
*According to WP:RS, "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Sometimes it is better to have no information than to have information without a source."  There is no requirement that editors give any grace period for removal of unsouced content.  Some editors consider it wise to put a fact tag on things first, others simply have a "shoot on sight" policy.  
*According to WP:OR we do not get to do original research here.  Our job is to report on what WP:RS say.  Primary sources, such as scripture, cannot be used for purposes of interpretation of what they mean, who wrote them, or when they were written.
Before adding much more content, I think it would be wiser to concentrate on trying to get decent sourcing for what is already there.  Otherwise some other editor will simply remove it as WP:OR, and they would be within their rights to do it, since all of the new material is a synthesis of primary sources.  I have begun adding some citations to the first section, and have already added one reference regarding the traditional use.  On your talk page I asked a specific question about citations to the lexicon.  Can you please check the answer on that for me and give the defnitional verses by number as numbered in the online version that I gave you the link to?  I will try to react to your other points in the next few days.  There are no emergencies on Wikipedia and sometimes the best thing is to do nothing for a few days and let other editors react.  Making large numbers of changes at once invites mass reversions when someone else comes along and is faced with massive changes that are too complex to absorb. Buddhipriya 08:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues of sourcing and OR 

message: Buddhipriya asked me to "omit over-used word Vedic, and source the statement about the practice from Arya" in the tag of edit made on 06:16, 2 August 2007. Svādhyāya is not an Āryan but a Vedic term. The name 'Sāyana' itself is believed to be Dravidian in origin. Pattābhirām Shāstri was a Dravidian. Today, Dravidians are making equal or perhaps greater efforts to study the Vedas than the North Indians. According to academics, Āryan is a linguistic branch of IE comprising of 'Indo-Iranians', and in the present context this term should not be used at all, because it cannot be proven that the pre-historic Indo-Iranians had anything to do with Svādhyāya. The traditional meaning of the term Svādhyāya is purely Vedic, which included Āryan as well as Dravidian s.  -Vinay Jha  09:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry that you misunderstood my edit summary.  "Arya" is the last name of the author of the book that I used for the citation, which now appears in the References.  The comment had nothing to do with the term . Buddhipriya 03:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry.   - Vinay Jha 13:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vedic versus Āryan 

message: I have moved the following unsourced WP:OR to the talk page so it can be examined more closely.  According to WP:V, "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source."  The information given here may be true, but it is unverifiable because no source is given.  The parts of this which are based on examination of almanacs is WP:OR and thus violates a basic policy against such content.  Please provide citations to reliable secondard sources to support this material:
The list of anadhyāya days accepted by almost all traditional almanac makers are based upon a mediaeval work 'Muhurta Chintāmani' by Rāmācharya (cf. reference), but no Jyotishi has ever been able to prove the mathematical basis of Rāmāchārya, and recently Rāmāchārya's list has been declared to be wrong in six almanacs of many Hindi speaking states of India, including the Bihar Panchanga (cf. reference) in which a different list of anadhyāya days has been published based upon Surya Siddhanta. Anadhyāya days are determined on the basis of tithi (lunar elongation), and in most parts of North India and some parts of South India pandits still accept tithis computed on the basis of some form of Surya Siddhānta. The computation of anadhyāya days involves finding tithis during the entire Srishti (Creation) of 4.3 billion years and is, therefore, highly complicated. Starting tithis of all 14 manvantaras together with all 4 yugas of present manvantaras and a few more inauspicious tithis are anadhyāya days on which Vedas should not be studied in any form according to traditional belief of Hindus.
Buddhipriya 02:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove unsourced OR 

message: According to WP:LAYOUT, the "References" section should contain a list of books that are actually cited in specific inline references.  It is not a general list of books which may have been read by someone at some time.  As specific citations to these works are added with inline references, they can be reintroduced into the References section one by one, if there is agreement that these are WP:RS for this subject. The problem with the article now is that it contains a lot of poorly sourced statements that need to be either removed from the article or properly cited. Buddhipriya 02:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove uncited books from References 

message: Another conversion to verify, from:
* with Hindi commentary by Hargovinda Śāstri, Chowkhambā Sanskrit Series Office, Vārānasi-1,1978.
To:
*
Is there an ISBN number for this book? Buddhipriya 03:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NO. Chowkhamba is a major publisher. Please ask it to use ISBN, explaining the causes.  Vinay Jha 20:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Śāstri book reference 

message: Can you give a better citation for the  by Chowkhambā?  Whenever possible, if these have ISBN numbers please give them as that allows for additional citation verification via bibliographic lookup systems. Buddhipriya 03:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a readily available book. But I will not be able to move out of my house for a few days more due to devastating floods which has paralysed my town completely for over a week. All my phones are dead too. Wait for a few days.   -Vinay Jha 14:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{IAST|Ṛgveda-Bhāṣya-Bhoomikā}} by Chowkhambā 

message: India's national ISBN agency was established in January 1985, and the website http://www.isbn-international.org/en/agencies/india.html  informs that only 40% of India's publishers were registered with it till Oct 2003. Even these registered publishers often misuse or disuse ISBN allocated to them. Most of the remaining 60% publishers would perhaps like to get ISBN numbers, provided the mechanism of allocation is publicised and made easier. Many books cited by me were published before 1985 and therefore could not get ISBN numbers. Allocation of ISBN number makes it easy to find the book, but it is wrong to assume that books lacking ISBN are not genuine.  Vinay Jha 13:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the statement "it is wrong to assume that books lacking ISBN are not genuine" I completely agree.  All I said was, if the book has an ISBN number, please give it. Buddhipriya 17:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISBN 

message: The statement by Buddhipriya "This article appears to be blatant advertising for a specific group." refers to the previous (moved) article, but now readers may think this statement of Buddhipriya refers to the present article. Hence the entire section 'Blatant advertising?'  (together with the present talk headed  'REMOVE 'Blatant advertising?') should be now removed/deleted/archived from this talk page because it may cause confusion to newcomers.   Vinay Jha 08:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it look ok now ? Abecedare 17:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much!  I had not seen the cleanup method you used before, it looks very useful.  Regarding the sourcing issues, as you can see I am trying to keep much of the material that is being added but gradually convert the sourcing to a more verifiable form.  This is slow going and any help with it would be appreciated.  I will do the Monier-Williams conversions next, but am trying to simply identify what sources are actually being quoted.  Since some of the scriptural references are to difficult-to-obtain works, I plan to add additional references to more accessible versions that include English translations.  Fortunately I have some small familiarity with the actual content of the article and thus can recognize some of the content even if the initial presentation is not very clear. Any help you can give would be most appreciated. Buddhipriya 18:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  REMOVE 'Blatant advertising? 

message: Because this article currently is relying on a number of non-English sources, here is a summary of the policy of WP:V on use of such material.  This will be a good opportunity to learn more about the best ways to integrate such material:
Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.
Keep in mind that translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.
Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:
* Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
* Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.
The issue of use of Devanagari connects to this policy of verifiability.  When I make a quotation from a Sanskrit source, if the actual source I am quoting from is in Devanagari, I generally reproduce the Devanagari in the note, since that is the writing system that the author used.  However since most Western readers cannot interpret the Devanagari script, I often supply the IAST equivalent beside the Devanagari, which helps readers to at least recognize the words being used.  Normally I would not show both Devanagari and IAST, because IAST is a lossless equivalent, and showing both is redundant.  But mistakes are sometimes made in the romanization, and if the quotation is to a Devanagari source, it seems best to show the actual source.  I see many variations in romanization methods on Wikipedia, but IAST is the academic standard. Buddhipriya 19:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy on non-English sources 

message: Wiki editors must aim at quality of material, and should elaborate the topic in precise terms with the help of reliable sources. Only those statements need to be sourced which may lead to confusion or controversy. I have seen many Wiki article which are entirely unsourced, which is bad. There are some articles which contain little matter and much sources, which is worse than an unsourced article. -Vinay Jha 11:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:V says that " "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."  In my view, a good article will have high-quality inline citations that conform to WP:CITE for virtually every statement made.  You are correct that most Wikipedia articles do not conform to that goal.  Most articles on Wikipedia are not very reliable.  The standards set for quality articles on Wikipedia are found at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, which say that "Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate."  You are correct that the first goal is to cite anything which can be challenged.  For purposes of this article, that includes virtually every statement. Buddhipriya 05:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Quality of Matter' and Sourcing