Rollback |
|||
Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
Dbachmann, can you please revert without using the rollback tool when making content reverts on articles like [[Rigveda]]? If reverts are made with the rollback tool, it suggests that the edit is vandalism, spam, or a test, not a dispute over the content. I think manual reverts would help ease tensions. [[User:Picaroon|Picaroon]] [[User talk:Picaroon|(t)]] 00:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC) |
Dbachmann, can you please revert without using the rollback tool when making content reverts on articles like [[Rigveda]]? If reverts are made with the rollback tool, it suggests that the edit is vandalism, spam, or a test, not a dispute over the content. I think manual reverts would help ease tensions. [[User:Picaroon|Picaroon]] [[User talk:Picaroon|(t)]] 00:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
:using the rollback button, I do indeed allege that the edit in question is not part of any bona fide dispute. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 06:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:57, 2 August 2007
archive1: 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) – 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) / 2: – 25 Nov 04 / 3: – 19 Dec 04 / 4: – 11 Jan 05 / 5: – 8 Mar 05 / 6: – 6 May 05 / 7: – 1 Jul 05 / 8: – 12 Aug 05 / 9: – 7 Nov 05 / A: – 13 Dec 05 / B: – 16 Jan 06 C: – 22 Feb 06 / D: – 21 March 06 / E: – 19 May 06 / F: – 5 Jul 06 / 10 – 9 Aug 06 / <11: – 9 Sep 06 / 12: – 2 Oct 06 / 13: – 23 Oct 06 / 14: – 30 Nov 06 / 15: – 17:53, 4 Jan 07 / 16 – 05:16, 16 Feb 07 / 17: – 08:28, 19 Mar 07 / 18: – 02:43, 11 Apr 07 / 19: – 00:26, 16 May 07 / 1A – 19:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you make sense of these recent edits by Heegoop (talk · contribs) ? A couple of weeks back he asked questions regarding Hindi language and ethnic groups on the reference desk and then today, he created a one-line article Hindu (ethnic group). I cannot make up mind if the latter is a candidate for speedy deletion as "nonsense" or not (since Savarkar did hold that opinion as is already mentioned in Hindu#What a Hindu is ... but then again does that deserve an article of its own ?!). Abecedare 01:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- patent nonsense -- there is no way "Hindu" refers to an ethnic group. dab (𒁳) 07:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Seeking opinion from regular editors on reference pattern
References: Notes and citations section; change in reference and notes temporarily ceased; WP:FOOT says I am not doing wrong; Separate Notes and Citation sections
Opinion is sought from regular editors of the article Hinduism regarding the splitting of Notes and references section. This is a short gist of the discussions going on in the above mentioned talk links: Having a separate "Notes" (for explanatory remarks) and "Citations" (for direct citations), although permitted, is relatively rare in Wikipedia, and also in academic journals. The main rationale behind doing this is to distinguish a series of explanatory remarks from the series of citations (please see Rabindranath Tagore, Demosthenes for examples).
This sandbox gives a glimpse of how the article would look if we split the sections (the sandbox is under work, so may not be perfect). This link shows how the article looks with combined section. This may give an idea how it looked when I started working on references. I converted many references to Harvard format, apart from splitting the sections.
Opinion for regular editors are sought regarding the application of splitting of two section for this article. Please do so in Talk:Hinduism in the section Talk:Hinduism#Seeking_opinion_from_regular_editors_on_reference_pattern. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I really cannot be bothered to join a discussion on such a technical point that doesn't at all affect content. dab (𒁳) 19:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Liftarn again
I am really sorry for getting you into this. I would file another case of at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, but I have unexpected difficulties in getting that formatted correctly. If I knew that this would be so much trouble, I would have not dared to edit Wikipedia. Zara1709 19:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- no, please, try to enjoy it. It's all part of Wikipedia. If you get fed up, you can always take a step back and edit more obscure articles undisturbedly. I have been through much, much worse trolling (check my talk archives if you are interested) and I have learned to develop a strange fascination with this sort of people. When I'm really annoyed, you will note that I stop editing :) dab (𒁳) 19:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dab. If you are interested in this topic, I invite you to participate in the discussion about the script template. As you know, I'm trying to reduce the number of multi-language templates, and I don't know if {{script}} is really needed in some cases, or can always be replaced by template {{lang}}. Best regards, —surueña 19:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
ARMA
I have responded. I am going to bed now. If you do any editing, please make sure and paste any large chunks of (non-biographical) deleted material on the talk page (poorly sourced biographical material should be deleted and not reproduced anywhere). Out of curiosity, are you involved in historical fencing at all? The Jade Knight 08:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- involved since 2002, but I only have knowledge of the German language (D-A-CH) landscape. I only have hearsay knowledge of the US "scene", and the "HACA controversy" of the late 1990s was before my time anyway. dab (𒁳) 10:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- My introduction to the controversy was actually this article. The Jade Knight 02:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The Lesser Oxford Dictionaries on Hindustani
Well, I was curious, so I checked my copies of the Concise OED (at 1700 or so pages, the self-styled arbiter of "modern" English) and the Modern OED (at 1200 pages, the ready reference for the busy executive who has little need for esoteric words). The COED say, "Hindustani: n. historical 1. a group of mutually intelligible languages and dialects spoken in north-west India, principally Hindi and Urdu. 2. the Delhi dialect of Hindi, widely used throughout India as a lingua franca. Usage Hindustani was the usual term in the 18th and 19th century for the native language of north-west India...." And the MOED says, "1. a language based on Western Hindi, with elements of Arabic, Persian, etc. used as a lingua franca in much of India. 2. archaic Urdu." Well, it seems that, at least for "Hindustani," the busy executive is getting more accurate information than the esoteric scholar who pores over the 615,000 entries of the Great OED! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon Svadhyay, which in its present form is blatant advertising for some group. I was wanting to do a small, well-sourced article on the subject of svādhyāya in the sense of scriptural study, which I am sure you will recognize as a very old traditional aspect of Brahmanic religious practice. Since this nonsense article exists, I do not know what the correct Wikipolicy would be to deal with such a case. If this cult deserves an article, it should be titled after the name of the group, not after the Hindi version of the Sanskrit term which it has appropriated. Can you assist me in figuring out how best to deal with this? I think the redirect of Svadhyaya to Svadhyay should be eliminated as a minimum, and perhaps some disambiguation page is needed, unless all of the existing unsourced puffery is simply cut. Buddhipriya 02:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I saw Buddhipriya's comment and since I am somewhat familiar with the article history, I thought I'd butt in. Svadhyay is simply a POV fork of Swadhyay Parivar, an organization that split into factions after the death of its founder, with allegations of murder, defamation etc flying around. Not surprisingly the real-life and court battles have continued and are reflected on wikipedia, which explains the current abysmal status of the two articles. The long and short of it is that since "Swadhyay Parivar" is what the organization calls itself [1], the two articles should clearly be merged under that title and the title "Svadhyay" should be free for writing an article on the concept of scriptural/self-study. If either of you is really enthusiastic, you could in addition take on the task of cleaning up the article on the organization ... or just leave it alone and let the Second law of thermodynamics do its job :-) Abecedare 02:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have no knowledge of or interest in the organization. I would enjoy doing a short but well-referenced piece on the subject of independent scriptural study as a religious practice. Can one of you assist me in getting rid of the redirection of Svadhyaya to Svadhyay, and in performing whatever disambiguation is needed? I am vague on the mechanics of redirects. I am going to go ahead and be bold and just purge the article of the patent nonsense. Buddhipriya 02:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Unless there are GFDL issues that I am unaware of, I think you did fine, since anyway there was no sourced content in the article, which one would want to merge with Swadhyay Parivar. Note though, that a similar strategy has been tried before [2] (though not by a neutral party), and was reverted by anon. IPs, who I guess belong to some faction of the split. So don't be surprised if you face similar reversions soon - I'll watchlist the article and try to help keep such POV forces at bay, but will be busy for the next few days.
- Sorry, Dab for using your page for holding this discussion with Buddhipriya. Here is treat for you: Doergood (talk · contribs), the latest entry in the AMT/AIT battle, who doesn't hesitate before modifying sourced content or even sourced quotes ! Abecedare 02:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for any help you can give. I will try to source it in a way that will make removal of the content very clearly a form of vandalism. Buddhipriya 03:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Until(1 == 2)
I don't really see what the big deal is, but I'll think about it and leave a lengthy comment later (got things to do at the moment). Andre (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just to let you know, I do understand your concerns. I think something needs to be changed but not necessarily preventing disappearing administrators from being re-sysopped. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's my turn to say "adminship shouldn't be a big deal" now. There should be no reason to go such lengths to allow an editor to keep adminship if there are reasons speaking against it.
- but of course there are ways. Either do a privileged RFA endorsed by lots of trusted editors you have convinced of your identity off-wiki. Or get Jimbo to give you a note of approval. Both approaches should work of getting the re-appearing user re-adminned with no questions asked. dab (𒁳) 19:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- What about either a.) multiple crat endorsements, b.) multiple endorsements of trusted users, c.) arb-com endorsement or d.) jimbo wales endorsement for personal endorsements work? Which ones of these and how many would be required?. Would confirmation of a commited identity do the trick or even email confirmation? Where is the appropriate line for requesting verification without blowing all the bells and whistles somebody who has vanished for privacy reasons most certainly does not want to hear? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I think multiple crat endorsement should suffice. I suggest a "dummy" RFA page is created at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Until(1 == 2) (viz., where people will find it) with the promoting crat saying he's been convinced of user's identity, and maybe one or two other crats endorsing that. I think that's not asking too much, and it would help greatly in dispelling the impression that cards are being dealt under the table. dab (𒁳) 19:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I 100% agree. I think that is an excellent solution and have started a thread regarding it at WT:RFA. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I think multiple crat endorsement should suffice. I suggest a "dummy" RFA page is created at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Until(1 == 2) (viz., where people will find it) with the promoting crat saying he's been convinced of user's identity, and maybe one or two other crats endorsing that. I think that's not asking too much, and it would help greatly in dispelling the impression that cards are being dealt under the table. dab (𒁳) 19:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- What about either a.) multiple crat endorsements, b.) multiple endorsements of trusted users, c.) arb-com endorsement or d.) jimbo wales endorsement for personal endorsements work? Which ones of these and how many would be required?. Would confirmation of a commited identity do the trick or even email confirmation? Where is the appropriate line for requesting verification without blowing all the bells and whistles somebody who has vanished for privacy reasons most certainly does not want to hear? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Meta Discussions on Talk:India
>> (thanks for the archiving -- I suppose this is meta-discussion we don't need to keep around.) Well, it might be a good idea to have something from the meta discussion (the general consensus reached etc.) available as ready information for new readers. There is always the possibility that the same problem will rise again six months hence. However, I don't know what form such readily available information will take; clearly, it can't remain on the talk page. Any suggestions? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- no big deal, you are welcome to restore it if you like. Or if you don't want that, you could leave behind just a diff. dab (𒁳) 20:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Vikings in popular culture
Vikings in popular culture, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Vikings in popular culture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vikings in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Vikings in popular culture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Eyrian 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- I did not "create" this article because I think we need it, but because I was cleaning out stuff from Viking. dab (𒁳) 20:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Template:Buddhist term
Hi dab -
Thanks so much once again for creating (or re-creating) Template:Buddhist term. I think its rationale is terrific and your creating this template as a subset of function from Template:DisplayTranslations was incredibly thoughtful and immensely generous.
On Talk:Buddhism#Buddhist_terms_template, two of the WP Buddhism community's most scholarly editors (User:Stephen_Hodge and User:Peter_jackson) have weighed-in voicing an occasional motif in our community that sidebars such as Template:Buddhist term should only include Latin-script. (My intuition agrees with this but I don't have anywhere near these other editors' knowledge.) So, unless anyone in the WP Buddhism community objects in the next day or two, I'm inclined to go ahead and make these modifications to Template:Buddhist term. I suspect you don't really care how we go about it and that your creating this template was a gift to our community. But, just in case you might have strong feelings about this, I thought I let you know of our intentions and give you a chance to voice any objections. (Also, FWIW, I plan to copy the Talk:Buddhism#Buddhist_terms_template thread to Template talk:Buddhist term first.)
Thanks so much again for sharing so generously of your significant talents. I wish you well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Forgive my overhearing you :) but to be precise, the IAST romanization method does not use "Latin script", as it is a superset of the Latin-1 character set plus several additional characters with diacritical marks not present in Latin-1. Since there are multiple methods for romanization of Devanagari, and IAST is the academic standard, I suggest that you consider referring explicitly to IAST rather than the general term "Latin script" as that can result in lack of specificity about the romanization method to be used. Since IAST is a lossless rendering of Devanagari, if IAST is shown there is (in my opinion) no need to also show Devanagari, as the information content of the two systems is identical. Buddhipriya 05:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think we mean "Latin" in the sense of romanization, not the restricted Latin-1. Obviously, lossless schemes should be preferred. IAST is a standard for Sanskrit, but if other Indic langauges are involved, ISO (which is also lossess) may be preferable. dab (𒁳) 07:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are very kind, Larry. No, as long as lossless romanization schemes are used, I have no objection to giving romanization only. Of course, in the case of CJK, pinyin and romaji are not lossless, and the Kanji should be given along with them. In any case, I have no intention of meddling with a consensus among the editors focussing on Buddhism, since I've not been very active in that field so far. best regards, dab (𒁳) 07:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Enuma Elish link
Since you're interested in EE, this link about sleeping gods might interest you - though the author concludes that in this case at least there's no EE connection. PiCo 09:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case is closed and the decision has been published at the above link. Miskin (talk · contribs) is cautioned to gain a consensus on article talk pages before making further edits if his first edits are reverted. Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is advised to take into account the length of time between previous blocks when blocking users, and to treat all editors violating the three-revert rule fairly. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 13:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Taming of the shrew wedding petruchio cleese.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Taming of the shrew wedding petruchio cleese.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
5,000th edit
Greetings, are there any 'templates' for users with 5,000 edits? I reached that mark yesterday.Ryoung122 02:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I just note that all these "Wikipedians by edit count" categories were deleted. Good riddance, I suppose. You can still make a note of your edit count, of course, no need for a template. Congratulations on your 5,000 edits, hope you keep addicted :) dab (𒁳) 22:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I would welcome your opinion on the following statement from Mary, Turkmenistan: "In some Indian traditions Mary (Merv) is cited as the original home of the Aryans". Is this taken from the Ruhnama? --Ghirla-трёп- 19:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I also have a problem with the following statement in the new article Prehistoric Armenia, currently nominated on T:TDYK: "The background of the Armenians has been traced to prehistoric times, to communities living in Eastern Anatolia and the outskirts of Mount Ararat". --Ghirla-трёп- 23:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism on Caucasian race
Hi. Someone, probably an Ossetian nationalist, keeps replacing "Georgians" with "Ossetians (Alans)" in Blumenbach’s quote. I noticed that you reverted to his/her POV version. Can you explain your reasoning? Thanks, KoberTalk 10:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- You can check Blumenbach’s reference to Georgians on Google Books.KoberTalk 10:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
White People
Thanks for restoring the information on the White People article, I never realised it used to be there. If the PC nannies had their way it would probably read 'White people are virtually indistinguishable from negro and oriental races, this is due to the fact that everyone is, in fact, exactly the same. Anyone who thinks different is a racist' Cheers --Hayden5650 10:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think our outlook on this is very compatible, but I agree that the physiological bits belong in the article. dab (𒁳) 11:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Fifth veda
Hi dab, I saw the Fifth Veda article. Its a good stub but I feel that the article should be moved to "Panchama veda" because "Fifth Veda" seems to suggest a canonical fifth Veda. Panchama Veda, otoh makes no such claims. Various works have been 'bestowed' the 'honour' of being 'dubbed' the "Panchama Veda" simply to show that they're works deserving the highest praise. That still does not make them the "fifth" veda. There are also parallels with several works being dubbed 'Bhagawadgeeta'. For example, the Kannada work Mankutimmana Kagga is popularly referred to as the "Kannada Bhagawadgeete". So unless there are objections, I'll move it. Sarvagnya 23:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- You'd need to change the scope somewhat if you did that. Not all works which have claimed to be a "veda" have been called a (or the) "Panchama veda". The Tiruvaymozhi, for example, if memory serves right, was always called "Dravida veda", not "Panchama veda". -- Arvind 00:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. I was coming to that. I wanted to confirm it before I said that. But since you've confirmed it, we probably just need to remove the Tiruvaymozhi from the article altogether. I've actually heard itt being called the 'Tamil veda'. And similar descriptions, I believe have also been made of the Kural, if I am right. In any case, they're not the 'fifth' veda. Sarvagnya 02:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Dravida veda" and "Tamil veda" are used interchangeably, the former is more common in Sanskrit texts, and the latter in Tamil texts. There are actually three texts which've been called this, the Tirukkural, the Tiruvaymozhi (later extended to the entire Tivya Pirapantam) and the Tevaram. On whether they're properly called "fifth veda", see below. -- Arvind 11:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- feel free to edit this article :) However, it should be noted that "fifth Veda" is the exact translation of "Panchama Veda", so I don't really see the point of moving it from one to the other. Of course these works aren't "Vedic" in any canonical sense, I thought the article made that perfectly clear. dab (𒁳) 07:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm. This might just be linguistic bias, but to my mind, "panchama veda" has a rather specific meaning within the Hindu tradition, and thus only ought to be applied to texts which've specifically claimed that label, whereas "fifth veda" doesn't have that meaning, so it is in theory capable of being applied to all texts that have claimed the status of a veda. In any event, the point I'm trying to make is that I think it's worth having an article which discusses all post-vedic traditions that seek to confer the status of a "veda" on texts other than the four canonical vedas, not just the various texts which claim to be the "panchama veda". -- Arvind 11:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- what would be the point of that? Any hack can call this or that a "Veda"? That's at best an idea for a disambiguation page (along the lines of Vedic). But again, feel free to edit and/or move Fifth Veda to your liking. dab (𒁳) 11:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm happy with Fifth Veda as it is - I don't like the idea of it being moved to "Panchama veda". FWIW, I'm not talking about texts which any old hack calls a veda, but about texts like the Tiruvaymozhi (and to a lesser extent the Tevaram), which have an established commentarial tradition that has expressly (and successfully) sought to give the texts the status of a Veda. I hope I'm making myself clear. -- Arvind 11:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- of course, your point is perfectly valid. dab (𒁳) 11:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I still think that it should be moved because, the way I see it, "Fifth Veda" even seems to have an unintended but subtle mix of OR and UNDUE built into it. It is somewhat akin to, say, an article titled "Eighth wonder". Several things, people, places and what not have been described as the eighth wonder by fawning commentators but that still doesnt an encyclopedic topic make. So I will move it to "Panchama Veda" which I feel sounds more genuine and also will remove references to Tiruvayamozhi etc.,. If there have been determined and successful attempts at dubbing the Tiruvayamozhi or any other work as a 'Veda', that fact probably belongs in its own article; and perhaps as a footnote somewhere in the Vedas or The four vedas or something. Sarvagnya 22:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- of course, your point is perfectly valid. dab (𒁳) 11:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm happy with Fifth Veda as it is - I don't like the idea of it being moved to "Panchama veda". FWIW, I'm not talking about texts which any old hack calls a veda, but about texts like the Tiruvaymozhi (and to a lesser extent the Tevaram), which have an established commentarial tradition that has expressly (and successfully) sought to give the texts the status of a Veda. I hope I'm making myself clear. -- Arvind 11:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- what would be the point of that? Any hack can call this or that a "Veda"? That's at best an idea for a disambiguation page (along the lines of Vedic). But again, feel free to edit and/or move Fifth Veda to your liking. dab (𒁳) 11:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm. This might just be linguistic bias, but to my mind, "panchama veda" has a rather specific meaning within the Hindu tradition, and thus only ought to be applied to texts which've specifically claimed that label, whereas "fifth veda" doesn't have that meaning, so it is in theory capable of being applied to all texts that have claimed the status of a veda. In any event, the point I'm trying to make is that I think it's worth having an article which discusses all post-vedic traditions that seek to confer the status of a "veda" on texts other than the four canonical vedas, not just the various texts which claim to be the "panchama veda". -- Arvind 11:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. I was coming to that. I wanted to confirm it before I said that. But since you've confirmed it, we probably just need to remove the Tiruvaymozhi from the article altogether. I've actually heard itt being called the 'Tamil veda'. And similar descriptions, I believe have also been made of the Kural, if I am right. In any case, they're not the 'fifth' veda. Sarvagnya 02:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Smile!
I have added over 4k in this article,with refences interwoven within the main article. This type of sourcing saves me time, but I will try to put the sources at the end. This article lacked sources and some of the material was incomplete which I completed with the help of authentic souces. If some of my additions(esp. sourcing) are unsatisfactory, I hope you will inform me before taking recourse to wholesale reverting. I will supply whatever demands you make about sourcing &c,to the best of my ability.
An unknown user had deleted entire section of Brahmarshi, which I undid. It was his/her first act, hence not ac act of deliberate vandalism, but merely a result of misgivings and ignorance. This person probably thought Wiki should not contain mythology, esp Hindu mythology. Vinay Jha11:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- your edits seem reasonable, VJ, but can you please use IAST instead of some random homegrown transliteration scheme? dab (𒁳) 11:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Fifth Veda and Upavedas
I have too much of workload and therefore I sometimes try to find out timesaving mechanisms, but your advice is sound and I will try to use IAST.
It is a good idea to start a new article upaveda, but Itihas-Puranas have never been included in any upaveda by anyone. Hence it is not advisable to merge Fifth Veda into Upaveda.
You should restore the para in which I had mentioned that Itihas-Puranas are traditionally held to be the Fifth Veda since ancient period : this is not a dead fact of history but the enduring belief of an overwhelming majority of Hindus. Most Hindus do not have a direct access to the Vedas, and it is the long tradition of Kathas (story-telling) from Itihas-Puranas (in Sanskrit as well as in vernaculars) that has kept Hinduism alive. Most of the major cults like those of cults of Rama, Krishna, Shaivism, Shaktism, etc have come out of this Fifth Veda. Itihas-Purana is the most important part of Hinduism as far as general Hindu public is concerned. Fifth Veda or Pancham Veda is not a popular term, and "Purana" or "Purana-Itihasa" will attract more readers and editors to this article. I live adjacent to the campus of a sanskrit university and it is easy for me to get in touch with topmost Sanskrit scholars (of my town as well as of other universities) on such issues. You can rely upon my truthfulness. Vinay Jha14:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- all I am suggesting is that we need a separate Upaveda article. You are aware, I hope, that we already do have articles on Purana and Itihasa. dab (𒁳) 21:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that Upaveda could make a distinct article if desired, as the details of what lists there are of them can be documented to show variants. The Itihasa are a literary category and are not Upavedas. I prefer the title "Fifth Veda" for the article Dab created and do not support the change of title. Buddhipriya 22:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
A question
User:B9 hummingbird hovering persists in WP:OR and addition of unsourced material on multiple articles, often introducing sexual themes that seem strange to me. I am wondering if you have any advice on how to handle this. This user makes no attempt to engage in dialog and simply starts edit wars immediately. I dislike edit wars and generally try to follow a one-revert rule if at all possible. Can you assist with this situation? I am at the point where I feel the need to begin conflict resolution procedures such as involving third parties or requesting mediation: [3]. Buddhipriya 08:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
UPAVEDA
Pancham Veda is now in a better and more compact shape; 'upaveda' was unwanted there. You have done a fine job. If enough material on various upavedas are gathered, a separate article headed upaveda may also be started, to which individual upvedas may be linked hierarchically. You have rightly directed Dhanurveda to Indian martial arts but the latter does not contain a single reference to Dhanurveda or to Shastrashastra (a TO DO task).
Similarly Gandharvaveda is not mentioned even once in the article Indian Classical Music. Moreover, Gandharvaveda contains much more than Indian Classical Music. Natya Shastra of Bharata / Natyashastra as well as Indian Classical Music are branches of Gandharvaveda, and sâmâgâna is another such branch ( a TO DO task).
Military science (Dhanurveda and Shastrashastra), cannot be an upaveda of two vedas. Dhanurveda is related to Yajurveda according to all authorities. Hence, Shastrashastra also ought to be related to the same, and not to Atharvaveda as Monier-Williams did. Atharvaveda has a large number of mantras dealing with health (Ayurveda) while Rgveda is much less concerned with Ayurveda. Hence, authority of ancients like Sushruta and Bhavaprakasha is more reliable. I had given the list of Monier-Williams, which you retained, but this list is wrong (not because Monier-Williams was unreliable but because there were a lot of confusing lists of upavedas, which baffled him).
Modern heads of departments of Veda in Sanskrit universities regard Shilpa shastras (which includes murtikala, sthapatya-shastra, vastu-shastra) to be the upaveda of Rgveda. But a private organisation http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Upaveda/id/115299 relates Rgveda to arthaveda which comprises texts dealing with statecraft such as Kautilya's Arthashastra (a nitishastras), but arthaveda is a modern term. Besides, this website also includes 'purushartha' and Kamasutra in upaveda, which is unsupported by modern or ancient authorities. Hence, ancient science of iconography, arts, crafts, architechture, etc (Shilpa shastras) has a greater chance of being regarded as the upaveda of Rgveda. I hope you will consider the points mentioned above. Vinay Jha 12:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
PRAVARA
I have added some reference and some needed material in the article Upanayanam which was completely unsourced (it still needs much sourcing). Upanayan is intrinsically related to four Vedic institutions : gotra, sakha, sutra (of Kalpa) and pravara. Pravara is an ancient Vedic concept and even many brahmanas are also now forgetting its significane. Monier williams gives correct literal meaning of this word, but omits any reference to the ancient concept named Pravara which is related to Yajnopavita and Upanayanam. A new article titled Pravara may help people in finding meaning of this term, which will need just a single para which I have appended to Upanayanam because Pravara is presently occupied by Pravara Rural Engineering College for advertising purposes, although it has a web site of its own. This case is worse than that of Swadhyay Parivar because the latter has some relation to the Wiki project of Hinduism, but Pravara Rural Engineering College should not find any place on Wiki. Even if you think it should, then it should be shifted to a new article titled 'Pravara Rural Engineering College' , together with disambiguation. The title 'Pravara' should be reserved to a new small article about the ancient Vedic concept of that name. Vinay Jha 13:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've moved PREC to its own page and freed up Pravara by removing the redirect. But do we need to delete it and get rid of the history before we start afresh? Sarvagnya 18:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. The history of PREC may cause cunfusion to some because a even a vast majority of Hindus now do not know the meaning of Vedic concept of Pravara and may think it to be related to Vedic-engineering of making sacred threads. Starting afreash may be better. But if you think it OK, I have no grudge. Vinay Jha 18:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Swastika FAR listing
Swastika has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Kicking222 16:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
SVĀDHYĀYA
I have added a new section in the article svadhyaya which you should see before someone deletes it. I had to quote sanskrit commentary of Sayana because it has not been translated into English as yet. I have not mentioned the publishers of Taittiriya Aranyaka and Upanishada because Wikipedians will like English translations while I use Sanskrit originals. Vinay Jha 18:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate your efforts, Vinay; you are making great progress in terms of WP:MoS :) and your expertise on these subjects is certainly welcome. dab (𒁳) 19:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Rollback
Dbachmann, can you please revert without using the rollback tool when making content reverts on articles like Rigveda? If reverts are made with the rollback tool, it suggests that the edit is vandalism, spam, or a test, not a dispute over the content. I think manual reverts would help ease tensions. Picaroon (t) 00:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)