Joshua Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
Illuminaati (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 192: | Line 192: | ||
:Maybe, just maybe, I'll go through your edits and make a neat list. But as it is now, I'm inclined to revert both of you wholesale. I'm quite sure no editor is going to watse their time on this, if you can't provide a comprehensive overview yourself. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="2"><span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span></font>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span></font>]] 07:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC) |
:Maybe, just maybe, I'll go through your edits and make a neat list. But as it is now, I'm inclined to revert both of you wholesale. I'm quite sure no editor is going to watse their time on this, if you can't provide a comprehensive overview yourself. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="2"><span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span></font>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span></font>]] 07:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
User '''Scottahunt''' seems to be working on some personal agenda. Claiming yourself to be Buddhist scholar does not give you right to make one sided changes. I will review your other changes as well soon. The article on it's previous form (before you started vandalism) was based on consensus of all the contributors working on this page. [[User:Illuminaati|Illuminaati]] ([[User talk:Illuminaati|talk]]) 14:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:25, 24 March 2017
Nepal Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
India: History B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Suryavamsha does not imply sun-worship.
The kshatriyas (warrior caste) can broadly be divided into two. some dynasties claim descent from the sun. (suryavamsha) other dynasties claim descent from the moon. (chandravamsha) The sun was only one of the hindu pantheon, equally revered by all branches.
Here is another article in the wikipedia which also contains the word suryavamsha. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasishta
Proposal: remove the hatnote
The solution I suggest is to remove the hatnote and replace it with nothing. If the name "Shakya" is not associated with Kachhis enough to warrant a mention in that article, I don't see why it needs to be mentioned at the beginning of this article. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support Greg Pandatshang (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support I agree, this entire situation doesn't even seem to warrant the hatnote people are wildly warring about. I say we remove it as not notable. Ogress smash! 02:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Mildly oppose I prefer to keep it as it is now. But if a majoruty wants to remove it, fine. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: I have removed the !vote by the block-evading editor and temporarily semi-protected this page, so that other editors have the time and space to discuss and settle the issue of the hatnote. If any unregistered editors, who are not User:Truth only 1 socks, wish to edit the article or talk-page urgently, feel free to approach me on my talk-page and we can try to work something out. Abecedare (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Some sort of hatnote is required because Shakya is a synonym for Kachhi. If there were three usages of the word then we would have a hatnote to a disambiguation page but we don't do dab pages for two uses. The wording of the hatnote needs to be amended but the principle of its existence is not only acceptable but indeed required. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment @Sitush: Kacchi does not even mention the word Shakya, though. Can you clarify? Ogress smash! 19:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Like I said above, it did but the warriors removed it. The thing can be reinstated. - Sitush (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe the dispute could be resolved on that article before also involving this article. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- There is no genuine dispute on that article. It is just the usual pov warrior stuff that infests caste-related stuff, hence WP:GS/Caste. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with caste articles but I certainly am not. I've provided a source above and there are plenty of others. Synonyms have dabhats, period. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed the source when you posted it earlier. It stands to reason that if you have a reliable source to cite, and this information is considered relevant enough to include in an encyclopedia, and there is no dispute over its inclusion, then it would appear in the article currently. If the problem is that the dispute cannot be resolved because of POV agendas by some editors, then I think it would be great if we could to restrict the problem to one article rather having it spill over into other articles. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the sourced Shakya stuff needs to be reinstated at the Kachhi article. However, anyone who has hovered around caste articles for a while knows that spill-over is common. The efforts of, for example, "not here" Rajput and Gurjar editors cross hundreds of articles, while we currently, and by no means for the first time, have a problem relating to Nair that has crossed into Ezhava. It is par for the course and sometimes it is best just to do what is right (per policy etc) and let things catch up in due course. It isn't the good guys who are causing the problem, obviously. I refer you yet again to our guidance relating to dabhats and dabs themselves. - Sitush (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose There is no evidently defined caste shakya at present at least in North India. If at all, there is another shakya caste in North India who are not Kachhi, then please project the sources in this effect. Otherwise hatnote is a basic need of the article in order not to misguide the readers.--MahenSingha (Talk) 10:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment @Mahensingha: Can you clarify? You say there is no Shakya caste and therefore we need a hatnote? I'm missing something. Ogress smash! 19:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Ogress: Shakya basically are mentioned in history as ancient kshatriya (warriors). Do you find any of the clan in India whose direct link with these ancient people is proved? No. Still, what I said is that if there is any reliable source proving that the modern Shakya (Kachhi or anyone else) are descended from these ancient Shakya Warriors, then please let me too know. Of course, there are Kushwah, a well defined Rajput clan and Kachhi and other allied communities copying the Rajput style have started using the Titles like Kushwah, Shakya etc. and framed their own historically baseless theories of kshatriyahood and such theories were never accepted. The Kachhi caste is occupationally identified as to be the community of vegetable growers and sellers. I am still looking forward if anyone can prove the modern shakyas are the same as ancient Shakyas. Further, I have no objection if the Kachhi article is stating that they use shakya surname or claim to be the ancient shakya. But here since this article is about the old Shakya Kingdom which we find in history of olden days, hence I am sorry to say that we are doing it at the wrong place. --MahenSingha (Talk) 15:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Please also see the hatnote once agian. "This article is about the ancient Shakya people . For the modern Kachhi community of North India using Shakya Surname, see Kachhi (caste)." The hatnote does not say that there is no other Shakya, what we are discussing, It simply cautions the reader not to be confused with modern Kachhi Shakya and you are still in favour of removing it. --MahenSingha (Talk) 15:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Ogress: Shakya basically are mentioned in history as ancient kshatriya (warriors). Do you find any of the clan in India whose direct link with these ancient people is proved? No. Still, what I said is that if there is any reliable source proving that the modern Shakya (Kachhi or anyone else) are descended from these ancient Shakya Warriors, then please let me too know. Of course, there are Kushwah, a well defined Rajput clan and Kachhi and other allied communities copying the Rajput style have started using the Titles like Kushwah, Shakya etc. and framed their own historically baseless theories of kshatriyahood and such theories were never accepted. The Kachhi caste is occupationally identified as to be the community of vegetable growers and sellers. I am still looking forward if anyone can prove the modern shakyas are the same as ancient Shakyas. Further, I have no objection if the Kachhi article is stating that they use shakya surname or claim to be the ancient shakya. But here since this article is about the old Shakya Kingdom which we find in history of olden days, hence I am sorry to say that we are doing it at the wrong place. --MahenSingha (Talk) 15:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Shakya Demographics
Hello Ogress, I see that you have removed my addition of demographics in Shakya article saying that the article is about 2500-year old kingdom. So where do I add the details regarding the present day demographics of the Shakya people ? Should I create a separate article for that (which I do not believe is required). ? Did you read the citations provided ? Please Guide. - Illuminaati — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminaati (talk • contribs) 21:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
FYI, this is the addition:
Demographics
Shakya population is mainly concentrated in Nepal.[1] A small number of Shakyas also live in areas adjacent to Nepal i.e North India and Tibet. In Nepal, Shakyas are part of the Newar people, who are the indigenous people of the Kathmandu Valley,[2] Shakyas and Vajracharyas serve as priests and hence occupy the higher social position in the caste system.[3]
- @Illuminaati: the Hatnote at the top of Shakya says Kachhi (caste). Ogress smash! 01:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Ogress:
(Tech-Tip:use keyboard buttons CTRL+F to search for keywords)
Newar Shakyas in Nepal follow Buddhism and are Buddhist priests. Other than the citations already provided above these are few others:
- I have not heard about Kachhis in Nepal but as per the above discussion Kachhi is a community in India who follows Hinduism and uses various titles like Verma, Singh, Kushvanshi, Maurya, Murao, Saini, Kurma even Chaudhary, Thakur, Suryavanshi, Raghuvanshi also and lots of others.
The actual Shakya community is different from the Kachhis. Please take some time out of your busy schedule and do research on this topic on your own as I think that a lot of confusion is there around this article.
- Also regarding that hatnote, it also needs to be corrected. A little self-research in history on google will help us all. Thanks. Illuminaati (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Ogress:
- First I am not citing Wikipedia, those 2 are just references to existing wiki sections and you need to look into the citations provided inside those sections. Most Citations I have already provided in the paragraph itself that I added (also see bibliography below). Second, 4 anonymous people on Wikipedia deciding on history of a community of lakhs of people is not ‘consensus’. Consensus must be based on evidences as per wiki guidelines. I request you to please have a fresh look on this topic, read the citations provided with an open mind. They are evidences having wiki standards.
- @Ogress:
Please guide me how to get consensus on this. Thank you for your help. Illuminaati (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Also I just read the entire discussion regarding the hatnote, I do not see any consensus which says that article will not contain any current populations. That discussion is about Kachhi caste, and @Mahensingha: had requested for evidences of Shakya caste which is not Kachhi. Please calrify.
- @Greg Pandatshang, Joshua Jonathan, Sitush, and Mahensingha: Paging hatnote discussion people.
- Please sign your comments and stop edit warring.
- First, you changed the hatnote to fit what you wanted to add, which you should not do given the discussion I have been (attempting) to have with you. There was a discussion about it and you can't just wade in and change it. The hatnote itself begins, "This article is about the ancient Shakya people" and the discussion was about whether a hatnote was even necessary because obviously it was about the community 2500 years ago, after all, that's what the entire article is about. Why would it also include the topic of random modern populations who have a surname "Shakya"? There was also a discussion that the surname in question doesn't really exist anyway maybe because it's more caste-edit-warring that's endemic. I thought maybe the hat was not useful. (More fool I.)
- This page is definitely not about 1. the 2500-year-old community and "republic" associated with Gautama Buddha and 2. random modern populations with the last name "Shakya" who live in North India or Nepal or wherever. It's about one or the other, unless you have some unbelievably impossible document demonstrating an amazing historical connection between the two as opposed to, say, Newar Buddhists who just happen to have a surname identical to that of the "Sage of the Shakyas". Remembering too that the Newars are the indigenous population of Nepal and are Tibeto-Burmans. So basically, I don't know where this information goes, but it does not go here. Ogress smash! 07:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Ogress:, :::::@Greg Pandatshang, Joshua Jonathan, Sitush, and Mahensingha:
Apologies if anyone thinks that I am doing edit warring. I am here to discuss and make this article stable.
@Ogress : You are saying that Newar Shakyas just happened to have Shakya surname, when they are living for centuries in the same region as ancient Shakyas, follow Buddha’s religion, are priests and monks in Buddhist monasteries; Doesn’t this sound unusual in the face of all the evidences that I have provided so far.
Does anyone here can present a reliable evidence that each and every ancient Shakya died without having any descendent? If not, then why does the hatnote implies that Shakya were only In ancient times? Shouldn’t that be modified.
You are asking for document proving the connection between present Shakyas and ancient Shakyas. Can anyone, including you, in this world show any reliable proof of their ancestors who were 2500 years back ? No. So does that mean we all ‘just happened’ to magically appear. The only evidence would be DNA proof and I did present an encouraging evidence regarding that also. Unless you decide today that you will keep DNA record of all the future generations in a safe repository starting from today, your descendants 2500 years later can only claim to be your descendants. You ask for evidences for my claim which I do provide, but for your claims you do not even provide a single evidence? Why is that ? Please clarify.
My suggestion Modify the hatnote like this – “This article is about the ancient Shakya republic. For present day communities using Shakya surname, see –link to a Disambiguation page” On this page we can specify various communities in Asia using Shakya surname. Because even if, hypotheically, we believe that everyone using Shakya surname is a fraud, there is still a long list of social groups in different regions that use Shakya surname – Kachhis is India, Newars in India/Nepal, communities in Tibet, communities claiming decendant from Abhiraja Shakya in Burma; so why does the hatnote only says about Kachhis. It is very easy to remove content because that saves you from hassle but its very difficult to research and add content. Please Think about it.
@Sitush : Please read the entire discussion in this section “Shakya Demographics”, do all the citation that I have provided fall into the category that you are saying. If yes, then please guide me about which kind of citation I should provide?
Illuminaati (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ogress : one more thing, You say that there is a discussion going on about hatnote and I just waded in, well frankly, I do not see any discussion happening after 31st of last month i.e since half a month. Please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminaati (talk • contribs) 10:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- If there are more than two communities that are known by the Shakya name, and if those communities are notable by reference to reliable sources, then we do indeed need a disambiguation page and we need some sort of article for the ones that are not covered already (ie: any community other than the ancient Shakya tribe and the modern Kacchis). - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Sitush: Thanks for talking logically.
And yes we absolutely and already do have more than 2 communities that are notable by reference to reliable sources. Since we are considering ancient Shakyas as all dead now, hence along with them present day Kachhi in North India and Newar Shakyas in Nepal/North India would be total 3 communities.
- If we wish to go deeper then this does not stop here, we have Shakya community in Tibet who have their own sakya tradition, Shakya community in Burma (claiming descent from Abhiraja Shakya), Shakya community in Sri Lanka claiming descent from Buddhha’s cousin Pandu Shakya who migrated there etc.
Now,
- -article for ancient Shakya is this itself
- -article for Kachhi already exists
- -creating article for Newar Shakya is not difficult as we have loads of citation and scholarly articles for it (I myself provided many, details can be googled)
- -creating article for Shakya community in Tibet, Burma and Sri Lanka would require some serious hardwork as present Shakyas there are not as influential or large in numbers that may lead to many publications for them. So finding scholarly works is difficult if not impossible. Editors will have to contribute.
- @Greg Pandatshang, Joshua Jonathan, Ogress, and Mahensingha: Your suggestions are also invited.
Illuminaati (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree there should be a disambiguation if additional pages are created. I remind you we require reliable sources.
- However, I won't be writing those pages. I choose to defer to other persons to deal with what is the usual caste politics and warring and magical thinking as frankly I do not have the spoons to deal with these intellectual shenanigans, I spend them on dealing with shenanigans in other areas of Wikipedia. Ogress smash! 20:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Ogress on all points (although I cannot claim to as active as she when it comes to spoonsing other areas' shenanigans). P.S. I am not aware of a Shakya community in Tibet (although I might be missing something; I do not know where Tsering Shakya got his name). There is a large and influential Sakya sect, but the resemblance of that name is coincidental. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- One of the things I spend spoons on is Buddhism articles such as Tibetan ones, and yeah, the name Sa skya (note the additional s) does not make Tibetans think of the Buddha; its name means "the Red Earth". Sha kya is sometimes taken by Tibetan monks, like Buddhist monks and nuns of all Buddhist cultures, as a kind of surname because it's the Buddha's name, but Tibetans don't have "surnames", at least not traditionally: see Tibetan name. East Asian societies normally have surnames; Thích Nhất Hạnh's surname, Thích, is in fact the Sino-Vietnamese pronunciation of Shakya (Chinese: 釋). Ogress smash! 03:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ Whelpton 2005, p. 9.
- ^ von Furer-Haimendorf 1956, p. 15.
- ^ Whelpton 2005, p. 30.
Bibliography
- Dhakal, Diwas (2000). Nepalese Culture, Society, and Tourism. M. Dhakal. ISBN 978-99933-57-00-1.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - von Furer-Haimendorf, Christoph (1956). "Elements of Newar Social Structure". Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. JSTOR 2843991.
- Whelpton, John (2005). A History of Nepal. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-80470-7.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help)
Scythian
Responding to Illuminaati: Silk Road scholar Christopher Beckwith devotes the prologue of his book "Greek Buddha" to the thesis that the Shakya were Scythians. Much of this can be read online at Amazon: Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. The discussion starts on page 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teishin (talk • contribs) 22:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note that Witzel has made the same suggestion. Also, Jayarava Attwood, citing Witzel with his own thoughts. See Jayarava Attwood, Possible Iranian Origins for the Śākyas and Aspects of Buddhism, or jayarava.blogspot, The Son of the Śākyas . – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- A thorough and clear statement on the topic would make it clear that this goes against conventional wisdom, as Jayarava mentions in his blog post. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- The article now says "The Shakya were a clan of the Vedic period (1750–500 BCE)." That may be misleading; do we know of Sakyas as early as 1750 BCE? NB: 1750 is also wrong. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- I've changed the dating; the association with the Scythians first sounded weird to me, but after checking the dates, who knows? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Teishin: thanks for the link to Beckwith's book; I've always wondered where the Buddhist influences in classical Europe were. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I have obtained a pdf of Beckwith's book if anyone needs to review the argument. Pages 1-21 detail his analysis of Scythian origins of the Shakya.Teishin (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Can we please resolve the conflict about Siddhartha "giving up the throne"?
These two sentences conflict: "Siddhartha was the son of Śuddhodana, the chosen leader of Śākya Gaṇarājya. Because Gautama Buddha founded a new religion and abdicated the throne, the lineage continued with his son Rāhula." I previously cited scholarly sources that Suddhodana was an elected official of the oligarchy. Fine, you changed it to "chosen leader" although that is itself not entirely clear. The article also notes that by the time of Siddhartha's birth, the Shakya republic was a vassal state of Kosala, so whoever led the oligarchy of Shakya had limited power. That is a fact that an article about Shakya should state, in my opinion. But you obviously disagree. Can you please tell me why you insist on saying Siddhartha abdicated the throne? What throne? And whatever he gave up wasn't because he founded a new religion, it was because he left to become a mendicant and then reached Enlightenment and decided to be a teacher. The way you wrote the sentence it sounds like he left to go start a religion. And lastly, please clarify what you mean by "the lineage continued" because that is unclear. Which lineage are you talking about? In the Pali canon, as I'm sure you know, Rahula became the first novice monk when he was 7 years old. I'll admit it is a tad frustrating that you keep erasing my edits, but let's try to work this out. Citations are a must, I think.
UPDATE: I made changes which should clarify AND still keep what I believe was your intent. Cheers! Scottahunt (talk) 06:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Made necessary changes. Lineage now is just a generic word which signifies 'lineage', as with any historic personality. Avoid adding junk. This is not a research paper. Illuminaati (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Your language and repeated deletions, Illuminaati, are offensive to me. What I added was called history and fact, not junk. And yes, this is like a research paper: it presents facts. And many people who are working on research papers will read this material. So we owe it to them to include detail. You are clearly engaging in an edit war. Every time I put anything on this page, you delete it. You do not engage in a discussion with me, and you write offensive things. I'm not going to be bullied by you. I see from your history you've done this before. I am a Buddhist scholar, and I will continue to edit pages dealing with Buddhism. Scottahunt (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
RfC about adding content I see as pertinent
Are my changes "junk" as Illuminaati states, or do I have a right as a Buddhist scholar to add content to this article? Furthermore, I do not understand the criticism that this "is not a research paper." Please kindly look at the Talk section and my edits and help provide me another perspective on what is happening here. I'm very willing to discuss the merits of anything and everything that I add/change in this article. Thank you kindly!
Extended content
|
---|
I asked Illuminaati to reply to the Talk topic and please clarify his statement that "because Buddha left to start a religion and abdicated the throne, his lineage continued with his son Rahula." Since Iluminaati failed to provide clarification, I kept his statement, trying to make it read more clearly, "According to one viewpoint, and hagiographic legend, Siddhartha had been a prince but he renounced his title and succession to the throne passed to his son Rāhula." I then added several sentences from the editorially-protected Wikipedia article on Buddhism. Specifically, I added these which are directly taken from the Buddhism article: QUOTE The related Wikipedia article on Buddhism, also notes that "scholars such as Richard Gombrich consider this a dubious claim because a combination of evidence suggests he was born in the Shakyas community – one that later gave him the title Shakyamuni, and the Shakya community was governed by a small oligarchy or republic-like council where there were no ranks but where seniority mattered instead.[11] Some of the stories about Buddha, his life, his teachings, and claims about the society he grew up in may have been invented and interpolated at a later time into the Buddhist texts."[12][13] END QUOTE I also included a new section on the Religion of the Shakya people, which I believe is relevant and useful. I'll put it here because he'll probably delete it shortly. "The Shakyas were by tradition sun worshippers.[28][29] In fact, they called themselves Ādicca nāma gottena ("kinsmen of the sun")[30] and descendants of the sun. As Buddha states in the Sutta-Nipāta, "They are of the sun-lineage (adiccagotta), Sakiyans by birth."[31][32] As noted by scholar Stephen Batchelor: QUOTE Their folk religion involved the propitiation and supplication of local spirits (yakkha) at moundlike shrines (cetiya) and the veneration of trees enclosed by wooden railings.[33] They would have taken for granted the widespread belief in the cycle of rebirth driven by the force of former acts (karma), which formed part of the indigenous beliefs of the people of the eastern Gangetic basin. Their notion of rebirth would have been the more intuitive reflex of agriculturalists whose lives were tied to the cycle of rural existence than the kind of elaborated theory found in Jain, Hindu, and Buddhist literature that developed in subsequent centuries.[34] END QUOTE It is uncertain whether, by the time of Siddhartha's birth, Vedic Brahmanism had been adopted to any significant extent by the Shakyans. Scholar Johannes Bronkhorst argues, "I do not deny that many vedic texts existed already, in oral form, at the time when Buddha was born. However, the bearers of this tradition, the Brahmins, did not occupy a dominant position in the area in which the Buddha preached his message, and this message was not, therefore, a reaction against brahmanical thought and culture."[35] Purportedly, many Shakyans joined people from other regions and became followers of the Buddha during his lifetime, and many young Shakyan men left their homes to become monastics.[36][37]" I also added more information about the Government of the Shakya people, which I also think is highly relevant: "Many notable scholars state that the Shakya republic was an oligarchy, ruled by an elite council of the warrior and ministerial class that chose its leader.[19][20][21][22]" I also added, "By the time of Siddharta's birth, the Shakya republic had become a vassal state of the larger Kingdom of Kosala.[23][24] The raja, once chosen, would only take office upon the approval of the King of Kosala. While the raja must have held considerable authority in the Shakya homeland, backed by the power of the King of Kosala, he did not rule autocratically. Questions of consequence were debated in the santhagara, in which, though open to all, only members of the warrior class ("rajana") were permitted to speak. Rather than a majority vote, decisions were made by consensus.[25]" I provided citations from top-notch scholars. But Illuminaati simply deletes my edits every time, now saying they are junk. |
Scottahunt (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Please provide diffs (links to the specific changes) to make clear what changes you made. As it is now: too long, didn't read. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakya&diff=771891795&oldid=771847915 If you want to see the repeated reverts of my other edits, I can provide those too. But I think we should start with what I most recently added, was reverted, and then did a self-revert. Scottahunt (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe, just maybe, I'll go through your edits and make a neat list. But as it is now, I'm inclined to revert both of you wholesale. I'm quite sure no editor is going to watse their time on this, if you can't provide a comprehensive overview yourself. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
User Scottahunt seems to be working on some personal agenda. Claiming yourself to be Buddhist scholar does not give you right to make one sided changes. I will review your other changes as well soon. The article on it's previous form (before you started vandalism) was based on consensus of all the contributors working on this page. Illuminaati (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)