User talk:Abecedare/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Hinduism (4) 2 Between us 3 Sanatan Singh Sabha 4 Does this look odd to you? 5 User:LisaDaniels

[edit] Hinduism (4)

Dear Abecedare,

OK, thanks for your note. I do think that, on a subject as vast as Hinduism, there is room for a "further reading" section. Please note that some of the references given in the "References" section are extremely oriented: Frawley for instance, who is nothing else than a charlatan. Also, please consider the problematic first sentence of this article. Orthodox Hinduism states the "Northern" origin of the anciant Rishis. That may be symbolic, of course, but at least this should be mentionned. All the stuff about NAIT is rooted into political considerations that were foreign to Hindus during millenaries.

Regards,

TwoHorned 20:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am no expert on the Aryan theories, but as far as I understand, irrespective of where Aryans came from or originated, it is currently widely accepted in academia that Hinduism in its current form developed in the Indian subcontinent (note: not necessarily India) sometime around 2500-1000 BCE. Some readings of Vedas are interpreted to indicate that the people who authored them came from colder climes. But then again, according to orthodox Hindu beliefs Veda's themselvesare apaurusheya (not of human origin) and timeless. However, the intro. sentence is not meant to indicate the religious view of the origins but rather the mainstream academic views. Of course, my understanding of the acdemic consensus may be incorrect, or possibly I am misunderstanding your question itself. To clarify, are you saying that Hinduism (note : not Aryans) originated in the Arctic region ? If so, perhaps we can invite inputs from some editors more knowledgeable than mein this area and correct the first sentence if required.

I accept that not all references in the article are as high quality as one would wish, especially since the article is on a topic that has been a subject of so much study and scholarship; for example, here is an incomplete bibliography of just primary texts on the subject. However, on wikipedia we have to depend upon lay/volunteer editors to access, read, and add sources and that is always a work in progress. In fact, the large size of the corpus of primary and secondary sources on Hinduism, is one reason I am (moderately) opposed to adding a further reading section to the article. IMO it may be better to include primary sources in Bibliography of Hindu scriptures and perhaps create another list for secondary sources, if needed. However, these are half-baked ideas yet ... Abecedare 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Abecedare,

Academic texts can be mentionned, of course, but why not stand also on texts written by Hindu Saints ? Second, the question of chronology in Hinduism is not solvable. May I recommend you to read the first chapters of Guénon's Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines on this subject ? The "oral" transmission anterior to Vyasa is completely undetermined in length. And, yes, you're right Vedic text themselves are apurusheya : why not mention that ? Also, quite an interesting point: didn't Tilak himself write a book called "The Artic home in the Vedas" despite all the known relations between Tilak and Savarkar w.r.t. NAIT ? TwoHorned 21:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok now I see your point. The POV of Hindu saints and religious figures is mentioned in the correct context when discussing of Hinduism's theology, beliefs, denominations, practices etc. Their view of how the religion views itself and its teachings is clearly relevant. However the dating and history of a religion is an academic topic and hence needs scholarly citation; and Vedas being considered apaurusheya belongs in the Veda section and not in the history section. I know that Arctic origin of vedas has been proposed, but AFAIK it is not widely accepted. I may be wrong on this though, so I'll ask other editors who have worked on the Aryan theory article to chime in. Abecedare 22:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I have avoided getting into the discussion about Aryan theories, but I did look up what J. P. Mallory had to say about the Arctic theories in his mainstream book In Search of the Indo-Europeans (Thames & Hudson: 1989, ISBN 0-500-27616-1). The Arctic claim is so unusual that Mallory begins his chapter on "The Indo-European Homeland Problem" with these sentences:

"We begin our search for the homeland of the Indo-Europeans with the deceptively optimistic claim that it has already been located. For who would look further north than Lokomanya Tilak and Georg Biedenkapp who traced the earliest Aryans to the North Pole? Or who would venture a homeland further south than North Africa, further west than the Atlantic or further east than the shores of the Pacific, all of which have seriously been proposed as 'cradles' of the Indo-Europeans? This quest for the origins of the Indo-Europeans has all the fascination of an electric light in the open air on a summer night: it tends to attract every species of scholar or would-be savant who can take pen in hand. It also shows a remarkable ability to mesmerize even scholars of outstanding ability to wander far beyond the realm of reasonable speculation to provide yet another example of academic lunacy." (Mallory 1989, p. 143)

The reference to Tilak's monograph takes place in a paragraph where Mallory mentions various major camps among the theories, saying "Some scholars struggled to maintain a middle course, others provided comic relief.... Cokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak provided the world with an entire monograph marshalling all the available mythological evidence to prove that the Aryan homeland was the North Pole.[note 38] This incredible theory gained at least one supporter when George Biedenkapp, flushed with enthusiasm for Tilak's hypothesis, produced his own book summarizing the Indian savant's work in German and added further evidence of his own. The Icelandic linguist Alexander Johannesson conconcted another bizarre theory that related Indo-European roots to bird calls (Proto-Indo-European *ker- was imitative of a raven), grunts, and loud natural sounds which, according to him, could best be heard on the shores of the Baltic Sea." (p.269)

[note 38]"Tilak's 'polar theory' for Aryan origins was not a bizarre quirk of a single individual but rather the culmination of an extremely long tradition of analysis of Indo-Aryan myth, for example, poems that indicate a home in the north where a day and a night lasted six months each, the Pole star rises to the zenith, and so on. A modern review of this 'northern cycle' of myths can be found in Bongard-Levin (1980) who argues that Indo-Aryan, Iranian and Scythian traditions (and by cultural contact also Greeks) all shared a common mythology of a northern mountainous land which, he argues, could only have been acquired in their prior common home on the Pontic-Caspian steppe." (p. 277, note 38)

Buddhipriya 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Thank you for inviting me to this discussion, but I have little to contribute, mainly because I have yet to find a satisfying scholarly treatment of the origins of Hinduism. I could write extensively on my personal take of the issue, but that isn't what these talk pages are for. I'll just note that (a) not having read Bongard-Levin's book, I'm not aware of any "extremely long tradition of analysis of Indo-Aryan myth" pointing to Arctic origins; (b) I have no idea what "oral transmission anterior to Vyasa" could mean in relation to issues of fact (as opposed to Puranic myths and mystical fantasies erected thereon); and (c) there is no evidence (textual, archaeological, etc.) to trace the Hinduism of pujas, temples and idols any further back than about the start of the Common Era. An overwhelming majority of Hindus don't know a word of the Vedas. If anyone is reading scripture on the bus back home from work, it's probably the Gita. And so on. Far too much ink, liquid and electronic, is spent on "high philosophy" and hoarily ancient origins (the hoarier the "better") as if these could illuminate popular Hinduism in the rank and file. IMHO. Sorry, I wound up ranting anyway. rudra 04:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope it was clear that the quotation which included the reference to Bongard-Levin was from the extended citation I gave to J. P. Mallory. I have not read Bongard-Levin either. The purpose of providing the quotes from Mallory was to establish that Mallory discusses the Arctic theory within a few words of phrases like "academic lunacy", "comic relief", and "bizarre". Buddhipriya 05:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As rudra points out, it is just a matter of separating historical studies from mythology and from mysticist authors. "Hinduism" is an umbrella term, by definition applicable to all religious traditions, however disparate, that originate in India. It "originates" with the onset of sources, viz. the Vedas, although what we know as "typical" Hinduism today originates in the early centuries CE. We can very well discuss Puranic mythology, as mythology, and we can discuss the various tenets of mysticist authors of the various Hindu reform movements (Tilak, Aurobindo and what not), as 19th century "romanticist" (Viking revival style) currents. Just don't conflate things. dab (𒁳) 08:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Buddhipriya, Rudra and dab. Your thoughts mirror my opinions on the topic. Abecedare 08:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have copied the above comments to the Hinduism Talk page since TwoHorned chose to continue the discussion there. Abecedare 18:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Between us

You are absolutely correct that you have never questioned my motivation. I should never question yours either. Maybe I have misspoken. [I shall remove that comment right now.] All I want to say is that if we together can improve the article, let us do so. Let neither of us try to defend what is there. It will be there anyway, unless it is suitably emended. Okay? Thanks.Kanchanamala 02:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sanatan Singh Sabha

I don't know how I stumbled upon this article. But you are absolutely correct. There is one statement in that article ["fifth veda"] to which the reference from Guru Nanak Dev's "Japuji Sahib" can be added as a citation. It will add some weight to the article. Please take a look at it. Thanks.Kanchanamala 22:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does this look odd to you?

The day after all of those Maleabroad socks were expelled we now have User:Algorithm0 perhaps testing the waters? Compare User:Algorithm1. Just a heads up that this looks suspicious to me. Buddhipriya 22:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is certainly him. I didn't spot any obvious vandalism yet on a cursory glance, but will keep my eye open. Perhaps one of us should form a subpage where we can consolidate reports of Maleabroad sightings and the various sock's block status. Any volunteers ? :-) Abecedare

He has already begun with some POV pushing along his usual lines, so I did a couple of reversions. I would certainly help as part of the crew trying to keep track of him. Is the talk page for User:Maleabroad a possible place for sightings, or is there some standard way of doing this? Buddhipriya 23:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The edit-summary with reference to "neo-buddhist" was a give-away. Let me take a stab at forming a subpage for tracking his socks - I'll invite your input once I have an intial set-up Abecedare 23:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. He is also rambling on about Prahlada and the Bhagavatam, as before. Buddhipriya 23:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See this and let me know if you have any changes to suggest (or just edit it yourself !). I'll leave a message with Aldux to make sure that this does not violate any wikipedia guidelines or spirit, before I advertise it to interested editors. Abecedare 00:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I find the division of tables by sock number less helpful than a division by activity status, e.g., Blocked versus Active. I would also simplify the structure by not using a table, since if the socks were in divisions of the page you could quickly jump to the one you wanted to edit. I noticed this issue when I tried to find the sock I wanted to put evidence up for. You have invited me to edit, so I will make a partial change to the page that you can revert if you don't like it. Buddhipriya 01:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes. Please go ahead. The primary focus should be easy upkeep, since we don't want to be wasting undue time editing this page. Maleabroad's socks waste enough of our time already :-) Abecedare 01:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, don't bother listing evidence for socks already blocked or checkusered, since the issue is already resolved in those cases. Abecedare 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, if you can live with the general format I am putting up, I will continue to move the historical material for reference. I think from an evidence point of view the unit of analysis should be the individual edit, which must demonstrate some linkage to a conceptual theme or external web site. The edits (and sometimes the edit summaries) are the smoking guns. Buddhipriya 01:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with the format you propose. I agree the evidence about past socks is potentially useful, its just a matter of the effort you are ready to put into this endeavor. :-) Abecedare 01:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My big concern is that i hate the tables because if I make one formatting error I can throw the whole table off. It took me several hours to clean up the table in Shakha somewhere that made the Wikipedia page editor not work correctly. Buddhipriya 01:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Editing tables on wikipedia is no pleasant task. Again the point of the page should be easy access to and editing of salient information, without it becoming a time-sink for any editors involved. Abecedare 01:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am finished with my structural changes. Please change anything you wish. Thanks for doing this. The other day I wished something like this existed. Buddhipriya 02:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

<deindent> I made some minor tweaks for reasons explained in the edit summaries. Of course there are many other socks of Maleabroad, both blocked and unblocked, that can be added to the list ... but that task is not urgent at all since the aim is to stop currently active vandalism. Once I hear back from Aldux about the appropriateness of this effort, we can inform other interested users such as Orpheus, GourangUK etc. Hopefully the time we invested today, will save us some time in the future. Thanks for all your help! Abecedare 02:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is absolutely no problem: we're speaking of a banned troll, not a legitimate user. BTW, I've detected a potential sock, but I'm far from certain in this case; it's Padn (talk • contribs). Would you mind asking a checkuser for him?--Aldux 17:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! By the way, I don't think Padn (talk • contribs) is a sock of maleabroad, since the pages/content he adds seems to be distinct and also his edits are made between 10pm and 6am Calgary time, which is very different from when Maleabroad and his socks work (usually noon to 7pm Calgary time). Abecedare 19:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:LisaDaniels

I am pretty sure Ms. Daniels does not control that account. I think this because of the timing. That edit was made at about the time she showed the edit on TV. But the show wasn't live... So she must be this anon, and that user a fan. That is why I blocked. Prodego ^talk 02:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are right, that is her. Looking at the text she showed actually proves it. Closely watch the video, and you will see that the article text matches the state it was at when the account edited, not the IP. So since I just proved you right :), I guess I should unblock her. Prodego ^talk 02:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)