Talk:Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
| This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page
|
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance for this Project's importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] image
| “ | to illustrate an article discussing the book in question | ” |
. It is therefore fair use if it is only used on Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them. That was how the image was used. Therefore all edits spuriously tagging this page and the relevant book page are vandalism.Bakaman 16:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Protection
In view of the edit-warring, I have protected the page. In case, my protection falls outside the policy framework, other administrators are most welcome to remove the protection. --Bhadani (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Protected the page for 3 days. --Bhadani (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- A reminder: Elst is not an encyclpaedic source on Medieval Indian history, and should not be quoted as such, especially if there are other reviews available. Hornplease 21:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Elst isn't all that seemed to be erased. Cynthia Talbot is an associate professor at the South Asia institute at Utx, I notice she became Elst during your edits as well.Bakaman 17:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- As I said above, if you read, 'there are other reviews available'. Talbot is,as far as I can see, quite acceptable. Hornplease 18:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry. It's ok. We got enough.--D-Boy 20:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- "We"got enough..Hmmmm,How many are you, Sir Terminador 10:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I notice that even when the Talbot review is left in, reversions without discussions are still taking place. Surely a further explanation is in order? Hornplease 20:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I have noticed that too. It seems you have been revert warring to remove Elst from the page as evidenced by rv1, rv2. Your ideological axe to grind with Elst is obvious.Bakaman 20:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- A desire to remove non-encyclopedic, non-tenured, non-mainstream, non peer-reviewed authors wikibombed all over this encyclopaedia is hardly an ideological axe to grind. In this case, we have a mainstream reviewer, and there is absolutely no need to cheapen the quality of this project with self-published work. Hornplease 20:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Further, I posted on the talkpage my concerns about Elst; all subsequent removals of the quote were in the absence of any discussion of my concerns. Hornplease 20:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Cut the self-serving soliloquies. Elst is perfectly qualified to talk about topics involving Hindu revivalism and nationalism. This is a topic closely related to Hindu revivalism and Hindu nationalism, and Elst is notable as he is an expert on things concerning Sita Ram Goel. His opinion per WP:V is relevant to the article.Bakaman 20:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- He could with some great effort be considered 'expert', or at least moderately quotable, on Hindu nationalist politics and Goel's life and polemics; not an expert on medieval India. If he were to be quoted, it should be for analysis of Goel's writing and polemic, not as one analysing the content or reception of the book. And even so the quote would have to depend on quality, and whether the book was self-published, and so many other things. Hornplease 20:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I do not think you have any authority to pass judgment on Elst or any other figure. I think he's quotable, you obviously don't. Dboy and Kkm also seem to agree with me. We are obviously at an impasse here. The edits where you remove content without discussion, take out Elst's assertion on the impact of the book, not on history. In fact it is more or less a book review. A note on the impact and the opinion of a person who knows Goel and Hindu revivalism well is very relevant to the article and belongs here.Bakaman 20:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't, but WP:RS does. Man's not an expert, not an academic,not published, thus not quotable. In terms of the actual quote here, its hardly a note on the impact on Goel or on Hindu revivalism when it's about his pereceptions of the failings of mainstream historians. Hornplease 20:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I notice you choose to revert again when the discussion is ongoing. This conduct is not acceptable, but then you knew that.Hornplease 20:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Bears an eerie resemblance to your conduct on Koenraad Elst. Cease with the preaching, the loaded opinions, and the ideological edit-warring.Bakaman 20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Elst has been published, in more than your favorite punching-bag the Voice of India. He's been published in at least a couple other publishing houses, as a look at jhis bibliography would entail.Bakaman 20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Naturally, which is why I consider him quotable on Goel's life and on the internal workings of Hindu nationalism. Could you actually respond to the concerns I have raised? He is not an academic, not peer-reviewed, on history etc., etc. He is not quoted on his area of 'expertise'. Hornplease 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Elst has been published, in more than your favorite punching-bag the Voice of India. He's been published in at least a couple other publishing houses, as a look at jhis bibliography would entail.Bakaman 20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Bears an eerie resemblance to your conduct on Koenraad Elst. Cease with the preaching, the loaded opinions, and the ideological edit-warring.Bakaman 20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I do not think you have any authority to pass judgment on Elst or any other figure. I think he's quotable, you obviously don't. Dboy and Kkm also seem to agree with me. We are obviously at an impasse here. The edits where you remove content without discussion, take out Elst's assertion on the impact of the book, not on history. In fact it is more or less a book review. A note on the impact and the opinion of a person who knows Goel and Hindu revivalism well is very relevant to the article and belongs here.Bakaman 20:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- He could with some great effort be considered 'expert', or at least moderately quotable, on Hindu nationalist politics and Goel's life and polemics; not an expert on medieval India. If he were to be quoted, it should be for analysis of Goel's writing and polemic, not as one analysing the content or reception of the book. And even so the quote would have to depend on quality, and whether the book was self-published, and so many other things. Hornplease 20:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Cut the self-serving soliloquies. Elst is perfectly qualified to talk about topics involving Hindu revivalism and nationalism. This is a topic closely related to Hindu revivalism and Hindu nationalism, and Elst is notable as he is an expert on things concerning Sita Ram Goel. His opinion per WP:V is relevant to the article.Bakaman 20:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I have noticed that too. It seems you have been revert warring to remove Elst from the page as evidenced by rv1, rv2. Your ideological axe to grind with Elst is obvious.Bakaman 20:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry. It's ok. We got enough.--D-Boy 20:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- As I said above, if you read, 'there are other reviews available'. Talbot is,as far as I can see, quite acceptable. Hornplease 18:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Elst isn't all that seemed to be erased. Cynthia Talbot is an associate professor at the South Asia institute at Utx, I notice she became Elst during your edits as well.Bakaman 17:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- A reminder: Elst is not an encyclpaedic source on Medieval Indian history, and should not be quoted as such, especially if there are other reviews available. Hornplease 21:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) so your objections are dropped? Hornplease 05:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hardly, he is merely reviewing the impact of the book, which is relevant to the topics he is an expert on. I dont think saying that there was no response from the accused requires a PhD, and since Elst is a published author on relevant subjects, it deserves a place in the article.Bakaman 00:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- He is not an expert on medieval Indian history, and is so not qualified to judge what constitues a 'response' to a claim about medieval Indian history, or indeed what requires one. Thus he is not quotable in this context. Hornplease 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are being myopic here. One does not need a phd to see if anyone has responded to a book. If Thapar, Habib, etc. did not respond to a book, and Elst documented it, that is hardly out of his reach.Bakaman 01:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Or, as I said, qualified to judge whether that is worthy of comment in the first place. In addition, we have no basis on which to conclude he is capable of recognising a response if one was indeed made. Etc. etc. Hornplease 06:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- What! It is bordering on insanity to say that he is "not even capable of recognizing if a response has been made". You do not have a case if you are hanging your hat on this "argument
- Or, as I said, qualified to judge whether that is worthy of comment in the first place. In addition, we have no basis on which to conclude he is capable of recognising a response if one was indeed made. Etc. etc. Hornplease 06:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are being myopic here. One does not need a phd to see if anyone has responded to a book. If Thapar, Habib, etc. did not respond to a book, and Elst documented it, that is hardly out of his reach.Bakaman 01:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- He is not an expert on medieval Indian history, and is so not qualified to judge what constitues a 'response' to a claim about medieval Indian history, or indeed what requires one. Thus he is not quotable in this context. Hornplease 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hardly, he is merely reviewing the impact of the book, which is relevant to the topics he is an expert on. I dont think saying that there was no response from the accused requires a PhD, and since Elst is a published author on relevant subjects, it deserves a place in the article.Bakaman 00:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Outlookeditor 01:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
(remove indent) Elst is barely quotable on the internal politics of Hindu nationalism. He is quotable as representative of the views of fringe scholars of Hindu revivalist persuasion. He is not quotable when it comes to analysis of mainstream scholarship, which is how he is being quoted here. Quote him as saying "This book is very important to the Hindu political movement", and it is satisfactory. Quote him as saying "this book is a great work of history which historians cannot understand", and it is unsatisfactory. Clear? Hornplease 01:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Elst is quite notable in the field of communalism, Hindu revivalism, and Indian politics. The book is not only a historical narrative, its also a critique of Marxism written by a person quotable on history. Elst is perfectly qualified to note that out that Marxist historians have not responded to the claims made in the book, as he is an expert on Goel. All Elst says is that "The Marxist historians have not responded to the claims put forth by this book" and that "one reviewer called it a bad book". Your oprejudices do not define Elst's notability.Bakaman 01:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Elst is qualified to talk about Goel's own views, Hindu revivialism, and the internal dynamics of communalism in India. (Not Indian politics generally.) Thus I see you grasp some of my points about notability, but you have not yet grasped their applicability. As I said, Elst is not qualified to critique the response of mainstream south asian - or marxist - historians. He is qualified to analyse what Hindu revivalists would say or have said about Goel, or what Goel himself would say or has said. Not what "Marxist historians" have said or not said about the arguments made in this book. Hornplease 01:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- However, this book is a topic concerning Hindu revivalism. The response (or lack of it, in this case) is indicative of the constant tug between Marxist historians and conservative Hindus. Being a close associate of Goel, he is more than qualified to talk about the response to the book garnered in Indian media and Marxist historians. Your construction of Elst's notability is faulty. What "relevant academic degree" does one need to note there was no response to a book? Your understanding of his notability is seriously lacking, and you are therefore trying to minimize the number of fields he can be notable in to remove him, under WP:RS. Anyway, these responses were in published literature and are not just unrelated statements. They are quite germane and notable in relation to this book.Bakaman 02:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- To take your points, if I can discern them, one by one
- This book is important to Hindu revivalism, but its topic is medieval Indian history.
- Elst is not qualified to discuss the response, or even to "note there was no response". The reason for this is that we cannot be certain that he would recognise a response in the academic literature, or what would qualify for a response. If no relevant academic degree is needed, you or I could be as reliable a source as he. He is simply not an expert on medieval history or temples, and thus not quotable as evaluating the response to claims about medieval history or temples. (As well as being, of course, hideously biased, as a close personal friend and student of Goel's, though I would waive that if he were commenting on something on which he is quotable.)
- In particular, including a non-expert's view implies that Goel's book is somehow mainstream or useful enough that a response seems to be required. This is not acceptable in an encyclopaedia. We could include in articles on several fringe claims statements that "X(another member of that fringe) has noted that no mainstream scientist has yet stepped forward to refute the Theory put forward here." This is why we need quotable, reliable reviews, that can properly identify which claims were novel and so on.
- Hence, while I do not deny that the statements are relevant to the book, extensive quoting is not appropriate.Hornplease 02:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- To take your points, if I can discern them, one by one
- However, this book is a topic concerning Hindu revivalism. The response (or lack of it, in this case) is indicative of the constant tug between Marxist historians and conservative Hindus. Being a close associate of Goel, he is more than qualified to talk about the response to the book garnered in Indian media and Marxist historians. Your construction of Elst's notability is faulty. What "relevant academic degree" does one need to note there was no response to a book? Your understanding of his notability is seriously lacking, and you are therefore trying to minimize the number of fields he can be notable in to remove him, under WP:RS. Anyway, these responses were in published literature and are not just unrelated statements. They are quite germane and notable in relation to this book.Bakaman 02:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Elst is qualified to talk about Goel's own views, Hindu revivialism, and the internal dynamics of communalism in India. (Not Indian politics generally.) Thus I see you grasp some of my points about notability, but you have not yet grasped their applicability. As I said, Elst is not qualified to critique the response of mainstream south asian - or marxist - historians. He is qualified to analyse what Hindu revivalists would say or have said about Goel, or what Goel himself would say or has said. Not what "Marxist historians" have said or not said about the arguments made in this book. Hornplease 01:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Elst is quite notable in the field of communalism, Hindu revivalism, and Indian politics. The book is not only a historical narrative, its also a critique of Marxism written by a person quotable on history. Elst is perfectly qualified to note that out that Marxist historians have not responded to the claims made in the book, as he is an expert on Goel. All Elst says is that "The Marxist historians have not responded to the claims put forth by this book" and that "one reviewer called it a bad book". Your oprejudices do not define Elst's notability.Bakaman 01:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- You have drawn the conclusions that you want to draw based on the central statement that "not qualified to discuss the response". This one does not stand.Outlookeditor 05:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Right! So you accept that, if Elst is "not qualified to discuss the response", then he should not be quoted. What I meant by that, as I have explained now four times, is that Elst is a marginal scholar without institutional affiliation, who has no advanced degree in Indian history, who has never been published by a peer-reviewed publication or a major academic press on Indian medieval history. In other words, he is not a historian, and should not be quoted on the response of historians. He has received an advanced degree on Hindu nationalist politics, and is, indeed, prominent himself in that field, so he is quotable on whether or not the book is important for Hindu nationalist politics, not on the content or reception of the work as history.Hornplease 07:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Elst is not evaluating a response. He is simply noting that there has not been a response. More people on this page seem to concur with line of thought. Please do not spoil an article by taking such a narrow view.Outlookeditor 13:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- 'Noting there is no response' is Elst's opinion of what the response is. He is not quotable about the response, its quality or quantity, because he is not a valid source on medieval history. I see no response to this yet. "Spoiling" is when we quote non-notable fringe scholars. Hornplease 14:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- And your opinion is that this is Elst's opinion. As has been stated ad nauseam, he is very knowledgeable on anything related to Goel. This is related to goel.Bakaman 05:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- It is a quote from Elst, and thus is his opinion. (Obviously.) It is not about Goel, as it talks about other scholars, not Elst. So the fact that he is an expert, if partisan, about Goel's life and position in the Hindu nationalist movement, is completely irrelevant. Hornplease 19:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- And your opinion is that this is Elst's opinion. As has been stated ad nauseam, he is very knowledgeable on anything related to Goel. This is related to goel.Bakaman 05:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- 'Noting there is no response' is Elst's opinion of what the response is. He is not quotable about the response, its quality or quantity, because he is not a valid source on medieval history. I see no response to this yet. "Spoiling" is when we quote non-notable fringe scholars. Hornplease 14:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Elst is not evaluating a response. He is simply noting that there has not been a response. More people on this page seem to concur with line of thought. Please do not spoil an article by taking such a narrow view.Outlookeditor 13:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Right! So you accept that, if Elst is "not qualified to discuss the response", then he should not be quoted. What I meant by that, as I have explained now four times, is that Elst is a marginal scholar without institutional affiliation, who has no advanced degree in Indian history, who has never been published by a peer-reviewed publication or a major academic press on Indian medieval history. In other words, he is not a historian, and should not be quoted on the response of historians. He has received an advanced degree on Hindu nationalist politics, and is, indeed, prominent himself in that field, so he is quotable on whether or not the book is important for Hindu nationalist politics, not on the content or reception of the work as history.Hornplease 07:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- You have drawn the conclusions that you want to draw based on the central statement that "not qualified to discuss the response". This one does not stand.Outlookeditor 05:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Atulsnischal 17:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hornplease is systematically censoring articles about Hinduism and removing mention of atrocities committed by muslims against hindus
Please read the definition of vandalism at WP:VAND. An accusation of vandalism when material has been removed with an explanation framed in terms of WP policy is a violation of WP:AGF. I suggest you do not do it again. Hornplease 18:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think you are trying to censor information in this article on Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them as well as in Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent.
- Atulsnischal 19:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Read WP:AGF. I do not wish to censor information, but we do not link to large numbers of fringe publications. Please read the Voice of India page for details; note that all these articles on VOI books were started by accounts with no purpose but starting those pages, probably paid by the press in question. Wikipedia is not the location for the promotion of fringe perspectives. The Muslim conquest is a vast topic, and these perspectives are those of a tiny minority of scholars. Thus they do not belong in that article. And as for the Goel book, there are links to other Goel book articles. There is no need for linking individually to several different articles on the VOI website: this has been done for purposes of search engine optimization of that website. Please do not reinstate the links. Also, continuing this discussion in one place is sufficient. Hornplease 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Interesting observation. Considering that Voice of India was started by User:Dbachmann.--nids(♂) 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Funny. Naturally, I meant the articles on individual, non-notable books. Hornplease 19:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting observation. Considering that Voice of India was started by User:Dbachmann.--nids(♂) 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Read WP:AGF. I do not wish to censor information, but we do not link to large numbers of fringe publications. Please read the Voice of India page for details; note that all these articles on VOI books were started by accounts with no purpose but starting those pages, probably paid by the press in question. Wikipedia is not the location for the promotion of fringe perspectives. The Muslim conquest is a vast topic, and these perspectives are those of a tiny minority of scholars. Thus they do not belong in that article. And as for the Goel book, there are links to other Goel book articles. There is no need for linking individually to several different articles on the VOI website: this has been done for purposes of search engine optimization of that website. Please do not reinstate the links. Also, continuing this discussion in one place is sufficient. Hornplease 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- What you are infact doing as visible to me is that you are systematically censoring and removing mention from wikipedia of atrocities committed against Hindus by Muslims and providing all bogus reasons for doing so. I am sure it is evident by now to many editors of wikipedia and administrators. Kindly do not censor articles please, I dont want to argue with you anymore.
Atulsnischal 19:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Wikipedia is not censored. However, we try to keep it free of partisan sources and fluff. Please read the policies I have linked to here and in my last statement. You have not addressed my concerns, and are instead leveling accusations; that is unacceptable behaviour. If you cannot justify your continued reversions except with speculation about my motives, then those reversions are also unacceptable. Argument is your only option. Please also do not leave multiple messages. Hornplease 19:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- All the links in the "See also" sections were pertinent to this article. There is no justification for removing those links. Outlookeditor 17:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Justify them individually,please. That's not an explanation.Hornplease 17:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- All the links in the "See also" sections were pertinent to this article. There is no justification for removing those links. Outlookeditor 17:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Note: the entire above section has been copied from somewhere else.
- I have no idea what's going on with this guy. I've just told him about forum spamming, and yet he leaves multiple copies on my talkpage, a couple of article talkpages, his own talkpage and now this noticeboard and the India noticeboard. Its impossible.
- In any case, he seems to have moved on from being an SPA at Karan Singh and Hari Singh as well as other articles related to the royal house of Kashmir and Mayo College (and earlier, about some Indian wildlife mailing list) to vaguely accusing me of covering up atrocities of one sort or another. I seem to have irritated him by reverting large amounts of fanglish on the Karan Singh page. SOmeone else please handle the guy, since he thinks I'm the devil. Hornplease 00:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Hornplease is systematically censoring articles about Hinduism and removing mention of atrocities committed by muslims against hindus
Please track Hornplease, among many other continuously he has now censored Anti-Hindu and put up Destruction of Idol Temples for deletion in 5 days time.
- He has put this tag on Destruction of Idol Temples and put up for deletion in 5 days time.
Atulsnischal 22:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, dear God.Hornplease 23:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bookcover Ht1.jpg
Image:Bookcover Ht1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 06:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Categories: Unassessed-Class Interfaith articles | Unknown-importance Interfaith articles | Unassessed Religion articles | Unknown-importance Religion articles | WikiProject Books articles | Start-Class Book articles | Start-Class India articles | Start-Class India articles of unknown-importance | Unknown-importance India articles | WikiProject India articles | Start-Class Hinduism articles | Low-importance Hinduism articles | WikiProject Hinduism articles
