Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Hinduism

This religion is called as Sanatana Dharma, "eternal religion," and Vaidika Dharma, "religion of the Vedas," and Hinduism the most commonly used name in the World.

Various origins for the word "Hinduism" have been suggested:

It may be derived from an ancient inscription translated as: "The country lying between the Himalayan mountain and Bindu Sarovara is known as Hindusthan by combination of the first letter 'hi' of 'Himalaya' and the last compound letter 'ndu' of the word `Bindu.'" Bindu Sarovara is called the Cape Comorin sea in modern times.

It may be derived from the Persian word for Indian.

It may be a Persian corruption of the word Sindhu (the river Indus)

It was a name invented by the British administration in India during colonial times.

Is it accurate to call Hinduism a religion or Sanatana Dharma as "eternal religion"? I ask this because the word Dharma can mean "weight" or "inertia" or "nature" or "duty" or "faith" — meaning it refers to the nature of any object in the universe. Thus the word Dharma when applied to humans simply means 'that which is a person's duty or faith, as specified in the scriptures'. So basically the scriptures dictate a person's Dharma, but the word Dharma itself doesn't mean religion.
Rohitbd 09:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

History

The Aryan Invasion view of ancient Indian history has been challenged in recent years by new conclusions based on more recent findings in archaeology, cultural analysis, astronomical references, and literary analysis. One scholar, David Frawley, has established a convincing argument for this new interpretation. Archeological digs have revealed that the Indus Valley culture was not "destroyed by outside invasion, but...[by] internal causes and, most likely, floods." The "dark age" that was believed to have followed the Aryan invasion may never have happened. A series of cities in India have been studied by archeologists and shown to have a level of civilization between that of the Indus culture and later more highly developed Indian culture, as visited by the Greeks. Finally, Indus Valley excavations have uncovered many remains of fire altars, animal bones, potsherds, shell jewelry and other evidences of Vedic rituals. "In other words there is no racial evidence of any such Indo-Aryan invasion of India but only of a continuity of the same group of people who traditionally considered themselves to be Aryans...The Indo-Aryan invasion as an academic concept in 18th and 19th century Europe reflected the cultural milieu of the period. Linguistic data were used to validate the concept that in turn was used to interpret archeological and anthropological data."

During the first few centuries CE, many sects were created, each dedicated to a specific deity. Typical among these were the Goddesses Shakti and Lakshmi, and the Gods Skanda and Surya.

Sacred Texts

The Mahabharata, were written 540 to 300 BCE, and have been attributed to the sage Vyasa. They record "the legends of the Bharatas, one of the Aryan tribal groups." The Bhagavad Gita is the sixth book of the Mahabharata. It is a poem describing a conversation between a warrior Arjuna and the God Krishna. It is an ancient text that has become the main sacred text of Hinduism and other belief systems.

Among the most important of all Hindu sacred texts are the Vedas: the Rig Veda, Sama Veda, Yajur Veda and Atharva Veda. Rig Veda (a.k.a. Rigveda) is the oldest, having been composed about 1500 BCE and written down about 600 BCE. They contain hymns, incantations, and rituals from ancient India.

Another group of primary texts are the Upanishadas. They are "a continuation of the Vedic philosophy, and were written between 800 and 400 B.C. They elaborate on how the soul (Atman) can be united with the ultimate truth (Brahman) through contemplation and mediation, as well as the doctrine of Karma-- the cumulative effects of a persons' actions."

Another important text is the Ramayana. It is a moving love story with moral and spiritual themes. It is dated to the first century CE and has been attributed to the poet Valmiki. Other texts include the Brahmanas, the Sutras, Puranas, and the Aranyakas.

Beliefs and Practices

Categorizing the religion of Hinduism is somewhat confusing.

Hinduism has commonly been viewed in the west as a polytheistic religion, one which worships multiple deities: gods and goddesses. Although a widespread belief, this is not particularly accurate.

Some have viewed it as a monotheistic religion, because it recognizes only one supreme God: the panentheistic principle of Brahman, that all reality is a unity. The entire universe is seen as one divine entity who is simultaneously at one with the universe and who transcends it as well.

Some view Hinduism as Trinitarian because Brahman is simultaneously visualized as a triad one God with three persons:

Brahma the Creator who is continuing to create new realities. Vishnu (Krishna) the Preserver, who preserves these new creations. Whenever dharma (eternal order, righteousness, religion, law and duty) is threatened, Vishnu travels from heaven to earth in one of ten incarnations. Shiva the Destroyer, is at times compassionate, erotic and destructive.

Strictly speaking, Hinduism is a henotheistic religion, a religion which recognizes a single deity, but which recognizes other gods and goddesses as facets, forms, manifestations, or aspects of that supreme God.

Most urban Hindus follow one of two major divisions within Hinduism,

Vaishnavaism which generally regards Vishnu as the ultimate deity. Shivaism which generally regards Shiva as the ultimate deity.

However, many rural Hindus worship their own village goddess or an earth goddess. She is believed to rule over fertility and disease and thus over life and death. The priesthood is less important in rural Hinduism. Non Brahmins and non priests often carry out ritual and prayer there.

Hindus believe in the Repetitious Transmigration of the Soul. This is the transfer of one's soul after death into another body. This produces a continuing cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth through their many lifetimes. It is called samsara. Karma is the accumulated sum of ones good and bad deeds. Karma determines how you will live your next life. Through pure acts, thoughts and devotion, one can be reborn at a higher level. Eventually, one can escape samsara and achieve enlightenment. Bad deeds can cause a person to be reborn as a lower level, or even as an animal. The unequal distribution of wealth, prestige, suffering are thus seen as natural consequences for one's previous acts, both in this life and in previous lives.

Hindus organize their lives around certain activities or "purusharthas." These are called the "four aims of Hinduism," or "the doctrine of the fourfold end of life." They are:

The three goals of the "pravritti," those who are in the world, are:

dharma: righteousness in their religious life. This is the most important of the three. artha: success in their economic life; material prosperity. kama: gratification of the senses; pleasure; sensual, sexual, and mental enjoyment. The main goal for the "nivritti," those who renounce the world. is: moksa: Liberation from "samsara." This is considered the supreme goal of mankind.

Meditation is often practiced, with Yoga being the most common. Other activities include daily devotions, public rituals, and puja, a ceremonial dinner for a God.

Hinduism has a deserved reputation of being highly tolerant of other religions. Hindus have a saying: "Ekam Sataha Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti" which may be translated: "The truth is One, but different Sages call it by Different Names"

--Dangerous-Boy

we should start using this discussion page!

It would help for coordination. --Dangerous-Boy

I agree DaGizza
Maybe if you get the others to this discussions, we could start working here more like the projects. I wish the Hinduism article would be finished quickly. --Dangerous-Boy

Request assistance

I'm editing on the vegetarian pages and am in a dispute with other editors over globalizing the page. I say over 70% of world's vegetarians are indian/hindu and their view should be included. They argue that vegetarianism is a british word, coined by the brit veg society and should reflect eurocentric viewpoint, with india noted as an exception. I would like to request some more Indian/hindu participation to balance the argument. This may be just my version and I'd ask that you read the discussion to get the whole picture.--Pranathi 15:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I've heard many Buddhists don't eat meat. Don't forget the Jains. --Dangerous-Boy 21:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Just saw this message. The dispute is settled on the vegetarian pages. Jains are 8 to 10 million in all and are most similar to Hindus in their vegetarian habits. Among Buddhists, I believe mostly only monks don't eat meat. Among monks many, such as Tibetan Buddhist monks, traditionally eat meat. 20-30% of Indian population is vegetarian - approx 200 - 300 million and is the largest vegetarian group. --Pranathi 02:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the shouting (sorry, the capitals) in the first few section titles above at the top of the page. Imc 21:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions and transliterations

I was going to post this at the Hindu mythology project discussion, but then read some of the comments there, and figured that I might as well bring it here instead.

I propose that we formalise a policy on the names and words we use in articles on Hinduism and its literature. I believe that this is going to be essential if this section is to be taken seriously as a source. It should probably be made a policy. Such policy has been or is being created for other languages and cultures. See the naming conventions bit at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Arabic) . The Arabic proposal provides a pattern that could usefully be followed.

Two basic suggestions;

The original names used as the source should usually be the Sanskrit forms, if it is possible and appropriate. If it is not appropriate to use the Sanskrit form, then it should be the form relevant to the original language. Thus, the Sanskrit form for Rama, but the Tamil form as source for Murugan.
Use of transliterations. I think that it has been agreed in various places that formal transliterations using unicode characters should be given, in IAST notation.

I'd also like to suggest (for discussion) that the article name should usually be in a formal transliteration, but without diacretic marks, i.e. not in IAST. This could be difficult to do, or agree on for some names. I'm not in favour of titling the article on Krishna as Krsna or as Kṛṣṇa. However, we should try to make the names consistent within Wikipedia as far as possible, as well as keeping it consistent with both common usage in English, and trying to keep consistency if appropriate with the orignal Latin values of the letters. Imc 21:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see that this place it finally put to use. I think Sanskrit and Tamil should both be used to. What about Pali? or is that used for only Buddhist stuff.--Dangerous-Boy 21:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that this policy should be restricted to Sanskrit and Tamil, its just that they are the best examples. I'm suggesting that if there are names that originate in specific regions or languages, (and that name is widely used), then it should be used as the 'source'; i.e. the transliterations should be based on that.
I don't know of any Pali names that would be relevant here, since we could probably find an earlier Sanskrit original. Imc 08:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I've posted a proposed standard naming and transliteration policy on the main page. This has the word 'proposed' in it, at the beginning, pending agreement or any objections. The proposal would apply to all scholarly articles on Hinduism, and Hindu mythology. It may be extensible to the wider field of Indology.

The proposal includes an suggestion, that it may be permissible not to use IAST transliteration in general, but to use a simplified version of it, and use the IAST transliterations in the first sentence.

Parts of the proposal have been plagiarised and altered from a recent policy proposal for Arabic. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Arabic). Imc 18:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

History of Hinduism

Anyone want to help out on History of Hinduism. It needs some work and organization. The goal is to make it as good as History of Buddhism. --Dangerous-Boy 08:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem about Hinduism history is that it is more ambiguous than any other religion. The exact origin of the religion is still not perfectly known and that Hindus themselves believe that it is Sanatan Dharm (eternal faith), that is has always existed and always will be. DaGizza Chat (c) 12:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
True but you have to start somewhere! --Dangerous-Boy 07:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Diwali

Any chance of working on the Diwali article and making it featured on November 1? deeptrivia 01:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

That seems to be short notice, I don't think we will be able to get enough pics in 5 days or so. DaGizza Chat (c) 08:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hindu epistemology

The article on Eastern epistemology has a (currently empty)section on Hindu epistemology. Please contribute to it. deeptrivia 19:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion- Talk

In case you are interested. --Juan Muslim 06:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


comparisons to other religions

I feel that practices in other religions are sometimes compared , contrasted and used as examples to describe practices in Hindu articles. I personally think that that speaks to someone familiar with those religions (which an encyclopaedic article shouldn't do - speak to a particular audience). I don't find the same in articles of other religions. While this may be symptomatic of the tolerance and respect in Hinduism for those religions (and not vice versa), it may also be symptomatic of defensiveness and seeking acceptance among Hindu editors in these articles (POV). The comparisons tend to explain, glorify or sometimes even desecrate other religions - all 3 have no place in hinduism articles - i have seen all 3in wikipedia. I propose we make a guideline on the lines of comparisons should be avoided or should be minimized and only used when essential. Any thoughts/objection/suggestions? --Pranathi 22:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree in principle. I've removed a pointless comparison to Jesus from the Krishna article, and an even more pointless comparison of Gaudiya to Christianity. But there will be times when the comparison is valid and useful. This is probably more likely between religions that have things in common; such as between Hinduism and Buddhism, or between Christianity and Islam. Imc 23:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there are always places where it is useful & especially with Jainism and Buddhism. But see examples i removed in the Hinduism article - comparing kneeling and touching the forehead to the ground before god to Islamic worship (simple act that can be understood without comparison); comparing temple worship to Christian communion (this says -please like me; I'm not so wierd ); hindu denominations are not the same as (intolerant) churches since (great) hinduism respects an individual's beliefs - all speaking to one audience. Hindu concepts can stand their own ground without being constantly presented from a christian or islamic background. Ideally, I'd like to see a guideline (not rule) on writing solely Hindu specific articles - something that we can reference when discussing a violation (which crop up every now and then) - on the lines of -
  • Minimize comparison, contrast or using examples to other religions when explaining hindu concepts or practices. See pages on other religions.
  • For Hinduism page specifically - cover concepts that are common across the religion. Note exceptions only when they are significant. (discussed this in the Hinduism or Vaishnavism section on Hinduism page)
  • explain concept by themselves. Don't speak to a western audience or assume the reader has preconcieved ideas. (I guess the exception would be when you speak to common misconceptions)-Pranathi
You guys might be interested in this article: Hinduism and other religions--Dangerous-Boy 04:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hindu near-vandal

An editor made a request about a "Hindu near-vandal" at another project. Would someone here be able to help? — RichardRDFtalk 02:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Islamic conquest of South Asia

Islamic conquest of South Asia is totally biased is an exhaults islamic invaders. Could really use some work. --Dangerous-Boy 10:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Puranas

Of the 18 puranas, only 3 have articles (stubs). For the others, there is absolutely no information on wikipedia. deeptrivia 02:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


Mythology or scriptures?

Why are the scriptures sections in the templates titled mythology? It has very negative connotations - whether they are true or not - they are scripture (some accounts and some philosophy) and the title should reflect that. Any objections? As a comparison - the Genesis and bible would be categorized as scripture but not mythology even though they detail stories about people and phenomenon. --Pranathi 02:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

That is probably because or a west-centric view. Rohitbd 09:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
But should we not change it. These days you should not to call it Greek mythology but Greek history is the politically correct term (speaking from a recent instance in a university). But Hinduism still gets classified as mythology. I have seen this discussion in several places - Template talk:HinduMythology and in talk:Hindu mythology. especially note (As a follower and upholder of Dharma, as well as being an Indian, I would request that we critically look at the categorization of articles in this category, considering Mythology, the nature of myth and source material.
* As the Mythology article says, Myths are generally narratives based on tradition and legend designed to explain the universal and local beginnings ("creation myths" and "founding myths"), natural phenomena, inexplicable cultural conventions, and anything else for which no simple explanation presents itself. It specifically excludes heroic saga and epic.
* The same article elaborates on how adherents of Christiany or Jewish traditions disagree on whether to call Biblical accounts as myths. I would say that we also have the same disagreement in Dharma and Indian traditions. As such, it is best to not blanket them all as mythology.
* It is instructive that the sources materials Puranas, Katha, Itihaas in Sanskrit can be translated as "accounts", "stories", and "reconstructions". To summarize, this category needs to be provided with an explanation similar to Christian_mythology and/or some of the articles should not be categorized into this. User:Savyasaachi, Aug 21 2005
These texts were originally called mythology because it was non-Hindus that classified them as such (and undoubtedly to them it was mythology). The title automatically discredits the validity of the religion to the non-Hindu audience that connect mythology with falsehood. --Pranathi 14:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, the article also points out that the idea of a myth being a falsehodd was developed by bigots who wanted to discredit other peoples' beliefs and is not the correct definition. My attitude toward people who conform exclusively to this false definition cannot really be put in very friendly terms, but let's just say that we should not change articles on Hinduism to appease them. elvenscout742 14:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Elvenscount, Are you referring to The term myth is sometimes used pejoratively in reference to common beliefs of a culture or for the beliefs of a religion to imply that the story is both fanciful and fictional. Myth is often used to refer to a commonly held but erroneous belief or a misconception....?
The page also says Some use the words myth and mythology to portray the stories of one or more religions as false, or dubious at best. While nearly all dictionaries include this definition, "myth" does not always (but may sometimes) imply that a story is either false or true.
Christianity is spread across the world. Hinduism is concentrated in India and is already highly misunderstood and mostly seen exclusively from a Christian worldview outside the country. With this in mind, I think the title should change to something agreeable and equally valid - such as scriptures. To refer to it as myth, negates it's validity and reinforces the negative perceptions (pagan-like, Greek mythology-like) many may have. The notion of myth being falsehood may have been developed by bigots but is held commonly by many unknowing non-bigots (unless they read the mythology page). Also imagine for example the Bible classified in christianity as myth - in Hinduism we put the Vedas and the Gita (not a story or account, just a philosophical discourse) in myth. Why should only Hinduism, a misunderstood, misrepresented religion adopt a misunderstood word that outsiders have used to describe it pejoratively? --Pranathi 23:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I am inclined to change titles soon. Please discuss objections. --Pranathi 22:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Many Christians will agree that Genesis, not to mention the most of the Old Testament, can be counted as mythology. The important scriptural part of the Bible is concentrated in a few specific books, concentrated in the New Testament. Mythology may mean a collection of stories, without denigrating the subject of the stories.
I feel that those who see negative connotations in the term mythology may be, in this instance, demonstrating an undue sensitivity (and an unnecessary sensitivity) to the views of outsiders. I'm not conscious that the term mythology is being used in the sense of denigrating Hinduism by most people in the rest of the world. At least not in the way that such more clearly loaded words, such as 'cult' may be used to denigrate a religious movement. Searches on google for the comparable terms for most other religions (specifically Christian, Jewish, and Islamic mythology) all turn up more hits than for 'Hindu mythology', only Buddhism producing fewer comparable hits. Compare also comparable counts for 'Hindu scripture', versus the other religions. It may make sense to draw clear lines (where it is possible) between mythology and scripture. Few will suggest that the Vedas or Upanishads are not scripture. But the epics, with their large content of included literature that is not of any religious significance, can be perfectly sensibly be counted as mythology, even if some of their content may be scripture.
A previous example of rewriting perfectly a good term because of what Christians may think of the existing term; the effort to change the word 'idol' to 'icon' some time ago in all Hinduism related articles. The term used in India , mostly by Hindus, was and is predominantly 'idol'. Whether the statues of gods are called the one or the other will not change the views of the prejudiced Christian. Neither will this proposed change. Any change should be carried out for the reason of classifying material in an appropriate manner for an encyclopaedia. Imc 23:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
See Christian mythology discussion - what can be included as mythology is hotly disputed (and is definitely seen by many with it's negative connotations). Also, in mythology see Some use the words myth and mythology to portray the stories of one or more religions as false, or dubious at best - who classified Hindu literature under mythology in English (outsiders?)? It is called Ithihas /smriti/shruti etc in sanskrit. You say that the Genesis and Old Testament are accepted to be mythology but my search does not (readily) show that nor does Christian Mythology say so. I am understanding that it is accepted only in the academic context or by non-Christians. Genesis is accepted as myth when seen as a remnant of pagan beliefs or when compared to similar stories n other religions. Christian mythology will reveal many hits because it is extensively studied - many stories are classified as such, but any texts/stories believed to be true are not.
Vedas and Upanishad are scripture but are classified as mythology in some wiki Hinduism templates. Ramayana and Mahabharata are considered to be history by traditionalists just like the Genesis is by christians. Probably the puranas can be called mythology.
I think that since we are explaining Hindu concepts in a language foreign to the religion we should be sensitive to the connotations of the words used in English. --Pranathi 02:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


Part of the series on
Hinduism
History  · Deities
Denominations
Beliefs & practices
Reincarnation  · Moksha
Karma  · Puja  · Maya
Nirvana  · Dharma
Yoga  · Ayurveda
Yuga  · Vegetarianism
Bhakti  · Artha
Scriptures
Upanishads  · Vedas
Brahmana  · Bhagavad Gita
Narratives
Ramayana  · Mahabharata  · Purana
Related topics
Hinduism by country
Leaders  · Mandir  ·
Caste system  · Mantra
Hindu festivals  · Murti
Following the trail of Christian mythology discussion, there is an attempt to come to a uniform presentation for all religions in Wikipedia and leads to a conclusion categorizing the ovelap of mythology and belief to be Narrative. After all this (!!), I am realising the Hinduism sidebar is only template here that uses mythology to describe all texts. I propose changing it to following - please discuss objections- --Pranathi 03:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonable idea. My only concern is that putting stories (or "history"/itihaasa) from this world (Ramayana & Mahabharata) together with stories from the "other worlds" like devloka (Puranas) in the same category, will again undermine the fact that the itihaasas have some historical value and are not just works of fiction. It will be merely a change of name from "Mythology" to "Narrative." What do you think? deeptrivia (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I moved the proposed sidebar up a bit in this page to make the page more readable. It's now at the side of Pranathi's previous post, not following it. Imc 11:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Deeptrivia, Applying the discussion on those talk pages to Hinduism, both topics (Ithihas and Purana) fall under Mythology, which technically doesn't usually have implications of fiction. Although everyone agrees to this type of categorization, because of it's common usage with fictional connotations, the term narratives is used instead to accomodate a religious POV. Narratives also encompasses fictional, true or believed to be true accounts, so grouping the topics together should not imply that both are false or both true. See the Christian_narrative category for examples. It's not merely a name change because narrative does not have the same negative baggage that mythology is commonly associated with.
BTW, I'm learning that traditionalists believe that both Purana and Ithihasa are authentic (though some of the Purana's are considered inferior - the rajasic and tamasic ones). --Pranathi 00:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, now I have a better idea with what is the purpose behind the change. I agree. deeptrivia (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I have not looked at the other discussions in detail. Is the proposal to change the terminology consistently to 'narratives' across all living religions? Or is this going to be a Hinduism only thing, while others make up their mind separetly? Imc 17:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
At some point, the editors were trying to come to a common categorization across religions. Since editors, topics and title revolved around only Christianity though, I think it was only applied to Christian mythology pages and categories. For Islam & Judaism, the Mythology pages all have a prominent note on top that mythology has no implications of falsehood or/and explanation or/and that the religion does not agree with the term being applied to it's beliefs. Here we are applying it to the template which has no space for similar notes and so I think we should use a more agreeable term that those discussions already took the pains to come up with. (My next project is making the mythology pages also in line with the pages of other religions.)--Pranathi 01:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Changed per above proposal. --Pranathi 03:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Portal:Hinduism

Please edit as you see fit.--JuanMuslim 1m 06:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi all. It is being discussed whether the portal should be deleted because it doesn't satisfy certain requirements, because not much work has been done on it. Please see the discussion here. I request you to please contribute and make the portal survive. Thanks. deeptrivia (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Dakshayani

User:ImpuMozhi has just worsened the Dakshayani page. Impu has made some other edits to Hinduism-related articles which have not been that bad. But he/she claims that my and User:Imc changes to the article (such as wikifying, changing Gowri to Gauri and unbolding words that should not have been bolded) were all "accidental vandalism" and now has changed it back. ImpuMozhi also removed the cleanup template and merge with Parvati although on the talk page more people were agreeing on merging Parvati and Dakshayani together. DaGizza Chat (c) 01:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hinduism Templates and non-english terms

Any thoughts on changing terms like Bhakti, Dharma , Moksha to their english approximations or better still to add the english approximations in parenthesis beside the word? I think it's utterly confusing to a non-hindu or someone unfamiliar with the terms. But then again it hard to get a best approximation. --Pranathi 03:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Related to the above proposal (about which I am a bit confused at the moment), I suggest we make a "vocabulary" page, similar to List of Islamic terms in Arabic. Would be really useful to a novice. deeptrivia (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I meant using the english approximations in the hinduism template instead of the Sansrit word which serves no purpose to the non-hindu. For examplem unless I know what is puja, the link in the template will be useless to me.--Pranathi 00:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Glossary of terms in Hinduism

I've created this glossary. It would need massive support from y'all to get completed. I think it's a useful thing. Maybe soon we'll have to split it into parts like Glossary of spirituality-related terms. I've also added a link to it in the "Hinduism_small" template. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions template?

Anyone interested in coming up for a template for the names of the articles? Maybe put the sanskirt and/or tamil and english transliteration and english translation. The koreans use this one:

WikiProject Hinduism/Archive 1
Hangul 허황옥
Hanja 許黃玉
Revised Romanization Heo Hwang-ok
McCune-Reischauer Hŏ Hwang-ok

--Dangerous-Boy 23:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Indian Philosophy template

I created a template to provide link between articles related to Indian philosophy. I'll appreciate comments and suggestions. deeptrivia (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Michael Witzel - Neutral editors needed

Can somebody please take a look at the article Michael Witzel? Some users, 69.110.152.89 (talk · contribs) and Witzel (talk · contribs), are constantly removing all critical links from that article. --Machaon 22:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Some background. Witzel is a Harvard prof of Sanskrit who is a proponent of the Indo-Aryan migration theory & has come under a lot of criticism for alleged errors in his works. He alleges the criticism to come from Hindutva groups while the critics say that allegation is only a red herring away from serious issues with his theory. With ongoing edit wars, the page needs neutral observers to step in. --Pranathi 00:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

MW is a politically active and controversial scholar who has often been criticised, so criticisms and responses to such criticisms should be stated neutrally in the article, without taking sides for either Witzel or for his critics. Other articles on wikipedia do also feature criticism. The issue is bit complex, but in short Witzel is accused by his critics of dishonesty, mistakes in his studies, eurocentrism and racism etc, while Witzel accuses his critics as being Hindutva, nationalistic, unscholarly etc. This article needs some neutral editors, and I try to give an account of the issues involved in the article.

Among the editors involved in this article are Dbachmann (talk · contribs), Witzel (talk · contribs), Pranathi and a number of anon editors. Dab, I hope that you're not mad for some criticism, but I think every editor should be open to criticism, and this is especially true for otherwise good editors. You're in many areas an excellent contributor, but unfortunately there are areas where you are clearly not a neutral editor. One such example is the Witzel article.

Dab (although you're an excellent editor in other articles) I'm sorry to say that you're not very neutral in this article, where you clearly take the position of Witzel, and this without (it seems) having read Talageri's or other criticisms of Witzel (like Talageri's "Michael Witzel - An examination of his review of my book." 2001. and other). To say it a bit bluntly, Indians like Kak and Talageri are "demonised" by you as "Hindutva", while Witzel, with whom you also have Email contact [1], is above all criticism and criticisms should not be in the article. And of course all critics of Witzel are Hindutvatis, repeating the polemics of Witzel. You sweepingly declare that "his critics are nationalist. I don't think this is disputed." [2] You also say on the Witzel talk page that "This is not about Indian politics, it is about an Indologist doing Indology regardless of Indian politics.", and thereby ignoring that Witzel is well known for his involvement in politics and campaigning. Then you also seem to say that criticizing Witzel is the same as criticizing Western scholarship ("so western 'academics' summarily stand accused of 'shoddy scolarship' now?" "Witzel is again attacked in lieu of western scholarship as a whole." [3]), without realizing that Witzel is criticized for specific things like for his mistranslations and other mistakes in his studies, his ad hominem attacks and his political campaigns. Critical external links in the article were constantly removed by anon's and by Mr. Witzel, and the talk page is full of discussions why the critical links and criticisms don't belong in the article, even though other wiki articles have critical links and criticisms. You say about one part of the ext. links: "I agree that the "flamewar" external links are less than notable.", but the links where in fact added by you some time ago in the Rigveda article, but now they're not notable because after all they seem to reflect unfavorably on Witzel? Pranathi asked "who were these mysterious scholars", and you begin to write something about Oldenberg, while in fact the Oldenberg argument was related to Talageri and not to the Panini grammar case, and the Oldenberg argument was also answered by Talageri 2001.

Coming to Shrikant Talageri, he unlike Witzel can of course be cricized: [4], [5]. Talageri can somehow be crticized as Hindutva and Pseudoscience without references, but Witzel cannot be criticized (although he was also accused of things like ethno/euro-centrism and questionable scholarship).

You write similary about Subhash Kak that he is a "Hindutva kook". (“the guy is a hindutva kook. Can we say *that* in the article please, if he is all that notable?”) [6]. This person is also a professor who has done useful research in technical subjects like Neural Networks and information technology, which are not "kooky". Instead of specifically criticizing some of his theories after having read them, you sweepingly declare him a Hindutva kook· Then you allege with no clear evidence that Kak makes "enthusiastic" edits in his own article and even that the article should probably be removed, but when Mr. Witzel is repeatedly removing critical references/links from his own article, it seems ok. (You said: “Probably the whole article should be removed, or reduced to 2 sentences; Mr. Kak, I think it is bad style to write an enthusiastic article about your own person!” Dbachmann 16:50, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) [7]) But what is worse: Allegedly writing “enthusiastically” in an article about oneself like Kak, or removing all criticism from an article about oneself like Mr. Witzel? While Witzel should not be criticised (even though he is famous for his many ad hominem attacks and polemics on other scholars), it seems okay to stereotype and sweepingly dismiss Indian scholarship, and to sweepingly refer to it as Hindutva or Pseudoscience without even having read it, which can be very offensive (and many of such scholars that have views or theories that one doesn't necessarly agree with have nothing at all to do with politics, let alone with Hindutva). There's nothing against criticizing certain points after having read an author's book and in a civil manner, but to dismiss in one sweep all scholarship that one doesn't consider as "mainstream" as "Hindutva" or pseudoscience is not the way to go. What would be needed is scholarly and fair criticism instead of sweeping allegations.

There are also sometimes some other issues with your edits, I try to give some examples. Unfortunately you are sometimes also unnecessarily uncivil to Indian editors. One example of uncivility is on Zora's talk page where you talk about millions of more clueless people where they came from, and especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet access and that "Wikipedia is not for them" (which thankfully you later crossed out, but it is not the only time I have observed uncivility in some of your edits). As another example, you also sometimes stereotype Hinduism as racist:

sadly, this article is very, very, far from being encyclopedic or even factual. It's a sermon. An eulogy. I made a few edits, but they do very little. The Vedas don't condone discrimination? Varna has nothing to do with skin color? I believe that many Hindus believe so (and this may of course be asserted), but that's just because most Hindus have never actually read the vedas, or if they have, they didn't bother to translate. The Rigveda, for example (9.73.5) talks about the blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the heavens the swarthy skin which Indra hates. dab (ᛏ) 17:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) [8]

You also removed a discussion about the "racism" subject from the Indo-Aryans article, and almost at the same time included again the "racist" Rig Veda extract where you also write "The tribes hostile to the Indo-Aryans in such warlike encounters are described as dark-skinned" [9]. It is not fair to remove in one article the anti-racism discussion, and almost at the same time add an edit in another article that is one-sided and makes the RV look racist, without taking into account that many of these allegations are from the 19th or early 20th century and without trying to give a balanced account and refering to studies that have a more balanced view of the subject (eg Hans Hock 1999). Hinduism and Hindu traditions can of course be criticized for such and other things, but it should be done in a balanced way.

Dab, I hope that you're not mad for some criticism, but I think every editor should be open to criticism, and this is especially true for otherwise good editors. You're in many areas an excellent contributor, but unfortunately there are areas where you are clearly not a neutral editor. One such example is the Witzel article. You are, if I am not mistaken, perfectly tolerant and supportive for Christian, Islamic and German Pagan (?) traditions. If you would exhibit the same prejudices in regard to other religions you would soon be labelled as anti-Christian or islamophobic by hordes of wikipedians, but somehow this kind of behaviour is acceptable in regard to Hinduism? Anyway, it's the end of the year, so let's forget this year and be less biased in the new year. Looking at many of your edits which are simply excellent, I hope you don't take the criticism too personally, but instead try to see some things more balanced and unbiased.

For some background information on Witzel, the following links and references may be useful:

--Machaon 00:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I refer you to my statements on the talkpage of the Witzel article. Far from removing "all critical links", I would welcome notable critical references. References critical of Witzels academic work need to be academic. References critical of Witzel's political activism need to be from a reputable news outlet. Wikipedia will not link to rants on blogs and discussion fora. I have done my best to sort the links presented, and unfortunately most of them were pathetic, attacking red herrings rather than Witzel. I did not remove the "Politics" section, and I do think that Witzel's political activities, and the apparent unanimous hatred of Witzel on the part of the Californian Hindu community should be documented, neutrally. It is not permissible to pretend attacking Witzel on scholarly turf because you don't like his political views. Scholarly discussion takes place in relevant journals, and if Witzel is really as bad as all these bloggers think, it should be easy to point us to devastating academic recensions of his work. dab (ᛏ) 20:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Improvement drive

Meditation is currently nominated on WP:IDRIVE. If you want to see it improved and could help us bring it up to featured standard, please vote for it here! --Fenice 08:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"History of Evolution of Saivism" (sic)

This article needs a major revamp, including a name change. deeptrivia (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The User:Kothandaramans (he wrote most of the article) is a newbie, who is extremely confused on how Wikipedia works. He moved his talk page to the History of Evolution of Saivism page! But I sent him a welcome message now and told him/her to not move his talk page again! DaGizza Chat 00:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"Brahminism"

Someone thoroughly confused between "brahman" and "brahmin" is adding a line to the effect that Hinduism is also known as Brahminism at various places. Also look at the article Brahmanism. It's hopelessly messed up. Do we even need that article? I've never heard that term before. deeptrivia (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The article seems to be a mix of Hinduism, Brahmin and Brahman. Delete DaGizza Chat 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparative Religions Template

Please visit this template I'm working on to go at the bottom of all of the major religious pages as a way to facilitate comparative religion research. Leave your comments on its talk page. Thanks! --Mareino 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

it's so big....--Dangerous-Boy 00:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is Hinduism listed as polytheistic? --Grammatical error 14:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Hinduism Template

I have created a template that could be put on talk pages for directing users to the project page and for categorizing articles. I have added the template under the Wikiproject Hinduism notice header. Articles that have the template will go into Category: WikiProject Hinduism - Ganeshk 23:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you make one Wikipedia:WikiProject Hindu mythology? --Dangerous-Boy 00:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I created one for mythology too. I put it up on the project page. A lot of articles need to be tagged with thes templates though. - Ganeshk 01:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I have a question. How do you add the template when articles have relevance to both projects? Can someone give a criteria? - Ganeshk
Well, for me, if it's in the Hindu Mythology category, I'd give that template. Everything else is regular Hinduism.--Dangerous-Boy 09:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism in United Kingdom

Well i'm surprised no has started this article. I'll start it in Feb (if nobody does) when i'll have more time (hopefully).

अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 06:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism stub removal bot

Is there a way to create a stub removal bot for Hindu articles that are longer stubs? --Dangerous-Boy 13:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is DB, what is criteria for classifying an article as a stub? Theres only so much you can write about in case of some topics! अमेय आरयन DaBroodey 21:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, mostly for articles that are basically pretty long but still have a stub.--Dangerous-Boy 17:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Old version of Sati

There is an old version of the article Sati (here) that was turned into a redirect. I think the old version may be have content similar to Dakshayani, but there is also some extra info in the old version.

I need to know if we can salvage the old version, or is all of its info already in Wikipedia? Thanks for your time and expertise.--Commander Keane 02:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics/INCOTW

I have added Diwali to Wikipedia:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics/INCOTW. Feel free to add your name on the suport list if you want to contribute. DaGizzaChat (c) 07:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about starting Wikipedia:Hinduism-related Collaboration of the week but I just haven't gotten around to it. It would probably be very useful for the portal.--Dangerous-Boy 04:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


request for lokenath

could someone create an article on Baba Lokenath? i do not have proffieciency in wiki-formatting to do it. plus, add durga puja to list of hindu festivals sidebar and footer.

WoodElf 10:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You can still start the article by writing it up in your style. Wiki-formats can be done later. In time, you will get a hang of it. - Ganeshk (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Template Proposal

Could we add "Pilgrimage centres" in the Hinduism template? We should at least have such a category. Also, there's an important pilgrimage centre in Pakistan called Hinglaj [17]. Jaswant Singh is going to visit it during his upcoming visit. We could have an article on it. deeptrivia (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Hindu pilgrimage sites--Dangerous-Boy 09:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh! Somehow didn't notice this (since the articles I was looking at weren't included. I'll add more articles to this category.) deeptrivia (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
IS Lake Rakshastal a pilgrimage site?--Dangerous-Boy 20:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

History of India WikiProject

The History of India WikiProject was created a while ago, but no one knew about it. The project has been discovered and revived. Hopefully history enthusiasts from this project will help support this India-related project. deeptrivia (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Help requested

The article BAPS and Swaminarayan appear to be disputed by members of various divisions. I do not understand the issues involved, and simply have tried for almost a year, to keep sourced material, etc, from being removed. I am requesting help from editors who are knowledgeable about Hinduism to make sure that these articles are fair. Much appreciated. -Will Beback 21:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Alakh Niranjan

Can anyone shed light on the meaning and importance of this phrase? deeptrivia (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


India COTW

Diwali is this week's Indian Colloboration of the Week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. - Ganeshk (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Rama PR

Hi All - I request your much-needed help and advice in making this a great FA! Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 07:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

List of famous Hindu temples

List of Hindu temples can become a very helpful page to search all important Hindu temples linked at one place.-Holy Ganga 18:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Notice to WikiHindus.

This user who goes by the name User:SocialWorker seems to have some serious issues with Hinduism. S/he has been constantly using derogatory terms to describe Hinduism and its customs. See Talk:Hindu for more details. Rohitbd 13:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on aghora sect

I've been trying to clean up the aghori article, and the disambiguation page aghora (which I think is actually rather ambiguous), but I'm no expert on Hinduism, so I figured I would put this comment here in hopes that someone who knows about the aghora sect would fix up the related articles. Fuzzform 19:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Lake Rakshastal

anyone know if Lake Rakshastal is a pilgrimage site? --Dangerous-Boy 01:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

merging concepts in Hinduism with Hindu philosophical concepts

I added a merge to the concepts in Hinduism cat.--Dangerous-Boy 11:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Kousalya, Sumitra and Kaikeyi? should be split

These three are firstly fairly important characters of the Ramayana. Secondly there are others characters in the Ramayana which are less significant but have their own page. It should be split. DaGizzaChat © 11:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Also it would be good if this page is achived soon. It is fairly big, confusing and will be reaching the 32k limit soon. DaGizzaChat © 11:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Puranas

The list of 18 Puranas in this article has 19 Puranas in it. I can't work out which one shouldn't be there so I thought I'd drop a note here. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 21:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Calling all mystics!

Please come help out @ mysticism / Talk:Mysticism. Another editor and I have been butting heads over some minor issues, and the article could really use some outside input. Please come lend a hand! Sam Spade 19:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup required

Kshatriya needs cleaning up as per Wikipedia:Cleanup#March 2, 2006. Me, not being a Hindu, is a complete moron when it comes to this article. I've tried to clean up some of it, but I don't really know how far I can go without destroying the facts. That said, Talk:Kshatriya needs some sort of cleanup too, personal attacks and a lengthy debate about stuff I don't understand. Thanks. x42bn6 Talk 12:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Kingdoms of Ancient India

interesting article --Dangerous-Boy 08:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism in Pakistan

Siddiqui (talk · contribs) has deleted the talk page of Hinduism in Pakistan (including the WikiProject Hinduism tag)[18]. The same user frequently deletes anything on articles he doesn't like without any explanations. (Examples are on Mahmud of Ghazni, Aurangzeb, Hinduism in Pakistan, Mugahl empire, Muhammed of Ghor, Ala ud din Khilji, Jammat-I-Islam and many more. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] and many more...) Many other users have pointed out to him that he shouldn't edit like this. Can somebody please tell him that deletions as a rule need explanations, preferably on the talk page but at least in the edit summary. Thanks (It should also be noted that he has deleted "negative" comments on his own talkpage.)--doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 13:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you go here and list them? User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch? --Dangerous-Boy 17:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

User:SanjayMohan

He's been vandalising the Punjabi Khatri page, calling them "Asuras." Lets keep an eye on him. GizzaChat © 03:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism article need References

That article needs to references added in order to remain a Featured article, and could any day have a very compelling case made for its removal as a featured article. PLEASE fix this. Judgesurreal777 04:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Californian Hindu textbook controversy

Californian Hindu textbook controversy needs a clean up. --Dangerous-Boy 07:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Siddiqui

Please sign.--Dangerous-Boy 18:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Vedic metal is up for deletion

Can anyone save it?--Dangerous-Boy 22:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hindu-myth-stub

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#.7B.7BHindu-myth-stub.7D.7D

Please help support getting a stub for these specific topics. --Dangerous-Boy 06:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hindu philosophers project

Hello guys! I'm Sunil Vasisht. I'm probably a month old in wikipedia as a contributor. My aim is to help balance "points-of-view" in articles that claim to be universal. I also like to contribute to wikiproject hinduism. Lets make some scholarly NPOV articles.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Peer review

the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Peer review is now online. Would anyone like to start to make a request? This will help articles with no references. --Dangerous-Boy 19:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Dates

A fairly frequent source of conflict at articles stems from the problem of supplying dates for philosophers, texts, and schools. I was planning to start an article explaining and discussing this, but couldn't be sure that one didn't already exist. If it does, could someone point me towards it? If it doesn't, what title would you suggest? It doesn't only apply to Hindu philosophy, of course, but to ancient and mediæval Indian history generally. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, as no-one seems interested, I'll start this some time under the title Problems of dating in Indian history. If anyone can think of a better title, let me know. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

himdu myth stub is up for deletion!

Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#.7B.7Bhindu-myth-stub.7D.7D_.2F_Cat:Hindu_mythology_stubs Please help save it. --Dangerous-Boy 04:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

help!

may someone help me with this problem, please? thanks --SoIssetEben! 22:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know german. --Dangerous-Boy 18:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup/expansion needed on Yogavashista

Any takers ? Megapixie 01:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you should ask User:Dburra to clean it up. He created the article and on his user page he says he will be focusing on that article. GizzaChat © 12:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
His second edit in November 2005 (creating the article) appears to have proved too much for him - and his account appears inactive. Any takers ? Megapixie 13:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I have never heard of the term. There are only 60 hits or so when searched by Google. I think it may be bogus or very non-notable. If nobody improves it in a couple of days from now, it should be listed as a AFD. GizzaChat © 05:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Archiving?

Is someone ready to do it. I'm too lazy. GizzaChat © 12:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It took me years to archive my talk page! --Dangerous-Boy 18:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hindu view of marriage is up for deletion!

if one cares....--Dangerous-Boy 23:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • As nominator, I noted "This article has been tagged for clean up since June 2005. No reliable sources are cited for the claims made in the article." --A Y Arktos\talk 23:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hindu view of marriage still needs work!

  • The deletion tag has been removed and I don't particularly object as there has been some clean up. There is till more work to be done. In conversation with the editor who had done the clean up,User:M.arunprasad, he stated "I worked on it, but later realised people all over India don't follow the same rituals. It differs from state to state and religion to religion. So It can be merged with some article instead of being a seperate article and get deleted. --M.arunprasad 11:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)"--A Y Arktos\talk 22:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I think a merge would be better.--Dangerous-Boy 06:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
maybe the Category:Hindu marriage will interest you.--Dangerous-Boy 18:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Kosas or Kosha(s)?

Hi all. The page is currently called "Kosas". Should it be moved to "kosha" or "koshas"? M Alan Kazlev 12:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Naming and transliteration to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vedic)

Trying to a get a concensus on this. Your input is appreciated. I'm trying to move the naming and transliteration formating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vedic).--Dangerous-Boy 08:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I think the article name should say Indic rather than Vedic because that would be more appropriate - otherwise Buddhists would take offense or something. --Grammatical error 16:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Really? I actually named it vedic because I thought they would take offense to it if it was indic. So far, none of the buddhists have said anything yet. Are they even coordinated? --Dangerous-Boy 20:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Buddhists have to admit Pāli comes from India but they probably wouldn't like it being called 'Vedic' because they do not accept the Vedas and the word has Hindu connotations. --Grammatical error 15:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I think Dharmic is a more accurate term than vedic. But as of now, the the naming convention focus too much on devanagari script. If the convention was named to indic, then it cover the southern scripts as well, not just the devanagari script. --Dangerous-Boy 18:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind. They should be merged.--Dangerous-Boy 23:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Now that the Vedic one has been renamed to Dharmic, both titles seem valid, so I'm not sure which one should remain and which should go. --Grammatical error 07:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


I see this discussion has been taking place in two places. As I said in the other thread, Indic was a term that came immediately to mind, and after a bit of checking, it does seem very appropriate. 'Indic transliteration' is a reasonably widely discussed subject (try googling for this, cw dharmic). The scope of any Indic transliteration standard should be widened to include historical subjects as well. (I'd go further and include all modern place names, but that will never be accepted.) Imc 10:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hindu Unity is up for deletion

it's nominated for deletion.--Dangerous-Boy 23:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Help requested on Kali Yuga article

Encouraged by Deeptrivia's addition of an NPOV tag to one section of the Kali Yuga article, I would like some help with a significant edit of the article. It desperately needs cleaning up. I've listed my suggestions on the Talk:Kali Yuga page, and would like to discuss before editing. ॐ Priyanath 00:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

more Hinduism sub stubs

going to propose more hinduism sub stubs:

  1. Hindu biography stubs
  2. Hindu temple stubs
  3. Hindu text stubs

anymore? --Dangerous-Boy 23:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Hindus is up for deletion!

List of Hindus is up for deletion!--Dangerous-Boy 05:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikification

Shiva Tandava Stotra and Kaliya are listed for wikification from January. It would take just a few minutes for someone knowledgable about this to wikify them. Someone from this project could do it. Is Sikhism also aprt of this project? Then there is also Sheesh Gunj Gurudwara. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sikhism isn't apart of this project but you are welcome to list it for cleanup in the noticeboard. The have their own portal though.--Dangerous-Boy 21:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Californian Hindu textbook controversy needs a lot of work

all hell's breaking loose there.--Dangerous-Boy 21:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Hinduism-related topics notice board

All new and improved notice board. It's easier to edit and request. enjoy! --Dangerous-Boy 20:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism article requires major work

Please see the talk page of the article for the list of issues that need to be worked on to avoid FARC. --Blacksun 14:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)