Talk:Hinduism/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions about Hinduism. 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.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

→

Modern Indian languages

Just a quick concern that Tamil listed with modern Indian languages, which, as well can be controvertial since it is declared as a classical language. Not a big deal, but better to be more accurate. Thanks! ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 19:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but note that modern simply indicates that the language is in current use, i.e. it is an antonym of Extinct languages rather than classical languages. So Tamil is both a modern and a classical language. Abecedare 23:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I reckon in that context it should be called living Indian languages rather than modern Indian languages. But that would be rather disrespectful to the sacred language of Sanskrit and hence I think its better to avoid the word modern and leave the rest. It is just an opinion. ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 23:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

How about using the adjective "contemporary" as in the footnote ? The reason an adjective is needed is to avoid frequent debates of the form "Hinduism is not a Sanskrit word. It arose only in the 19th century, so the article is misnamed. It should be called X, Y , Z which is the true ancient name" (Check the archives to see how many times this point has been debated; even earlier today the article Sanatana dharma was created as a fork instead of a redirect). The parenthetical remark thus notes right off the bat that Hinduism is used as the current name for the religion in both English and various other modern (as opposed to dead) languages, which is the standard wikipedia follows for naming articles. Does that make sense ? Abecedare 23:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(In a lighter vein)

A: I am a native Tamil speaker and I can attest that Tamil is a classical language. Calling it modern is insulting.

B: You exist, so Tamil is a modern language. QED

Abecedare 23:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think contemporary is a good word. If others do not have a problem, then I would say go for it. (BTW I don't find it insulting, rather would love it that way, being compromised about kannikazhiya endrum elamai konda Thamizh, but realised that most of the Tamils may find it otherwise). ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 01:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

aamaanga. Abecedare-ka mandele muley ille. Yannamo kannaa-mannan pesaraan. Tamil is an ancient language, period. That's a fact. Now let our friend Buddhipriya find a citation. Thanks.Kanchanamala 02:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

ekam sad

This appears to be original research:

One much-quoted verse from the Rigveda that emphasizes the diversity of paths to the one goal is:
ekam sad viprā bahudhā vadanty Truth is one, the wise call it in many different ways
—Rig Veda 1.164.46

This line is somewhat cryptic and open to many different translations and interpretations. Arrow740 19:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

We should perhaps add a translation from a well-extabilshed scholar. Griffith's translation is here at 46. is To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan. Ignoring the last part, its meaning is pretty much the same, except for the truth aspect. Though one must realise that the literal meaning of ekam sad is quite vague. Ekam mean one. Sat (sad) means truth. vandanti means call I think. Bahudha means many. Vipra I believe means wise. Therefore specific meanings of the verse only arise when it is translated according to a certain context. The Agni, Yama and Matarisvan part I presume was added for a Vedic context, which doesn't apply in Hinduism. Gizza^Chat ^© 02:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Arrow740 22:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, which translation do you want to use? Griffith, Müller? My point was that almost every translation of any text tends to be translated for a certain purpose. As an example, the Arya Samaj translation of the verse will differ from a Vaishnava translation, which will differ from a Western translation. At the moment, I don't think any source is given for the translation. I suggest using a translation of an unbiased academic on the subject. My previous comment merely explained why the translation appears to be cryptic by providing a literal meaning for each word individually. Gizza^Chat ^© 02:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What did you mean by "The Agni, Yama and Matarisvan part I presume was added for a Vedic context, which doesn't apply in Hinduism." Arrow740 04:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Radhakrsishnan's "A Source book of Indian philosophy" also quotes Griffith's translation of "ekam sad viprā bahudhā vadanty" as "To what is one, the sages give many a title" - so I think it is safe to cite this well-established translation in the article.
The complete two line verse R.V.1.164.46 is:

इन्द्रं मित्रं वरुणमग्निमाहुरथो दिव्यः स सुपर्णो गरुत्मान |
एकं सद विप्रा बहुधा वदन्त्यग्निं यमं मातरिश्वानमाहुः ||

which Griffith translates as:

They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly winged Garutmān
To what is one, sages give many a title: they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan

I hope that explains the presence of "Agni et al" in Gizza's citation. Abecedare 04:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think the full quote from an established source is best. Arrow740 04:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If you guys choose to swim in backwaters, so be it. When Griffith gave his English translation, he did so based upon what the pundits he talked to told him. He did an excellent job in his times. Times have changed. If he were alive today, he would thoroughly revise his translations, because he was a sincere scholar, trying his best to make the knowledge of the Vedas available to people who only knew English. In all fairness to that great scholar, his translation should be displayed in a museum, not relied upon by scholars anymore. I once gave the correct translation of the mantra earlier. You guys somehow ignored it. Let me give it here once again. "Agni is called Indra, Mitra, Varuna. Therefore [Agni] is Divya, Suparna, Garutman. The entitity ('sat') [Agni] is one, the scholars ('vipraah') speak of [Agni] ('vadanti') variously ('bahudhaa'). [They have] called Agni Yama [and] Matarishvaa." FYI. Let Buddhipriya look for a citation, and not call me Adi Shankara, though I would be immensely honored to be called so. Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that using a translation cited to Griffith is OK as a source, but the problem I have with this over-used passage is that I think it is too often mis-used to distort the pluralistic history of Hinduism by implying that during the Vedic period monotheism or some other form of universalist concept was prevalent, which requires that we ignore the rest of the Vedic corpus which clearly did not work from that primary assumption. The issue of whether or not there was anything like a single religious view at early times is debated, and there is a good case that can be made for the fact that the composite nature of Hinduism was the result of syncretic processes. So my preference would be to leave the quotation out, as the point in the article is that currently the various sects get along fairly well, which is true, and the reason for this is not due to that Vedic passage but due to other assimilationist forces which have been in operation for the past couple of thousand years.

Regarding the citation to Griffith, the English translation for R.V.1.164.46 is confirmed as follows by checking directly in Griffith (just one IAST change and one change in capitalization):

They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly winged Garutmān
To what is One, sages give many a title: they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan.

Citation: Griffith, Ralph T. H. The Hymns of the Ṛg Veda. London (1889). I use this reprint edition for sourcing: Motilal Banarsidass, New Revised Edition, Delhi, 1973. ISBN 81-208-0046-X.

Regarding the devanagari, it is not given in Griffith, but according to the text as given in the edition by Arya and Joshi it appears as follows, with two minor changes from that given above

इन्द्रं मित्रं वरुणमग्निमाहुरथो दिव्यः स सुपर्णो गरुत्मान्|
एकं सद्विप्रा बहुधा वदन्त्यग्निं यमं मातरिश्वानमाहुः||

Citation: Ravi Prakash Arya and K. L. Joshi. Ṛgveda Saṃhitā: Sanskrit Text, English Translation, Notes & Index of Verses. Parimal Publications, Delhi, 2001. ISBN 81-7110-138-7 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum (Set of four volumes). Parimal Sanskrit Series No. 45; 2003 reprint: 81-7020-070-9.

The citation to Arya and Joshi refers to their 2001 revised edition of Wilson's translation which replaces obsolete English forms with more modern equivalents, giving the English translation along with the original Sanskrit text in Devanagari script, along with a critical apparatus. I personally prefer their version to Griffith because it is more current and includes more modern scholarship. They are Indian scholars, which may address any concern about using Western translators. Their translation is as follows:

They have styled (him, the Sun), Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is the celestial, well-winged Garutmat, for learned priests call one by many names as they speak of Agni, Yama, Mataṛṣvan.

The critical note that Arya and Joshi provide says that "Him" (the Sun) is Sayaṇa's interpretation, and that Yāska says it is Agni, but that they are "the same", citing a couple of other passages to that effect. (volume 1, p. 434). The critical note in Griffith identifies Garutmān ("the celestial bird") with the Sun, without detail on the commentators.

There is an interesting analysis of the entire hymn in pp. 71-83 of Wendy Doniger's modern translation, which for these verses reads:

They call it Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and it is the heavenly bird that flies. The wise speak of what is One in many ways; they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan

Citation: p. 80 in: Doniger, Wendy. The Rig Veda. (Penguin Books: 1981) ISBN 0-140-44989-2

Buddhipriya 09:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahimsa

User:Arrow740 has highlighted this sentence: The term ahiṃsā first appears in the Upanishads and is of the opinion that "the move from animal sacrifice was motivated by the Buddha and Mahavira". What do others think of this statment in the article? Does it represent the consensus view? From what I've picked up on the web it appears that the Chandogya Upanishad is often given as the earliest text to include the actual term (ahimsa) - but a number of texts in the Vedas also contain reference to the ideal, if not the actual term. Could anyone verify the below quotes?

You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever. (Yajur Veda 12.32)

Those noble souls who practice meditation and other yogic ways, who are ever careful about all beings, who protect all animals, are the ones who are actually serious about spiritual practices. (Atharva Veda, 19.48.5)

One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or of another animal, and deprives others of milk by slaughtering cows, O King, if such a fiend does not desist by other means, then you should not hesitate to cut off his head. (Rig Veda 10.87.16)

From a common-sense perspective it seems not too far-fetched to assume that non-violence as a concept is much older than any particular religious text? - But that the oldest recorded use of the term would still be of relevance. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 19:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think these quotes have anything to do with ahimsa. In fact the Vedic emphasis was on himsa in the form of animal sacrifice. If the animal was sacrificed to the gods, its death was not viewed in the same way as other deaths. Even horse and bull meat was edible if it was killed in a specific way. Perhaps "kill" is not the best translation. In any case, a source would be better. Arrow740 22:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should be careful in avoiding original research or making overly broad statements about Upanishadic emphasis on himsa/ahimsa, without having strong sources to back up our statements. So far we can source that the Upanishads (Chandayoga 3.17.4 in particular; which Radhakrishnan's "Indian Philosophy" vol. 1 dates to be pre-Buddhistic) use the term ahimsa; but do not know if this is the earliest sourced usage of the term. So unless we find a source for the latter bit - perhaps we can modify the statement to simply, "The term ahimsa appears in the Upanishads ..." and readd the word "first" if/when we find a reliable source. Abecedare 04:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the sentence was added to further the POV that ahimsa was a "Hindu" invention. In fact it serves no other purpose; we are already making it clear that it is part of contemporary Hinduism, and we aren't currently discussing any reliable sources that speak to the evolution of the concept. We should just remove this sentence until someone produces one. Arrow740 04:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the same sentence from the Ahimsa article, where it was sourced to the international vegetarian union website. I think it's safe to remove it. Arrow740 04:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added reliable sources for the use of the term Ahimsa in the Upanishads (as well as Mahabharata) to the Hinduism and Ahimsa articles, while removing the unsourced claims about "first" usage. I request that you do not remove undisputed sourced information (i.e. use of the term) while justifiably deleting the unsourced bit.

Personal views: I believe that even pre-historic man must have had some conceptualization of ahimsa, at least in practice, if only to avoid unconstrained fratricide and cannibalism :-) So I doubt that any culture/society/religion can claim to be the first to have "invented" ahimsa from scratch - it is more likely that the concept evolved (and is still evolving) to include ever larger groups of fellow men and life forms (or even inanimate objects). So I find all such debates about who pioneered the concept of ahimsa to be somewhat silly. Of course, I recognize that this is just my personal view and of little relevance to the article itself, which clearly should be based upon verifiable published sources (as I have tried in my recent edits) Abecedare 05:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

himsaa is a characteristic of the conduct of certain animals. 'himsaa' means animal cruelty. In the conduct of human beings, the word for cruel is 'krura'. Ahimsa can be translated as no cruelty or noncruelty or nonbrutality. FYI. Thanks.Kanchanamala 11:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sanyaasis and Moksha

GourangaUk: if Sanyaasis don't have moksha, or liberation from the chakra of rebirth (samsaara), as their goal... what is their goal? Where is your scriptural citation for such a statement? You may ask for mine, but it is so well-known that the doctrine is hardly contested: the goal of the Hindu faith is moksha, or liberation from reincarnation... what other form of 'spiritual perfection', this abstract spiritual perfection, excludes moksha as a telos? Samaadhi implies experience of the unitary origin and sustaining force of being/becoming.... knowing it, one is liberated.... one does japa to be liberated and, in dvaita schools, brought to God's realm for eternity.... where is moksha not the ultimate goal!? --128.59.24.59 19:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There is also Samadhi and Nirvana, which are similar concepts but not the same as Moksha. Currently the page presents these terms as interchnageable, which is a problem that will need fixing. Gizza^Discuss ^© 02:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Anon, moksha or liberation is not the exclusive goal for all schools within Hinduism. Additionally to those mentioned above by DaGizza for Vaishnava sanyassis their goal is bhakti, regardless of moksha. See the below references where Lord Shiva is speaking in the Bhagavatam as two example statements from scripture. This understanding is followed by of a number of Vaishnava lineages:

Devotees solely engaged in the devotional service of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Narayana, never fear any condition of life. For them the heavenly planets, liberation and the hellish planets are all the same, for such devotees are interested only in the service of the Lord. (Bhagavata Purana 6.17.28) [1]

Surely this saintly brahmana does not desire any benediction, not even liberation itself, for he has attained pure devotional service unto the inexhaustible Personality of Godhead. (Bhagavata Purana 12.10.6) [2]

I'm sure there are other goals, different again, out there as well so my aim in changing the text was for the paragraph to be universal and apply to all possibilities. Hari Om, Gouranga(UK) 10:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

GourangaUK is right, in a sense, but the only real exception to 128's gripe seems to be bhakti schools of a particular sort. Additionally, it seems a rhetorical fillip to say service to the Lord is more important than liberation, though for many bhaktas that may well be the case. Nirvana and Moksha are pretty much the same in Hinduism, particularly with the Gita's use of nirvana as a synonym. Samaadhi is different, however, both technically and qualitatively, from nirvana/moksha, because it is experience of truth and true consciousness and all that high-falutin jazz without necessarily implying 'release' from samsaaric bondage. --69.203.80.158 00:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Foremost in antiquity

Many of the main Upanishads were written centuries into the Common Era. Arrow740 03:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Arrow can you cite this? Baka man 03:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't right now. While many of the Upanishads are old, many are not. My point is that we should have a statement from an RS on this issue. Arrow740 04:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It is believed by some scholars that a number of the Upanishads were written in more modern times - that much we could say as a fact (with references). To say they were written in the common era is a personal opinion. Gouranga(UK) 10:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Conservative dating of older Upanishads places the Brihadaranyaka, Chandogya, Taittiriya, and Aiteriya at about 700 BCE or thereabouts, the Kaushitaki a little later though not much (linguistic links). Siddhartha Gautama and Mahavira were active, by much scholarly consensus, around the middle to the end of the 5th century BCE. The Kena, Katha, Svetasvatara, and Mundaka were probably contemporary to (or in the case of the Svetasvatara later) than the Bhagavad Gita, which most agree was post-Buddhistic around 200 BCE. The Ishavasya has compelling evidence to say that it was written either right around this time or earlier, or over a period of many decades. The Mandukya and Prashna were also written around the Buddhistic period or a bit later. The only big one which is thought to have been written post 1 CE is the Maitri, which may have as late a date as 200 CE. This is mostly coming from the heavily researched introduction that Valerie Roebuck (a scholar of Buddhism) wrote for her translation of the major Upanishads. As for the writing of Upanishads in 'modern times', that phrase is so vague as to be meaningless. If by modern, one means, let's say, 1000 CE or later (though to me, having been educated on a European system, modern means around the 17th century onwards), then several Upanishads may well have been written post-1000. But Upanishads written that late or even later than the Maitri (recall estimates are around 200 CE) are considered either 'minor', 'ancillary', or to use a less value-loaded term, 'specialist' Upanishads that don't bear as much weight as the 'principal ones' which Shankaracharya made famous in the 9th century CE. --69.203.80.158 00:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd add that all the Mahaavaakyas come from the older Upanishads. --69.203.80.158 03:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you add this here and at Upanishads? This is very useful information. Arrow740 03:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Radhakrishnan and Moore (1967 Ed), which supplements what 69.203 said above:

"The ancient prose Upaniṣad, Aitareya, Kausitaki, Chandyoga, Kena, Taittiriya and Brhadarayaka, as well as the Isa and Katha, belong to the eighth and seventh centuries B.C. They are definitely pre-Buddhistic."

I haven't rendered the IAST faithfully in the above quote.
So although these Upanishads are relatively "young" compared to,say, the Rg Veda (~14/15C BCE), I think it is sufficiently accurate to summarize the overall point as "Among such texts, the Vedas and the Upanishads are the foremost in authority, importance and antiquity." in the Hinduism article lead, with the details discussed in the relevant sections/articles. As Arrow740 correctly points out, we should include this interesting, relevant, and verifiable information in the articles on Upanishad, Aitareya Upanishad, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Isha Upanishad etc. Those articles can certainly use significant expansion. Abecedare 04:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Radhakrishnan is a partisan religious source and I think he's being a little generous with the Isa, Katha, and Kena. I've seen other sources that say that only the five prose Upanishads are pre-Buddhist. Arrow740 04:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740, you are welcome to hold your opinion on Radhakrishnan and Moore; but since even you accept that a significant set of Upanishads are, in a manner of speaking, non-modern - I think the issue of the lead sentence in this article (which is the topic of discussion here) is settled. Right ? Abecedare 04:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course they're not modern. My point is that the dating of the Vedas is very different from the dating of many of the Upanishads. That sentence is misleading; if we're going to single out certain Hindu scriptures and call them foremost in antiquity, it doesn't make sense to say "the Upanishads" because it seems like the Upanishads were being written up until the corpus was more or less complete. Arrow740 05:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1) Radhakrishnan was a brilliant scholar who was well ahead of his times in engaging meaningfully and professionally with Indic religion and philosophy without lapsing into colonialist, biased reads smacking of Judeo-Christian/Eurocentric biases. His personal religious beliefs did not, in most people's opinions, affect his research, and this is one of the reasons he was one of few people of Indian origin in the mid-twentieth century to receive an Oxford professorship. Thus, I would object to calling him a 'religious source'. I think that would be unfair, since with this tack, I could write off Robert Thurman as a 'religious source'. Just a minor point. I believe we can be fair to Radhakrishnan and acknowledge that hermeneutic studies of the dating of the Upanishads was still a relatively new scholarship and he may very well have been relying on the work of respected colleagues in reaching that conclusion (a single man/woman cannot possibly do detailed and expert-level investigative work on every single aspect of his/her field. Anthropology is proof of that.)

2) A simple manner of dealing with the issue of "the Upanishads" is to simply say the "primary" or "canonical" Upanishads. In the footnote, it can be explained that the 12 or 13 Upanishads considered primary, from whence the mahavakyas and much of the material for later Indian philosophical revolutions was inspired, were set, to an extent, by Adi Shankaracharya's seminal commentary.

3) Arrow740: as for your suggestion about editing the other sites, I will try to get to it soon. I have a love-hate relationship with Wikipedia. Hence my anonymity. :) --69.203.80.158 02:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Equivocal sentence- needs rephrasing

The below sentence:
The earliest evidence for certain (minor) elements of Hinduism date back as far as the late neolithic to the early Harappan period (ca. 5500–2600 BCE).
is a bit misleading although the reference quoted says 3000 BCE. I reckon the person who wrote this meant to define the time scale as per neolithic period, but unfortunately the reference states it as just 3000 BCE. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 19:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The sentence should be changed to 3000 BCE then. Simple. Unless someone wants to add a source that says minor evidence dates further back, I have no problems in it being changed. Gizza^Discuss ^© 22:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Some comments

Hi! The article is pretty tough. I am a Hindu by birth, and know some of the things about the religion by experience, and have not read any scriptures of or book on Hinduism. This article delves mush deeper for a casual reader. The table of content is huge. The article needs more summarization. For example, the section "Beliefs" can be made to have no subsections at all. That will need the creation of a good daughter article though. A section on demographics is missing. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! It is good to see somebody with not a very extensive knowledge comment on the readability of the article. I suspected that the terminology and concepts were too deep for a first time reader. About six months ago, it was even in worse shape. [3] 95kb. Creating daughters articles is good idea. We could therefore avoid Wikipedia:Main article fixation. In fact, I just saw that Hinduism is used as an example on that page!

My first suggestion would be merging the "Brahman", "Ishavara" and "Atman" sections together because there is lot of repitition and overlap in content. The second paragraph of Brahman section, for example, is discussing the concept of Ishvara anyway. As a comparison with the two religion FAs, Sikhism and Islam, Sikhism is 41kb and Islam is 93kb. But as you say, the article is missing sections such as Demographics and Criticism. Gizza^Discuss ^© 22:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I just saw User:Dwaipayanc/sandbox5 and I support most of your proposed changes. I think that your "Concept of God" section should be divided into two, only because of its length. Otherwise, good work! Gizza^Discuss ^© 04:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Another glaring drawback—many of the citations from books lack specific page number or page range. Some citations say "see generally" before the name of the book. This won't be acceptable in the FAC.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point, Dwaipayanc and thanks for bringing in the much needed viewpoint of an "external" reviewer. I'll try adding page numbers from the books I have access to, and perhaps other contributors can do the same.

Question: Just yesterday I added this footnote (after the discussion above). Will the FAC reviewers object to such explanatory footnotes in general or to "For a discussion on the topic, see ..." ? Should we change the latter to simply "See ..." ? Abecedare 17:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The way you added the above-mentioned footnote is ok. We've seen such instances in FAs. This rather helps a reader. However, sometimes such notes are added in other style. See the difference in "Notes" and "Citations" sections in articles such as Rabindranath Tagore, Religion in India etc. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer! I'll perhaps put in the effort to separate out the citations and notes someday soon; may be a while though. Abecedare 21:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Notes

I just saw in the to-do list that we need to reduce the size of this article below 65K, which is very evident. In my opinion, it should be reduced below 60K for better readability. One thing I suggest is, we cut back on Footnotes. There are 128 footnotes in the article, and they consume huge size. If the sub article is referenced properly, according to WP:SS we don't need to reference them again here. We need to remove references from lead, they are not needed in the lead. We need to add two more sections according to to-do list so there are lot of things to prune in this article. Gnanapiti 17:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Etymology section need to be combined with either lead or History. There is no point having a section with just 2-3 sentences. There are too too too many subsections in the article. For example History section. All those subsections need to be combined.Gnanapiti 17:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

While considering the size, we can exclude the Citations and Notes sections, and mention that in FAC. For example, see this archived FAC of Jerusalem, where the readable prose size was mentioned and linked to. This archived FAC of Lage Raho Munna Bhai can also be seen where the size question came into spotlight, and was replied by mentioning the readable prose size. Lead may have citations, if needed, per WP:LEAD ("should be carefully sourced as appropriate"). We should not cut citations in order to decrease the size. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Dwaipayanc is right. As per the manual of style, footnotes, refs etc don't count towards "readable prose".

I think "Etymology" perhaps deserves a short section of its own since, as in Islam, India etc and since it is a distinct topic. However, surely, stubby subsections such as Puja, Devotional singing, Yajna, Murti, Temples, Iconography, Japa and mantra, Pilgrimage, Hindu festivals, all of which deal with "worship" more or less, can be consolidated under one or two, or max. three sub-section headings. Abecedare 21:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

History sections

I merged "Epics" and "Mahajapanadas" (Philosophy) sections together because chronologically they overlap and we should remove excessive sectionisation. I think that the "Indology and reform movements" is an example of this article suffering from WP:RECENT. The last para of that sub-section will go to Demographics but it still needs to be further pruned. Btw, well done Dwaipayan for compacting the Beliefs section! Gizza^Discuss ^© 00:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism#Schools_of_philosophy

It is only two lines and in the "Scriptures" section so I believe it should merged somewhere else. Perhaps in beliefs? Gizza^Discuss ^© 01:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Monasticism section

The section before on Ashramas briefly mention Sannyasis in one sentence. I think removing this section and adding one or two more sentences to the section before is appropriate to cut down on the number of sections (ie. shrink the ToC) and the general length of the article. Gizza^Discuss ^© 05:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-writing beliefs

I tried to re-write the beliefs section, removing about 7 KB in the process. Please see. Also, I have fixed some references in that section (that is, used templates and incorporated as much information as available about the references). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

hinduism and the sikh panth restored link

I restored this link because the article looked useful and was relevant. If there is anything that is untrue or offensive it should be addressed in the [Hinduism and Sikhism] article, and not by removing the link to it. My knowledge of Sikhism is not sufficient to comment on the current accuracy of the linked article. -- Q Chris 11:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes

Hi! I am making several changes in the article. Merging sub-sections, trying to make more compact, and regularizing the references. Please see and edit as appropriate. Also, before making major changes, I invite you to my sandboxes where various sections are being kept. Please make changes there first, then copy to the article. This helps a lot. Relevant sandboxes are User:Dwaipayanc/sandbox13, 12 and 11. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

References etc

Hi! I have started the process of separating explanatory footnotes and citations. Also, in "References" section, all the books are now in Harvard referencing format. This will be helpful, as inline citations can now be placed in Harv or Harvnb formats. Since the article uses a lot of book references, I thought Harvard referencing style and citations will be better suited. I shall start on converting appropriate inline citations to Harv format soon. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The separation into two sections as you are doing is not consistent with WP:LAYOUT and seems to me to be confusing. I think it should be reverted. Regarding Harvard reference templates, I do not object to the Harvnb template per se, but I do object to the use of named references, as they make it very difficult to have multiple editors changing individual items. If one named reference is changed, there is collateral damage elsewhere that is hard to unscramble. Significant changes to citation methods in a article need consensus. Can you please hold off on further changes until this is fully-discussed? Buddhipriya 21:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Henotheism and polytheism are not hindu concepts

The user Abecedare removed my edit to the "concept of god" section claiming it is personal POV. Here is what I had added.

"In fact there are no traditions in Hinduism which accept that there is more then one supreme god. There is confusion on this issue maybe because of the term deva which is translated in the west as "god". A more accurate description for western understanding of the word deva would be god or demigod (angel), when it comes to understanding whether or not Hinduism is henotheistic, polytheistic, monotheistic or monistic. Often the problem of understanding this point is derived from misunderstandings of the Vedas. While there are many devas in the Vedas it is made clear that they are all different names and aspects of one supreme god. [4] . If you take any branch of Hinduism you will find that in every case (except maybe for the atheistic) there is one supreme being whose adherents believe that the god of the other traditions are aspects of their own god or relegated to the postion of an angel like being or demigod. For example the Vaishnavas believe that Vishnu is supreme and all pervading and that all other devas are cognate with angels in the Abrahamic religions, or they are considered as aspects of Vishnu. In devotional Shaivism the same belief is held for Shiva. In the Advaita based traditions all the devas are considered as manifestations of the one supreme all pervading Brahman. In every case there is belief in one god, with the other devas relegated to either being aspects of that one god or beings with similar roles and powers as angels in Abrahamic religions. This is not true henotheism nor is it polytheism."

If you cheack the wikipedia article on Hindu monotheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_monotheism#Overview you will see it says the same thing I added here. The current state of the "concept of god" in the hinduism article is inaccurate. My addition is not POV, it is backed up by sources and is common knowledge amongst hindus and hindu scholars.Shiva das 02:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't fit because.

It is not reliably sourced
It is long and doesnt fit in
Its undue weight on one paragraph.

The factual basis is irrelevant as it is poorly sourced and long and lecturing in an otheriwse shor paragraph.Baka man 23:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Very certainly, anything sourced from Voice of Dharma is not reliably sourced. Hornplease 00:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact the article claims that hinduism is henotheistic and even polytheistic then links to wiki article's on henotheism and polytheism. The link to the wiki article on polytheism in the hindu section pretty much says that hinduism isn't polytheism. Henotheism is a term invented by Max Muller who was a christian propagandist trying to convert hindus to christianity. See this article, the section on controversies and quotations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Muller. Is Max Muller the authority on Hinduism for wikipedia? I know his influence on Indology has been extensive but today is widely rejected and seen as propaganda. I included a link to a page which gathered numerous verses from the original vedas contradicting what Muller taught. It isn't very long and it fits in better then what is currently in place which is inaccurate. Can any of you name a hindu tradition which espouses a belief that there is more then one god? Of all the mainstream hindu traditions i.e vaishnavism, shaivism, shaktism, advaita vedanta, and smartism, which teach that there is more then one god? Answer: none of them. What I wrote is accurate, maybe simply adding links to the mainstream tradition's articles on wikipedia is what is needed, including these sources http://www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/beliefs/theism.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_monotheism. As the article stands it is misleading and inaccurate. If none of the mainstream hindu traditions teach henotheism nor polytheism then why does the section on god begin by calling hinduism henotheistic and polytheistic?Shiva das 02:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it seems that Henotheism was a term invented to pursue an anti-hindu agenda. The definition from the article as 'devotion to a single "God" while accepting the existence of other gods' certainly does not describe modern Hinduism. I don't know enough to be able to comment on her it reflected early Vedic beliefs. This term was introduced in [this edit] and seems to have gone unchallenged. -- Q Chris 07:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's a fool's errand to search for a single adjective that accurately defines the Hindu concept of God, especially since the concept varies so widely not only among different philosophical schools but also in practice. Also I think wikipedia shouldn't become the arbiter on this widely debated subject and label any of these descriptors as "incorrect" or "true". We are better off just sticking to the facts and stating that, (a) these various adjectives (monism, polytheism, henotheism ...) have been applied to Hinduism, (b) none of these terms are universally accepted or cover all the diverse traditions encompassed within Hinduism. Then we can briefly outline (a somewhat 'generic' view of) Hindu concept of God leaving the details/exceptions to the more specialized articles. As I read it, the current version of the article already takes this approach, and while I am fine with tweaking the wording/organization, I don't think presenting a single viewpoint and declaring it to be true or accurate is appropriate. Abecedare 07:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying, but the way the section starts with this term gives the impression that either henotheism is somehow the most obvious way of describing Hinduism or that it is somehow a valid simplification of the reality. What if we changed the emphasis of the first sentence to say something like:

Hinduism has a a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, monism and even atheism. It is sometimes considered as henotheistic (devotion to a single "God" while accepting the existence of other gods), but such a view is an oversimplification of the complexities and variations of belief.

I can see that this is a difficult area so I won't change this until I have some feedback to the appropriateness of the change. -- Q Chris 07:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I for one like your suggestion! Abecedare 08:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't mind changing the sentences around. Gizza^Discuss ^© 08:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest replacing "such a view is" with "such a view may be considered". Otherwise it sounds too firm, and someone might want a citation. Hornplease 08:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that before if you check the history, the it is sometimes considered sentence contained polytheism, not henotheism as it does now. Is such a sentence even necessary as long as henotheism is mentioned in the sentence before? Why is henotheism singled out? Gizza^Discuss ^© 08:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Change made as described -- Q Chris 09:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

<reset indent>
It would be a good idea to mention a reference anyway. We can use Michaels, A (2004), Hinduism: Past and Present, who not only mentions the above terms (he himself prefers the term homotheism or equitheism!) but also says (Preface xiv)

Talk of "Saivism" or "Vaisnavism" is rarely thought through; the term henotheism, worship of one god in a polytheistic milieu, coined by the religious scholar and Indologist Max Muller (1823-1900) is still used, even though it misses the mark

(I am not proposing that we include the quote; just showing the the charge of oversimplification is defensible) I also agree with Gizza's point that there is no particular reason to single out henotheism and perhaps we can leave out the second sentence altogether. Abecedare 08:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Without the 'incorrectly' it now reads as if Henotheism is the most accurate description. I would vote for removing the first line, and including henotheism among the list of others without giving it any particular emphasis. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 09:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I made the change before reading these comments. I can see from the ongoing discussion that this probably won't be the last version of the sentence. -- Q Chris 09:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any -ism needs any particular emphasis. I think it is better to say that Hinduism could be any of them. Highlighting one of them in particular will only confuse the reader and narrow his/her thoughts about Hinduism. Gizza^Discuss ^© 10:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This would reduce the first paragraph to:

Hinduism has a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, monism, henotheism (devotion to a single "God" while accepting the existence of other gods), and even atheism.

I think that this is clear and unbiased, but I hate single paragraph sentences! Can anyone think of anything else to add to the introductory paragraph? -- Q Chris 10:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Henotheism and polytheism are not exclusively Hindu concepts, but are fully ingrained in the Hindu faith. User:IAF

How about replacing the entire section? Why pander to people's misconceptions? What does "Concept of God" mean? Is the current description the best? Here is something which I feel is more informative and accurate when it comes to the "concept of God" within Hinduism. What do you think?

"While there are many different concepts of God within the varied traditions which make up Hinduism, they all share certain basal concepts. The first is panentheism or the philosophy that God is comprising everything we experience while simultaneously existing beyond what we experience. The second is Sat-Chit-Ananda which is made up of three words; Sat=truth of existence or being; Chit=consciounes or soul; Ananda=bliss or spiritual joy. The phrase is ubiquitous throughout all hindu traditions and means that God is the blissful truth and being of all existence. The third is the concept of Brahman or the all pervading consciousness of God as the ground of all being. There are two dominant mainstream philosophies on the nature of God within Hinduism. Most all hindu traditions ascribe to either a form of monotheistic panentheism or a form of monistic panentheism. These two basic ideologies are categorized under the headings of the dualist traditions and the nondualist traditions. The dualist traditions teach that God exists everywhere and comprises everything in existence and also that God is a unique individual soul who is essentially different then all other souls and who is in control of all existence and is worshipped in the form of Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, etc. The nondualist traditions also teach that God exists everywhere and comprises everything in existence but that God is not essentially a unique soul in the sense of being different then all other souls and that people's individual karma is in control of their lives. They teach that all souls are one with God in the highest understanding of reality. To them God and all souls are ultimately nothing but Brahman or the unndifferentiated spirit or consciousness behind and comprising all of reality. Sometimes Hinduism is described as displaying henotheistic or polytheistic tendencies, but in reality this confusion is caused because of the large number of Devas or demigods worshipped within the Hindu pantheon. For non hindus it can seem like Hinduism is polytheistic or henotheistic, but in truth the devas are seen in every tradition as either avatars or aspects of the one supreme God or Brahman, or as God's empowered celestial managers cognate with angels in the Abrahamic religions. Hindus commonly worship demigods in the hope of some material or spiritual benefit, it's done in the same spirit as in christian faiths where the devote pray to angels and saints and also worship the virgin mary apart from their belief and worship in one God."Shiva das 01:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being harsh, but I don't see how it is better than the current section. Without any refereces, your analysis is WP:OR. The comparison with Abrahamic religions makes it appears to be written from a Western context, violating WP:NPOV. I also don't understand why you are so keen on eradicating henotheism and polytheism from the religion. Hinduism is more than Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism and Smartism. Gizza^Discuss ^© 01:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There are references, certainly more then there is now. What I wrote is not original research, it is common knowledge and accepted and taught by hindu teachers and scholars the world over. Why should henotheism and polytheism be written about as being hindu beliefs when that is only the beliefs of non hindus about hinduism? 99% of hindus are either vaishnavas, shaivites, advaitins, shaktas, or smartas, there are also tantric traditions within those denominations. Would you argue that the articles on christianity should talk about the beliefs of the countless tiny sects like the branch davidians or the children of god as if they belong in an encyclopedia article on christian philosophy? The reason I use angels as an analogy is because everyone in all cultures knows what angels are. In fact the concept of angels was originally imported into judaism from the persians in Babylon. The persian zoroastrians who freed the jews from the babylonians had a strong influence on judaism and it underwent a major revision at that time including incorporating the concept of angels from the persians. The zoroastrian source for their angel theology was incorporated from the vedic (hindu) religion. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angels and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrian_angelology and http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:jrXjxU7DN5cJ:www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/zoro So in fact the christian and jewish and islamic concepts of angels is originally derived from the hindu concept of the devas through the zoroastrians.Shiva das 02:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:FRINGE. I think they'll clarify the errors in your arguments better than anything we can write here. Thanks. Abecedare 02:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This is from the wikipedia article on angels in the section on hinduism.

"Hinduism

In English, the Sanskrit word Deva is usually translated as "god" (though sometimes left as "Deva"), which certainly gives a polytheistic appearance to Hinduism. Many Hindus say that this is a poor practice, because the best word for God in Sanskrit is Ishvara (the Supreme Lord). The Devas may be better translated as angels or demigods. They are celestial beings with supernatural powers, but also weaknesses. They grant material benefits to humans upon praying and sacrificing to them, though they don't carry the message of Ishvara to the humans as in Abrahamic religions (a category of such beings also exist, called "devaduta" or "duta"). Examples of Devas are Indra and Surya. Buddhism and Jainism also use the word "deva", but in different senses."

I have read those sections. You don't have to give a unique reference for every single philosophical point. Look at the current state of the section on the concept of god, where are the references you demand of me?Shiva das 03:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Shiva, please don't spam talk pages by quoting extensively from other wikipedia articles. If you have read WP:RS as you claim, you should have noted that "A Wikipedia article, or any article from an open wiki" is not an acceptable source.

And as for your, question, "Look at the current state of the section on the concept of god, where are the references you demand of me?" - I have no idea what you are referring to since almost every sentence in the current version of the section is referenced (click on the superscripted numerals). Abecedare 03:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my intrusion, but shouldn't deva mean 'deity', rather than god? God would imply a singular being (unless of course in the case of Greek mythology where you have numerous 'gods' -- still, I'm not sure they really are explicitly referred to as 'gods' in classical Greek literature). AppleJuggler 13:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

no, see god (word). Only when capitalised, as God, does the term refer to monotheism; lower-case god is a perfectly adequate translation of deva. dab (𒁳) 15:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

god (word) redirects to God (word). Your assertion is incorrect semantically.Baka man 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing reference -- please check

Reference [18] in the text has no entry in the References/Notes section. AppleJuggler 13:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem was due to the fact that the article makes extensive use of named references, which are very difficult to maintain. I think that the use of named references should be eliminated, because the effect of them is that if one editor changes something in one place, there is collateral damage elsewhere that can be very difficult to assess. It took me multiple editing passes trying to fix one broken reference before I noticed this issue here. We also are making extensive use of the Harvard templates, which is dislike. Changes to the citation system or another is something that should be discussed prior to making extensive changes. Currently the article is using error-prone methods that the most difficult procedurally, increasing the chances of similar errors in the future. Buddhipriya 21:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Notes and Citations sections

Somehow the article has gotten out of line with [[5]] and now has sections for Notes and Citation as separate things. I think this should be fixed, using Notes for inline citations and References as the list of works cited in Notes, per policy. We also have got a couple of quotations from the Gita added, which seem to me to be functioning as linkspam advertisements. I think these should be reverted as part of the cleanup of the citation structure. I have renamed the Notes section to follow the standard. The remaining loose ends in Citations can be integrated into Notes if they are to be kept at all. Buddhipriya 20:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the Notes/citation change was made intentionally by User:Dwaipayan based on his experience with FAC. (see Talk:Hinduism#Some comments and Talk:Hinduism#References etc). I think it would be a good idea to discuss the issue with him before reverting, so that we don't flip-flop between two styles. Abecedare 21:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted my own change and put the headings back to Citations and Notes as they were, but I strongly object to that setup and would like to return to the established approach. The use of two different sections for citations makes it very difficult for the reader to easily see references, and increases the complexity of maintaining the two lists. The use of two sections conflicts with the standard setup shown at Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout. During FAC, many variations in layout wind up being approved, but if you follow the talk page for WP:LAYOUT you will see that there is a general tendency to prefer the standard arrangements. So experience with a specific FAC is not determinative. What do other editors think about this issue? Buddhipriya 21:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya, how exactly are links to an online version of a published work by Bhaktivedanta Swami (Bhagavad-Gita As-It-Is) classed as linkspam? There are not even any images or commercial products included in the site. Gouranga(UK) 17:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

At present, inline citation number 18 and 40 are missing. Yes, those were the result of mismanagement while I was re-structuring the article. Sorry for that. I shall fix the damage. Named references can be used in case of citing a footnote more than once, per Wikipedia:Footnotes. I am gradually restructuring the notes, references etc, and the process is taking some time. Sorry for the inconvenience caused. As a first step for FAC, citations should e proper and properly maintained. It would be great if I am allowed some time. You can always revert the changes if you think the final form is worse than what it was before. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the notes and citation should be recombined. What most people who think their way is better neglect to consider is that sooner or later, other editors will feel compelled to edit it back to existing guidelines. Please, please, please, if you sincerely think your way is better, discuss it on the guidelines talk pages and change the guidelines. But first, think about the work entailed to bring nearly 2 million article to your preferred style. There's a ton of inertia here, and it will bring the articles back to the guidelines eventually, regardless of the fact that they are not "policy". IPSOS (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I support the approach which IPSOS tried to implement, which would be to fall back to the previous stable version and then incrementally re-apply some of the edits, but remain in compliance with standard layout guidelines. However I see that the fallback which IPSOS implemented has now been reverted by an editor for whom I have great respect. I will refrain from making any direct edits on the article itself pending getting better agreement on what should be done. Any major change to the referencing system for an article should be done only with agreement of multiple editors, so personally I think that the older method should be put in place again unless there is more explicit support for making a change. Regarding named footnotes, I understand that they are permitted, but that does not mean that using them is a good idea. They are very hard for multiple editors to maintain because a change to one of them can produce unexpected impacts elsewhere. It is so difficult to get editors to do any citations at all, using a robust method is essential, in which individual notes can rise and fall without needing to affect the entire fabric of the article. Buddhipriya 03:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

See my comment on IPSOS's talk page for an explanation of my reversion, which I did after getting his consent. Changing the 6 notes to citations, if that is what we decide to do, will be very easy to do by hand since that involves just 6 discrete edits while reverting to the older version undoes all the effort put in consolidating sections, adding references and improving prose. IMO content edits will be harder to replicate than simple formatting changes, so I prefer we move forward from the current version of the article rather than start from the older version. Of course, we still have to decide what style to follow (a topic on which I have no set views yet) and we can wait for Dwaipayan to comment on the issue before proceeding. Abecedare 03:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, another thing that I think should be cleaned up is use of notes to add uncited elaboration on content of the main article. If I say "The sun is big." and then add a citation which says "In fact, it is really, really big, bigger even than the moon." that statement itself is just more unsourced opinion which should be cut unless a real citation can be given for it. So many of the notes that appear in articles give an illusion of referencing where none in fact exists. I generally cut all such notes, or move them into the main body of the article and put a fact tag on them. I understand that others may approach the critical apparatus in different ways, however, and I mention it simply to get the issue on the table. Buddhipriya 03:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I shall put my views a little bit later. I am just clarifying one thing now. In the present version, the "Notes" section lists those kind of "opinion"s as mentioned by Buddhipriya in the comment immediately above. And Citation section contains direct citations (book pages or websites) However, some opinions are not unsourced. Also, the process I started was not complete. So, some "opinion"-like references are still in Citation section. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Dwaipayan asked me to comment. I've seen several articles use the system employed here; in fact, I recently changed Tourette syndrome to a similar method to accommodate one Note. And, if you read the entire page at WP:GTL, you find that in true Wiki-style, it contradicts itself on this matter anyway. At one point it says Notes isn't for cited material (only Notes), but then later, it says Notes is where you put cited material. So, you do what makes sense. I think what is done here now makes the best sense for the reader, given the number of Notes, Citations, and References. And, I'd be surprised to see an Object over this at WP:FAC. (While I'm here ... can you prune down the See also and remove the red links there? Ideally, links should be incorporated into the text and not repeated in See also.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes in reference and notes temporarily ceased

Per the request of Buddhipriya, further changes to references, citations and notes sections will not be carried out. So, we are open for a discussion. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thank you so much for the effort which you have been making on this. I hope you will forgive me for raising this issue after it was implemented rather than beforehand, as I understand that you made a good faith effort to seek opinion on it. My time on Wikipedia has been rather limited in the past two weeks and I was not around at the time the change was made. So your willingness to deal with a latecomer's concerns is much appreciated. I fully support the general idea of upgrading the reference structure of the article, and am glad to see someone actively trying to improve things. My concerns are related to the practical issues that I have seen on other articles when the complexity of the referencing system increases. I have come to believe that it is best to use the simplest methods whenever possible, and comply as fully as we can with the general format standards, as that makes articles more robust and consistent across Wikipedia. Personally I try to follow a one-revert rule for this sort of thing, so I will make no further edits to the main article until some group consensus has emerged on the best approach. Buddhipriya 03:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:FOOT says I am not doing wrong!!

Hi! Ok, here goes my defense :) I am quoting from Wikipedia:Footnotes. "It is possible, however, to use the template system to e.g. separate content notes and references when that is deemed a good idea (this is often the case when content notes must be themselves cited, see, for example, Alcibiades)."

Now, I have already clarified above the rationale behind creating two sections "Notes" and "Citations" in Hinduism. Many points under "Notes" (which are statements needed to explain/clarify certain portions of the text) need/will need citations. For example, in the present version, "d", "e" and "f" in Notes have citations for themselves. And points "b" and "c" also basically need to be curbed and added a citation superscript (which I shall do if we reach consensus to retain this approach).

So, per guidelines, this approach is ok. Now, for clarity and userfriendliness, I can assure you that once completed, this will look very user-friendly. As example, once again, I request you to see the articles Rabindranath Tagore and List of Harry Potter films cast members.

Regarding use of named references. If we do not use named reference, the same reference codes have to be written multiple times. This will increase the total size, and the same references will unnecessarily appear multiple times in the "Citations" sections (which is particularly less pleasing to the eyes in case of website references). In fact, I remember some FACs (I forgot which ones, so cannot cite) where combining of references by using named references were suggested. Buddhipriya, if we can get FA status for the article, it will undergo much less changes than it currently enjoys. And, before making it to the FAC, we'll reach a somewhat stable version. Several articles (and most of FAC articles) use named references, without any kind of multi-user chaos. That is not really any big problem. --Dwaipayan (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks SandyGeorgia for helping clarify the things (please see Sandy's comment at 04:47, 18 July 2007 here). So, IMO, in gist, what is needed is what "makes sense", or, at least, avoid what makes less sense.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd seen that somewhere. Only on Wiki can we have three different pages discussing note layout (WP:MSH, WP:FOOT and WP:GTL). Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, "possible" is not the same as "advisable", "permitted" or "recommended". It's still an extremely bad idea. WP:CITE says that the citation style should be determined by consensus of the regular editors of the article. Before making such a major and hard to reverse change, you should have determined if the consensus supported it: it doesn't. Your note on my talk page is simply wikilawyering. Yes, you found a loophole. No, it doesn't give you the right to override consensus. IPSOS (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(reset indentation)

Again, I am very grateful to User:Dwaipayanc for making such a sincere effort to improve the citation system. I do not think he or she has done anything "wrong". I simply do not agree that use of this non-standard system is a good idea. As IPSOS points out, the fact that a variation can occur does not mean that it should occur. The standard arrangement for articles is shown very clearly at WP:LAYOUT#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions.

I still have not seen any positive statement as to why having a non-standard arrangement with two separate sections for Notes and Citations is better than using the standard arrangement using one Notes section for all footnotes. I find the use of two sections confusing and I am sure that the average reader, who is not an expert in Wikipedia layout, will have no obvious basis for knowing why one note is placed in one section rather than another. To me, the separation makes no sense. I do not recall ever seeing this type of arrangement with two note sections used in an academic text in quite the way it is being suggested for use here. Perhaps it is used somewhere, but even if so, it is the exception rather than the rule. I just looked in several of the academic texts that I cite most often on Wikipedia, and not a single one of them uses such a system; all use the typical method of having one set of notes. The method of using two sections is not used on any other article in the Hinduism project that I work on. Should all of the rest of the articles in the project be changed to comply with this new method?

The fact that a non-standard layout is sometimes seen in an article that made it through FAC is not an argument to use that layout, because the majority of articles that make it through FAC use the standard arrangement, which calls for one section. There is no evidence that using non-standard organization for articles improves chances of making it through FAC. The majority of FA articles use the standard layout, so from a probability point of view, it would seem that using the standard is a good idea.

The second, independent issue is the use of named references, which creates maintenance problems as previously noted, because changing one note affects all of them in ways that most editors will not pay any attention to. I continue to feel that all such named references should be removed, and that their use should be discouraged. The fact that named notes eliminates multiple footnotes for the same page is a defect of the method, not a benefit, because that helps to conceal overuse of a single source, a problem that is revealed by citing multiple uses of the same text independently. The issue of duplicate notes does not exist if you use the strongest citation method, which is to include text in each note that explicitly links the citation to the text of the article. As an example, if the article says: "The sun is big." there could be a footnote reading: "For diameter of the sun estimated to be two miles, see: Jones (1882), p. 45." A second use of Jones might be elsewhere in the article to cite the statement: "The moon has vast lakes of fresh water.", cited with the note: "For summary of evidence for lakes on the moon, and extensive presence of aquatic life there, see: Jones (1882), p. 45." The point of this is that two facts on the same page may require multiple notes and elaboration because they discuss different things, and that citing them independently in this way makes the critical apparatus less vulnerable to disintegration over time. Many editors pay no attention at all to existing footnotes, and often change the text of articles without changing the footnotes, or move text without moving the footnotes. The use of comments in notes to link them to article text makes it much easier to verify that the note does in fact apply to the text it is appended to. This practice makes the notes more "bulletproof" and simplifies the work of later editors who may not know what the sources actually say. Regarding added length, the length of footnotes does not count against total article length for purposes of FAC as far as I know, so the issue of increased length is not relevant.

I continue to feel that the best approach would be to fall back to the last stable version and reapply whatever points are felt to be worth reapplying. However I can certainly understand why some would feel that a better solution would be to incrementally edit what is in place now.

In any case, thank you for the opportunity to discuss citation issues in some detail. It is important that the Hinduism project raise the bar on citation methods, and this dialog can only have positive effects in the long run, regardless of what the group decides to do with regard to the specific question. I would like to hear from other regular editors of Hinduism articles to be sure their preferences are understood before we assume that there is consensus one way or the other. Buddhipriya 15:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding IPSOS's comment, IPSOS says, "...you should have determined if the consensus supported it: it doesn't." Can you kindly show me what/where is the consensus? It has not been reached. It does not seem you alone make the consensus :) Right, buddy? And I did not do the changes suddenly. I first proposed it, and then on getting a nod from one or two of the regular editors (Abecedere, Gizza), started doing it.

Regarding Buddhipriya's comment, yes I too have never seen separate sectioning in any academic articles. And your reasoning "The majority of FA articles use the standard layout, so from a probability point of view, it would seem that using the standard is a good idea." sounds solid. If most of the regular editors of the editors of the article find the two sectioning worse, then we'll change those things in "Notes" to standard method. I can do it manually very easily, no need for revert.

My reasoning for two sections is to differentiate comment-like notes from just mentioning page numbers.

Regarding named references, your example perfectly serves my purpose. If you cite two different sources (different lines of the same page number as exemplified you, different page, different books), of course no need to name it (I mean not necessary to use named reference, though it can be named). If you use the same source (same line, same paragraph, or same chapter without mentioning any specific line) multiple times, then use named reference.

You say that, "I continue to feel that all such named references should be removed, and that their use should be discouraged. The fact that named notes eliminates multiple footnotes for the same page is a defect of the method, not a benefit, because that helps to conceal overuse of a single source." No it does not conceal overuse, Because, there are a, b, c, d....etc for every time the same source is used. And yes, the added length in citation does not count towards readable prose length. No probs with that.

It would be great to hear from other regular editors of the article and other wikipedians who are knowledgeable on citation styles (for example, SandyGeorgia, who knows much better that all of us on citation methods. You can see Sandy everywhere in FAC, FAR, FARCs and everywhere else.). Thanks. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A few randomly organized points:

I personally like the separate Notes and Citation sections for well developed articles such as this one. Notes, as the title suggests, serves as explanatory comments (similar to what one finds in footnotes or end notes of some books, and in footnotes of academic journals) while Citations are plain references to external work. Analogies aside, two advantages of this separation are:
- As Buddhipriya said above (and Kanchanamala has also mentioned before), explanatory notes among the citations gives an illusion that a statement (and the overall article) is referenced without actually being so; two distinct sections overcomes this problem.
- As WP:FOOT notes, separate sections allow us to cite the notes themselves. This for example, will be useful for the footnotes following "Indian languages" and "religion".
The Citation + Notes machinery is very heavy for an average wikipedia article (which is I think ~1.5K in size), so it is not surprising that it is found only in well-developed/FA articles. Since the format doesn't flout any MOS guidelines, and also has precedent, we should base our choice on the merits and appropriateness of the format for this article. Equally importantly we should try to see it from the POV of the reader and not editors. So if the new format is thought to be confusing for the article reader (as Buddhipriya indicates) that is a very valid concern, but I request that we move past in-house process objections regarding "non-consensual" introduction of the change, consultation with "regular editors", and maintenance issues.
So for now I lean towards preferring the new formatting, although I can certainly live with the single section layout.

Thoughts/comments ?

PS: Dwaipayan, you should have named this talk-page section "My foot!" :-) Abecedare 18:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Update Conversation regarding the spliting going on in talk page og WP:GTL.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite substantial good faith dialog on this matter, at this point I do not feel that we have consensus to go with the two-section method. Would it be appropriate to return the article to the standard one-section setup now, or do we need to discuss this further? Buddhipriya 01:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I say go ahead and restore the prior consensus version (one-section). No consensus to move to the two-section method has been evinced. IPSOS (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, consensus has not been reached. Let a few more regular editors opine.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you had to show consensus before you made the change. You didn't. You still have not shown it. We can change it back anytime. IPSOS (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you do not seem to be a regular editor of the article, your opinion holds less value (like mine, another irregular editor). So far, two regular editors (Buddhipriya and Abecedere) have opined. Before doing the changes, I declared the intention and waited. After getting the nod from from one regular editor (Abecedere) and no comments from another regular editor (Gizza) I started. You were nowhere then (that's understandable, it is not possible to be in wikipedia all the time). Same goes now also. We should wait for some more regular editors. Also, the splitting is permitted per WP:GTL. So it is not wrong to have it. The only question remaining is application of that in this article, which at least some regular editors should opine about.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a regular editor in the subject area, and have been a regular editor of this article in the past if you go back far enough. When Buddhipriya started editing the article, he was doing such a good job that I temporarily took this article (and several others) off my watchlist. Now I see that even excellent editors like User:Buddhipriya sometimes need support and I've readded it to my watchlist. IPSOS (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I went back as far as 1 January 2003. Used this to see who are/were the regular editors. Sorry, did not find you as a regular editor of this article. Your first contribution seems to be on 2007-07-18, unless that program is malfunctioning. So your opinion does not count as that of a regular editor of this article (as does not mine). Thanks for adding the article in watchlist once again.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)

Ah, well, I certainly had it on my watchlist. You may be right that I didn't actually make any edits. Still, I am now an editor of the article.

If you don't mind some unsolicited advice, you seem to be taking this way too personally. This isn't about you, it's about how other editors prefer to do the references in this article. You are attempting to exercise a little used option, and rather than be attached to having it your way, when it becomes clear that there is strident disagreement and only lukewarm support, it might be better to simply let it drop. After all, the change you propose is in no way required for an article to achieve FAC which seems to be your actual goal. IPSOS (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)