Talk:Jagannath Temple, Puri/Archive 1

Info box makes temple page ugly

To me it detracts a huge amount from the real beauty of the temple. That's my opinion. But I don't have to look at it. No one is forcing me to. I'll just look at other pages that I do find attractive, since this is your article now, apparently. Mattisse (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that infobox gives better organization, with easier access to important info like, Date built, architecture, Builder, etc. and conforms better with an encyclopedic organization than without it<IMHO>. Balajiviswanathan 02:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How come what you think counts the most? How come you act as if you are violating WP:OWN? And by the way, you are essentially copying info from those web pages. Just because you change a few words here and there doesn't remove it from the realm of highschool plagiarism. Mattisse (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your info... So, in your opinion all my works are plagiarism?... If you are not goin to stop your bad attitude, I'll escalate this matter. Thanks. Wikipedia is not a forum for bad mouthing. Balajiviswanathan 02:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw... It's not my article, but Wikipedia article. u r free to do whatever you want.. .it was just my opinion... I dont know why you always speak in this way to me.... I'm just trying to take up the articles that are not being actively worked by anybody and trying to contribute... that's all.

Commonsense says that if the article looks worse then we shouldn't keep the infobox. Mattisse has put much work into this page in the past and I remember we worked together very co-operatively without any arguments. You can't make lots of bold edits without discussion and expect other people not to make any changes afterwards. GourangaUK 11:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How come you aren't discussing it on the Talk page?

You tell others to, but you don't yourself. Why not? Mattisse (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i was planning to do, but you took the honor before I cud do ;) Balajiviswanathan 02:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are supposed to do it before you make the page ugly, not after. After means you are merely notifying people, not discussing. Mattisse (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes

I have reverted a number of edits made yesterday on the grounds of neutrality. Please do not remove accurate and referenced statements of fact from the article without discussing on the talk page first. It is innacurate to say that non-Hindus are not allowed into the temple. The temple refuses entry to any non-Indian be they following a Hindu tradition or not. I have seen Indian Hindus from the west being disallowed entry because it was obvious they lived abroad whereas non-Hindu Jains from India would have no problem walking through the gates. Also I wouldn't class india-tours travel guides or local magazines as appropriate references in regards to the origins of the temple and have reverted theories based on these links. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last straw that broke the camel's back. Wikipedia very specifically cautions against reverts like this. I believe that your "Gaudiya vaishnava"/ISKCON cult has hijacked this page and a number of other pages on wikipedia, portraying only the good part of Hinduism, distorting facts, and excluding other details that are not considered important by the aforementioned cults. Religious fundamentalism has no place in Wikipedia.

It is a WELL-KNOWN fact that non-Hindus are excluded. Can a Muslim enter the temple? Wasn't Indira Gandhi, the former Prime Minister of India barred entry on grounds that she was married to a Parsee? Was she a "foreigner"?

I will be requesting arbitration. Kindly do not make any changes to the article. I specifically want a neutral third-party observer to see all the historical details that you aritrarily deleted.

The preceding unsigned comment was added by SDas (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thankyou for beginning your comment with a personal attack, commenting on a religious tradition as a 'cult'. This is an article about a temple (a structure built for religious purposes) so to have a comment in the article about a religious movement which venerates the main deity of the temple, and whose founder has an established history with the temple seems hardly out or place or 'hijacking'.

Secondly I was not saying that Muslims could enter the temple (please read my comment again), but it is not strictly true to say that -only non-Hindus are not allowed- as people who would consider themselves as Hindus are also barred entry if they are not of Indian ethnic origin and Indian non-Hindus, such as followers of Jainism are allowed which is included later on in the same article.

Why not at least replace the information you want to add into the current article and we work from there? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 14:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am not even aware of the phrase "religious tradition". Hence the use of the word cult, which in my opinion if a perfect description for "Gaudiya Vaishnana". Should you refer to atheism (my "religion") as a cult, I most definitely wouldn't call it a personal attack.

2. What specific reason did you have to delete my sections on "1.1 Buddhist beginnings" and "1.2 Legend surrounding the temple origin"? Why did YOU specifically not replace the information you want to add into the current article and work from there? They were well known facts/theories about the temple origins and any historian would tell you that. I believe that the revert was done simply because doling out credit to Buddhists for the temple was unacceptable to you.

3. Your reference to Hinduism as a "tradition", practically in all wikipedia pages that you maintain is in itself a pov. The whole world realizes that it is a religion just like Christianity, Islam or Shintoism.

4. I want to settle this in an amicable manner. Hence I do believe arbitration is necessary here. I'll be requesting and hoping for arbitration from someone neutral - preferably someone who is neither a Hindu nor an atheist.

Regards, SDas 16:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindented)

I spent some time today fixing the intro so that it was compliant with the Manuel of Syle guidelines and now all my work was for nothing. Do you not want other people to try to improve the quality of the article per Wikipedia standards? I believe you do need a mediator as no one will work on an article when hard work is wasted because of a disagreement you have with another editor. Regards, --Mattisse 16:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern and I regret that action. As a matter of fact, I was in the middle of re-inserting whatever fixes you made to make the article wikipedia compliant when I noticed your comment here. Hence let me not mess with the page any more. I tried to request mediation, but some of the instructions provided were confusing.

Please also understand that the other editor also reverted my own hard work.

Can I get your assistance in requesting mediation? (Alternately, if you believe you are neutral enough, can you mediate?) SDas 16:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have seen that you have just reverted the article again - I'm not going to break the 3RR rule and can only request you revert your own edit and add the additional content to the previous version, so that other editors can see where we are working from. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 16:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let us get this issue resolved in an amicable maner. Since I, being a novice haven't yet figured out how to submit a request for mediation, can I ask you to request mediation from a neutral third party please? SDas 17:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the portion regarding Buddhist beginnings for it makes sweeping statements which are not based on adequate facts. For one, the reference provided regarding the tooth relic is more of a modest conjecture and has not been published in a peer reviewed journal

Secondly, I edited the point regarding discrimination against Buddhist for such accusations are calumny. There are no historical records of any religious persecution/discrimination of any sect, irrespective of the faith of the king at that time —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.95.84.155 (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Template on front page

I do not understand the template on the front page. I cannot find the mediation. Where was it filed? Thanks! --Mattisse 15:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matisse, that is because I am still figuring out how to file arbitration and what exactly it is. Warm regards, SDas 16:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the mediation page there are directions on how to file. (One of those links on the article template takes you to the filing page.) Some of the filing is automatic -- there is a box where you fill in some general information and it generates a form where you then fill in the specific information. If you read the directions first, it tells you what information you need beforehand so you will have it ready to fill in when you file. (The information you need are the names of the problem editors, diffs giving examples of the problem editing and diffs showing your attempts to resolve the problem civilly with the problem editors before resorting to mediation.) But why did you throw away my hard work? I copy edited the intro to conform with the MoS and I had to do it twice because there was an edit conflict the first time. I am not going to do it for the third time. Too much hard work wasted. Regards, Mattisse 16:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I reverted back to your version. May I ask you why you made those changes when I was about to file for mediation, and right after GourangaUK made that revert discarding all my own hard work? (BTW, I was at Cal too). SDas 16:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the timing of my edit. I thought the mediation had already been filed at the time. If an article is in mediation that does not mean it can't be edited. In the mediation it may be suggested that the editors involved in the mediation stop editing the article or articles in question, but since mediation is voluntary there is no enforcement provision. As far as the changes I made, it was only to the intro and I was not aware of the reverting and the timing of the reverting. I would not have entered into this article if I knew a revert war was going on. If you want to save your work, you can go back in the history and get a copy of the whole page or parts of the page that you care about and save it in your sandbox so that you will not have to rewrite those parts later. I did a lot of work on this article but left when people started to war. I am very sorry about all this. Sincerely, --Mattisse 17:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latest changes

That is not the intro as I edited it. Only the first paragraph is the same. The rest is a bunch of stuff I've never seen before plus some material I removed as inappropriate for the intro. So feel free to change things as you like and don't worry about my changes. The intro now is totally inappropriate, in my opinion. Sincerely, --Mattisse 18:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... I see. OK, I'll compare it and reinsert your changes. Maybe I got carried away. I think I should be the one to apologise. :)

OK, I will see what all changes you made and be careful not to undo them. I thought your edits related only to wikipedia compliance. I do feel that it was totally inapropriate for my sections on the temple origins to have been deleted though. SDas 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links to good temple articles so that you have a pattern to follow: Hoysaleswara temple, Chennakesava Temple, Chennakesava Temple at Somanathapura. Also, the Manual of Style and other resources lay out what Wikipedia considers the way an article should be written. Sincerely, Mattisse 18:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got it! This little tip will certainly help. It'll have to be tomorrow though. SDas 18:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found some time to edit it again. I cut short the part pertaining to religious fervor in the introduction to a single sentence only. I also moved the passage on the prohibition of non-Hindus into the last section of this blurb (although I believe it is a CRIME against humanity and should be there right at the intro!).

Here is one particular paragraph whose presence in the introduction I object to:

The temple complex is massive, spreading over 400,000 sq ft and housing over 120 temples.[2] The temple is sacred to the 
Vaishnava traditions and saint Ramananda who was closely associated with the temple. It is also of particular significance 
to the followers of the Gaudiya Vaishnavism whose founder, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, was attracted to the deity, Jagannath, 
and lived in Puri for many years.[3]

Here is why:

1. The sentence pertaining to the temple's square footage is already repeated elsewhere. I personally intend to add much more info, but only at the appropriate place, not in the introduction.

2. Why must the two personalities, Ramananda and Chaitanya find mention, but not many others such as Jayadeva, Chodaganga Deva, Yayati, Kalapahada, Guhasiva, Salabeg, not be mentioned? What is so special about the first two ONLY? The first two are simply religious figures, the others equally eminent historical/literary figures. Hence mentioning Ramananda and Chaitanya in the very introduction makes this blurb look overtly religious, thus POV.

3. Why should Gaudiya Vaishnava be mentioned? Is it not some small cult with a limited following, and as far as my understanding goes, linked to ISKCON? What about equally important, albeit negative facts about the temple, such as the exclusion of non-Hindus, or the Shankaracharya of Puri?

I firmly believe that all facts should be mentioned, but only at the appropriate places. We can all pitch in and write our parts. I can contribute to the historical aspects and the negative facts about the temple, while GourangaUK can add stuff pertaining to religious aspects.

I also find it POV to describe Hinduism as some sort of "tradition". It is a religion, same as Christianity, Islam, Shintoism, or Sikhism. Calling it a "tradition" or "philosophy" makes the blurb look like it is claming some sort of special place for one religion only.

SDas 20:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Some of what you are saying is a matter of taste. The intro is supposed to be a summary of the article but not everyone thinks alike even as to the article structure. That is why talk pages and consensus are important. If you have a source that says so-and-so are the most important, then that gives you a reason to bump them up. As far as what Hinduism is, I've had that problem myself. Historically and practically speaking in many ways it is much more than a religion, much much more. So, ironically, calling it a religion narrows its importance. But then comes the problem of what to call it. That is why in these articles it is important to use only very general terms regarding anything considered religious. Someone who has had plenty of experience in dealing with these issues left this note on my talk page yesterday:

"what I meant is, generally clarifications of a religious nature are contentious. So I was trying to avoid edit wars with contentious editors later on. I have faith in your edits."

Since he wants to write good articles he is very very careful to stay away as much as possible from anything controversial. He is the one who wrote the three articles on temples above. Is this article about religion or about a temple? Sincerely, --Mattisse 23:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matisse/Gouranga, just for the record, I am demographically speaking an "upper" caste Hindu too. I'll try and use the phrase "religious tradition" as Walton recommended. I just feel that the bad and the ugly such as this incident should also be reported along with the good.

Peace!

SDas 00:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good, reliable source to use to make a statement about non-Hindus being excluded from the temple. That is not what was meant by "controversial". If that is a fact, as the article says, and I believe the article is correct because I have read that elsewhere in the articles used as references, then put it in. "Controversial" is the endless debates about the names of deities or which ones are the most important etc., which name to use for a place (the local one, the one most common on the web) -- these kind of debates that have no meaning or relevance to non Indians. Further, I don't think the word "tradition" is good enough. I would not use that word myself. Religion is probably the best word with an explanation that it is more than a religion. And truthfully, I did not know this disagreement involved castes. Obviously I am missing something here. It is going right over my head! Sincerely, --Mattisse 01:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense to anyone, but this warrants an explanation. The way GourangaUK deletes my additions (e.g. non-Hindus denied entry/ intense religious fervor/ Buddhist origins/ Hindu religion vs. tradition) are knee-jerk "upper" caste Hindu reactions. (Once again, no personal attack intended.) SDas 02:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SDas, I have been called many things on Wikipedia (including an anti-Hindu Neo-Buddhist) but that my edits may be compared to that of an upper caste Hindu is new one to me. ;-) Going forward I have two main points:

1) Gaudiya Vaishnavism is a significant religion in regards to the temple. There is even a large public statue of it's founder (Chaitanya) on the beach front of the town. Including this information in the introduction is not POV - it's just common sense. Why detach religous history from a religious building?

2) Any theories regarding the origin of the temple being built on the site of Buddhist temple (or similar) are going to be controversial and should thus be referenced from very solid sources. What I opposed to was the introduction of this information as solid fact based on a reference in an Orissan online magazine. As it stands I now see it is given in a more neutral light (due to edits by another user) which I could live with - but still I would hope a better source could be found, possibly from archeological circles?

Everything else is irrelevant to the disussion. If I have upset you with my edits then I am sorry for that, but my interests are with the accuracy and quality of the article. Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 10:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GourangaUK,

I understand your views, but forgive me if I see a strong bias. I did see as a rather strong "upper" caste Hindu reaction when you deleted my sentence about non-Hindus not being allowed into the temple, which almost EVERYONE knows is the truth. You also dubbed my description of Gaudiya Vaishnava as a cult a "personal attack", when BY DEFINITION it is a cult. Your constant reference to Chaitanya as "Mahaprabhu" (=Great God) runs parallel to Muslims meticulously appending the PBUH when referring to Mohammed. I am not criticizing you, it is just that we all have our own individual viewpoints. Yours is the Hindu, Gaudiya Vaishnava perspective, mine is the secular, academic one.

Now, I understand that Hinduism is close to your heart, and you consider it to be a great tradition. But that is your POV. As far as my own POV is concerned, all religious/divine beliefs are derived from our pack-hunting instincts, a throwback to the days we were hunting deer in Dmanisi valley as Homo erectus. But then again, that is strictly my POV and I won't impose it here.

Under these circumstances, maintaining civility here and not deleting well-referenced facts, or worse, reverting, would be best for all, don't you think? I'd like to add one more thing here. You reverted Ajaymohanty's link here. Even if the link is Ajaymohanty's personal one, it is valid. Yet you arbitrarily labelled it "SPAM" and reverted without a second thought?

Comment - I really have to interject here. If you look at the diff you provided, it was not labeled as SPAM. The edit summary says "rm duplicate link" -- which may or may not be true as I do not know if it was duplicated -- but that is not the same thing as saying it is spam. Sincerely, Mattisse 22:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now into the specifics. A few clarifications:

ISSUE-1)

I am not denying that the temple is significant to Gaudiya Vaishnavas or to Chaitanya. It may well be the case. If so, the Puri temple should be mentioned in the introduction in the Gaudiya Vaishnava page, not vise versa. In THIS page, Chaitanya/Gaudiya vaishnava/Ramananda may be mentioned, but WHY IN THE INTRODUCTION?

As far as the temple is concerned, the three most important figures are:

King Indradyumna, The Kalingan monarch who is credited (baed on popular legend) for actually building the temple.
Adi Shankaracharya, who established a Dham in Puri, which is 50% of the reason Puri is so holy to Hindus. Why to this day we still have a Shankaracharya of Puri (a nitwit if you ask me).
Salabega (Salabeg), the first and foremost devotee of Jagannath, whose bhajans are as popular as ever in Orissa. Even today, every year at the Rath Yatra festival, the Jagannath chariot stops at Salabeg's grave!

So my question to you is this: Why should Gaudiya Vaishnava/Chaitanya/Ramananda be mentioned in the introduction, when these other figures, who are clearly more important to the temple, not being mentioned?'

I'll repeat: Why are Chaitanya, Gaudiya Vaishnava and esp. Ramananda (of secondary importance) mentioned in the introduction but not SALABEGA, INDRADYUMNA, and ADI SHANKARACHARYA who are CLEARLY more important?

ISSUE-2)

You not only deleted my addition on Buddhism but also the rest of it, including details about the temple construction by Anantavarman Chodaganga Dev, Ananga Bhima Deva, and its attempted destruction by Kalapahad.

Do also read my response to Matisse on why Buddhist origins is important later today.

Lastly, we are all interested in accuracy and quality. You, me, Matisse, Ajaymohanty, and the rest. We all differ in what we perceive as "accuracy and quality". Therein lies the crux of the problem.

Best wishes,

SDas 21:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply:

Hello SDas,

I will answer/discuss your points in tern:

1) You said "I understand your views, but forgive me if I see a strong bias. I did see as a rather strong "upper" caste Hindu reaction when you deleted my sentence about non-Hindus not being allowed into the temple, which almost EVERYONE knows is the truth."

a) What you say about my viewpoint is incorrect. Please again (I ask now for the second time) read my comments above. I AGREE with you that non-Hindus (as a general rule) are not allowed into the temple. The point I was making (which you removed) is that HINDUS NON-NATIVE TO INDIA are also barred entry. See my edit of today here.

2) You said "Gaudiya Vaishnava ... it is a cult."

a) In the cult article in Wikipedia the negative connotation of the word 'cult' is explained: "In common usage, "cult" has a negative connotation, and is generally applied to a group by its opponents, for a variety of reasons." Knowing this why use it where other less-volotile terms are readily available? I do not think you are stupid, you know the negative connotations it implies. Please have the decency not to hide behind dictionary definitions of the word.

3) Again, quoting from your comments above "Your constant reference to Chaitanya as "Mahaprabhu" (=Great God) runs parallel to Muslims meticulously appending the PBUH when referring to Mohammed. I am not criticizing you"

a) I have no great issue if you want to use the shortened form of "Chaitanya" in this article, although as Chaitanya has various meanings (as does Mahaprabhu), putting the two together denotes specifially Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (the Vaishnava saint).

4) Quote: "But that is your POV. As far as my own POV is concerned"

a) I do not care about your POV, and neither should my POV be an issue. It is your edits in regards to this article which I have an interest in discussing.

5) Quote: " I'd like to add one more thing here. You reverted Ajaymohanty's link here. Even if the link is Ajaymohanty's personal one, it is valid. Yet you arbitrarily labelled it "SPAM" and reverted without a second thought?"

a) Your above statement, which as I see it, is designed largely as a general "character attack" upon my editing (as it has no direct relevance to the content being disussed) in Wikipedia is entirely incorrect. I did not label the link as spam, please read my comment again where I say "rm duplicate link" (rm being short for removed). The link was DUPLICATED. If you look at the external links in the article before I removed it there are clearly two links to the same website. Please discuss content only rather than making misinformed and irrelevant statements.

6) Quote: "I am not denying that the temple is significant to Gaudiya Vaishnavas ... but WHY IN THE INTRODUCTION?"

a) If that was your belief then why did you remove the content completely?. Actually your new detail regarding Shankaracharya and King Indrayumna sounds like very good content. I would be happy if the sentence regarding Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was moved from the intro, and we have a seperate section discussing all of these personalities.

7) Quote: "You not only deleted my addition on Buddhism but also the rest of it, including details about the temple construction by Anantavarman Chodaganga Dev, Ananga Bhima Deva, and its attempted destruction by Kalapahad."

a) Largely this was because it was difficult to re-insert all the edits when comparing the two versions. It was not deliberate. See here, the changes are not all easily spotted in order to be carried over. I apologise that these were missed out.

Neither of us have made any overall reverts today (I have simply added some deleted material and re-worded some parts) which is surely a start. I have no major problems with the way the page looks now and am still confident that we can improve the page, even given our differing perspectives.

Please work with me, none of us are perfect, Wikipedia seems to inherently create heated and lengthy arguments - but maybe a good article can come out of it.

Sincere regards,

Gouranga(UK) 22:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GourangaUK:

I think our stances are inching closer to each others now. You should be careful in your changes and I'll be careful in my counter-allegations. If we work from here, I think we can make our respective experiences in Wikipedia more worthwhile.

I have a knack of posting lengthy responses, but I'll try to be brief.

1) I like the way it looks now. The first time, I hope you realize that the meaning was not clear.

2) and 3) The reason human beings revere famous personalities, Chaitanya, Mohammed, George Bush, or Ataturk is because humans are genetically programmed to obey the alpha male of the pack. Now that is my honest opinion. I will not deny that I retaliated vehemently when you deleted my edits, but I can assure you that te intention behind my choice of words - "cult" was not as malevolent as it seems.

4) Fair enough.

5) I got confused. There was another revert which you (correctly or incorrectly) labelled as spam, which was also made by the same Ajaymohanty, and I confused it with this one. I apologize for the mistake.

6) I deleted it because of the same reasons you cite in 7), i.e. as it was difficult to reinsert it elsewhere.

7) Don't get me wrong, I have no particular love for either Adi Shankara or Salabega. But I honestly feel that if personalities must be mentioned in the introduction, these two characters should take precedence over Chaitanya, and most certainly Ramananda. (Indradyumna in the introduction would be kinda controversial, so I'll let it go.) I'd like to work closely with you and Matisse on this issue.

GourangaUK - it does appear that we have diametrically opposite views about certain things. However, we do have a common interest in making this and some other wikipedia pages as good as possible, and I strongly believe that we can still work closely and amicably.

I specifically want to add some further details, which are: (i) details about the temple architecture - possibly a figure explaining the architectural features, (ii) more history about the temple's birth to include further information on the Buddhist and the adivasi contribution. Item (ii) looks like it may be controversial; so I fully intend to put it up for discussion right here before making any changes to the blurb.

All things said and done, I think we both should put and end to these petty squabbles. I have no rancorous feelings towards you, and I am sure you have none towards me either.

SDas 00:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I plan to explain why I added the Buddhist stuff.

Thankyou for your understanding SDas, I'm sure we can all work more effectively on the article in future. Sincere regards, Gouranga(UK) 13:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One of the PDF's you, SDas, entered as a footnote is an extremely good source of information for this article and more of the information in it could be used. (I only now, within the last week, have a computer that can read PDF's). I have not had a chance to look at the others. Sincerely, Mattisse 00:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, I am glad you liked it. :) If you read it, you may come closer to my views on the Buddhist aspect. Buddhists do have had a major contribution to the temple. In another Jagannath temple elsewhere, Dalits ("untouchables") were prevented from entering the temple until January 2007!! It became a major controversy and an Orissan emabarrassment. Have you wondered why the caste barrier breaks down ONLY in the Puri Jagannath temple, but nowhere else? The (most plausible) explanation lies in the temple's Buddhist (ergo casteless) roots.

Puri's original name was Dantapuri (Danta = tooth). It is where the tooth relic of Buddha was kept, until a certain king Guhasiva trasferred it to Kandy.

The Chodaganga dynasty that I mentioned in the blurb was, infact, a Chola king, hence originally a Shaiva. In fact the two religions/cults in Kalinga in the first millenium AD were Shaivism and Buddhism-Jainism. It is a fact that Buddhists were systematically persecuted by the people of Orissa. Buddhists fled Orissa, and those that remained eventually became assimilated by the newly emerging Vaishnava stream of Hindusim.

A little known fact is that there are still Buddhists around the Puri area. Although they belong to the weaver caste under Hinduism now, they still worship Buddha!

The Buddhist origins have been acknowledged by none other than Swami Vivekananda. Eminent archaeologists - experts on the Puri temple - such as Professor Hermann Kulke, I am sure would agree with my edits.

The Puri temple is not just a Hindu place of worship. It is immersed in history - Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina, and Adivasi (savara). That is why I think adding some pertinent historical information would be a good idea.

Here is another valid PDF link that could be cited.

SDas 01:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -That one seems more dubious. Perhaps I did not evaluate the first one sufficiently, but on first glance it seemed more history and temple structure oriented than religious. It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that this article is classified as a religious article rather than as a historical building of India. Please see my comments below about religion vs temples. Sincerely, --Mattisse 05:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be specific about what you propose? I would much have a historical article, instead of a religious one myself. What is it that you suggest about the Buddhism part? Delete section 1.2 then? If so, I have to go with the majority decision.SDas 05:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on recent changes

It is hard to write a good article and it takes time. Where there is disagreement, it is more helpful make small edits with good edit summaries explaining the edit than to make sweeping changes by removing chunks written by another editor who is also working on the article. Reverting is almost never called for except in cases of clear vanadalism. Even if you disagree with the edits, everything does not have to be changed immediately. It is really important to maintain a good working relationship with other editors so that feelings don't get hurt etc. Focusing on writing a good article according to Wikipedia standards keeps the editing task-oriented rather than emotional.

Here is a link that may be of help even if you are not going for FA status because it summarises the criteria for article writing: Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. One of the issues it mentions is avoiding giving undue weight by giving minority views equal coverage. So in answer to a question raised above on this talk page about covering everything equally, that is the reason why not. ⋅

Specifically regarding the intro, it is heading in the right direction. My quibbles: There is too much linking. Wikipedia now is leaning in the direction of less linking. There should be only one link to Jagannath. After that there should not be a link. A word like deities does not need a link (it goes to a disambig page anyway). The origin of Jagannath's name would better fit under Deities. And I do not know who Walton is, but I do not think "Hindu tradition" is the right wording -- just Hindu or Hinduism would be better.

Hope this helps. Sincerely, --Mattisse 17:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion vs temples

I know nothing about religion which is why my collaborations on temple articles and India history articles with User:Dineshkannambadi are successful as he is the same way. If this article is about religion rather than the temple, then I am not the right person to be involved. Sorry! I am not equipped for these sorts of discussions, and don't have anything to contribute. My education was more academic and oriented toward scientific standards of proof. I would be happy to be involved in more neutral issues. Sincerely, --Mattisse 05:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The very nature of the structure make it very difficult to dissociate the history from the religion. As such I am only interested in the history. I'd also urge you to keep contributing.SDas 05:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added later - It getting late and I for one am tired. The article looks pretty good now. If I will make any major changes, I'll discuss it here first. Good night SDas 06:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(lost in edit conflit)::Regarding the Buddhism part, in other articles the FA editors have asked for an explanation for its disappearance. In terms of historical evidence, no concrete reason has been presented other than the influence of certain philosopher/scholars of the times. As I have said before, the brilliance, strength, and resilience of India comes from its position as a cultural crossroads starting before the first millinium and its innate flexibility, its ability to absorb without conflict, for the most part, the ideas, and aspects of religions, cultural practices as well as scientific innovations from other cultures without conflict. There is very little evidence in past records of religious friction that I have seen. This is the greatness of India. I am tired and this is probably not expressed very well, but I hope you understand what I mean. Sincerely, --Mattisse 06:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I do not share some of those sentiments concerning Hinduism/India, my own thinking being buried entirely in (what I think is) cold, rational science. You may be surprised how much information can be and has been gleaned out of such sparse sources. Books on Orissan history unequivocally state that religious persecution did, in fact, happen (albeit nowhere close to Abrahamic proportions). Those dubious references were in fact official government publications. The other sources are copyrighted and not available on-line. Besides, I am a mathematician and a scientist, and unfortunately cannot answer exactly how these details were constructed. I wanted to infuse a more (what I think is a) secular viewpoint into what I saw as a saffron tinge in the article. As of now neither do I wish to add any further material on the Buddhist topic, nor do I plan to harp any further on the issue. I think we should all move on. The article pretty looks good as it is, and there are enough areas where our opinions converge. SDas 20:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the secular viewpoint. I am just saying in going through the FA article process we were repeatedly asked what happened to the Buddhists -- why did they decline so by the 7th century -- we gave reasons and concluded there was little friction and that persecution was rare based on the archaeological records, of which there are many now, at least in the time periods we were dealing with --7th century to 13th. If you have book sources, I urge you to cite them. That is all. History books on India (e.g. India: A History by John Keay) and books on Hindu temples (e.g. The Hindu Temple by George Michael generally take the position that India has a history of religious tolerance which has been instrumental in its phenomenal creativity. Sincerely, --Mattisse 20:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matisse, the onset of fatigue seems to have set in in me. I had gotten some history books thru interlibrary loan, which I do not have any more. I do have two or so books specifically on Orissan hstory that I recently purchased, because I intend to write articles here in wikipedia. I'll look it up and cite it here, not in the main article. The decision about what to cite in the main article will be yours. SDas 22:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. The onset of fatigue has beset me also so I feel the same way. Plus I do not know much about the topic. It's mysterious to me what happen to Buddhism in India in general. Lets work on other noncontroversial aspects of the temple as we regroup. Sincerely, Mattisse

Possible article image

Possible article image. Sincerely, --Mattisse 19:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, incredible! :) SDas 20:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC) I think you should add it.[reply]

Seems like the article has improved!

Looks like editors are working in relative harmony now and the article seems to be benefiting. Hope I am right in this assessment! Sincerely, --Mattisse 00:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]