Talk:Shikharbaddha mandir

Hinduism: Krishnaism / Swaminarayan Mid‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Krishnaism (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Swaminarayan (assessed as Mid-importance).

Move

Shikharband Mandir

Hi, just wanting to know why you (User:Hindu Pundit) made the move from Shikharband Mandir to Shikharbaddha Mandir without mentioning it on the talk page? You cite this spelling being used in the article for the change - however its you who changed the spelling in the article as well! Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 06:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Around the Globe, for the interest. Actually, the reason for making the move without discussing it on the talk page first is quite simple – the article has been a stub for almost 2 years, with no edits and minimal page views, so I thought no one would really be interested in it, which is why I didn't put it on the talk page first. But happy to see that someone else cares. The Shikharband vs Shikharbaddha issue is actually something that had originally caught my interest, etymologically. I am not sure of your own etymological background, so I won’t get into the linguistic details of the validity of the instrumental tatpurusha samas rather than the genitive variety in this case, but suffice it to say that shikharbaddha is the correct usage, and if you have any etymological arguments against that, I would be very interested to hear them. But, for the present Wikipedia discussion, rather than the etymological route, perhaps I would point to a number of scholars who have used the “Shikharbaddha” terminology, rather than the “shikharbandh” variant in peer-reviewed journals and books in the English language. The references I have listed at the bottom of the article have mentioned some of these scholars (I could also add Rudert and Nassar, just to mention two others who have used shikharbaddha). Moreover, none of the scholars have used the “Shikharbandh” term in any peer-reviewed journal or book. I thought this point would be clear from my ample citations. So, basically, either “shikharbandh” is an error, or a local or regional colloquialism, like “ain’t” for “isn’t”, but proper term is shikharbaddha, and that is what should be used. HinduPundit (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what is the first arti called that is performed at a shikharbaddh mandir 149.75.16.5 (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the google results for Shikharband Mandir are 713 and google book result is 4. Whereas the new spelling of Shikharbaddha Mandir has a google result of 411 and google book result of 2. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Google search results raise an interesting issue. With the Google search results, I assume that you are attempting to show that the “Shikharbandh” term is more popular, and therefore correct. However, popularity does not equal correctness, which I will address in a second. But first, I would say that, in this case, the higher number of search terms may not even equal real popularity, if popularity is defined as the number of people who actually use this term. The reason for this paradoxical statement is that, as I looked through some of the websites citing “Shikharbandh”, I was amused to find that a significant portion of them displayed text that was a carbon copy of the “Shikharbandh mandir” article you(?) wrote (the text feed appears to have come straight from Wikipedia). Thus, the inflated numbers of “Shikharbandh” in the Google search results seems to be a direct result of the mistaken use of it in the Wikipedia article you(?) wrote. The irony of your initial comment in our discussion was not lost on me as I'm sure it will not be on you.

Now, back to the point that popularity does not equal correctness. I don’t think we should be looking to Google search results in trying to develop a Wikipedia article, when we have better alternatives. You have a long history of meaningful and positive contributions to numerous Wiki articles, so I trust that you’re more familiar than most about the various Wikipedia principles that govern our process. Anybody anywhere can throw a site up on the Internet in a matter of minutes. The number of Google results we see for any particular spelling can change overnight, and is especially vulnerable to manipulation. [Case in point, in your comments a few days ago you found 713 items in your Google search result for "shikharbaddha mandir", and when I just did it, I found 730. I trust it is not you who has been busy. ;) ]

In any case, using search engine results as some sort of proxy for “facts” is not an optimal method of research. WP:Democracy makes clear that anywhere on Wikipedia, we do not look at which side of a contested issue “has the most votes” – we instead look at which version emerges as the more objective, verifiable truth. (quoting WP:Democracy: we determine consensus “through editing and discussion, not voting…polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion”). Search engine results are precisely the type of straw poll that Wikipedia expressly warns against.

I also often go to Google search results to see the popularity of a particular search term in the case I have no other reliable sources. Of course, in this case, I have provided reliable, peer-reviewed sources that use the term Shikharbaddha mandir. You did mention that there are four citations of Shikharbandh mandir in Google book search to only two citations of shikharbaddha mandir. I think we should examine this point a little bit more closely. When I looked in Google Scholar (the search engine of the most reliable sources), I found zero citations for shikharbandh mandir, and two citations for shikharbaddha mandir. Moreover, in comparing the citations in Google Book/Scholar search, none of the citations for “Shikharbandh mandir” are from academic peer-reviewed sources, whereas all four of the citations of “shikharbaddha mandir” are from academic peer-reviewed sources. Thus according to Wikipedia's policy of reliable sources, when there are four academic peer-reviewed sources for shikharbaddha mandir and zero academic peer-reviewed sources for Shikharbandh mandir in Google book/scholar search, I don't think there is much room for debate on which is the correct term to be used for Wikipedia. (Also, note, I have cited several academic sources that are not showing up on google scholar, but which can be found in your local university library).

It is not surprising to me that the academic peer-reviewed sources use the shikharbaddha mandir since that is the etymologically correct term (again, I would be very interested to see any etymological arguments for the correctness of Shikharbandh mandir). Shikharbandh, as I mentioned before is an incorrect term that may be used as a regional or local dialect in the way that “ain't” is used instead of “isn't” in some parts of the deep South of the United States. However, when writing an article in Wikipedia, it would be incorrect to discard the term Shikharbaddha which is correct according to reliable sources in favor of an incorrect term.

Again, in accordance with WP:Verifiability, I provided a number of examples of and citations to scholars who have adopted the spelling I used in this article. I’d welcome a discussion that presents credible support for any alternative spelling. HinduPundit (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I strongly object to any allegations of search engine result inflation. Take any article from Wikipedia and there will be loads of mirrors. That does not mean the person who has written the article on Wikipedia has gone about distributing the content everywhere. Google results are known to slightly vary depending on the IP location. In any case, I would not stoop down to such a level of blowing up search engine results to make my point - and thinking I would is absurd.

"Shikarband Temple" (Google book search results):

1. Encyclopaedia of cities and towns in India: Volume 1 by Narasimhiah Seshagiri 2. Lucknow monuments by Yogeśa Pravīna 3. Progressive Jains of India by Satish Kumar Jain 4. Haryana district gazetteers: Volume 3 (Haryana Govt)

"Shikharbaddha Mandir" (Google book search results):

1. A Postcolonial People: South Asians in Britain - Page 379 by N. Ali, V. S. Kalra, S. Sayyid 2. Cities in transition: transforming the global built enviroment - Page 47 by Tasleem Shakur

Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 06:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word "shikhara-baddha" [śikhara...] can be coined in Sanskrit, but I am not familiar with it. "Shikarband" is probably okay in Gujarati and other Indian languages. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AroundTheGlobe, my apologies for any misunderstanding – I didn't intend to accuse you of any wrongdoing, as I operate under the presumption that we’re both acting in good faith to improve this and other articles. I was just illustrating that Google results are fickle and unreliable, and your point about mirror sites and IP address-related variations only supports my argument to that end. When I search for “shikharbandh temple,” I get only two sources (“teerth darshan” and “awadh under the nawabs”). Further, the word “shikharbandh” gives me zero matches in Google Books and Google Scholar.

With regard to using Google Books results, I addressed this point in my last post. Google Scholar has more reliable and appropriate sources, given their academic and peer-reviewed status. Wikipedia policy thus strongly supports using these instead of Google Books. To reiterate, here are the scholarly sources I’ve referred to as supporting the use of ‘’shikharbaddha ‘’:

Rudert, Angela Carol. Inherent Faith and Negotiated Power: Swaminarayan Women in the United States. – Cornell University
Kim, Hanna. Public Engagement and Personal Desires: BAPS Swaminarayan Temples and their Contribution to the Discourses on Religion. International Journal of Hindu Studies. (Springer). 2010. See editorial board: http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/religious+studies/journal/11407?detailsPage=editorialBoard
N. Ali, V. S. Kalra, S. SayyidA Postcolonial People: South Asians in Britain. Columbia University Press, 2008
Cities in transition: transforming the global built environment Tasleem Shakur. Open House Press, 2005 - 206 pages
South Asian Ethnoscapes: the changing cultural landscapes of British cities'. N Nasser - Global Built Environment Review, 2003 (Copyright © Edge Hill University 2006)

As I pointed out before, these sources are more reliable and consistent with WP guidelines than those using ‘’shikharband.‘’

Also, the sources you’ve listed under “Shikarband” Temple are actually for sources under “ShikHarbandh” temple. These four sources refer to a Jain mandir, not a Hindu mandir. The sources you and I have cited, when reconciled, make it clear that Shikarband Temple is a term for Jain mandirs, where “Shikharbaddha” temple is used to refer to Hindu mandirs, which is what this Wikipedia article is about. If there is to be an article for “shikharbandh mandirs,” it will pertain to the Jain place of worship. An article about Hindu mandirs, however, must use the spelling “shikharbaddha.”

Moreover, the actual term you’ve used in our discussion is “Shikarband.” The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland, published by Cambridge University Press (p. 570), defines that precise spelling as “ornamental tassels at the corners of a saddle”.^[1] This is clearly an incorrect term for a Temple.

But let me return to my main point, and allow me to reiterate that, in a situation when more authoritative resources are available, we shouldn’t be looking solely to Google products as compelling authority at all – there are exponentially more scholarly sources in print that one can access at any academic library, and these (which I’ve already referenced) clearly support using Shikharbaddha.

Kanchanmala, thanks for your input and I appreciate the dialogue we have going. However, Hinduism-related articles need to be consistent and relevant to all – focusing just on what works in Gujarati or some other regional language will only lead to petty disputes in many other articles (India has dozens of languages – we shouldn’t set up articles as a forum for each to push for why their spelling is “better”). The word shikharbaddha can directly and indisputably be traced to its Sanskrit origins, which is the best “neutral” criterion to use in this situation.

Also, you speculate that “shikarbandh” might be an appropriate term to use in non-Sanskrit languages such as Gujarati, but in reality, it is a “tat-sam” Gujarati word and thus an exact borrowing from the Sanskrit, so it is not correct in Gujarati. Please also see above – the term “shikarbandh” actually describes ornamental tassels at the corners of the saddle according to the Cambridge University Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HinduPundit (talk • contribs) 00:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://books.google.com/books?id=IgbBfLuO6jsC&pg=PA570&dq=shikarband&hl=en&ei=MJP_Td68HKKv0AH6kISSAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=shikarband&f=false

[1] ttp://books.google.com/books?id=IgbBfLuO6jsC&pg=PA570&dq=shikarband&hl=en&ei=MJP_Td68HKKv0AH6kISSAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=shikarband&f=false

[1]