This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ms Sarah Welch. 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.
I have had a look at that article. It seems reasonably npov to me. If there are specific points I may have missed, I am certainly willing to take another look, as I value your judgement. I am worried about the contributor to the recent edits of that article. For example, his actions in Talk:Guru Nanak section 'Please do Respect of Guru's. Move the Page from Guru Nanak to Guru Nanak Dev', where he has signed himself 'Sikh Historian', deleting his real Wikipedia name provided by SineBot. That seems to me to be a form of glove puppetry. I notice that you have commented on the section there on Photos and signed his contribution. I don't know his motive for not signing his real name. Perhaps he is aware that his contributions are controversial. However, I don't think that behaviour should be allowed. Apuldram (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@Apuldram: Your watchful eyes suffice. I am encouraged by what the new user did (propose on the talk page rather than edit war), as much as I am concerned by the copyvio issue and the persistent disruption by the user "@Peeta Singh" at wikimedia commons, which ultimately led to a rightful block by admins there. Thanks for the look, I trust your review. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
In copyediting Pandava and adding dozens of links to terms and names that few non-Indians will understand, I had occasion to look at the history of Brahmin, and found that user Blazearon21 has undone your latest revision there and is continuing to add (purported) sources. Now, I know nothing about the issues you and they disagree on, but a look at your talk page here implies to me that you're a solid and ethical editor, supporting WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Blazearon21, OTOH, has been editing (under that name, at least) for only a month, and after the Welcome banner their user page contains nothing but criticism for disruptive or unreliable editing. So I figured it would be a good thing to alert you to this. --Thnidu (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Thnidu: Thanks. I have neither read nor follow the Pandava article. You are right indeed, @Blazearon21 edit history is disruptive in many articles. Let us try to patiently help and redirect the newbie's energy if possible, with persistence and admin action if necessary. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Maratha
I under stand the sentence on renunciation but why Mahabharata and Ramayana and the source about the maratha emperors historyBlazearon21 (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: I did read WP:RS and it stated that news organizations are reliable enough as sources and state your point of view for reverting them at least because it seems that you are the only one who seems to be reverting them so will you accept Britannica encyclopedia as reliable and verifiable enough source or will you still revert them? and state your point if view for reverting them.Blazearon21 (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Blazearon21: Blogs hosted on a newspaper/tabloids/website do not meet WP:RS guidelines. You are misrepresenting the facts when you allege "you are the only one who seems to be reverting them", because @Joshua Jonathan too reverted you here. Further comments on this to be continued here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Just a note to acknowledge your suggestion has my attention. Let me meditate on a few additional hooks for Tumbaka and Zarma. Will try to post by tomorrow. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Ms Welch,I see you have been contributing to all articles on Hindu mythology with impartial,NPOV stance inspite of your apparent preoccupation with article Shiva at the moment.I request you to improve the page on article Astra (weapons) with a similar deliberation.It's full of unreferenced and inaccurate information with no proper (alphabetical/importance/trinity-devi or otherwise) arrangement of the weapons.It's just a humble request,please feel free to ignore this if your hands are full,or you are otherwise uninclined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.6.214 (talk • contribs)
@117.214.6.214: Thank you for your kind comments. Astra is a poor quality article indeed, largely unsourced or with unreliable sources. I will put it on my review/revise list. May be you should open a wikipedia account and help. New diligent volunteers are always welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Invitation
Hello Ms Sarah Welch. You have been invited to join WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Asia-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the particpants.
If you know someone who might be interested, please invite them by:
I created the Asia Challenge LOL. The challenge isn't a contest in itself, but yes, let's focus on Africa with content until the end of the month! Thanks for your hard work on this!♦ Dr. Blofeld21:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Your comments are as usual spot-on, much appreciated. Yes, that bolding inside the main article needs to go. Each of the bolded has a little interesting history, but the article discusses just three of the bolded. Bolding is inappropriate regardless. I will add the links too. @Yoninah: as always, lets collaborate and make the hook hooky for the general audience!! :-) To those interested in human history with alphabets and linguistics, 64 ancient writing scripts in 1st millennium BCE per the Buddhist texts is interesting, but if we can make it more hooky. By all mean lets do it, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@Koavf: For some reason, when I thought I clicked that link, it went to African religions, which felt like TRL. Now it is pointing to the right article. SADR is fine with me. Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
On 11 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lipi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ancient Indian texts include as many as 64 different lipi? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lipi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lipi), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 14 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tumbuka people, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Tumbuka people'sVimbuza tradition uses dance, music, and singing to heal illness? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tumbuka people), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
What a wonderful editor (and person) you are! Thankyou for your excellent work and thought into this. It is much appreciated. ♦ Dr. Blofeld06:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! I have restored the original headers on Somalis, as the page was honed through a laborious consensus process between myself and AcidSnow and Awale-Abdi. Per WP:BRD, please therefore do not append or remove any potentially contentious material without discussion and consensus. Also note that WP:TAD does not circumvent the consensus process, and applies to stub pages specifically. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Soupforone: You have a weird understanding of WP:BRD. Unsourced OR is not allowed in any article, and your consensus with some editor on unsourced content is irrelevant and a puzzling misinterpretation of wikipedia community accepted content guidelines. To be continued on Talk:Somalis. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The consensus was obviously not over original research. These discussions also mainly took place on their respective talk pages. I'm telling you this because you told me elsewhere that there was some existing consensus to exclude Jews from the religion parameter on non-Jewish page infoboxes. Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Soupforone:: What nonsense!! Can you edit-diff you allegation, "you told me elsewhere" about Jews and non-Jewish page infoboxes? I think you have me confused with some another editor? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, what you indicated was that Judaism was o/r [1]. However, Minahan does actually indicate that some Shilha Berbers are Jewish adherents [2], so I assumed that you meant instead Jewish ethnicity. Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Soupforone: Your mistake, I forgive you. Just don't make silly claims about "there was some existing consensus to exclude Jews etc", without edit-diffs in future. I removed both Jewish and Christian claim in that infobox per WP:V, because it was neither sourced in the infobox nor anywhere in the main article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I want to discuss about your recent edit on Oromo people. Many of the sources you used are from Oromo nationalist writers. I am a citizen of Ethiopia with 100 million people (with over 25% of the population fit for fighting to any local/intl ideology) and with over 80 ethnic-groups/languages as well as diverse religions (40% Orthodox, 33% Islam (With some Salafi/Wahabi followers), 20% Protestant), and for these reasons am very much concerned with peace in my home country and in the region as a whole. The tone you used to add content is based on nationalists who paraphrase out of context and who do not use impartial/balanced tone to write their books. Personally, I avoid all writers from the region (be it Amhara, Oromo, Tigray, Somali etc) and rely on writers who donot have political interest in the region but write books only to share knowledge by taking all historical documents fairly without prejudice. To show you how the regions writers paraphrase out of context please see the Eritrea wikiedia page [3] in which one writer with PHD degree named Yohanis Okbazghi paraphrasing out of context of James Bruce statment. While James Bruce in his own book published in 1805 said Medri Bahri/Bahrenegash (Highlands of presentday Eritrea) was part of Tigre province of Abyssinia Okbazghi said Medri Bahri was independent which fought with Abyssinia constantly, and he did this intentionally to promote Eritrean independence from Ethiopia. See this is how the regions nationalists manipulate history for their own agenda (to create resentment/hate between people and for their secessionist agenda). Please note that all African tribes were in hostile relation before 19th century and if we want to see a distablised African continent (with over 2,000 languages spoken and to create 2,000 ethnic countries) then we could write in every tribes wikipedia page saying your neighbouring tribes used to call you this and that, they have this and that stereotypes on you, you used to fight with them and they used to sell you into slave markets etc etc. Please note that it is those kind of sterotypes that led into Rwanda Genocide. Also note that there are Portugese eye witnesses, like Jao Bermudes, who came to help the Christians against Gragn Mohamed in 16th centuary who also fought with the Oromo expansionist and I don't see the importance of telling his graphic description of the Oromo warfare system in all the affected tribes of Horn of Africa in their Wikipedia page. It is for these reasons I am reverting your edit. Thank you —EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot You've done some great work there and I am keenly interested in the topic both because it relates to my interest in Western Sahara and of course because of the abuse this people have suffered. Great work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯01:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
{{re|EthiopianHabesha}} is the way to ping, it gives the reader the @ symbol but you can't use the symbol to ping. You can use "yo" or "ping" and probably other things instead of "re". You must get it right before you save as once saved correcting it won't work, you have to start and sign a new post. Doug Wellertalk19:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@DW: Thanks. I often use @(...) just to mark the addressee of my reply/comment. But sometimes, yes, I intend to ping and make this mistake. Will keep it in mind. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Ms Sarah Welch. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EthiopianHabesha (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Zulu People
Based on our talk in Oromo people & per your supported rules (WP:CENSOR & WP:COMPREHENSIVE) I want to get your opinion and your approval before we add the following phrase in Zulu People article:
In the past Zulus and black South Africans were regarded as uncivilized, savage, heathen and bestial people while their chiefs were referred as “noble savages” by white settler Afrikaners, this continued even after they adopted the European customs, culture and religion and the whole people in general were even more segregated and rejected after that because of their race. However, Inspite of these stereotypes being associated with Zulu in the past the people still continued to use their own ethnic name to refer themselves.[4][5]
It is supported with reliable sources but we will add it in the article only when I get your approval, just incase the editors there opposed. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@EthiopianHabesha: I have never edited the Zulu people article, and am too busy to begin my review of it. A quick glance at the two links you give above are not persuasive. Please post this on the Talk:Zulu people and hopefully those who are watching that article will engage and collaborate with you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, but you were saying persuasive is not a factor but only source being reliable matters and the source is RS. Anyways, since you have been editing several African ethnic-groups article I will very much appreciate it if you please review only the content I proposed above (no need to review the whole article) and give your approval or rejection without prejudice. Thank you in advance. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@EthiopianHabesha: I meant I am not persuaded that the sources state anywhere, "the word Zulu means or has been translated as uncivilized (...)" in Zulu language or another. I haven't checked whether the sources you link above, meet the WP:RS guidelines either. In good faith, let me assume that your goal is not to stalk and harass me because of your frustration with @Doug Weller, @Robert McClenon and me at the Talk:Oromo people page. In good faith, let me also assume that you wish to constructively contribute to wikipedia and collaborate with others. For the Zulu people article, I once again request that you take this to that article's talk page, where that article's page watchers and Africa-space article editors would be able to review these sources with you and collaborate with you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, ok then I very much respect your opinion & decision if you do not want to engage in discussion with this proposal and don't want to approve or reject. However, to respond to your comments provided above the thing is if a writer says he translated the term from mainstream sources such as Oxford or quoated any source that it's printing organisation is known or if 2 or more sources said the term is translated (rather than "the term is associated") then I see no reason why I should not accept your opinion because am only here in wikipedia to give readers in which it's content is carefully analysed and critisised by wiki editors if needed as per WP:ONUS. As for the proposal I made above what I wrote is what is found in the RS as can be seen here [6][7][8][9]. If I didnot summerise it accuratly I'll be very happy to accept your corrections. Thank you — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@EthiopianHabesha: you continue to have a strange misunderstanding of WP:ONUS. It does not mean "onus to convince you, else we go back to the unsourced OR version of an article". You currently have the attention of @DW and @RMC, two seasoned, balanced and respected editors/admins in wikipedia. Please listen to them. For rest, to be continued at Talk:Oromo people. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
With respect please critisise the content presented instead of the editor. I didnot argue to return back the whole article to the older version but only on the contents presented by you which I explained in detail at the articles talk page. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Can you please discuss the presented proposal in the article's talk page first before making an edit in the article and feel free to critisise only the content presented while leaving the editor who proposed it. Incase of disagreement we will invite more editors with various views through RFC then we edit by collaboration since wikipedia is a collaboration enterprise. I mean if we both are here to improve articles without prejudice then I think discussion before edit will not hurt anyone. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
You may search them in the article's talk page and you have said "(regardless of what your personal feelings/prejudices/wisdoms may be)" and said "go take orientation in tea house if you don't know how wikipedia works" while I have been concentrating on the contents you presented and was trying to persuade you by bringing stories related to the topic instead of convincing POV by personal attack. Until you have made these comments I never attacked you personally but when you keep on doing it then I responded. Therfore, this is why am urging to focus only on contents presented but not the editor. EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I have no issue with "(Originally: Cambridge University Press)" being added but for the other ones can you please revert them back until the Proposal & Recomedation in the talk page is over. Thank you — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@EthiopianHabesha: Quit asking me to revert the edits of @Doug Weller which I believe are appropriate. On rest, no edit-diffs and you confusing "prejudice/wisdom" to "prejudice only". You probably missed similar polite caution by two admins too, here on your "ethnic/nationalist" POV, and here on you not understanding wikipedia content policies. Quit harassing me on my talk page, please. Take this to WP:ANI. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if trying hard to work on improving articles by collaboration and by polite discussion, by scrutinising the content & sources presented and saying let's discuss them before editing the article because it might not be good for the quality of articles, and presenting them in an extreme tone (saying presenting them in a way proposed for Zulu article above will incite ethnic violence) are regarded as harassment, ethnic/nationalist anger, prejudice, that I don't know how Wikipedia policies etc then I have got no more comment on that & I'll leave you. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Your conduct
Ms Sarah Welch, I am not here on Wikipedia to fight personal battles with you or anyone else, but to improve the articles. I sincerely request you not to instigate such personal battles, whatever may be your motivations.
As to the post in question, if you feel that there was any personal attack, feel free to take it to any admin notice. But please note that if you cannot handle honest criticism (but rather construe it to be a personal attack), then please do not try to make contentious edits in the first place. It is not just me, but other editors, even before I entered the debate, also felt perplexed by your confusing ("weasel wordish", to be precise) edits , which were aimed (as you yourself have admitted) to show that "the term South Asia is debatable", which (notwithstanding that it is not even agreed to be true) is a very confusing statement to put in the lead of the Indian subcontinent article via pointing out that "Iran is not included in subcontinent". I just pointed out that the general reader is unaware of this motivation of yours, and gets utterly confused, as is evident on the talk page of Indian Subcontinent. If an editor is not even supposed to share/echo other editors' views that the article became confusing to read after your edit, then what's the point of even having a talk page.
I know after this post of mine, some (expected) users may come and try to attack me (defend you), but as I said, I am not here to engage in personal battles. I can say much more, but this will be my last post here. Thanks for your time. Js82 (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@Js82: you have been harassing @Joshua Jonathan, others and me with the lectures, name calling and worse for a longtime. This has been repeated by IPs and accounts that have been a part of SPA investigations against you, which have led to a series of blocked accounts including yours. Please, no need to repeat your past behavior. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Ms Sarah Welch. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Wrong
You are wrong in your comment here. I don't agree with what you did at that article but can't be arsed arguing with someone like you. That is not a tacit acceptance of what you did. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I am disappointed that you liked an almost-entirely unsourced OR-filled essay for that article. Disappointingly contrary to the push for verifiable content, reliable sources and remaining close to the source to the best of our ability. Take care and I hope your health is better these days. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Beti people
On 5 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beti people, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Beti people were misrepresented in the Tarzan(poster pictured) books and films? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Beti people. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Beti people), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 9 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zarma people, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the stratified social system of the African Zarma people, the lowest stratum inherited slavery? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zarma people. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Zarma people), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
[1] Is there a WP:NPOV equivalent policy/guideline page link for images or their categorization in media commons?, if so please share;
[2] Other than the COM:CAT, are there any other guideline links on how to select category and sub-categories for images?
[3] Images have descriptions in their infoboxes, is there WP:V equivalent policy/guideline for this?, if so please share the link to that page;
[4] some historic images are contentious, interpreted in different ways by different sources; are there easy to use templates that can notify readers about the dispute and various interpretations of that image? if yes, please share with me the link to that page.
Please visit dispute resolution notice board and participate a debate on saraiki dialect of Punjabi language which is poorly written by Uanfala as a separate language. AksheKumar (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Indeed, a first glance through confirms it is in bad shape. I tagged it. Will get on it in the coming weeks. The Sharma book published by Oxford University Press you link, and related discussion, definitely needs to be covered. So should be the notable discussion of Agastya in southeast Asia. In my visits to monasteries and temple ruins there (Indonesia, Thailand, Cambodia, etc), I have seen Agastya in relief/statues/guardian motifs at numerous sites. Pot bellied versions as well slim versions! along with Ganesha, Shiva, Uma, Nandi, Buddha, others. Beautifully carved, what details! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Quote
The quote you added here is taken from the UNSD website, not the UN cartographic centre. Can you verify that the same stance is held by the other departments, as that's what this implies?[10] Also, the article is about South Asia not West Asia, so I don't see the relevance of saying that the West Asia map is conflicting on that place precisely. That could be logically seen mentioned on the West Asia article. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: The webpage for UN cartographic centre does state something similar, right at the bottom as IMPORTANT NOTICE & DISCLAIMER. Lets discuss this and other issues, on that article's talk page so that others, now and in future, can participate and understand why of any changes we make / consensus we reach collaboratively. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I'm back after a short break. As you requested, I've had a look at Guru Amar Das. Your expansion is very helpful. I've slightly changed the sequence in the second para of the lead section, but haven't changed the information it contained. Apuldram (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))
Map contradicts with another map from Library of Congress
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
My understanding of WP policy is that you cannot continue to keep making changes on the disputed content in the Sati (practice) article when it has been put up for an RfC. Pending the closure of the RfC you cannot now make any further changes to the disputed content once the RfC has been initiated. Please revert and make your comments and suggestions about improving the disputed content in the RfC (in the talk page of the article). Soham321 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I'm the one who originally placed the quote from his brother's book in Napier's entry and I always thought it seemed a awkward in the middle of that larger section. I'm cool with the changes, especially since it gives us some room to add more context to this often misunderstood incident. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@dm51c - i have checked the encyplopedic material on this subject by various authors.i hadnt removed sourced content as source itself was missing in some instances.Historically Bhagavta tradition of krishna predtates current vaishnavism and vaishnavism is not a monolithic whole but is categorically divided into major cults each attributing supremacy to a differt deity so it should be relected in the intro .I had added verifiable refrences of eminent unbiased scholars to sustain it.Hence i am reverting that change.Thanks
Sorry.i am not in war with any of editors.Neither my edit is in war with previous sourced material.my editing has improved the neutrality of the article .you can check the references i added .as in the original article it has some misleading explantion.I have added both krishna and vishnu as vindicated by the historians who have studied this tradition.it actually removes bias present among isckon and south indian cult and reader gets objective illustration of topic .i am disheartened because i suspect that u havent read the disinterested encyclopedic sources i added.
original artical discrepancies.
1)it contained misleading description of vaishnavism aka vishnuism.
2)it conatians info about only two tradition of madhva and sri vaishnava
3)reference has syntax errors
Please give me raesons why i should not add krishna expiclity there.
1)around more than half of present vaishnava followers follow alternate theology of krishna
2)more than half traditions revere him as God in own right
3)all historians agree that krishna worship predtates 1st century bc as supreme god.Read heilodorus pillar.
4)the cross faith theologians like hatchett,bryant agree with my view.have you read his CONCLUSION pg 199 krisha lord or avtara??
5)viahnavism central two sects itself focus on krishna exclusively.so mentioning vaishnaviam assimply vishnuism is out of my intellect.
6)south indian alwars like andal,namalwar focused exclusively on him and not subscribed to this avtar concept of vishnuism
7)the bhagvatism cult of(krishna/vasudeva) itself is the main raeson of creation of this denomination.~~dm51c — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dm51c (talk • contribs) 01:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
and the paragrph that i removed under puranas sections is blatantly false.they dont worship him as poornavatat but trancedent supreme being itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dm51c (talk • contribs) 01:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
You are using proof of assertion to defeend your argument.vaishnavism in third line is mentioned as vishnuism which is absurd.when more than half of its followers(vaishnava) themselves dont belief in it and attribute theological supremacy to krishna.
sorry to speak,but i supect bias from your arguments.dont you trust fredda conclusion and historians conclusion on this issue.you are playing with the sources and not considering genuine arguments.Dm51c (talk)dm51c —Preceding undated comment added 02:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi ,please read the sources used to vindicate that position.One agree with the text while Bryant posited the contrary.Infact we should not focus on theological supremacy of which is extolled over one another .I havent extolled Krishna but removed the controversial decroption to maintain the neutral point of view.ThanksDm51c (talk)dm51c —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@Dm51c: To imply or state Krishna is not an avatar of Vishnu, or is different from Vishnu, or something equivalent, or some such is getting WP:FRINGE. No, neither source state this, nor did late Freda Matchett. Your attempt to delete related text in Bhagavata Purana was not constructive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Barnstar for your work
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for your work on wikipedia. You make a truly impressive number of constructive edits. Sorry you have to deal with the occasional bad editor. —DIY Editor (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions during the last year, working with others to improve articles related to Sikhism, smoothing discord and remaining calm when under attack. Apuldram (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Kindly take note that I was accused of pushing POV by a user on the Ranjit Singh page because I added sourced information that discussed the actions of RS's army on mosques. The article misleadingly portrays RS as exceptionally tolerant and sensitive to the houses of worship of other religions, when as the sourced information I included shows, is not 100% true. There is no need to delete my edit on the basis that a user left a message on my talk page - edits made by users are not contingent upon replies to all messages on a user's own talk page - especially as I had addressed the POV issue when I re-inserted my edit. Willard84 (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Willard84: you need to provide page numbers, because I have checked and I do not see the source stating what you allege it is. There has been a comment waiting for you on the article's talk page. Please don't edit war with @Kautilya3 and I. If you provide a page number, and it verifies, we can include the content you are trying to add. To be continued at Talk:Ranjit Singh. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Slavery
I beleive in editing collaboratively and by consensus and usually try to convince the editors. I was hoping to convince you and we together move it to Slavery in Ethiopia article. If you still strongly believe it is important to create those sections in Amhara people but not in other related articles and do not want to move it then it's up to you to decide. At least I've tried to convince you and that seems not working so you can keep it, no problem with me. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@EthiopianHabesha: You are misquoting me. I wrote, please go ahead and create slavery sections in Afar people and other related wikipedia articles (we already do in dozens of Africa articles, but many Ethiopia-related articles are unsourced and in bad shape). Thanks for okaying to keep it in Amhara people article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
No I will not create slavery section in Afar people. If I do then I have to open the same section in all other ethnicgroups neighbouring the Afar people or I could simply use Slavery in Ethiopia article to tell all the people the fact and inform them that they all have been enslaving each other in the past so that Wikipedia readers get balanced and complete information. I prefer this solution because unlike some editors who leave in peacful Europe, I am from a very diverse and volatile region called Horn of Africa. However, if you find it apropriate to open such sections in Amhara but not in all other neighbouring people (that you have been expanding such as Oromo) then ok no problem just keep it, that is your opinion and I respect it. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@EthiopianHabesha: yep, Oromo people article should have slavery section given the numerous WP:RS on it. But, you have battled with @Robert McClenon, @Doug Weller and I for months on Galla/Oromo section in Talk:Oromo people. That slowed the progress in improving that article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, it's better to discuss all slavery related history in slavery in Ethiopia article. I do not support opening slavery section in every Ethiopian ethnicgroups page be it in Oromo or Amhara ethncigroups page. We could link the slavery in Ethiopia article in every ethnic-groups article, if necessary, but I do not support opening sections everywhere. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Why {{od}} instead of :? Please see WP:INDENT. Regarding your concern, if an ethnic group is notable because of having practiced slavery then I think it should be mentioned. Being mentioned in the Slavery in Ethiopia article is good reason to include a reasonably sized and properly sourced section in the relevant articles. For example Irish Americans mentions "Many Irish Protestants and Catholics alike were indentured servants, unable to pay their own passage or sentenced to servitude," and that some notable groups "strongly opposed abolition of slavery". If it's notable it should be included in an ethnic group article. —DIY Editor (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Amhara people
Reverted and added to my watchlist. In addition, if you personally encounter any criticism or attacks on the basis of your sex, or hear of other female editors attacked for the same reason, please inform me immediately. Wikipedia is for 100% of the world's people, not just for relatively well educated male editors from OECD countries with easy computer and internet access. Buckshot06(talk)18:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@GabiloveAdol: You just registered your account a week ago on January 10 2017, you have already invited admins to Amhara people article's talk page, admin Buckshot06 has already responded there, but you do have a right to a due process. WP:ARC, however, is probably not the right forum for your complaint though. WP:ANI may be more appropriate. @Buckshot06:, @Cordless Larry: what do you think? Any way, I will respond your case, GabiloveAdol, wherever it gets accepted. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch I already emailed with 'The English Wikipedia Oversight Team' this is where they refer me too. Buckshot06 will also be mentioned in another case. Thank you for your cooperation. GabiloveAdol (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
my opinion Amazed that Ms. Welch editting in articles of which she is not an "ethnic" member automatically disqualifies her in the mentalities of certain editors. I suspect this GabiloveAdol has other accounts or be a member of a group of editors targetting ethnic articles. Ethno-nationalist editors are problematic for wikipedia which is based on single-account editors ie "individual" editors. Ms. Welch, keep doing the right thing on wikipedia.HarryDirty (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to wikipedia, wish you had chosen a different name, like HarryTheThoughtful! POV-y mass deletions or POV-y content addition from any side is inappropriate indeed. Seeking and summarizing multiple WP:RS to the best of our ability is more consistent with the wikipedia community agreed content guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
"Atman, states Eliot Deutsch, is the "pure, undifferentiated, supreme power of awareness", it is more than thought, it is a state of being, that which is conscious and transcends subject-object divisions and momentariness."
I'm reading Mayeda at the moment, and I was thinking: Shankara uses the term superimposition, to "project" qualities of non-Atman at Atman/Brahman, and vice versa. According to Shankara, Atman/Brahman is consciousness and eternal. Also according to Shankara, if I understand him correctly, we project those qualities on the indivual "things," objects, of phemomenical reality.
But for a human living in the 21st century, to state that there is a highest reality, which is consciousness, is, empirically, problematic, to put it mildly. We can't help but see reality as a material reality, or, if you like, a manifestation of energy. Mind, consciousness, is/are also manifestations of this reality, which is ever-changing. What if "eternalness" is a category, as in the philosophy of Kant, a way of organizing sensory inout which makes in coherent and meaningfull? What if "mind" "projects" those qualities of "substantiality" and "unchangingness" on both material objects (phenomenal reality, non-Atman) and on non-material cognitions, that is, consciousness/mind/cognition itself (Atman)? What if this Atman/consciousness is itself a creation of the mind, a super-imposition so to speak?
At least, that would be a modern understanding of reality, which in some ways resembles Shankara's Advaita Vedanta, and in other aspects actually says "Shankara was wrong; he created an illusion himself." And that may also be a reason why Shankara is hard to follow: basically, his worldview is at odds with ours. When we try to make sense of him, and those discrepancies, while retaining the feeling that his philosophy is a revelation of a higher truth, we're almost unwillingly forced to alter and interpret his ideas, to preserve out respect and to do justice to our modern worldview. Otherwise, we're forced to either reject out modern worldview (impossible), or accept that Shnakara's worldview is as human as any others, and is limited by the framework he had to work with. Which is a sacrireligious choice, when you're intuitively attracted to this tradition.
@JJ: True. Both Buddhists and Hindus struggled with these questions, and then they struggled with any answers they came up with. Kurt Gödel too!! What do we know? How do we know? can we be sure? are we stuck with axiomatic incompleteness and projections, no matter what the context is? If we don't "see, hear, smell, taste, touch" something, is it always a projection? Are other pramanas false? Is inference false knowledge (if yes, what about love, compassion, kindness, ahimsa, akrodha, intent, inner calmness, tranquil happiness and so on)?
The "Maya = illusion" part is one which even Wendy Doniger has come around to re-stating and re-explaining. "A is A", so we think. But if A (time1) =/= A (time2), is A in the time dimension really equal to A? Both Buddhists and Hindus historically have explained impermanence (annica, anitya) as a given. If we accept the concept of impermanence, then does that not mean "A at time 1 is not same as "the same A at time 2", though both are empirically real? Doesn't that mean that we perceive illusive reality, not the eternal reality... so state the Advaita and Buddhist texts? Lovely questions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Mayeda p.215-215, Part II ch. 1 v.15 & 18. Another interesting note: in the Upadesasahasri (I can't recall where) Shankara states that in reality there is no trasnmigrations, only Atman (my paraphrasing); Ramana Maharshi said the same. I've read a few passages now which reminded me strongly of RM; RM was acquainted with a lot of Vedanta-texts, and I'll bet he knew those passages too, and 'used' them to frame his own experience.
And regarding the term "nondual": the world is in want of a better term, I think, something akin to vijnanavada. A word that captures the notions of being-consciousness, insight-being, and interconnectedness. Unless nondual ultimately refers not to the nonduality of Atman and Brahman, but to Atman/Brahman as the "qualities" described in the previous sentence. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!07:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
We should add a section on Advaita in the Vijnanavada article. There exist plenty of RS: 1, 2, 3 etc, I will check if the Advaita Vedanta article summarizes this appropriately with wikilinks. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Good idea, I think. The above was also a response to Talk:Advaita vedanta#Human beings, where I suggested to write "in a state of unawareness and ignorance Atman is perceived as "I-ness,"" and your question "Which page are you seeing the above?" I think, based on my own experience, that 'Atman as awareness' can be approached as a phenomenological description, like Deutsch does. It's a common meditative experience, and it is akin to jnana, kensho, satori et cetera: awareness, Gewahr-Sein, as one's essence. But an "essence" which eludes "grasping" by the mind, words, descriptions. It's the main reason why I am interested in Buddhism and Advaita :what is this "I," this Leegte?!? See also User talk:Javierfv1212#Emptiness as a mental state.
@JJ: Indeed, Gewahr-sein versus consciousness, "be aware" versus "Bewustzijn", thingness versus beingness is an important difference. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Dvesha (Buddhism)
I changed the Pali form in the translation box from disa back to dosa- not sure if the Devnagari was changed as well, but it's beyond my abilities. Dosa is the translation used throughout the article and in the Three Poisons article, and seems to be conventional in general and academic discussions. Disa seems to refer specifically to the hatred of an enemy rather than the more general notion of aversion, and only has a couple attested uses in the PED. --Spasemunki (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Given the strong Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content and the lack of a content-specific preference for either era style, let me strongly suggest that you self-revert or start the mandatory discussion at the talk page stating why AD/BC is inappropriate for the article. Nyttend (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Actually, you started the large scale from CE/BCE to AD/BC change here. Wikipedia rules apply to you as much as they do to others who revert you. Best discussed at the article's talk page indeed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The article previously mixed both eras, meaning that no style was established, so I converted it into a single established style. If you refuse to self-revert, enforcement of the firm prohibition on undiscussed changes will be requested at WP:ANI. Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed you undid some editorial changes I made to the article Hindu views on monotheism. Looking at your comments and the revert, I agree with some of your conclusions that my changes were not completely neutral. However, I do contest your revert of the article changes I made wherein I removed the reference that Hindu deities "are not omnibenevolent". The source cited is polemical and completely and thoroughly biased. I hope we might arrive at a consensus. Thanks! Svabhiman (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Svabhiman: Thanks for the admission. That "Hindu deities are not omnibenevolent", or for that matter African deities / Indo-European deities (German, Nordic, Irish, Roman, Greek, etc) / Buddhist deities / Jaina deities are not omnibenevolent, is mainstream scholarship. Their mythologies are rich with one or more getting angry, cursing, punishing fellow deities, or kings, or humans or other living beings (e.g. the legend of Shiva, Parvati and Hindu love god named Kama; similar legends richly decorate the ancient Indo-European imaginations).
However, if you find a reliable source that states that "Hindu deities are always omnibenevolent" or something that reflects your views, we can certainly add a summary from such a source for NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I thank you for your prompt reply. I was being overzealous because of the citation used to buttress the claim that our (for the purpose of full disclosure, I am a religious Hindu) deities are categorically "not benevolent" or "omnibenevolent". The citation is to one "John Murdoch"'s "English Translations of Select Tracts, Published in India". If you read the citation in its context, you'll see that it is embedded in a "what to say to Hindus when..."-type section for the would be 19th century evangelist (the book was published in 1861, four years after the First War for Indian Independence). This is precisely where the claim of the purported "non-omnibenevolence" of Hindu deities is made. No other source in the article makes this claim, precisely because it is rooted in fanaticism. Svabhiman (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, we must question old publications for their reliability. 1861 is very old. Yet, in this case, recent RS are easy to locate. I will look up and add one shortly. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand. I have posted a non-neutral inline citation in front of the "John Murdoch" citation that links to the talk page. I hope you'll read it. I wrote the last section there. Here is the link: Talk:Hindu views on monotheism. Thank you for discussing this with me. Svabhiman (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for updating the source of that "not omnibenevolent" claim. My own feelings aside, it is at least the observation of a contemporary academic scholar (Wendy Doniger). Thank you for the reference. Svabhiman (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Decline of Buddhism in India
@Ms Sarah Welch: I still don't understand your edit. According to the source, in 2010, Sri Lanka had a Buddhist population of 14,450,000, Bhutan had a Buddhist population of 540,000 and Nepal's Buddhist population was 3,080,000. How does that add up to 10 million? You've only included information regarding India, Bangladesh and Pakistan, hence the reason why I changed it to "pre-partition India". The article istelf only discusses ancient India (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh), that's another reason why I changed it to "pre-partition India". (120.144.162.89 (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC))
@120.144.162.89: The source is not giving demographic date for pre-partition India, so your change was inappropriate. Let me check the population data, since indeed Sri Lanka's Buddhist population is about 14 million. Something else also needs to be fixed in that sentence. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed one user has created Template:Saivism sidebar template please make necessary changes in it. I've added that template in the Shiva article in the Shaivism section. Moreover could you please make necessary changes in the Shaivism article in compassion to Vaishnavism or Shaktism article. Also make it clear who has largest number of followers under Hindu denomination. It is a matter of confusion.--Anandmoorti (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
@Anandmoorti: Will take a look at the new template in the coming days. Indeed, the Shaivism article needs some work and an update. Joshua Jonathan and I have discussed working on it, a while ago. Sorry, haven't gotten around to it. I will try to work on it in the next 4 to 8 weeks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
@Anandmoorti: I have begun gathering the reliable sources for Shaivism article. Please expect the progress to be slower, as I will be traveling this month to southeast Asian monasteries. Hoping the article will improve by mid April, may be sooner. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Anandmoorti: Is this image properly licensed? Would you please work with the uploader 5anan27 and get the necessary permissions, or identify an alternate image(s) for the template. @5anan27: See the WP:Copyvio policy of wikipedia and wikimedia. I see a note that you have sent the OTRS email and ticket. Would you two contact the wikimedia help desk and get the OTRS ID and update the media file, please. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: As the particular image has been already used as official Hindu flag in all temples and religious organizations of Sri Lanka, I'm not sure how to explain the depiction to wikipedia whether it is copyright free or not. By the way, it is Mr.Danapala (the designer of Nandi flag) who granted me permission to upload the particular image in wikipedia since most of the shaivites all over the world don't have access to Nandi Flag. I already mailed all the details to OTRS team but still don't have any response. Could you or @Anandmoorti: please guide me how can I access help desk of wikimedia? And yes. Now I'm aware of copyright violation after the deletion of my recent wikimedia files. Thanks a lot. --5anan27 (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@5anan27: While it is true that the Nandi is found in historic temples and religious organizations all over the Indian subcontinent and in southeast Asia, the particular drawing with combination of colors and forms if it was created after 1923 may be subject to copyright. If Mr. Danapala is the original author, and you are not Mr. Danapala, then he must send an email to wikimedia OTRS from his own account, state in that email he is Mr Danapala and that he grants the CC2.0 license to wikimedia. Alternatively, you need to get a signed letter granting the CC2.0 permission from Mr. Danapala, scan it and email the scan to wikimedia. Do you think you can do either of the two? Just saying, "I know XYZ, and XYZ told me it is okay" is not sufficient. The best place to get this clarified is here. Just click the "Add topic" on the upper right hand corner, state you are new and need help in getting the OTRS done properly, then ask your questions. The volunteers or admins there would help you. You can also try contacting @Blue Raspberry for help, who knows a lot more than I do about wikimedia process. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Update: @Jcb just deleted it. It can be undeleted, if you follow the procedures above, and fix the problems with the wikimedia OTRS ticket. But please do not upload the file again until the OTRS documentation is properly addressed, or a wikimedia admin asks you otherwise. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not so much aware of the image license issue. It would be better if you and 5anan27 could handle this issue.
I would like to notify you regarding the demographic of Shaivism & Vaishnavism#Demography. There is not unanimity regarding who is the largest in demographic, however, on Shaktism, followers are minuscule in number thats all sources states. Regarding Shaivism & Vaishnavism demographic should be written much more in a balanced way. Thanks--Anandmoorti (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Anandmoorti: I have clarified all those articles a bit. Will revisit them later. Patience please. On the "Nandiflag.png" image file, only @5anan27 can fix it. I have no verifiable information on its OTRS ticket and copyright status. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I already finished the wiki OTRS requirements regarding that image file though they deleted the file recently. I'll contact help desk and will try my best to confirm the copyright of the file as soon as possible. And best wishes to both of you for your upgrading efforts in Saivism related pages. Thank you. --5anan27 (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Ashram/Ashrama
I would be quite happy to support any solution you come up with. You're clearly fully across the data and the problem. Many thanks for your edits in this area. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson: We need to better explain James Mallinson, who is indeed a reliable source. For neutrality, we must not take sides. If many scholars link Nath and Dattatreya, and Mallison offers another view, we must explain / summarize both sides. Is there a specific page and source you are referring to? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson: Any page numbers? I have copies of almost all of Mallinson's publications, including the few you mention. It will help me understand your comments better and faster if you identified the page number(s), rather than throw the book/links at me with "go read/go fish"!! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The first source lacks page numbers. And I said read the conclusion in the second source. Conclusion typically means scroll to the end of the article. VictoriaGraysonTalk16:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson: Indeed, the first one lacks page numbers but it has about 20 pages of text followed by more pages of references. Which page number is it sequentially? I read the conclusion on pages 26-27 of the second source, but it does not state what you claim about Dattatreya etc above. In good faith, I am assuming you saw it on some other page(s). Please check and let me know. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The Yogis' (comment: which Mallinson calls the Nath) appropriation of hathayoga and adoption of the guise of the hathayogins has, as noted above, happened for various reasons, in some of which the Yogis have themselves been complicit. The Yogisampradayaviskrti, which assimilates a tradition of nine Narayanas headed by the divine yogin Dattatreya with that of the nine Naths and which is claimed in the preface and by others, including White, to be a translation into Hindi of a Bengali translation of a Marathi work written in the thirteenth century by Jnandev, is in fact a twentieth century account of the Yogi order.....
@VictoriaGrayson: That does not support your opening claim, "Late 19th century Naths stole Dattatreya from their rival Dashanami Sampradaya. (...) It really isn't accurate to associate Dattatreya with the Nath." All it is stating is that "Yogisampradayaviskrti is in fact a twentieth century account" according to Mallinson. That does not mean there never was a Dattatreya-Nath connection, in Mallinson's view, or in the view of most scholars. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Did you not see the word "appropriation" in the quote? Google gives the definition of appropriation as "the action of taking something for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission."
@VictoriaGrayson: Yes, I see that. But you are misinterpreting Mallinson, whose context is the review of White's book. Naths did borrow Dattatreya, but Mallinson is not stating, "It really isn't accurate to associate Dattatreya with the Nath". Mallinson states, in several of his publications, that Dattatreya is associated with the Nath, particularly in the Deccan area." See Brill's Encyclopedia of Hinduism article on Naths by Mallinson, for example. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
In the Brill Nath article, "only ever" emphasizes Deccan is an exception:
Dattatreya has only ever been associated with the Nath Sampradaya in the Deccan region, and the formalization of that association dates to approximately the 18th century....
@VictoriaGrayson: So "it really is accurate", at least for Deccan region, "to associate Dattatreya with the Nath Sampradaya". You need to be a bit more careful and qualified with your sweeping claims, and stick to the sources. We need to include both the Nath monastic sampradaya and the Nath householder tradition, the latter has been and is much bigger than the sampradaya. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Even in the Deccan, only as a symbolic union with the Mahanubhav sect formalized in the 18th century:
Dattatreya has only ever been associated with the Nath Sampradaya in the Deccan region, and the formalization of that association dates to approximately the 18th century, when texts such as the Marathi Navanathabhaktisara symbolically united the Nath Sampradaya with the Mahanubhav sect by identifying nine Naths with nine Narayanas.
The Deccan connection is important to point out, indeed. Mallinson acknowledges his view is different from other scholarly views. We need to summarize the other views, for neutrality. Let us continue this on the article(s) talk pages, so others can join or understand the changes being made. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson: I am in southeast Asia these days, with patchy internet and incomplete access to my home library. Off my memory, Mallinson has an appendix in Hathayoga’s Philosophy: A Fortuitous Union of Non-Dualities which lists what he thinks were the original older texts such as Yoga Vasistha, Yoga Yajnavalkya, Shiva Samhita, Vasistha Samhita, etc from which HYP borrowed. Many of these have survived, some haven't (or the recensions which survive is likely not original, corrupted because multiple versions exist). For now, if it makes you feel better just take out "which have not survived into the modern era". The Hatha Yoga article is on my to do list. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Under the section, Soteriology, there was an erroneous passage stating that Madhva rejects Jnanamarga. As stated in my reference to the book "The Philosophy of Madhvacharya" by Dr B.N.K Sharma, Madhva considers Jnana yoga and Karma yoga to be essential, with a special preference to Bhakti. And the attribution of Vayu as the son of God goes against the grain of Madhva ontology (Souls and God co-exist simultaneously). I would love to hear your thoughts on this! :)-PM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabhanjanmutalik (talk • contribs)
@Prabhanjanmutalik: Welcome to wikipedia. Please sign your comments on talk page by placing ~~~~ at the end of your posts. This helps page watchers and later readers follow the conversation and know who is stating what. Sharma is discussing Karmayoga and Jnanayoga, placing it in context in Chapter XLVII, page 282 onwards. Sharma is not stating that Madhva accepts Jnanayoga as the way to liberation. Father and son can and do co-exist simultaneously. We are not denying that. The summary states that Madhva considered himself as an avatar of Vayu, thereby son of god Vishnu. This is significant, important and highly unusual in the history of Indian religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism). We must retain it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: Thank you for the tip! Stating that Sharma does not say Madhva accepts Jnanayoga as the path to salvation is a long way from stating (as it is stated in the article) that Madhva rejects Jnanayoga. Madhva expressly states that Jnana and Karma need to be continued even after attaining the state aparoksha or "enlightenment". Furthermore, Madhva connects acquisition of right knowledge to reduction in bad Karma. He also stresses that without Bhakti, nothing comes to fruition. There is no doubt that the assertion of Madhva as the avatar of Vayu is unique. This definitely should be retained. But the statement that he is the "Son of God" is shaky. Father/Son relationship implies that the son "took birth" from the father. It implies that son is in a way "created" from the father. Madhva vehemently claims that God and the souls exist simultaneously: both are eternal, though the souls are dependent on God. There is no aspect of "creation" in Madhva's ontology like there is in a father/son relationship. I hope you take these points into consideration. Prabhanjanmutalik (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Prabhanjanmutalik: You make a good point. Perhaps, the sentence needs to be revised to "Madhva considers Jnanayoga as insufficient means to salvation", and we also need to clarify the meaning of Jnanayoga to him. Let me check the sources for WP:V on what we can and cannot state. The "son of God" language is well supported and in mainstream scholarship. This is not an issue of ontology, but of axiology and of epistemology. The Sanskrit texts on this are an interesting read, and compassionately explain in part the confusion this caused to the colonial era Christians. In other words, you are right about what Madhva's position is on ontology, but that is not why we must retain the "son of God" language in Madhvacharya article. It relates to another dimension of Madhva's theology, and it is in numerous WP:RS. So it stays. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: I would be really glad if you could direct me towards those mainstream sources (other than "Grace in Christianity and Hinduism"). The following sentence under Biography seems grammatically shaky to me: "...and began his own Dvaita movement based on dualism premises of Dvi – asserting that human soul and god (as Vishnu) are two different things". The phrase "His own Dvaita movement" implies that there were other Dvaita movements and Madhva formed his own (which is not the case). "based on dualism premises of Dvi-" Maybe this should be mended to "dualistic premise"? Because the word "Dualism" hearkens to the philosophical school which propounds the difference between mind and body (totally different to the Madhva context). And I can point you to two valid sources, one by B.N.K Sharma and the other by C.M. Padmanabhachar, which claim that Naddantillaya was the family name and Madhyageha was his father's name (Unless you have some sources to suggest otherwise).Prabhanjanmutalik (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Prabhanjanmutalik: Shaivism had a devotional dualism (dvaita) tradition, for example. On parent names, Madhyageha Bhatta sounds right, and the sources are already cited in the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Sources on "son of God" and Madhva, per your request: [1] Jeaneane Fowler, Perspectives of Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Hinduism, Sussex University Press, p. 419 with note 105; [2] Helmuth von Glasenapp and Krishnacharya Pandurangi, Madhva's Philosophy of the Viṣṇu Faith, p. 62; [3] Jeffrey R. Timm, Texts in Context: Traditional Hermeneutics in South Asia, p. 110; etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: Thank you so much for the references! I can understand why the phrase has to be retained. When can the change about Madhva's view on Jnanayoga be expected? Do you think his views on Karmayoga should be included as well (that acquisition of jnana leads to dissolution of bad karma)? Prabhanjanmutalik (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: On a side-note, the philosophy article has to be expanded to include some intricacies. Especially Madhva's reliance on Sakshi (Intuition) as a pramana (channel of information acquisition). Sakshi acts as a validating mechanism and no other pramana can override it. Infact this forms the core of Madhva's argument against the Sankara interpretation of Tat Tvam Asi. I could pull up some references and help you with the formulation of the article. Also maybe throw some light on the nature of Prakriti and Free Will. Prabhanjanmutalik (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Sakshi may be closer to "witness" or "witnessing self". There is a mention of free will etc in the article, already. You are welcome to summarize Sakshi etc in Madhva's context, from reliable sources in the Madhvacharya article or Dvaita article or both. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: The following sentence under the "Views on other schools" section is unclear-"Mahayana Buddhism is a nihilistic school of thought, asserted his school, and Advaita Vedanta a version of it". Can it be rephrased better? Prabhanjanmutalik (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: Maybe: "Madhva asserted that Advaita was a version of the nihilistic Mahayana school of Buddhism". Actually I have a feeling that the author is referring to Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka, a subset of Mahayana Buddhism, instead of Mahayana. Prabhanjanmutalik (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
No, it makes it worse. According to Madhva and Dvaita theologists, Madhyamaka is nihilistic. That is not necessarily true, and we can't imply that. I suggest, "Madhva's school alleged and criticized Madhyamaka as nihilistic. They also criticized Advaita, labeling it as another version of Madhyamaka." Whether we should use Madhyamaka or Mahayana, depends on what the sources support. Please check. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The reference states "He (Madhva) condemned Mayavada of Advaita which he regarded as a version of the nihilism of Madhyamika Buddhism". How about we mention that "Madhva criticized Advaita as being a version of Mahayana Buddhism, which he regarded as nihilistic". Prabhanjanmutalik (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Can we change "Madhvacharya rejected Jnana yoga (path of knowledge) as the means of moksha, and considered Bhakti marga (path of devotion) as the only path to salvation" to "Madhvacharya considered Jnana Yoga and Karma Yoga to be insufficient to the path of salvation without Bhakti"? Prabhanjanmutalik (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Kautilya3, I have no strong preference on Kashmir and "South Asia versus Indian subcontinent". I too lean towards Indian subcontinent because of the sources, but either is fine with me. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I still think the painting is better for the article of Krushna than the photo taken in Singapore.
Also, I have been searching for Shiva's image on commons similar to the style of Krushna's painting, but I couldnt find any. Would you please look into that? Thanks a lot. —usernamekiran[talk]19:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Usernamekiran: The forest image is nice when big, but inside the infobox space, it feels too crowded, confusing and unclear. Did you paint this and submit an OTRS to wikimedia? The iconography from Singapore temple looks clearer inside the infobox. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
No, i work only with pencils, and charcoal. I am never good with paint-brush lol. Except with calligraphy, I am very good at it. I can even write in chinese even though i dont understand it. I found the image on commons, and cropped it to remove the frame. Thats why it shows my name as uploader, if thats what you are wondering But usually, the paintings seem to be a better choice that photos. But thats just my opinion But, yes, I understand what you mean regarding this particular painting, and infobox. —usernamekiran[talk]20:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Kindly stay online for like, 20 minutes more. Uploading a photo that might interest you. :) —usernamekiran[talk]20:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
This is one section of my collection on Hinduism (there are two more on the topic). It is messed up, didn't organise in a while lol. There are few books on Krushna, four "skandha"s of bhagwat purana, two versions of Gita, among few others. And yes, that's a Buddha on the left side. I am usually criticised for that. —usernamekiran[talk]21:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you can sketch and upload. The painting you cropped may be under copyright, unless wikimedia has OTRS from the original creator or its copyright has already expired. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
yup, digital copyright is something that Indians do not understand lol. What kind of images do you need for articles? Most of the temples have banned photography. Sometimes for "religious reasoning", but mostly for security reasons. If you know what I mean.
But I know a lot of temples where photography is still allowed. I usually go to temple(s) once in a month. I can take photos the next time i go there. —usernamekiran[talk]00:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Photography of reliefs, the spire (vimana, gopuram), the arts and inscriptions if any, nearby and distant perspective from each of the four directions, photos around sunrise are best as they give better exposures. Historic temples (pre-17th, particularly pre-12th). Respect the local laws on photography please. If local museums have old manuscripts, statues, historic artwork (stone, paintings etc).... Buddhist, Hindu, Jain or otherwise... these would improve the collection and articles here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
oh you have replied! I was here to ask if you can find images for infoboxes that are either paintings, or sculptures. I tried, but I couldnt find any.
and yes, I always respect the law, no matter what it is anout.
and no, it would be quite difficult to find such old temples in Marathwada division, as most of the temples were destroyed and replaced with mosques by muslim rulers. I am from Parbhani btw.
I just realised you understand Sanskrit. I have two questions for you. You must answer one of them.
1: May I know how did you get interested in Hinduism, what is the scope of your interest, and since how long have you been studying it?
I would love to join your gang!
I was born in conservative hindu family. Modern n open minded, yet conservative. I have been studying Hinduism (especially Vishnu) since I was around 14YO. I have read, and understood Kanthopnishad, and few skandha of bhagwat puran. I am very well familiar with Gita. Furthermore, I have also studied (not read, studied) old testament of bible. It was in Marathi language though. I also know a lot about other religions, and their history as well. The pixels are de-sharpening now wheeee. I mean, if you need, you can ask me for an opinion about the hinduism, and/or traditions, and/or rituals. Off the book/street knowledge/first hand experience. :)
Also, i literally know everything about wikipedia. I should sleep before i do something massively regrettable. goodnight :)
PS: how to join the gang? —usernamekiran[talk]04:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
You are mistaken about lack of important historic temples in Marathwada. I have visited the Buddhist / Hindu / Jain cave temples of your region. There are interesting Buddhist cave temples from ~1st century BCE there! If you are close to Nanded, your photos could help our Sikhism space articles. Pandharpur may be a bit far for you, but it is a major Vithoba-Vishnu/Krishna pilgrimage site. The three links on this page may suggest some of the various monument and temple sites you or your friends/family could help collect and upload photos/information to wikimedia in the coming months and years. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Leaving wiki
Long story short, I am leaving wikipedia I wanted you to know. You can send me an email anytime from my userpage if you need my assistance. I will be glad to do that. —usernamekiran[talk]05:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
{{ping|Bishonen}] Yes, it has a sock-y feel. Was tempted to file SPI before you made the CU request, but got lazy. Too much paperwork! Thanks for looking into this, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tito Dutta: Collaboration will be lovely! I am almost done updating the Hatha yoga article. Three significant ones to review and revise next are Krishna, Rama and Radha which attract high traffic, but are weak articles. I have long wanted to work on some Jainism articles, there was major Copyvio/Plagiarism problem there which @Diannaa/others and I found... made me reluctant to do anything there before those active there cleaned up their act. I may take another look. Would one or more of the Krishna, Rama or Radha articles interest you? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Pahela Baishakh. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Akib.H (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
April 2017
Your recent editing history at Pahela Baishakh shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Akib.H (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@Anandmoorti: Thank you for the kind words. The Raja yoga article is ok, @JJ and others have worked on it. Karma yoga is on my to do list. The other two are not. @Joshua Jonathan:, @Iṣṭa Devatā: would you have time or interest to take a look at kriya yoga and kundalini yoga articles?
I may come back to karma yoga after a review of wiki articles on the famines in South Asia and Southeast Asia between 1750 to 1950. It is important and interesting topic, though tragic, distressing and difficult to summarize. Less number of scholarly sources, which makes the topic area a bit more challenging. Important nevertheless, because one of the assumptions in the discussion of Indian religions, sociology and culture, in South Asia and Southeast Asia, sometimes is to completely ignore the possible effects of "famines, famine-related epidemics, rising poverty, etc" between 1750 and 1950. Millions died from starvation and famine-related epidemics in numerous famines from 1760s onwards. A compassionate better premise is that circumstances affect beliefs, behaviors, customs, social interactions and practices. When survival is continuously at stake, and particularly when the survival of one's loved ones is repeatedly at stake, dhamma/dharma is more likely to get compromised. @Tito Dutta: interested? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Lets see if @JJ or @ID take those yoga articles for development. Also check Bhakti yoga is OK or not. Jnana yoga is OK as you guys have developed it. Now another issue shall I remove the Tag from Krishna article as your development work is almost done on this article. And my final appeal to you pls pls develop Mahavatar Babaji article this mystic yogis article is interesting legend says he is still alive.--Anandmoorti (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Reading with a lamp!
@Anandmoorti: I left a message and requested our WP:GOCE team to copyedit and polish the Krishna article. They are busy and may work on it in the next 4 to 10 weeks. So leave the old hat tag alone for now, as the article can benefit further from copyediting. Yes, bhakti yoga is on my list as well. I know nothing about Mahavatar Babaji, so I am not the right person to look at it. @Iṣṭa Devatā: can you, or do you know someone who can review/clean up that article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Anandmoorti: No, please! Templates make sense when it is a major topic in the other tradition. Rama and Krishna are minor in Buddhism. They are discussed in Buddha's previous lives in the Jataka tales e.g., but rare otherwise. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Another clarification shall I remove "WP:Mythology" template as its been Inactive for many months. And should "WP:India" template remain in those Hindu God related articles, such as Rama, Krishna, Durga, or Kali.--Anandmoorti (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
You mean on the talk pages? That should be fine. Don't worry if someone reverts you, as it is really no big deal. Hardly anyone cares about some of these WikiProjects, either way, frankly. One way you can help is by putting Rama etc articles, and all other articles that interest you from those linked in this and this and this templates on your watchlist. Then keep an eye on any edits, using the watchlist link on the top of your login page. Watch for any edits that add unsourced content (tag or revert such edits), or remove sources / sourced content / vandalize (revert these). Please don't do more than two (or at most three) reverts in 24 hours in any article, no matter what the provocation! It is a lot of work to add sourced content, sources and improve articles, takes seconds or few minutes to disrupt / fill it with misinformation. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm talking about Talk page, I shall remove the WP:India & WP:Mythology template from the Talk page article of Hindu God such as Rama, Krishna or Kali.--Anandmoorti (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I would like to add the following part of my editing at Pohela Boishakh article of Wikipedia.
Pahela Baishakh (Bengali New Year) has been introduced in the Alberta Parliament of Canada on April 4, 2017. In response to a petition from the Bangladesh PressClub Centre of Alberta ND Caucus has initiated the introduction of the Bengali New Year. Minister of Community and Social Services Honourable Irfan Sabir's (MLA, Calgary - McCall)[[[1]]]announced it in a luncheon meeting at the Legislative Assembly of Alberta.The Alberta New Democrat Caucus of parliament, in collaboration with the Provincial Assembly,the bill was raised.[[[2]]]
It was tabled in Parliament by Honourable Denise K. Woollard, MLA [[[3]]] and welcomed by a huge applause of the respected legislators.
Honorable Speaker of the House Robert E. Warner expressed deep interest to the Bengali New Year celebration in the province.
The Session at the Bangladesh Press Center of Alberta President, Bangladesh PressClub and Muktijuddah Sangshad of Canada Unit Executive Delwar Jahid, Bangladesh Canada Association of Edmonton, Advocate Arif Khan, Bangladesh Heritage and Ethnic Society of Alberta President Mashod Bhuiyan, VP MJMF Bangladesh sports Club of Alberta, Bangladesh Heritage Museum, Anamur Rahman, Asian News and Views publisher Syfur Hasan, Zulfiqar Ahmed, Calgary NDP leader Vinay Dey, and Tapas HOWLADER among others were introduced and honored. Guest Gallery of Albertan parliament session was almost full.[[[4]]]
After, Alberta's historic recognition of the Bengali New Year a Cheerful celebrations were held in the Edmonton Public Library premises at 12:00AM by the Bangladesh PressClub and allied organizations.[এডমন্টনে চৈত্রের শেষ প্রহরে বাংলা নববর্ষকে স্বাগত(Welcome to Bengali New Year at the end of Choyetra)][5]
On the other hand BCAE organised two day long Baishakhi Mela at Bonidon Community Centre on April 14th and 15th. Recognised Mr. Taher for his life time achievement in the community.(Historic recognition of Bengali New Year: [[[6]]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayhanazaman (talk • contribs) 05:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@JJ: One piece on that plate is for you! Your efforts and persistence in the 4NT and other related articles, despite all the provocations, is deeply admired!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, they made no sense. If it was a Hindu calendar, then the year would have been around 2000-3000. But the Bengali year is 1424. There is a rational explanation for this. Wikipedia is the only place where this is controversial.--ArmanJ (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ms Sarah Welch. It dawned today on me that Anderson's disticnction between symbolic and propositional function of the 4nt in the suttas is an important notion. It relates to a fundamental tension in Buddhism, namely between "sudden" and "gradual," and the attraction of a 'sudden enlightenment which brings ultimate happiness' at once. It's probably not there, not in that way.
But there's also another aspect: how do we read the sutras? I realize that even I am more "traditional" than I'd expected. I always had this pre-conception that the sutras contain "historical" information on the Buddha, his teachings, and his defining enlightenment experience; and that we can somehow, by using critical textual analysis, reatin (some of) this original teaching and experience. But maybe 'there's no there there' (that's the saying, isn't it?); maybe there never was an "enlightenment "experience"". Maybe the logic of the developments required such an experience, and resulted in a convincing and natural portrait. So convincing, that it looked like a story with a lot of addition on and elaboration of an original core; more than "traditionalists" are willing to admit. But maybe even that was too much; like the Christ Myth Theory, and the dawning of the possibility that there never was a person Jesus (I don't propose that the Buddha never existed; that's not my point).
No enlightenment... An image in a mirror, without a corresponding "real" object. A mirage... An illusion, at the heart of the Buddhist tradition.
Maybe I'm very unclear now, but I just wanted to share these thoughts. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!19:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Indeed! how do we read the suttas?, that is an extremely important question. How accurate are they, historical or ahistorical, and what evidence do we have for whatever answer we get, or give, or presume? The texts are not the end. At best, a starting point. The long journey is one within. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, from a DR/N volunteer
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Tumbuka people at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. --5anan27 (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
—usernamekiran[talk] 19:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
—usernamekiran[talk] 19:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I found the image on commons, and cropped it to remove the frame. Thats why it shows my name as uploader, if thats what you are wondering 
But usually, the paintings seem to be a better choice that photos. But thats just my opinion 
![[11]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EthiopiaRAND1908.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Africa_1909,_Edward_Hertslet_(Map_of_Africa_by_treaty,_3rd_edition).jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Africa_1909,_Edward_Hertslet_(Horn_of_Africa,_detail).jpg){kind=link}
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Pahela Baishakh. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ms_Sarah_Welch reported by User:Akib.H (Result: ). Thank you. Akib.H (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
