Talk:Rigveda

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2018

Add web-link: Hermann Grassmann's Rigveda dictionary: http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/GRAScan/2014/web/webtc2/index.php DKoll (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: There are already existing translations in the EL. Spintendo      22:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a translation, and it's great to have online access to Grassmann's dictionary, certainly worth linking. --dab (𒁳) 10:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct?

"Ruse (2015) commented on the old discussion of "monotheism" vs. "henotheism" vs. "monism" by noting an "atheistic streak" in hymns such as 10.130.[109]"

Is this really correct? 10.130 is construed as atheistic?

180.183.74.169 (talk) 05:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2019

the dates are using BC. Please use BCE [ before the common era] for dates as use of BC is christain oriented. Sujoybhatta (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: see MOS:ERA. aboideau^talk 18:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree that BCE should be used, for the same reason. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Witzel's apology

t/p watchers and @Joshua Jonathan and Kautilya3: Perhaps you have already seen this, at footnote 21, page 262 of this paper, Witzel writes (my reformatting/paraphrasing),

"I take this opportunity to apologize for the innumerable printing mistakes in my two papers [published in] Rigvedic history: poets, chieftains and polities In: The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, ed. by G. Erdosy; Indian Philology and South Asian Studies (ed. by A. Wezler and M. Witzel, vol. 1, Berlin/New York (de Gruyter)), 1995, pp. 307-354 volumes; mistakes that seem to indicate that I even lost competence of my mother tongue, German. At my request, the text was rewritten and corrected by the volume editor but my corrections were, for the most part, not carried out. The Volume has now been reprinted, at an affordable rate, by Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi."

In other words, we should avoid sourcing from that Witzel chapter in this or any other wikipedia article (I see our Helmand River article does, but I have not done a thorough check yet). This article cites Erdosy book too, and I am digging into it to see if we need to correct anything. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing, or quoting? Typos are not that consequential for the info itself, are they? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how "printing mistakes" can make a difference for the substance, unless we are giving direct quotations. In any case, the version on Witzel's web page, which is what we use mostly, seems to be the corrected version. It has a note at the top, saying "[2001, with minor upates, in raised brackets]". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Better if we clarify the corrected version for Witzel (and other scholars, if they release a corrected version of their publication). Instead of "Witzel, Michael (1995), "Rgvedic history: poets, chieftains and polities", in George Erdosy (ed.), The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity, Walter de Gruyter, Sec. 6, p. 338" with a url link to the version with errors (which is what we are doing in that Helmand river article), 'consider, "Witzel, Michael (1995), "Rgvedic history: poets, chieftains and polities" [Corrected 2001], in George Erdosy (ed.), The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity, Walter de Gruyter [Munshiram Manoharlal], Sec. 6, p. 338" and link it to the correct version. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I have added a link to the corrected version. But I still think you are taking this rather too seriously. This kind of "printing errors" (really typesetting errors) are endemic in all edited collections of the time. They stopped only after the publishers agreed to accept electronic versions. The only thing special about Witzel is that he cares about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

K3: Thanks. I haven't checked the difference between the two versions. I sense nor have you! Neither have the time, nor the interest. I hope you are right, but I have come across far more serious "printing errors" (+ an upset scholar). Why not work with the correct version, right from the start. The Munshiram Manoharlal's ISBN for this book: 9788121507905. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Max Muller

I understand it is controversial to point out Muller's antagonistic views and their influence on his translation of the Rig Veda, however this information is relevant (and important), especially for those wishing to study a reliable translation of it. I am certain it would be relevant (and important) to know if a translation of a book on evolution, for example, was translated by an openly-hostile creationist. That is the reason why I have added this information. I am also aware of some of Wilson's antagonistic views on the literature he translated (e.g. describing elements of the Vishnu Purana as 'puerile'), but there is no indication (and certainly no admission to my knowledge) that his translations may have been deliberately skewed with the intention of 'uprooting' anything. Carlduff (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, the article should mostly be about the Rigveda and discussing the possible motivations of scholars that have worked on it is a bit of a tangent. But if we really wanted to have a discussion of Müller's motives it should be balanced and guided by reliable secondary sources and not rooted in cherry-picking of quotes from primary sources, such as his personal correspondence. Haukur (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You deleted the previous edit on the basis of it not being cited properly. Then you find another reason to delete it when cited correctly. Seems to me you are being dishonest, Haukur.Carlduff (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

There can be multiple reasons why some content is unacceptable. There is no requirement that some one should list a full list of all that is wrong when reverting an edit. However, you are expected to read and understand all the policies of Wikipedia, as explained in your welcome message. Until that happens, please expect that your content may be reverted for multiple reasons at multiple times by the same or multiple editors.

I basically find your edits as WP:COATRACK, axe-grinding on a scholar, which doesn't belong here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Quite a hostile response, which is unwarranted as is being accusatory and making things personal. I stated Haukar's responses seem to be dishonest, because like yours, they consisted of vague double-speak. I get it that you and the other editors/admins can do anything you want for any reason and without any explanation. I will make it a point to avoid this article and any other articles Haukar and you are interested in. Carlduff (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This edit is unsourced, c.q. not specified, while this edit is WP:SYNTHESIS of quotes from a primary source, suggesting a lack of sound scholarship on the side of Max Muller. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, what is going on here? You are the fourth individual (the third uninvited) to pile in on this. Muller admitted - clearly and in his own words - that he wished to Uproot Vedic culture to pave the way for Christianity, and that his translation of the Rig Veda was intended to achieve this. This is relevant. Yes or no: if you wanted to study a translation of something, wouldn't you consider it pertinent to know if the translator was openly hostile to the subject matter and intended to 'uproot' and replace it with something else (e.g. again, a book on evolution translated by a creationist)? This is how I see it. No axe-grinding, just a clear indication Muller's translation is unreliable. Carlduff (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Any WP:RS for that opinion? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes:

'If our transfer into English does not altogether fail to do justice to Roth's conception and interpretation of the original text, no one, we are sure, can fail to see how greatly inferior is Muller's translation... How much of doubt and uncertainty still hangs over the whole subject may be clearly seen from the discordance, as exhibited above, between versions of the same passage by the two leading Vedic scholars - which discordance appears still more striking when we compare the versions of the other three translations quoted by Muller. Its limits are gradually narrowing, as the Vedic grammar and vocabulary are becoming more thoroughly understood... we heartily wish that Muller might see - what appears plain to many others - that he would hasten on the time of accordance most effectively by giving us as rapidly as possible the results of his efforts at translating, leaving us to infer or conjecture the methods of their attainment... On the whole, we hardly know a volume of which the make-up is more unfortunate and ill-judged, more calculated to baffle the reasonable hopes of him who resorts to it, than the first volume of Muller's so-called "translation" of the Rig-Veda...

— Oriental and Linguistic Studies ...: The Veda. The Avesta. The science of language, Chapter V ('Muller's Rig-Veda Translation'), by William Dwight Whitney (1873), pp. 146-148

References

Carlduff (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Great, 1873. You forgive if I'm not impressed? Especially not since this source says nothing of a Christian bias interferering with Muller's translation? You merely seem to repeat some talking points from the blogosphere: [1] [2]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I am going to attempt to resolve this dispute with you and the others individually on your user-pages; if this is unsuccessful, then a formal dispute will be filed. In your case, you asked for a source and I provided it. Whether it was written in 1873 or 1973 is immaterial. Whether you accept Muller's own admission in his own words is also immaterial since the source clearly evidences concerns with the reliability of Muller's translation, again, as you requested. It is also notable I have been contacted by Doug Weller for "personal attacks" (i.e. calling out demonstrable dishonesty), while it seems you and others here are free to make hostile (and baseless) accusations and personal attacks. FYI, I was unaware of those blogs. Carlduff (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It has been explained that the change I attempted to make could cause trouble, and others have attempted to cause trouble by making similar changes. I get and accept that, so there is no longer a dispute. However, I think experienced editors like yourselves could've handled it better and avoided all this. Carlduff (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion - Carlduff, perhaps it would be better to include some of this content in Max Muller. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)