Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board

Team Tantra

A few fellow editors are forming a team with the express purpose of bringing the Tantra article to Featured Article status. For more details stop by Talk:Tantra. You might also add to the peer review the article is undergoing or leave some action items on it's to do list. Thanks.TheRingess (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

discussion

See Talk:Hinduism#idolatry.3F about the proper word for murti puja and etc.Bakaman 19:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming Conventions

I am looking to find or create a page on naming conventions when it comes to those who faith lies in Hinduism (for lack of better words), as I am stumbling to find how to correctly title pages. For example, does one use Ravindra Svarupa Dasa, or Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu? Or, in another case, we have Jagadguru Kripalu Ji Maharaj, who's real name is Ram Kripalu Tripathi. What is the correct naming for this article? Jagadguru and Maharaj are both considered honorific titles - should they be included? Chopper Dave 22:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Dharmic) should give you a rough guide. In general, the title uses the common name, not the official name. Eg. Mahatma Gandhi, not Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. I think in your examples, the non-real name, because that is the name they are famous with. Also see A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, whose birth name was Abhay Charan De. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism in Armenia up for deletion

<_<...--D-Boy 05:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

BIASED PRESENTATION OF MATERIAL ON HINDUISM AND INDIA ON WIKIPEDIA

There is a significant amount of colonial and Christian missionary or European ethno-centric BIAS that is often presented as superior “linguistic” evidence in representations of Indian religious scriptures and history on documents available on Wikipedia. These sources are fundamentally biased and/or anti-Hindu in nature, as inferred in a March 22, 2007 ruling in a California court in terming use of these sources in deciding content on Hinduism or India in public school text books by the California State Education Board. Specifically, the California Board had previously consulted Harvard Sanskrit Studies Professor Mike Witzel, known for his anti-Hindu bias. Mike Witzel’s content, and that of his like, is frequently cited in these pages as “mainstream scholarship”.

Hulagu, the fact that Witzel is Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard speaks to his authority and credibility. JFD 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

JFD, Michael Witzel is a severely DIS-credited "academic" known for his anti-Hindu bias in support of Aryan racist theories; and academic departments like his are in the process of being shutdown for lack of support, despite a growing interest in India. Here is the background on Witzel:

Ever since Witzel moved to Harvard from Europe (he is German by birth), its Department of Sanskrit and India Studies has been in a state of turmoil. He was forced to step down as department chairman in 1995, following student complaints about his conduct. Enrica Garzilli, whom Witzel had brought in as a faculty member was fired by Harvard as unqualified. She sued the university. Witzel himself threatened to sue a student for asking some questions. Now Hindu parents and groups have sued the State of California for violating their children's civil rights. Curiously for an academic, legal troubles seem to dog Witzel wherever he goes.

We may never know who initiated Witzel's California campaign-- whether Alan Bersin gave Witzel a chance to redeem himself following his disastrous performance at Harvard, or if Witzel saw an opening to get students and funding with Bersin at the helm of the Department of Education in California. Email traffic surrounding IER (Indo-Eurasian Research), an Internet group co-founded by Witzel, suggests that the idea came from some of its members, possibly one Steve Farmer, Witzel's closest associate following Enrica Garzilli's expulsion from Harvard. Farmer lives in California from where he has been reporting on developments in the state.

Problems at Harvard are part of a wider problem in Western academia in the field of Indo-European Studies. Several 'Indology' departments--as they are sometimes called--are shutting down across Europe. One of the oldest and most prestigious, at Cambridge University in England, has just closed down. This was followed by the closure of the equally prestigious Berlin Institute of Indology founded way back in 1821. Positions like the one Witzel holds (Wales Professor of Sanskrit) were created during the colonial era to serve as interpreters of India. They have lost their relevance and are disappearing from academia. This is the real story, not teaching Hinduism to California children. --- From the "Aryan Invasion of California: Global Background" by N.S. Rajaram, May 27, 2007

Hulagu 21:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Hulagu

The Wikipedia pages reviewed to have significant bias include, but not limited to: Vedas, RigVeda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, Atharva Veda, Brahmana, Sathpatha Brahmana, Vedic Period, Indo-Aryans, History of India, and Out of India Theory.

Specifically, here are some of the areas of bias:

1. Statements that Vedas were "composed". I have tried to change it to a neutral "recorded". This area needs parity with articles on the Koran and Bible in the Wikepedia. There is not a single reference to "compose" on Koran or in the first few screens of Bible, and most statements on the Torah say they were revealed or inspired by God.

Qur'an

Opening introduction to the Koran on Wikipedia:

The Qur'ān [1] (Arabic: القرآن ;al-ķur’ān, literally "the recitation"; also sometimes transliterated as Quran or Koran) is the central religious text of Islam. Muslims believe the Qur'an to be the book of divine guidance and direction for mankind, consider the text in its original Arabic to be the literal word of Allah[2] revealed to Muhammad over a period of twenty-three years[3][4], and view the Qur'an as God's final revelation to humanity.[5][6]

Compare it to RigVeda:

2Based on internal evidence (philological and linguistic), the Rigveda was composed roughly between 1700–1100 BCE (the early Vedic period) in the Punjab (Sapta Sindhu),[1]

Bible

The first reference below, refers to composition of TRANSLATIONS of the Bible, even that appears several screens below the top. Other references are mainly in the section on criticism.

Some time in the 2nd or 3rd century BC, the Torah was translated into Koine Greek, and over the next century, other books were translated (or composed) as well. This translation became known as the Septuagint and was widely used by Greek-speaking Jews, and later by Christians.

Versions of the Septuagint contain several passages and whole books beyond what was included in the Masoretic texts of the Tanakh. In some cases these additions were originally composed in Greek, while in other cases they are translations of Hebrew books or variants not present in the Masoretic texts.

Textual criticism refers to the investigation of the Bible as a text, and addresses questions such as authorship, dates of composition, and authorial intention.

Subsequent scholars, notably Eduard Reuss, Karl Heinrich Graf and Wilhelm Vatke, turned their attention to the order in which the documents had been composed (which they deduced from internal clues) and placed them in the context of a theory of the development of ancient Israelite religion, suggesting that much of the Laws and the narrative of the Pentateuch were unknown to the Israelites in the time of Moses. These were synthesized by Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918), who suggested a historical framework for the composition of the documents and their redaction (combination) into the final document known as the Pentateuch.

The development of the hypothesis has not stopped with Wellhausen. Wellhausen's hypothesis, for example, proposed that the four documents were composed in the order J-E-D-P, with P, containing the bulk of the Jewish law, dating from the post-Exilic Second Temple period (i.e., after 515 BC); but the contemporary view is that P is earlier than D, and that all four books date from the First Temple period (i.e., prior to 587 BC).

2. Frequent citation of "mainstream scholars" or "majority of scholars" everywhere to support the biased presentations. There is no definition of what "mainstream" or "majority" means. One administrator (JFD) attempted to define mainstream as material from “peer-reviewed” journals, a standard that has not been applied for material on other religious literature on Wikipedia, AND, does not reflect more recent peer reviewed and published books that have demonstrated the untenable bias of linguistic “scholars” or Indo European studies scholars.

Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ

A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without, since the content is subject to verification. Self published sources such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media (e.g. The Economist) and other sources with editorial oversight, which is less reliable itself than professional or peer reviewed journal (e.g. Nature).

Hulagu, if you can cite more recent peer-reviewed material, then it would in fact be welcome, but don't try to claim that non-peer-reviewed material is peer-reviewed, as you did with that Kalyanaraman thing. JFD 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

JFD, The Kalyanaraman article was a detailed review of Peer-Reviewed published scholarship from 1999-present. It had littel from Kalyanaraman himself other than an extensive reproduction of text and reference. I asked you to how to upload the file itself as part of the reference, so it was available for review. Here are a few from several dozen extracts from Kalyanaraman:

From: Arvidsson, Stefan (2006), Aryan Idols: Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science, translated by Sonia Wichmann, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

"For over two hundred years, a series of historians, linguists, folklorists, and archaeologists have tried to re-create a lost culture. Using ancient texts, medieval records, philological observations, and archaeological remains they have described a world, a religion, and a people older than the Sumerians, with whom all history is said to have begun. Those who maintained this culture have been called “Indo-Europeans” and “Proto-Indo-Europeans,” “Aryans,” and “Ancient Aryans,” “Japhetites,” and “wiros,” among many other terms. These people have not left behind any texts, no objects can definitely be tied to them, nor do we know any “Indo-European” by name. In spite of that, scholars have stubbornly tried to reach back to the ancient “Indo-Europeans,” with the help of bold historical, linguistic, and archaeological reconstructions, in the hopes of finding the foundation of their own culture and religion there.

The fundamental thesis of this study is that these prehistoric peoples have preoccupied people in modern times primarily because they were, to use the word of Claude Levi-Strauss, “good to think with,” rather than because they were meaningful historical actors. The interest in the “Indo-Europeans,” “Aryans” and their “others” (who have varied through history from Jews to savages, Orientals, aristocrats, priests, matriarchal peasants, warlike nomads, French liberals, and German nationalists), stemmed-and still stems-from a will to create alternatives to those identities that have been provided by tradition. The scholarship about the Indo-Europeans, their culture, and their religion has been an attempt to create new categories of thought, new identities, and thereby a future different from the one that seemed to be prescribed (Arvidsson 2006, p. xi).”

“On a more general level, the debate is about whether there is something in the nature of research about Indo-Europeans that makes it especially prone to ideological abuse-perhaps something related to the fact that for the past two centuries, the majority of scholars who have done research on the Indo-Europeans have considered themselves descendants of this mythical race (Arvidsson 2006, p.3).”

From: Lincoln, Bruce (1999), Theorizing Myth: Narrative, Ideology, and Scholarship, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

“Given the unhappy example of scholarship on myth, particularly that on Aryan or Indo-European myth, is one forced to conclude that scholarly discourse is simply another instance of ideology in narrative form? The topic is a painful but important one for me, as I continue my struggle to extricate from a discipline, a paradigm, and a discourse that I adopted early in my academic career with insufficient critical reflection. To a certain extent, writing this book has been an attempt to undo my (Lincoln’s) earlier lack of awareness and make amends for it (Lincoln 1999, p. xii).”

“As a student of history of religions, I (Lincoln) was taught that Fredric Max Muller inaugurated our discipline but his work on “comparative mythology” foundered on his own incompetence, as did the later attempt of Sir James George Frazer. The field was rescued, so the narrative went, by Dumezil with the support of some talented colleagues, Wikander, Otto Hoffer, Jan De Vries, and Emile Benveniste among them. Older scholars also entered my awareness, including Hermann Guntert, Herman Lommel, Walter Wust, Rudolf Much, Franz Altheirm, Richard Reitzenstein, and Hans Heinrich Schaeder, and many of these men were deeply involved with the Nazi movement. To that side of their work, however, I was largely blind. Instead of dangerous ideologues, I saw talented linguists, erudite Orientalist (a word not yet suspect), and trailblazing students of myth. Whatever questions I had—and they were not many—were deftly deflected. The “Aryan thesis” was fundamentally sound, I was told, although Hitler and Co. had badly abused it. But no one spoke of “Aryans’” anymore or located their (presumed) Urheimat in Scandinavia, Germany, or the North Pole. Rather, the postwar discourse dealt with Indo-Europeans, elided questions of race, and placed the origin of this sanitized people off to the east, on the Russian steppes. IN THE PAGES THAT FOLLOW, I (LINCOLN) HOPE TO SHOW THAT THINGS ARE NOT THAT SIMPLE AND THE PROBLEMS—MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL— THAT ATTEND THIS DISCOURSE OR DISCIPLINE ARE NOT SO EASILY RESOLVED (Lincoln 1999, pp. xii-xiv, emphasis added).” Hulagu 22:35, 26 June 2007

“One might think this position [that the English colonialist should convert their Indian “brethren” to the Gospel] would have endeared Max Muller to missionaries, but in fact it did not. Rather, they found him entirely too sympathetic to the “heathen” and suspected him of being insufficiently committed to the faith. Accordingly, in 1860 he was passed over for Oxford’s Boden chair in Sanskrit, which carried responsibility for preparing the Sanskrit-English dictionary, both of which were intended, under the terms of Lt-Col Boden’s will, to advance the conversion of Indians to Christianity, not to foster English understanding or respect for India (Lincoln 1999, p. 68, parenthesis added).”

(UTC)HulaguHulagu 22:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

3. Selective immediate refutation of presentation of newer or scholarship by Indian-origin scholars, right at the place where a representation is made, in the name of "mainstream scholars". Such refutation is made at the bottom of the page, often in a separate section for material on non-Hindu religions.

4. Presentation of biased representations from Western scholars at the top part of every page as fact without presenting criticisms of such views.

5. Discarding or "deprecating" astronomical, archeological dating references and genetic studies in favor of only arguable linguistic assumptions, especially when much of the linguistic assumptions have since been discredited.

6. Assuming that the horse was not in India prior to 2000BC, to support biased claims, despite evidence to the contrary or attempts to dismiss such evidence without basis.

7. Complete absence of citations of commentaries on the Scriptures by Indian scholars of your like Shankaracharya and Ramanuja - as if the western Indologists were the first to study or comment on these scriptures.

8. Wikipedia administrators (Buddhipriya, JLD, Abecedare) have repeatedly reversed edits to correct bias, raising the possibility that the discredited “linguistic” studies group mafia has taken control of these pages to perpetuate bias.

Recommendation: These pages must be rewritten from the scratch to eliminate all bias.

WP:REDFLAG

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

• Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
• Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media.
• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
• Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in biographies of living people.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JFD (talk • contribs)

please stop crossposting this piece to more talkpages. JFD (talk · contribs) has pointed you to the relevant policy pages at Talk:Rigveda. These issues have been discussed many, many times (much more often than warranted), and if you really want to rehash the debate, you would do well to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy first, and with the past debates on the articles in question after that. dab (𒁳) 23:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If he's xposting it on various Hinduism article talkpages, he might as well post it here instead of those pages. Many users including myself and Abecedare (talk · contribs) [1] would rather get a broader consensus here.Bakaman 23:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

that's what I'm saying. He is right that far too many of our Hinduism related articles are in a sorry state, but that's because they're full of unreferenced blather more typically than due to some evil conspiracy of Hindu-hating academics. dab (𒁳) 23:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have 'encyclopedic' religious textbooks at home which include images of Vishnu's avatars mistakenly labelled as Shiva the Hindu god of destruction - so in comparison to that, at least, I don't think we are doing too bad. I would certainly disagree with the statement These pages must be rewritten from the scratch to eliminate all bias, although I would welcome additional perspectives being added in a neutral manner, where relevant, as I'm sure everyone would? Gouranga(UK) 11:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

indeed. But most people lose interest when they realize that writing encyclopedic articles, especially when you are bound to defend your additions wrt WP:NPOV and WP:RS, involves work. dab (𒁳) 16:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The concern I have is that the academic content is not presented properly; a theory is presented as a proven fact. As an example, in academic literature, Indo-Aryan migration is called a Theory, but Dab threatens edit warring if theory is added to the name to reflect academic literature. [2]. Also when it says “mainstream scholars” it fails to mention that it is mostly “linguistic” scholars. Most archaeologists dealing with South East Asia can not find any evidence of Indo-Aryan Migration – Jim Shaffer is the most vocal. But this is not reflected in the article when we use “mainstream scholars”. This weasel wording needs to be fixed.Sbhushan 17:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So cite those archaeologists instead of crackpots like Kazanas for whom peer review has to be waived. JFD 21:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

JFD, it appears you misunderstood my point. When it says mainstream scholars it should say mainstream linguistic scholars. Are you conceding that the name of Indo-Aryan migration should be changed to include Theory? For name used in mainstream publications check Witzel, Bryant etc.Sbhushan 12:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If in support of your POV you can cite mainstream scholarship—no matter the field, linguistics or not—then by all means do so.

But don't try to pass something off as peer-reviewed when it's not.

JFD 16:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The following two Reliable Sources are not crackpots, JFD. One is the leading Indus Valley Civilisation archaeologist, the other is the conclusion of the most recent peer-reviewed genetic study. Clearly, the Indo-Aryan Migration Theory is only possibly supported by linguistics and definitely not by archeology or genetics. That barely qualifies it even as a theory, and is a sad remnant of people, "present" and past, who's POV includes promoting the superiority of the Aryan race. ॐ Priyanath talk 18:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"There is no archaeological or biological evidence for invasions or mass migrations into the Indus Valley between the end of the Harappan Phase, about 1900 BC and the beginning of the Early Historic period around 600 BC." — Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization (Karachi & Islamabad : Oxford University Press & American Institute of Pakistan Studies, 1998)

"the perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving to India together through the northwest corridor does not hold up to close scrutiny" — Sanghamitra Sahoo, Anamika Singh, G. Himabindu, Jheelam Banerjee, T. Sitalaximi, Sonali Gaikwad, R. Trivedi, Phillip Endicott, Toomas Kivisild, Mait Metspalu, Richard Villems, and V. K. Kashyap, A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: Evaluating demic diffusion scenarios, Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences of the United States of America, January 13, 2006

---

Priyanath,
Here's what Vijendra Kashyap, one of the authors of "A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes," had to say to National Geographic in an interview about the paper:

"The fact the Indo-European speakers are predominantly found in northern parts of the subcontinent may be because they were in direct contact with the Indo-European migrants, where they could have a stronger influence on the native populations to adopt their language and other cultural entities," Kashyap said.

Priyanath, I would be wary of assuming that those who question "the Indo-Aryan migration" necessarily support "Out of India".

Best, JFD 21:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly — it "may be because" of contact with migrants - which makes it a theory, and only a linguistic theory at that. To be accurate, the article should be titled Indo-Aryan Language Migration Theory. As far as Out of India, I don't for a second assume that those archaeologists and geneticists who have dismissed the Aryan Migration therefore support Out of India. There's not enough evidence to conclusively prove either one—which makes them both theories. Cheers, ॐ Priyanath talk 21:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

---

1) Archeologist POV - Bryant(2001:231)-The vast majority of the professional archaeologists I interviewed in India insisted that there was no convincing archaeological evidence whatsoever to support any claims of external Indo-Aryan origins. This is part of a wider trend: archaeologists working outside of South Asia are voicing similar views. He quotes Shaffer(1995:139) "Archaeological data indicates that a shift by Indus Valley cultural groups is the only archaeologically documented west-to-east movement of human populations in South Asia before the first half of the first millennium B.C."

2)Would you ask Pope/Church to publish in peer-reviewed litrature before their intrepretation of Bible can be published on Wiki? e.g. Check Bible - Christian theology, none of material is peer-reviewed. It is from a website Believers web. I believe that is the point Hulagu is making. Sbhushan 17:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Sbhushan, I'll tell you what I told Priyanath: just because someone questions "the Indo-Aryan migration" doesn't necessarily mean they support "Out of India". In the interview I direct Priyanath to above, Vijendra Kashyap, one of the authors of "A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes," argues that the people of the Indian subcontinent are indigenous to South Asia, but that Indo-European languages aren't. So by all means cite the peer-reviewed work of bona fide archaeologists who question "the Indo-Aryan migration". But don't claim that peer-reviewed scholarship supports the Out of India theory unless it does so explicitly.
2. Theological interpretation is a separate issue from the dating of the composition of the various books of the Bible. And, with regards to the latter, Yes, I would insist on peer-reviewed sources.

Best, JFD 21:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Priyanath response above to same -- these are linguistic theories and should be presented as theories and not proven fact. Re 2 please see response to Dab at end of this section.Sbhushan 19:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Priyanath & Sbhushan, Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in the relevant academic community. Does "the Indo-Aryan migration" have bona fide academic critics? Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that, in the relevant academic community, "the Indo-Aryan migration"—though by no means the only point of view—is the predominant one, support for "Out of India" is negligible, and Wikipedia must reflect that. JFD 19:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point I'm trying to make — which is that the IAM is a theory per mainstream views. It also is a linguistic theory, based on the fact that mainstream archaeologists and the most recent genetic studies find no credible evidence of invasion or migration. These are credible, mainstream, and reliable sources which are not given due weight in the article, but are deprecated to the point of being buried, due entirely to POV and not current academic views. Cheers, ॐ Priyanath talk 21:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I respect WP:UNDUE. Indo Ayan migration is based on only linguistic arguement, but when it says in the article mainstream scholars it implies Archeologist also support it. This is not correct statement. And most of linguistic arguments don't belong on religious articles. Linguistic are minority when religious articles are being discussed.Sbhushan 22:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

---

I suspect none of you understand the depth of the "academic" fraud and bias here, and I sincerely hope you are not part of it: 1. It is disgusting to see all this blatant, proven bias in the name of "scholarship" and presented as such to the lay person looking for information on Wikipedia 2. Descriptions of Hindu religion and scripture on Wiki should have absolutely nothing to do with Sanskrit linguistics or Indo-European studies - the latter, if needed, should be a page by itself, with perhaps just a link to this page at the bottom of Hindu religious scripture. 3. Asking for only or mainly "peer-reviewed" journal references on Hindu scripture is nonsense. The Vedas, etc are religious scripture with commentaries by religious scholars over several thousand years. Surely, you are not suggesting that all these commentaries must be published in some "peer-review" journal in the past 200 years for it to be included in Wiki? I hold two research-based graduate degrees from leading schools in the United States and I know how that system works - it is silly circular logic that has no relevance in situations where the foundational basis for some of these journals, like the Journal of Indo-European Studies, is itself steeped in well-known ideological bias 4. What is consistent with Wiki policy? Presenting the page on Rigveda as a linguistic literary piece under Hindu religion or presenting it, for the most part, from a religious scholarship perspective, as it is on the pages on the Koran, Torah and Bible. 5. Please take a good read of the pages on the Koran, Torah, and Bible and compare them objectively to the pages on the Rigveda and Vedas, and ask yourselves if you are doing even academic" justice ti the Rigveda? 6. Hindu religious scripture is vast. The Vedas alone, if recited in the correct oral tradition, will take approximately 200 hours to recite. The oral tradition was maintained for accent and phonetics for a specific purpose, for example, the word Agni appears more than 200 times, but at each place it is pronounced differently to convey a different meaning and context, all of which would be lost in most written versions. I don't expect a Wiki page on the Rigveda to do justice in describing it, but at least, I expect it not do gross injustice to it by reducing it to some arcane linguistic piece, especially when there is an abundance of rich and varied scholarship available on the religious aspects of it. That is why these pages need a rewrite, and I agree with dab that few have the time for this, but there are respectable scholars and foundations who may do justice to it, but I cant lead them here if it is going to be this messy as it been over several attempts to correct the pages. 7. Perhaps these pages should go before the arbitration council, and if we come to that, the scholars may get involved. Hulagu 18:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Hulagu

"Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them." JFD 21:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sadly these claims are widely known and have been put forth in many reliable sources and published literature. Again a chicken and egg argument. WP:REDFLAG doesnt apply because there is an innate contradiction in the policy. Your interpretation (essentially equivalent to dab's) is not the only one out there, and perhaps Hulagu is ranting because you didnt take time to separate fluff from perfectly reasoned argument. Hualgu is correct in noting that no other religious book has the dating section plastered in the forefront as a pat on the back to Romila Thapar. =Bakaman 21:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The claim that the moon landing was faked is also widely known and been put forth in many places. Doesn't make it any less of a fringe theory or exceptional claim.

If 4000 BC has been put forth in many reliable sources, then surely you can come up with something better than a single sentence in an otherwise unrelated article.

JFD 16:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Traditional scriptures and acharyas equated to fringe theorists? OmG, what a logic! What part of the above bias explanation is not clear? It doesn't have to be called a conspiracy, just a colonial power struggle bias. Sastras and acharyas should be main sources, on par with Abrahamic traditions, while the weak modernist view can have a separate page, as suggested above. If not rewrites then heavy editing would do, possibly by pro-traditional scholars/institutions like Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, etc. Jan 82.208.2.214 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Issues in regards to dates are also cropping up (amongst others) in the Buddhism and Hinduism article. See these recent edits for example. Gouranga(UK) 11:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The articles related to RigVeda, Vedas etc are about religious books. They are NOT about linguistic or how PIE is related to Vedic Sanskrit. These articles should be presented in similar format as other articles on religious books. Dating should be specific to when any hard date can be fixed. A guess from linguistic scholars should be presented as a best guess in the appropriate section. It definitely does NOT belong in lead.Sbhushan 12:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Re anti-traditional bias suggesting a corruption of Rig Veda see [3]. Jan 82.208.2.214 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to see Hulagu is now down to discussing individual points and individual references (as opposed to ranting about Wikipedia's Hinduism articles in general). This can be done point-by-point on the relevant talkpages instead of this central board. The general situation is like this. People keep throwing fringe literature at us to the point of nausea. Upon discussion, it becomes apparent that the most vocal point-pushers are not aware of the academic debate at all, but have simply harvested their citation from some internet forum. The bulk of these "refereces" can be dismissed as fringe and/or propaganda, and constitute a waste of everybody's time. Once we have cut through that smoke-screen, there remain a few more moderate academic references that can be presented as bona fide minority opinion. Point pushers are as a rule not aware of the relative weight of these sources, and it has to be explained to them in painful detail. This is tiring, and not a bona fide discussion of open minds. People will keep cherry-picking no matter what, and yes, it is possible to cherry-pick a handful of citeable references in the gist of their agenda (out of a huge body of academic literature). I would ask anyone interested in the field to immerse themselves in peer-reviewed literature with an open mind and become acquainted with academic mainstream without wasting people's time on Wikipedia because they refuse to leave their ideological corner based on a cocktail on crackpot opinions and cherry-picked out-of-mainstream soundbites that are passed around on Hindu internet fora. An open mind means that you come to Wikiepedia also in order to learn what academics think, not just to "set things right" according to what you have been told on some popular website or read in some Voice of India publication. dab (𒁳) 08:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Bible is also written in PIE daughter language, but you don't find a large section about linguistic in that article. Dating the Bible is a seperate article which is not even referenced in Bible. Same way RigVeda, Vedas etc are article about religious books and should be structure in a similar way as Bible. The rules are same for everyone. This point about how these articles should be presented needs to be discussed on common pages.Sbhushan 19:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sbhushan,

The Bible—and also the Qur'an—were both originally written in Semitic languages, which are a branch of the Afro-Asiatic language family.

In other words, neither the Bible nor the Qur'an is written in a PIE daughter language as you claim above.

Best, JFD 19:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So where is the discussion about Semitic languages or Afro-Asiatic language family on Bible? The point being made is that RigVeda or Vedas are religious document and linghistic are minority scholars for religious discussion and should not be given undue weight.Sbhushan 22:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are the sections discussing the Bible as a text, rather than its contents as a religious document (this list is by no means exhaustive):

• Textual criticism
• Bible versions and translations
• Original language of NT

Of course the inclusion of such material discussion of dating, authorship, editions, is a no brainer for any encyclopedic article on any ancient religion/non-religious text, as even a casual perusal of established encyclopedias, such as Britannica, Encarta shows. That said, it is quite possible that some wikipedia articles are lacking in this regards, in which case those articles should be brought up to expected standard, rather than dumbing down other pages.

Please note that I am not claiming that linguistic analysis is the sole criterion that should be used to establish the dating of religious texts. If there are other pieces of evidence (such as archaeological or contemporary accounts)for which we have reliably and authoritative sources, of course that information can and should be added as long as we take care that the coverage does not give minority or disputed views undue weight.

Finally, I would like to point out that in (both hard and social) sciences and academic usage a "theory" is not simply a "guess", and trying to belittle the concept due to ignorance or deliberate misunderstanding of the term does not enhance ones credibility. If interested, please see some discussion on why "is a theory, not a fact" is a fallacious argument at Evolution is a theory ... not a fact section. Regards. Abecedare 23:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reworded last sentence to make intended meaning clearer. Abecedare 01:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

An appeal to evolution is not a sound argument. Evolution is more or less an undeniable truth, backed up by a practically soundproof argument and copious amounts of evidence. Global warming is also empirically provable. Dating (esp. when there are no objects) is not empirically provable, it is not falsifiable, and therefore is speculation.Bakaman 00:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Baka, I think I may not have been clear enough: I am not drawing an analogy between dating of texts and evolution. Rather, I am saying that it is as falacious to say, "method X of dating Y is a theory" and therefore a guess/speculation/nonsensical by definition, as it would be to say that "evolution is a theory" and therefore not a fact. If one want to argue against an explanation X that is accepted by mainstream scholarship one needs to explicitly demonstrate its flaws, and not just label it a theory and consider the task done! Of course, wikipedia is not the place for proposing/proving/disproving theories - such reasearch requires years or decades of painstaking effort to undertake and then get published in peer-reviewed literature, from which wikipedia can draw its content.Abecedare 01:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare - I don't think that anyone here is trying to say that 'theory' means 'nonsensical'. It simply means ... 'theory'. That said, the Indo-Aryan Migration Theory is based on far less evidence than evolution. Evolution has significant physical evidence. This IAM theory does not have significant physical evidence (or any, according to Kenoyer and the latest genetic study). It really isn't proven, in the way that evolution is proven. Bad analogy. Even then, I don't think anyone here is trying to 'disprove' the theory, but only to give Due Weight to the huge question marks about the lack of archaeological and genetic evidence, and Due Weight to the fact that it is, at the end of the day, a 'theory' that is lacking in significant ways. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A caveat: My comments are more directly aimed at the Hindu scripture articles than the IAM/AIT/OIT etc, since I am not really up-to-date with the scholarship related to the latter subject (and have therefore never edited those sets of articles). That said, I am not sure what you mean by

1. "a theory is just a ... 'theory' " (paraphrasing), because the non-technical everyday meaning of the term and its use in sciences (again, both physical and social) are quite distinct; in particular in latter use the term does not mean guess or speculation as has been incorrectly stated earlier in this section;
2. No theory is every "proven" (see, Karl Popper's writings) although they can be falsified (as Baka also mentioned above). So saying "X is not proven" is not really as strong an argument against X, as a lay person would think. Rather the standard by which both academia and wikipedia work are current mainstream acceptance of an idea by qualified experts in the area, as reflected in peer-reviewed literature.

I realize that my recent comments are going somewhat off-topc, but I am speaking up only because I noticed some well-known and widely rejected straw-man arguments being raised repeatedly in this section by well-meaning editors. Regards. Abecedare 03:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I should have been more clear with 'a theory is just a theory'. I'm assuming others here are using the scientific definition of the term. It's not a loaded term for me, meaning 'nonsensical', etc. It just means 'theory'. Speaking scientifically and encyclopedically, AIM is a theory, and the title should say that.ॐ Priyanath talk 15:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so that the above comments do not sow further confusion, I'll quickly add that views of prominent religious figures (example, Ramanuja) with regards to the theological or philosophical content of scriptures is by definition noteworthy and there is no requirement for these views to be peer-reviewed and published in academic journals (although such journals can often provide useful secondary explication of the original view). However dating, linguistic or archaeological analysis are academic disciplines and peer-reviewed literature does hold sway in such matters. Abecedare 01:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that we are discussing a number of seperate topics and it is getting a little bit confusing. I am making seperate sub-sections based on what I see. Please correct if I missed something. I strongly believe that this discussion can help us end this ongoing conflict.Sbhushan 15:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

---

AIM/OIT

Indo-Aryan Migration should be titled Indo-Aryan Migration Theory. So far I have not understood what is objection to adding "theory" to the name.Sbhushan 15:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

mainstream scholars

This should be mainstream linguistic scholars. Evidence provided above that archeologist/genetics don't agree with linguistic. To imply all mainstream agree with AIM is misrepresentation.Sbhushan 15:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is discussed in Harappans and Aryans: Old and New Perspectives of Ancient Indian History The History Teacher - Vol. 32, No. 1. (Nov., 1998), pp. 17-32. There has been criticism of linguistic "evidence". And dont give me this Witzelesque bullshit about qualifications. Manian has a PhD in history.Bakaman 20:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You haven't even read that article, have you? It's completely tangential to your claim. Hornplease 21:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we jumping to conclusions? Yourself, dbachmann, and others have tried to assert Frawley, Rajaram, et al. have not been discussed (or have been unanimously rejected) in academic journals. However, this paper does not reject R,R,Kak but notes that they are in sync with views held by Basham and others. In fact it is almost a vindication of many views espoused by Hindu nationalists.Bakaman 14:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an analysis of a 'discourse', not of the scholarship itself. Please stay on-topic. Hornplease 19:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Claiming I had not read the paper, is also off-topic. If it was simply an analysis, isn't mainstream Indology supposed to regard the Kak, Frawley, Rajaram as lunatics? The paper does discuss that Rajaran (and Basham in some areas) do not agree with "mainstream" scholarship.Bakaman 01:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, as is the paper you quoted. Move on. Hornplease 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What's really irrelevant are your useless quips in this section. The paper discusses the contradictions of many views, I would suggest you actually read it.Bakaman 22:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't bicker like this. I don't see the point of your mentioning the paper, which is published in a journal on pedagogy, and not history, and which in any case discusses outdated textbooks which use the word 'Invasion', rather than 'migration'. Please take this elsewhere. Hornplease 23:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. Mainstream Archeologist/Genetic don't agree with migration theory. And I am not implying that they agree with OIT either. So mainstream scholar should be refered as mainstream linguitic scholars.Sbhushan 15:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is the consensus among archaeologists, cite a review article in a prominent journal stating as much and take it to the appropriate page. Otherwise this is pointless. Hornplease 23:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Bryant 2001 page 231-232, preface by Erdosy in Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity. The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, ed. G. Erdosy, Berlin/New York (de Gruyter) 1995, Witzel's and Shaffer's papers published in same Erdosy 1995. Do you have any mainstream publication for your POV? The archeological point has been accepted by Dab/Rudra on Indo-Aryan Migration page. Using "mainstream scholar" is using weasel words to misrepresent. And we are discussing it here because this issue is common to lots of pages. Sbhushan 17:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Dating of religious document

This creates conflict on number of pages. We have an option to restrict the conflict to one page and presents summaries on each page with a link regarding controversy. The reason I say controversy is that first, dating of all the document is based on assumption of Indo-Aryan migration which is controversial. Second, even in mainstream scholars, a minority believes the migration happend earlier. Dab provided these minority comments on OIT page. So we can acknowledge that there is a controversy and document it accordingly. But keeping the conflict on all the pages will only escallate this conflict.Sbhushan 15:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Dating the Vedas is upfront because of the frequently reiterated claim that the Vedas are the world's oldest 'living' religious documents. Also, there is considerably more scholarly discussion of Vedic dating as a proportion of overall Vedic studies than there is of Qur'anic dating as a proportion of overall Quranic studies. So the comparison isn't useful. Hornplease 21:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Question is: Is it better to restrict conflict to one page vs. conflict on multiple pages?Sbhushan 15:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Presentation of religious document

Religious docuemnts are primarily religious docuements. Linguistic scholars are a minority to topic as they only focus on dating. I don't see the reason to put their views in lead. There should be appropriate section for dating, that also provides link back to the dating article.Sbhushan 15:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

See above. This is supposedly a scholarly encyclopaedia, and needs to reflect the discussion among scholars, not practitioners directly. Hornplease 21:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that scholars do have the right to present their views at the forefront. However, I agree that regardless of the extent of discussion and speculation scholars have made, dating shouldn't dominate any religious article. Most of the article should be directed towards analysis of the text itself. The Vedas in its current state does a fairly good job at this. Dating isn't mentioned in the lead and appears only in its own section and couple of times when the specific Vedas are discussed. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 23:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

For Hornplease: Please see WP:RS - The reliability of a source depends on the context: a world-renowned mathematician is not a reliable source about biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources. Linguistic scholars are not theologist; their only concern is how Vedic relates to PIE or othere IE languages. Also Witzel is a Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University and NOT archeologist or trained in Historical linguistics or Comparative linguistics.

BTW: I agree with DaGizza's comment above as to how Vedas are presented. Dating should appear in appropriate section.Sbhushan 15:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sbhushan, according to Witzel's cv, "Indo-European linguistics" and "Indo-Iranian philogogy and linguistics" were part of his PhD concentration, so Witzel did in fact receive training in linguistics, and specifically Indo-European and Indo-Iranian linguistics. JFD 18:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

==Thus speak Prof Witzel

He is anti-India. Read this very well documented article with lot of supporting documents http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:ec3CML6gzykJ:www.vigilonline.com/downloads/Dossier%2520on%2520Witzel.doc+thus+speak+witzel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Niranjan 2-Jul-07

Talk:List of founders of world religions#Hinduism

An interesting discussion that others may like to get involved in. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 23:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

New look Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism

The old design is here. There are still vital sections missing in the transformed version, which will soon be added. In the past, the inefficient organisation and collaboration of the Hinduism project had let many reasonably-written articles dissolve into garble, which was what prompted me for change. We have never reached our potential with the quantity and quality of writers we contain. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 01:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hindutva terrorism

Hi, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindutva terrorism. deeptrivia (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC - Out of India Theory - Urheimat

Please see an RfC Talk:Out_of_India_theory#Request_for_Comment:_Gandhara_as_homeland.Sbhushan 18:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Khatri

There is an ongoing edit-war on this page for weeks/months between anon. IPs on whether Khatris are Kshatriyas or not. Can someone knowledgeable please settle this dispute, add some references or at least semi-protect the page ? Thanks. Abecedare 11:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Food for thought

Here is an interesting article that addresses the very issues at the heart of so much disagreement (see discussion above) on Hinduism related wikipedia pages:

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20070629&fname=aditibannerjee&sid=1

Cheers, ॐ Priyanath talk 01:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Priyanath, if you want to change the representation of Hinduism in academia, Wikipedia is absolutely, unequivocally, and emphatically NOT the place to fight that battle.

For better or for worse, Wikipedia MUST reflect academia. JFD 02:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I'm not trying to do anything JFD. I merely found an interesting article that sheds some light on the disputes here. Wikipedia reflects the broader culture, and I don't think it's inappropriate to bring relevant non-Wikipedia cultural discussions here to the Hinduism-related topics notice board. Food, thought, that's all. Cheers, ॐ Priyanath talk 02:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is indicative of the sustained campaign being organised by radical activists to mainstream non-scholarly work through 'alternative' methods in order to gain political traction. If Wikipedia doesn't resist this gaming of the system - the wikibombing of the subsidised propaganda press Voice of India is one example - then the India-related pages will be nothing but an unreadable, unreliable cesspool, something like the decline of the Times of India. Hornplease 04:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)