This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
@VictoriaGrayson: what is factually incorrect in the lead? which source and page number states what, that supports your claim? why should Nalanda claim be in the lead section, without discussion in the main article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Unifying Hinduism, pages 2-5. This schema of deeming philosophies orthodox and heterodox is a 12th-16th century invention of Vedantins.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson: We can add Nicholson's view on orthodox schools from page 4. But we must summarize other scholars. Wikipedia is not Nicholson-pedia. Why are you deleting the views of other scholars, why take sides and ignore WP:NPOV? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Its not about NPOV. Its about reliability. Your sources are unreliable since other scholars contradict them.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson: You have only mentioned Nicholson, not "other scholars". Nicholson states, "it is surprising how widespread and influential this understanding of the schools of Indian philosophy [astika and nastika] remains today". In other words: Nicholson is acknowledging that this doxography is the majority view. What you are deleting, therefore, is surprising and unpersuasive. Disagreement between scholars does not make one side unreliable. As a compromise, I would welcome adding a brief summary from the last 2 paragraphs from Nicholson's page 4, as a clarifying note. Will that be acceptable to you? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Flood himself makes similar points to Nicholson on page 231. So you are contradicting your own source.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson: Nope. Have you seen pages 81-82 of Flood's 1996 book? Flood's page 231 is not contradicting those pages, nor is it contradicting what is in the "Hindu theology and philosophy" (chapter 10), of which page 231 is a part. We need to summarize what Nicholson acknowledges is the widespread view. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Adiagr: Please explain. You can't vote to abolish all wikipedia content policies, such as abandon WP:LEAD, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict, responding to this post)@VictoriaGrayson: Actually it is you who is cherrypicking, since you have avoided addressing my comments such as about pages 81-82 of Flood above. You are also cherrypicking rules from wikipedia's policy pages.
The WP:CONSENSUS states, "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."
See also the first line of this section, and rest of that section, on the same page.
Your argument to revoke WP:OR, WP:V, WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV for this article, through vote, by asserting WP:IAR as you do, is absurd, unpersuasive and will lead to WP:TE in this and other wikipedia articles. We can take this issue to WP:DRN if you like. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
See WP:IRONY. It is your content which is violating all those policies. We have consensus to replace your cherrypicking content.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
(ec) @VictoriaGrayson: Read my comment above. I already invited you to add Nicholson's view as well, into the lead and the main article. If you wish, I will do it for you. We need to respect WP:NPOV, and not take sides. We need to keep in this article what Nicholson acknowledges is the widespread scholarly view. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The above responds to this post. @Vic: Do you want me to add a summary from Nicholson as well? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Eh, can I just say that "Your sources are unreliable since other scholars contradict them" is ... how do I say this diplomatically ... not really valid or sensical? Sources are unreliable because they are unreliable, not because everyone agree with them. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson: Here is a draft which includes the Nicholson source and what Nicholson admits is the widespread scholarly view. For [note 1] and , please refer to this version.
The various Indian philosophies and denominations have taken differing positions on the Vedas. Schools of Indian philosophy which cite the Vedas as their scriptural authority are classified as "orthodox" (āstika).[note 1] Other Indian traditions, such as Buddhism, Jainism, Charvaka and Ajivika which did not regard the Vedas as authorities are referred to as "heterodox" or "non-orthodox" (nāstika) schools. This differentiation between orthodox and heterodox, occurred in and after the 12th-century CE as part of a retrospective construction of mainstream Hindu philosophy based on six systems (saddarshana). This system was adopted by Indian and European Indologists in the 18th- and 19th-century, and is the widespread and influential understanding of the Indian philosophies today. Before then, states Nicholson, the different Vedas-inspired schools had not thought of commonalities between them nor their differences from traditions such as Buddhism and Jainism.
Your comments, suggestions for improvement? Of course, we will expand the main article too to support Nicholson etc in the lead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - Once again using one particular schema of orthodox and heterodox.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson: This is in the WP:RS. Is there another schema you will like included, or anything more from Nicholson you want added? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Madhava uses a totally different classification. You are just trying to push one specific schema.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson: This is an article on the Vedas, not schema. If you identify a WP:RS with page number(s) for alternate schema, relevant to the Vedas, we can include that as well. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. You are the one who keeps trying to insert this material not me.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @VictoriaGrayson: Since we are in ANI too, I ask you to avoid these silly accusations of "you are trying to push" and "cherrypicking". It is getting tiresome, and violates WP:CIVIL. Just constructively propose language and identify WP:RS that will improve this article. The content above belongs in this article because it is in numerous WP:RS, it is about the Vedas and how they have been influential in scholarly understanding/classification of Indian philosophies. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I don't see Nicholson as saying that, before the 12th century, the astika and nastika concepts didn't exist. They are even to be found in Manu according to Wendy Doniger . All that Nicholson is saying is that the dividing lines between astika and nastika were clearly drawn in the 12th century. Or, in layman terms, the dividing lines between Hindu and non-Hindu were clearly drawn, ergo Hinduism got unified. Before that, the schools quibbled over details. I don't think any of this needs to go into the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Indeed. Nicholson dedicates much of chapter 9 to astika and nastika (and part of chapter 8 too) on this. He quotes works from Jainism/Buddhism/Hinduism literature from the 1st-millennium to show astika and nastika in the context of the Vedas. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson: WP:CHERRYPICKING is an essay. Cherrypicking means "selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says". You are casting aspersions when you allege this, and being disruptive when you delete entire sourced paragraphs after making such allegations. It is inappropriate to delete WP:RS sourced summaries. The correct action, if there indeed is cherrypicking, is to add 'contradictory or qualifying information' to the article, from the WP:RS and page number(s). In cases of continued content dispute, propose and discuss the additional language on the article's talk page. That is not what you have done so far, while making accusations of WP:Cherrypicking against one or more wiki editors (note: astika/nastika, orthodox/heterodox has been part of this article's lead before my first edit to this article). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Should we add a hyperlink to the word sages in the second paragraph: "The Veda, for orthodox Indian theologians, are considered revelations seen by ancient sages after intense meditation..."? Gordon410 (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
There is a clear consensus against replacing the last paragraph of the lead. Cunard (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The last paragraph of the lead is about a specific late medieval schema of categorizing 6 philosophies, known as the Saḍdarśana. It is not universal. Madhvacharya did not follow it. Many tantrics didn't follow it. I propose to replace the last paragraph of the lead with:
Oppose - I see nothing wrong with the last paragraph, and I don't see how the proposed replacement has anything to do with the original. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose I don't like the last paragraph, and I don't like the proposed replacement. astika and nastika are really inappropriate terms to describe vedantic traditions, in my view. Many who use nastika in this day and age use it to label someone an atheist. Whiteguru (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment I was pinged by the RFC bot and feel out of my depth on this subject, but I can contribute a comment from an outsider's perspective. When I read the current paragraph, I immediately asked myself "classified by whom"? Having looked up the source, I see that the label of unorthodoxy is applied by those who regard themselves as orthodox. This leads me to two other questions: 1) does the astika/nastika distinction have acceptance as an objective classification in RSs, which isn't evident from the cited source?, and 2) why use these terms in the lead when they don't seem to reappear in the main body of the article? Other than that, the current paragraph seems to contain useful information which isn't covered by the proposed replacement. Eperoton (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - In response to Eperoton, the "orthodox" term seems to me from what I have read to denote "orthodox" Hinduism, which is the system which uses the Vedas most regularly. There almost certainly are sources which refer to such an "orthodox" Hinduism, although I acknowledge I don't have any right in front of me. Also, frankly, the proposed alternative seems to me to be far too short. I think a more reasonable approach would be to seek to clarify the usage of the word "orthodox" in the paragraph. John Carter (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Encyclopedia Britannica supports the existing lead's usage (I have added supporting refs to the article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgilbert (talk • contribs) 23:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Refernce #29 is not appropriate in that it is not about any kind of evidence to support the dating of the Vedas. I believe it should be removed. This is not a critique of the article pointed to by the reference. Shantnup (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
"Strange" that Jewpedia/Wikipedia does not use the Slavic Slovenian term "Vedeti" (to know) and "Veda" = "knowledge" (abstract form for Znanye in slavic), Jewpedia rather uses greek and latin forms for "to see" which have NOTHING to do with the word Veda... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)