Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Automatic addition of Sanskrit diacritics while typing

Hi, I want to present a new JavaScript mod for Sanskrit input in roman characters. The script can be installed by editing your personal monobook.js script file.

The first function of the Sanskrit script will auto-replace romanized Sanskrit words with their proper diacritical form. So basically when you are typing Sakti it auto-replaces with Śakti

The dictionary might still have a few mistakes so please double check every word with the proper sources you cite from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Visarga/monobook.js

The second function of this script is to help you manually add diacritics into the text. This is the replace table: 'a--|ā', 'A--|Ā', 'u--|ū', 'U--|Ū', 'i--|ī', 'I--|Ī', 'r..|ṛ', 'l..|ḷ', 'L..|Ḷ', 'm..|ṃ', 'M..|Ṃ', 'h..|ḥ', 'H..|Ḥ', "S|Ś", "s|ś", 's..|ṣ', 'S..|Ṣ', 'n..|ṇ', 'N..|Ṇ', 'n~~|ñ', 'N~~|Ñ', 't..|ṭ', 'T..|Ṭ', 'd..|ḍ', 'D..|Ḍ', 'r.-|ṝ', 'R.-|Ṝ', 'L.-|Ḹ', 'l.-|ḹ'

So in simpler words, a double minus "--" will put the diacritical line over the last letter, a double dot ".." will add a dot under, a double "~~" will add the cedilla over n ("Ñ") and so on. For letters with 2 diacritics like "Ḹ" you add ".-" after L.

The script has been tested in Firefox and Safari.

Visarga (talk) 09:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Great script, thanks. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 15:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Monkey mind

I created this article Monkey mind.

I knew it was a term in Buddhism, but apparently it is a term in Hinduism also. This website [1] references the term in the Ramayana and claims the "concept of a monkey mind is a popular one in Hindu literature."

If anyone could give the devangari for the term and any information on it, from a Hindu perspective, that would be great! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That website is very poor. ("Soorpanka" for Śūrpaṇakhā wasn't a good start.) The Ramayana treated there is R.K. Narayan's retelling, not of the Sanskrit epic, but of a medieval rendering in Tamil by Kamban. Maybe "monkey mind" is a popular notion, but I've never heard of it. I suspect a vernacular idiom is involved, of which "monkey mind" is a literal translation. rudra (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the phrase "monkey mind" is entirely a modern teaching device used by some teachers of meditation, though there might be some older literature that uses the monkey as an example of mental restlessness (without using that exact phrase). ~ priyanath talk 21:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The website says that in the Ramayana, the monkey king Sugriva says about his "monkey mind". Linking this to the origin of the term "Monkey mind" is WP:OR. The article needs an explicit reference saying clearing that "monkey mind" is Hindu. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The website is based on a version of a retelling of the Ramayana, and not the original text itself. The term is (relatively) modern and new to Hinduism, although the concept of an unsettled mind is not. The term is very uncommon and rarely used, if at all, by Hindus today. I have done extensive searches, and I can find no other reliable sources to verify that the term originated in Hinduism, and I am almost certain that it did not. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 14:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have examined the website in question. It is the website of an English professor, not one who has studied Hinduism. Many of his inaccurate remarks (Hanuman as "king of monkeys", "magic monkey army", Ravana as the primary "demon force of chaos and confusion", speculaltion and confusion about why Rama "didn't know" about Sita's abduction and "failed" as an avatar of Vishnu, many mispellings, among other things) indicate his limited knowledge of the religion and the subject. I am not sure that the website should be used. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 14:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Vaishnavism's relation to Vedic religion

The discussion, Vaishnavism's relation to Vedic religion, is now on the Vaishnavism Wikiproject talk page, Vaishnavism's relation to Vedic religion. Any comments? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

California_textbook_controversy_over_Hindu_history

A somewhat older topic, but should the California controversy article be upgraded to B-class? It has improved a lot, enough that Start class may be a bit too low. Just a suggestion to send to you. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 05:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger of Ekadasi and Ekadashi

Both articles discuss the same subject - the day known as Ekadashi. I propose that the articles be merged, as they discuss the same thing. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 20:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Merge for instructions on merging articles. This should non-controversial. Abecedare (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If no one objects, and the proposition to merge the articles is accepted, I will begin merging the articles soon. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 00:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Expand {{Infobox church/sandbox}} to cover all places of worship?

There is a proposal to convert the draft infobox template {{Infobox church/sandbox}} into a template that can be used for all places of worship. We would like your views on whether you think this is a good idea, and if you are able to help identify parameters that would be relevant to the religion that your WikiProject deals with. Do join the discussion taking place at "Template talk:Infobox church". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 03:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback needed at Ramakrishna

There is an edit dispute between myself and another editor at Ramakrishna over how much weight should be given to (scholars) views that Ramakrishna had pedophilic tendencies, was a closet transexual, etc. Those views were already in the article, and accurately so since there have been a couple of books written about it - but since I added some opposing scholar viewpoints, he has added an avalanche of quotes that give it undue weight, in my opinion. Since there have been only the two of us in dispute until now, and I don't see it being resolved without more opinions, I would like to invite other editors to look at the article and work on it. I'll step aside from the article for a few days, to give other editors a chance to resolve this. More specifically: Ramakrishna#Contemporary scholarship ~ priyanath talk 16:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on good feedback from several editors, I've proposed a rewrite of the disputed section at Talk:Ramakrishna#Proposed rewrite of POV/Undue Weight section. Feedback would be appreciated. Thanks, ~ priyanath talk 21:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

One more call for editor input on the Ramakrishna article. I’ve added some last suggestions, as real life is taking me away from Wikipedia for awhile. If anyone is interested, there is a great opportunity to edit the section on modern attempts to psychoanalyze Ramakrishna. (i.e., there is a lot of room for improvement there :-), in the entire article also ) See the bottom of the Talk:Ramakrishna page for discussion. Cheers, ~ priyanath talk 04:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Hinduism: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 12 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Krishna article and avatar discussion

There is a discussion on Krishna's status as avatar at Krishna and Vishnu avatar discussion. Any comments you have would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Knapp and reliable sources

I have been looking over the Stephen Knapp article and its potential references. I have yet to find any that meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Any information on potential references (reliable sources) would be appreciated. My concern is that without reliable sources and only a list of his self published books, this article seems to be an advertisement. Please see, Stephen Knapp and reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Krishna and Thelema

If anyone would like to add to this debate on Talk:Krishna, please do so. What should have been a trivial discussion on a trivial topic has escalated to a rather heated debate and potential edit war, and we need the opinions of many more editors to help settle the matter quickly. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Conflict now resolved. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 00:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Radha-vallabha

Hello,

I'm currently trying to sort out whether the article Radha-vallabha meets the notability guidelines (it has been tagged with notability concerns about one year ago). I would like your advice, since the article seems a bit confusing to me. It does not cite any sources. I searched for the term "Radha-vallabha" on Google Books, and from the results it is not even clear to me whether Radha-vallabha is a denomination (as the article states), or rather a deity, or the name of a person.

Can you tell me what to do with the article? Is the content correct, and can it be attributed to sources? Or does the article need to be rewritten? Or should it, after all, be removed completely?

Please leave your comments on the article's talk page. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nath page clean up

The Nath page has been the subject of a long-running edit war in which a group of editors from the International Nath Order have been systematically inserting their unrecognized and extremely sketchy pseudo-guru into the Nath pages, and then citing that individual's own works to justify their inclusion in the page, which deleting the leaders of other more representative (i.e. based in India, not led by Englishmen, recognized in the local culture) groups. There have been several indications that Wikipedia admins who are a part of this pseudo-Nath group have been colluding to maintain the page in a broken state to divert attention to their group. The whole thing is a manipulation of public information resources on behalf of a small religious sect, and really should be stamped on in much the same way that we monitor abuses from Scientology. There have also been reports of harassment towards other Nath groups from the International Nath Order's representatives who like to represent themselves as the only living branch of the Nath Sampradaya operative in the west.

Highly problematic, as the edit histories and discussion pages show. Please keep an eye on this page and moderate abuses when you see them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.115.34 (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Edem Agbotui

I was wondering if a member of WikiProject Hinduism could have a look at the article Edem Agbotui. It was copied from a web page [2] with all instances of "Murugar" changed to "Edem Agbotui". Murugar appears to refer to Murugan, so I'm not sure if "Edem Agbotui" is another name for Murugan, or if this article was created as a hoax. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the article Edem Agbotui as a blatant copyvio. To look into Whpq's question, please see the source text at: http://www.saigan.com/heritage/gods/muruga.html. I'll leave it for someone who knows about this to decide whether to leave it deleted, or create a redirect. --barneca (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It should remain deleted (I'm gratified that my {{db-copyvio}} tag was acted on so quickly), because any legitimate material would have to go to Murugan. Murugan is a chthonic deity assimilated to the Kartikeya/Skanda legends, so no doubt there are many local variations. Best to restrict material to reliable sources. rudra (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree there shouldn't be an article there; Whpq and I are just asking if anyone knows whether it was a local variation (and should be a redirect to Murugan), or if it was a hoax (and there should be nothing there at all). --barneca (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a hoax, or rather, a joke. Some googling suggests that "Edem Agbotui" is a real person, who may even have been a WP editor (Edem3000) at some point. So, not even a redirect, IMO. rudra (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. Looks like a hoax. Cheers! -- 14:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Thanks for the add'l input, I've now deleted the talk page too, and agree this is resolved. --barneca (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dhyanalinga

An article I came across and tagged with your project. APK ^{yada yada} 12:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Spamming a bogus book

Wikidas (talk · contribs) is apparently enamored of a book, Readings of Vedic Literature: The Tradition Speaks for Itself, by one Satsvarupa dasa Goswami of ISKCON fame. He has spammed about a dozen Hinduism-related pages, maybe more, with excerpts from the book. He has also learned to wikilawyer. When told that his edit constitutes WP:COPYVIO (cf. this, the second of 4 sample page thumbnails on the book link above), he contends "Fair use" and warns about 3RR! If the incongruity of a Nataraja image under "VEDIC" in large letters weren't warning enough to the dubious contents of the book, nonsense like this should leave no doubt -- to everyone except him, of course. We have a problem. rudra (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Rudrashrman, It appears that besides the fact that you seem unable to maintain WP:NPOV you also can not accept WP:FAITH. This book IS created by one of ISKCON writers and is since 1976 has been used as a text book on Hinduism in many colleges and universities in US. What is your problem? Are you able to accept a balance of views coming from Vaishnava perspective? Wikidās ॐ 14:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

great. so if this book "since 1976 has been used as a text book on Hinduism in many colleges and universities in US", I am sure you can produce some academic review of its content? dab (𒁳) 15:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

hm, three (3) google hits. Zero google books hits. Zero google scholar hits... These "many colleges and universities" must have gone underground some time before the creation of the internet, then? dab (𒁳) 15:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The contents of the book are demonstrably nonsensical. For example, the notion that the Mahabharata, or the Bhagavadgita (which was an addition to it) or the Puranas (FGS!) are "vedic" is outright ABSURD. You even managed to copy-paste a reference to Radhakrishnan&Moore from that idiotic book. Have you read R&M? Not the whole book, just the "General Introduction" at the beginning, starting on p.xvii. And not even the whole introduction, just the first five pages or so would be enough. This ISKCON book is so far from a WP:RS, it isn't even funny. rudra (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be classic anti-ISKCON attack. No comments on this. I will just get on with my work and will not be answering on this board. Wikidās ॐ 15:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, this is a classic anti-Bullshit attack. That the bullshit this time came from ISKCON is probably just your bad luck. rudra (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

strike the above, the correct title is

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

1440 google hits. Six (6) google scholar hits (including hits from iskcon.com). This may have some notability to ISKCON related topics. It isn't notable anywhere else. WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE. dab (𒁳) 15:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Google books gives two hits. One of them is just a bibliography entry. The other has some interesting things to say. rudra (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And from Google scholar, the only citations outside the ISKCON nexus are in an article in the Journal for the Advancement of Counseling and in an article in the Journal of Teaching in Social Work. How very mainstream for the subject of Hinduism. Not. rudra (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that basic views of others not acceptable to Rudra. Another title of the reprint is The First Indologists [3][4][5] See also: ""The First Indologists" - Google Search". www.google.ie. Retrieved 2008-04-20.--Wikidās ॐ 15:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. See this. rudra (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have encountered Wikidas on Krishna page, and found that he often:

• Uses poor quality sources, such as this ISKCON "email" newsletters or CDC's "Emerging infectious diseases" (for content on Vaishnav beliefs!) and edit wars to keep these sources in.
• Misrepresents sources. See examples here
• Uses ISKCON sources (which is fine!) to represent the wider Hindu/Vaishnava view (which is not!).

See Svayam bhagavan for further examples of WP:OR and POV-pushing on the basis of primary sources. Abecedare (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas is a classic WP:FRINGE editor, and may merit a note at WP:FTN. We get plenty of this sort, nothing to see here I suppose. If he insists, a warning followed by a block may be in order. dab (𒁳) 15:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The book is available through Amazon, starting at $0.65. Any takers? rudra (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It also has major circulation and a review and foreword from DR. THOMAS J. HOPKINS Department of Religious Studies Franklin and Marshall College

please also see:

"ICJ - State and Society in Ancient India - Hrydayananda Dasa Goswami". www.iskcon.com. Retrieved 2008-04-20.

With all you ISKCON hating folk, I will continue WP:BOLD. Thanks for the reminder that here significant views should be represented fairly and without bias, one way or another. So long... Wikidās ॐ 16:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

non ISKCON sources. We've already granted your reference is on-topic at ISKCON. Re "ISKCON hating folk", oh dear, are you sure you've got the right religion here? You may want to join this chorus here. dab (𒁳) 17:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, please read some Wikipedia policy. This material of yours is not suitable for the articles you are trying to use it in. If you keep it up you will simply find yourself reverted until the cows come home. Moreschi2 (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Wikidas, there are plenty of ISKCON sympathisers that have productively contributed to Wikipedia such as User:GourangaUK, User:Ism schism and User:Chopper Dave. These experienced editors know the extent to which ISKCON views should dominate mainstream Vaishnava, Hinduism and other related articles so I suggest you seek their advice on how to ensure an adequate (not too much and not too little) coverage of their notions on pages where they appear pertinent. By the way, your extreme accusations of people who disagree with you could tarnish the reputation of a movement which is perceived as being quite pacifist in nature. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 17:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikidās, please assume good faith and do not accuse other editors as being "ISKCON hating folk" as you did here, or accuse others of any "anti-ISKCON conspiracy", as none such exists.[6] The other editors are working with good intentions, namely, the improvement of Wikipedia, and want to keep articles as NPOV as possible. Sources about ISKCON or another sectarian group should be mentioned as referring to the beliefs of that group, and not the Hindu religion as a whole - that is the point they are trying to make. Just as an ISKCON devotee would be upset if his/her beliefs were denied or mislabeled as the beliefs of others on Wikipedia (which would be a violation of WP:NPOV), so other traditional, mainstream Hindus would be offended by the beliefs of others as being labeled as theirs, when in fact they are not, and so the points of view must be clearly stated, and a neutral point of view should be maintained. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 02:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for inserting diff link in your post. You see the irony is that Im presenting traditional Hindu views, where as some present views that are formed as a result of the empirical views of Western historical system applied to the traditional paradigm. Yes I quoted Dr Radhakrishnan but I do not accept his views and the only way to explain the word Vedic. Wikidās ॐ 10:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys! I have been saying all these things for a while about these ISKCON people on wikipedia! Ever since I started editing, I have been in pitch philosophical/Scriptural battles with these ISKCON guys! I had to be like Parasurama with them. Their group philosophy is anti-Shruti (against the four vedas,main upanishads), anti-hindu tradition (against agni-hotra, sandyavandana, hindu rituals), anti-hindu denominational (against Shiva worshipers), and pure brake-off group concoction and speculation. My experience here in L.A. with them is that they can get violent and aggressive against people of other Hindu denominations,krishna groups and buddhist. Wikidas said to some one "a balance of views coming from Vaishnava perspective?", well, Vaishnava means "Vishnu worshipper", they dont know this. And, his group veiws are not in accordance with traditional, Orthodox Vaishnavism; which follows the four Veda, real main Upanishads and etc.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

GRd, The issues is not a person's or a group's belief, but rather an individual editor's editing and references. As DaGizza has pointed out there are several ISKCON followers who are among the most productive and thoughtful of editors. Please don't make wikipedia the battlefield for pro/anti-ISKCON arguments. Abecedare (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your right. And, I dont want to exacerbate the situation even more.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Voiced objections on Svayam bhagavan discussion page.

I just wanted to voice my consern with some ISKCON ideas on this discussion page, first;

• In the “Not Neutral” section, the two paragraphs that states…“"From the perspective of Gaudiya Nimbaraka and Vallabhacharya…the reason for Krishna's obscurity in Veda is that He is known only through devotion”...this whole section, these two paragraphs and every sentence, I am sorry to say, but, is just preposterous, unfounded and non-Vedic. It is plain “brake-off group” speculation and concoction. This is the most out-landish statement I have ever came across in my decade of studying the Sastra or holy scriptures of India. I am actually shocked that people believe this or that it was even mentioned. I will be senting these unfounded statements to some school trainned pundits, brahmanas and swami’s in Vaishnavism and Shavitism. It is mind-blowing; this is an absolute cult belief. I am shocked and dumb-founded right now by these questionable speculative statements.

• In the “Predating Other Hindu Traditions (Lead)” section; statements like….”This concept in has ancient roots that predate formation of current major Hindu traditions” and “the sources pre-date formation of some schools such as Sri Sampradaya”…again, are totally unfounded, speculative, concocted, preposterous and out-landish. The ISKCON/Gaudiya group and their beliefs started in the 1500’s…period. Just by Wikipedia imformation, that The Sri Sampradayam existed first. Vasudeva is a name of Vishnu/Narayana. I have been studying the scriptures for ten years, and I have NEVER heard of this supposed Vasudeva/Krishna pre-Hindu, pre-Vaishnava group..it is speculation and a fantasy. Period.

• In the “Yadu realization” section …again, this whole section is total absolute concoction, speculation and mis-translation of scripture. This is just a “brake-off” group fantasy. Again, this section is unfounded.

• In the “References” section….the scriptures that the ISKCON people use are heavily mistranslated and heavily bias towards the ISKCON/Gaudiya group’s speculative beliefs.

• In the “Lead” section….it states; “In the above-mentioned Vaishnava traditions, Krishna worship and understanding as the Supreme is believed to have occurred since the existence of the creatures began.” Before the advent of the Vaishnava schism during 1200’s to 1600’s (which the Gaudiyas/ISKCON had their start), within Vaishnavism, Vishnu/Narayana is the first, according to scripture, saints and tradition. Again, this is pure speculation, concoction and totally unfounded. This is a “brake-off” group belief.

• In the “Meaning” section…First; The reason that Krishna is depicted as BLUE is fact that in traditional Hinduism and traditional Vaishnavism (outside of ISKCON/Gaudiyas) he is an avatara of Vishnu/Narayana. The symbolic reason that Vishnu is Blue, is because it is the color of The endless sky and the deepness of the ocean. It represents Vishnu's endless, all-pervading nature. And, blue is the color of sky or ether or akasha, and the throat chakra;the place of speech, hence chanting/intoning Vishnu's name is important.

Second; alot of the murtis of India, including Jaganatha, who is a form of Vishnu, the stone is black. Even Venkateshwara is depicted as black. I was told the black stone was auspicious and absorbs the power of the mantras.

I would like to see a non-ISKCON qoute from the Mahabharata that says that Krishna means "all-attractive".

"Commentators from different Vaisnava traditions on the Vishnu sahasranama offer explanations on a similar lines."...to my understanding is this is not true; Krishna means "Black" or "dark". "Contemporary Vaisnava acaryas"; first, who are they? Or are they ISKCON gurus and spokesmen. The "Vaishnava" acaryas that I know do not say things like this.

"There are authoritative descriptions in the Brahma Samhita, Srimad-Bhagavatam, Bhagavad-gita and many of the Puranas"...the Brahma Samhita is an Gaudiya book; it was written around the 15th and 16th century. The Srimad-Bhagavatam is the Bhagavata purana and the Bhagavad-gita; both translations that are talked about are the ISKCON ones, which are mistranslated in many verses. Puranas; which puranas are being described?

I have personally sent an email to the Jagannatha temple to clairify whether Jagannatha is a form of Vishnu or Krishna.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a repetition of a discussion on Talk:Svayam bhagavan. Please continue the discussion there, as it would be off-topic here. Thanks. rudra (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Zeuspitar|Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA is involved in WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, I can understand why - he attacks constantly: ([7], [8], [9] [10][11] [12] [13] Everyone, if he thinks they are ISKCON... and [14] when he finds out they know nothing about our philosophy - he is apologizing... When pointed out he does not back off. [as you see]. I do not want to battle with him. sorry Wikidās ॐ 23:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Wikidās ॐ 23:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

NOTE; Not attacking wikidas: "if he thinks they are ISKCON,when he finds out they know nothing about our philosophy - he is apologizing". I know the ISKCON philosophy. Three years of studying their books,veda-base, doing seva in the BBT, 4 classes a day. I know their philosophy,everyday for three long years. Just by putting it, says some thing.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Trivia section for Bhagavad Gita

Someone just created a new "Trivia" section and added an unsourced item. I've reverted the edit, but the general issue remains: should this article have a "Trivia" section? Discussion on the Bhagavad Gita talk page, please. rudra (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Hindu gods

The cat is being replaced by the general cat of Category:Hindu deities, by an editor in many articles. I oppose this as deity stands for a "A god or goddess", a more general category than Hindu gods.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose such a move. This is an important issue. Concerning such a large move, a discussion should take place before any changes are made. This has not occured yet. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Definite opposed. Deity as a category is much better. There is so little control over the categories as they stand. Wikidās ॐ 15:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories, deities, gods

Category:Hindu gods and Category:Hindu deities appear to be redundant. The articles don't make a distinction between the two, and articles use a mixture of both phrases. I suggest merging one into the other, and using sub-categories more effectively. I started to do this already, because to me it seems obvious, but someone suggested I bring it up here first. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would like gods to stay along with Hindu goddesses. Hindu deities can become a parent cat, which contains the gods and goddesses sub-cats but with no articles. With all due respect to political correctness, the gender of the Hindu deities is rather important so I believe we should specify whether the deity is male or female (ie. god or goddess respectively). Gizza^{Discuss ©} 02:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Workgroup Swaminarayan

There is a propasal at the Wikiproject Council for a new workgroup by the above name under WikiProject Hinduism. The discription is This would be a Workgroup under the Hinduism Wikiproject which will work to Expand and Maintain present articles and add new ones on the subject.

If anyone is interested in this or wants a discussion, pl. go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Workgroup_Swaminarayan.

Thanks, Wheredevelsdare (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC) and    Juthani1    22:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

merger of Kartikay into Murugan

Please give your comments on talk page of Murugan.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - the same. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

AFD nomination of Kathia Baba

Author is absent. Can someone please look at this article and advise if you can delete or improve it? Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathia Baba. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Krishnaism

There is a proposal, here, for a WikiProject Krishnaism subgroup. Please voice your opinions and discuss there. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

ISKCON-centric Hinduism

I'm not sure where to bring this up, so I brought it up here. I was looking through many of the Hinduism-related articles, such as Bhagavan, Krishna, Bhakti, and many many more, and I've noticed that they tend to be very ISKCON-centric. The ISKCON view of things is described in much more detail and given much more weight than any other view. Even in a non-Hinduism article like Names of God, the Krishna-centric view of ISKCON was pushed much more strongly than any other Hindu view.

Please understand that I don't have anything against ISKCON, but the fact is that they are but one sect of Hinduism and don't speak for all Hindus. I've noticed that some of the most active Hindu Wikipedians are members of ISKCON and so it's natural that the ISKCON view would get more weight. However, we need more balance in these articles. Could we please figure out some way to patrol the various Hinduism-based articles to make sure that the views of the various schools of Hinduism are all fairly represented? --Hnsampat (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you to a large extent, and I'll see what you can do. A NPOV, balanced view is important. However, I doubt that any bias is intentional - as you said, it's likely because ISKCON Wikipedians are some of our most active editors. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 03:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You are welcomed to participate in the WP:KRISHNA to provide a more balanced view to the relevant pages. Wikidās-ॐ 07:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hnsampat, But, I have been saying that there is a strong iskcon slant to many of the articles. I dis-agree with shruti14, that it is un-intentional...it is very intentional. Just look at the comments and edits done by gaurangaUK and wikidas And, the main iskcon culprit is wikidas, who, has marred many of the articles with non-sense information and incoherent references...and no one is doing any thing about it. And, it is absolutely funny, that I have written almost word for word what Hnsampat has said....but, a year ago. I really think it is time to make this a legal issue. Hnsampat is the 7th or 9th editor who has openly mentioned this. WE MUST DO SOME THING ABOUT THIS ISSUE.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Can any of the above editors substantiate their claim of articles being Pro-ISKON. It is very important to show proof of what you say, because if you cant substantiate your aquisitions your wasting everyones time here, if you can, action will have to be taken to resolve the issue. I personally do not find any particluar article being vandalised by ISKON edtiors. ATG ^Contact 14:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Source for Hindu temples in North America

When looking for reliable sources for North American temples, I came across Harvard University's Pluralism Project. They have profiles of some notable Hindu temples that can be very useful. The link is, Harvard University Pluralism Project's Profile of Hindu Temples. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD: Template:VaishnavaSampradayasrs

I have nominated Template:VaishnavaSampradayasrs for deletion as suggested. Please comment and support/oppose the nomination there. Thanks --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 01:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Regarding the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sadhu I was wondering if anyone knew how common it is for a modern day Sadhu to be wearing a watch? Guest9999 (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Gotras

Hi

Can any one confirm that there is a "Pulastya" gotra and if so, is it for Sethi-s too?

Thanks.

Prem Sethi70.79.154.67 (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)