Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:52, 26 January 2014

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Shortcuts WT:IN WT:INB

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

India Project‑class This page is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Misplaced Pages Meetups edit Upcoming none Recent Outside India Past meetups

Maharaja Express

I noticed that the article Maharaja Express has been hijacked and is pointing heavily to one maharajas-express-india.com which belongs to a private tourism company. Can anybody help me clean it up? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe this is the official webpage that is operated by IRCTC. I could try to help you. I am new to this but I can fetch information and clean up the references by providing alternate sources from the official web page. Vignesh.Mukund (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Dalmia Group needs a rewrite

Looking through Dalmia Group it looks like it needs a rewrite WhisperToMe (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sankar (film director)

An editor has requested input at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sankar (film director) regading Sankar (film director) from this WikiProject. Please help if you can. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Help request

See User_talk:Prathamprakash29#GA_nominations. The user there has requested the help of a Wikipedian based in Allahabad. Thanks. --Jakob (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

On-going discussion on article Ahimsa

Hello everyone, I would like to invite you to join discussions on the talk page of this article. Please review this and express your views here. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Alleged heads of the Timurid Dynasty - BLP issues

We have Mirza Ghulam Moinuddin Muhammad Javaid Jah Bahadur also mentioned at Mughal emperors#Mughal Pretenders - no reliable sources, only an EL to the "Royal Ark". Dougweller (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Crime in India

Crime in India--just noticed it, article is massive in size, forever swelling with constant drive-by additions...it's almost becoming an indiscriminate collection of incidents. Massive cleanup required and an article of such general importance needs to be in more watchlists. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Ugog Nizdast, I have just edited the article, it cited massive amount of unsourced, misleading, and most worrying of all, that it provided whole list of just every single criminal incident related to the noted section. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, though I won't be able to edit it any time soon...I'll do what I can to prevent it from swelling further. There is a lot of be done in terms of cleaning up, trimming down and finally deciding what is important amongst all that. Nice work so far, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Dharmachakra

A debate is going on whether the dharmachakra, a Buddhist symbol, has "Hindu origins":

"According to Xiaojing Yan, the dharmachakra is of Hindu origin."

This is based on a note in an article on The confluence of East and West in Nestorian Arts in China:

"The Wheel of Dharma, or the Wheel of the Teaching, is the translation of the Sanskrit word "Dharma cakra" (dharma-chakra). It is a Buddhist emblem of Hindu origin."(Yan, p.386, note 14)

Given the fact that Buddhism originated around 500 BCE, and what we today call Hinduism emerged around the beginning of the CE (Hiltebeitel 2007) or the Gupta-era (Nath 2001), I think this is an anachronistic use of the term "Hinduism", and sort of POV-pushing. Third opinions would be welcome.

References

• Hiltebeitel, Alf (2007), Hinduism. In: Joseph Kitagawa, "The Religious Traditions of Asia: Religion, History, and Culture", Routledge
• Nath, Vijay (2001), "From 'Brahmanism' to 'Hinduism': Negotiating the Myth of the Great Tradition", Social Scientist 2001, pp. 19-50
• Yan, Xiaojing (2009), The confluence of East and West in Nestorian Arts in China. In: Dietmar W. Winkler, Li Tang (eds.), Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, LIT Verlag Münster

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Since this request for comment was made without prior notification, I feel the need to provide more context and supplement what was said by the previous user.

1. The previous editor is incorrect in asserting that the hindu synthesis" is the traditional or controlling view today. In fact, it is frequently referred to as the oldest religion--pre-dating buddhism by a thousand years (The Buddha himself was born from the hindu kshatriya (princely) class). See here:

*Fowler, Jeaneane D. (1997), Hinduism: Beliefs and Practices, Sussex Academic Press

*Klostermaier, Klaus K. (2007), A Survey of Hinduism: Third Edition, SUNY Press

See also Chatterji, J.C. Wisdom of the Vedas. p.1.

I should note Chatterji's credentials being the Director of the Archaeological and Research Department of Kashmir state and has previously authored a book on Kashmir Shaivism. See also page 3, where the Vedas are referred to as the manifestation of sanatana dharma (the hindu name for hinduism).

This makes the charge of anachronism invalid on its face. In fact, the traditional view has been that buddhism emerged after hinduism given that hinduism is presently dated to the vedic period circa 1800bce, and the earliest upanishads (other hindu texts) to around 1100bce and the epic age to 800bce).

2. He had previously accepted the hindu origin point with a new suggested text, but now insists on pov-pushing the wp: fringe view of an "indo-european" (aka european) origin of the dharmachakra associating it with Nordic goddesses. To compromise and end this tedious debate, I have merely asked that he deprioritize this (he insists on making it the first point in the origin section) and place it directly below as an alternate view. Here is his source:

Storl, Wolf-Dieter (2011), Shiva: The Wild God of Power and Ecstasy, Inner Traditions / Bear & Co. p. 56

3. All parties agree that the dharmachakra is a buddhist symbol (with quibbling about hindu and jain use)--editor JJ uses the wp:fringe argument that hinduism started in the 1st centuries CE--when the traditional view has been that it begins with the vedic period. He has even insisted on declassifying traditional hindu gods as such and reclassifying them as purely vedic (i.e. Vishnu).

We are at present time actually very close to polite consensus, so I am a bit confused as to why he decided to seek out comment at this stage. Alas, we are here--I hope we can continue to keep things civil. In any event, please take these additional facts into account if you decide to comment. Thank you. Regards, Devanampriya (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Altough you're right that we are being close to a polite concencus, I do take the freedom to comment on your response and your sources:

"Hindu synthesis" is the accepted scholarly point of view. What you describe is indeed the "traditional" view of Hinduism as understood by (some? all?) Hindus. We seem to agree that we disagree, precisely because of this difference in approach.

Fowler

• Fowler states that het book is "a true introduction - the meeting of a subject for the first time." (p.xi)
• p2/3: "...the religion is characterized by such a rich variety of ideas and practices resulting in what appears as a multiplicity of religions under that one term Hinduism. So Hinduism, as probably the oldest religion in the world, has added many strands to its overall character in thousands of years. Additionally, outside influences have been accommodated also: the Aryan migrations in the second century BCE left an indelible socio-religious character on what developed into the Hindu religion as we know it today. But indigenous beliefs and practices survived and, though they were not evident in the Aryan scriptures, surfaced on one way or another as time went by."

So, far from supporting your point of view, Fowler is closer to suporting the synthesis-point of view. Also, she calls Hinduism probably the oldest religion, without a clear explanation. But apparently, according to Fowler, it is not the oldest religion because of the Aryan elements, but because of older, indigenous elements.

Klostermaier has earned his academic credits, but his treatment of the "Beginnings of Hinduism" raise my doubts about these credits. The "Indigenous Aryan theory" is hardly taken serious by academics.

'Chatterji, Wisdom of the Vedas, published by Quest Books, copyright by the Theosophical Publishing House, introduction by David Frawley (p.1-7) - this says it all. Sorry.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The early church and the lutheranism are both still part of christianity. That hinduism has evolved over time, and has different schools/sects does not mean it is a separate religion either. Your view of buddhism pre-dating hinduism is not the scholarly consensus whatsoever and is the core of the neo-hinduism debate on the neo-vedanta article; you conceded that you didn't properly read the supporting citation (which I clearly mentioned in my edit summary).

Furthermore, considering your own advancement of Storl's nordic goddess theory of the dharmachakra (wp: fringe to the maximus), perhaps we should be wary of disparaging these scholars on the basis of the Indigenous Aryan theory--clearly a scholarly perspective that Exogenous Aryan scholars have felt the need to respond to and for which there is a significant stream of scholarship--I don't believe the same can be said for the "Nordic dharmachakra" which you had enthusiastically pushed, and now seem conveniently more circumspect about. Klostermaier is certainly no kook and has the credentials (which you yourself concede), and frawley's introduction where the debate of the last century is summarized--ending with his light mention out of India, is not cause to disparage that source is either. It is important to emphasize that this discussion isn't about the Aryan theory, but rather the age of hinduism and whether you can use it as grounds to contradict a scholar asserting that the dharmachakra is of hindu origin (she made no mention of the Aryan theory).

Also your Fowler characterization is neither here nor there--given that the central question is the age of hinduism. She does say "probably"--given the divergent streams of scholarship on the topic. But she still posits it as the oldest religion--not younger than buddhism as you would characterize it (which is the heart of the matter).

Further support for the world's oldest religion assertion. The editor was an American professor Religion affiliated with the Harvard Divinity School (where he was previously a student).

In any event, perhaps rather than a diversionary discussion here (and a game of battling sources), our petitioning editor can do us all a favor and respond to the proposal on the article talk, so that we can all move on. As he too conceded, despite our differences, we are close to a resolution, and I would hope that we can continue to keep things civil and put this issue to rest without wasting time of others. Best, Devanampriya (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Outdated (1953), and from an emeritus of Vivekananda College (Sarma; Morgan is the ditor). And no contextualization either. Providing snippets of outdated publications does not support your decontextualized quote. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hardly. The source is well within the past century--moreover, it further emphasizes how your "neo-hinduism" theory that dates hinduism after buddhism is a new theory that is being vehemently contested contrary to your attempts to pass it off as controlling. And the long-standing view dates hinduism back to the Vedas--as you yourself demonstrated when you pointed out the date of this source.

Furthermore, you have been conducting original research on the dharmachakra article by using your views rather than a secondary source to directly contest the dharmachakra's hindu origin. Plenty of sourcing and information has been provided supporting hinduism's greater antiquity than buddhism--certainly of higher quality than your "nordic theory of the dharmachakra" that even you eventually and unilaterally deleted in embarrassment of the "theory's" credibility. In sum, it's clear you're down to WP:Original Research and WP: IDONTLIKEIT. It's unfortunate that you first agreed to accept the hindu origin text in the dharmachakra article, then changed your position on a whim, at the last minute, throwing a wrench into the almost-achieved consensus, and dragging it here. Too bad... Devanampriya (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Caste system of India

A user Jayarathina made excessive lead on this page. While no one seems to be agreeing with the edits he has made, he makes a very twisted conversation/debate on talk page, contrary to the rule WP:Notaforum.

Seems like WP:Ownership of articles to me, since he rejects the number of reliable sources, and keeps representing the one sided sources by disturbing the lead section. While he won't ever attribute any of the related content, for example, only because "caste" is basically based on heredity, he makes the claim that "Caste are not changeable", yet he won't cite the events where caste have been changed, evidently. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

From reading the Talk page, I would say the British and Western Scholars on India,strongly influenced the caste system as we know it today but they did not "create the caste system". Prior to the Western interest in India, the social ranking of Jatis was fluid.As far as being able to change ones Jati, apart from Vishwamitra, I do not know of any other instances when a person was able to do that. So to cut a long story short, while whole Jati changed their social ranking , individuals always remained part of the jati they were born into.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Jonathansammy, there have been saints who were previously shudra, as well as Kings. Evidently, there are sources, that British "Constructed"(different than invention) the caste system. And many of the castes such as "Criminal Caste", "Scheduled caste", etc were their own creation, as per sources. So even 1-2 weeks ago, the page seemed better than it is now. If you are further interested, you can also make your point on the talk page of the article, or edit the main page, the way you deem it to be legible. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Need some more help!

Hey guys- I keep running to you for help for anything India related because well, I know that you're all excellent when it comes to helping look for sources and interacting with other users. What I'm writing about today is the company XOLO and the user User:PrajayXG. He's a new user that's created an article for the company and he's running into some issues with tone, sourcing, and the like. There were initially some concerns over him being a representative for the company, but he seems to be just a young boy that's a big fan of the company, so any promotional intents are unintentional. He seems to really want to help, but he just needs a bit of a helping hand with explaining sources and whatnot. I'm helping and I've asked WP:TECHNOLOGY for help as well, but I thought it'd be good to ask here for help since there might be sources in one of the languages spoken in India. Plus this would make for a good opportunity to introduce him to this WP in the process. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If he is a kid, he'll soon learn that we don't discriminate by age around here: We hold younger editors to the same standards and expectations as we hold adult editors to and we give them the same respect we would give an adult with a similar editing history. If an adult writes an article that isn't properly referenced and which isn't obviously notable, it will likely be tagged for deletion. The same goes if the editor is still in high school or even younger. In fact, unless an editor discloses his age, most readers won't be able to tell how old he actually is, but they may be able to guess how mature he is (there are adults who don't act like it, both on-Wiki and "in real life"). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Zou, Zo, Zomi, Kuki

We have Zomi people, which I've and other editors have made a redirect to Zou people (and is a terrible mess when not a redirect, we have a source that says "all of which are called ].<ref name="bareh">{{cite book|last=Bareh|first=Hamlet|title=Encyclopaedia of North-East India: Manipu|year=2001|publisher=Mittal|isbn=978-81-7099-790-0|pages=260ff.|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=XScmdGvMf7IC&pg=PA260|accessdate=22 November 2010|chapter=Zou}}</ref> which gets removed. Various editors have tried to straighten this out and keep the articles table with no success. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Trying to centralise any response at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Burma (Myanmar)#Zou, Zo, Zomi Kuki where I've had a comment and have added posts from my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Foreign language sources?

Hey, the article Mighty Raju is up for deletion. I'm not trying to canvass for votes or anything, just asking if anyone can see if there are any sources out there that aren't in English, or any sources I missed. This seems to be a rather large spinoff, so I feel that there should be more out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

AfD - Koroli hill station

Hello WikiProject India! I have nominated article Koroli for deletion because I don't see the notability of this hill station as having been properly established. I'd love to be wrong, so if anybody has any thoughts about this, please respond at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Koroli and if you have any information on Koroli along the lines of significant coverage from reliable independent sources, your help would be appreciated. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

Could you please have a look at this submission? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Need opinion and verification

On Persecution of Hindus, somewhat a fabricated source has been promoted, and disturbing the scholarly accepted estimate with "disputed by historians, such as Simon Digby", obvious fabrication, and WP:OR. Have a look at both 2nd last(edit by me) and talk page. Similar misleading content is promoted on Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is Digby's piece (quite obviously not fabricated as drama-prone user above insists): Digby, Simon (1975). Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. University of London. Vol. 38, No. 1. (1975), pp. 176–177. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StuffandTruth (talk • contribs) 14:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No improvement to the page. Since you are using this source for the edit, which requires secondary sources, for Persecution of Hindus. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, I have no idea what you mean. Why did you call this a fabricate source? How is it misleading in the Growth of Muslim Population article, where I've changed the edit about Elst as it needed to be sourced directly to him - what Gautier wrote wasn't a direct quote. Blockquotes should not be used for short excerpts, you need at least 40 words for one.MOS:Blockquote. StuffandTruth, discuss the edits, not the editor please. I see no OR or reason not to use Digby. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy Republic Day

--Omer123hussain (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Yan 2009, p. 386.

• Project-Class India pages
• NA-importance India pages
• Project-Class India articles of NA-importance
• WikiProject India articles