Misplaced Pages

Archive of old discussions

Hinduism

Hey Gizza, Happy New Year, in the past the size of the Hinduism article has kept me away from it but now I think I'll take a look and try and improve it. Could you please update the to-do list with problems the article needs to overcome at present? Nobleeagle 00:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Prayer's answered ?

Seems like your prayers to Ganesha are bearing fruit with the recent drive to trim the Hinduism page rather than adding more details to it. Good job !

I wonder though, how long it will take for another editor to come along and add back the long explanations because he/she thinks that (1) nobody working on the page knew/had thought of those concepts earlier, and (2) those additions are the most important ideas in Hinduism and no article on the religion would be complete without them (3) and additional 1-2Kb would not hurt.

Will need Ganesha's help both short- and long-term. :-) Abecedare 04:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy new year, by the way. Abecedare 04:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to reply to the message you had left yesterday, so here goes: No, I am certainly not an abecedarian, ; quite the opposite in fact, holding human knowledge and potential for knowledge in highest regards.
As for whether I am an Hindu ? Would depend upon ones definition - so I typically try to avoid labeling my (and others') beliefs and identity, since such labels tend to confine/fence-off ones own thoughts and self-image, and possibly encourage group-identification/prejudice (see some excellent research on the topic by Mahzarin Banaji and try testing yourself).
Sorry for a complicated response to a simple query ! :-) Abecedare 17:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA 19:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Great work on Hinduism

Hi Gizza, Great Great work you're doing with the Hinduism article. I backed off from editing there when I found that the long side-issue discussions were taking too much of my limited time, and then I found that it was more effective (and fun) to focus on a few smaller articles at a time. And now I see that the article is in great hands, being edited well, trimmed down just as I was once suggesting, and with a great spirit of cooperation. Good job, and thanks. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Could I ask some questions about Hinduism?

I understand if you are too busy being an administrator.--Filll 22:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope I do not say anything offensive so please bear with me. I know next to nothing about Hinduism.

• Are there different sects of Hinduism?
• Do these sects get along?
• How prevalent is the notion that the Vedic creation story actually is true in Hinduism and in India?
• Are there ever any charges that Vedic science is pseudoscience?
• Is the ISKCON a non Hinduism sect? Are they nondoctrinal ? Fringe?
• Are there ISKCON representatives or Hinduism believers who are similar to ISKCON in India or in mainstream Hinduism?
• How different are the beliefs of ISKCON from Hinduism as a whole? And in what ways?
• What is Hindutva? Are they connected with Hinduism in any way?
• Why did the US state department issue concerned reports about Hindutva's influence on school textbooks in India?
• Who is a Hindutva and who is not? How can one tell the difference?
• Who is Swami Prakashanand Saraswati? Is he well known?

Sorry for so many questions. I really know nothing at all and I am just trying to understand.--Filll 22:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for answering. I hope I did not offend and I do not want to offend in any way shape or form. Permit me to ask a few more questions then:

Roughly what fraction of Hindus would you find who claimed, based on Vedic scriptures or teachings:

• "I believe that man was alive at the same time as dinosaurs",
• "I believe that the earth is more than 5 billion years old,"
• "I believe that man does not evolve physically with time"
• "I believe that my ancestors were NOT rat-like creatures, and before that lizards, and before that fish, and before that primitive sea creatures"
• "I believe all living creatures on earth do not have the same ancestors"
• "I believe the earth has been through multiple cycles of rebirth and men were recreated each cycle"
• "Man is descended from demigods and goddesses at the start of each cycle"
• "the following are sciences: astrology, vastu, yogic flying, Vedic creationism, transcendental meditation or ayurveda."
• Would agree with

  It is a fact that in the world almost all the academic literature in English about Hinduism, even by Hindu writers, bears the western influence, and that, none of these books represent the correct view of total authentic Hinduism. Historians forget that one cannot determine the history of Bharatvarsh on meager archaeological findings of coins, toys and pots. Whereas the general history of Bharatvarsh is already written in its scriptures and the Puranas whose texts and the philosophical descriptions are the outcome of the Gracious and benevolent minds of eternal Saints.

• would agree with

  In no way could there be any comparison of the western religions (which are based on mythologies) with the Hindu Vedic religion which is eternal, universal and is directly revealed by the supreme God.

• would agree with

  Divine writings cannot be analyzed in a material way. How could a worldly being, possessed with the vehemence of his own passions and desires, try to argue with the writings of Sages and Saints whose entire life was a divine benevolence for the souls of the world? You should know that all of our religious writings are Divine facts, and facts always remain facts, they cannot become myths. Using the word myth for our religious history is a serious spiritual transgression.

--Filll 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Swastika reverts

I'm fully aware the swastika means different things to the Hindu people than to Jews. However, it's my hope that you will agree that the Aum is far more major of a symbol than the swastika, and does not have the same affiliation for Europeans as the swastika does. With that in mind, I believe it is therefore more encyclopedic when addressing general Hindu issues. Also - what leads you to believe I am a Jew? I ask kindly that you return the Aum and discuss it further on the template pages. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've created and uploaded a red version of the 'aum' symbol, to use the red color you mentioned as being more auspicious for Hindus than the black of the original 'Aum.png'. I'm hopeful you will see this as more good faith, and undo your reverts.

Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of rollback

Please do not use admin rollback tools on good faith editing. Jkelly 00:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Not that it is any of my business, but there wide use of the Swastika in many cultures throughout the world for centuries or millenia. American tribes and the Chinese and Koreans and Japanese and Indians etc. I think it is a bit much to expect the Indians, who after all fought on the side of the British against the Nazis in WWII, are somehow responsible for the negative connotations associated with the swastika after it was used by the Nazis. That is absolutely ludicrous, and carrying political correctness much too far. If you want someone to back you up, I would argue this one to death. This is a ludicrous stance for him to take and I applaud you reverting things. It is completely ignorant to knuckle under to this excessive sensitivity and thoughtlessness. Why is his culture more important than anyone else's? It isnt, but that is what he is implying. I do not condone the holocaust or anything and I am pretty outraged at what was done to the Jews over the centuries and particularly during WWII. But this is nuts. --Filll 02:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean me? If not, I'll refrain from responding. If so, you misstate my objection. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Day

I have reason to believe that User:Siddiqui is using sock puppets or meat puppets to put extremist POV on History of India and Christianity in India. See my files chkusr request Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Siddiqui

and the history of the articles. I am more sure than ever that User:HamzaOmar and User:AliHussain are socks/meats of Siddiqui and they are heavily vandalizing History of India so I must revert their edits evoking exception to 3RR of vandalism. I suggest you take a look at the problems they have generated in Pakistani nationalism,History of Pakistan and Hindu temples in Multan which are protected thanks to these socks.Rumpelstiltskin223 06:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Kayla (Orca)

Is it possible to delete the page? It would be better if I moved Kayla (whale) to it, since other pages fit the same format too such as Keiko (Orca). -WarthogDemon 06:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I just now noticed that a good page would be Kayla (orca), so perhaps I can find a cleaner way to solve this. I'll check with another admin on this rather than burden you unnecessarily. Sorry for the inconvenience. ^^; -WarthogDemon 06:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

response

Hi.

I no longer care about the Pakhub article.You can do whatever you want with it.

In regards to Pakistani articles or related items such as Panani being categorized as "Indian" is offensive and very upsetting to Pakistani users.This includes me,Unre4L,Szhaider,Siddqui,Hamza and others.

Calling Panani south Asian is as neutral as it can get considering the fact that neither India nor Pakistan were established countries at his time.But since he was born in what is today called Paksitan and had no ties to India,he should either be known as Pakistani or south Asian.

Also sticking anti-Pakistan sentiments into articles such as Pakistani nationalism or writing articles such as christians in Pakistan (recently deleted) is extremely offensive and outrageous. Unfortunately due to the enormous numbers of these ultra-right wing Indian editors,backed by one minded-ultra imperialist Indian administrators such as taxman and ganashk,makes it almost impossible to rescue the articles from the grip of their iron fist. We never go around sticking Pakistani banners onto Indian items such as the Taj-mahal so why do you do it to us?

Szhaider,Unre4L and I made it clear that we have no regards to the "sources" for claiming the IVC or anything part of Pakisani history as "Indian" because they are all POV and imperial based. I'll only accept sources that are factual based.

Just because there was no italy in the days of the Roman empire,doesn't mean all refferences to Rome should all of a sudden be thrown from the history of Italy article(s) into the history of Germany article(s).

Think about it.

Nadirali 10:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)