User talk:Ms Sarah Welch/Archive 1

This is an archive.

Welcome

Hello, Ms Sarah Welch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting Started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! NicoPosner (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Brahmacarya

Hello Ms Welch. You have recently placed tags on the above article. While I agree with you that the references need improving I am puzzled by your desire for information from 'experts' on the subject when you have removed references and external links to definitive accounts by three world authorities on the subject namely Swami Sivananda, Swami Chidananda and Swami Vivekananda. Presumably you know that these are three of the most eminent yogis of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries? You removed external links to published works by two of them and relevant quotations from another - all of which clarify the subject matter of the article. 81.106.127.14 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO and WP:WWIN. I did not see anything in those links that meets WP:ELYES criterion or what is not already in the article. If you disagree, you are welcome to explain on that article's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I did delete the sentence about "magnificent personality from brahmacharya", where this was supported by a blog at wordpress.com website. First such assertions do not belong in an encyclopedic article. Second, blogs are not acceptable sources in wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly the most reliable sources - unless you're a believer. For Wikipedia, better sources are required. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

India and sfn

Hi MsS. I'm happily surprised with your edits. Did you already know Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics? It's a hub for India-related questions and concerns; India-related articles tend to attract a lot of heated disputes. hope to see more of you.

I'd aso like to draw your attention to Template:Sfn; it's another way of providing references, with short notes in the txt, and a list of sources. See, for example, Hinduism.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you JJ. I didn't know that. I will look into them. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	A sudden star at the Wiki-sky! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Purusartha

Saw Puruṣārtha. Kudos. Very nice work. Just 1 suggestion to keep in mind for next time. As per WP:OVERLINK, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, and for cleaning up the extra links. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Another Barnstar

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		Very gratefull for your valuable work. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

+1. Fabulous work on Bhagavan. One more tip: always italicize texts names: for e.g. Vishnu Purana. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, about Bhagavan. IMO, "Literature" should be sub-section under particular religions; Hindu texts under "Hinduism" (which currently discusses Bhagavata Purana, which is literature) etc. What do you think? If you are ok, I will make the changes. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. @Redtigerxyz: - Please go ahead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I have nominated Kaushitaki Upanishad, an article you expanded to Wikipedia:Did you know section on wikipedia's main page.

Template:Did you know nominations/Kaushitaki Upanishad. I will keep an eye on the nomination. Please let me know if you have any questions.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

c/u?

Wondering what that stands for in your edit-summaries? Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

c/u = clean/up Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course! Abecedare (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Dating mess up

Hi I just noticed you added reference to ramayana at mandukya upanishad but if you observe the dates if the ramayana is dated around 4-5 BCE and mandukya is being dated same time!? (wonder they were googling then?) , some how its date mess but pretty better than 2-4 AD which was mentioned earlier can you fix this ? Shrikanthv (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We must summarize sources, without OR, without POV. That requires fairly summarizing the conflict and different sides, without taking sides. The "fix" you request would be OR. It is better to neutrally present the different sides, and let the reader meditate on each side. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Wondering why you see dating as a point of POV Shrikanthv (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Kaushitaki Upanishad

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Adi Shankara

Rambhachan

Hi Ms Sarah Welch. I noticed that you removed qute some text from Adi Shankara, including the following block, witht he edit-summary "Rambhachan makes no mention of Shankara":

"Regarding meditation, Shankara refuted the system of Yoga and its disciplines as a direct means to attain moksha, rebutting the argument that it can be obtained through concentration of the mind. His position is that the mental states discovered through the practices of Yoga can be indirect aids to the gain of knowledge, but cannot themselves give rise to it. According to his philosophy, knowledge of Brahman springs from inquiry into the words of the Upanishads, and the knowledge of Brahman that shruti provides cannot be obtained in any other way."

References

I checked the source; Shankara is mentioned at least four times. What's more, the chapter is called "Vivekananda and Shankara." I think that an essential point is being made here, on the "method" of (Advaita) Vedanta. See also Anantanand Rambachan#Anubhava; Micahel Comans (1993), The question of the importance of Samadhi in modern and classical Advaita Vedanta, Philosophy East & West. Jan93, Vol. 43 Issue 1; and Neil Dalal (2009), Contemplative Practice and Textual Agency in Advaita Vedanta, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 21 (2009) 15-27. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks JJ. I looked into it again. The two large paragraphs I removed, were unsourced. My Rambhachan edit, and edit summary, was my error. I reworded it and added it back, along with Isaeva's book as second source. I will add more summary on the 'method', shortly, as it indeed is an essential point. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! It took me a couple of years to really get the point on what is "real", or "traditional" AV, and what is "neo-AV". I'd read Comans before, but Dalal's article was really enlightening: AV is a form of "lectio divina" (my words), and not some sort of Theosophical mystical insight. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Quote

I came across this blog, with this interesting sentence: "Her studies of Hinduism have sought to recover the buried, heterodox Tantric tradition from under the weight of the orientalist's favourite form of Hinduism – Vedanta. For European orientalists, Vedantism was the closest to their own monotheism – a set of faith practices bourgeois in their mood and conduct. Tantrism – with its impurities of sex and diet – seemed out of favour." It seems to tune with my own (limited) understanding, that there is more to Hinduism than neo-Vedanta. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Doniger's early work, after her thesis under Daniel H. H. Ingalls, Sr. and before 1997, was more interesting and balanced. Tantra has had an influence in certain schools of Hinduism and Buddhism, yet has been and is relatively small, in both. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

For an interesting discussion on possible link between early Upanishads/Vedas and Tantra: Robert Brown's introductory chapter and Teun Goudriaan chapter 9 in The Roots of Tantra, ISBN 978-0791453063, State University of New York Press. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

King and primary opinion

Hallo Ms sarah Welch. I need some explanation to understand the qualification of King as "primary opinion." [2] Could you enlighten my mind? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Single author opinions are primary, whether these are comparative probable-praise (Ashley) or comparative probable-criticism (King). King summary I removed, presented King's personal opinion, without any specifics on how and in which way Mandana-Misra was more influential than Adi Shankara. I welcome any specifics, if you wish to add, that actually present factual comparison between Mandana-Misra and Shankara, facts that show the relative influence (WP:PEA). I will read King one more time to see if he states any specific facts that should be summarized to improve the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the addition. It makes sense, doesn't it? Shankara and the upper classes, while the real popular support was for theistic Vedanta and bhakti. Fascinating (I also studied critical sociology; Habermas and Foucault and the like). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

In Myanmar, Thailand and Japan, we see the same in modern times – popular support for theistic Buddhism and other traditions. Masses of people praying with incense sticks and offering flowers before a statue of Buddha, muttering prayers and asking for luck and divine favors. Priests in these mostly Buddhist countries bless new cars, the unemployed and anxious moms with babies for a fee. Shankara, in his bhasyas, had comments on theism, and its appropriate role. I will try to dig those sources out, and summarize it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I'm impressed by you work on Ajivika article. BTW, if you ever thought creating a new article, then Ajnana school of thought which was contemporaneous to Buddha's life time would be very worthwhile. :D Manoguru (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Eliot Deutsch

Hi MSW. I'm reading Eliot Deutsch's Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical Reappraisal. Do you know how this book is "rated" in the schlarly community? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi JJ, it is well respected since its 1969 print. Karl Potter's review reasonably summarized the scholarly consensus. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I find the book to be very informative, especially because it takes a somewhat phenomenological stance, treating Advaita Vedanta's 'philosophy' as a 'description' of human experience. That's what I figured myself, and it's nice to see someone else state this. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Yoga

		The Half Barnstar
		One half for you, the other half for VictoriaGrayson, for your joint work on Yoga and the Yoga Sutras. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!

Once and a while, a big SIGH.... and keep up the good work! See also [3] and [4]. Best regards, no, high regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Thanks JJ. I appreciate the note. Do know I admire and am inspired by diligent and patient contributors on wikipedia, such as you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Your Canvassing Not Done

This and this not OK, Sarah Welch. You are not following WP:CANVASS. You are repeating the same thing that you did on Template:Hindu Philosophy, canvassing and scuttling the normal process of consensus building. You cannot gang up like this and seek support for your biased and disruptive edits. Hope good sense prevails. -Mohanbhan (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan: You have been making personal attacks on multiple talk pages, with repeated use of choice words such as "fascist" as you did for example here (and your use of this word was objected to by editor @Ogress). You have edit warred as you did here and here, and rudely admonished multiple wikipedia editors such as editor @Cpt.a.haddock here with the edit summary "why this insolence". Your personal attacks on me have been objected to by other wikipedia editors here and the personal attack deleted, but such deletes too was reverted and reinstate by you (apparently you are doing this with intent and conviction). I have reached out to @Abecedare, an admin, not to canvass, but for second opinion and to intervene/mediate as a neutral third party without WP:ANI. Please stop. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ms sarah Welch did a wise thing: she asked another editor for a second opinion. I've also asked you (Mohanbhan) to calm down, and to act in a normal, mature way. You don't need to act the way you're doing now; it's clear that you know a lot, that you are able to give convincing arguments, and that you've got a point of view which is an enrichment for Wikipedia. So please, try a different tone. We're not out here to do you any harm or to attack you. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

An ARCA discussion involving you has been created

{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen}}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Imposition_of_an_Arbitration_Enforced_Sanction_against_me_by_Bishonen Soham321 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request archived

The India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Jim Carter 06:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I sense some growing irritation...

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks JJ. It cheered me hours ago. But just read a confusing spiel by @Mohanbhan on "fascist and hegemony approach", so I came back to take another look at this kitten. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Dang, I could use some kitten. Can I pet it?Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

3 RR reminder

A note for you.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Ghatus (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Good work at article Ravidas

Just saying thanks for the edit that you did on Ravidas page. Best regards.Terabar (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see edit war at Brahma page

Please see edit war at Brahma pageVictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Just returned from vacation. Will take a look. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk page posting

Per this, I suggest you don't post to the editor's talk page regarding the changes you're making. It is better to do it at the article talk pages as it will be seen by other interested editors, so you may want to do that instead. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Presented to Ms Sarah Welch in appreciation of her outstanding scholarly contributions to pages on Indic religions, especially Hinduism and Hindu. We are fortunate to have you here! Kautilya3 (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thanks. I appreciate it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Puranas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skanda. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Do not write on my talk page

Sarah Welch, you must first understand what constitutes incivility. Your behaviour matches with every single instance of uncivil behaviour mentioned there including name calling, inappropriate and repeated use of warning templates, and repeated copy-pasting of out-of-context comments made on different forums. The tone of your comments is unprofessional, mocking and condescending even when you are at fault and have brazenly misquoted citations or modified them to suit your purposes. You have been warned many times for breaching WP:Civil, and for using talk pages (the last being the talk page of Allama Prabhu) to make personal attacks. So please do not write on my talk page. Please see WP:TALKNO. Violating this may lead to you being blocked. -Mohanbhan (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan: I presume you are referring to this warning notice reminder for you from wikipedia admins and repetitive incivility, yesterday, which you promptly deleted here?

Message posted on @Mohanbhan's page, and deleted by @Mohanbhan

@Mohanbhan: I am puzzled by your accusation of TAGTEAM against @Joshua Jonathan and I, today. It is uncivil for reasons explained on WP:TAGTEAM page, and inappropriate on an article's talk page. On Allama Prabhu talk page, this is not the first occasion of your personal attacks and uncivil behavior. You did this here where you questioned my ethics when you were clearly at fault and misreading the source. And here on September 20, where you wrote, "Edit-warring and POV-pushing (as demonstrated on innumerable talk pages) are your specialty Sarah Welch... (...)... Also, I think I am reminding you for the nth time to stick to the topic of discussion instead of making personal comments.", accusations which are inappropriate for an article's talk page (WP:TPNO).

This is a repeat of your past behavior, elsewhere on wiki pages:

1. You have called constructive comments of other editors in an India-topic related RfC and elsewhere, as "fascist", which has been objected to by other editors here, here, here, here and here
2. You have been uncivil to wiki editors such as @Cpt.a.haddock by using edit summaries such as "why this insolence" here, and you have reinstated personal attacks of @Soham321 against me here. As you know, @Soham321 was sanctioned and topic banned by admin @Bishonen.
3. You have been previously cautioned by various wikipedia admins to not "cast aspersions" and be civil, such as during ARCA-proceedings; in arb-section comments by admins @Salvio, @Doug Weller and @Seraphimblade, and here by @Bishonen

Your recent repetition of uncivil behavior is inappropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This is just a part of the process, and such notices are appropriate use of your talk page. FWIW, I am not the only one concerned by your "tagteam allegation"-related uncivil behavior. @Joshua Jonathan posted the same reminder for you, on your "tagteam" allegation against him and I, here.

You allege again that I made personal attack on you Allama Prabhu talk page, again casting aspersions. I have asked you for evidence here, but you did not provide any evidence. Casting aspersions and then refusing to provide evidence is inappropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with almost every bit of what Mohanbhan has written above. Sarah Welch has been uncivil (in her edit summaries, she mentions "edits made by the now blocked Js82", what has that got to do with an edit summary ? Wiki policy clearly states "to avoid personal comments about any editors" in the edit summaries), mocking, condescending, brazenly quoting out-of-context comments made on different forums, removing sourced content to suit her POV, and also relentless in unnecessary user talk page postings. Js82 (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring

You have been engaging in an edit war on the Sikhism talk page, going against majority viewpoint, inserting your own biased views. On top of it, you have have the temerity to go to another user's talk page and warn him about edit warring!! Please stop this uncivilized behavior, as multiple editors have noted against you above also. Js82 (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: @SpacemanSpiff:, please look into this. Sarah Welch has already made 3 reverts in the last 24 hours at Sikhism, violating the 3RR I believe ? Thanks. Js82 (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Js82: The above message is not helpful. See WP:EDITWAR, which refers to "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." I have not reverted your edit to override. I simply checked sources, found OR, edited your contribution by adding page number, and revising the wording you added to remove OR. Once again, I welcome you to Talk:Sikhism, as I did here, and discuss why you want reliable sources and content to be deleted. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." This is exactly what you did three times, going against the majority viewpoint that does not believe the biased content you keep inserting deserves to be included. You cannot disguise your minor couple of word changes as "not edit warring". You are continuing to mislead people all the time. Please stop this UNCIVIL behavior, including unnecessary postings on other users talk pages when you are obviously the one not heeding to the majority viewpoint. Js82 (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Js82: Removing reliably sourced content is vandalism. An IP address deleting a sourced content, followed by you doing the same, does not make "a majority opinion", it is just you joining vandalism. Your above message is another puzzling behavior of yours, asking me to not post wikipedia-required notices and warning to you on your talk page, while doing the same on my talk page. Let us get back to collaborating and contributing constructively to wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a closer look later, but at first sight s82's reaction seems to be overdone. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Welch made three reverts on the same issue within a 24 hour window, against prevailing majority viewpoint. (is now again misleading others by taking refuge under the vandalism argument. I read the vandalism page, and in no way at all the changes made by the IP address qualify as vandalism.) Would some action be taken here ? Do we have one rule for all people, or different rules for different people here ? Js82 (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Js82: If she has, then please produce the three diffs. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I see several things here:

• At 19:21, 27 September 2015 DeludedFan reverted back to version 673953882 of 18:18, 31 July 2015 by DeludedFan, which was itself a revert back to version 672877693 of 15:29, 24 July 2015, also by DeludedFan. Those are not simple reverts, but big reverts, neglecting the multiple input of several editors. DeludedFan made only 229 edits so far, not a good sign combined with such drastical behaviour.
• At 04:48, 2 October 2015 undid most of DeludedFan's revert
• At 07:26, 5 October 2015 IP 75.172.127.13 removed the sentence "Sikh gurus drew part of their inspiration from the Bhakti movement in medieval India.", which was referenced by three sources, with the comment "Irrevalent information that was out of flow and contributed nothing to the introduction"
• At 20:22, 6 October 2015 Ms Sarah Welch re-inserted this line, with the comment "c/u, recover well sourced information" (MSW revert #1)
• At 22:13, 6 October 2015 Js82 reverted Ms Sarah Welch, with the comment "Undid revision 684448972 by Ms Sarah Welch (talk) Agree with the previous editor's comments. Unnecessary and biased content does not deserve to be in the lead." (Js82 revert #1)
• At 22:49, 6 October 2015 Ms Sarah Welch reverted Js82, with the comment "Bhakti movement is discussed in the main article, is due in lead given its importance to early Sikhism and non-Sikh Bhakti verses in Adi Granth, it is also WP:RS sourced, see talk page" (MSW revert #2)
• At 22:50, 6 October 2015 ms Sarah Welch opened a talkpage-section on the Bhakti-sentence
• At 04:55, 7 October 2015 Js82 reverted again, with the comment "Undid revision 684471941 by Ms Sarah Welch (talk) As stated by other editor also, this is unnecessary, and inaccurate. Main text nowhere says about any inspiration. See talk page." (Js82 revert #2)
• At 04:48, 7 October 2015, Js82 started to respond at the talkpage: "To say anything of the Sikh Gurus taking any inspiration from Bhakti movement is fallacious. Sikh Gurus included the writings of other saints in the Guru Granth Sahib; implying that as taking inspiration from them is false."
• At 09:26 / 09:29, 7 October 2015 Js82 made two other edits to the lead
• At 14:14, 7 October 2015 these edits were revised by MSW, but not reverted
• At 15:02, 7 October 2015 MSW added info and sources to the lead
• At 18:46, 7 October MSW added info to the "Adi Grant" section

So, to summarize:

• MSW added info on Bhakti-influences to the lead, with three reliable references
• Two editors objected to this, calling it "irrelevant," "contributing nothing," and "unnecessary, and inaccurate. Main text nowhere says about any inspiration."
• MSW reverted two times, Js82 reverted two times
• "irrelevant," "contributing nothing," "unnecessay" are personal judgements, cq POV
• "inaccurate": Js82 gave one source from 1959, published by the Guru Nanak Dev University, as an argument against three reliable sources
• "main text": The article does contain multiple mentions of, and refrences to, the Bhakti-influences

This is not an edit-war by MSW, this is POV-pushing by Js82. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Lol at many of your comments, but thanks for doing all this work.

Here are the three reverts from Sarah Welch that violate the 3RR.

Revert #1: At 20:22, 6 October 2015 Ms Sarah Welch re-inserted the line on Bhakti Movement (the edit with summary "c/u, recover well sourced information")

Revert #2: At 22:49, 6 October 2015 Ms Sarah Welch reverted Js82 (the edit with summary "Bhakti movement is discussed ...")

Revert #3: At 14:14, 7 October 2015 Sarah Welch (in guise of making other modifications), also reinserted contentious text on Bhakti movement again (that had lead to the preceding two reverts) without getting any consensus, and contrary to prevailing majority opinion !! (How did Mr. Jonathan overlook this crucial aspect in his otherwise meticulous job ! ) (the edit with summary "@Js82: no edit wars again ..")

This is what wikipedia policy states:

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. ... An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring regardless of whether their edits were justifiable. ... The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.

Clearly, Sarah Welch's edits above violate the 3RR. Would there be any action from an admin, or do we have different laws for different people ? Js82 (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, based on your evidence, I have to say that Ms Sarah Welch has edit-warred, but she did not cross 3RR. The WP:BRD protocol recommends that, when an edit is reverted, one is expected to open a talk page discussion and strive to achieve consensus. I notice that MSW has opened a talk page discussion, but she did not wait for consensus before reinserting her text. Technically, she hasn't violated the 3RR, but her editing behaviour wasn't exemplary.

At the same time, I should say that your objections were not policy-based either. To contest the addition of some content, you have to either show that it is not reliable or argue that it is WP:UNDUE. The presence of some other source that holds a vaguely contrary view does not automatically invalidate the first source. So, you cannot object to it on those grounds. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, 14:14, 7 October 2015 did re-insert the contested info. I'd only seen the first part at the lead. Well, that still doesn't change the fallacy of your WP:DONTLIKEIT argument, nor the fact that this is sourced info. If you think those sources are unreliable, please explain why they are unreliable. Providing a pimary source which gives a religious point of view is unsufficient; at best you can add that info. But if you use it to remove sourced info, then you are the one who is edit-warring. And no, we don't have different lwas; they also apply to you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

MiszaBot

Hi Ms Sarah Welch. I've taken the liberty to add MiszaBot to your talkpage, for automatic archivation. In about 8 hours some older threads will be archived. If you don't want this, please let me know, or simply revert my previous edit. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It works! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Murti article

Shouldn't it be explained that temple murtis are installed by sthapana and prana pratishta rituals, which are a type of homam?VictoriaGrayson^Talk

Indeed. It is mentioned. More?, with a clean up of Prana Pratishtha article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes please.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ramana Maharshi

Forsthoefl (2005), Weaving the inward thread to awakening, in Gurus in America:

"And yet there is another way to construe his perennial appeal, a way that implicates the controverted debates in the philosophy of religion over a “core” mystical experience at the heart of all religions. In this case, the source of Ramana’s perennial appeal lies in his paradigmatic experience of realization and his repeated insistence that such experience is accessible and available to all, regardless of cultural or social conditions.This appeal and call to liberating experience—represented here as a universal, transcultural phenomenon—proved eminently attractive to Indians and Westerners holding slightly different interests, and it must be situated against the backdrop of broader philosophical and cultural agendas that have emerged in the East and in the West since the Enlightenment. [...] Here, I wish to draw from that research and argue that the deeply inward or internal methodology of Ramana Maharshi accords well with the thought of certain thinkers in the East and the West who favor the notion of a transnational, transcultural “mystical” experience at the heart of all religions.
The claim for the immediacy and universality of such experience typically characterizes the perennial philosophy, a philosophy that has stimulated much critical debate, such as that of Steven T. Katz. My agenda here is not to argue for the correctness of perennialism, but instead to show that Ramana’s life and teaching implicate a perennialist position, one that has proven to be compelling to thinkers and disciples both in India and in the West." (p.38)

Back at solid academical ground, incorporating cultural contexts and historical developments. Thanks! (I feel like a bulldog; bite and don't let go, 'till you've got all the details right. Familiair feeling, isn't it?) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Another scholarly 2 page summary by Arvind Sharma. There is a short Jnana-yoga mention and a few quotes, such as "Help yourself, and you will help the world". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Higher traffic articles by project

@Nvvchar:, @Joshua Jonathan:, @Abecedare: Is there a wiki tool or updated wiki page maintained by someone to find a list of moderate to higher traffic (>250 average views a day) Hinduism philosophy-related articles that are largely unreferenced/poor quality and need attention? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not good at locating such tools in WP.--Nvvchar. 01:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Sankhya Information that you have deleted from Samkhya page on Wikipedia.

Please open the first reference as www.kapillavastu.com and check it, also 2nd refernce is a reliable Certificate issued by Indian Govt. UGC approved Yoga University S-VYASA.

Also the Chancellor Dr. H R Nagendra who issued the referenced certificate is the Yoga Consultant of India's Prime Minister Modi which I think should be a reliable source, see this link, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/world/asia/prime-minister-modis-yoga-consultant-hr-nagendra.html?_r=0

And the person in the Youtube video is the Director of the famous Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, which I think should be a reliable source, please see this link, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijay_P._Bhatkar

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prateekbudhwar (talk • contribs) 15:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Prateekbudhwar: A source does not become reliable because the author has been mentioned in a newspaper or youtube, or rumored to know a politician or someone. A source is reliable if "the publication" has undergone scholarly peer review / editorial oversight process. Please read WP:RS for more. Your content to Samkhya article has been challenged by several editors. Instead of edit warring, you should self-revert, discuss your suggestions on Talk:Samkhya page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prateekbudhwar#04 November 2015. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Pranagnihotra Upanishad

@Nvvchar: With your interest in minor Upanishads, how about Pranagnihotra Upanishad? This is an interesting minor Upanishad, which describes human body to be a temple, eating, drinking water and taking care of it to be yajna offerings to it, that hope, love, emotions and virtues such as non-violence are expressions of worship, desire/cravings/anger is what must be sacrificed, that all Vedic gods are inside a living body working harmoniously as aspects of Brahman, the soul-life force (prana), etc. The rituals on eating, suggested Paul Deussen, may have affected, or were affected by, eating rituals of ancient/medieval Hindu society (washing hands, rinsing mouth, being thankful to whatever is on one's plate, etc).

I have the Mahanarayana Upanishad manuscripts and translation with me now, but probably will work on summarizing it in its wiki article in December. I will be away in Africa for few weeks starting this weekend. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I will work on Pranagnihotropanishad. Devi, I suppose is now ready for GA except that the references in the lead need to be shifted to the main text. Have happy holidays in Africa{which country?). Cheers.Nvvchar. 02:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolve

Since you have deep knowledge of Hinduism can you resolve the debate here Template:Did you know nominations/Varaha Upanishad. Thanks--Nvvchar. 05:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Posted Badami cave temples on GAN page.--Nvvchar. 09:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. I have withdrawn the article from DYK. I don't seem to have a search engine which can give referencess mentioned by you. I was thinking of writing on other remaining (We have written 34 and another about 50 remain) Upanishads but I am now skeptical to do it as the sources I have are almost the same. I do not have working knowledge of Sanskrit. In case you have no objection to collaborate, you may like to have a look at this page User:Redtigerxyz/Upanishad where there are two articles User:Nvvchar/Narayana Upanishad and User:Nvvchar/Avyakta Upanishad and also Mahanarayana Upanishad which we have not been able to complete. I was also thinking of starting this short Sariraka Upanishad.Nvvchar. 01:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: I just looked at some completed articles, including the Narayana draft. It can be significantly improved, and should be. I am particularly concerned about the quality of sources, about layout where all chapters of a minor Upanishad are combined into one motley mass, and about balance issues. I urge that you consider relying on Deussen's translations of 47 minor Upanishads, Aiyar's 30 (with Alex Wayman's notes and review of some), Easwaran's 4, and Olivelle's recent work on Upanishads. I will clean up and add to two you mention, in next week or few, [1] the Narayana Upanishad - it is really small with 5 short chapters, and [2] Mahanarayana Upanishad - it is long (64 to 80 chapters), with several recensions/versions of manuscripts known, but it is somewhat related to Narayana Upanishad. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: Ayyangar is a good source for 20 minor Yoga Upanishads. It, and others I mention above, are cited and referred to in scholarly publications such as at pages 79-80 by Antonio Rigopoulos, ISBN 978-0791436967 published by State University of New York Press. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I have completed this Sariraka Upanishad. But could not find any reference for its dating. You may like to add and edit for DYK. Narayana Upanishad is now in main space. Thanks. Nvvchar. 08:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: Sariraka Upanishad is a physiological/medical Upanishad, and interesting. I will review it, and if needed revise it this week. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Posted here Template:Did you know nominations/Sariraka Upanishad. I have created this article. Needs your expert input here Bhikshuka Upanishad and a better img. Nvvchar. 08:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Posted Narayana Upanishad here Template:Did you know nominations/Narayana UpanishadNvvchar. 15:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: [1] Rely on Olivelle's 20 translations of Samnyasa Upanishads (all minor), because there are many inconsistent manuscripts, and we must use the most scholarly critical edition of the manuscripts known, which is what Olivelle's 1992 book does. See Oxford University Press published ISBN 978-0195070453. [2] For chronology and dating, rely on Joachim Sprockhoff's work in 1970s-1980s for minor Upanishads - an indispensable scholarly work. Most of this was, unfortunately, published in German (unless you can read German). I tried to find English translations for you, but no luck so far. Schrader's publications on minor Upanishads are also useful in this regard. Here is summary from Olivelle (1992, page 9): Asrama (300 CE), Naradaparivrajaka (1150 CE), Satyayaniya (1200 CE), most other 17 Samnyasa are from 14th or 15th century CE. [3] The wiki Upanishads article's classification of the minor Upanishads with Vedas etc has some errors, which I will try to fix and update to the latest scholarship, with recent WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ms Sarah Welch tried to locate the above refs but could not get any of these books in my google book search. I have posted this Bhikshuka Upanishad for your expert inputs. By the way @ symbol before my name does not leave a message on my talk pageNvvchar. 04:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: Try The Samnyasa Upanisads. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Is the Devi Atharva Sirasa Upanishad the same as Devi Upanishad? I am planning to write on the latter Upanishad, a Shakta Upansiahd and also on Tripura Tapani Upanishad of the same genre.Nvvchar. 11:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: There is a Shaiva Upanishad called Atharva Sirasa (Paul Deussen, Sixty Upanishads, Vol 2, pages 769-778) which is mostly about Rudra and asserts Rudra is same as Vishnu / Brahman / etc. There is a 32 verse Shakta Upanishad called Devi, but there exist two different versions/editions of this. I do not know if there is or was a Devi Atharva Sirara Upanishad. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Posted here Template:Did you know nominations/Bhikshuka Upanishad.Nvvchar. 15:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• May like to add to this Devi Upanishad. Will do Tripura Tapani Upanishad tomarrow.Nvvchar. 11:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice piure of Kuchipudi dancer. Are you in Indian learning Indian dances also part from teaching?Nvvchar. 11:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: I will take a look at Devi Upanishad. Your revisions and suggestions to improve Devi and Hindu deities would be welcome. That picture is just WP:POTD refreshed every 24 hours by wikimedia. Ahhh, the Kuchipudi article is largely unsourced, lacks history and most encyclopedic details!!, how about adding it and other dance articles to your list-to-do for future GA nominations? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Posted here Template:Did you know nominations/Devi Upanishad. I have completed my inputs in Devi.Nvvchar. 02:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: The Devi article has a few "citation pending" requests, so not yet ready for GA nomination. Lets wait a few weeks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Diwali greetings

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Shaivism

NB: any suggestions for literature on Tamil Saivism & bhakti in recent times? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Tamil Saivism suggestions,

1. RG Bhandarkar, Vaiṣṇavism, Śaivism and Minor Religious Systems; a source that is dated and old, but a good influential overview of pre-20th century Saivism literature / epigraphy / archeology / earliest history of Shaivism, in Part 2, page 102 onwards
2. Surendranath Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy: Vol. 5, The Southern Schools of Śaivism, Cambridge University Press; discusses Tamil Śaiva Siddhanta, also Himalayan Saivism such as around Pashupata, Shiva in Puranas
3. VS Pathak, History of Saiva Cults in Northern India from Inscriptions: 700 AD to 1200 AD, Motilal Banarsidass; Another old (1960) but referred to historical review of epigraphical evidence of various Saiva traditions in medieval Tamil region and other parts of India
4. Jan Gonda, Medieval Religious Literature in Sanskrit: A History of Indian Literature Vol 2 Part 1; Scholarly Shaivism bibliography - one of the best Saivism bibliography (pre-1980) is covered in chapters 10 to 13.
5. George Spencer (1970), The Sacred Geography of the Tamil Shaivite Hymns, Numen, Vol. 17, Fasc 3, pages 232-244; discusses Tamil literature on hymns and Tamil Saiva bhakti
6. Norman Cutler (1987), Songs of Experience: The Poetics of Tamil Devotion, Indiana University Press; a good introduction chapter on Tamil Saiva bhakti (with Vaishnava contrast), but see also chapters 2 and 3 for more Tamil Saiva bhakti information
7. Richard Davis (1991), Ritual in an Oscillating Universe: Worshiping Śiva in Medieval India, Princeton University Press, a good review of medieval era South Indian Saivism, particularly before the shock of Islamic raid and invasion in north and south India, on the relation between the religious doctrines and actual practices.
8. Gavin Flood (2003), The Śaiva Traditions, in The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, pages 200–228, a good review and introduction on Saivism, as well tantra in Saivism
9. David Lorenzen et al, Saivism: An Overview chapter, in Volume 13 of The Encyclopedia of Religion (Editor: Mircea Eliade), Another good review and bibliography (pre-1990)
10. T Ganesan (2003), Introduction chapter (pages v - xxvii) on Schools of Saivasiddhānta, in Sivajnanabodha: With the Laghutika of Sivagrayogi, a review of Saivism theology
11. Dominic Goodall (2004), Preface chapter page xii onwards, in The Parakhyatantra: A Scripture of the Saiva Siddhanta; early history of Sanskrit texts in Saivism, provides an interesting theory that Tamil Saivism was different in some ways than pan-Indian Saivism (for WP:NPOV)
12. Alexis Sanderson, The Saiva Age: The Rise and Dominance of Saivism during the Early Medieval Period, in Genesis and Development of Tantrism (Editor: Shingo Einoo), Good review (of pre-2009 scholarship) on Saivism.
13. Alexis Sanderson (2010), Ritual for Oneself and Ritual for Others, in Ritual Dynamics and the Science of Ritual, Vol. 2, (Editors: Angelos Chaniotis et al); a good article on rituals and temples, their meaning in Saivism; Alexis Sanderson's lectures at École pratique des Hautes Études are useful if you can get hold of it.
14. S Hatley (2010), Tantric Saivism in Early Medieval India: Recent Research and Future Directions, Religion Compass, Vol 4, No. 10, pages 615–628; discusses Saivism in medieval India between 500–1200 CE, Saiva Agamas, Puranas and other literature, discusses relationship between Saivism and Buddhism (mostly from tantra perspective)
15. IV Peterson (2014), Poems to Siva: The Hymns of the Tamil Saints, Princeton University Press; a review of Tamil Saiva saints, bhakti and related theology and history; see her earlier work too: Lives of the Wandering Singers: Pilgrimage and Poetry in Tamil Śaivite Hagiography on Tamil Saiva bhakti scholarship

I had posted some leads on your talk page, @JJ, for Tamil Saiva influence on southeast Asia and Saivism-Buddhism syncretism – worth a look, as it is indeed fascinating from cultural-historical perspectives. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh my, what a list. I've copied them right-away to my source-page; it will proof usefull some day, for sure. But... (sorry to say), I was actually thinking of Saiva bhakti in recent times, to have background knowledge of the culture in which Ramana Maharshi was worshipped. --unsigned comment by Joshua Jonathan

@JJ: during his life?, or after his death in 1950?, or last 25 years? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's say 19th and 20th century. He's been dead for quite a while, of course; cultural attitudes qua guru-bhakti may have changed the past decades. I've found some sources, but it's a "wild search;" see User:Joshua Jonathan/Guru-bhakti. The (western) devotion seems to fit into the neo-Vedanta/Perennialist scheme; but once you see how immersed Ramana Maharshi was in devotional religiosity, one really wonders: why the qualification as Advaita? 'It's bhakti, you stupid!' (to paraphrase Bill Clinton). And once you see it, one wonders: why are human beings approached as if they are God incarnate? What's going on here? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Bhagavan does not always mean God incarnate, just "revered, venerable, divine person" in many Indian texts. Buddha is referred to as Bhagavan in non-theistic Buddhist texts. True for many Hinduism texts too. Guru is, similarly, a multidimensional concept, and the reverence for a spiritual teacher by some may appear like bhakti, but that does not necessarily imply dualistic acceptance of god or Guru as incarnate. The Sharma's 2-page summary I mentioned in RamanaM section above, discusses Shaivism in the chapter, but does not link RamanaM to Shaivism. RamanaM's devotional religiosity mirrors some old Advaita texts, but the "free from thoughts" is muddled presentation, because that isn't in Shankara and voluminous Advaita literature that followed. They state, "Think, Understand, Uncover, Realize and Be", "Bhakti is unnecessary, at best a means for some", etc.

The Shaivism list above covers 19th and 20th century, but I don't believe they mention RamanaM. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: What about sources in chapter 3, pages 63-92, of Alan Edwards thesis awarded by University of Wellington? Edwards is already a source in RamanaM article, but not in the Shaivism section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sharma is usefull; thanks. Never came across that one, though there's another article which also mentions RM as representative of traditional Hinduism. Using Alan Edwards' sources is a good idea. RM is a fascinating topic, when you start to ask questions about hsi religiosity, and the way he wa sperceived by others. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't know if this helps, (haven't been following too closely here), but bhagavat is one who has (vat) splendor (bhaga). Hence bhaga later came to mean lord from this name being applied to God, particularly in bhagavatism. At least, according to my sanskrit professor. The uncited but somewhat accurate sounding bhaga page doesn't entirely mesh with that. As an aside, I'd love to know if you find any good sources on modern saivism. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ista Devata: Bhaga article does need work by someone. Why not you? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:, @VictoriaGrayson: Do you have any plans to work the Lingayatism and Shaivism articles? Other than unsourced or non-RS sections, the two articles at least need sections on their philosophy, ideas, related history, their relationship with other Indian traditions. What else? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Not at the moment. For the past few weeks, I've been gathering info on Ramana Maharshi & "religious experience." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

No plans here.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

THIS is the most important source on Saivism.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 07:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Bhikshuka Upanishad

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your Blatant LIES

Rant

Yes, keep getting the Sikhism page protected, so you and your comrades can freely spread all the blatant lies that you want to. Here is one example, for Mr. Spiff, Mr. Kautilya, and others to glean over: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikhism&diff=689612566&oldid=689611396 This edit was posted to clarify the context (from the source) of some text added by Sarah Welch earlier the same day, very cleverly without any context. However, she and Josh Jonathan just reverted it, crying unsourced (It is unimaginable to fathom that Sarah Welch really thought it is unsourced. Why? Because, in the source, this context immediately follows the very sentence that Sarah Welch had inserted a few hours ago). How can someone have the audacity to spread such brazen lies ? Is there any accountability here ? Here is proof that the content was sourced: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22are+cared+for+in+Hindu+temples.+it+is+not+unusual+to+find+such+practices+denounced+in+sikh%22 https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22it%20is%20not%20unusual%20to%20find%20such%20practices%20denounced%20in%20sikh%22 https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22The+Gurus+and+the+Book+deserve+the+respect+they+are+accorded+because+of+the+bani%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.42.111 (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Fresh air please; where's the window? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

More personal attacks by 2607:FB90:2272:1E63:0:2E:4968:7801, @172.56.42.111, @67.164.86.112, @Js82
lol..comrade to the rescue. Nothing better expected. Post blatant lies while no one is watching, operate in a herd to get others blocked, and keep motoring along on your own merry way ! Zero honesty and credibility. Lowest among the lowest level one can imagine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:2272:1E63:0:2E:4968:7801 (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Js82: You have been personally attacking numerous admins and many editors, for months now. The above against @JJ, one of the respected editors on Indian religions-related topic, reflects on you, rather than him or wikipedia. You have been warned, given many chances, finally blocked, yet you return using different IPs. Your behavior is not constructive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

et cetera
Yes, the fact that you and your accomplices are caught lying blatantly, and do not show any remorse, reflects on others, it does not reflect on you. Lie blatantly, get others blocked, operate in herds and show zero remorse when exposed. Zero honesty and absolutely zero class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fb90:4882:da86:0:23:c512:f901 (talk • contribs) 6 december 2015

@Drmies, Bishonen, SpacemanSpiff, and RegentsPark: can one of you please put some protection on this page? Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@RP/@SS/@Bish/@Drmies: Yes, would appreciate if one of you could please protect this page for a month. Thank you @JJ and you all, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

"The Nay Science: A History of German Indology", Oxford University Press

Pretty much debunks Indology.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Devi Upanishad

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Saiva Age

Continuum Companion to Hindu Studies specifically recommends "Saiva Age" by Sanderson:

page 136:.......an even longer and more recent one, ‘The Śaiva Age: The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism During the Early Medieval Period’ (2009) is far wider in scope yet (more so than the title might at first suggest) and can be recommended as perhaps the best single starting place for a student wishing to familiarize himself with the Tantric traditions.

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Jsp98806

See WP:ANI#Book spam. I'm concerned about all these date changes made by this editor using a generalist text book. Doug Weller (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Indeed, that is what it is. The content inserted is pushing a book, and has little to no encyclopedic value. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hinduism Barnstar

		The Hinduism Award
		Many articles on my watchlist are flooded by your constructive edits. Your transformation of major Hinduism articles like Hindu deities, Devi, Parvati, Women in Hinduism, Murti, Yajna as well as your work on various ancient texts like Upanishads, Puranas, Arthashastra is praiseworthy. A Barnstar long overdue. Kudos Redtigerxyz Talk 17:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz: I appreciate these words of encouragement. But frankly, some of the articles had decent foundation that I could work on, so the credit belongs to past contributors such as yourself and many others. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Galleries/Grids in articles

The grids may be considered a violation of Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_galleries. Too many images leads to slow loading of the article; galleries are generally avoided and individual images or montages preferred instead. So I replaced the avatar grid with a single image with Dashavatara. I am replacing the opening grid with the earlier single image. Similar or repetitive images like the yantras are avoided. So Sri yantra, the most important of the yantras, was used as a representative. I strongly recommend removing "Early surviving art" in Major regional and pan-Indian Hindu deities and reducing to 1 image of the deity. A grid like the one in "Characteristics of Vedic era deities" is a good illustration of where a grid is really needed and adds to encyclopedic value. You are free to replace images I added, keeping the image policy in mind. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz: A grid is not a gallery. It is a montage (multiple images stuck together), which you agree above is encouraged. I think you are misunderstanding the gallery guideline. NPOV is important. I will check your changes and revert where appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz: I do not understand your objection to "early surviving art". It has encyclopedic value. I just checked that page's load time on five devices, one of which was my phone, with and without wifi, and without high speed 3G/4G cellular network. No issues either way whatsoever. Given the diversity of Hinduism, single image misleads those who are new to Indian religions, and violates the NPOV guidelines (more important). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please go through Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_galleries]. Montage as a single image; e.g. File:Phoebian Explorers 2 PIA06118.jpg (given in the policy), File:MumbaiMontage.png is allowed. "Collages and montages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts". You can create a montage and put; but the grid as it is in the article is a gallery ("a collection of images").--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz: I read it. Says, "However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." So, even gallery is thus allowed. Further, it is talking about gallery section. Yes, if all else fails, I will make a montage. The problem with one image montage is the extra work. I like grid, because sometimes better images come along which can replace poorer quality images more easily. I ask you reconsider. Neither the Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_galleries nor any other policy page bans grid/gallery of images, to the best of my understanding. Provide me a link, if it does. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The reason for removal of "Early surviving art" is again the same. Reducing images in the gallery. If you clear your cache and check, an article with lesser images, loads faster. IMO, an article on Hindu iconography/section on iconography of the particular deity warrants images illustrating various eras etc. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz: I cleared my cache and checked. It is as fast as before, even on slow networks (what difference do you see?). I disagree with you on 'early surviving art'. Should we get WP:3O, or try DRN? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, a gallery is not banned; but they are discouraged. I understand that you have spent considerable time and effort searching and incorporating these images in the article. The trio of Rudra to Shiva is a good example of "a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject (the evolving iconography) that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images". However, having two images for every deity in the gallery at the end, is not warranted. I am not removing "early surviving art" column. The montage is much faster. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz: If they are not banned, then please do not delete. This may be a mute issue now, as I have already created a montage single photo and uploaded it. I understand you are interested in fast uploads, but I see only milliseconds difference on slow networks. I think 'early surviving art' photos are warranted and are of encyclopedic value, because it provides visual evidence of how old and diverse the deities and arts related to them are, and this is not easily expressed in words. Pictures communicate a thousand words. I feel we just have a difference of opinion (and I respect yours). We should seek DRN or something. I will accept the consensus. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Brahma lead

There is a Hindu trinity of Surya-Agni-Indra. There is also a trinity of Balarāma-Ekānaṃśā-Kṛṣṇa (read Kiss of the Yogini). Both of these are earlier than the Trimurti. Then there is a trinity of Mahālakṣmī, Mahāsarasvatī, and Mahākālī (see Kiss of the Yogini). So one cannot describe Trimurti as "the Hindu Trinity".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Indeed. This needs to be clarified. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Specifically about Brahma as "secondary" creator:

• Asian Mythologies by Yves Bonnefoy & Wendy Doniger. Page 46.
• Bryant, ed. by Edwin F. (2007). Krishna : a sourcebook. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 7, 18
• Sutton, Nicholas (2000). Religious doctrines in the Mahābhārata (1st ed ed.). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. p. 182.

Secondary creation in general:

• Wendy DongierVictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Yes, another excellent point, but the article must explain what "secondary creator" means in Indian mythologies – it is not about secondary status as someone mentions on the talk page of Brahma article. It is a far more interesting, integrated, sophisticated concept linked to their diverse cosmogony theories. Should I add some text citing the above and other sources? Or Iṣṭa Devatā and you want to? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd be curious to see what you add. Yes we should definitely elaborate in the appropriate sections about the many cosmogonies in Hinduism where Brahma sometimes is and sometimes isn't the primary creator. My only earlier concern was the prominence of Vaishnav views in the lead. As for the trimurti, I feel like 90 some percent of Hindus and academics would define the trimurti the same way wikipedia, ISKCON and New World Encyclopedia do: as Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. It's certainly an interesting point that there were other trimurtis, but do we have a source that would indicate how prominent those associations were to make sure it isn't fringy? Are those figures known as 'The Trimurti' or were they simply murtis with three aspects? From Vic's description it sounds like these are just other trinities, not necessarily referred to as 'trimurti'. Would that be a correct reading? It would be good to see the quote from Kiss of the Yogini. If you're right, we should update the trimurti page as well. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:

• Bryant explains 'secondary creator' with his footnote on page 18. The footnote says Brahma " is not the creator of the primordial universal stuff itself. He is born from the lotus stemming from Vishnu’s navel."
• Sutton equates Brahma as secondary creator with the Demiurge concept.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that is the only Hindu cosmogony? Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devatā: ISKCON website, New World Encyclopedia and such websites are of doubtful scholarship and reliability. What are your recommended peer reviewed journal articles, recent books published by university presses, and other RS, on this subject? On your question "is this fringy theory", the mainstream scholarly view is indeed that Hinduism has had multiple Trinities, particularly its Vedic literature and medieval Shaktism/Tantra/Devi traditions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Have you seen the literature on Brahma in Buddhist texts of southeast Asia, particularly Thai literature? There is a lot. These revolve around the questions, "why are there so many beautiful Brahma temples in Thailand, how did Brahma (and other Hindu gods such as Indra and Visnu) develop and get cherished in Buddhism in medieval times and later, why has Brahma been worshipped in Thai Buddhism through modern times?" Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're asking me for references. I'm not claiming anything. I just gave examples of what comes up when you google trimurti. I didn't deny other hindu trinities and it's weird that you "disagree" with me by saying that there are other trinities. That is not being questioned. The issue is sourcing. I just asked if anyone calls the other trinities 'the trimurti'. And if so, does this count as a mainstream or common or even contemporary description? These questions are not only fair, but necessary. I'm not sure why you're dismissing my questions and impuning my "sources" which were just one-off examples for a talk page. If we want to say the trimurti doesn't mean Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, we need a source that says that explicitly as opposed to listing other trinities by another name. The burden of proof is on you guys if you're redefining trimurti in the article. Saying there are other trinities is not the same as saying the trimurti doesn't refer to Brahma Vishnu and Shiva. Does it? If so: how? Trimurti doesn't just mean any trinity, or does it? That would need a citation to be added. Kiss of th Yogini might work, but I'm curious to see if a quote uses the actual term trimurti. If it doesn't than our conclusion supersedes the source's conclusion. If we're going to say the trimurti means something else, we need a citation that says what 'trimurti' means, not just a list of other trinities. The distinction is both huge, and I would think, obvious. And if we find such a source (and we might) we would need to fix the actual trimurti page too. As it is the trimurti page gives plenty of citations describing the trimurti as Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva. And as best as I can tell, looking up the trimurti in any tertiary source will list Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. If the Kiss of the Yogini book uses the word trimurti to describe another trinity, that would be significant. I'm not taking a stance one way or another, I'm demanding verifiability. Do these sources say these other trinities are referred to by anyone as the trimurti? Attacking my web examples is completely avoiding the question at hand. If you want sources just read trimurti, I didn't go digging very deeply. If there's sources that explicitly say otherwise, we need to find them before we make that change. I feel like we're putting more issue into debating than actually understanding each other's questions. (editor's note: sorry, I may have responded a little strongly there.)

But if you want sources, here's what 2 minutes on Jstor yields: "the very name Trimurti given to the sculpture by them and other scholars before and after them presupposed that it was a composite one characterising the three principal members of the Hindu pantheon." In a paper refuting a sculpture contained Vishnu and Brahma. In fact a whole paper that states that if the figures are not Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, that it should not be called a trimurti. The so-called Trimūrti of Elephantā, Author(s): J. N. BANERJEA, Source: Arts Asiatiques, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1955), pp. 120-126

"The Puranic portrayal of the trimurti is not just in terms of their cosmogonic roles. They are included as expressions of Aum, along with other triads such as the three fires, and three Vedas and the three worlds, or, the three gods are correlated with the Vedas; Brahma is the Rg., Visnu the Yajus and Siva the Sama. Like other triads in Indian literature, the trimurti could be used as an expression of any other triad or important concept." and "The trimurti of Brahma, Visnu and Siva first appear in Indian literature in the Maitri Upanisad where they are correlated with the three gunas." from Trifunctional Elements in the Mythology of the Hindu Trimūrti, Author(s): G. M. Bailey, Source: Numen, Vol. 26, Fasc. 2 (Dec., 1979), pp. 152-163

And my favorite: "The Hindu conception of the Trimùrti ("the trimorphic, the one with three forms or shapes" or "the whole of three forms"1) - whose aspects are Brahma the creator, Visnu the preserver and Siva the absorber - which is described at some length in many modern books on Hinduism...". This source agrees with many of Victoria's points that the trimurti is not a central or universal concept in Hinduism, but rather one (he argues) that developed in attempts to make a monotheistic presentation of Hindu thought. But he still defines trimurti the way almost all scholarly sources do. The Hindu Trinity, Author(s): J. Gonda, Source: Anthropos, Bd. 63/64, H. 1./2. (1968/1969), pp. 212-226.

Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: But remember the closest Buddhism to medieval Indian Buddhism is Tibetan Buddhism and Newar Buddhism, not Thai Buddhism. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. I will review these and other sources, meditate, and then reword that section in Brahma article, if or where necessary. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Narayana Upanishad

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

An award for you

The Award of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service

Ms Sarah Welch, for the outstanding harmonic combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service in your recent contributions on Hinduism articles and in particualr for collaborating with me on some of the articles like Sariraka Upanishad, Pranagnihotra Upanishad, Bhikshuka Upanishad, Devi Upanishad, Maitreyi, and many more to come. Thank you and cheersNvvchar. 05:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate these words of encouragement. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Gaudapada

As a Buddhist, I prefer Gaudapada's view since he is the closest to Buddhism.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Brahman + Madhyamaka = Gaudapada.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Upanishads

Now that Bhikshuka Upanishad has appeared on DYK main page, do you want me to post it on GA, and also Devi Upanishad which has also appeared on DYK. I was busy whole of last month with Wikipedia: November 2015 project where I posted 55 articles of 33 countries. I am now fairly free to do any other Upanishad of your choice.--Nvvchar. 07:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• How about this User:Nvvchar/Avyakta Upanishad which has been held in abeyance as User:Redtigerxyz had some views about the content not covered?--Nvvchar. 07:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: Before Avyakta, lets focus on those minor Upanishads for which good sources and translations are readily available: [1] Deussen's 47 minor Upanishads; [2] Easwaran's minor 4, [3] Aiyar's minor 30 (with Alex Wayman's notes and review of some); [4] Olivelle's 20 minor Samnyasa Upanishads; and [5] Ayyangar's 20 minor Yoga Upanishads. Some of these already have wiki articles, thanks to you; yet many remain. Of these, the ones that interest me more are the Yoga, Samnyasa and Samanya Upanishads, such as Pranagnihotra Upanishad. I will help along, when I can. Yes, please feel free to list any post-DYK articles for GA review, where appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: Your "55 articles on 33 countries" accomplishment is amazing!! Cheers, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have started working on Pranagnihotra Upanishad but I am unable to get the full text from the Deussen's Sixty Upanishads (pages 646-648 do not appear in the book under Google url}. Can you suggest a url which gives the full text? In the meanwhile I have completed this short article Sharabha Upanishad which you may like to see and add/edit. Nvvchar. 01:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: Try this link, from page 645 onwards. I see all of it, but if you see just a few pages, just summarize those in your draft sandbox. I have the hard copy book on my table, and I will fill in the rest. Google "Shantha Nair Pranagnihotra Upanishad", Nair's book has a summary of it as minor Upanishad #19. Henk Bodewitz authored a book on Agnihotra and Pranagnihotra in 1973, published by BRILL Academic. If you don't have access to any of these, please pick another Upanishad for which you have reliable sources to summarize from, such as those in Ayyangar's and Aiyar's, which are in public domain. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: Carl Olson (1997), The Indian Renouncer and Postmodern Poison, ISBN 978-0820430225 also has a summary of Pranagnihotra Upanishad on page 183 onwards. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Please see the article here User:Nvvchar/Pranagnihotra Upanishad.Nvvchar. 08:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: I will work on it in the coming days. Cheers, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: Done. Please review, revise and move the page out of your sandbox. Shall we pick Maitreya Upanishad next? It is one of the Sannyasa Upanishads. Or any from Yoga Upanishads group? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• The last section has some repetition from earlier section which may be objected in DYK. Please consider revising the section.Nvvchar. 13:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: Indeed, I hesitated with that sentence on CU, BaU etc and Deussen. Go ahead delete it and whatever else feels like a repetition. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Moved to main space. Excellent inputs. Thanks. Made only minor changes. Suggest the following hook for DYK ... that the Pranagnihotra Upanishad's title literally means Hotra (sacrifice) offered to the Agni (fire) (pictured) of Prana (breath, life force)? May like to suggest an alternative?Nvvchar. 02:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar:: How about ALT1: ...that the "Hinduism text Pranagnihotra Upanishad asserts all the gods are enclosed in the human body"; ALT2: ... that the "Pranagnihotra Upanishad title literally means sacrifice offered to the fire (pictured) of life-force inside oneself"; ALT3: that the "Pranagnihotra Upanishad discusses one to emancipate himself and to realize the transcendent (God) exclusively by himself and in himself." Am I exceeding character or word limit in DYK guidelines? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• All three Hooks are fine. Length of each hook is ok. I tried to post them on DYK but encountered problems; tried thrice. Can you nominate them, pl?Nvvchar. 15:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: I am clueless on most wiki tools. Any DYK link on where to start the nomination process? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Finally managed to post it here Template:Did you know nominations/Pranagnihotra Upanishad.Nvvchar. 01:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• The above is through. I am finding Maitreya Upanishad too very abstract. I hope to do it in a day or two. Can you lead me to some good sources on Maitreyi which is now under GA review.Nvvchar. 01:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: Some good scholarly sources on Maitreyi include [1] Arthur Basham's books on ancient India, Oxford University Press; [2] Joel Brereton (2006), The Composition of the Maitreyi Dialogue in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 126, No. 3, pages 323-345; [3] Shoun Hino's book on 8th-century Suresvara's Vartika on Yajnavalkya-Maitreyi Dialogue, Motilal Banarsidass; [4] Altekar (1959), Educational and Intellectual Methods in Vedic and Ancient Indian Cultures, Journal of World History. Maitreyi is mentioned and revered in Asvalayana Grhya Sutras 3.4 and Sankhayana Grhya Sutras 4.10 as a scholar, but I need to find a verifiable source that I can recommend. With the four sources above, consider updating the article and improving the summary of the Maitreyi-Yajnavalkya dialogue, from Maitreyi's perspective, given it is an article on Maitreyi. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: I am done with my revisions to Maitreyi. On Maitreya Upanishad, in addition to Olivelle, see notes by Max Muller (pages xliii-xlvi); both have been well cited. I suggest, in this and other Upanishad articles, we check and avoid source(s) where there is no evidence that any respected scholar has ever cited that source. An WP:RS-based encyclopedic stub is better than incorrect or misinforming encyclopedic article. After Maitreya, would you be interested in starting/revising the minor Yoga Upanishads? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the edits. I have replied to GA review. I am presently in Bangalore to celebrate my granddaughter's (2 year old) birthday. I will resume work on Maitreyi Upanishad shortly and on other revisions minor Yoga Upanishads.Nvvchar. 14:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: I trimmed the lead of Maitreyi a bit, as it was starting to repeat and look as long as the main article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Sariraka Upanishad

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ms Sarah Welch. You have new messages at Talk:Maitreyi#Commentary.
Message added 18:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Some more info at [5]. The article probably needs also her mentions in Puranas and something about the hymns from the Rigveda and the Matreyi Upanishad, which is attributed to her; but can't find about it easily with a Google search.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz:, @Nvvchar: I added a sentence on Puranas in the Maitreyi article. More details from Puranas on Maitreyi would improve the article, but the challenge is in finding secondary WP:RS to source this from. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz:, @Nvvchar: I noticed that some of the cites have been removed from the lead of the Maitreyi article. I strongly encourage that cites be left in the lead, in this and other articles. For reasons see:

From WP:CITELEAD: The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

Project Hinduism articles tend to be controversial. Given the guidance that we must "balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material", the latter is more applicable in Project Hinduism articles.

It is also more likely that a lead without cites would invite new readers or editors to introduce unsourced content and personal opinions into the lead than a lead that has cites. It is much easier, faster to establish what is unsourced and what is sourced in the lead, when every line in the lead has a cite. This helps the clean up and helps maintain a lead (or main article). There is neither harm nor prohibition in keeping the cites in the lead, and there is an ease of maintenance benefit in doing so. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

If the same facts are cited in the body, they need not be cited again in the lead. For e.g.; a statement like "She discusses the Hindu concept of Atman (soul, self) in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad." is a summary of ideas in the Maitreyi-Yajnavalkya dialogue; the section has ample references for this statement and thus the verifiability policy is already adhered to and a reference here is redundant. New facts like brahmavadini or quotes like "quint-essence" are likely to be challenged and thus need references. You can go through the WP:FA list; most FA leads have no/utmost 2 references (those too for new facts or where the summary may be challenged). Leads of controversial subjects like Hinduism, Varna (Hinduism), Swastika will be rightly flooded with references; however articles like Maitreyi who is neither a subject of any major scholarly debate nor disputed on wikipedia as an article, fall in the non-controversial bracket. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Levels of truths, not realities

It is levels of truths, not realities.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Read the sources I gave, such as Bina Gupta and Eliot Deutsch. Paul Hacker published a wonderful piece on "Theory of Degrees of Reality in Advaita Vedanta". Indeed, both terms have been used, Reality is far more common. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Paul Hacker was revealed after his death to be a Christian activist. He is unreliable. See HERE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: The religion of the author is a sideshow. What matters more is the quality of scholarship, whether the publications were peer reviewed and published in respected journals / by publishing houses?, whether it was well received and was cited by other scholars? Paul Hacker published many brilliant articles, quite a few in German language, some of which were translated by the likes of Donald Davis who is now a professor at University of Texas at Austin. Paul Hacker is a RS, particularly those publications that have been cited by other mainstream scholars. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

(ps @Vic) I am glad that you are keeping an eye, and watching out for the credibility of the sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Scholars HAVE severely criticized Hacker's ideas on Advaita Vedanta. Click on this PDF. The authors of this PDF wrote a book published by Oxford University Press. So they are top scholars.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: I started reading, came across Wilhelm Halbfass. Then stopped. Halbfass edited, Philology and Confrontation: Paul Hacker on Traditional and Modern Vedanta, which has an intro on Paul Hacker, including a bit on his personal life (conversion from Protestantism to Catholicism in 1962). Since you insist, I will read the rest of that PDF. For Three levels of Reality, see Bina Gupta and others I mentioned. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The whole point of the levels of truth is the famous rope being mistaken for a snake metaphor. The rope is not an actual snake on any level. Thats the whole point.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Keep up the good work!

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

NB: what is your academic background? Mine is in the social sciences, hence the emphasis on social constructionism and the meaning of religions for its practitioners. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Thanks. I will email you. Happy holidays, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Maitreya Upanishad

I have text of Maitreya Upanishad of Samaveda which deals with sage Sakayanya in three chapters and not Matreyi Upanishad,Nvvchar. 11:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: Maitreya Upanishad of Samaveda with three chapters is also referred by some as Maitreyi Upanishad. Several versions of this manuscript exist with a few extra verse in Chapter 2 (overall they are similar in theme and same is the message). I suggest relying on Patrick Olivelle's translation published by Oxford University Press (pages 158-169). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I am now posting Maitreyi for per review as it has failed GA review--Nvvchar. 16:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I have started this User:Nvvchar/Maitreya Upanishad. I have also completed this Mantrika Upanishad, which you may like to add and edit.Nvvchar. 16:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: Thanks for the note. I will work on these next week. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: I am done with Maitreya Upanishad. Please check, revise, and when appropriate move it to a live version. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. I suggest the following two hooks.

... that in the Maitreya Upanishad Sakayanya (pictured) expounds the nature of human life, starting that "Artha is Anartha", or "objects of senses are in truth worthless?”

...that in the Maitreya Upanishad Shiva (pictured) explains to Maitreya that the human body is a shrine with Jiva (life) imbibed in it representing Him alone?Nvvchar. 12:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: Is Sakayanya Shiva or sun-god? In my reading of the manuscript, I didn't see this, or am missing it. For DYK hooks:According to the Hindu text Maitreya Upanishad, "The body is said to be a temple, and the soul is truly Shiva (pictured), one must worship with the thought: I am He." ALT1: According to the Hindu text Maitreya Upanishad, "the Lord (pictured) is within the heart of each person, he is the witness of the reason's dance, and the object of the utmost love". ALT2: that in the Maitreya Upanishad Sakayanya (pictured) expounds the nature of human life, starting that "Artha is Anartha", or "objects of senses are in truth worthless?” I will look at Mantrika Upanishad next. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

My understanding based on Aiyar's book is that Sakayanya is an incarnation of Sun-god who was worshipped by the king. I will post the artcile on DYK with the suggested hooks. Thanks.Nvvchar. 14:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: Okay. ALT3: that in the Maitreya Upanishad, a spiritual person is encouraged to accept Self, with the message, "I am both ugly and beautiful, I have the nature of goodness, I am pure, I am Brahman, I am he!". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• ALT3 with bolding becomes more than 200 ch not conforming tom DYK rules. Nvvchar. 15:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Posted hereTemplate:Did you know nominations/Maitreya Upanishad.Nvvchar. 15:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Trim it, if you like it. Will this meet DYK rules: that Maitreya Upanishad suggests self acceptance, with "I am both ugly and beautiful, I have the nature of goodness, I am pure, I am Brahman, I am he!". May be we don't need ALT3. I like the "both ugly and beautiful" phrasing. Unique. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Mantrika Upanishad

@Nvvchar: Mantrika Upanishad is also called Culika (चूलिका) Upanishad. Mircea Eliade, Paul Deussen and others have written about this theistic Yoga upanishad, under Culika name. Did you consider these sources? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I was not aware.--Nvvchar. 15:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I just pulled my notes up. Paul Deussen's notes and translation of this Upanishad is in German. I will try to trace an English translation by Deussen for this short Upanishad for you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: Here you go: Culika Upanishad at Google Books (pages 677-681). See footnote 1: Culika Upanishad = Mantrika Upanishad. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar:: I am done with my edits to Mantrika/Culika Upanishad. Please check and revise where appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. I have the following suggestions for the hook.

... that according to Mantrika Upanishad (pictured a Yogasana), "the Brahman dwells in body as soul, and this soul as God changes dwelling thousands of time"?

ALT1 ... that the Mantrika Upanishad, opens with a metaphor for soul, as an eight-footed Hamsa swan (pictured) fettered with three strands (Guṇas, innate qualities)?Nvvchar. 02:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: Good suggestions. Some Yoga Upanishads next? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings

	Ms Sarah Welch: My granddaughter joins me in wishing you Merry Christmas and a very happy New Year 2016
	Nvvchar. 01:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: Thank you. She looks lovely. Merry Xmas to you all too, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Yogatattva Upanishad

• I started collecting references to Yogatattva Upanishad.Nvvchar. 12:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: Two different versions of Yogatattva Upanishad manuscripts are known. Deussen's 60 Volume 2 has one starting at page 713. Ayyangar in the above link has the other. It is unclear why the two versions are so different in total verses, even though the start of the text is similar. Aiyar's 30, if I remember correctly, translated the same manuscript as Ayyangar. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: Note that the "Om! May He protect..." etc at start and end of each Upanishad is an artifact of the website that hosts Aiyar translation, and it is not in the manuscripts. Instead of the celextel.org website (questionable reliability/stability), consider Aiyar's book as source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Nominated here Template:Did you know nominations/Mantrika Upanishad. I have renominated Maitreyi on GAN after Guild of Copy Editor's review. Can you give me the url of the Sanskrit version of the Yoga Tattva Upanishad to know the exact number of verses as you feel celextel.org is not a reliable source?Nvvchar. 02:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: This has more verses. In contrast the following is a translation of a manuscript with less verses: Yogatattva Upanishad at Google Books (pages 713-716). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: I updated Yoga-Kundalini Upanishad. Consider reviewing and revising it when you have time. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have completed about 50 % of Yogatattva Upanishad. You may like to edit it further. Thanks. I will see Yoga-Kundalini Upanishad soon.Nvvchar. 17:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Completed inputs to Yogatattva Upanishad. Can you suggest an alternate hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Mantrika Upanishad?Nvvchar. 06:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: I suggested ALT2 and ALT3 for Mantrika. Please review and revise. I will work on Yogatattva. Any suggestion for hooks in Yoga-kundalini? Another article for Redtigerxyz and your help in its expansion: Yoga Yajnavalkya. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. I have made minor changes and added a picture in one.Nvvchar. 02:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest the following two hooks for Yoga-kundalini Upanishad. For the second Alt 1Hook you may consider adding an img of a yogaana in the article and the text.Nvvchar. 02:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

...that Yoga-Kundalini Upanishad is an important text in Tantra, to the Shakti tradition of Hinduism, considered a foundational text of Kundalini Yoga (pictured)?

Alt1 ... that the analogy made in Yoga-kundalini Upanishad is that the practice of Yoga lights knowledge in the same way as fire in logs of wood is raised with churning?

• Alt1 Hook posted on DYK is too long by 28 ch. You need to change it.--Nvvchar. 09:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: I am done with the Yogatattva Upanishad article. Please review and revise. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. I suggest the following hooks for this Upanishad.Nvvchar. 05:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

... that the Yogatattva Upanishad as expounder of Vedanta philosophy is devoted to elaboration of the meaning of Atman through the process of yoga (pictured)6t5, starting with the syllable Om?

ALT1 ... that Vishnu explains in the Yogatattva Upanishad (pictured a yoagasana) that maya or illusion is the cause of all happiness and sorrow and its influence could be overcome only by detachment to life’ cycle?

@Nvvchar: I checked the ALT1 wording for Yogatattva in the sources, and I couldn't find adequate support. Here are my suggestions: ... that the Hindu text Yogatattva Upanishad states in Yoga (pictured), of the ten restraints moderate food is most important, and of the ten observances, non-violence is most important. ALT1: ... that Vishnu states in the Yogatattva Upanishad (pictured a yogasana) that all souls are snared in the cycle of worldly pleasures and sorrow of Maya, and Yoga frees one from this cycle? ALT2: ... that the Yogatattva Upanishad expounds the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism stating that both Yoga (pictured) and Knowledge are essential for Moksha (liberation and freedom)? Are these within the character limit? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. Posted here Template:Did you know nominations/Yogatattva Upanishad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvvchar (talk • contribs)

@Nvvchar: I posted Yoga-kundalini here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest the following change to ALT1 hook in your nomination ... that according to the Yoga-kundalini Upanishad obstacles to realize truths of Yoga (pictured) are self doubts, confusion, indifference, habit of giving up, being caught up in worldly drama, and suspicions? Nvvchar. 09:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: I like your suggestion. Go ahead, make the change please. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Tukaram

Ms Sarah Welch, please discuss on talk page before reverting and getting into edit war. You do not decide which site is reliable. Yogee23 (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Yogee23: she does, if she's got good arguments - or if you don't. You've been reverted by two editors already. Please read WP:BRD! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorrym that was Kumareshrkh who was reverted by me. Nevertheless, it's about the same phrasing: "leaving the world with this body." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Thanks. Indeed, that "leaving the world with this body" was the trigger. I left a msg on the article's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Pranagnihotra Upanishad

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yoga Yajnavalkya

I have added some text from the only source I could get Google Books. As I do not have any of the books referred in the article, can you lead me to the url which gives the complete text o that I can add to the contents. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 02:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: Try Bhattacharya's partial translation starting at page 476 (Editors: Gerald James Larson, Karl H. Potter). Another WP:RS is Divanji's translation, which you can access by opening a free account. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: David Gordon White is a RS. He has some comments on Yoga Yajnavalkya in his 2014 book (DP/Preface, pages 48-51. I haven't added this one yet. Go ahead please. Are you fluent and comfortable with Sanskrit? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I could not continue editing yesterday night as I was not well. My knowledge of Sanskrit is very rudimentary.--Nvvchar. 02:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: I hope you feel better. If your Sanskrit is rudimentary, I will skip giving you links to sources that are in Sanskrit. I am quite fluent in Sanskrit, so I will work with the manuscripts. On Yoga Yajnavalkya, I cannot verify the bijamantra part in the Sanskrit manuscript. I wonder if Maehle is referring to YY or some other Yoga text. Please check. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: Maehle's Ashtanga Yoga: Practice & Philosophy book has only 320 pages. So the ref you added with page 485 seems like a typo, or may be the wrong book. Maehle has written several books, so please recheck the book details in the bibliography as well. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I found it on page 485 Larson's book, and fixed the typo. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar:: I am done with my edits to YY. Please review and revise. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Lovely research paper. I have done ome very minor editing. I suggest the following hooks for DYK.Nvvchar. 13:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

... that the Yoga Yajnavalkya describes yoga (pictured) as the effort to focus the prana in the body, whereas it is normally in dispersed condition?

ALT1 ...that Yagnavalkya states in the Yoga Yajnavalkya that he was taught Yoga (pictured) by Brahma enlightening him on Jnana (knowledge) and Karma (religious works such as yajna)?

You may also pl look into this Template:Did you know nominations/Mantrika Upanishad. Thanks.Nvvchar. 13:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: YY does not mention 'depressed condition' in the manuscript or the article. I suggest the following hooks: ...that the Yoga Yajnavalkya is one of the texts on asanas and meditation that "dominated the Indian Yoga scene before the 12th-century"? ALT1: ...that the Yoga Yajnavalkya, like Patanjali's Yogasutras, is an ancient Yoga text that dedicates more verses on proper breathing (Pranayama) than postures (Asanas). ALT2: ...that the Yoga Yajnavalkya states reflective meditation is feeling of one's own self (Atman, soul) through the mind. Please suggest appropriate images. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• All above suggestions are fine. In view of observations here Template:Did you know nominations/Yoga-kundalini Upanishad may like to include some imgs relevant to India.Nvvchar. 01:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: I don't think @Poeticbent is concerned about the country, the concern is "the image do not originate from the text" and potential confusion. If too many DYK articles appear in a row on Yoga texts, all with similar images, @Poeticbent is right, it could be confusing to DYK readers. How about the manuscript page from the article, and one meditation image or asana image? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• The clarifications you have provided on the DYK page are fine. In this artcile DYK posted imgs are fine. I was thinking of starting on Sarasvatirahsya Upanishad for a change and then come back to Samanya Upanishads.Nvvchar. 03:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)