Talk:Aditya (disambiguation)

Untitled
Yo, somebody is deliberately vandalising this article. Please see "Aditya Batchus" which I edited. "Batchu" means a kid in Indian language.

Regards

Name

 * Aditya 3,950,000 search results, 2130 google books
 * Aaditya 94,400, 622 google books.

Aditya is the common spelling. Also IAST of Aditya is provided for pronunciation needs.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The Adityas of Rig Veda - let's discuss issues
If anyone has "issues" regarding the content or has any kind of content dispute, please use this Talk page as a good faith measure to improve this article in a NPOV manner. Stay cool. Do not go around hitting the undo link without going through the links and research materials at the bottom of the page. There is no point is saying "it doesn't look like a reliable resource", or some other arbitrary reason, because this page is no different than any other page on Wikipedia in providing links to references. If there is a particular section or sentence that you are disputing, please state it right here. The section and sentence that is bothering you and also the justification of addition or removal of content citing reliable sources of information. Please understand that Wikipedia is a world encylopedia and not meant for harassment of contributors or insisting on your own viewpoints without expertise on the subject matter. I appreciate that you respect the sanctity of content on Wikipedia. Do not mindlessly engage in undoing the hard work of others without doing due diligence yourself. VedicScience (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Adityas and OR reminder
I would like to remind all concerned that Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. And that includes unpublished facts, your own particular ideas or concepts, or the type of content you would like to have, your own ideas or arguments, or your own speculations; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance your particluar position. The content I've posted is clean, and can be verified as non-OR, and I've also provided links to already published facts.

Please understand that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that refer directly to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

Continuously hitting the undo link (intentionally restoring an ancient version of the page, even while someone is editing an article) and then quickly reporting a 3RR is not a sign of being a good citizen of Wikipedia. That is harassment of genuine contributors. If you have any particular issues with the content, post them right here. Let's work together. VedicScience (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Already published facts"? I enjoy the "facts". Please read WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. We're not idiots: this "Vedic Physics" nonsense is so far-out it's impossible to even take it seriously. Apparently this is quantum mysticism applied to the Vedas, something that would get laughed out of any faintly academic work. Wikipedia is not the place for fringe theory advocacy. Moreschi (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Big Bang is a theory, then Steady State theory, String theory, and many other theories are just that. All theories also claim that all other theories are "impossible". Do you even have a degree to being with? Or any expertise on the subject matter whatsoever? To you this might seem laughable, especially if you don't have a decent education to read and understand. I did not ask if you are "an idiot" or if you can or want to "take it seriously", or not. That's not what Wikipedia is for as clearly stated above. If you are disputing the content of a particular section or sentence, please cite exact reasons along with published facts. Wikipedia is not the place for your personal opinions or arguments. VedicScience (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nor is it a place to post stuff from self-published books. I don't think you understand what a theory is either. Doug Weller (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We have theories with singularities. Do you really understand what a theory is? Are you sure that what you know to be a theory - is it really a theory as you imagine? An example - Solar_deities lists "The Phoenician Solar Theology. ISBN 1-59333-210-6." by Azize, Joseph along with a bunch of links in the "References" section. There are millions of such examples right here on Wikipedia. Now, why are all those books not "self-published" works and only the one published by "Golden Egg Publishing" is a "self-published book" and "OR"? When in fact, it has been written by a top Canadian scientist with a PhD in Quantum Physics and reviewed by many other top scientists all over the world before it was published. Like it or not, published facts are facts, not OR, nor "self-published" as you call it. If you have good reasons, post them here - I am willing to honor disputes through dialog. But what is all this? At least a Wiki-admin ought to know this better and practice NPOV. There is no point in admins acting like "undo addicts" trying to push their own ideas and opinions through Wikipedia, and undo whatever they personally don't like. I've clearly stated right here to give exact reasons and cite sources instead of resorting to malicious practices. You should know that punishing good contributors and forcing them to conceal facts is bad etiquette, especially on part of a supposedly seasoned Wiki-admin. VedicScience (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Does a degree in Physics somehow grant expertise in Indic religions? On the other hand, if I get a degree in Asian studies, do I then get to be an expert source on string theory? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am a PhD myself, as well as an expert on Sanskrit etymology. Expertise in one field does not preclude one from obtaining expertise in another. Socrates was right - you get nailed for good contributions. At a bare minimum, I was trying to educate people that there aren't 2, 7, 8, or 12 suns. And you don't even need a degree to understand that much! VedicScience (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Gorgias Press is a proper publisher. Its books are not self-published. Its authors don't pay to have their books published, they get paid by the publisher. Golden Egg is just the name he used to when the author published his own book, ie paid to have it turned into paper. It isn't a publisher. He is not a top Canadian physicist, I see no publications by him, I see no reviews by many top scientists. Doug Weller (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This seems to be a push for Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Ph.D., Top Canadian Scientist. I suggest that if this person is notable, or their studies are notable, then this would not be an issue. But, as is, Raja Ram Mohan Roy's lack of notability is an issue, as is the lack of notability for his studies. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Content Dispute and Religious Persecution through Edit Reversals
Among others that have done the "undo" thing before, the following section was deleted by User_talk:Akhilleus and User_talk:Moreschi yesterday. User_talk:Stifle locked the page, and User_talk:Dougweller also supported a viewpoint of concealment and suppression of "published facts" complaining it to be OR with a newly invented term "self-published". It is also apparent that User_talk:Dbachmann (from Zurich) personally likes the Aryan invasion theory, instead of letting people know about published research on Vedas by eminent scientists. Suppression of facts is not what Wikipedia was built for. Undo addicts as well as admins should understand this first by principle.

I can understand that people who follow other religions have the right to have their personal ideologies. But not at the cost of suppression of published religious facts of others. One should not assume the right to persecution of religious minorities. It is as serious an offense it can be. You should educate yourself on the perils of Jihad and Nazism before deciding to push your personal views on others through Wikipedia, or suppressing published facts that relate to other religions. Here's the content in dispute:


 * The Satapatha Brahmana says there are twelve Adityas. This perhaps resulted in incorrect identification of some of the Adityas as suns of god. It is only in post-vedic times that Savitṛ became identical to Surya. However, in the Rig Veda, they are as distinct as they can be. There aren't 2, 7, 8 or 12 Suns, so it is a mistake to assume that Adityas are solar deities. They are not.


 * Based on decoding of the Rig Veda alone, one would conclude that Viṣṇu is the life force that pervades the universe, and also holds and sustains the cosmos from beyond. Hence, among all distinct entities of the Rig Veda, Viṣṇu alone can be identified as the essential all-pervasive life-principle of universe, that sustains it from beyond. All other entities are forces of nature at work in an expanding universe. The Rig Veda discusses the process of cosmogenesis through personified entities. By scientifically researching through the verses, Savitṛ can be easily identified with the creation-annihilation energy which gives birth to quantum particles in intermediate space (Antariskha). Surya can be identified with high-energy photons as electro-magnetic waves in light space (Dyaus).


 * The story of the eighth Aditya rejected by Aditi, Mārtanda (dead egg) tells us that initially the cosmic egg, Hiranyagarbha, started expanding but succumbed to gravitational forces and contracted right back after initial expansion. The contracting universe was called Mārtanda. After a period of time, Mārtanda got revived back into an expanding universe as Vivasvāna (the living universe), which conveys that after an initial collapse, the process of expansion resumed with the life-force that sustains and pervades the universe, Viṣṇu. Vivasvāna is the state of a rapidly dividing universe in its early stages. Brahmānda (expanding cosmic egg) is the stage where the universe started the process of uniform expansion after the forces of attraction and repulsion were fine tuned.

Note: If there are any statements in the above content that you'd like to dispute, please do so right here on this Talk page and cite your reasons along with published sources. Content disputes can be resolved through dialog instead of wild edit reverts that I have been attacked with. VedicScience (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:SPS. I certainly didn't invent the term "self-published", it is a well known term in the literary world. You also need to understand the sort of sources you can use, please read WP:RS. No one here is supporting suppression and concealment, but we are pointing out to you that this is an encyclopedia and articles need reliable sources. Instead of attacking other editors, please at least read the policies that apply here. And this is not an argument about religion, it is a discussion of what belongs in an encyclopedia and what does not belong. Doug Weller (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, sure read that WP:RS and what not. Bottomline is suppression, as if people don't get a braindump of who's on the other end, forcing an unending series of reversals. All "uneditors" and admins need to make a concerted effort to get past that mentality. Especially, when you shoulder admin responsibility, you should know this better. Study Wikipedia a bit more to understand what suppression of religions right has done. Here's one example for starters, Jihad=270+ million deaths, right here on this planet. Now as far as your argument about "reliable sources", here's the review of Roy's book by David Frawley, director of the American Institute of Vedic Studies: "The Vedas have always been lauded as containing the secrets of cosmogenesis. Raja Roy in his remarkable book shows how true this is..." Now if a published PhD Quantum Physicist along with a review of the Vedic chief scholar of America doesn't cut it, then Wikipedia has to remain a phoenician encyclopedia of solar theology, as only those sources (regardless of who wrote it) are exacted as "reliable". Even if Vishnu were to descend and start editing pages here, with or without a PhD, he'd be mocked at for having the wrong name! But no, that's not persecution, that's just Wikipedia policy. What is this? VedicScience (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply You stated that David Frawley is, "the Vedic chief scholar of America." This is quite a promotion concerning the large group of South Asian Studies experts with much higher qualifications in North America alone. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still curious how a degree in physics gives one expertise on the Vedas. I suppose the answer is that the Vedas are actually scientific texts. Too bad I've been working on my Phoenician encyclopedia of solar theology, when I should have been working on my Vedic encyclopedia of quantum physics! --Akhilleus (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In any case, it appears that there have been zero reviews by top scientists. And I have seen no evidence that the claimed quantum physicist has had anything published. He's paid to have a book printed, that's all. I've seen no verification even of his PhD or anything else about him. Doug Weller (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Ph.D., Top Canadian Scientist

 * Comment Various discussions concerning this article still appear to be centered around a push for Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Ph.D., Top Canadian Scientist. As I have suggested above, if this person is notable, or if their studies are notable, then this would not be an issue. But, as is, Raja Ram Mohan Roy's lack of notability is an issue, as is the lack of notability for his studies. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's quite the issue. If this guy is indeed a "top Canadian Scientist", he might be notable, but because he's a scientist. That wouldn't make him an authority on the Vedas, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply That is a very good point. I agree. Even if a top scientist in his field, it is not within the field of Sanskrit studies, South Asian studies, Religious Studies, etc... Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Aditya (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)