Talk:History of vegetarianism

Saxena
@Rasnaboy I have access to Saxena. The book does not quote Faxian. Saxena says that Faxian's travelogue declares such and such. There are no quote marks and the wordings are by Saxena. Venkat TL (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe this reference tells of Faxian's observation of vegetarianism (under the section 'Faxian's Glimpse of Indian Life'): Dissoxciate (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Dissoxciate The link you gave does not support the text you are adding. As I said this is a fake quote. fails WP:V. Discuss on the talk page first. and you need to explain why Wikipedia should include this quote in this article. Everything that is out there cannot be added into this article. Venkat TL (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @User:Venkat TL Even if the wordings are by Saxena, it's bound to be a quotation by itself. We can either quote or close paraphrase, citing the source per WP:CLOP. The link provided by User:Dissoxciate tells precisely the same: "...In that country they do not keep pigs and fowls, and do not sell live cattle; in the markets there are no butchers' shops and no dealers in intoxicating drink....Only the Chandalas a fishermen and hunters, and sell flesh meat." That this is an observation by an ancient traveller who would have obviously written his account in a non-English language, we can't expect a quote-unquote expression for the same. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the benefit of adding this quote into this article. Please explain. Venkat TL (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The very benefit of this quote is that it benefits the reader by virtue of its encyclopedic value. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the encyclopedic value? Venkat TL (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Rasnaboy. The link provided by me states an almost similar statement; well, the connotation is the same. The English translation of an ancient Chinese quotation can never be cent per cent accurate. User:Venkat TL, as I previously mentioned, Faxian is a significant figure in Sino-Indian history, and in the context of the subject we're currently discussing, his firsthand observation of ancient Indian society is of enough academic relevance. Obviously every statement made by every historian/traveller cannot be totally accurate, but they're of marked importance which is why such accounts are studied. If we debate about the addition of this particular quote, we should probably remove almost every other quote mentioned on other Wikipedia articles. That is all, I think this trivial issue shouldn't need further discussing. Dissoxciate (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CONSENSUS and then work to build it. See WP:DR to understand the steps. I am still not convinced about (1) authenticity, (2) accuracy (3) benefit of having this quote. Since basic criteria of WP:V is not met, it cannot be added. Venkat TL (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The quotation seems to be a valid one, indeed. I came across a few more sources for the quote. For example, says "Throughout the whole country the people do not kill any living creature, nor drink intoxicating liquor, nor eat onions or garlic." With the previous sources being verifiable ones as well, the quote thus is not a fake one. That said, this quote seems to be an apt one to be readded to related articles. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. These sources too say the same:, , (the last one also points to how this Faxian's quote, which was originally said of the entire country, was mistranslated by Legge and Peter Harvey to mean it particularly for the Buddhist heartlands of Northeast India). It now turns out that this quote is one of the most fundamental and historic one on the history of vegetarianism. This probably answers the encyclopedic value of the quote. This one must to added back to all the relevant articles. Rasnaboy (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

, which discussion were you referring to in this edit? Even though WP:RAJ is for much later sources, all the concerns so eloquently expressed there are applicable to Faxian as well. Hemantha (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Hemantha. It's here: . I should've mentioned it in the summary perhaps. Sorry about that. Coming to the concern that you raised, the case of Faxian, in my opinion, is different from that of the WP:RAJ sources in at least two distinct ways: one, unlike the RAJ sources who were either part of the Raj administrators or part of the subjects, Faxian was a disinterested traveler/observer from another nation who visited India. Two, while WP:RAJ is for the appropriateness, or lack thereof, of citing Raj ethnographic sources to support a viewpoint, the use of Faxian quote is to indicate Faxian's view itself (i.e., how an ancient traveler perceived things back then regardless of the precision of his observations). It simply quotes Faxian as saying it without any attempt to prove the validity of the point. Thus, despite its closeness, it doesn't relate to WP:RAJ but fall under WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:MNA. Rasnaboy (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I've read the above discussion, but none of the replies seem to have actually brought forth sources to refute Venkat's claim that the quote is not Fa Hsien's, but a paraphrase by Saxena. If this is to be framed as a quote, it needs to be faithful to the author's words (as translated, in this case). Both Mellor and Bodhipaksa carry the actual quote, which is originally from Legge's translation.

Note that the wording is different from Saxena's; showing clearly that Saxena was paraphrasing.

If the text is to be formatted as a quote, the first of the above should be used. Some sentences can be elided, but I'll insist on retaining at least one sentence about Chandalas. The wording in the second can only be quoted to Anand Saxena, not Faxian; and in that case, needs to be in the article text and not as a quote as that is the appropriate weight for a secondary source (which Saxena is).
 * Agree, Hemantha. A quote should be faithful to the author’s words and will be usually included within (single/double) quotation marks. If not, it is generally considered a paraphrased one (which is the case here), the reason why the text in the quote box wasn’t enclosed within quotation marks. Venkat’s claims have already been answered in those replies that such paraphrasing is apt per WP:CLOP and that we cannot expect a quote-unquote expression for such things. Only his last one (regarding the encyclopedic value) was replied later, after more sources were found. I’m OK with your suggestions to include the former—although a bit longer it can be attributed directly to Faxian. The latter can be included in the text as suggested. This way I hope none of the information is lost. Rasnaboy (talk) 06:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The word "India" does not appear in the quote at present. The readers may not know this unless they read the source for themselves. I think retaining the title of the quote "Vegetarianism in ancient India" will make the essence and purpose of the quote clear. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it makes sense. Since the quote is about ancient India, retaining the title will put things into perspective. Rasnaboy (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * After adding the title, I felt the title itself provides the context and relevance of adding the quote in the article History of animal rights since the quote squarely deals with observing the virtue of non-killing towards fellow creatures. So added it to the article. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If the word India does not appear, what makes you think we should add it? The quote is very clear in that it refers to only parts of what is currently considered India. Unless you have a source (reliable WP:HISTRS one) saying it, I see adding the title as pure WP:OR. Hemantha (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's about India, whether it's part of the country or throughout the country, as Faxian says. We're not adding anything to the quote as such. Given the topic of the quote itself is about vegetarianism in Ancient India as recorded by the Chinese traveler, adding this as the title doesn't amount to original research but WP:BOLD. It's similar to adding an appropriate heading to a section. The purpose is only to make the extracted (and elided) quote clear. How would a (foreign) reader know otherwise that the country being discussed in the quote is India (except to those who are familiar with the subject), other than by finding out that Faxian was an ancient traveler to India (as the essay WP:POPE has it)? That said, I support the addition. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the addition to animal rights where it is undoubtedly OR. I suggest opening a discussion on the talk page there if you wish to add it back. Hemantha (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done as suggested, Hemantha and others. Please see . Rasnaboy (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Strongest Oppose for adding Saxena here. A random and factually incorrect quote is cherry picked and being proposed to be added here to distort history. Please provide WP:HISTRS to prove that his claims are factually correct. They are not. To summarize, I am looking for (1) verifiability (2) factual accuracy (3) relevance to this article (4) how the reader is benefited by reading this in this article. Venkat TL (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've settled for using the actual quote only as a first step. If the quote stays, I plan to propose additions like Charaka Samhita's meat recommendations etc. to show a clear, balanced picture. Hemantha (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)