Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hinduism/archive2

Hinduism
Self-Nomination

Sea dog  .M.S  00:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * support. great article. --71.194.71.220 06:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello I am Sea  dog  .M.S  and I've nominated this article for featured status. I am doing this because I and other editors including User:HeBhagawan have worked very, very hard on this article. The article now has the Table of Contents to the left so there is no more huge gap in the article. There are many beautiful pics to the article. There are more wikilinks and alot of referances. Please let me know your opinoions. Please either say Support or Oppose and if possible leave reason why.


 * Support. I think the article is looking good. I support making it a featured article. Judge for yourself. I have been a contributor to the article. HeBhagawan 00:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Suggestion. I took a quick look at it, and was struck by how wide the TOC was, perhaps you can use another level of headings or change the heading for the one long entry, so it fits better.  Also there are a few red links, I'm not sure how important they are to understanding the rest of the text, but it might be worth stubifying them, so other people, especially IP users can edit them. Terri G 17:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC). Done. HeBhagawan


 * Object—1a. Loosely written, lots of redundancies, uneven tone.
 * "Thus, Hinduism accepts a large number of scriptures, and remains open to any new revelations that may come in the future."(fixed_ Sea dog  .M.S ) Are the last three words redundant? ("... that may come in the past"?) I'm having difficulty in accepting such a sweeping assertion—what, Christian revelations too?...Yes from what I have studied from many differnt sources, Hinduism is a very open religion.-- Sea  dog  .M.S  14:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Of course" should probably not be used in an encyclopedic register. Chatty. Fixed that one-- Sea dog  .M.S
 * "for many years before they were finally written down." Spot the redundant word.--Fixed that also-- Sea dog  .M.S  14:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Hindus do not focus much on whether the stories found in the scriptures are accurate from a historical perspective"—Spot the redundant word. And at the end of the sentence, why not "are historically accurate"?--Fixed-- Sea dog  .M.S  14:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ""Heaven" and "Hell" may exist, but heaven is not considered the ultimate goal. This is because heaven and hell are temporary. The only thing that is eternal is divinity, which includes God as well as the ātman (the soul). Therefore the ultimate goal is to experience divinity.[35]" Is this a statement of what Hindus believe, or is WP putting its name to a universal assertion?
 * Please change title case to sentence case in the titles, as per MoS. Tony 13:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done.--Rmky87 18:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Good introduction, well explained, enough references, I do not find it lacking. | A ndonic O   Talk  12:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fully Support This page is up to very high standards in both factual accuracy as well as grammar and tone. I feel it is both reliable as well as neutral, and the general tone... makes it one of the greatest articles that I have come across on Wikipedia. I agree with the excellent introduction and the fact that I am not aware of any lacks. Keep up the good work! Bhaveer 00:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Important procedural matters: (1) Allow reviewers to strike their own text, please. Crossing out yourself is not done. (2) HeBhagawan appears numerous times in the edit history. Please observe the rule concerning disclosing the fact that you're a contributor when you support a nomination. Further to my "object", here are more random examples of problems in the writing.
 * The ampersand is inappropriate in most contexts, and certainly in your titles (e.g., "God & the soul"). It's not a business name on a street sign.
 * Why is "Brahman" linked three times in 10 words? '... Brahman. Brahman is the Absolute reality: it is pure existence and knowledge. Brahman ...". And the link keeps appearing again and again. The less blue peppering, the neater the appearance. Why water down the links that you want readers to follow? Once is enough (even twice if you have to, I suppose.) Same with the other links: just the first time, please.
 * Has someone gone through the article to weed out redundancies? Here's just one: "God does not have any such attributes" (any).
 * "Project onto", not "on". (Occurs several times.)
 * So God has no gender? Why use "he" and "his", then?
 * "Hindus worship primarily one or another of these deities"—Spot the two redundant words.
 * "the myriad names and forms of God one finds in Hinduism"—Spot the two redundant words.
 * "Although Hindus may worship deities other than their chosen ideal from time to time as well, depending on the occasion and their personal inclinations, it is not expected that they will worship—or even know about—every form of God." Remove "from time to time as well,"—it adds nothing. As soon as I see "it is expected", I want to know who's doing the expecting. Reword if you can't say.

Needs considerable work thoughout, not just the fixing of these points. Tony 02:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Object Too many sub headings. ToC congested. Should try to follow the gist style as far as applicable. Size is too big (even after considering the huge number of citations). Also, per Tony.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC). I think that the size of the article is very reasonable considering the scope and the importance of the subject matter. If you look in an quality book-form encyclopedia, you will also find long articles for major world religions. If it were much shorter, it would probably not be able to explain the religion in a manner that made sense.
 * Suggestion I think that some of the terms be spelt consistently throughout, like Ishvara or iśvara and the like.  Mar de Sin   Speak up!  19:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't like the way the TOC is placed next to the text. If it's too long, the subsubsubections could be replaced by large fonts text using HTML (Just as World War 2 does). CG 05:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am new to this, but I would like to get to be a good editor.
 * Support I spent some time cleaning up several redundant wikilinks and some minor punctuation and grammar mistakes, and came away very impressed with the article. This article does a great job of presenting Hinduism to a broad audience, especially considering the vast scope of Hinduism, and the many strong views held by different branches. I don't think that the article will ever please every Hindu - I had minor quibbles with some points - but that's just the nature of Hinduism. &#2384; Priyanath 21:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The presence of all these stubby sections is a problem. On the other size, this is indeed a very nicely done article.--Yannismarou 19:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Exceptional article. - Mike  |  Trick or Treat  03:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I would have loved to see a section on theism but it is already very long. Even without it, it is a very good article. -- P.K.Niyogi 04:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Object, per WP:WIAFA, it fails criterion 3 for copyright images:
 * Image:UniversalForm.jpg → fails fair use rationale for this page.
 * Image:Lord_Ram.jpg → has obsolete license and it does not have link to the source.
 * Image:Vivekananda.png → has no source information. The source links to itself.
 * Image:Nataraja.jpg → has invalid fair use rationale, see the image summary as somebody had asked about this there.
 * Image:Tirumala_svtemple.jpg → has no source and no copyright information.
 * Image:DiwaliSwastika.jpg → has no fair use rationale for this image.
 * Image:Om2.jpg → has an obsolete license tag.
 * &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 12:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Object - The article seems to be classifying some other religions like Buddhism and Jainism as schools of Hindu philosophy. Although their is definite influence, I am sure their will be many who disagree with the statement.  You need proper citation for that statement and then also include opposing views.  Furthermore, TOC is imposing and so is the length of the article.  --Blacksun 19:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Being a Hindu from India and having attempted to edit the article, my experience is, no worthy edits are allowed in the article and the same is tried to be monopolised by a single editor. To me, the article is projecting improper connotation of the subject Hinduism. The references lead to a book source page and is not true reference to the respective text incorporated. The article is victim of sock-puppetry. Incivility is used to discourage other editors. Even if, the layout or the text is otherwise good, the article has to do justice to the subject matter but the article is forced to be devoid of logics of Hinduism doctrines and created to be seen Hinduism doctrines as superstitious which as a Hindu, I object. In principle, the article should be free for worthy edits which under one or other pretext or by sock-puppetry tactics is prevented from. It would be apparent from the talk page of Hinduism that incivility is freely used to discourage other edits. Citations for the matter of general knowledge of Hindus is sought and removed whereas other matters without due citations or supported by improper or false citations incorporated by a single editor or a group stay.

Is this all done to get FAC? then it's wrong.

While feeling honour as a Hindu, if, this article is nominated as FAC, I in principle plead that it should be considered whether right cause is backed by right means? Swadhyayee 07:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Hinduism"

Mr.Tony,

I have seen you applying mind to Hinduism shortcomings. My concern is HeBhagawan do not allow right connotations being incorporated in the article. My feeling is, it is due to the article having been nominated for FAC apart from his personal belief to be most fit to write Hinduism article.

I suffer a great deal of pain when Hinduism is projected dimly. I do not want to improperly glorify Hinduism but I want that right connotations of Hinduism find it's place in the article. Hinduism has capability to provide thinking for human religion, rather is a human religion. The philosophy imbibed in Hindus make them tolerant to contradictory views and contradictory customs. Hindus have a very large population. One may experience isolated incidents or groups intolerant to contradictory views and customs but average Hindu is very tolerant, co-operative and helping.

I am deadly against the psyche of any editor of not allowing others to incorporate facts of general knowledge in the name of citation. Though Hindus are strict vegetarians and believe in idol worship, they are not vengeful against Muslims. There may exist element of dislike but it's due to some other reasons. Christains and Parsis though non-veg. have excellent relationship with Hindus. This I am saying to support my statement that Hinduism is a human religion and I wish Hinduism is properly explained in the Wikipedia article.

To my mis-fortune, enough knowledgable editors are either not available or do not come forward to help. I am pretty sure that HeBhagawan is involved in sock-puppetry.

If you observe, he has to frequently edit his statements and yet you could point out poor language. In spite of this, he has been repeatedly involving in incivil comments against me that my English is not good, is full of grammatical mistakes, give a different meaning, my contributions damage the article and exhibit un-fettered authority by suggesting me to edit other articles or edit in other languages and is being supported by Priyanath to suggest me to write blogs or personal websites.

I have principled objections against Wikipedia articles being deprived of free edits. I believe, howsoever good one editor may be, he has no extra constitutional authority to prevent someone from incorporating additional facts in Wikipedia articles that not known to him. It's still worst to involve in sock-puppetry to make incivil coments to serve the malice purpose.

I do not know whether you have a chair of authority to help me or not but I found you interested in preserving standard for FAC and I wish you also hold views of significance of right means behind a right cause.

With due apology for long comments.

Swadhyayee 04:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tony1"

Object: Mr. HeBhagwan wants to generalize Hinduism, instead of focusing on the many theological differences Hindus have. I accepted his assertion that karma is merely a law of cause and effect even though the Vedanta school rejects it. And Vedanta is the dominant school in Hinduism. The problem with all editors insist on their point of view. For example, Aupmanav, insists on a view of atheism being represented in the article even though it's an insignificant view in Hinduism. And Mr. Hebhagwan even initially objected to the use of "many believe in the role of God in karma," and wanted to use the word, "some,". I do agree that he was civil.

Brahma Sutra 2.1.34: "No partiality and cruelty (can be charged against God) because of (His) taking other factors into consideration."

Sankara's commentary explains that God cannot be charged with partiality or cruelty (i.e. injustice) on account of his taking the factors of virtuous and vicious actions (Karma) performed by an individual in previous lives. If an individual experiences pleasure or pain in this life, it is due to virtuous or vicious action (Karma) done by that individual in a past life.

Many Hindus' view of Hinduism is shaped by Western influences and it may be reflected in the article. And Mr. Bhagwan's sources for karma in Hinduism is mainly derived from such persons, except swami vivekanda: Pratima Bowes, The Hindu Religious Tradition 54-80 (Allied Pub. 1976) ISBN 0-7100-8668; Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol. II, at 217-225 (18th reprint 1995) ISBN 81-85301-75-1; Alex Michaels, Hinduism: Past and Present 154-56 (Princeton 1998) ISBN 0-691-08953-1.

I do agree that Mr. HeBhagwan has been civil.

Raj2004 10:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I believe that this article would be much better if editors kept in mind that Wikipedia is read by a broad audience, and that the Hinduism article is likely read most often by non-Hindus who are using Wikipedia the way it was intended - as an encyclopedia. So, the article needs speak to the general, non-Hindu audience, as well as educating Hindus about Hinduism. I don't believe there is a pressing need to address every single concern of each philosophy, school of thought, and believer. I've kept many of my own beliefs out of the article for this reason. The specifics are more appropriate to other subject articles, like Karma, Tilak, etc. The Hinduism article should be a very broad, general article that introduces people to Hinduism.
 * Swadhyayee, addressing your concern that people are editing this article for the sole purpose of making it a Featured Article: 1. It's not a bad motive to try and bring an important article up to the highest standards of Wikipedia. 2. To allay your concerns, I for one have recently let go of any illusion that Hinduism will ever make Featured Article status. This doesn't change how I'll be editing it, because I think it's an important article. I will still work on making it meet Wikipedia's standards. For such a long and broad article, that means clarity, brevity when possible, good grammar, and a style that speaks to the broadest possible audience (rather than a discussion between Hindus about their personal and strongly held beliefs on what is Hinduism). &#2384; Priyanath 18:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with Priyanath, In my opinion the reason why I nominated the article is because the article in my opinion is fine and not lacking. I know that getting this article featured is a very diffucult task because. 1. There are dissagreements between editors on certain parts of the article, but usually it is disscussed on the talk page and most often than not the problem has been solved. 2. Most of the Editors who edit this article are Hindus. You must keep in mind that being considered a Hindu is very open. The different "denominations" are close in beliefs but have differences. These differnces may cause different veiws on how the article should be written i.e Veiws on God, Karma, Rebirth and etc. The Hindu Denominations have somewhat different views on these subjects. The article won't and can never please every Hindu and every non-hindu but the article in my opinion is up to FA criteria. Yes there are still places here and there in the article that needs a little touch-up, but instead of dragging on them and complaining about them why not Fix Them. If you see a run on sentance devide it up, if you see too much blue links take some out. If you came here to drag on why the article is lacking in a few places feel free to fix them. We need as much help as we can get. Also in my opinion HeBhagawan has been very, very civil. When I made a mistake he told me what he felt should be changed and we have worked it out. Swadhyayee has also been a good editor and is learning the right things. In the past he created some problems but is still learning from his mistakes. Remember this is about the Hinduism article not about the editors.-_ S e  adog  19:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

When studying article on Hinduism, one word caught my attention, "brahman". The meaning given in wikipedia for "brahman" is true for "bramh" or "bramha" meaning absolute power. The word "brahman" means the people from priestly cast or brahman caste.
 * Object &mdash; Should include a "Criticism of hinduism" summary section, rather than just a link. This will bring it in line with the Christianity and Islam articles. Thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting, actully the caste and the Hindu term are very close in spelling and in pronounciaton, however the caste name is Bramin and the Hindu term is Brahman. I hope this helps.__ Seadog ♪  14:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak object for now. The first few sections are excellent and extremely well-written. However, the last couple of sections don't live up to this standard. A little more work on them and I will change my vote to strong support. Congrats to all those who contributed to this article! It's not an easy topic given its diverse nature and I found the article to be very comprehensive. Cribananda 07:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)