User talk:Venu62/Archive2

While there is nothing wrong in mentioning Duryodhana in the Ayyavazhi articles, it is not appropriate to insert it in the main Duryodhana article. Ayyavazhi is not notable enough to be mentioned there and in a number of places. It is the same as including Ayyavazhi in the Menstrual cycle article (see [1]). There is nothing wrong creating dozens of Ayyavazhi articles, but it is wrong creating links from every possible location on WP. - Parthi 20:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you have

• 13.1 Buddhism on menstruation
• 13.2 Christianity on menstruation
• 13.3 Hinduism on menstruation
• 13.4 Islam on menstruation
• 13.5 Judaism on menstruation
• 13.6 Sikhism on menstruation
• 13.7 Tribal societies and menstruation
• 13.8 Mysticism

What is wrong in Having Ayyavazhi on Menstraution

Please note that I am not a follower of that religion, but I feel that we don't have any right to deny an existence of a religion. When you permit Tribal societies and Mysticism, I feel that Ayyavazhi has a place.

This is my opinion. Please correct me if I am wrong. I want a discussion and not argument Doctor Bruno 03:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I feel that it should be included in the list of religions also Doctor Bruno 03:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you are mentioning "In Kumaon region of Uttranchal" in the page of Duryodhana and not limiting to mention Duryodhana in Kumaon (for example), I think the same logic should be followed for Ayyavazhi also

Again this is MY opinion and I would like to see a consensus Doctor Bruno 03:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Please correct me if I am wrong. I want a discussion and not an argument[reply]

With reference to your comment on my talk page that "Ayyavazhi is not even a recognised religion in India", Sorry for my ignorance. What is a "recognised religion" in India

By the way, my district collector (meaning State Govt) declares an holiday on one of their festivals [2]

Any how, my simple question is that "Just because we are not aware of something, it is justified that we oppose articles about it in Wikipedia"

To answer your question "If we are not aware of something, does it justify opposing it?" - Of course it does. That is how WP evolves - through negotiations and challenges and verifiability. If the subject is proven to be verifiable then it is allowed to exist by the community. Ayyavazhi in my opinion has utterly failed in the notability and verifiability criteria. Going by your argument anyone can create any article on any subject and use your argument to justify its existence. It will totally undermine WP's reliability as a source. - Parthi 20:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally surprised with your reply (of course it does). If I don't know anything about the 20th President of United States, do you think that I am justified in deleting those articles or marking that for deletion. Remember that I am not commenting with respect to Ayyavazhi alone, but in general

I don't think that WIkipedia has a notability criteria that pays more importance to one person's ignorance rather than an government notification, or such references. I find that many articles are denied just because some one is ignorant. Medical College [[3]] [[4]] is such an example

I think you have totally misunderstood my reply. I said WP evolves and grows based on challenges and skepticism by the WP community. We don't (shouldn't) anything at face value. The most imortant criteria in Wikipedia is its Verifiability. For example, if I create an article on, say, a species of three eyed monkey, and base the article solely on my having seen the monkey, it will be challenged and deleted from WP. Notability and verifiability demands that any subject documented should be (a) verifiable - ie should be independently documented from a neutral point of view by a reliable third party, meaning I can't one of my friends to create a website on the three-eyed monkey and cite that website as reference in my WP article, and (b) Notable - ie should be relatively well know beyond a select group of people. In this example, I can't claim notability for the three-eyed monkey just because myself and a friend of mine have seen it.

If an article is questioned based on the notability and verifiability criteria, it is not because the article is untrue, but it just means it is not a suitable WP article. An encyclopedia does not contain unverified information, nor does it contain original research.

I am not familiar with your problems with the article Medical School but it does show that WP works. There is a conversation happening and a compromise will be reached.

Coming to the Ayyavazhi issue, I have nothing against the faith itself or its followers. My only issue was the way User:Vaikunda Raja had inserted Ayyavazhi is places it does not belong. There is no reason an obscure faith such as Ayyavazhi should be listed on par with the world's major religions.

- See this discussion. The same user had gone and created hundreds of links on pages with no apparent connection with Ayyavazhi. The List of religions page perhaps warrents a mention os Ayyavazhi, that is why I agreed to leave it there. But See and and even File:P religion world.png the stub image for religion!! I think this is a blatent attempts of evangelical zeal that does not have a place in WP - Parthi 22:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am not here defending the attempts of including Ayyavazhi in all articles. I am against that. But at the same time, I feel that the attempt at removing Ayyavazhi from all articles is not justified. By the way, coming to this issue, I am sure that the notability and verifiability criteria are satisfied with the government notification. While I condemn the attempts at including Ayyavazhi in all articles (for example, Menstruation), I feel that you, too, in an attempt, to correct one mistake, gone overboard, of removing it from all articles. For example, your never ending removal of Ayyavazhi from the List of Religions page and the ever patient reversal by Jeff3000 are not needed.

You are doing an excellent work in Wikipedia, but of late, I feel that you are directing too much of energies to this Ayyavazhi issue which does not deserve this much importance

Again this is MY opinion and I would like to see a consensus Doctor Bruno 16:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the census data is one of the things that distinguish a 'recognised' relegion. This page contains the data from the 2001 census and a spreadsheet which contains state-wise data. The data from Tamil Nadu has the number of Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Jains, Budhists, Others and Relegion not stated. There are 54985079 Hindus, 7252 'others' and 59344 who have not stated their relegion. Obviously, the government has not counted Ayyavazhi as a seperate relegion. Tintin (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The government in 2001 may not have counted Ayyavazhi as a seperate religion. But the same government declares an occasion as Gazetted Holiday in 2006 (for the first time). Does it tell you something. If there is a change in 2006, why not we accept that Doctor Bruno 16:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When did TN government's vote grabbing attempts become equivalant to official recognition?! BTW the holiday was declared in a couple of districts of TN, and not for whole state. Does this make Ayyavazhi notable enough to include in a encyclopediaic summary article of a bodily function? I don't think so - Parthi 19:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to understand this When did TN government's vote grabbing attempts become equivalant to official recognition?

Please note that I am not giving my opinion with regard to Ayyavazhi alone. My concern is that many a times, articles or references are deleted, inspite of the Verifiability and Notability Criterias, because one person does not understand the significance of difference. The Medical College issue is such thing

For example, in US and other countries we don't have medical colleges. They have medical schools. In India we don't have medical school. We have medical colleges. But the US and European Users are vehemently opposed to a seperate article on Medical College saying that it does not exist there. WHat to do in such cases Doctor Bruno 17:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration at the ubiquity-seeking zeal of Vaikunda Raja for his religion, Ayyavazhi. But, that shouldn't make us more hawkish towards that. After all, Ayyavazhi seems to be more notable than what I initially thought. In cases where anomalies exist in online vs offline notabilities, let's be considerate and try to look for more references. Please have a look at my comments at DoctorBruno's talk page. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Hinduism

WikiProject Hinduism — a collaborative effort to improve articles about Hinduism Discussion board — a page for centralised Hinduism-related discussion Notice board — contains the latest Hinduism-related announcements Hindu Wikipedians — Wikipedians who have identified themselves as Hindus Portal — a portal linking to key Hinduism-related articles, images, and categories Workgroups — projects with a more specific scopes For more links, go to the project's navigation template.

--D-Boy 00:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindu is a not a reputed newspaper atleast for Hinduism. It is a newspaper report claiming some alleged oral versions prevalent in Muslim community . Till it is published , it remains just that .. alleged claims. Bharatveer 09:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that you've reverted a recent edit on your user page using popups. But, the popup will revert only the latest edit and hence if vandalism was done in two consecutive edits, you'd unknowingly revert just the latest one. Just check the edit history of your user page. So, it's better to use the popup to see the history first before reverting. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you delete information about the Siddha of the 21st century? Please check out information first. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.142.24.130 (talk • contribs)

Your contribution Tamil Literature is very nice. Thanks for the info. --SivaKumar 13:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work with Purananuru and other articles. I'm currently tied up with other things, but shall soon start editing yaappilakkaNam-related articles as per our plan here. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely appreciate the tremendous effort you've put in in creating and improving so many vital Tamil-realted and India-related articles. I'm truly impressed. I'm hard pressed for time right now, but I'll certainly get back by September 1st week and definitely help to add whatever little I can. I would also like to join the Tamil literature project you, Arvind, Sundar et al are spearheading. --Aadal 17:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Bharatveer for now. I'd urge you not to engage in edit wars yourself even if you think the other person is being unreasonable. This time you didn't cross the 3RR limit, but please be careful in the future and seek 3rd party intervention early on. As for the article, try to evolve a consensus in the talk page first and bring sanity to the article. You could approach respected editors like User:Gurubrahma, User:Nichalp, User:Bhadani, etc., for comments on the article or drop a message in the noticeboard. If you feel something wrong is being added, please add appropriate template tags like {{weasel}} (you've done that), {{npov}}, {{citation needed}} etc., rather than reverting the addition immediately. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you may be interested in http://www.tamilartsacademy.com/books/coins/cover.html in particular and the site itself in general. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Tamil Propaganda. You people do not seem to know that there is something called Dravidian in this country. Everything in the south is Tamilian for you guys. You can run this until one fine day where you go out of India and become a Tamil Country. You should stop vandalising Carnatic Music by filling Tamil details. Karunanidhi had told once that Karnataka Sangeetha should have been Tamil Sangeetha. Search for word Tamil in that article you will know how biased you guys have made it. Left to you guys whole India will turn Tamil.

~rAGU

Thanks for your comment. I am with/not against you but a lot of other arguments. We need a good discussion. We have to go deeply. For the history we can not arguments with a website as reference. We have to discuss with other scholers. One thing is that you have to prove your arguments and think we the all south indians are one. we all using carnatic music. Don't argue with Karnataka, Tamil Nadu etc.

After a 1000 years people may said about Balamurali krishana and Chembai are the major Carnatic musicians.

So All are good and all argumets are true.

So we have a systamaic study for that. from the age Harappa or before that. Music is started before the Veda. some time Tamil has same old as sanskrit.

For the research I am always with you.

Best Rgds Jyothish. Jothishkumart 09:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement

Dinesh Kannambadi

Thanks for the invitation to clear up the disputes in carnatic music article. I read through the discussion page of the article and found that more knowledgable people like aadal are at work. I too will contribute my best to the article and remove the POVs. Starting off with the history should be fine. I will get hold of authentic texts and get legitimate information. I am sure the dispute will be resolved soon. Cheers --|charukesi 23:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I tried it once before but was not getting the right result for some reason. will look into your syntax and copy.

Dinesh Kannambadi

I thought the consensus was to edit the history part already featured in the carnatic music article. I will get in touch with aadal and vadakkan personally or on the discussion page of the carnatic music article and begin working. I too am more of a rasika but sure will contribute the best facts i know. cheers --|charukesi 19:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats was a surprise. Thanks. Getting wet in the western ghats during june-july is sure worth it. I have some more and as we go along, it will put it in. Especially, Old Kannada inscriptions of Hoysala age.

Dinesh Kannambadi

Hi, I am sorry for the error. And thanks for pointing it out --Chandrachoodan Gopalakrishnan

Your recent edit to Category:Carnatic music instruments (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 06:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Ayya vaikunda avataram page you have "19th of masi" listed down as the date of celebration. There are many people who don't have experience with the Tamil calendar who are curious about this faith. Could you add the Western Calendar dates for Ayyavazhi festivals so we could see when they are celebrated? Thanks.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]