Talk:Muhammad

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Image archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Mediation Archives Request for Clarification/Muslim Guild Statements Clarity discussion/Refining positions Ars' final archive The rest of the mediation by Ars Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive Index

re: Images on the Arabic Wikipedia

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&oldid=192924201

I cannot find this discussion in the archives, so I'm copying it from history now. /X

Images

The "warning" at the top of the discussion page indecates images of Muhammad will not be removed, yet apperently they have been? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.30.121.23 (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

They're still here, just further down the page. Zazaban (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why have they been moved further down the page and replace with pictures of ancient text in a forign language? (this is English Wikipedia) These pictures of Forign language are irelevant and should not be here. They should be replaced by the relevant pictures with were once in an relevant place. Fanatics appear to have taken over this place —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.222.64 (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This was part of the consensus, and if you had bothered to read the article, you might realise the pictures are not irrelevant Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you had read what I just wrote you would realize that the "pictures" are irrelevent. Howether the incorrect desision was made it has obviously been influenced by Fanatics who we should not be appeasing as a supposedly unbiased source of information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.218.84 (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. We were simply unaware that your wisdom trumped our editorial consensus policy. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We try to represent historical representations in a way that reflects their prominance. Hence a textual representation in the lead, with more pictorial representations in less prominant positions, where they better compliment the text. WilyD 20:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't there a section that addresses the freakish reactions muslims have to graphical representations of mohommad, or what happens when you name a teddy bear mohommad etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.216.114.180 (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hindu scripture section

This whole section is a tissue of errors and misrepresentation, entirely dependent on the fringe theories of Abdul Haq Vidyarthi, which are being presented here as fact. This is a serious blot on this article. Footnotes wholly misrepresent scholarship on this topic. Paul B (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And as an update, I've deleted this section. Let's hope it stays that way.....

Thanks for your assistance, Paul! If anyone has any further clarifications on this issue, please take the discussion here: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Mohammed_according_to_Hindu_Scriptures:_False_Claims freewit (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• - According to the Hindu scriptures the information seems to be in place. --.alchin007 (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The article you link to says no such thing. Since your only other edit has been to claim that the word "Buddha" is Arabic, I don't think you are being helpful. Paul B (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Hindu scripts have their own Hindu section. That seems like a more appropriate place to put them.St.Trond (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with adding Views. if the Hindu scriptures say that than i see no problem with adding the content. How come delete the entire section including Bahas, Hindu, Sikh point of view ?

Perhaps change the name of the section to Other Religion Views ? --CMJTHY (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? what are you guys (St.Trond and CMJTHY) talking about???? Where does it say about Mohammed in the Hindu scriptures? Let's be serious....this is an encyclopedia not your personal blog where you can rant about whatever crap you want to....

If you guys simply want to spam or air your own views, there are thousands of blogs and forums out there....

@ St.Trond: Where exactly does it say about Mohammad in the HIndu scriptures? Do not quote from the Bhavishya Purana or try to misinterpret something from the Vedas or the Upanishads....Nothing is wrong in adding "your views" or "my views", but this is an encyclopedia which depends on FACTS...Not vague theories or propaganda stuff...There are even one or two theories floating around that Jesus came from India!!! Obviously, we can't include that in an encyclopedia. Please be more serious....We had a hell of a time trying to delete that sub-section.

We will be forced to delete this section if it keeps coming up.freewit (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Whos we? your not even part of the Islam Community. Neither is your dear friend Paul Barlow. Anyways are you trying to say that the Bhavishya Purana is not part of the Hindu scriptures? please revise your comments before you go off about whats in scriptures and whats not. Perhaps you want to do some research and find out what is part of the Hindu scriptures. --CMJTHY (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? it clearly says Muhammad in Hindu scriptures even according to Abdul Haq, Zakir Naik or any other scholar. Compared to the Christian View of Muhammad the Hind scriptures have more sources and scholar research.--CMJTHY (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

CMJTHY like |.alchin007 is just another sockpuppet. One of his tactics is to fill talk pages with semi-gibberish and attacks on other editors. Paul B (talk) 08:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. While it's clear the view is of a minority and probably even a fringe one, I was under the impression that some coverage would be adequate upon seeing the source used (published by Routledge Curzon, which is quite reliable). If it's the case that the source has been misrepresented, are there any details as to where and how? If it's the case that the attribution is correct, but it's just a dismissed theory, then isn't it appropriate to mention the theory alongside its dismissal by scholars? ITAQALLAH 12:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The editor in question is essentially concerned to push his views about the Bhavishya Purana, which are not cited to legitimate sources. The rest is designed to make the Purana passages seems legitimate. The Yoginder Singh Sikand book is indeed an entirely legitimate source, but it is about the very complex and obscure details of interfaith dialogue in India in which various religious leaders have attempted to interpret aspects of Muslim and Hindu scripture in ways which would imply some legitimacy to both. Of course so many suggestions have been made by so many pundits of one sort or another that it is terribly selective to pick these out. For example Siddiq Hussain was mostly concerned to prove that he was Kalki, not Muhammad, but the section as written here misrepresented that fact. Sentences like "In a variety of views of Hinduism held on Muhammad, scholars assert that the prophet was none else than the Narashan rishi of the Vedas" misrepresent extremely obscure views as if they are widespread among "scholars". Paul B (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the explanation. So am I right in assuming there was nothing vaguely salvageable in the removed text, even if alternative reliable sources were to be located? ITAQALLAH 17:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The section name was misleading, there are other views, where as Bhavishya is irrelevant, the relevancy is to account for many perspectives and make sure the sources are WP:V and reliable. Wikidās ॐ 11:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again...How can the following sources be reliable?:

1.Siddiq Hussain. This guy seems to have found a sect. More here:

http://www.india-today.com/itoday/20000731/states.html

2.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. This guy is the founder of the ISKCON movement. This again seems only to be the fringe view.

3. As a final note, we have the same "Narashan" rishi stuff. Where does it say in the Hindu scriptures that a person called Mohammed came and preached a religion called Islam?

Please explain. The section name is still misleading.freewit (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is undue weight. These are extremely obscure opinions, not in any way representative of Hinduism. By listing these very obscure opinions as the views of Hindu "scholars" we create the idea that these are standard or at least common views in Hinduism, which they are not. Frankly, if we were to have a genuinely accurate account of Hindu views of Muhammad it would include a lots of very negative opinions, similar to those listed in the Christian section. Paul B (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh....I've removed the stuff (again). TO ALL who "insist" that Muhammad is part of the Hindu Pantheon:

1. Stop spamming the wiki.
2. Please do not quote from some "vague" or "obscure" source.
3. Nowhere in the Hindu scriptures do we have a description of Muhammad or for that matter, Christ.

We do have some people claiming that Christ and Muhammad were rishis. These are extremely biased views. They cannot be considered "reliable" at all.freewit (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you assume that Hinduism is some sort of centralized form of religion, maybe worth have a look of what is Hinduism before showing your ignorance once again. You have to accept a variety of views, not only views that (you) for some reason select and consider to be 'good'. Wikidās ॐ 10:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I never assumed that "Hinduism" is a sort of centralized religion! Far from it....Wikidas, I see that you're a senior editor here and probably know about ignorance better than me. However, you should also check out your Dashavatar section.

Using the same criteria, would you consider the user, nemonoman also as "ignorant"? He has also disagreed with your "Islamic" inclusions in the Dashavatar article.

I have no problems if Mohammed, the prophet was mentioned without doubt in the Vedas and/or Upanishads. The only book he is "mentioned" is the "Bhavishya Purana", which was heavily edited during the 19th century. In fact, it even contains words like "Jesus", "Victoria" et al!

If you insist on including Mohammed in Mainstream Hinduism, then please consider including:

Mecca was actually a Vedic Shrine! More of this stuff here: http://www.hinduism.co.za/kaabaa.htm

Obviously, each of us have a thousand viewpoints, but all these viewpoints cannot be included in an encyclopedia which deals mainly with a collection of irrefutable facts. These fringe views are nothing but "desperate Islamic propaganda" designed to confuse the layman.

You might have renamed the whole section with a title like "Exploded and misleading views of Mohammed in Hinduism" or even something like "false views of Mohammed in Hindu culture".

Let me quote your write-up in the Mohammed sub-section:

Representatives of Hinduism held a variety of views on Muhammad, some with an assertion that the prophet was none else than the Narashansrishi of the Vedas, predicted in the Atharva Veda.[183] One of the prominent Vaishnava proponents, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada maintained that Mohammad and Jesus, were empowered representatives of God, saktiavesa avataras.[184] In a variety of other points of view, some translated the phrase "the last prophet", suggesting that Vedic deity Agni is none other but Muhammad.[185] In 1926 Siddiq Hussain's two-volume Kannada book, Ja at Guru Sarwar-i 'Alam, argued that the Muhammad was actually Kalki avatar whose arrival had been predicted in the Hindu scriptures, however this view is not a widely accepted doctrine.[186] On the other hand Mirza Ghulani Ahmad argued that Rama and Krishna were prophets of God who had foretold the arrival of Muhammad as God's last law-bearing prophet.[187] Mohammad is sometimes linked to the passage of the Rig Veda declaring that Narashams rishi will arrive as the "last divine messenger" (antim deva duta), who shall "dispel all darkness" and "conquer death".[188]

1. Representatives of Hinduism? who? Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the founder of the ISCKON movement is definitely not! The others mentioned are Siddiq Hussain and Mirza Ghulani Ahmad.

1. How can the term "Last Prophet" refer to Agni, a Vedic Deity? Mohammad was born in 570 AD, while the Vedic hymns were composed around 1500 BC. What am I missing here?
2. Where exactly is it written that Rama and Krishna foretold Mohammed's arrival?
3. Last but not least, Siddiq Hussain was just the leader of a cult "Deendar Anjuman".

I confess that due to my "ignorance" I've written the above points. So profound apologies!

To requote your words, You have to accept a variety of views, not only views that (you) for some reason select and consider to be 'good

It's quite sad that you did not read the entire thread/discussion that we (Paul, Xevorim and myself)had before removing this section.freewit (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sure did your discussion, and your argument is that "Hindus do not represent views of Hinduism"? Leaving aside it being scriptures, so many do represent views of Hinduism and its various sub-sections. You seems to propose that the views here are not appropriate, while other views or other religions are. What is your criteria for inclusion of views of the representatives of Hinduism then? For what I can see you just do not want these represented, because you can not understand how a Hindu can see Agni be represented in Mohammed. Yes there is a relevance as to the Dasavatara article on Islamic sub-sects such as Suffies and possibly others as they are closely linked to Hindu thought. Just as Muhammad will be considered Agni or avatara by some in Hinduism sources confirm that some of the leaders of Suffism were considered avataras. You just have not done a research and academics did. Let me hear what are your views of who of Hindu leaders should be represented in this article, if you do not like for some reason the list above? 14:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! Let me applaud the above comments and also please sign when you leave your comments as it will be easier for the rest of us to know what is going on.....

1. Let me hear what are your views of who of Hindu leaders should be represented in this article

I'm no expert, but how about Swami Vivekananda or Swami Dayanand Saraswati?

1. Just as Muhammad will be considered Agni or avatara by some in Hinduism sources confirm that some of the leaders of Suffism were considered avataras.

First of all, who in Hinduism considered Mohammed to be Agni???? Some of the Sufi Leaders were considered to be Avataras. Who, my friend? Let's be more clearer.

1. You just have not done a research and academics did.

I'm no "scholar" I admit that:). But obviously, even a novice will be unable to understand how Mohammed and Hinduism can be connected. Ah yes, some scholars WILL twist any scriptures to prove their point. The point is: Have you SERIOUSLY researched into the article before including it? I'm not the only one. Take another look into the discussion thread and you will notice that the user Paul B has also protested. Another user, nemonoman has also criticized of "The inclusion of such ideas as Bahai versions of Avatar speculation, or Muhammad/Kalki speculation, is doubtful." https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Da%C5%9B%C4%81vat%C4%81ra#The_.22Islamic.22_avatars_of_Vishnu.21

It's not just me who thinks that this section should not be included.....

For what I can see you just do not want these represented, because you can not understand how a Hindu can see Agni be represented in Mohammed.

Actually, we wouldn't have any problems at all if Mohammed has been mentioned without doubt in the Hindu Scriptures. So, how can we include "vague theories"? Is this not an encyclopedia? Like I said previously, why not then include that "Mecca was a Vedic shrine before Mohammed"? Here (I'm including the links again!):http://www.hinduism.co.za/kaabaa.htm freewit (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with Hindu scriptures as such, its about how from the point of view of Hinduism this particular person is viewed. For some 300 years Islamic rule was present in many orthodox areas of traditional Hindu areas, areas of Gaudiya Vaishnavism including. The views of orthodox Hindus are to be represented. If it is not done and considering many other problems with this article, it should be reassessed. You do not even look at references provided where it is clearly obvious how Hinduism and Mohammed are connected. I am seriously considering this. Wikidās ॐ 07:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, POV (point of view):

You've said "Has nothing to do with Hindu scriptures as such". But your original write-up had these lines "In a variety of other points of view, some translated the phrase "the last prophet", suggesting that Vedic deity Agni is none other but Muhammad".

The views of orthodox Hindus are to be represented Fine. Which views? and by whom? Could we be a bit more clearer?

1.This is what the user Paul B said in this thread:

The problem is undue weight. These are extremely obscure opinions, not in any way representative of Hinduism. By listing these very obscure opinions as the views of Hindu "scholars" we create the idea that these are standard or at least common views in Hinduism, which they are not. Frankly, if we were to have a genuinely accurate account of Hindu views of Muhammad it would include a lots of very negative opinions, similar to those listed in the Christian section.

2. You have linked to the Gaudiya Vaishnavism article, but it does not say anything about Islam or Mohammed.

3. You do not even look at references provided where it is clearly obvious how Hinduism and Mohammed are connected.

Hmmmm...which references can we take seriously? Let's re-examine these claims once again:

1. Mohammed is none but Lord Kalki himself.Siddiq Hussain who has stated this is the founder of a semi Hindu-Islamic cult called "Deendar Anjuman". Going by that yardstick we can take what cults like the raelians said and include that in mainstream religious views.

2. Here's another vague write-up from the article:

Mohammad is sometimes linked to the passage of the Rig Veda declaring that Narashams rishi will arrive as the "last divine messenger" (antim deva duta), who shall "dispel all darkness" and "conquer death"

The obvious question no matter what references you may cite would be: How?

So these "authors" are actually admitting that the Vedas predicted Mohammed like say 2000 or 3000 years ago? How many Muslims would admit that? for that matter, how many Hindus or Christians or any religious creed would accept that?

In fact, one could take any passage from any religious book, twist it completely and prove just about anything.

If it's "point of view" of various representatives then:

1. Consider the "Mecca is a Vedic Shrine" as an alternative viewpoint of "Hindu views of Islam.

2. Consider another "viewpoint" by the Audarya fellowship which says that the Jews were actually the "Yadu" people of Dwaraka. (The author maybe trying to draw similarity to the words "Yudah (Judah)" and "Yadu (Yadava)"). Here for example:http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/vedic-culture/184144-jewish-origins.html

3. There is an external link in the Star of David of David article which claims that "As an archetypal symbol for the sacred union of the opposite energies, it is the "yin-yang" of western civilization. Formed by the intertwining of the "fire" and "water" triangles (the male "blade" and the female "chalice")..."

Why not include the above within the main "Star of David" article itself?

If the above views can be incorporated within their respective articles, then we could also include the "Mohammed in Hinduism" views also! Obviously, there are thousands of viewpoints to any single topic. But with all respect and seriousness, would you be able to include all of them?freewit (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Niema

Hello, at the timeline box, it says "622 Emigrates to Medina (Hijra) 623 Changes his name to Niema"

What the heck is Niema? I've never heard of that before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.188.19 (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Look like vandalism to me. I've removed it. ITAQALLAH 19:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Please add category

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add the category tag [[Category:Founders of religions]]. Someone may mistakenly believe that this article should not be in that category, because Category:Muhammad is already there; however, Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories#Topic articles clearly says "If [a] topic article and [a] similarly named category come to be placed in the same parent category, the fact that the article is a member of this subcategory is not a reason for it to be excluded from the parent category." -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done, makes sense to me. Thanks ~ mazca ^t|c 16:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Too many lies in this para=

In following para, yogindar sikand is a muslim convert and his name is mentioned as Hindu representative. The first statement is a lie as he is not a hindu representative. The whole paragraph was cheating as it was referring to Yogindar Sikand and his works as works of Hindu representative.

Representatives of Hinduism held a variety of views on Muhammad, some with an assertion that the prophet was none else than the Narashansrishi of the Vedas, predicted in the Atharva Veda.[183] One of the prominent Vaishnava proponents, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada maintained that Mohammad and Jesus, were empowered representatives of God, saktiavesa avataras.[184] In a variety of other points of view, some translated the phrase "the last prophet", suggesting that Vedic deity Agni is none other but Muhammad.[185] In 1926 Siddiq Hussain's two-volume Kannada book, Ja at Guru Sarwar-i 'Alam, argued that the Muhammad was actually Kalki avatar whose arrival had been predicted in the Hindu scriptures, however this view is not a widely accepted doctrine.[186] On the other hand Mirza Ghulani Ahmad argued that Rama and Krishna were prophets of God who had foretold the arrival of Muhammad as God's last law-bearing prophet.[187] Mohammad is sometimes linked to the passage of the Rig Veda declaring that Narashams rishi will arrive as the "last divine messenger" (antim deva duta), who shall "dispel all darkness" and "conquer death".[188] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skant (talk • contribs) 02:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Skant, do you suggest that Yogindar Sikand is not representing views of Hinduism here? If he is a convert to what tradition is he convert to? Do you have a suggestion as to the inclusion of specific personas or their specific Hindu views, please share them with us here.Wikidās ॐ 14:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased to note that the section has been removed. This appears to be a good deletion, in my opinion. The deleted section was not about the views of Hinduism, rather it told the views of a few obscure Hindus. They are entitled to their opinions, and maybe even to some sort of separate article. There may indeed be some more representative mainstream Hindu views on Muhammad worth including -- But the deleted views are certainly not representative of Hinduism as a whole, and their inclusion in this major article gives them Undue Weight. Not in this article please.

If someone with more knowledge wants to stub the paragraph into a different article, and put a see also in this article, that would be appropriate. --nemonoman (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This section is being discussed and is not being removed. At present just because you are 'pleased' nothing will change. The section on Hindu views is required, I do not know a number of Hindus, but all Hindus leaders are not only notable but also their views are to be considered. If you have any particular other information and sources that are to be added to this section, please feel free to add. Wikidās ॐ 22:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again:)......

but all Hindus leaders are not only notable but also their views are to be considered.

Who? Could we have atleast some names of these Hindu leaders?

The section on Hindu views is required

Fine. Understood. Include the "Mecca was once a Vedic shrine" article. If you feel that's idiotic, then consider adding what Swami Vivekananda said about Islam:

1. "The Mohammedan religion allows Mohammedans to kill all who are not of their religion. It is clearly stated in Koran,"Kill the infidels if they do not become Mohammedans"

Obviously, many muslims and others would object...But you've simply said "Swami Vivekananda, on the other hand, would often question validity of the revelation without renunciation and would portray Mohammed's life and teachings in a non-exclusive manner"

What does that mean? Could we perhaps have that in more simpler English so that laymen and other "scholars" out here would understand......

In a contrast to him some Hindus would illustrate that Manu and Noah were actually one and the same person and "people of Noah" could have been Indians,[187] and would even translate the phrase "the last prophet", suggesting that Vedic deity Agni is none other but Muhammad

And here we go (once again!)with the "last prophet" crap! Agni and Mohammed???? Some Hindus also hold that "Mecca was a Vedic Shrine and Shiva worship was prominent and others held the view that the Aryans were remnants of the Atlantean race". Ah that sounds very scholary! Some Hindus...others.....???

By the way, please double check the spelling of "Gandi", it's supposed to be "Gandhi" and should link directly to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhiand not to Gandi

About some of the references you've cited (we've already discussed some of them "ad nauseum" times!) :

1. 183:^ Haque, Zeyaul. "A Hindu view of Islam, The Milli Gazette, Vol. 2 No. 1

Zeyaul Haque has also said "The Vedas, which predate the prophet (pbuh) by several centuries, predict his birth, writes Dr. Upadhyay.".

Beautiful! We should have a separate sub-section saying that the Vedas are the "super scriptures" of the world! Amazing! Astounding! By the way, they also predict the arrival of Abraham, Noah, Jesus, Mohammed et al!

1. 187 and 188

Sikand (2004) p. 138 and Sikand (2004) p. 140

I'm assuming that it's the same Yoginder Singh Sikand guy? Let's look at another "gem" of an article which he has written here:http://www.countercurrents.org/comm-sikand230204.htm

He has made a huge mess and has "assumed" that some of the "punishments" mentioned in the "Manusmriti" against the lower castes has actually been followed strictly by the Upper Class.

The Wiki article about [Manu smriti] very clearly points out that there are lots of interpolations and the "The Bhagavad Gita contradicts many statements in Manu Smriti, including the fixture of one's Varana at birth, and has always been accorded a higher authority by the people in daily life."

So how can we exactly "cite" this guy as a valid reference?

And another point to ponder here: All these references are only the "positive" aspects of Mohammed (that too most of them are fringe views).In other words, they simply "glorify" Mohammed without taking into account the negative aspects. So much for neutrality!

What's the point in adding the tag "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (October 2008)" and simply rewriting the "Mohammed in Hinduism" write-up? If it's disputed, remove it and replace/rewrite it once the issue is resolved. freewit (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have put answers in the section below - It appears to me as POV based and quite uneducated section removal. 13:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources and POV removal of material

Correct understanding of how to achieve neutrality in this article is critical at this stage.

I appears that some editors are engaged in the specific POV removal of material. However the criteria for inclusion of material is to present the matter form many different points of view. For example section on Hindu views should present reliable sources and/or specialized Hindu views. The List of Hindu Gurus is quite long, while all on the list are notable, the main representatives of Hindu Philosophy that had expressed views from a variety of points of view on the subject, not all but we can select from the Modern Leaders of Hinduism, shortlisted as: Aurobindo, Coomaraswamy, Gandhi, Narayana Guru, Radhakrishnan, Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharshi, Swami Ramdas, Dayananda Saraswati, Sivananda, Swaminarayan, Vivekananda, Prabhupada, Chinmayananda, Pandurang Shastri Athavale. This list is a result of a consensus of the Hindu Philosophy representatives selection. The sampler of the views (without being Undue) should be included in this article. The views are not always positive, and do not have to be, but under WP:YESPOV the balance should be archived.

Normally blogs or unreliable only publications (the biased editors above are using) and should not be used in the article, I would suggest just ignoring any notions based on such unreliable garbage. However the views published by reliable publishing houses are to be upheld, unless a clearly negative academic review is found. RoutledgeCurzon is a reliable publisher of non-fiction academic books and journals, unless otherwise suggested the publications on the subject are reliable sources. Editors need to understand it is not that 'the views of editors' on a particular opinion express that matters, 'I do not like this guy' just does not cut it, how reliable are these opinions? It is not 'Views of orthodox Hindus' that are to be represented, it is views in Hinduism that are based on reliable sources. You actually need to study sources that are used for the references before asking a number of questions that do not make it. Only a bunch of Blogs and completely unreliable sources were used and it was to remove perfectly valid and reliable sources to the section in question. I am sure User:Freewit(myself) and User:Nemonoman need to review the sources and stop indiscriminately removing the section. If you doubt a source put an appropriate tag. You ask for example: "I'm assuming that it's the same Yoginder Singh Sikand guy?" The source you are bring up is unreliable, the RoutledgeCurzon source is reliable - and you are not even sure if it is by the same author? Give me a break, you are clearly not a specialist in the field, be it phonetics of spelling Hindu names or understanding the nature of the tradition that has no single founder, no recorded beginning or a centralized dogma. Hope that clear up your doubts (if that is possible). But note that your removal of material puts in jeopardy the quality and neutrality of the article. I will in the meantime examine other section when I have a bit of time.Wikidās ॐ 12:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My response to the above post

Nice:)...By the way, it's been quite sometime since I "removed" the article. That's why I'm using the talk page....It's very, very easy to call names....I could have kept removing that article a multiple number of times, you know...I did not do that for the simple reason that it's not a very nice practice.

When did I say that I was a "specialist" in that field? Re-read my posts once again....I do not know who made that "Gandi" spelling mistake. I can still see that "Gandhi" is misspelled as "Gandi", therefore, I'm taking the liberty of correcting the spelling mistake. You can obviously go and see who has edited, of course!

You ask for example: "I'm assuming that it's the same Yoginder Singh Sikand guy?" I was trying to be sarcastic, but of course, it seems to me that humor seems to be lost in the Wikipedia. I KNEW that it was Yoginder Sigh Sikand perfectly well.

I am sure User:Freewit and User:Nemonoman need to review the sources and stop indiscriminately removing the section.

Please go back to the editing history and you will see that both of us have not edited the article for quite some time.....In fact, I could keep doing multiple edits, but that would seem pretty childish and of course, you (or some other person) would obviously keep doing multiple reverts:)......

Give me a break, you are clearly not a specialist in the field, be it phonetics of spelling Hindu names or understanding the nature of the tradition that has no single founder, no recorded beginning or a centralized dogma. Hope that clear up your doubts (if that is possible)

Spelling mistakes? Your second paragraph starts with "I appears that" instead of "It appears that"! Completely irrelevant point but all of us humans make mistakes, you know!

Indeed, but were you not the guy who included "In Other Religions" within the Dashavatar article? How well researched was that? Every Tom, Dick and Harry KNOWS that Islam has nothing to do with the Dashavatars of Vishnu, but you included an argument from Islamic Fringe Views. Nothing wrong, but why within the Dashavatars of Vishnu? Let me quote again from your "Dashavatar write-up":

While mainstream Isalm does not accept the notion of incarnation of God, founders of Bahai faith have accepted a number of prophets as manifestations of God in much of the same way.[15] Prominent islamic leaders of Sufi were sometimes refered as avataras.[16] Theologically some Sufi Muslims went quite far to accommodate Hinduism: Pir Sadruddin of Ucch in the early fifteenth century is believed to have adopted the Dasavatara scheme of the Vaishnavas and declared that one of the close associates in this tradition, Ali, was the tenth avatara of Vishnu.[17] In 1926, Siddiq Hussain's two-volume Kannada book, Ja at Guru Sarwar-i 'Alam, argued that the Muhammad was actually Kalki Avatar whose arrival had been predicted in the Hindu scriptures.[18] While Mirza Ghulani Ahmad argued that avataras Rama and Krishna were prophets of God who had foretold the arrival of Muhammad as God's last law-bearing prophet.[19]

I fail to understand why you included it within the "Avatars of Vishnu" article? If you claim to be a "scholarly" person, then you could have just included the above info in perhaps the "Avatar" section? We had to talk it out in the talk page and only then you agreed. Here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da%C5%9B%C4%81vat%C4%81ra#The_.22Islamic.22_avatars_of_Vishnu.21

I still do not claim to be a "scholar", but I'm no novice either. If you were so sure of yourself, why did you remove it from the "Dashavatara of Vishnu" article? Obviously, nobody's perfect not even scholars!

However the views published by reliable publishing houses are to be upheld, unless a clearly negative academic review is found. RoutledgeCurzon

Hmmm....We're talking about "Fringe Views" here. So what if RoutledgeCurzon publishes it? For centuries, people "believed" the Aryan Invasion theory. I do not need to repeat that so many "reliable" people believed in it, published it and propagated it. Even today some textbooks still stick to the "Aryan Invasion Theory". So does that make it correct just because they are from reliable publishing houses?

The need of the hour is not just "scholarly" material but common sense. If you do have the patience, please read through this article which provides a decent write-up on the usage of the words "Narashan Rishi" in the Rig Veda. But, why would you read it? It does not come from a "reliable" source!This article has been penned by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari, "a Professor in the Department of Applied Physics, University of Calcutta" http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1913 freewit (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Discussions on different articles are to be kept in separate places. The answer to the above is - if RoutledgeCurzon publishes it is a valid view, but because it is not a mainstream view, it should be placed towards the end of information entry. However there is no way to suggest if it is or not. Do we have a survey done of the Hindus on that and it is an accepted reliable source? There are quite a few things that you may not understand, therefore a suggested route is to add information on the subject that you do understand, is verifiable and based on reliable sources, and please refrain from disruptive editing or removals. Material can be moved from one article to another, the guide to this is WP:SS, I may suggest writing an article specifically on Hindu views on Islam and Mohammad and link it in as a sub-article. I am sure there is sufficient material from reliable sources on that. Wikidās ॐ 16:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

please scraed from almight, that his rasool image u have posted.

why u hurting the heart of muslim & who is beliven in almight & rasool . if u remove the image , then allah will forgive u sins

mein dua kar ta hon allah ap ko hidayat de

allah ka banda rasool ka chahenewala —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.34.36 (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read the archived debates. The images will not be removed, thanks. Resolute 15:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)