Talk:Karma in Hinduism/Archive/1

References

The reference section needs to be put into order; it's amess at the moment. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

== Copy-editing ==--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added copy-edit changes wherever needed in the article and removed the "copy-edit needed" tag.

Splitpeasoup 12:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the template, as much more needs doing I'm afraid. It's not so much grammar and the like, but tone; too much of the article reads like a religious text (the new edits insert some more of this, in fact). The article needs to be neutral in its account of the subject. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You may be right about neutrality. In that case I suggest you remove the copy-edit tag and replace it with a POV tag. My edits merely addressed grammar, spelling, and style, and did not make any attempt to change tone, neutrality, or content. Putting the right tag on the article makes sure it gets flagged for the appropriate kind of editing and also that readers are alerted with regard to neutrality or lack thereof. Splitpeasoup 19:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

{{NPOV}} is less appropriate here, as it's not really the content but the tone (which is explicitly covered by {{copyedit}}. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up

There is still much to be done with regard to language and style (aside from the issues mentioned above, there are inconsistent transliterations, etc.). The content also needs to be looked at (for example, the summary: karma isn't an explanation of causality, though it's used in causal explanations). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced content

Namaste. I have just read the article over for the first time. It seems to contain a certain amount of POV material that is not well-supported by references. Examples of this would be the role of God, the comparison with other religions, etc. Also, some of the statements are supported by a reference to a particular teacher or religious tradition without any effort to put that persepective into a more broad context, or suggest that there is variation in views. E.g., the section on Advaita Vedanta seems to rely on two citation to Sivananda and no other sources. I came upon the article because it had been nominated for featured status, and my feeling is that it could use a good peer review. Buddhipriya 00:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Factually incorrect

The following statement :- The concept was adopted by other religions such as Buddhism and Jainism, whose views differ from Hinduism as the concept of Karma does not involve a personal supreme God. is incorrect and represents the Hindu orthodox POV. Jaina concept of Karma is totally different and non-hindu. So there is no question of it being adopted from hindusim.--Anishshah19 10:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed that unsourced statement from the article pending someone providing better sources. My opinion is that the article needs work just to clarify what Hinduism thinks of this and attempts to compare the idea with other religions requires strong references. I have been able to track down the use of the term theodicy which used to appear in the lead of this article (Karma in Hinduism explains the problem of evil that persists in spite of an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God; it is thus related to theodicy.) A quote pertaining to this exists in the book by Michaels which I have just cited, but in context it is clear that the term can only be clearly applied to one view of karma. I will try to flesh out that citation in the article as perhaps it was significant to someone, having been placed in the lead even though it was unsourced. Buddhipriya 20:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Role of Ishvara

I have reworked the section on the role of "God" and am moving this unsourced POV material here:

In fact, Hinduism argues for the existence of an Omniscient God (Sanskrit: Ishvara) because the judgment of intelligent actions (i.e. Karma) requires intelligence on the part of the judge (i.e. God). Unintelligent nature by itself cannot judge the performance of actions of intelligent beings. Hence the intervention of an Omniscient God is required to dispense the fruits of Karma — which are rewards for good actions (in the form of pleasure) and punishments for evil actions (in the form of pain).

In working on this section I get the impression it was written from a fairly specific viewpoint that did not appreciate the diversity of views within Hinduism. Because there are many commentaries, you can prove anything by citing Swami X on the subject. It would be good if more sourcing can be done, specifically trying to put these ideas into context. Buddhipriya 21:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The article states that God has the power to mitigate Karma for His devotees. However, this violates the premise that God is neutral and does not show favoritism. It also does not explain how karmic laws can be mitigated - they might be postponed, but how can they be mitigated? For if God has power to mitigate, he must also have the power to remove Karmic effects (after all, removal is 100% mitigation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.222.83 (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

God is of course neutral but saying that God has no power to mitigate would lessen the majesty of God. Mitigation means lessening the effects of bad karma. The effects of karma cannot be removed entirely. Only in extremely rare instances, such as the case with Markendaya and Ajamilla, bad karma was completely erased. Hope this helps.

Raj2004 (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

some feedback

• Types of karma - Sanchita karma, Pprarabdha karma and kriyamana karma has stub pages. It is better to merge these as a section into the main article itself
• Right after the definition, please add a section and provide examples of how karma is understood in hindu religion (move markhandeya and Ajamila examples).
• Also glaring is in the current format, the various divisions between hindu theologists are bought out before the section "Views of Hindu traditions on karma". i think it should be the other way around

Kalyan 19:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur that a merge of Sanchita karma, [Pprarabdha karma]] and kriyamana karma into this article would be a good idea, as with your other suggestions. Buddhipriya 22:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism and Science

A NEW article had been created entitled Hinduism and Science. This new article was tagged with an "under construction" tag as students were busily trying to improve the article in order to meet Wikipedia's standards. An eager editor has merged said article into Karma in Hinduism, where it simply does not fit. Is there any way to undo the merge without destroying the work that these students have subsequently attempted to add: i.e the work on global warming, etc.? Vote Cthulhu (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:SUP, work in a sandbox. This is how it is done in wikipedia. You have been told about this repeatedly. andy (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor Andyjsmith continues to be belligerent and uncooperative. Several pages are presently being created by students who are learning how to use Wikipedia. All of these pages have ben tagged as "under construction," and include a note asking editors to avoid deleting the pages until complete. Merging the article "Hinduism and Science" into "Karma in Hinduism" is simply nonsensical and has resulted in several students adding material to the present article that appears out of context, i.e. the work on global warming. Again, please return the page to its original state so that it may be edited properly.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the version of the article that User:Andyjsmith redirected, and have to agree with him that it was POV OR, besides falling foul of wikipedia's policies on sourcing, soapboxing and fringe claims. At least parts of the article also violated legal copyright requirements, as they were copied from Hinduism and science by T.D. Singh, which (at best) is released under an incompatitple non-commercial license.
Given that at least one other articles created by the school project, Islam and civil rights, has been problematic, perhaps you all should slow down and familiarize yourself with wikipedia's content policies before creating any new articles. By the way, which school are these students from and who is the responsible teacher ? Abecedare (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC) (copying my post from HNB Abecedare (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

This article was being edited by a number of students. The copvio was raised and was in the process of being fixed when it was erroneously moved. Since then, others have tried to add further details on Hinduism and Science, but their edits were redirected to Karma in Hinduism, and ended up looking anachronistic. There is a single editor who has moved for merges and deletions of articles here. Each article was labeled with the "under construction" tag, which was ignored by the editor in question. If the Hinduism and Science article can be unmerged, it can be fixed as planned.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As I have explained above, the User:Andyjsmith's actions were fine; it was the project participants who were at fault. I recommend that instead of complaining about the conduct of a "single" editor who is following wikipedia's policies, you all use the sandbox or a user subpage. An underconstruction tag doesn't immunize a page from wikipedia's content policies, especially legal copyright law requirements.

Finally, could you please name the school, class and teacher involved in the project you mention ? I didn't see anything listed at WP:SUP. Abecedare (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point. User:Andyjsmith acted to merge an article that was unrelated. Only the material that was first posted was related to some degree. Other students later tried to add new sections on OTHER aspects of Hinduism and Science that are clearly NOT appropriate to the article, Karma in Hinduism. Searching for Hinduism and Science leads one to Karma in Hinduism. Clearly, this is inappropriate. If the articles can be unmerged, this would allow students with genuine content to properly create the page - a page that will NOT contain the same errors identified by the eager User:Andyjsmith. (Finally, providing identifying information on either the students, the school, or the teacher have no bearing on this matter and only serve to satisfy idle curiosity).Vote Cthulhu (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem was not the article title, but the article content (see above for the list of policies it ran afoul of). I trust that your intentions are good, but currently the content you are adding is not suitably sourced or written for wikipedia. That is the reason others and I have recommended that the project participants use a user subpage/sandbox, instead of editing in mainspace directly.

Note that I have not asked for the students' names; only for the school/class teacher name since you have repeatedly mentioned that this is a school project and asked for forbearance accordingly. See WP:SUP for how such projects have been organized in the past. Abecedare (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Note also that you have chosen to use "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and therefore exposed all the students' work to collaborative editing among the entire pool of WP editors. Therefore any and all of us are welcome to edit the articles in any manner (especially per core WP policies). You cannot say "nobody except certain selected editors should work on it" or "don't bother looking yet until we finish". At best the {{underconstruction}} tag is an advisory that lots of work and cleanups are in progress, but definitely not immunity or hiding from policies. DMacks (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Also pls note that, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Pls read the instructions in "Please note:" when you click edit. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio when discovered must be removed summarily, there would have been nothing erroneous about its removal. The tag doesn't really mean much and as you've been told, in no way prevents other editors from changing the article. As for it's being a school project, I'm not sure what that means but I do know that if it's a school project it should have been someone's responsbility at the school to make sure that they were following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some web space for school projects. dougweller (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever with editors working on this or any other article, and I have never asked anyone not to edit it. Quite the opposite, in fact, I have invited editors to improve upon the articles recently created. What I have complained about is the wholesale deletion of articles. In the context of this discussion, what I am complaining about here is the erroneous merging of an article, Hinduism and Science, with this article, Karma in Hinduism. Surely any reader can see how these two subjects are NOT one and the same. Hinduism and Science ought to be de-merged.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of the copyvio, I know that there was a problem with such in the original article, but how does merging Hinduism and Science into this article fix that? It does not. What fixed that was the elimination of the copyvio material. That is not an issue now. What remains a problem is the mistaken merging of Hinduism and Science with Karma in Hinduism. The only way to fix that is to de-merge.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hinduism and science clearly failed key wikipedia policies on original research, neutrality and others. The article as a whole was a jumble of only distantly related ideas. The alternative was to sort it out were either deletion, a massive cleanup involving throwing out half the article, splitting it into several smaller but better focussed articles, or redirection to something better. I chose the latter option but you're perfectly at liberty to do something else. andy (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that by merging Hinduism and Science with Karma in Hinduism, you now have a redirect that doesn't make any sense. I do not know how to un-merge the two. Since you rashly merged before the article was finished, you have since seen several other students attempt to add content, i.e. on global warning and abortion, which clearly do not fit under the heading of Karma in Hinduism, but certainly DO fit under the proposed article, Hinduism and Science. De-merging is necessary in order for these later edits to make any sense. Rather than you having no other alternative, as you suggest, you could simply have allowed the editors to finish their work. As it stands, the merge makes no sense and the only solution is to de-merge. Hinduism and Science is clearly NOT the same thing as Karma in HinduismVote Cthulhu (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No merge has taken place. It's a redirect. If you're teaching how to use wikipedia you really must familiarise yourself with the basics! andy (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply remove the redirect, if you would be so kind. It simply makes no sense at all.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We all appreciate your effort to bring in the students, but can you pls work in the user space, for ex: you can create an article like, User:Vote Cthulhu/Hinduism and Science (note it is in the userspace, not the main encyclopedia space. Let you and the students work here, fixing original research, using reliable sources, and then we can move it to main space. To edit a redirect, you need to append, &redirect=no to the url. Hope this helps. --Nvineeth (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I figured out how to undo the redirect. The user space is something that I will certainly use in any future projects of this nature.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: User:Vote Cthulhu has undone the redirect and recreated Hinduism and science. Abecedare (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has been listed for deletion : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduism and science --Nvineeth (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Disappointing

I thought, when I read the article, that this was an excellent--perhaps not perfect--article. I was most perturbed (as I often am) to read this discussion. I am particularly disturbed to read that an article "Hinduism and Science" was considered as a replacement. "Karma and Hinduism" is a highly valuable insight into the subtleties between different views of karma, as represented in different factions in Hinduism and by other belief systems that also believe in karma.

It answers brilliantly the question that I came to Wikipedia for. What higher recommendation is there?

"Hinduism and Science", on the other hand, holds not the slightest interest for me, and for the life of me I cannot see the remotest connection between the two ideas. I'm sure that a topic such as "Hinduism and Science" might be of interest to students of philosophy but that is a completely different audience studying for mid-terms. Please do not remove, distort, or misplace valuable material for no apparent gain to a broader audience.

--174.7.33.239 (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Malformed FAC removed

I have removed a malformed FAC from the FAC page,[1] and suggest a peer review would be more appropriate for this article. This article is significantly below FA standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

More sources

Here are some more sources on the subject that can be used to expand and improve the article:

• Karma and rebirth in classical Indian traditions edited by Wendy Doniger,
• Karma and rebirth: post classical developments, edited by Ronald Wesley Neufeldt,
• The doctrine of Karma by Yuvraj Krishnan

Abecedare (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Distinction missing??

The following can be read in the article as if being of opposite stance: " Thus, many, such as the Upanishadic readings suggest that birth in a particular caste is in accordance with karma, as those with good deeds are said to be born into a spiritual family, which is synonymous with the brahmana caste. However, the Gita suggests a radically different teaching than those suggested by the Upanishads with regard to caste. Krishna said in the Gita that characteristics of a brahmin are determined by behavior, not by birth. A verse from the Gita illustrates this point: "The duties of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas as also of Sudras, O scorcher of foes, are distributed according to the gunas (behavior) born of their own nature." (Bhagavad Gita 18.41)[59]"

However there is no contradiction between Gita and so called Upanishadic readings as presented here. Good deeds will lead one to be born into a spiritual family where his future destiny will be determined by his behaviour and deeds in the current life. In this sense, both sources are correct and there is no difference, especially no radical difference in teaching. Sudra by birth can become brahmin by behaviour and vice versa.

If there exist teachings which insist on existence of "radical" difference, then it should be described which teachings see this difference. Atmapuri (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I will add this. Raj2004 (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)