Talk:Namaste

Origin of the word 'Namaste'

The current version says Namaste is derived from Sanskrit 'namas' which is 'na' + 'mamah' (meaning 'not I'). There is no cited source for this. Based on the sources I find online, it seems to be derived from 'namaha' in Sanskrit, meaning 'to bow'. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Acropolis211 (talk • contribs)

References

Acropolis211: I deleted it for similar reasons. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Añjali Mudrā merge without any discussion

Why was the Añjali Mudrā article merged here without any discussion? This comment states "merge unreferenced". But Chiswick Chap correctly observed on the same day that the merge "should have been discussed" and that justification to be "plainly false". I will revert the merge unless persuasive comments are forthcoming. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

New Age woo woo?

Maybe I'm being a sourpuss, but something just seems really off about the meaning-section. I don't have the works by Philips or Oxhandler, but the explanations attributed to them sounds like New Age pseudoscience. Especially considering namaste being a secular greeting for the most part. Could there be access to some better (preferably non-western) sources? TheEsb (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's absurd. See this comment: "The etymology I have seen the most is: "The divine in me bows to the divine in you." Even the Wikipedia page for Namaste claims this. The people who know better lost the edit war." [1] Equinox ◑ 16:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Common name?!

Though the gesture is common across ethnic groups in India, each group has its own name for it, such as elucidated in the quote below. Hence, I suggest that the title of the article be changed to something like "Folded hands (gesture)", instead of using the present title which is just one of such names.

//Flavours of Namaste vary with in the diversity of India from Namaskar in Hindi speaking North India to Namaskaramulu in Telegu, while Namaskara or Namaskaragalu in Kannada. Tamilians prefer Vanakkam and Malayali’s say Namaskaram. In East Indian states it is called Nomoshkar in Bengali and Nomoskar in Assamese. Not just Hindus, but Sikhs also greet everyone by folding their hands, however, their greeting is called ‘Sat Sri Akal’. Alternatively, people also use other similar forms called – Pranam, Ram-Ram, Sita-Ram, Radhey-Radhey, Satshriakal, Jai Jinedra and Assalam Walekum and many more..// (Sudhanshu Sinha, in Soft-Power Must Go Global, The Times of India (20 March 2020). MS2P (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

As this is English Wikipedia, we go by what the most common name is in English. I suspect that, internationally, "namaste" is by far the best known of these terms. Largoplazo (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. To maintain the status quo would be to paint the multicultural ethos of India with just one of its constituent colours. This argument of the "most common" was used by the 1960s Indian Union, in an attempt to impose Hindi language upon Tamil Nadu and other non-Hindi States. At that point, C. N. Annadurai (who later became Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu) famously raised the question: It is claimed that Hindi should be the common language because it is spoken by the majority. Why should we then claim the tiger as our national animal instead of the rat which is so much more numerous? Or the peacock as our national bird when the crow is ubiquitous?[2] MS2P (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I made two assertions:

• As this is English Wikipedia, we go by what the most common name is in English. This factually relates Wikipedia's guideline on the subject. Was your response I disagree in response to this? On what grounds are you disagreeing with this factual statement?

• I suspect that, internationally, "namaste" is by far the best known of these terms. If your response I disagree was in response to this, then you didn't say anything afterwards that contradicted what I'd written. You went on to talk about painting the "multicultural ethos of India" and choosing its "common language", but we aren't painting multicultural ethos or designating a common language here so I don't see the relevance.

Largoplazo (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

(1) If it is Wikipedia's guideline, it needs to be revised. I say this because cultural / ethnic identity is a sensitive subject. Since Wikipedia is supposed to maintain neutrality, assigning a neutral name would be the right move.

(2) What you have said is true. But it is a regrettable assumption. Hindi culture/language does not represent all the cultures of India. So, changing the title would be to assert factual accuracy, and educate those who believe in such misinformation.

Regards. MS2P (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

My dear friend, you're right in say that cultural/ethnic is really sensitive subject, but you utterly lost credibility when you demonized @Largoplazo's opinion as only you were right, that's not civil, man, that's a lack of respect with people, that's pitiful of see.

I got no thing against you, but that's out of line, In fact, not remaining neutral is against Wikipedia's guidelines, but disqualifying another's point of view is also and can even be considered personal attacks, nobody here is an autority, if there's disagreement, you should hear his POV and respect his POV. 177.105.90.56 (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Why all this if there is hate behind it? It's one thing for you to disagree, it's another thing for you to want to impose your view as if it were the absolute truth, this is not civil — and if is not civil, know you're acting against Wikipedia's guidelines.

It's even contradictory for a site that talks so much about mutual respect to have several cases of disrespectful people, and for this to happen here is even normal and it's even disturbing to hear, Wikipedia as well as the Internet in general is not the problem, but rather the the way people use it. 177.105.90.56 (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

What you said is true that doesn't represent whole India, but you need to understand that this does not make the article less or more neutral, if neutrality were not to mention any word, Wikimedia itself is wrong in saying that its articles should mirror it, or rather, any person on the face of the earth is wrong to write or quote words.

The example you gave demonstrates solely one thing: Free will, e.g I have free will of reading or not a book, of eat something or not, if the people decide that the Hindi language will be common language, this will not change India as a whole at all since you said this language does not represent the whole of India, in the same way that quoting a word from another language will not change anything in your life or in my life either, what I want to emphasize here is the neutrality of an article is important, however, due limits must be placed on this neutrality so as not to become just a shallow and repetitive insistence. 177.105.90.116 (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, that the fact of use "Namaste" don't make the article neutral or not, something neutral is something that is neither one side nor the other, the article would only be going against Wikipedia's guidelines if the author put his opinion in the article, then yes, but quoting a word from another language has nothing to do with it.

E.g, imagine that it is an article about Japanese food, just the fact that it talks about this cuisine, would the article be going against the guidelines? Obviously not, it would only be if its author give his opinion on the article.

Secondly, see {WP: Personal Attacks} and when you read it, draw your own conclusions if what you do is morally correct or not, because you know that Wikipedia is build by mutual respect and that any against–human-rights thing, there'II consenquences and you know that very well.

Well, this is my argues, I'm overhear to counterargues, since they be respectful and not disruptive. 177.105.90.87 (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"Niskaram" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Niskaram and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 11#Niskaram until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 17:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)