Talk:Yoni

WP:LEAD and content/sources removal

शिव साहिल: please explain your concerns behind this edit. Just because a poor quality article has long-standing content, it does not mean that old content should stay. Please see WP:LEAD and MOS guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Kautilya3! I think some admin or coding wizard told me that ping only works with a new signature line. So here we go: @शिव साहिल: please see above. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

These guidelines exactly contradict your edits. You are WP:CHERRYPICKING from an outdated translation and misrepresenting what "quality" sources like Britannica and Rowman and Littlefield have stated for the lead. Since "lingam" has its own article, you don't have to select one meaning and insert it since it has multiple meanings.

John Marshall and Ernest Mackay connected Yoni worship to Indus Valley with confidence. so "may" is WP:OR. Since your source don't support "Scholars dispute whether such artifacts discovered at the archaeological sites of Indus Valley sites are yoni," then that is WP:OR and misrepresentation of sources as well.

I have only checked the half of the lead and the archaeology section. If you believe that you have made similar errors anywhere else then you should consider fixing them now.

Read WP:BRD and don't make edits without gaining consensus prior-hand once they have been reasonably reverted. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

शिव साहिल: If you allege I have cherrypicked, you must identify what I left out... please explain what and how have I cherrypicked? which outdated translation? What am I misrepresenting, please explain with specific page number and source(s). The Britannica source states "the yoni is often associated with the lingam", which my revised version also includes, so how am I misrepresenting it? Have you read Marshall and Mackay? if yes, provide the page number and cite details where did they "connect it with confidence"? I do not believe I have made errors, but if you identify the source with page numbers, or a quote, I will take a look and reconsider/revise if appropriate. Without details, your allegations are unhelpful and unconstructive. In the future, please do not cast aspersions without providing evidence (links, sources, page numbers, diffs). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, WP:ONUS is on you since you added the content. Not me. You cited the content so you should already know that whatever I checked from your sources doesn't actually match with the content that you added. Your lead is faulty because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Unless you can refute my above explanations with "links, sources, page numbers, diffs", my above statements stands. Further proven by your recent edit which is still WP:SYNTH. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

शिव साहिल: WP:ONUS does not mean WP:CENSOR or WP:FILIBUSTER-ing to pacify disruptive editors who want to suppress or ignore what a overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed mainstream scholarship is stating. You must explain your objections within content guidelines framework. If you question what I have added, you must explain what and why with cites and page numbers. Instead of wiki-lawyering, please read the policy carefully. For example, WP:NOT#DICTIONARY reads,

Quote: "Articles should begin with a good definition or description, but articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content. If they cannot be expanded beyond a definition, Wikipedia is not the place for them."

So definitions are recommended, followed by a description beyond that definition. That is what the improved version of the article does (that is how Encyclopedia Britannica article starts too). You allegation of Wp:SYNTH makes no sense. Please read the content guidelines again and explain how it is a synthesis? Please do not ignore or evade my questions above. Of course, if all you want to do is wiki-lawyer without substance and without engaging in a constructive discussion/consensus-building process, you are welcome to try the various dispute/admin noticeboards. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

My above objections are totally within that definition and your edit warring and frequent addition of non-consensus edits is clearly not.

You cherrypicked an outdated definition by using Monier Monier-William as a source contrary to what more reliable sources have stated. Since you are starting the lead with your cherrypicked definition of the word rather than its actual broadly accepted commonly thought meaning, you are clearly violating WP:NAD.

Your edits such as one I pointed above[1] is a WP:SYNTH since you recently found out a single author to dispute a largely accepted hypothesis and attributed it as "scholars such as". Do I have to tell you that the word "scholars" is plural and not singular? शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, and please end this disruptive behavior by making false allegations. For example, the content supported by Monier Monier-Williams as a source is not contrary to what more reliable sources have stated. Please explain why are you alleging "You cherrypicked an outdated definition by using Monier Monier-William as a source contrary to what more reliable sources have stated", and what is it that "more reliable sources" are stating that this article is not. I have already provided multiple sources, recently published by scholarly publishers, and they all state yoni means womb/vagina/source/etc (as does Encyclopedia Britannica). Thank you for implicitly acknowledging that Basham does dispute that "Indus Valley" theory. Scholars is plural indeed, but then I cited two sources. The Parpola source states that George Dales disputes it too after a detailed examination of the evidence. In other words, the scholar Basham is not alone in his objections. Parpola himself acknowledges the issues with that theory. That makes it three scholars disputing it. There are more. We have cited enough to support "scholars". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Unless you address the concerns raised. Monier Monier-William is an outdated source. It is not a modern scholarly reference and clearly not more reliable than Britannica and Rowman & littlefield. You need to read WP:IRS. Monier-William provides numerous definitions yet you have picked only a particular one. I don't know how much more I should specify. "Scholars such as .... dispute whether such artifacts discovered at the archaeological sites of Indus Valley sites are yoni" should be stated by the source. Since you are writing this on your own then that is WP:OR like my original post already stated. What you mention as "and that for instance", he later adds that "I would like to mention some pieces of evidence for Harappan sexual cult that appear undeniable". So the source is either not relevant or lacks necessary description about Yoni. Where is your evidence that George Dales was talking about Yoni? If he never mentioned "Yoni" in his writing then that is WP:SYNTH. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore Basham has only provided a one-liner and not actually mentioned "Yoni". To make a mention of him in the same paragraph as the actual researchers of the Yoni symbols is really WP:UNDUE. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

शिव साहिल: There is a 2008 revised version of Monier Monier-Williams here, which is where I started to reach the scanned page I linked in this article. Further, the article cites many more sources, not just Monier Monier-Williams... it is unhelpful to the consensus building process if you refuse to see and study the more recently published sources I already cited and that state yoni means "womb/vagina/uterus/vulva/orgin/source/etc" depending on the context (I see the same problems with Linga article which you seem to have edited, I will be revising it too in coming weeks). This article already explains both, Parpola's concerns and supportive arguments, for NPOV. You have not read sources I cited, because you couldn't have missed Dales objections to the IVC theory on pages 101-102 in Parpola for example. Yes, Basham is talking about female generative organ (yoni) and the IVC theory on page 24, and you are misrepresenting him. No, the "scholars such as..." is not OR, since Basham and others dispute that theory. Remember what admin Diannaa repeatedly wrote on your page ([2], [3]), after my caution to you for past disruptive editing, "you must write using your own words". We will not suppress either "Basham, Dales etc scholarly views disputing the IVC theory" nor the view that there may be "potential IVC and yoni/linga links". If you wish to propose an alternate wording, I will welcome and consider it.

You mention two sources - Britannica and Rowman & Littlefield, calling it reliable. Here is what they have to say,

Encyclopaedia Britannica states, "Yoni, (Sanskrit: “abode,” “source,” “womb,” or “vagina”) in Hinduism, the symbol of the goddess Shakti, the feminine generative power and, as a goddess, the consort of Shiva."

Rowman & Littlefield source edited by Kimmel states, "The lingam is most often worshipped alongside the yoni, a symbol of the goddess Shakti representing female energy. [...] The lingam-yoni, an erect penis conjoined at the base to the vulva, [...]

That is along the lines of what the revised new version of the article is stating. Why are you deleting it? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I have made some changes in the lead taking into account the common usage of the word in religious traditions especially Shaiva. I think the old lead which was unchanged for so long reflected the article in a more appropriated way. And I agree with the the objections raised by Sahil. We should also decide how much weightage should be given to the controversial authors like Wendy Doniger. I will look into rest of the article later. Onkuchia (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Onkuchia: This is not a Shaivism-according-to-Onkuchia/Sahil-pedia, but Wikipedia where NPOV is part of the policy. It is disruptive for you to repeat allegations without verifying the links/sources provided above and in the article. For example, see the quote from Encyclopedia Britannica above (this). Yoni in Sanskrit texts does refer to "womb/vulva/vagina/etc". The peer-reviewed scholarly journal paper by Doniger is RS. We can take this to RSN or other dispute noticeboards, if you wish. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Abecedare: please guide us about the guidelines and procedures for this and the Lingam article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Stop interpreting dictionaries of the 19th century. WP is not a dictionary. The content should reflect the subject of the article. And you have no reason to challenge the scholarly content that suggests yoni means womb in its basic sense both in literal and metaphorical sense. Yoni's secondary meaning as vagina in itself does not mean it must be included in the lead.Onkuchia (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Onkuchia: Please stop misrepresenting the sources (plural), or me. The Encyclopedia Britannica link, and so many others, are not 19th-century sources! There should be no need for me to repeat what I have explained already (see my various comments on not-dictionary above), and I am getting tired of your disruptive behavior that ignores the previous discussion in this and other articles. Yoni does mean 'womb' and the lead and main section of this article state so. It also means 'vagina/vulva/etc', per multiple sources including Encyclopedia Britannica, and that too needs to be in the main and the lead. Find me a few RS that state that the fringe/rare/secondary meaning of yoni is 'vagina/vulva/etc', and I will review them. In my review of the cited sources, this is a significant/important/common meaning and needs to be in the lead as well. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Onkuchia: you added "Secondary meanings: uterus, vulva, vagina"... which source states this? We are not going to suppress the sexual meaning of the word yoni, hide it in a refn note, or present only one side because that violates the NPOV guideline. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Even the Britannica source [4] you cited preferentially defines the term as "source" or "abode". In contrast you show greater preference for the meanings which are much less relevant than the basic and common meanings in religious system.Onkuchia (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: One more thing: you're not supposed cite questionable sources authored by scholars working in the irrelevant field. You've cited encyclopedia of penis authored by British politicians.[5] It is interesting to note that you prefer non-hindu texts over the texts that directly deal with Hinduism.Onkuchia (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Onkuchia: The Rowman & Littlefield source (Kimmel et al) is a source that was cited by editors before I made my first edit. शिव साहिल mentions it above as "more reliable", and fwiw it is an acceptable source under our content guidelines. The ethnic origin of the editors/authors is irrelevant, plus you are wrong that the article was written by British politicians. If you read that Kimmel source and credits therein carefully, you will note that the article has been written by Rohit Dasgupta, an Indian origin name whose ethnic origin once again is irrelevant. Similarly, this article already discusses the "source" meaning of yoni (I added Adi Shankara's commentary on it), and no the source does not say that this is the preferential meaning. It is simply ridiculous to allege or imply or insist that yoni does not mean "vulva/vagina/female sexual organs", when so many mainstream scholarly sources state so explicitly including religious studies professors. There is no need for anyone to be ashamed of the sensual/sexual information or aspects of anything, given when this overwhelmingly discussed in the RS. We don't censor information in Wikipedia, and we must include the predominant view in the mainstream peer-reviewed sources. Please read the sources already cited in this article carefully, as well as WP:CIR guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The idea of preferential meaning is WP:SYNTHESIS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

MSW, Onkuchia is correct about your selection of sources just like I highlighted above. You have been using sources that either make passing mention or they don't explicitly mention this subject or otherwise they are not reliable for this subject. You need to read WP:SYNTH and review the concerns raised here in place of personalizing dispute. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Rohit K. Dasgupta is a British politician. Did I say anythin wrong? He is an academic in the Institute for Media and Creative Industries at Loughborough University[1] and a British Labour Party politician.[6]. Let me know about his academic credentials related to sanskrit or religious studies. Otherwise I will have to remove the source.Onkuchia (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

____

@Ms Sarah Welch:

You've been repeatedly warned about WP:SYNTHESIS

Please don't combine materials (by scanning through the Jstor database with the input "Yoni vagina") and form a statement which is not explicitly stated in the source. For instance, the source you cited doesn't explicitly deal with the etymology or meaning of the word yoni. The cited content deals with the translation of some medical text.

Cite the sources that specifically deal with the meaning of the word in different contexts and refrain from WP:SYNTHESIS Onkuchia (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

References

@Onkuchia, शिव साहिल, and Kautilya3: It seems neither Onkuchia and शिव साहिल understand the WP:Synthesis guideline, unlike Kautilya3 who does. Let me quote it for you:

Quote: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."

If the source states "yoni (vagina)" or "yoni (vulva)" or so on, these sources are explicitly stating yoni to mean these. What new conclusion does this article reach or imply where this and similar sources are cited, that the sources do not? If you allege that I am doing WP:Synthesis, you should identify with edit diffs what "new conclusion" have I reached/implied that the source does not. As Kautilya3 correctly mentions, your "preferential" claim above is synthesis (as are your primary meaning / secondary meaning allegations above), because the source does not make such a conclusion and it is your personal new conclusion. FWIW, I have already provided multiple sources that discuss the various meanings of yoni in more detail. For this article, we cannot ignore the meaning of yoni in Sanskrit/Prakrit medical texts, mythological texts, religious texts, drama and arts, temple design, kama and sex-related texts, and other literature where the terms linga and yoni sometimes are used. Since you allege that you have warned me already, I welcome you to approach a dispute noticeboard or try WP:AN / WP:ANI or whichever board you prefer where I will join you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(ps) The article should not limit it to the meaning "womb", because [a] that is only one side/meaning per numerous cited sources and we do not take sides per NPOV; [b] the Sanskrit word garbha (गर्भ) means the "womb" in several contexts (embryo, temple, etc). Dasgupta, it seems, has been an ethnographer-academic at University of Sussex, University of West London and University of Westminster whose article appeared in an encyclopedia edited by others and published by Rowman & Littlefield. If Dasgupta got elected to an office, that is not a disqualification under our content guidelines. But that you, Onkuchia, selectively highlighted "politician" part earlier, that was inappropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

Your conclusion:Yoni is a Sanskrit word that also refers to the female sexual organs "womb, uterus, vagina, vulva", or alternatively to "origin, source" of anything in other contexts.

The source you cited (New look at the Tocharian B medical manuscript IOL Toch 306) is the mere translation of some medical text. Like I said, it is not specifically defining the term in various contexts. The way you are citing sources is akin to citing translated religious texts to define words. Moreover, the source does not explicitly state "Yoni word refers to womb, vulva, or origin".

Well. I have not made any distinction in terms of primary or secondary meanings. I only intend to highlight the meaning in the most literal sense. However you prefer to censor that part for obvious reasons. As for the Britannica source, it reads: 'Sanskrit: “abode,” “source,” “womb,” or “vagina”'. So "Yoni word refers to source, abode, womb, or alternatively to vagina" would be the obvious version. Onkuchia (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Onkuchia: Technically, we can write "Sometimes yoni refers to the vulva.[1][2] Sometimes yoni refers to the vagina.[2][3] Sometimes yoni refers to the uterus.[1][4][5] ...." That is a crude style. It is succinct and a better style to compose the same information in our own words in the way this version of the lead does. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• (responding to ping) I haven't yet read the complete discussion above, but is there a reason the literal/root meaning of the term is discussed twice in the lede? First as The word yoni, in its most literal sense... other female organs of generation. and then as Yoni is a Sanskrit word... in other contexts. We obviously need to explain both the religious/metaphorical meaning (which makes the subject notable) and the literal meaning (since the metaphor derives from that) and should be able to find a way of writing that up gracefully instead of the disjointed and ref-bombed version currently in the lede. I'll try to help (at least as a sounding board), but it may be Friday till I can read all the prior dicussion and check the cited sources. Abecedare (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Abecedare: That would be most welcome. Please take your time. Emphasizing or exclusively stating "literal meaning is womb" from one source, when de-emphasizing or suppressing other sources that state yoni "literally means vulva", "literally vagina", literally "female sexual organs", and so on creates NPOV issues. We need to, as you rightly state above, summarize all these meanings, plus the metaphorical/religious ones, and do so gracefully for the sake of the reader. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Abecesare: The source says the word yonī, in its most literal sense, refers to the womb, both in a physiological (human womb) and metaphorical sense (any place of origin). I had already explained this[7] in a most simplistic approach. Onkuchia (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The James Lochtefeld source does state that in its most literal sense yoni is womb, but many others don't, and many others state yoni to be literally vulva, vagina, or something else. Just a few weeks ago, Onkuchia, you questioned the reliability and appopriateness of the Lochtefeld source and demanding his view be suppressed in favor of your POV/wisdom/prejudice which you felt was supported by Pollock. As I have explained, and there is no need to keep repeating the same thing in this and every article, wikipedia considers NPOV as a core policy and we rely on multiple sources and multiple scholars, along with the context therein, to establish what the mainstream scholarship is stating. We then summarize the mainstream peer-reviewed scholarship, the majority view and significant minority views, in accordance with our other content guidelines to the best of our collaborative abilities. So, if Onkuchia or another editor disagrees with Lochtefeld or similar sources in one article we can't suppress that view, and if Onkuchia or another editor agrees with Lochtefeld in another article we can't emphasize just Lochtefeld and exclude everyone else. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2023 and 22 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NominallyNaomi (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Bunny322 (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)