Template talk:Ayyavazhi

This template should complament Template:Ayyavazhi large better as they are showm on the same pages. As it is now they are too silmilar and where they differ they often leave red-links! It should be more in the templates on Hinduism The series temp is smaller and deals with broader issues and the topic temp has lots of detailed links--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

condensing

• In the Template:Ayyavazhi, there are links to pages that are no more than a list of empty pages and two line stubs. It is misleading the users to have a grandiose template with numerous links to empty pages. It also borders on spamming. Links to Ekam, Vethan, Thirumal, Sivan, and The Trinity all point to Hinduism pages or disamb pages and are not specific to Ayyavazhi and so they were removed.

• The template was condensed further to make it more usable by removing links to empty pages or stubs. You can put these links back when the stubs are expanded. I have seen no activity on these pages in months. What is the point in keeping the links on this template. They were removed due to this reason.

- Parthi 23:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think, Once there were seperate pages for Ayyavazhi's Sivan Vethan and Thirumal and after a series of Discussion All were merged in to Siva, Brahma and Vishnu and then into Trimurthi. Recently an user backing up the discussions in the talk pages of Ayyavazhi and India went on deleting all Ayyavazhi links into even theology articles saying, merely "Ayyavazhi is not notable" . Like wise in the Thrimurthi article. So here the template links to hindu articles, Siva, Brahma and Vishnu. - Paul Raj 07:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And how is Ayyavazhi a notable religion to include in the hundreds of pages it was included in the first place? It is not even a recognised religion in India. It is not well known outside one or two districts of Tamil Nadu. How can you include Ayyavazhi on par with Hinduism, Jainism and Sikism? See Notability- Parthi 08:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

After reading Wikipedia Notability, I found the conclusion mainly as "Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research." - (A whole article or a part.) and on Verifiability.

I completely accept. But consider not only online but also offline. There are a series of Historians (outside Ayyavazhi) and a set of university publications see Ayyavazhi as a seperate religion. Besides this the LMS Report of about more than 60 years focusing Ayyavazhi. Many of them view Ayyavazhi outside Hinduism. Take care, the LMS Missionaries are of nagative views on Ayyavazhi. Which means, the vision on Ayyavazhi from LMS is a Vision from opposite pole on Ayyavazhi. So the LMS reports is the most valuable source in this matter.

Over all, once the offline sources are considered, then the vision on Ayyavazhi will remain unbiased (for wiki).

Then for official recognition, If a religion have more than some 7000 worship centers running and have a particular crowd behind, If they say themselves says that they were of 'X' religion and say that they don't care about the official recognition, Does they considered as adherents of some other religion(here in wikipedia)?

There are a series of Historians and university reserchers saying that as a seperate religion. Besides this the LMS Reports as peaks. All these could be used as virifiable sources and hence notability may not be a problem.

If I call my self not as a Hindu and as an Ayyavazhi follower and this is evedent from the above told sources, the matter of official recognition only falls next to my vision on myself(proved by universities).

University reserch is treated most seriously than the official considerations. Even as per the verifiability. Because a reserch reflects the very basement of the religion while the recognition comes only after a series of claimes. Wiki NPOV places such Research and only then the official recog. - Paul Raj 21:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I must confess that I didn't understand much of what is written above. Verifiability means something that can be independently verified as being published in an independent source. It need not even be true. None of the hundreds of Ayyavazhi pages offer any more citatation than the LMS report and its own religious scriptures written in Tamil. Also, you are confusing notability with verifiability. These two different criteria. Something may be verifiable and may be included in WP. I have no problem in the Ayyavazhi articles as they are. But this faith is not notable to be included in hundreds of remotely related articles such as Menstruation, Duryodhana, Vegetarianism, etc. This is proseletysing.

• What is your proof for the 7000 worship centres?
• It does not matter what a group of people consider themselves as. To be acceptable in wikipedia, they must be officially recognised by an independent, reliable and neutral authority. Otherwise every Tom, Dick and Harry can start their own little religion and insert thousands of stub articles in WP, thereby self perpetuating their notability. This cannot be allowed to happen.
• Please cite your sources for the university research papers regarding Ayyavazhi.
• Do you honestly believe that Ayyavazhi is big enough to be included at the same level as Sikhism, Jainism, etc?

-Parthi 22:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)