Talk:Āryāvarta

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: History Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Hinduism Mid‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 17:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh[edit]

It has been discovered that this book:

Gupta, Om. Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Gyan Publishing House, 2006. ISBN 8182053897, 9788182053892.

Contains significant amounts of material plagiarized from Wikipedia articles. (Some other books from the same publisher also have this problem). There is no practical way of determining which material came from Wikipedia, and which came from other sources. Further, widespread plagiarism is an indication of poor scholarship. For those reasons, and according to Wikipedia policy, WP:CIRCULAR, I will deleting all citations to the book. However I will not delete the material that cites it, as there's no indication that the material is inaccurate. For more background, see WP:RSN#Circular references: Gyan Publishing and ISHA Books, or the archive it goes there. Will Beback talk 22:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but why have you deleted ref from book written by Bijay Chandra Mazumdar ? Rajkris (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

A user has reverted this source found at this location:

http://books.google.com/books?id=am3XAAAAMAAJ&q=Aryavarta+Cyrus+the+Great&dq=Aryavarta+Cyrus+the+Great&hl=en&ei=2NYTTsLzJOrf0QHU9rn4CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ

Unfortuantely the source does not show the entire text in this link. You can find a snippet view on this location:

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=Aryavarta+Cyrus+the+Great&btnG=Search+Books

I like a general consensus on how people feel on this? I am going to go back and make a slight alteration stating that "Some soruces argue." Let me know how u feel. Thank you Dr. Persi (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your source do not say it is Cyrus who gave that name.Rajkris (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read a bit on this and could not find anymore than the source above on this. My aformentioned source DOES state the point however it is only one source and from what I have read in the literature it is not widely accepted. No matter that portion about Cyrus the Great would not be mentioned unless I find a more robust source. However I have added new content which you have also reverted. Why? This content has nothing to do with Cyrus the Great and is basically an expansion on the article itself. Maybe you were to hasty to revert it? I have reverted the version to the link itself. Please read it and you can actually click on it and go to the page for that content on Google books. How is that?

Also I have a request. Please assume good faith and avoid confrontation. I am only interested in the article and we are all trying to better its quality so lets work together instead? Thanks Dr. Persi (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then i advise you to rewrite your sentence according to what is written in your ref. The ref says it is 19th century theory. This theory is no longer accepted by scholars.Rajkris (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, rewritten. How about this? Dr. Persi (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better than before.Rajkris (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I read the source, it says nothing that this view point is wrong, but that it is "old." Also I tried to find a "modern" view on what the origin of Aryavarta is and aside from stating the same poitns that is in the article not much formulated. What can you do with limited sources? Dr. Persi (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed[edit]

Rajkris you seem to know a lot about Aryavarta so why are you not providing the sources? Why is there two citation needed tags? Why not replace them with applicable sources?

Here are some ideas but I really have little clue ont he general topic (as far as it concerns Modern India and such) so here are some suggestions:

http://books.google.com/books?id=aLh_0iJDs4sC&pg=PA175&dq=Aryavarta++Pata%C3%B1jali's+Mah%C4%81bh%C4%81%E1%B9%A3ya&hl=en&ei=r-4UTqWqHYnfgQfb9bT-BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=efaOR_-YsIcC&pg=PA220&dq=Aryavarta++Pata%C3%B1jali's+Mah%C4%81bh%C4%81%E1%B9%A3ya&hl=en&ei=r-4UTqWqHYnfgQfb9bT-BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Dr. Persi (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just too busy... I will check your refs. Thanks you.Rajkris (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Out-group understanding"[edit]

@सत्याचेअरक्षक: you have twice modified or removed sourced info diff diff, the second time removing (bold)

The text defines the area as the place where the "good" people are born, with "goodness" being dependent on location rather than behaviour.^[1]

References

^ Killingley, Dermot (2007). "Mlecchas, Yavanas and Heathens: Interacting Xenologies in Early Nineteenth-Century Calcutta". In Franco, Eli; Preisendanz, Karin (eds.). Beyond Orientalism: The Work of Wilhelm Halbfass and Its Impact on Indian and Cross-cultural Studies. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 125. ISBN 978-8-12083-110-0.

stating

REFRAIN from using out-group understanding that might imply racial or ethnic supremacy. Concepts of "supremacy" have no place for people who are stereotyped to be cow worshippers and tree huggers, and are entirely imposed from the culture of the non-group observers.

What is the "out-group understandig here? Scholarly studies by non-Hindus? If so, Wikipedia uses WP:RS, not ethnically approved texts.
What do you mean with "might imply racial or ethnic supremacy"? That seems to be exactly what the Manusmṛti implies.
Who are supposed to be "cow worshippers and tree huggers"?
The "Concepts of "supremacy"" are not imposed by scholars, but by ancient Brahmanism.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The text defines the area as the place where the "good" people are born, with "goodness" being dependent on location rather than behaviour" is grossly misleading argument, expecially the "rather than behaviour" at the end.

This implies a false dichotomy of either location or behaviour, but it is the culture, values and rite of passage of a location that moulds behaviour of individuals from that location.

Supremacy of brahmanism exists only based on one's actions and qualities (guna and karma). What the author seems to imply with the exclusive OR (location rather than behaviour) is racial or ethnic supremacy, which is what most europeans impose on other cultures the allegedly "study". सत्याचेअरक्षक (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the source? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source talks about 19th century situation and commentary, which is not an authority on vedic period (pre 1000 BC, if you believe european historians that essentially made all civilizations from India to Egypt and China be 5000 year old, because bible says the world is 6000 year old).

Can current situation and practices be assumed to exist even back then, considering the amount of corruption in varna system and social engineering by various invaders to break apart and convert hindu population in the last 500 years. सत्याचेअरक्षक (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19th century? How? Anyway, I did check the source, and you're right, that is, on the first part of your argument: the territorial designation refers to the area where the good people come from, that is, the twice-born who adhere to the Vedic dharma. I have adapted the sentence consequently. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Killingley, Dermot (2007). "Mlecchas, Yavanas and Heathens: Interacting Xenologies in Early Nineteenth-Century Calcutta". In Franco, Eli; Preisendanz, Karin (eds.). Beyond Orientalism: The Work of Wilhelm Halbfass and Its Impact on Indian and Cross-cultural Studies. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 125. ISBN 978-8-12083-110-0.

[1]