![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that has been
merged and now targets the page: • Upanishads Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Upanishads Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I copied Yeditor's rant on Upanishads and placed it here. Bakaman Bakatalk 15:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Removed neutrality dispute tag. There is no dispute. the sources are cited and world famous
Yeditor
10:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Reverted vandalism by subhash bose.
Yeditor
04:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
See commentor above. He is the reason its not merged, otherwise anti-Hindu POV leachate would pollute the Upanishads article. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. This article is full of anti-Hindu POV. To convey a neutral tone, any reasonable author should also provide links to critique's rebuttals.
Arguing that this article is POV, and that therefore it should not be merged with Upanishad, is a poor argument. If the articles are merged, more people will read this text (Upanishad gets more traffic than this article). When more people read a text, the POV is eventually corrected. If it stays at this obscure article, the POV text will remain intact. — goethean ॐ 14:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I looked up the source cited in the article and realized that the article is mistitled and IMO misrepresented Dr. Ambedkar's views. While it is true that Har Dayal (and Aldous Huxley) criticized the Upanishads; Dr. Ambedkar was only questioning the effectiveness of their teachings, especially as a counterweight to inequality preached by Manusmriti. For instance, note the use of the word "notwithstanding" in the following quote from the source:
"It is therefore incontrovertible that notwithstanding the Hindu Code of Ethics, notwithstanding the philosophy of the Upanishads not a little not a jot did abate from the philosophy of Hinduism as propounded by Manu."
So in my opinion these views should be merged with the main Upanishad article perhaps under a "Commentary" (not "Criticism") section which includes balancing views from other reliable sources. Abecedare 07:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
the passage needs to be cleaned up for WP:NPOV, quite regardless of merging or not merging; NPOV concerns are no reason for or against a merge. dab (𒁳) 13:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that has been
merged and now targets the page: • Upanishads Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Upanishads Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I copied Yeditor's rant on Upanishads and placed it here. Bakaman Bakatalk 15:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Removed neutrality dispute tag. There is no dispute. the sources are cited and world famous
Yeditor
10:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Reverted vandalism by subhash bose.
Yeditor
04:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
See commentor above. He is the reason its not merged, otherwise anti-Hindu POV leachate would pollute the Upanishads article. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. This article is full of anti-Hindu POV. To convey a neutral tone, any reasonable author should also provide links to critique's rebuttals.
Arguing that this article is POV, and that therefore it should not be merged with Upanishad, is a poor argument. If the articles are merged, more people will read this text (Upanishad gets more traffic than this article). When more people read a text, the POV is eventually corrected. If it stays at this obscure article, the POV text will remain intact. — goethean ॐ 14:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I looked up the source cited in the article and realized that the article is mistitled and IMO misrepresented Dr. Ambedkar's views. While it is true that Har Dayal (and Aldous Huxley) criticized the Upanishads; Dr. Ambedkar was only questioning the effectiveness of their teachings, especially as a counterweight to inequality preached by Manusmriti. For instance, note the use of the word "notwithstanding" in the following quote from the source:
"It is therefore incontrovertible that notwithstanding the Hindu Code of Ethics, notwithstanding the philosophy of the Upanishads not a little not a jot did abate from the philosophy of Hinduism as propounded by Manu."
So in my opinion these views should be merged with the main Upanishad article perhaps under a "Commentary" (not "Criticism") section which includes balancing views from other reliable sources. Abecedare 07:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
the passage needs to be cleaned up for WP:NPOV, quite regardless of merging or not merging; NPOV concerns are no reason for or against a merge. dab (𒁳) 13:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)