Talk:Rigveda/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

ordering of article

The Rig Veda is a core shastra for Hindus. As such, the importance of this book should be discussed first prior to analyzing its layout, etc. This is why I changed the order. Kkm5848 (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is not written for Hindus, not only because WP is an encyclopedia with world-wide scope and readership, but also because the Hindu who needs this article to learn about the RgVeda is probably in deep trouble already. And you have not addressed the substance of Abcedare's argument. rudra (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Kkm5848, to expand on my edit summary

• Your version inexplicably talked about the content of the 10 mandalas of Rigveda without even defining "mandala"; refers to "verse 3.62.10" without first defining what that notation means; etc.
• More importantly in an encyclopedic article it is better to organize the content in a top-down fashion, rather than jump into presenting the details without orienting the reader. For example, if one is writing an article on the Shakespeare canon (which is a "core" component of English literature, just as Rigveda is a "core shastra for Hindus"), one would begin by talking about how many plays and sonnets he wrote and how the former are classified as tragedies, histories and comedies, instead of jumping into a content analysis of Hamlet etc. Similarly, when writing about the Rigveda it is important to begin by providing basic information, such as, "The Rig Veda consists of 1,028 hymns", "It is organized in 10 books", "It is preserved by two major shakhas" and its remarkable oral tradition.

Hope this makes the reason for the reverts clear. If you still believe your approach is better, I would encourage you to first work on a internally consistent version of the Rigveda article in your userspace, instead of making cut-and-paste edits to this well-developed article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

some thought has gone into the arrangement of content in this article. Of course it can be discussed and improved, intelligently, with a view to improving article quality. What Kkm5848 is doing is nothing of the kind, but rather thoughtless WP:POINT. His brief overall history of edit warring and sockpuppeteering really establishes him as the sort of editor best ignored. dab (𒁳) 11:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Coming from Dbachmann I almost feel complimented...thank you for yet another violation of WP policy on name calling! Kkm5848 (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

chuckle, "another" is basically an admission that I am right. I have no interest in finding whose sock you are, and I guess we'll meet Kkm5849 as soon as this account is banned as a sock? dab (𒁳) 15:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, to a certain extent we have a tail-wagging-dog problem here. The Rgveda is "important" in two distinct (albeit related) ways: one religious (as an object of reflexive veneration in Hinduism) and the other philological (as a text). The religious aspect is purely dogmatic: precious little is really relevant to modern Hinduism, but not only will this never be admitted, to the contrary it will be insisted that this "importance" be emphasized to the exclusion of most everything else. However, the bulk of scholarly literature is on the philological aspect, which of course leaves the average blog-fed science student Hindu mystified and outraged that the article isn't steeped in reverential cant. rudra (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Same basic issue (the religious versus the philological), different take: this discussion. It's all over the place, and one reason why so many articles are in bad shape. rudra (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in downplaying the religious significance: this article should and does state the text is important to Hinduism, right in the lead. After this has been stated, it is time to give background on the text itself. The religious importance in current Hinduism cannot just be stated, it needs to be referenced to Indological literature. Our section "Vedantic and Hindu reformist views" badly needs an academic reference. Now even if we did find some paper on "the significance of the Rigveda in 20th century Hindu revivalism", it would hardly be advisable to treat this (chronologically latest) topic before we treat the text and its contents itself. dab (𒁳) 15:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

significance in Hindu revivalism

ok, this may be quotable: Signifying Sanskrit in Hindu Revivalist and Nationalist Discourse, Adi Hastings, Departments of Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Chicago:[1]

The primary textual sources for Dayananda’s vision of his new rational Vedism are his magna opera, Satyarth Prakash (Light of Truth; 1st ed. 1874, 2nd ed. 1878) and the Rigvedadi Bhashya (Commentary on the Rigveda, etc.;13 1877-1899). In both of these texts, Dayananda elaborates a vision of a pure monotheistic Vedic religion which once had held sway over the entire subcontinent, a religion in which caste is based purely on merit, in which idols and icons have no place -- there is only the fire sacrifice. The Vedas for their part, become the canonical texts, the scripture, the sole source of truth and universal revelation, the ultimate origin of all science and knowledge ... Dayananda tended to dismiss entirely Western scholarship on Sanskrit, as when he ridicules Max Müller’s interpretation of certain Rigvedic words in Satyarth Prakash (Dayananda Saraswati 1970: 281-282).

detailed discussion of this belongs on the Swami Dayananda and Hindu revivalism articles, but we can certainly mention the role of the Rigveda (and notably and ironically Müller's edition of it) in the formative phase of Hindu revivalism. If nothing else, coverage of Dayananda's books and their impact certainly helps to elucidate a whole lot of confused pov-pushing, trolling and general misbehaviour on Wikipedia today, 130 years after he wrote them. This is rather amazing. A bit as if we got swarms of sworn-in Catholics giving Wikipedia in general grief over the tenets of the First Vatican Council (1870), touting papal infallibility on barely related articles such as Book of Amos. dab (𒁳) 15:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

>>>>[[You should delete this comment only if you delete Dab's above comment, otherwise understand that you are just misusing the wikepedia's guidelines saying this is no "forum for discussion" to keep your biases in and other people's opinion out of these pages.]] Dab who told you mathematically, in "no more no less" terms what or who "Will Durant" was? You should assume this much authority on Will Durant when you know history at least as much as he knew. If I do a PhD in oriental history from a good university, I can write that all historians, mainly those who pander to Christian opinions, are fake historians, but still one shouldn't use that as a reference to discredit all the history written by such historians. Lot many things can be proved independently. What is it in above sentence that Will Durant said and you consider inaccurate. Sanskrit is already considered mother of indo-iranian languages (although tamil might be equally old), definitely there should be a mother of sanskrit as well, but what is your problem with this. Further mathematicians do know and admit that initial Mathematics including decimal numbers reached from India to europe through Arabs. Disparaging Will Durant, just because so many westerners find his statements offending because it lessen the Western/Christian importance is not sufficient reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skant (talk • contribs) 19:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Madhava

{{editsemiprotected}} The name of Madhava's work is Rig Veda Bhashya.

Thanks for that information. Do you have a reference to support that fact? Josh Parris 11:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The anon is right that we need more information on the pre-Sayana commentaries. I have produced a footnote (the Vishva Bandhu edition of the 1960s), but more detail would be welcome. This is an obscure topic and details are a bit difficult to find online. --dab (𒁳) 11:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Madhvacharya's Rigveda Bhasya has shown the true purport of the Vedas here is one such link. http://srinivasa-kalyana.blogspot.com/2011/03/rigveda-bhashya-agni-sukta.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vayuhari (talk • contribs) 18:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Editions?

It would be of great interest if someone could compile an overview of published editions of the Sanskrit text for this article. 108.56.216.210 (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

When Wikipedia Should Understand Its Limits ????

Veda literally translates to first, final, full, complete, comprehensive (add more words on the same lines), eternal knowledge. If one imagines the space of all knowledge, then such a space of all knowledge can be imagined to be pre-existing. Humans through research and meditations may find some of this knowledge and state the same in a language.

The goal of Wikipedia resonates with the principle of Vedas.

In ancient times, people who could meditate and tap into such knowledge were referred to as Rishis. Sanatana Dharma (contemporarily misunderstood as Hindu Religion) talks of Vedas and Upa Vedas. Vedas are said to be apaurusheyas, apaurusheyatva, or those that have not been conceived by humans. An article on "Rig Veda" starts of on the wrong track - ( Unfortunately, the sound "Aru" is missing in English, the closest English Name is "Rrukveda" ). This article is a shame on wikipedia as it does not even start with the meaning of this word, for good reason - that would send the article in a totally different direction.

Who wrote wikipedia ? None ? Many ? Actually no one ! Wikipedia only replicates existing referencible knowledge. Wikipedia explicitly disallows original research.

That is the exact principle of the Vedas. Vedas just replicate in human speech pre-existing knowledge discovered by Rishis through meditation.

This article about probably the most ancient continuously existing knowledge spoken by a human being, is given so little attention by the most recent attempts to compile an ocean of knowledge based on pre-existing information available to humans.

This is one article that will determine if Wikipedia will be around 10,000 years from now.

Cheers ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnanajyothi (talk • contribs) 14:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request for Dating section

I see that wikipedia has not tagged the dating section disputed and authenticity challanged. People in India are working on these issue and prominent among them are Benaras Hindu University, Scindia Prachya Vidya Sansthaan Ujjain etc. Until we come to final conclusion, this section must be tagged disputed right away.220.255.1.107 (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see so many talk sections on Dating of Rig Veda

I am glad to see that people of India are taking up this issue and contributing whatever they can in the best possible way. Like Aryan Invasion Theory which is been disproved by Genetic Studies recently conducted in 2011(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_Archaeogenetics_of_South_Asia) section Reconstructing Indian Population History; - Dating of Vedas by Westerns shall also fall apart ; I do not understand if the western society has limited understanding of the histroy and mundane affairs, why they think that their opinion is the truth and others have just figment of their imagination? As the more techniques will be available in the future, we will be able to prove our stand that RkVed was 'TRANSCRIBED' much earlier than the contemporary thought of timeline.Saarleya (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In the article, it is stated that "Debate on alternative suggestions on the date of the Rigveda, typically much earlier dates, are mostly taking place outside of scholarly literature". That is blatantly untrue. Most of the alternate dates are coming from scholarly community itself. The same prejudice which manifests itself in 'Aryan migration theory' is also manifesting here. Any theory which does not confirm to the 'Aryan migration theory' is automatically labelled as "taking place outside of scholarly literature". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.165.71 (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request for Organisation section

38% + 15% + 9% + 37% = 99% What's the last 1%, introduction texts or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.194.58 (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Clear linguistic evidence refuting the The Aryan Migration hypothesis

Nicholas Kazanas have provided a great and clinical paper on linguistic facts from rigved which easily gives the idea. The article Rigvedic all-inclusiveness provides ENOUGH DATA which can make any rational man believe the true happening instead of the academic theory. summing up the value of rigved we get- The rgveda contains and seems to preserve more common elements from the Proto-Indo-European Culture than any other branch of the family. This essay examines various points of language, poetry and philosophy but it focuses mainly on grammatical elements, lexical and syntactical, and on aspects of (fine) poetry. This is one aspect showing that Vedic and its culture is much closer to the PIE language and culture than any other branch in that family. Moreover, it shows that it is most unlikely that Vedic moved across thousands of miles over difficult terrains to come to rest in what is today N-W India and Pakistan, in Saptasindhu or the Land of the Seven Rivers. Certain other aspects show that Iranian moved away from Vedic and Saptasindhu and most probably the other branches did the same at a very distant but undetermined period. Finally, monotheism is also a notable feature in the RV despite its pronounced polytheism. The paper also gives many important linguistic data like of- Significant difference between Vedic and Avestan. Vedic redupl : ta-tak-a ‘has fashioned’, da-dar+a ‘has seen’; Av tata"a; simple : veda ‘has known, knows’; Av va,9a; periphr : gamay%&' cak%ra ‘has caused someone to go’ (AV 18.27.2); mantray%m %sa (Br%hma3as etc) ‘has advised’: i.e. main verb, fem. acc sing + auxiliary k4- ‘do’, as- ‘be’. BUT in this form – Av has only with ah- (=S as-) ‘be’: %stara yeint2m + ah- ‘must have corrupted’. Since Av has only verb + aux ah-, this indicates that Av separated from Vedic after Vedic developed as- as auxiliary. Otherwise Vedic would have aux as- first! Let us see. Mainstream doctrine teaches that original homeland of IEs is the Pontic (South Russian) Steppe, just above the Black Sea. But the direction of movement should be reversed. According to the mainstream Doctrine (the Aryan Invasion/Immigration Theory, actually), the Indo-Iranians formed one unified people then and moved to Iran passing from the Urals. Then the Indoaryans left the common Iranian homeland and moved into Saptasindhu c1500 BCE. (For a detailed discussion, see Bryant 2001.) But if this is true, then they should have had developed first the periphrastic perfect with auxiliary verb as- ‘to be’ like the Iranians, and afterwards the aux k4-. This evidence shows that first they developed main verb + auxiliary k4-RAI 6 in Atharva Veda and long afterwards main verb + aux as- in the Brahma,as. Since the Vedics and Iranians are supposed to have been together and since they certainly appear to share so many features in common, this means that they, the Iranians, left the common fold, not the IAs (Indo-aryans)! and also this- Eight words of closest human relations. 1. brother : S bhr%&t4, Av br%t%r-; Toch pracar; Arm elbayr; Gk phrat,r; It fr%ter; Celt brathir; Gmc bro9ar; Sl bratr4; Lith broter-; Not Hit. (Note: It = Italic, mostly Latin.) 2. daughter : S duhit&4; Av dug

dar-/du#9<r-; Toch ck%car; Arm dustr; G thugát,r; It futir; Gmc daúhtar; Lith dukte Sl d4"ti. Not Hit, Celt. 3. father : S pit&4 ; Av pitar/(p)tar-; Toch p%car; Arm hair; Gk pat7r; It pater; Celt athir ; Gmc fadar . Not Baltic (=Lith or Lett), Sl, Ht. 4. husband, lord : S p"ti ; Av pa i

ti"; Toch pats; Gk posis ; It potis (=capable); Gmc –fa0(s); Lith pats/patis; Sl –pod4. Not Arm, Celt, Hit (but Hit pat -‘just’). 5. mother : S m%t&4 ; Av m%t%r-; Toch m%car; Arm mair; G m7t,r; It m%ter; Celt m%thir; Gmc m/dor; Sl mati., Not Hit; Lith mote ‘wife’. 6. sister : S svás4; Av x$anhar; Toch sar; Arm k5oir; It soror; Celt siur; Gmc swister; Lith sesuo; Sl sestra. Not Hit; Gk eór 'daughter'. 7. son : S s)nú ; Av hunu"; Gmc sunus; Lith s)nus ; Sl syn4; Not Toch, Ht, Arm, G (hui-ó!?), It, Celt. 8. wife/mistress : S pátn2 ; Av pa>n2; G p?tnia ; Lith -patni . Not Toch, Arm, Hit, It, Celt, Gmc, Sl. Only S & Av have them all. Hit has none! Yet comparativists persist in calling Hittite the most archaic IE tongue! How is it possible not to have even one of these nouns for the most common of human relations yet be the most archaic IE tongue? Why would all the others innovate suddenly? (One Anatolian language does have a cognate for “sister”. This is not of help to Hittite.) and there are few others also like the presence of deep monotheistic thoughts in rigved and the deletion of 1200-1500 b.c. IMT by Maxmueller himself!!. I want other guys to see and check the paper and to give me their true views. I finish with the words of Watkins-

“The language of India from its

earliest documentation in the rgveda has raised the art of the poetic figure to what many would consider its highest form”. http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/RAI_Aug_2012.pdf Nirjhara (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hindustan

Is it necessary to mention the area of Hindustan as it is supposedly mentioned in the document?

Twillisjr (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 September 2012

Rigveda should not be italized in the opening sentence of this article because it is a religious text, not a secular book. No other title references in this article are italized, and rightfully so. Thanks 69.244.214.226 (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Done in compliance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Scripture. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 11:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Except that many people think it is a secular book, used as a kind of aural medicine, and not so much as intellectual meaning. It was originally sound (chanted), not a book or written. The sounds were originally used to enliven and heal natural aspects of the mind, body, and environment. The interpretation of the words in the book are just interpretations of what were originally considered natural order, or fundamentals/'blueprints'of nature. The fact that people call some of the words 'gods', just means they saw them as fundamental to life and your own inner body, but part of the body and world ... therefore secular. There was never a time when they were thought of as being separate from the body, and Dr. Tony Nadar's books explain this (eg. "Human Physiology: Expression of Veda and the Vedic Literature". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Wrongs (talk • contribs) 16:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Quote of Louis Renou

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I don't think that this quote "a vigorous (and from our point of view, extremely aberrant) interpretation in the social and political sense" has any true existence, the book is snippet, Renou has cited a source for this opinion, and he cites the ritual Asvamedha as a source. Actual quote:-

"to Dayananda Sarasvati and to his Arya samaj, with a vigorous(and from our point of view, extremely aberrant) interpretation in the social and political sense, and today we would say in the "cultural" 12 sense." (continued with other page 3| Above one is from Page No.4)....

It is unclear whether he is talking about the book, or studies of Dayanand Saraswati, or he is talking about something else. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Figured out, it maybe only one sentence that would explain whole thing. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2014

This has been debated multiple times in this section but the opinions here are biased and not possible to change opinion if the editors are heavily biased. This page will be challenged at the highest level if facts are not considered and content is not edited.

Aryan invasion theory is a fake theory . please remove any references to it

All Indians (aryan / Dravidian ) belong to the same race. Aryan is Sanskrit word , which means gentleman. There was never any link between aryan and European.

Evidences

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/solid_evidence_debunking_aryan_invasion.htm

http://arisebharat.com/2008/01/21/bbc-accepts-that-the-aryan-invasion-theory-is-flawed/

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-new-research-debunks-aryan-invasion-theory-1623744

Amrishnp (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Arjayay (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Characters of the Rig Veda - New Heading under the Rig Veda Article

Just wanted to know what you might think of a "Characters/Principal Actors" section in the Rig Veda article. The article in its present form focuses on the pantheon vs. those individuals on whose behalf the prayers are chanted (King Sudas, Pariksit, Balbutha etc.) I read an article (i chose not to link it here, not knowing it its a copyright infringement, its on Michael Witzels harvard site, entitled Early Indian history: Linguistic and textual parametres" in which Michael Witzel essentially constructs something akin to a "family tree" of Pariksit that is internally referenced within the Rig Veda (ie doesn't reference the later Brahmana/Itihaasa/Puranas etc.). I feel such a section is badly in need. --Gñāna (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a copyright violation to link to websites off wiki.

Note that we have an entire Category:Rig Veda, and we cannot possibly discuss all content related to the Rigveda on this page. I feel that a family tree of Parikshit would be most at home in the Parikshit article, even if it is referenced to the Rigveda.

What you are suggesting could be something analogous to Category:Torah people, i.e. a Category:Rigvedic characters or similar. All articles on characters that figure in the Rigveda could then be so categorized. --dab (𒁳) 16:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

RIG VEDA is 7000-8000 years old!

I tried to edit the RIG VEDA Wikipedia page by inserting the following paragraphs. My information was from a website in particular which is:

http://www.gisdevelopment.net/application/archaeology/site/archs0001.htm 

and other websites in GeneralBut 3 times my attempts were subverted by someone called Rajib (from Bangladesh?). Following which I wrote a letter to him, which follows the main write-up. Please comment on my valid attempt to correct the historic mistakes:

Modern Vedic Scholars believe some of the Hymns of the Rig Veda could be as old as 8000 years, especially the many hymns written in praise of the mighty River Saraswati, which was personified as Saraswati, Goddess of wisdom. With the help of modern sciences Geologists and others have discovered that the river Saraswati, which is no longer perennial, may have dried up gradually starting from 7000 years ago. The process culminated 5000 years ago, leaving behind ample evidence of a mighty river. The whole Indus valley civilisation was actually in the valley of two mighty rivers, flowing down from the glaciers of the Himalayas to the Arabian Sea.

The Saraswati River is believed to have dried up within a relatively short time through a combination of catastrophic tectonic events. The decline of the river appears to have commenced and ended between 5000 and 3000 BCE. It was probably caused by a major tectonic event in the Siwalik Hills of Sirmur region where geological studies have revealed that massive landslides and avalanches occurred. Those movements, linked to uplift of the Himalayas, continued intermittently. One of these events must have severed the glacier connection and cut off the supply of melt water from the glacier to this river; as a result, the Saraswati became non-perennial and dependent on monsoon rains. The Saraswati first converted to disconnected lakes and pools, but ultimately turned into a dry channel bed. The river Saraswati was therefore not mythological, as believed for many years, and its existence and age throws light on the age of the Rig Veda and Hinduism as a whole.

Comment sent to the character called Rajib:

Here is one more web-site which talks about the River Saraswati, and what the Gujarat and Rajasthan Govts are doing to rediscover the 'Mighty Saraswati' on the banks of which the Vedic Civilisation was founded:

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/recent_research_on_the_sarasvati_river.htm

It is high time we start rubbishing the false-preaching of supremacist European historians from the last century. We have to start realising that The Vedic culture of Sindhu-Saraswati river valley is much older that any European culture. Europe was under miles of ice during 35000-9000 BCE anyway, which historians of the last century did not even know. However much guys like you try, it will be ultimately proved that its Vedic culture which has civilised the people of the world, and Sanskrit has travelled all over the world from the Sindhu-Saraswati river civilisation. The fact the there are so many words in Europe that have evolved from Sanskrit prove the fact. For eg.- Dwar-door, danta-denta, naaw-vigyan- navigation, gau-cow, dwo-two, tri-three, pancha-penta, sasta-sexa, sapta-septa, ashta-octa, nava-nova, dasa-deca, deva/ devi-devine, etc etc.. Also know very well, there was no civilisation in Central Asia from where Vedic civilisation came to India. It was all under ice upto 7000 BCE. Indus Valley Civilisation (Sindhu-Saraswati civilisation) is at least 9000 years old. Research Mehrgarh for yourself! I don't know where you are from or who you are. But knowledge about ancient India cannot be subverted by guys like you for much longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BritishIndian (talk • contribs) 21:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

From the "Character" called "Ragib": please adhere to no personal attack policy. Otherwise, you will simply be blocked. Thank you. Signed - the "Chracter called Ragib" --Ragib (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd presume its a lack of knowledge of English and that no personal offence is meant ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't post random nonsense you found on the internet to Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 09:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Section posted here can be challenged but only by fact. Words like "I don't like" , "non sense" does not challenge the fact. Hence, we should accept that the data presented here is correct.

Amrishnp (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Fake Aryan Invasion theory

Aryan invasion theory is a fake theory . please remove any references to it

All Indians (aryan / Dravidian ) belong to the same race. Aryan is Sanskrit word , which means gentleman. There was never any link between aryan and European.

Evidences

• http://www.stephen-knapp.com/solid_evidence_debunking_aryan_invasion.htm
• http://arisebharat.com/2008/01/21/bbc-accepts-that-the-aryan-invasion-theory-is-flawed/
• http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-new-research-debunks-aryan-invasion-theory-1623744

Amrishnp (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC) Amrish

LOL! You read

• Anthony, David W. (2007), The Horse The Wheel And Language. How Bronze-Age Riders From the Eurasian Steppes Shaped The Modern World, Princeton University Press
• Kortlandt, Frederik (1989), THE SPREAD OF THE INDO-EUROPEANS (PDF)

If that's too much, you can start with Peopling of India and Indo-European migrations. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

And now for the "sources": totally not WP:RS

• http://www.stephen-knapp.com/solid_evidence_debunking_aryan_invasion.htm David Frawley, Solid Evidence Debunking Aryan Invasion - David Frawley is as reliable on Indian history as any fairy tale book.
• http://arisebharat.com/2008/01/21/bbc-accepts-that-the-aryan-invasion-theory-is-flawed/ - "arisebharat" says enough, but alas; it refers to the BBC, which mentions "two major theories about the early development of early south Asian traditions", namely "the Aryan migration thesis" and "the cultural transformation thesis that Aryan culture is a development of the Indus Valley culture". They also mention the "archaeological continuity", and conclude "The history of this period is therefore complex. One of the key problems is that no horse remains have been found in the Indus Valley but in the Veda the horse sacrifice is central. The debate is ongoing." Not exactly a rejection of the Aryan migration theory.
• http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-new-research-debunks-aryan-invasion-theory-1623744 - this article is about DNA-research, and the differences between north and south India. Not about linguistics.

Try some serious research, instead of misinformed ad hoc "sources". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I can produce thousands of links but your mind and eyes should be opened to have good discussion here. All the links in my discussion are from reputed news agencies and organization.

Also, Please check these facts

1. Literature: First, the RigVeda. The geographical area of the Rug Veda (Rig Ved) is clearly delineated as North West India; there is no room for any doubt. It specifically mentions the Saraswati as between the Yamuna and the Sutlej, That can only be the Ghaggar river bed. Satellite imagery has established that this used to be a massive river system in the old days. The Rugved does not mention a drying Saraswati, clearly meaning that it must have been written well before 1900 - 2600 BC. There is no mention of either invasion or Migration in the Rugved; if any migration occured, it happened before 3000 BC - if at all. There is also no mention of a central asian landscape in the RugVed; it is specific in that it mentions the Kabul river to the west and the Ganga to the east. There is awareness of the Himalayas.

2. A Radio Metric Dating of the Indus Saraswati places the real age of this civilization to 7200 BC or thereabouts. This was announced by the ASI in an international conference on 5th November 2012. This also suggests that migration did not happen 3500 years ago, or even 9000 years ago.

3. Second, Genetics. a 2006 study clearly identifies that the Indian population has been generally stable for a very long time, and that there has been no major injection of Central Asian Genes for over 10000 years at least. So, if any migration did happen, it was long before settlements emerged, before domestication of the horse, before the Iron or Bronze ages. We are talking about hunter gatherers, small bands of nomads etc. The latest dating of the Indus Saraswati Civilization is 9000 years - as per Radio Metric Dating; the genetic evidence is older by this than 1000+ years at least.

4. The R1a1a gene mutation is found in North India and East Europeans, South Siberia, Tajikistan and North Eastern Iran, A study on this conducted in 2010 found that the oldest strain of the R1a1a branch was concentrated in the Gujarat-Sindh-Western Rajasthan region of India, suggesting that this was close to the origin of the genetic group. A mutation M458 is found in Europeans, but is not found at all in Asians. This M458 mutation is at least 8000 years old, thus lending credence to the observations above

From this we can see that the Aryan Migration never happened; Literary, Archeological as well as genetic evidence all points to the reverse. There is no longer any room for any doubt whatsoever...

Amrishnp (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC) amrishnp

Only believers have no room for doubt. Reasonable people read reliable sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Challenge facts presented by me. There is thin line separating believers and blind followers. I have presented hard facts, try to challenge this.

Amrishnp (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

These are very familiar arguments. What you refer to as "Aryan Invasion theory" is simply the argument that the proto-culture that gave rise to the Vedic hymns entered India at some point at the north west. It doesn't mean that a large proportion of Indians are their descendents any more than the people of Bangladesh must be descendents of Arabs because they are Muslims. The Ghaggar-Hakra River was certainly identified as the Saraswati by most scholars, and generally still is. Since it still exists it's difficult to see why we would have to date the RV 9000BP. Do you have any idea what that would imply? The earliest known chariots are from c2000 BC. The beginnings of the bronze age date to around 3000BC. To have the sophisticated bronze weapons and technology mentioned in the RV would not really be possible for another 1000 years according to the mountains of archaeological evidence that exists. The whole of human history would have to be rewritten - on the basis of what? That the Ghaggar used to be bigger in the stone age?
As for "Radio Metric Dating of the Indus Saraswati" to 7200 BC, no one doubts that the Indus Valley Civilization is ancient, but certainly not as old as 7200 BC. Several websites repeat the same words you use: "Radiometric Dating of the Indus-Saraswati places the real age of this civilization to somewhere around 7200 BC. This was announced by the ASI in an international conference on 5th November 2012." This appears to a garbled version of announcements in 2012 that archaeologists have found evidence of Indus Valley settlements dating back further than hitherto known [2]. The actual finding is that “On the basis of radio-metric dates from Bhirrana (Haryana), the cultural remains of the pre-early Harappan horizon go back to between 7380 to 6201 BCE”. In other words there are remains of stone age settlements predating the early Harappan ("pre-early Harappan"). The precise 7200 BC date does not appear. I expect that's a conflation of this finding with traditional dating of some ancient Hindu kingdom. However, this fact alone should demonstrate to you that the sources you use are dishonest. They misrepresent what the ASI says. Neolithic settlements that have nothing to do with the Rigveda are mutated into ancient civilisations by falsifying what the ASI scholars actually say. Paul B (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No Indian authority / government / Hindu group has accepted this theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghaggar-Hakra_River

"The identification of the Vedic Sarasvati River with the Ghaggar-Hakra River was accepted by Christian Lassen,[3] Max Müller,[4] Marc Aurel Stein, C.F. Oldham,[5] and Jane Macintosh.[6]"

Four self-proclaimed gurus can't get together and conclude on history of a country and its people without consultation / validation with the respective government / people / groups representing this culture.

Standard of Wikipedia is going down very fast. Please upload reliable informaiton {WP:RS}

Amrishnp (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. Scholars do not have to consult the government of any country to make scholarly conclusions about its history. That only happened in countries like the Soviet Union, and it was not a recipe for historical accuracy. It was a recipe for falsification and ideological propaganda. I note that you have not responded to any of the substantive issues. Why don't you read the website I linked to for accurate information about what the ASI said about Harappa? Paul B (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Copied this to the I-E Migration page

Scholars do need to consult respective government / people / groups otherwise so called "scholarly" articles appear more like propaganda Here is another link. This forum seems to have become heavily biased. I can see lot of people have criticized this but the page hasn't been edited. This will be challenged at highest level. http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/amythofaryaninvasionsofindia.pdf Amrishnp (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC) The sources you are quoting are not written by experts on the topic. They are written by people with a political agenda. M. Lal Goel is not a historian nor a linguist. He is a a scholar of politics. If you think scholarly views of history should be decided by consultation with popular opinion and governments you have no idea what scholarship is. No-one other than Hindu nationalists thinks that "out of India" is a viable linguistic scenario. Read WP:RS. Feel free to take this to "the highest level" any time you want. Paul B (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Paul, the accurate assumption would be that there are proponents of different theories, and different type of researchers. Not just Hindu nationalists or western scholars. There are Hindu nationalist who accept the theory based on linguistic and signs. There are western scholars who thinks different. It is has been accepted that Brahminism was popular outside the Indian subcontinent, according to many scholars. IP shouldn't have been responded, and the comment should have been removed. This is not the best place to discuss. Amrishnp, You are sure? I don't think that one of the scholar, Anthony, who has written that Vedas were recited in Syria(during 1500 BCE) had any consent from the Syrian government. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC) I don't know of any scholar who thinks "Brahminism" was popular outside the Indian continent. There are many scholars who think that ancient Indo-European "pagan" religions have certain similarities or links to Vedic Hinduism, which sometimes includes a hereditary caste of priests similar to Brahamins. But the specific Vedic traditions that created Brahminism are unique to India. Indeed, this is one reason why the out of India model is implausible. If it were true, you'd expect to see evidence of specifically Vedic culture outside India, as I-E spread westwards from the Indus. If you can show me evidence of scholars who think otherwise, feel free to present it. Of course there are different theories, but OIT ("Out of India theory") is overwhelmingly motivated and supported by nationalist and "Hinduist" writers. It has no discernible scholarly existence outside of that culture. Paul B (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC) There was consensus to keep the theories, per WP:NPOV on the talk page of Indo-Aryan. We go along with it. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC) I have no idea what you are saying. A consensus to keep theories on the talk page? What does that mean? Paul B (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Consensus on the talk page of Indo-Aryan migration theories that these theories should be mentioned on the article space if they are related with the subject. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC) If you mean I-E migration theories should properly be discussed at the talk page of Indo-Aryan migration, not the Rigveda, you are right. To be fair on the OP he opened discussion at both pages, but it just seems to have "taken off" here. I will copy over the discussion to that page. Paul B (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've copied this to the I-E Migration page. Further discussion should take place there unless the content of this article on the Rigveda is the specific topic at issue. Paul B (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'l also note that consensus on another talk page doesn't automatically affect this article. Dougweller (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2014

Under PARTIAL TRANSLATIONS, please could you add:

A partial translation by Kant is now available as an ebook (A Horse Amongst Donkeys) - available at Amazon/ibooks/Nook/Flipkart/txtr etc. Although the book provides the translation of only 16 hymns, the meaning is very different and make logical sense. The hymns now are no longer obscure ramblings of ancient poets, but very meaningful and story like. This translation is expected to drastically transform the current understanding of the Rigveda. Rigvedadecoded (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, comments on the meaning, logic and ramblings all need citing, whilst the "expectation" would contravene WP:NOTCRYSTAL. - Arjayay (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2015

Dear Author,

Please provide refrences which tell the age of Rigveda 1500 BC in the article directly,

My question is that

"How age of Rigveda will be 1500 BC? As it is mentioning about the Sarasvati River which was in between 5000 BC - 10000 BC . If Rigveda written at 1500BC - 2000 BC then How some one knows that demolished river flows 3000 years ago by the time they write it.?"

Ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarasvati_River

Please provide references if i am in wrong direction.

202.53.69.74 (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: the references are clearly given in the lead:

It is one of the oldest extant texts in any Indo-European language. Philological and linguistic evidence indicate that the Rigveda was composed in the north-western region of the Indian subcontinent, most likely between c. 1500–1200 BCE, though a wider approximation of c. 1700–1100 BCE has also been given.

Notes

References

See Sarasvati river#Drying-up and dating of the Vedas for non-mythological info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Bad ISBN

Because it is causing a Checkwiki error #73: "ISBN-13 with wrong checksum", I removed the ISBN from the entry:

The Hymns of Rig Veda Tulsi Ram 2013 English Published by Vijaykumar Govindram Hasanand, Delhi (ISBN 978-81-7077-155-0)

I have tried unsuccessfully to locate the correct ISBN on the Internet. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It does not appear to have one [3]. The publishers only produce these Vada translations. Paul B (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference to Hinduism

"It is counted among the four canonical sacred texts (śruti) of Hinduism known as the Vedas." I think this sentence in the lede should be changed to "It has come to be counted among the four canonical sacred texts (sruti) of Hinduism known as the Vedas." as (i) the word Hinduism has not been used till 19th century and (ii) there are secondary sources, like D.Chattopadhayaya's Lokayata which argue that Rigveda was an irreligious text which was turned into a theistic text, by interpolating verses, during the Brahmana period. -Mohanbhan (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, the sentence you are objecting to is close to a "Sky is blue" claim and the dating and etymology of the word Hindu is irrelevant to the discussion, at least in the article lead. There is a section dedicated to providing the historical context, and another to outlining Rigveda's place in contemporary Hinduism. Secondly, citing Chattopadhayaya's particular opinions would be undue for this topic, and the article already explains the form and content of the Rigveda. Abecedare (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. Doug Weller (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: You are saying what you are saying because you think I am questioning something that seems very obvious to you, as obvious as "the sky being blue"! The sections you have quoted do not reflect Rigveda's problematic relationship to Hinduism. And I don't know why you say this: "the dating and etymology of the word Hindu is irrelevant to the discussion, at least in the article lead." How is it not relevant can you please explain? You cannot connect a 1500 BC text with a 19th century term -- making a mind-boggling leap of 3,400 years! -- just because 'you think' the connection is obvious. D.Chattopadhayaya is not even talking about Rigveda's link to Hinduism, he is talking about Rigveda's problematic relationship with Sanatana Dharma or Brahminism. So, I am not suggesting the rephrasing of lede based on how Chattopadhayaya sees the whole thing, but on how the Indological scholarship generally views the relationship between Rigveda and Hinduism. -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You cannot connect a 1500 BC text with a 19th century term -- making a mind-boggling leap of 3,400 years! -- just because 'you think' the connection is obvious. If you want to make an argument that the words Hindu and Hinduism are verboten or even deprecated from articles dealing with pre-19th c concepts (Vedas? Puranas? Rama? Karma? Bhakti?...) I am not sure anything I say will convince you otherwise. But I'll make one attempt:

• I am not drawing the link between Hinduism and the Vedas. Virtually every book on Hinduism and/or the Vedas does so. Just to arbitrarily pick a couple of examples out of thousands available, Chapter 3 in Alf Hiltebeitel 2010 book Dharma starts with, "The Rigveda is India’s oldest textual source and the fountainhead of Hinduism." Chapter 3 of Klaus Klostermaier Survey of Hinduism (2007) is titled "The Veda: Revelation and Scripture in Hinduism".
• Even more basically, good writing (and wikipedia stylebook) dictate that the broad context be presented when introducing a topic to a lay reader, and then the nuances and details explained. And for the Rigveda, "old", "Indian", "Sanskrit", "hymns", "Veda", "Hinduism" are the obvious keywords to mention (and again, by obvious I mean that no authoritative source on the topic ever misses any one of these). The details of what exactly is meant by these terms (Indian?, old?,... Hinduism?) is then explained, either in this article or in the specialized page.

Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a huge blind spot. The connection between Rigveda and Hinduism has been taken for granted in these texts and wikipedia only follows secondary sources. So, I guess, nothing much can be done about it, unless other editors also feel like I do: that this connection cannot be made without recognizing that there is a problem in doing so. What surprises me though is how this article goes into technical details like various recensions of texts etc without once mentioning the problematic relationship of this text with Hinduism. Many mainstream Indologists/Sanskritists like Doniger (The Hindus: an Alternative History), Witzel etc have written about this. These are also secondary sources and this scholarship should be reflected in this article. -Mohanbhan (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I see your point. It's the Brahmanical tradition which regards the Vedas to be shruti; and since this Brahmanical tradition has dominated Indian non-Muslim religious life for centuries, it is this same Brahmanical tradition which has the power to define what is "orthodox," or "Hinduism," meanwhile excluding other strands of thought and religious practice, most notably Tantra. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure what you mean by Brahminical tradition "dominated" Indian religious life. Brahminism was challenged by the Upanishadic philosophers who are generally considered as Kshatriya. Brahminical tradition was then surpassed by Buddhism which went on to become the state religion of Ashoka. And until 7th century CE when Adi Shankara came along Buddhism was the dominant religion in India. His influence lasted till late 10th century after which we have the Bhakthi movement spreading from Southern India -- and all of these movements were against (except perhaps that of Sri Chaitanya, but even he was against orthodoxy) Brahminical orthodoxy. So I am not sure how Brahminism dominated non-Muslim religious life. The question simply is this: What in Rigveda supports Brahminical orthodoxy, if Brahminical orthodoxy is taken to be Brahminical ritualism (yagna, yaaga etc) and texts associated with it, the Dharmashastras and the different sub-schools of Vedanta? I have read, out of 1028, only 108 verses of the Rigveda (the Wendy Doniger Penguin translation); since you seem to know the Rigveda better please answer this question. My limited reading of Rigveda tells me that there is little, or nothing, in Rigveda which supports Brahminical orthodoxy. -Mohanbhan (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've read, at best, three verses of the Rg Veda, so you more than I do. But yes, most scholars agree that most of "Hinduism" at best pays lipservice to the Vedas. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Mohanbhan, in his What is Living and What is Dead in Indian Philosophy, Chattopadhyaya addresses the claim that the Upanishadic philosophers were generally kshatriyas; he refutes this claim by giving the example of Yajnavalkya--the most ubiquitous philosopher in the Upanishads--who was a brahmin. It is true that many kings (Kshatriyas) in Upanishadic India took a keen interest in philosophy, but this does not mean that the brahmins were playing a subservient role in philosophy in the Upanishads according to Chattopadhyaya. Soham321 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. That's why I said "generally". I want to read WIDIIP, Chattopadhayaya is an incredibly astute thinker. -Mohanbhan (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

In an earlier edit, Abecedare refers to a book of Klaus Klostermaier. I don't think its a good idea to consider Klostermaier as an authority considering that he holds very controversial opinions like the claim that the Indus Valley Civilization was Vedic (a view not accepted by mainstream scholars), and that India was the cradle of modern civilization.Soham321 (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of Klostermaier's views on that topic (possibly because I have often mixed his name up with Koenraad Elst and may have mentally assigned those views to Elst), and agree that those, while having some currency in some circles, aren't in the scholarly mainstream. But my comment above is not really related to the IVC/Aryan/AIT/AMT debate or dependent upon Klostermaier's book.

In case it is not clear, I am not disputing that Historical Vedic religion differed significantly from medieval/classical/contemporary Hinduism, or that contemporary Hinduism pays greater "lipservice to the Vedas" (in JJ's words) than derive its practices from them etc. My main point is that all this needs to be discussed in the relevant section and article, and not in the article lede, where the claim being made ("It is counted among the four canonical sacred texts (śruti) of Hinduism known as the Vedas.") is frankly non-controversial.

If you are interested an in depth discussion of Vedas position in the Hindu canon (and how they got there), look up Laurie L. Patton's edited volume Authority, Anxiety, and Canon: Essays in Vedic Interpretation or see Barbara Holdrege's Veda and Torah: Transcending the Textuality of Scripture for thoughts on what it means to be a sacred text/scripture in the first place. I don't expect either of those to directly contribute to the discussion of the sentence in the article lead, which IMO is fine as it is, but they could be useful sources for some related articles and are interesting reads, in any case. Abecedare (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. I will try to look them up. Soham321 (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"Transcending the Textuality of Scripture" sounds very intersting; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2015

Please add the following to the external links section. RigVeda Wheel a zoomable visualizer to browse rigveda by subject, books or selections. Lilboox (talk) 10:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Link appears to be dead - please check the URL.  Philg88 ^♦talk 11:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Missing translation: The Complete Rig Veda (Sanskrit Text, English Translation and Explanation) - 12 Volumes Paperback – 2009 by R.L.Kashyap 88Flower88 (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

My apologies if this is the wrong place for this (I've never ventured this far into the edit section of wikipedia before) but I noticed upon reading this page that you are missing a translation:

The Complete Rig Veda (Sanskrit Text, English Translation and Explanation) - 12 Volumes Paperback – 2009 by R.L.Kashyap

Publisher: Sri Aurobindo Kapali Sastry Institute of Vedic Culture; 2009 edition (2009)

ASIN: B00AX883KS

linguistic reconstruction required for Rigveda?

Vedic Sanskrit reads,

"For lack of both epigraphic evidence and an unbroken manuscript tradition, Vedic Sanskrit is one of the languages that can't be translated accurately in this age. Especially the oldest stage of the language, Rigvedic Sanskrit, the language of the hymns of the Rigveda, is preserved only in a redacted form several centuries younger than the texts' composition. Recovering its original form is a matter of linguistic reconstruction", (emphasis mine).

This information seems lacking in this article. Or does this article come from one POV and neglect others? In any case the inclusion of another POV would help prepare readers for articles such as "Speak for itself", a somewhat unfavourable review of Jamison and Brereton's 2014 translation of the Rigveda or A Still Undeciphered Text: How the scientific approach to the Rigveda would open up Indo-European Studies.

WP:Rigveda currently reads,

"The Padapatha and the Pratisakhya anchor the text's fidelity and meaning[21] ... ."

It would appear however that not all RS agree that the meaning of the Rigveda is anchored.

Whilst the current article does contain,

"The Rig Veda is hard to translate accurately, because it is the oldest Indo-Aryan text, composed in the archaic Vedic Sanskrit. There are no closely contemporary extant texts, which makes it difficult to interpret"

this does not convey that much of the Rigveda is currently grossly misunderstood according to some RS. 124.171.199.35 (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@124.171.199.35: thoughtfull comments! Please give it a try (and consider creating an account). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rigveda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0104/ejvs0104article.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Srbinda

Can we have mention of Srbinda in the article? This character is linked by many Austrian and Serbian historians to the Serbian people, as the first historical mention of the word Serb, as having a stark similarity to the modern Serbian word "Srbenda" and according to some historians, is the founder of the Serbian people.

104.34.138.143 (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

European translation section

The 1917 entry for A. A. Macdonell seems incorrect. The linked 1917 text is Macdonell's book A Vedic Grammar. It uses selected hymn passages to teach Vedic grammar, as the title implies. Macdonell's translation of 40 hymns (not 30) entitled Hymns from the Rigveda was published in 1922 by Oxford Univ. Press in London and Association Press in Calcutta. At least three copies can be found on archive.org. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 17:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2016

The link to footnote 84 has now expired. The article can be read by using a different link, http://www.rigveda.co.uk/speak-for-itself.pdf

Barraviola (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Done NgYShung ^huh? 10:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2017

111.68.101.132 (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The exact area described to be as "North Western region of Indian Subcontinent" where Rigveda was composed may clearly be described a s Taxila which was the centre place of Aryan culture and influence. It is here that the religious stalwarts of that time first arranged the teachings contained in Rigveda.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Unclear line under Comparison

"The first mandala is the largest, with 191 hymns and 2,006 hymns, and it was added to the text after Books 2 through 9. The last, or the 10th Book, also has 191 hymns but 1,754 verses, making it the second largest."

I believe this instance of "hymns" is supposed to be "verses" by comparison with the second line. 2,006 surpasses the total number of hymns mentioned in the preceding paragraph, so my guess is that this is a simple typo.

Suggested change to:

"The first mandala is the largest, with 191 hymns and 2,006 verses, and it was added to the text after Books 2 through 9. The last, or the 10th Book, also has 191 hymns but 1,754 verses, making it the second largest."

 Done —DIYeditor (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2017

kjkd 157.50.13.237 (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Addition of translation, and mention of sound of chants

The whole article seems a bit Western-oriented, with Western commentators, translators, etc. getting a lot of lines. Too little is mentioned of the Indians who have kept this book alive. The topic matter has been co-opted by Westerners. For example, "Max Mueller states ..." but "Aurobindo claims ..." -- the word claims casts doubts on the claim that is made.

I don't know why I cannot edit this article directly. But whoever is in charge, please add the following translation: Rigvedam: devi prasadam bhasha bhashyam O. M. C. Narayanan Nambudiripad Malayalam Published by Thrissur : Vadakemadam (also spelt Vadakke Madham Brahmaswom), 1985.

Its translation to English is also available: Rigvedam: bhasha bhashyam O. M. C. Narayanan Nambudiripad Sanskrit to Malayalam to English translation Published by Thrissur : Vadakemadam (also spelt Vadakke Madham Brahmaswom) c1983. Steamengine18 (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Another edit: The long Andrea Pinkney quote in the Contemporary Hinduism section misses an important point. So please add this:

Rig Vedic chants are done every single day in thousands of temples. () Hindus believe that the sound of Vedic chants is more important than the actual meaning. ( gives lots of quotes from the spiritual leader the late Sri Satya Sai Baba.) Steamengine18 (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Thank you for the comments. There were two instances of "claims". I have reworded them per WP:W2W guidelines. The saiveda.net, etc websites and sources are non-RS. Please see WP:RS guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

We can add information on chants as long as it is specific to the Rigveda. Please provide references on this if you can (your references should be from academic publications, as mentioned by Sarah, your urls are of no use). Please note that the topic of Vedic chanting is covered at Vedic chant, not here. Afaik, Frits Staal has written a lot on this, so all you will have to do is check his publications for whatever it is you are interested in and report what you found here, we'll be glad to introduce it to the article. --dab (𒁳) 13:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2018

Add web-link: Hermann Grassmann's Rigveda dictionary: http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/GRAScan/2014/web/webtc2/index.php DKoll (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: There are already existing translations in the EL. Spintendo      22:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a translation, and it's great to have online access to Grassmann's dictionary, certainly worth linking. --dab (𒁳) 10:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct?

"Ruse (2015) commented on the old discussion of "monotheism" vs. "henotheism" vs. "monism" by noting an "atheistic streak" in hymns such as 10.130.[109]"

Is this really correct? 10.130 is construed as atheistic?

180.183.74.169 (talk) 05:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2019

the dates are using BC. Please use BCE [ before the common era] for dates as use of BC is christain oriented. Sujoybhatta (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: see MOS:ERA. aboideau^talk 18:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree that BCE should be used, for the same reason. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Witzel's apology

t/p watchers and @Joshua Jonathan and Kautilya3: Perhaps you have already seen this, at footnote 21, page 262 of this paper, Witzel writes (my reformatting/paraphrasing),

"I take this opportunity to apologize for the innumerable printing mistakes in my two papers [published in] Rigvedic history: poets, chieftains and polities In: The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, ed. by G. Erdosy; Indian Philology and South Asian Studies (ed. by A. Wezler and M. Witzel, vol. 1, Berlin/New York (de Gruyter)), 1995, pp. 307-354 volumes; mistakes that seem to indicate that I even lost competence of my mother tongue, German. At my request, the text was rewritten and corrected by the volume editor but my corrections were, for the most part, not carried out. The Volume has now been reprinted, at an affordable rate, by Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi."

In other words, we should avoid sourcing from that Witzel chapter in this or any other wikipedia article (I see our Helmand River article does, but I have not done a thorough check yet). This article cites Erdosy book too, and I am digging into it to see if we need to correct anything. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing, or quoting? Typos are not that consequential for the info itself, are they? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how "printing mistakes" can make a difference for the substance, unless we are giving direct quotations. In any case, the version on Witzel's web page, which is what we use mostly, seems to be the corrected version. It has a note at the top, saying "[2001, with minor upates, in raised brackets]". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Better if we clarify the corrected version for Witzel (and other scholars, if they release a corrected version of their publication). Instead of "Witzel, Michael (1995), "Rgvedic history: poets, chieftains and polities", in George Erdosy (ed.), The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity, Walter de Gruyter, Sec. 6, p. 338" with a url link to the version with errors (which is what we are doing in that Helmand river article), 'consider, "Witzel, Michael (1995), "Rgvedic history: poets, chieftains and polities" [Corrected 2001], in George Erdosy (ed.), The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity, Walter de Gruyter [Munshiram Manoharlal], Sec. 6, p. 338" and link it to the correct version. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I have added a link to the corrected version. But I still think you are taking this rather too seriously. This kind of "printing errors" (really typesetting errors) are endemic in all edited collections of the time. They stopped only after the publishers agreed to accept electronic versions. The only thing special about Witzel is that he cares about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

K3: Thanks. I haven't checked the difference between the two versions. I sense nor have you! Neither have the time, nor the interest. I hope you are right, but I have come across far more serious "printing errors" (+ an upset scholar). Why not work with the correct version, right from the start. The Munshiram Manoharlal's ISBN for this book: 9788121507905. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

No mention of Ludwig Schlaffli?

Ludwig Schlaffli, a Swiss mathematician and polymath, mainly known for contribution in multidimensional geometry, also translated the Rig Veda in German language. It is worthy of mentioning in this article. 2409:4060:2002:9D5B:0:0:255F:48AC (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Contemporary hinduism section should be deleted and here is why.

There are over many millions (brahmins) who practice sandhyavandanam twice a day. There are many more who practice gayathri mantra. Both these come from the vedas. These rituals/practices have been handed down verbally from generation to generation and is not a contemporary vs ancient practice.

References

It seems the purpose of introducing the term "contemporary hinduism" is to try to alienate the hindus from the vedic text and try to treat it as some sort of foreign text.

Delete this entire section below. Contemporary Hinduism "According to Louis Renou, ...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.64.124 (talk • contribs) 4 july 2020 (UTC)

Nope. It's a common observation that "most Indians today pay lip service to the Veda and have no regard for the contents of the text" (Axel Michaels (2004), Hinduism: Past and Present, Princeton University Press, p.18; see also Julius Lipner (2012), Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, Routledge, p.77; and Brian K. Smith (2008), Hinduism, p.101, in Jacob Neusner (ed.), Sacred Texts and Authority, Wipf and Stock Publishers. The contents, the original meaning, are not important in Hinduism; Hinduism is disconnected from the original meaning, only retaining the form of this root in a changed meaning. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you Joshua , unfortunately that is the eventuallity Shrikanthv (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Max Muller

I understand it is controversial to point out Muller's antagonistic views and their influence on his translation of the Rig Veda, however this information is relevant (and important), especially for those wishing to study a reliable translation of it. I am certain it would be relevant (and important) to know if a translation of a book on evolution, for example, was translated by an openly-hostile creationist. That is the reason why I have added this information. I am also aware of some of Wilson's antagonistic views on the literature he translated (e.g. describing elements of the Vishnu Purana as 'puerile'), but there is no indication (and certainly no admission to my knowledge) that his translations may have been deliberately skewed with the intention of 'uprooting' anything. Carlduff (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, the article should mostly be about the Rigveda and discussing the possible motivations of scholars that have worked on it is a bit of a tangent. But if we really wanted to have a discussion of Müller's motives it should be balanced and guided by reliable secondary sources and not rooted in cherry-picking of quotes from primary sources, such as his personal correspondence. Haukur (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You deleted the previous edit on the basis of it not being cited properly. Then you find another reason to delete it when cited correctly. Seems to me you are being dishonest, Haukur.Carlduff (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

There can be multiple reasons why some content is unacceptable. There is no requirement that some one should list a full list of all that is wrong when reverting an edit. However, you are expected to read and understand all the policies of Wikipedia, as explained in your welcome message. Until that happens, please expect that your content may be reverted for multiple reasons at multiple times by the same or multiple editors.

I basically find your edits as WP:COATRACK, axe-grinding on a scholar, which doesn't belong here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Quite a hostile response, which is unwarranted as is being accusatory and making things personal. I stated Haukar's responses seem to be dishonest, because like yours, they consisted of vague double-speak. I get it that you and the other editors/admins can do anything you want for any reason and without any explanation. I will make it a point to avoid this article and any other articles Haukar and you are interested in. Carlduff (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This edit is unsourced, c.q. not specified, while this edit is WP:SYNTHESIS of quotes from a primary source, suggesting a lack of sound scholarship on the side of Max Muller. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, what is going on here? You are the fourth individual (the third uninvited) to pile in on this. Muller admitted - clearly and in his own words - that he wished to Uproot Vedic culture to pave the way for Christianity, and that his translation of the Rig Veda was intended to achieve this. This is relevant. Yes or no: if you wanted to study a translation of something, wouldn't you consider it pertinent to know if the translator was openly hostile to the subject matter and intended to 'uproot' and replace it with something else (e.g. again, a book on evolution translated by a creationist)? This is how I see it. No axe-grinding, just a clear indication Muller's translation is unreliable. Carlduff (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Any WP:RS for that opinion? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes:

'If our transfer into English does not altogether fail to do justice to Roth's conception and interpretation of the original text, no one, we are sure, can fail to see how greatly inferior is Muller's translation... How much of doubt and uncertainty still hangs over the whole subject may be clearly seen from the discordance, as exhibited above, between versions of the same passage by the two leading Vedic scholars - which discordance appears still more striking when we compare the versions of the other three translations quoted by Muller. Its limits are gradually narrowing, as the Vedic grammar and vocabulary are becoming more thoroughly understood... we heartily wish that Muller might see - what appears plain to many others - that he would hasten on the time of accordance most effectively by giving us as rapidly as possible the results of his efforts at translating, leaving us to infer or conjecture the methods of their attainment... On the whole, we hardly know a volume of which the make-up is more unfortunate and ill-judged, more calculated to baffle the reasonable hopes of him who resorts to it, than the first volume of Muller's so-called "translation" of the Rig-Veda...

— Oriental and Linguistic Studies ...: The Veda. The Avesta. The science of language, Chapter V ('Muller's Rig-Veda Translation'), by William Dwight Whitney (1873), pp. 146-148

References

Carlduff (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Great, 1873. You forgive if I'm not impressed? Especially not since this source says nothing of a Christian bias interferering with Muller's translation? You merely seem to repeat some talking points from the blogosphere: [4] [5]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I am going to attempt to resolve this dispute with you and the others individually on your user-pages; if this is unsuccessful, then a formal dispute will be filed. In your case, you asked for a source and I provided it. Whether it was written in 1873 or 1973 is immaterial. Whether you accept Muller's own admission in his own words is also immaterial since the source clearly evidences concerns with the reliability of Muller's translation, again, as you requested. It is also notable I have been contacted by Doug Weller for "personal attacks" (i.e. calling out demonstrable dishonesty), while it seems you and others here are free to make hostile (and baseless) accusations and personal attacks. FYI, I was unaware of those blogs. Carlduff (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It has been explained that the change I attempted to make could cause trouble, and others have attempted to cause trouble by making similar changes. I get and accept that, so there is no longer a dispute. However, I think experienced editors like yourselves could've handled it better and avoided all this. Carlduff (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion - Carlduff, perhaps it would be better to include some of this content in Max Muller. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I realize this is an older thread but I just wanted to put in my 2 cents. I am having a similar experience while editing Rigveda and citing Lokmanya Tilak as a source. Some of the same editors are involved in finding one reason after another to prevent me from editing the page by calling Tilak unreliable. Their reasons for calling Tilak RS keep changing just like in this case. Max Mueller was absolutely in favor of converting India into a Christian country and had openly stated that to do so one will have to strike at their very root which are the Vedas. This is relevant information and should be included on any Mueller-India-Vedas related articles.ga11 (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Tilak on Veda antiquity

I have been trying to make edits to this page to reflect the researches of Indian scholars on the time period when the Vedas were composed. I tried to add the following edit but it was reverted because a couple of editors are claiming Lokmanya Tilak is not a reliable source and I an being prevented. Why are only Western authors cited as reliable on Vedas and Indian authors, even such a respected Sanskrit scholar like Tilak rejected as unreliable and fringe?

However, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, in his Orion: Or Researches Into The Antiquity Of The Vedas has concluded that the date of composition of Rigveda dates at least as fat back as 6000-4000 BC based on his astronomical research into the position of the constellation Orion. Source: Tilak, Bal Gangadhar (June 2, 2008). Orion: Or Researches Into The Antiquity Of The Vedas. Kessinger Publishing, LLC. ISBN 978-1436556910., first published 1893.

ga11 (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't discuss the same issue in multiple places. That will be considered disruptive.

If you want to invite editors of this page to join the other discussion, you can post a pointer to it here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Rig Veda:

My edits on Rigveda have been reverted diff although they are fact based and based on authentic and proper references. The reason cited was they are not "constructive". I saw this talk thread and wanted to provide my 2 cents. ga11 (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

That was the message I left at your talkpage; I reverted diff your Rigveda-edits because those authors are WP:FRINGE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain how Tilak is a fringe author? Almost all sources on Rigveda page are from books by various authors but they ate considered reliable sources. What makes Tilak and his books different from them?

ga11 (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Regular scholarship doesn't use astrological speculations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 01:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Tilak's work is not astrological. It is astronomical. Big difference. Astronomical data is fact-based abd verifiable. Please do not make such assumptions and confuse astronomy with astrology. ga11 (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction; doesn't change a bit about the reliability. Tilak is not accepted as WP:RS at Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I have read WP:RS but I don't see why Tilak is not accepted as RS. Can you elaborate?ga11 (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

You added

However, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, in his Orion: Or Researches Into The Antiquity Of The Vedas has concluded that the date of composition of Rigveda dates at least as fat back as 6000-4000 BC based on his astronomical research into the position of the constellation Orion.

Source: Tilak, Bal Gangadhar (June 2, 2008). Orion: Or Researches Into The Antiquity Of The Vedas. Kessinger Publishing, LLC. ISBN 978-1436556910., first published 1893.

6000-4000 BCE is completely at odds with the scholarly estimates; astronomy is not an accepted methodoly. At 6000 BCE the Yamnaya-cture didn't even exist yet, let alone the Shintashta culture, even less the Indo-Aryans. Tilak's opinions simply are irrelevant for the topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

These are your personal opinions that astronomy is not an accepted methodology (which is simply incorrect and unscientific because astronomy is an established science all over the world), and this or that culture was not present at a certain time. Wikipedia is not a page for personal opinions but simply to state all objective facts and findings, whether you personally believe them or not. Kindly do not bring personal opinions into this and let me know specifically what Wikipedia rule disqualifies Tilak as RS?ga11 (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's not an accepted methodology in philology. And Tilak's ideas are completely at odds with mainstream scholarship. It's an alternative discourse you're partaking in. @Doug Weller, Kautilya3, and Vanamonde93: can one of enlighten this editor? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand that it may not be a mainstream at this time. In which case, why can't we put it under a separate heading that states "Alternative timelines" or something? I and others too can add to it from many other references which I can provide. Objective facts and findings still have a place on Wikipedia especially in discussing such ancient texts whose date of origin has always been under dispute as stated on the Rigveda page itself. ga11 (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Anything to do with the past requires WP:HISTRS. Moreover, if Tilak proposed a theory, it counts as a WP:PRIMARY source. We can't use it without validation from WP:SECONDARY sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Here are just a couple that refer to and add to Tilak's work:

1.Aryavartic Home by Pavgee, Narayan Bhavanrao 2. World Vedic Heritage: A History Of Histories (2 Volume Set) By P. N. Oak by P. N. Oak ga11 (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gauri a11: please don't date something 2008 that was written in the 19th century. But this is all sheer fringe. We could use sources such as this university press book[6][which says "On the basis of astronomical statements in the Vedas, Tilak concluded that the Aryan ancestors of the Vedic writers had lived in an Arctic home in interglacial times between 10,000 and 8000 b.c., enjoying a degree of civilization superior to that of both the Stone and the Bronze Ages. Owing to the destruction of their homeland by the onset of the last Ice Age, the Aryans had migrated southward and roamed over northern Europe and Asia in search of lands suitable for new settlement in the period 8000-5000 b.c. Tilak believed that many Vedic hymns could be traced to the early part of the period between 5000 and 3000 b.c., when the Aryan bards had not yet forgotten the traditions of their former Arctic home." But I can't see enough of the book to find out what the author says about that, so we'd need to see that first. Pavgee is even worse, he thinks that the language and culture of the Greeks and Romans were derived from the Vedas of this so-called "Arctic home."[7] And Oak - well, see P. N. Oak. Useless as a source. You also don't seem to accept that we can't use self-published books.

Joshua, how about transferring this to the article's talk page? Doug Weller talk 14:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

End of copied part

There used to be a section on Reception in Hinduism, which disappeared with Shrikanthv's restructuring of the article; Tilak might eventually fit in there. I intend to re-restructure the article; let's see then. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the original structure, and re-inserted Tilak diff, at the appropriate place. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Great thanks! I have a request that this section should be added to all the other three vedas, namely Yajurveda, Samaveda, Atharvaveda and other relevant pages like 'Vedas' and 'Dating of Hindu texts' etc. This is where the dating is very relevant and should be added.

Relating to earlier question that why I am not able to accept Vartak as unreliable, it is because his books have been translated into other languages by various authors and other publishing houses have published them independently. So in this case, how does this make him self-published for his translated works? ga11 (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gauri a11: so that it can be determined if these publishing houses meet WP:VERIFY, ie are reliable publishers, could we have their websites? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

According to Google Scholar, Orion has been referenced two times. That's not much for a book from 1892... One of the two is Ballantyne (2016), Orientalism and Race: Aryanism in the British Empire, p.179 ff (specifically note 54). Ballantyne uses as a primay source, which they analyze, not as a secondary source. P.181:

...his attempts to synthesize Indian and western traditions to create a history that established the sophistication and superiority of Vedic India.

So, not "history" in the conventional meaning, bu a nationalistic projdct to create an alternate narrative. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This is getting old. Here are the websites.

A quick Google search would have given you the same information.  http://www.bookwellpublications.com  http://www.bkpbooks.com  https://www.bookganga.com/eBooks/Books/Index?PID=5063737727570943757  It appears that some personal POV is being pushed here by some. Apparently it is okay for RegentsPark to publish false statements as he did on Vartak afd page and yet no one has even issued him a warning for this irresponsible and reckless behavior to say the least. An admin like RegentsPark making false statements with no due diligence and fact checking without at least a warning given seriously undermines the credibility, neutrality, and truthfulness of this site. I am starting to think my time would be better spent outside wiki with other organizations actively fighting what seems like serious POV pushing.ga11 (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Dividing the translation and interpretation to Western and Eastern Authors

I am thinking of dividing the translation and interpretation to Western Authors and Eastern Authors, I believe there is a large content of this writers. let me know if any body would like to join me in doing this ? Shrikanthv (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Shrikanthv: because of the difference between (western) scholarly interpretations and translations, with it's own 'deviations', and the way the Rig Veda has been interpreted within the Indian traditions (emic versus etic, if I remember correct)? I thinks it's worth trying. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I have started it, you can also start immediately with western interpritation, (provided if you have time) but do get back to me if you find some discrepancies in my edits wishing you a nice day Shrikanthv (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I am running into problem here as unfortunately the lead and content description seems to be only based upon western author interpretations and is taken to be a generally accepted consensus in some of claims is actually making the article too long with one sided view of matter, will try to rework on this --Shrikanthv (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

interestingly I found this on here, the entire article seems to be a copyvio of this essay --Shrikanthv (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Shrikanthv: I just took a look at the first section; the way you have arranged the info now makes no sense, I'm afraid. I'm going to take a closer look later, and re-re-arrange some of the info, I'm afraid. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

No, splitting the translations-table into Indian and western authors was not a good idea, nor was your re-ordering of the text of the article. I've undone both. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand you do not contribute for a long time to this article, and suddenly do not like any changes please not a admin was also involved in the middle of edits, jj i agree to most of your edits this mass revert simply destroyed hours of my work, of you do not like the idea lets have a rfc on the topic do not mass revert it because you do not like the idea Shrikanthv (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Shrikanthv, you do not get to reinstate your content just because it took a while to write; you need to obtain consensus for it first. Please describe the changes you wish to make, such that the non-controversial pieces may be reinstated quickly, and the rest can be discussed. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Splitting the translations into Indian and western authors sounded like a good idea, since there also were Indian commentaries in that table, an altogether different genre. I thrusted you eere doing a good job, leaving it to be done and see the result later.

I did have that look, due to ga11's request regarding Tilak. I reconsidered his edits, noticing that the structure had become, ehm, peculiar link, with 'Medieaval scholarship' and other parts added to the Dating-section, now called 'Dating and timeline'. Precisely the parts were ga11's request would fit, but not in this structure. Your splitting of the translations turned into an undiscussed restructuring of the article, turning a balanced article into a string of disjoined elements. No other option but restoring the original structure, whhile keeping the edits made since then.

As for the 'Commentaries and translations' section, at second sight itmakes no sense to separate western and non-western translations. They are related. Separating the commentaries from the translations does make sense, though; I left those few commentaries in a separate subsection, as plain text. Yet, I also noted now that the Commentaries-section duplicates info from the Medieaval scholarshil section; that info was unnecessarily duplicated into the Translations-section.

I'm sorry for the effort you made, but this simply was not an improvement. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Shrikanthv: making the table sortable was a good idea, providing kind of the same effect: separating western and Indian translations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Madhvacharya and Sayanacharya in Commentary/Translation Table

Arbitrary header #1

The Commentary/Translation table had references to Madhvacharya and Sayanacharya who composed Rigbhashyam and Rigveda Samhita in the year 1285 and 1360. These two references have been removed [diff]. Any reason why these were removed from the table? Jaykul72 (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

They are now in the commentary subsection, as plain text, separating them from the overview of translations. NB: the commentaries repeat info contained in the Medieaval scholarship-section; somewhere after 2r september 2019 they were added, unnecessarily, to the translations-table. I'll merge them back to the Medieaval scholarship-section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, you did diff, triplicating this info (text and table). Do those commentaries have to be added, twice, to a section on translations, when they are already mentioned at another place? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Since you mentioned about duplication, may be you can as well explain why these authors have been duplicated in text and table? Friedrich August Rosen, H.H Wilson, Karl Friedrick Geldner, Louis Renou, Wendy Doniger. Also, Jamison and Brereton has been quoted 5 times in the article. Michael Witzel has been quoted 8 times.

The first published translation of any portion of the Rigveda in any European language was into Latin, by Friedrich August Rosen (Rigvedae specimen, London 1830). Predating Müller's first printed edition (editio princeps) of the text by 19 years, Rosen was working from manuscripts brought back from India by Colebrooke. H. H. Wilson was the first to make a translation of the Rig Veda into English, published in six volumes during the period 1850–88. Wilson's version was based on the commentary of . Müller published the most studied edition of the Rig Veda Samhita and Padapatha in 6 volumes Muller, Max, ed. (W. H. Allen and Co., London, 1849). It has an English preface The birch bark from which Müller produced his translation is held at The Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune, India.

Jaykul72 (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The same quote by Witzel, eight times? Where? I see a translation by Witzel, mentioned one time. I didn't create the table with translations, but you added info to the article which was already there. But see WP:POINT and WP:OTHERSTUFF. We can create a separate table for commentaries if you like, but that would again triplicate that info. To compare: the list with translations has 30 items, some of which are also mentioned in the prose-part; the commentaries-list would contain three items, exactly as much as those mentioned in prose at two other places in the article. What urgent reason is there for such a triplication? Or to add commentaries to the list with translations, when they are already mentioned at the appropriate place? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I repeat my question -- may be you can as well explain why these authors have been duplicated in text and table? Friedrich August Rosen, H.H Wilson, Karl Friedrick Geldner, Louis Renou, Wendy Doniger Jaykul72 (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, and it isn't up to me to provide an answer; you triplicated the info on the commentaries, but refuse to explain why. See WP:POINT, again. Refusing to engage in a constructive way to reach WP:CONSENSUS is WP:DISRUPTIVE. So, please answer the question: "Do those commentaries have to be added, twice, to a section on translations, when they are already mentioned at another place?" @Vanamonde93: could you weight in here? See also User:Jaykul72/Log of edits being undone. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, that's exactly my question - every author on the table have been duplicated with a line of text in the paragraph. Convention of the paragraph is to add a line about the author and then mention the same in the table and the same was followed for the authors Madhvacharya and Sayancharya. This removal of text is WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. Jaykul72 (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you made an interpretation which is incorrect; as mentioned above, there are more translations in the table than are mentioned in the prose text. And talking about conventions: the table originally contained translations; why was it necessary to add commenatries to this list, especially when they were already mentioned in the article? The commentaries are still mentioned at two places; to call the removal from the table disruptive is very misplaced. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

There are five authors who have been mentioned in the text and also duplicated in the table. Many entries on the table have been added much later. So the justification that text was removed due to duplication does not hold good for other five authors mentioned above. Jaykul72 (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to thank you for your explanation; sorry. The duplicates are indeed odd. The prose-text could be changed, I guess, but I'd have to take a good look how. Maybe it's just better to leave it this way...

Anyway, the commentaries are also mentioned at Rigveda#Medieval Hindu scholarship; my intent is to merge your info there. How about that? Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I intend to reintroduce the edits to the "Commentary/Translation" table as there is no justification for their removal. The table is a general listing of all translations there is no periodicity restriction. I do not agree with the argument that duplication of text was the reason for removal. @Capankajsmilyo: can you mediate here for a third opinion. Jaykul72 (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh my, what is it you don't understand? Why do you want to add commentaries to a list with translations? And why did you add this information anyway, when it was already mentioned at the Medieaval scholarship-section. NB: this is the fourth fifth time I ask; you still haven't answered the question. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The table name is "Commentary/Translations". Wikipedia is a free platform where anybody can add text see WP:5P3. On the contrary my question is why was the text removed WP:DISRUPTIVEly without any justification and WP:CONSENSUS? Jaykul72 (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It's called "Commentary/Translations" because you added "Commentaries" to the name when you added the commentaries diff. I've explained the removal several times now; you persistently refuse to answer my question. I won't repeat it again; five times should suffice. See the policy you're referring to, WP:CONSENSUS:

Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies.

I'm adressing a legitimate concern, but you refuse to address it. See WP:DISRUPTSIGNS:

# Does not engage in consensus building:
#:a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
#:b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The principle of WP:CONSENSUS is it should include all editors legitimate concerns. I have a concern about a useful text being removed disruptively without an iota of WP:CONSENSUS. The removed text provides information about the original texts from which many authors have translated, this is useful information for people intending to read them. Your justifications on removal: Medieval scholarship is not applicable as this table does not have any restrictions on periodicity. Duplication of text does not hold good as there are five other authors whose entries have not been removed from the table although they have been duplicated in the prose text above. Translations only does not hold good as the Table can be for "Commentary/Translations". Instead of answering my question about why was the text removed, you are asking me why did you add this text?? Is there any rule/restriction for adding useful text on Wikipedia? Jaykul72 (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:POINT again: 'Some info is duplicated in the section in translations, so I can demand triplication of info on commentaries. The text you want to add to the table already is in the article, two times; eveyone can read it, at the appropriate place, and otherwise at the specific articles to which this article links. There's no need to have it three times. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I've duplicated the info on Yasana to the Translations prose-section, and moved the other commentaries-info upwards to the appropriate sections; this way you've got your preferred info on Yasana available at the Translations-section, while the rest is available at the appropriate section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Not acceptable, the following authors have duplicate texts in prose and the table. The table in its present form is giving WP:UNDUE importance to selective scholarship which is predominantly western. There is no substance in your selective removal of original texts which opened the Window of Rigveda to modern world.

• Friedrich August Rosen
• H.H.Wilson
• Max Muller
• Karl Friedrick Geldner
• H.D.Velankar
• Jamison and Brereton
• Wendy Doniger
• Barend A. van Nooten and Gary B. Holland

Jaykul72 (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Sayana is mentioned in the prose-text, as you requested. And in the section on medieaval Hindu scholarship. And there are links to Sayana and Vyakarana.

There may be some logic in the fact that a section about translations on the English Wikipedia contains quite some info on western translators, who translated the Rig Veda into western languages.

And yes, there is logic in removing commentaries from a list of translations. Especially if that info is already mentioned twice - but I seem to be repeating myself... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Great, triplicated again. Satisfied now? Any relevance for readers to have the same info three times? See WP:PROPORTION. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

It is providing due weightage as much as the duplication of text is providing to the list of authors in the translation prose and table. For some good reason, you do not seem to have a problem with that duplication though? Thanks for your consideration. Jaykul72 (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think it's useless, but we have spent enough time on this, so I'll leave it this way. But if another editor removes it, I won't object. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree with your point on Triplication. I believe this is mis-representation. Search for "Madhvacharya" in the article it appears twice. Now search for "Friedrich August" it appears twice as well. So there is parity between commentaries and translation table. If the duplication in the commentaries table which you think is "useless" by the same logic you must also see that the duplication in the translation table is "useless". I haven't got an answer why you did not chose to delete the duplicated authors in the translation table. Jaykul72 (talk) 09:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• "In the 14th century, Sāyana wrote an exhaustive commentary on the complete text of Rigveda in his book Rigveda Samhita."; "Sāyaṇācārya a Sanskrit scholar wrote a treatise on the Vedas in the book Vedartha Prakasha (Meaning of Vedas made as a manifest)"; "Wilson's version was based on the commentary of Sāyaṇa, a Sanskrit scholar of 14th century, who provided a commentary on the complete text of Rigveda in his book Rigveda Samhita" (note "Vedartha Prakasha" and "Rigveda Samhita." You added both diff; what's the correct name?}
• "This book was translated from Sanskrit to English by Max Muller in the year 1856" (2 times) plus "Müller also translated Sāyaṇa's commentary translated from Sanskrit to English."
• The duplicates are indeed odd. The prose-text could be changed, I guess, but I'd have to take a good look how. Maybe it's just better to leave it this way...

Shall we finish this discussion now? Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #2

(responding to ping) Calm down both and see WP:FOC. If "Medieval Hindu scholarship" has included these details then I am not sure if it needs to be repeated in translation/commentary table. Though the table needs to make it clear that it is including only those items that are recent or modern. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The section starts with Like all archaic texts, the Rigveda is difficult to translate into modern language. The prose-text also states The first published translation of any portion of the Rigveda in any European language was into Latin, by Friedrich August Rosen (Rigvedae specimen, London 1830).

The table is preceded with Some notable translations of the Rig Veda include:. We could change that into "Some notable modern translations of the Rig Veda include", but I doubt that there are any pre-modern translations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2021

I am requesting to add "similarities with Avesta" section: Rigveda's elements have similarities with Avesta of Zoroastrianism; for example: Asura from Ahura, Deva from Daeva, monotheism, Varuna, Vishnu and Garuda from Ahura Mazda, Agni from fire temple, heavenly juice called Soma from the drink called Haoma, Devasur's battle from the war of words of contemporary Indians and Persians, Arya from Ariya, Mitra from Mithra, Bṛhaspati from Dyáuṣ Pitṛ́ or Dyēus and Zeus, Yajna from Yasna, Ṛta from Asha, from Nariyasangha to Narasangsa, Indra, from Gandareva to Gandharva, Vajra, Vayu, Angiras from Ahriman, Mantra, Yam, Yaksha, Rudra from Sarva, Nasatya from Nanghaithya, Ahuti, Humata to Sumati etc. 103.134.25.90 (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This is not criticism, nor are additions from another religions. The cognate features in the Rigveda and Zoroastrianism are due to a common origin in the Proto-Indo-Iranian religion, rather than borrowing between the two. Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chariotrider555:, the section is not about criticism, it is about similarities, it is for the same common origin of Aryan religions in contrast with semitic religions. 103.134.25.90 (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be better to put info about the common origin of the Historical Vedic religion and Zoroastrianism at Indo-Iranians#Religion. That page would be best suited for the info you wish to add, and the religion section is in need of more work. There you could add much more info that what is needed on other pages, where too much reference to the Iranian counterparts would be undue.Chariotrider555 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chariotrider555: we can add this section in this article:

==Similarities with Avesta==

Rigveda manuscript page (1.1.1-9)

Yasna 28.1 (Bodleian MS J2)

The following is a list of cognate terms that may be gleaned from comparative linguistic analysis of the Rigveda and the Avesta. Both collections are from the period after the proposed date of separation (c. 2nd millennium BC) of the Proto-Indo-Iranians into their respective Indic and Iranian branches.

Vedic Sanskrit	Avestan	Common meaning
āp	āp	"water," āpas "the Waters"
Apam Napat, Apām Napāt	Apām Napāt	the "water's offspring"
aryaman	airyaman	"Arya-hood" (lit:** "member of Arya community")
rta	asha/arta	"active truth", extending to "order" & "righteousness"
atharvan	āϑrauuan, aϑaurun Atar	"priest"
ahi	azhi, (aži)	"dragon, snake", "serpent"
daiva, deva	daeva, (daēuua)	a class of divinities
manu	manu	"man"
mitra	mithra, miϑra	"oath, covenant"
asura	ahura	another class of spirits
sarvatat	Hauruuatāt	"intactness", "perfection"
Sarasvatī	Haraxvaitī (Ārəduuī Sūrā Anāhitā)	a controversial (generally considered mythological) river, a river goddess
sauma, soma	haoma	a plant, deified
svar	hvar, xvar	the Sun, also cognate to Greek helios, Latin sol, Engl. Sun
Tapati	tapaiti	Possible fire/solar goddess; see Tabiti (a possibly Hellenised Scythian theonym). Cognate with Latin tepeo and several other terms.
Vrtra-/Vr̥tragʰná/Vritraban	verethra, vərəϑra (cf. Verethragna, Vərəϑraγna)	"obstacle"
Yama	Yima	son of the solar deity Vivasvant/Vīuuahuuant
yajña	yasna, object: yazata	"worship, sacrifice, oblation"
Gandharva	Gandarewa	"heavenly beings"
Nasatya	Nanghaithya	"twin Vedic gods associated with the dawn, medicine, and sciences"
Amarattya	Ameretat	"immortality"
Póṣa	Apaosha	"'demon of drought'"
Ashman	Asman	"'sky, highest heaven'"
Angira Manyu	Angra Mainyu	"'destructive/evil spirit, spirit, temper, ardour, passion, anger, teacher of divine knowledge'"
Manyu	Maniyu	"'anger, wrath'"
Sarva	Sarva	"'Rudra, Vedic god of wind, Shiva'"
Madhu	Madu	"'honey'"
Bhuta	Buiti	"'ghost'"
Mantra	Manthra	"'sacred spell'"
Aramati	Armaiti	"'piety'"
Amrita	Amesha	"'nectar of immortality'"
Sumati	Humata	"'good thought'"
Sukta	Hukhta	"'good word'"
Narasamsa	Nairyosangha	"'praised man'"
Vayu	Vaiiu	"'wind'"
Vajra	Vazra	"'bolt'"
Ushas	Ushah	"'dawn'"
Ahuti	azuiti	"'offering'"
púraṁdhi	purendi
bhaga	baga	"'"lord, patron, wealth, prosperity, sharer/distributor of good fortune'"
Usij	Usij	"'"priest'"
trita	thrita	"'"the third'"
Mas	Mah	"'"moon, month'"
Vivasvant	Vivanhvant	"'" lighting up, matutinal'"
Druh	Druj	"'"Evil spirit'"

43.245.121.9 (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

No, that would be WP:UNDUE. What is currently written in the article about the closeness of the Rigveda and Avesta is good enough. Chariotrider555 (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Verse / ṛc

Can I insert an approximate pronunciation for "ṛc" somewhere – or better for "ṛca" – so that also "normal" readers are served?

In a scholarly work, one may adhere to strict standards for transliteration etc., but in an encyclopedia, the whole aim is to bridge the gap between experts and the general public.

I would also like to insert a link to the article "Richa", unless that would be considered anathema ;-)

Any considerations what I should be mindful of in this matter?--Geke (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It's best to leave it in the proper transliteration, but after its first instance in the article we could put the IPA pronunciation in parentheses or a note. Or perhaps we could leave a note on the page somewhere that this page adheres to Wikipedia:Indic transliteration. Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like to see what the IPA pronunciation is first. The supposed link to Richa rings alarm bells. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid the transliteration in the lead sentence is wrong. It is not ṛc but ṛk in IAST. Monnier-Williams seems to have gotten confused with his own transliteration. But the root word is quite obvious to anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of Sanskrit sandhis.

• ṛk + veda becomes ṛgveda.
• ṛc + veda would have been ṛjveda, which is not the name.

Any number of Indian sources will tell you the correct transliteration. Pinging Ms Sarah Welch to see if she can find a scholarly source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

’’Vedic India’’ by Louis Renou uses “rik”. Notably the book was originally written in French, so that may have played a role in him using “rik”, but I don’t know. https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.6854/page/n12/mode/2up Chariotrider555 (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The Wiktionary entry gives a link to the page 225 of Monier-Williams. He says ṛic is the root, but ṛik is used for sandhi. I don't know what that means. But, judging from his usage, it seems that ṛic is used in verb form whereas the noun form might be ṛik. The trouble is that in English explanations he uses ṛic to mean verse, which is opposite to what the Indians do.

In any case, I will leave the lead sentence alone and see if I can add an Etymology section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2021

The heading should read as "Rug" instead of "Rig" as the original Sanskrit pronunciation is "Rug" Ch123ch (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

TO GRANT US PERMISSION TO EDIT

I am an authentic editor, my informations based on earlier manuscripts or inscriptions preserved in many big sites like ASI(Archaeological Survey of India) and USECO etc. and I request to grant me the permission to change the world into truth. Paul Archuleta (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021

I am an authentic editor, my information based on earlier manuscripts or inscriptions preserved in many big sites like ASI(Archaeological Survey of India) and USECO etc and I request to grant me the person to change the world into truth. Paul Archuleta (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)