Talk:Marriage in Hinduism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 3 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yashicak.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Treatment of widows

Does anyone have information on the treatment of widows? --Gbleem 20:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article needs some broader discussion of marriage in Hinduism, and what that entails. It would be great to see some discussion of things like marriage ceremony variations among different Hindu communities (with specific examples, if possible), some discussion of elements of the marriage ceremony that are common across various communities (e.g. saptabadi), dowry, child marriage, intra- and inter-caste marriage, widows and widowhood, divorce, religiously-based expectations around gender roles and child-rearing, Hindu marriage law in contemporary India (e.g. the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955), and references to forms of family relations common in India (e.g. joint families). --Anirvan

I think it is kind of problematic as Hindu marriages are very diverse, and Hindu Marriage Law is not standard and often seen contrasting Hindu Tradition, Same Gotra Marriage is not possible in North but not in other caste, also dowry is given from girl to boy but in some community it is given by groom to bride, Ruth Vanita says that Gay Marriage is possible according to law but Gov. itself do not recognizes but there have been many same sex marriages in India all in different Hindu Rituals. Saptapadi is not common to all hindu community, See thali and other. Also all Samhitas have different view on many matters depending on Time and place they were composed. The most famous method to define marriage in India is to say, whatever goes with the local custom. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.151.229 (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Downgraded from B-class to Start-class

I have downgraded this article as it's current status is in need of a substantial cleanup. Also, it cites no sources and contains what I believe to be possible bias. Thanks, GoldRock23^{(talk - my page - contribs)} 14:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Hindu Symbolic Marriage.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hindu Symbolic Marriage.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Hindu Symbolic Marriage.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

References

Added a reference, but more are needed. PeterBennettfriedpies (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Added some more but more still needed PeterBennettfriedpies (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Timovinga is removing large amounts of text by himself

@Timovinga is removing large sections of texts across numerous articles concerning LGBTQ and India and/or Hinduism citing vague reasons such as "unreliable sources" even when numerous sources have been provided including both primary and secondary sources. I suggest that if he continues to remove text then he needs to be banned from editing topics related to LGBTQ and India. Arind7 (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Already told you multiple times, these sources are not reliable. Read WP:RS, academic sources are required for these topics. Timovinga (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wracking many sources of this article is not RS. I am going to mark them by adding tags. Timovinga (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

There are numerous other sources available which you can find yourself if you actually weren't disagreeing with what was written, but more importantly the "Tamil Culture" website isn't an unreliable source. You can't randomly decide that what you don't like is unreliable. Arind8 (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

No it is not. We need scholarly sources for this article not user generated random websites. Timovinga (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I've stumbled across this page, but what @Timovinga says is true - if the sources are user-generated, they are unreliable. It's also worth noting that you've cited multiple newspapers in an article with a more scholarly/academic focus. The newspapers would likely be more appropriate for the article on the piece of legislation they're writing about.

Of the sources I've looked at in the paragraph, the following appear to be user-generated or otherwise unreliable:

• Brain Booster Articles, with this disclaimer found at the bottom of the page implying there is no editorial review:

"Disclaimer: The view in these articles are authors' point of view. Brain Booster Articles may or may not subscribe to the views of the author. Brain Booster Articles are not liable for the authors' point of view."

• FairGaze, an opinion piece written by a student
• Indica Today, although this is an essay you would likely find more academic sources within the "books" section. The author is a civil engineer.
• The CBS Post appears to be a student newspaper.
• Reddy and Reddy is a law firm, with no named author.

For a subject like marriage in Hinduism, there are most certainly reliable academic works out there. Those will provide far stronger support for what you're trying to put into the article. I didn't go through every single link in the paragraph removed, but I'm inclined to agree with Timovinga here. I think this is best resolved at the reliable sources noticeboard if you're deadset on the reliability of these sources, lest this descend into an edit war.

It should also be noted this may fall under the umbrella of gender and sexuality as a contentious topic, and anyone editing (myself included) should take care not to let edits enter into disruptive territory. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 04:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Schrödinger's jellyfish thanks for your input. Timovinga (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting I didn't look at all of them, I stopped after Reddy and Reddy. The only somewhat reliable one I saw was The Daily Guardian, but even then, per WP:NEWSORG it's far from the ideal source for an academic topic. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 04:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't actually write that sentence and it came from a merger through another article, where I think it's been there for years. I reverted it because it seems @Timovinga is engaged in vandalism.

Secondly, the totality of all the sources matters when one side things a source is politically biased, as is the case with anything relating to Hindus in the context of India.

And why did you stop at Reddy and Reddy? Do you think a law firm is an unreliable source? And what about the other ones:

• Reddif is a major Indian news brand similar to AOL or Yahoo
• Galva108 is a major Indian LGBTQ service
• Deccan Chronicle is a major Indian news outlet
• CBS is a newsletter for an Indian university and I believe it's valid

etc...

It's obviously derived from some important source because numerous news outlets have discussed it so the best thing to do is to ping the original writer to ask for a suitable source.

It could easily be the case that a user such as @Timovinga simply removed the original valid citations in order to further an argument based on his or her political views.

I am not the original writer of that sentence. Arind8 (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I will go from the top down here, including your second reply.

• Vandalism has a very specific definition. The other editor in question raised valid, and now substantiated, concerns about the quality of sources cited in the article. While it may be considered disruptive under the correct circumstances, a good-faith effort is NOT vandalism. I strongly recommend reading the lead section of the page on vandalism and remembering to assume good faith. It's best practice not to accuse other editors of POV-pushing or vandalism without good evidence. You are much better off providing evidence that the sources being questioned are reliable, per policy.
• Totality does not overrule the context in which you use the sources. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

1. Per WP:NEWSORG: "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics...Occasionally, some newspapers still have specialist reporters who are citable by name." From the sources provided that I examined, none appeared to be experts on Hinduism or the texts mentioned (which, according to their articles, seem to be pretty significant). A bunch of articles, written by non-subject matter experts that read like opinion pieces, hold little weight.
2. A bit out of order, as this was your last message, but per WP:NONENG: "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance." If you are able to provide scholarly sources in a language other than English, and are able to follow the guidelines laid out for non-English sources, this is a non-issue.

• I stopped at Reddy and Reddy, as I (sometimes) want to go to sleep. I posted this reply at around midnight in my time, not realizing how long it'd take to go through all the sources (and to give at least a somewhat thorough look in case this was another editor removing reliable sources).
• I would trust a law firm on a matter of the law. I would trust a dairy farmer on the caretaking of cattle. I would not trust a lawyer to tell me how to take care of cows, just as I wouldn't trust a dairy farmer to tell me the ins and outs of criminal law. I hope this illustrates my point. A lawyer is not inherently an expert on a religious matter, in spite of their qualifications in another area.
• When you say this:

"It's obviously derived from some important source because numerous news outlets have discussed it so the best thing to do is to ping the original writer to ask for a suitable source."

Please remember that (per due weight, that when determining proper weight [to give a viewpoint], that a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources is what counts - not its prevalence among editors or the general public.

I hope this is thorough and answers the questions you've posed to me. I understand this is a lot to read, but when you jump into contentious topics like this, you need to be certain that the edits you're making - even if they're in good faith - are up to par with policy. You are always welcome to reach out to editors at places like WikiProject Hinduism, WikiProject India, and places like the reliable sources noticeboard if you are unsure what is reliable, or if you cannot find reliable sources to support a claim in an article. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 22:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I forgot this bit trying to make sure this response was all organized.

Even if you are not the original author of the statements you're restoring to the article, if you are restoring them, the burden is on you to provide reliable sources for the challenged claims. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 22:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv @Schrödinger's jellyfish @Ekdalian

Furthermore Timovinga seems to have decided to remove large amounts of text that I didn't actually write, but simply moved or reordered, on the basis of this discussion restricted to that one sentence. I really doubt that all the editors who wrote all that text used unreliable sources. It seems to be more akin to vandalism.

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality_in_India&action=history

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=LGBT_culture_in_India&action=history Arind8 (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Your edits are problematic, I restored the last version before you started your editing. Timovinga (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

You are removing large amounts of text without going to the effort of ensuring that the text you remove has a valid reason. Not only was most of the text not written by me, but also you have shown that you disagree with valid sources such as the SCMP, Tamil Culture and The Quint as well, so there is absolutely no reason to believe that you are not engaging in good faith Wikipedia building. Arind8 (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Also you should keep in mind that it's very unlikely that you'd find a western academic source for a concept that's almost unique to India. There are many many aspects to Indian culture that aren't discussed on Wikipedia due to a lack of reliable western sources, and it's surprising if this concept even has western sources available. Arind8 (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Arind8, please note that we do not accept random websites; you need to find modern scholarly work by reliable authors! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that @Timovinga is removing sources and sentences on the basis of political views, so I am providing a range of sources to satisfy him and not me (he has been disputing numerous sources including well established NGOs and news companies). That particular sentence isn't actually my writing and simply a reordering and move. It's seems that he is just warring on the basis of political views as well because he's attributing numerous edits of mine as "unreliable sources" when all I've done is changed punctuation and/or reordered paragraphs.

So I don't believe I've actually done anything wrong. The sources that I usually use are reliable, and I have to find unreliable sources to satisfy @Timovinga. Arind8 (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I easily found the original edit by going back through Wikipedia! The original text was written on the 19th November 2018 by @Jedi Friend . I hope that the ping will allow the person to provide what sources were originally there before someone removed it.

Furthermore I will also add two sources that I found later on.

I do genuinely believe that @Timovinga is engaging in vandalism based on a racial conflict because most of the content he is disputing has been there for years and I've simply re-ordered them. Arind8 (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I came here from an RSN posting and already commented in detail on some of the sources and reasons for inclusion/exclusion on another article in dispute. The same applies here -- overall Timovinga's judgement in removing sources and content, and tagging others, has been good -- the WP:Burden to show content meets minimum thresholds of WP:V and WP:RS falls on the editor wishing to restore such content.

Also, regarding citation/V/RS cleanup in general -- doing this takes a lot more time and effort than people think (since all they see in the diff is deletion), especially when one has to evaluate dozens upon dozens of sources in these WP:Citation overkill situations. But this cleanup is as essential to keeping an acceptable article as writing verifiable content to begin with.

Arind8 -- we can go into detail with you on what is acceptable for writing sourced content. It does take some practice, and mistakes will be made, as editing Wikipedia is unlike most other kinds of formal writing. For starters however, it may help to think of reliable sources for articles relating a vast ethno-religio-cultural multi-millennial umbrella term like "Hinduism" with modern political-social trends as falling under the purview of WP:HISTRS. To take an example: a great deal of scholarly credibility is needed to believably assert some link between cultures millennia ago and culture today, no matter where in the world one is looking. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that @Timovinga is removing sources and sentences on the basis of political views, so I am providing a range of sources to satisfy him and not me (he has been disputing numerous sources including well established NGOs and news companies). That particular sentence isn't actually my writing and simply a reordering and move. It's seems that he is just warring on the basis of political views as well because he's attributing numerous edits of mine as "unreliable sources" when all I've done is changed punctuation and/or reordered paragraphs. So I don't believe I've actually done anything wrong. The sources that I usually use are reliable, and I have to find unreliable sources to satisfy @Timovinga.

In terms of the issue surrounding religion and culture, I find that it's usually Muslims and in particular Pakistanis/Persians/Arabs who find said writing controversial. There's an ethnocultural divide in India that doesn't make sense in western racial norms, and Muslims having been subject to a lot of Islamophobia in the West tend to identify more as secular rather than with their religion. However this does not make sense outside the West when you consider how people here identify.

Furthermore I didn't actually write that sentence. I found the sentence in another page/section and transferred it here because it was related to marriage. When @Timovinga notified me the sentence did not have any sources, so I assumed that the person who wrote it failed to provide a source, but I am currently thinking that @Timovinga actually removed the sources to cause conflict. Arind8 (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv @Schrödinger's jellyfish @Ekdalian thanks for your inputs. @Arind7 I think you should read the guidelines carefully as everyone told you before making further edits. Also be more CIVIL.- Timovinga (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Arind8 please provide valid citations and quotes. Timovinga (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Rakshasa marriage

In this section, it is mentioned that lord Krishna performed this type of marriage with Rukmini but corresponding sources doesn't mention mention it- These sources are saying the Rukmini was willing to marry Lord Krishna. It doesn't fit in this category. There are many other sources that disagree with it. Quoting from Rukmini's page "Rukmini's parents rejoiced and gave their permission, but Rukmini – who was an ally of Jarasandha – strongly opposed it. Instead, he proposed that she marry his friend Shishupala— the crown prince of Chedi Kingdom, and a cousin of Krishna. Bhishmaka agreed, and a distressed Rukmini immediately sent for a trusted Brahmin and asked him to deliver a message to Krishna. In the message, she wrote to Krishna about her love and asked him to abduct her when she visited the temple of Goddess Ambika (Parvati) before her wedding. Krishna, having received the message in Dvaraka, told the messenger to inform Rukmini that he had received her letter and would come to make her his wife. Krishna then immediately set out for Vidarbha with Balarama, his elder brother." There are multiple more references there which I didn't include here which shows it was her will to marry Lord Krishna. I am going to remove this part. If someone has any objection, they can discuss that here. Newpluto91 (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

References