Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu gods and goddesses and Abrahamic religions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu gods and goddesses and Abrahamic religions

[edit]
Hindu gods and goddesses and Abrahamic religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is original research based on the opinion of the editor who added it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There seemed to just two comparisons: Brahma to Abrahman and the dependent Saraswati to Sarah. Maybe a "Abrahman = Brahma" Theory article. Egyptian and Greek deities are not Abrahamic in nature. There doesn't seem to any other Hindu deity compared to Abrahmanic figures. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The title is far too broad, but theories identifying Abraham and Brahma, while fringe, may attain to a certain level of notability. For example, Godfrey Higgins writes in his Anacalypsis: "The likeness between Abraham and Brahma, and between their wives and histories, was observed by Dr. Hyde. Indeed it is so marked, that to miss observing it is impossible. [...] This doctrine is supported by the Arabian historians, who contend that Brahma and Abraham, their ancestor, are the same person." Anacalypsis, p. 396. The Dr. Hyde referred to is Thomas Hyde, and the observation referred to is found in his Historia Religionis Veterum Persarum, p. 31.  --Lambiam 16:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thanks to User Lambiam. I have incorporated his above research in the article page and clearly now the notability of subject has been established and not an Original Research as contended by the person who seek for the article's deletion. Thanks.Jethwarp (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Comment: Fruther, here is a google search for books relating to Brahma and Abraham [1] and the result is for you to see. You can find so many books covering the topic.Jethwarp (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, it certainly can't be kept under the current title. Currently, much of the article is about the similarity between the names of Abraham and Brahma. The article needs to be rewritten and renamed if it has any hope of becoming encyclopedic. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already added further info to the article. As I progress I find there are lot of research and info available on the subject. Further, I agree with User Ryan Vesey that it needs to be re named. But I am yet to find a suitable title for it. Perhaps, naming my baby was much easier :). However, others can help!!Jethwarp (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps the best name I could come to was Hindu Gods in comparative mythology similar on lines with Jesus in comparative mythology.Jethwarp (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the gender-unbiased Hindu deities in comparative mythology would be better. Parts of the mythology part of the Proto-Indo-European religion, the popular parallels between Greek divinities and Hindu ones can be incorporated in it. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unless and until [reliable] modern secondary sources can be found that give "significant coverage" to assessing these claims. Outdated 17th and 18th century sources, [patently unreliable fringe and/or self-published sources] and sources that give the topic (or in a number of cases some related topic) mere passing mention, are not sufficient. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unpdate !vote slightly to take account of sources such as Gardiner(2007) & Murdoch(2009). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Original research, POV, unscholarly, generally confused, nonnotable, and very unwikilike. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although fringe theories can be notable, it's usually because they either (A) were historically important, like Flat Earth theory, or (B) represent a current documentable view of a certain group. This article seems compiled from unrelated sources who find similarities of names. I don't see any particular theory articulated; there's no explanation of the underlying methodology, and no critique from modern scientific linguistics. Nor is it framed by how ancient etymologies reflect theological beliefs or perceived historical relationships that are culturally meaningful but not fact-based. I agree with that it's inherently synth and OR. (There is a line of legitimate scholarly inquiry on how the Indo-European tradition may interact with the Semitic tradition among eastern Mediterranean cultures, but I see no evidence of that here.) If a particular topic such as "Brahma and Abraham" is notable, then a better-defined article should focus on that. I'd like to post a notice of this AfD at WikiProject Religion, in case there are informed perspectives I'm missing. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. although it is so far off in the fringe zone that I doubt it will make a difference in the world. To the author: this is syntactic analysis at best and Phonetic form matching in reality buddy. Don't read too much into it. What is next? A theory that Abraham's favorite secret meal was "ham sandwich?" But this type of article just makes Wikipedia look too far off, so let us avoid it. History2007 (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A couple of short references to the similarity of names, found mostly in a couple of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century sources (ie. not current and very possibly discredited scholarship) and self-published books (don't cite Lulu, guys!) do not a topic make. Also, if you compare the current version with previous versions, the article is growing to include more and more irrelevant material as it goes along, so this isn't going anywhere good. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, currently covers a wide variety of unrelated theories, many of which seem fringe and none of which but the Abraham/Brahma comparison actually concern the Abrahamic relations. Two thirds would have to be removed if this was supposed to be on-topic. The "similar names" theme is rather unlikely to ever lead to a good article anyway. Huon (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Wiki is an encyclopadeia, on one hand some argued this was an Original Research. Now when it has been established it is not so. People are arguing these are views of eighteenth - nineteenth century. This view does not hold any ground, as it is clearly established that the notable historians of earlier century have done research and found similarities between Brahma and Abraham and Saraswati and Sarah. There, are many recent historians also who have backed the views of earlier historians and mentioned in their book. But citing them would again start argument that are they notable enough ??? This is like sticking to one's POV. Further, recent studies by Muslim scholar book published in 1997 [2] also mention same.Jethwarp (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have those saying delete read any of the book results? [3] The Jews influenced other groups, whose religions added on parts from theirs. The doctor then quotes another researcher who states the names of Abraham and Brahma are probably unrelated, but they both have a similar meaning, and list how these two religious figures have a lot in common. The story of Moses is told in other groups as well. Moses appears in the history of Bacchus, who was called Mises by the Egyptians instead of Moses. Their names mean about the same thing. Both were born in Egypt, passed through the Red Sea on dry ground, were lawgivers, and Misis was picked up in a box that floated on the water while Moses was in little boat made of reeds, Misis struck a rock to make wine gush forth while Moses did that to make the stone give water. Dream Focus 23:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That book is self-published (Stellar House is the personal publishing house of Acharya S, the author), so it's not really evidence for anything. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He quotes this information from other books though. Have to get to those sources then. Anyone know how to best filter through the 9 thousand book results to find some reliable ones? Dream Focus 00:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might try an advanced search with "university" in the publisher. I'm not opposed to pulling out a topic for a better-defined article, as I said above, and there are (again) legitimate ways to look at cultural interactions between Indo-European and Semitic traditions. I'm just not seeing any indications that the topic as indicated by the current title has any basis. Here's a source, for instance, that has a scholarly perspective on the "Brahma and Abraham" business: it views this as a matter of intellectual history right or wrong, and not as a notion that can be promulgated with a straight face. "Notion" being the right word, since Madame Blavatsky dilates on it in The Secret Doctrine.[4] In other words, "Brahma and Abraham" may be a topic of esotericism, but needs to be framed with caution historically, not as if it represents something that has scholarly cred. The trouble is, sober sources like this one (which thoroughly discredits the frivolity of the etymologizing) or this one or this one deal with this only in passing, not enough to generate an article. That Voltaire seems to have regarded Abraham as "a corruption of the Hindu Brahma" as an aspect of his anti-Semitism[5] is enormously interesting, however, and indicates that a little article focused just on that might be feasible. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that this is a lunatic fringe assertion is correct - regardless of 9,000 book hits. If you search 9-legged Martians who like Martini you may get a few hits too. I just tried this and was surprised. So that means very little. One can not find 3 solid books by 3 solid 20th century academics which say this. The fact remains that there is no "solid scholarship" today to support this. And remember that this is a "major statement" and had it been true, would make it to the major newspapers next week. If this had been true, pursuing it would have been a sure way to get tenure and many younger academics would have published on it - even if to criticize it. But they do not. It is not even worthy of scholarly criticism. That is why the article has to grasp at 19th century straws and self-published hallucinations. It is a waste of editor time to discuss this, when so much more work remains to be done to fix the rest of the articles (on worthy and notable encyclopedic topics) that need help. History2007 (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There may be 9,000 results, but most of them are irrelevant; they include occurrences of "Brahma" in proximity to authors named "Abraham," for instance. Although fringe movements can be notable as matters of intellectual history), I would just note again that I'm not seeing RS that deal with this substantially enough to support an article. The article lacks any framing to indicate that this is a fringe topic or part of the history of esotericism. It's so misleading that it really should be deleted immediately; it damages WP's credibility. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And which university does Rosen teach in? Is he the head of a department somewhere? But he also wrote an interesting diet book, I see: Diet for Transcendence: Vegetarianism and the World Religions... so at least that part is useful. Was Brahma a vegetarian, but Abraham was not? ... just kidding... Enough said, I will not watch this page anymore. History2007 (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On Hinduism, Rosen's book is probably a reliable source. On Judaism or comparative mythology, probably not so much. Anyway, Rosen concludes: "Though perhaps coincidental there is enough material here to warrant further investigation." (p. 13) So basically he acknowledges that he's speculating. I am not aware that this further investigation has been done. Huon (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is highly unlikely that Essential Hinduism is a reliable source on Hinduism. It is obvious from the article that Steven J. Rosen, also called Satyaraja Dasa, is a Hindu convertite highly active in ISKCON, the Krishna movement. The work is likely to be confessional, as are most or all of the author's works. Even the title sounds confessional. It is a classic fringe science phenomenon that long-discarded speculations are said to be "worth looking into". Of cource further investigations have not been done—no need to investigate obvious nonsense that flies in the face of sound scholarship.
Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Scholars routinely compare and contrast different faiths and cultures. This article seems like someone picked a bunch of those and made it into a thesis. The overall conclusion, and the basis for the article, is original research and probably cannot be fixed.   Will Beback  talk  10:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a coatrack article which combines assertions from various unrelated sources to advance a universal position which none of those sources individually supports. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The epitome of WP:OR.Griswaldo (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Irrelevant speculation, synthesis and fringe. Quack etymology. Poor sources from 200 years ago cobbled together with unscholarly SPS's to give the impression that this "theory" is more widely accepted than it is. There may have indeed been some indirect influence of Hinduism on Judaism (through Mesopotamian religions), and vice versa. And there may indeed have been some serious scholarly research done on the topic. But the content of this article is pure fringe and nonsense. There is nothing worth saving or expanding upon. Delete the article. If later on someone wants to write a serious article based on reliable scholarly sources, they can start from scratch. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Suggestions that gods from various cultures can be linked to characters in the Bible are a part of the Christian syncretism tradition, which claims that 'pagan' gods are corrupted memories of Biblical patriarchs. This was later inverted by several writers in the late 1900s to create the reverse position - that biblical figures are derived from ancient pagan dieties. There a numerous authors who address these issues from the mainstream to the way-out fringe, but there is no reason to single out Hindu gods. Relevant discussion should go in articles on sychretism, specific authors etc. Paul B (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindu_gods_and_goddesses_and_Abrahamic_religions&oldid=1110329774"