Talk:Women in Hinduism/Archive 1

NPOV dispute

I am adding a NPOV dispute template to this article, as it appears to exist solely to disparage a religion, and can hardly be considered to have a neutral point of view. In addition, this user (203.199.120.7) appears to have a history of writing articles which attack Hinduism (see Revival Of Buddhism In India, Manavantara, and Veda Facts), adding large amounts of non-neutral text to articles about Hinduism (see [Hinduism, Kali Yuga, and Rama), and adding anti-Hinduism links to articles about Hinduism (Hinduism and Krishna). — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 10:19, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello. I've done a complete edit of the article. The content is the same, but I've tried to summarise some points and hopefully make the language a little less POV. To properly get rid of the bias, we need some people to come in and look at the other side of the issue. Also, I guess the original references should be checked out (or maybe that'll be done in WikiTime?). In any case, that was my first big edit in a long time, and boy am I proud :D. -- Gaurav 22:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the NPOV tag to a totallydisputed tag. I'd like to see a clear demarcation between "what is narrated in the Vedas/Puranas/whatever" and "historical records". Whoever wrote the original article makes statements like this: "[incest]...is apparently more common in Aryan society than in any other part of the world". And what's the proof offered? A bunch of quotes and stories from the Rig Veda. This is like saying that in Biblical times, people used to play havoc with the environment and start off tsunamis. Proof offered: Moses parted the Red Sea. OMG! If it's in the Bible or in the Rig Veda, it *must* be true! -- Brhaspati 06:01, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

Anyway, I feel that the best way to clean this article up is to split it into two completely separate articles Women in Hinduism and Women in India (the latter can also be expanded into Social problems in India). The idea is that the first article deals entirely with Vedic quotations and stuff, *without* mentioning UN reports and the like, while the second article mentions dowry deaths, drowning baby girls in buckets of water, and other perfectly lovely practices *without* dragging the Rig Veda into the discussion. The articles may of course (and ought to) link to each other, but the first deals purely with philosophy while the second deals purely with practice (both current problems and those referred to in historical accounts). I feel this is necessary because if you drag 50 Indians who identify themselves as Hindu off the street, you'll probably find that at least 48 of them wouldn't know the Manu Smriti or the Rig Veda if they walked up and bit them on the ass, irrespective of whether they burn their wives or drown their daughters. (I include myself in the ignorant 48). Also, some of the problems like dowry deaths are (unfortunately) not restricted to Hindus in India. It is therefore somewhat disingenuous to quote something from the Manu Smriti and then slam-cut to a UN Report - I seriously doubt that the bride-burners of today are chanting the Manu Smriti when they pour the kerosene. We need to split this article into the two sections. I'm currently working on the two articles offline. If nobody raises any objections here, I'll update the article with the dichotomized parts. (I won't delete any text - all the text in the current article will make it to one of the two articles). -- Brhaspati 07:23, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

Moved! For religious stuff (advocacy, philosophy, thought), read the current article. For historical and current stuff (real practice in India), see Women in India. Both articles need a good scrubbing now, but at least I've eliminated the bizarre juxtapositions of old and new in the old version. -- Brhaspati 08:48, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Since when did Phoolan Devi become a feminist icon?

Justification

(I have summarised some of the points to make this page smaller. Anonymous in particular seems to go off-topic a lot. If you think I removed an important point in the debate, please put it back in. Cheers. Gaurav) The articles are well researched and reference to each line is given.

Prof. John Muir, Max Muller and many other scolors have worked extensively on Hindusim, Veda, Sanskrit etc.

A good proportion of your sources appear to address ancient India, and do not seem to be reflective of Indian society today. Furthermore, many of them apparently address Indian society in general, not Hindus specifically. [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 13:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's a good point, though I wonder what we could say about modern Indian women. But if you really want to go that way, maybe we can rename this article as "Women in Ancient India" or something? I think there's enough space to put a para or two about modern women at the bottom. -- Gaurav 22:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no question of attacking hinduism. Presentation of differet views should not be disputed.

It was not meant as a question, but as a statement. I think your history shows pretty clearly that you have specifically attacked articles and expressions of Hinduism. And I'm not the first person to point this out. You have already gotten in trouble for vandalizing numerous articles. [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 13:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll side with the Anonymous here, Knowledge. NPOV means putting in all the relevant points, and you can't deny that:

• a lot of the stuff here is interesting from a historical perspective, though not very representative of modern Indian women,
• that a lot of this stuff - such as the woman-being-a-slave-to-the-man - leads to modern practices, such as the tradition of housewives, which makes it easier to understand if you have the historical background, and
• some of this stuff does happen even today.

On the whole, I'd vote that this article should remain in Wikipedia, although if you have any good ideas for articles on modern women in India today, you could move this article somewhere else and put your stuff in its place. -- Gaurav 22:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would like to refer you to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; specifically "6. Propaganda, advocacy, or advertising of any kind. But of course an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. Go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views—and good luck." (see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox). If you would like to keep this article, you must make an attempt at representing the issue fairly, from a neutral point of view. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for more information on this. If you cannot associate this issue with objectivity, you should leave it for someone who can. [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 13:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IMHO, in any wiki, each article belongs to the community as a whole. As for making it more "fair" ... well, I tried :). -- Gaurav 22:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Even different views about Jesus , his miracles etc. are posted here on wikipedia. Tolerant christans debate on this issues. There should not be dispute over expressing facts.

If we were perfect, perhaps there would not be dispute. However, we are rational and civilized, and can work to elucidate issues with clarity and objectivity. This may entail debate. [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 13:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Even today well educated hindu boys ask for Dowry as mentioned in Women In Hinduism. The author has given the permission to use well researched material the link is already given. Caste and untouchability are facts. Even basic human rights to millions of people are denied. Mahatma Jyotirao Phule, Ambedkar , Raja Ram Mohan Roy are great social reformers in India.

Every religion has its extremists; every religion has issues in its past it may not be proud of. However, this should not necessarily be taken as representative of the religion as whole—to do so is prejudicial.

The copyright violation notice has already been removed.

Yes, caste and untouchability are facts, and are well-addressed in their articles. If you have more to contribute, I suggest you do it there, objectively. [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 13:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

About Revival of Buddhism in India ; people are fighting against caste so converting to Buddhism. Why conversion? can be read at [link]

This article is about women in Hinduism; if people are fighting the caste system that information would be better placed in the caste article. [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 13:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The above clarification was regarding NPOV and history given by [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ The article is for (see Revival Of Buddhism In India

Out of several reseaons few reasond and link were given. But here I'll talk about Women In Hinduism now because the user cleverly switches from article to article. So lets consider only [[Women In Hindusin] artile. There is no copyright violation.

Spreading non-voilent values and teachings of Buddha in modern world does not mean attack on caste ridden Brahmnism or Hinduism?

See above. Wikipedia is not mean to spread values or teachings. There are plenty of free web sites which you can use to advocate whatever positions you wish. Furthermore, this article does nothing to spread Buddhist values or teachings; it only attacks Hinduism. [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 13:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then again, as long as Anonymous doesn't come back and try wrecking the article as we improve it, I see no reason that he shouldn't be allowed to make his own points, as long as he can back them up. I have seen his submission history, but if he's going to be a troll there are ways and means to take care of him.

The fellow adding NPOV should think over the fatcs and he should put clarification over the issues instead of putting NPOV. He or any other person can add or edit all the articles with proper reference.

I have thought over the facts. If you or another author cannot turn this into a neutral article, worth of Wikipedia, I will suggest it be deleted. [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 13:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We are not agaist any relgion but everybody should be against Caste, untouchablity and any other discrimination because we are human beings. We should have a better society for better future.

See above. I am not disagreeing with you that the caste system is not good, but Wikipedia is not the proper forum for your work against it. Please pursue other venues, outside this encyclopedia. [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 13:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with KS on this point, Anonymous. It's great that you want to make a difference, and there's plenty of places you can do that - but not here. We appreciate you bringing this information to us, and we'd love to help you place the information in its proper perspective, and edit it for everybody's benefit. But you have to allow other people the right to put their perspectives on the issue, too.

why attention and stub added by me was removed ?

Women in Hinduism

• God as Mother : goddesses, Shaktism, Tantra etc.
• Vedic women: Seers Gargi, Maitreyi etc. Great Women Anasuya, Lopamudra, Ahilya, Arundhati etc. Marriage as sacred institution
• Women in Smritis : "Yatra naryastu poojyante, ramante tatra devatah", concept of Stree-Dhana
• Women in epics : Seeta, Savitri, Draupadi, Gandhari etc. polygomy, polyandry, monogamy etc.
• Women in medival ages : islamic invasions, sati or expression of love ?, child-marriage or betrothal ? , jauhar or self-protection ? etc. Rani Padmini and story of Chittor
• Great queens of Medival India : Ahilyabayi Holkar, Shantala of Hoysala dynasty, Lakshmibai of Jhansi, Shivaji's mothers Jeejabai etc
• Women in freedom movement: Sarojini Naidu, Sucheta Kripalani, Maniben, Kasturba Gandhi, Vijayalakshmi Pandit etc.
• Women saints of India : Sri Sarada Devi, Mata Amritanandamayi, Mother of Auroville, Sister Nivedita, Sarada Mission, Akka Mahadevi, Meera, Andal etc.
• Women in Modern India
  • In Politics : Indira Priyadarshini, Sadhwi Uma Bharati, Mayavati, Vijayaraje Sindhiya, Sushama Swaraj, Jayalalithaa etc.
  • In Fine arts : Lata Mangeshkar, Bollywood, Arundale, Sonal Mansingh etc.
  • In Science and Technology : Kiran Majumdar Shaw IT industry etc.
  • In Social Fields : Sudha Murthy, Nirmala Deshpande, Kiran Bedi etc.
• Women movements in India : hindu movements, feminism inspired movements etc.
• Present day Social status : adoption rights, inheritance rights, reservation etc.

Ramashray

Hey Ramashray, sorry about that. I wasn't sure how to integrate your stub into the present format. My aim with this edit was mostly to consolidate the information which had been added by the Anonymous user, and to try and un-bias it as much as possible. As it is, there's way too much text on the page right now, and we're going to have to reorganise it - by moving most, if not all, the information on sati into sati, for instance. So until that happens, I thought it'd be better to be better to keep the article as clear as possible. But I guess I shouldn't have removed your stub without putting something better in its place, etc. Sorry. -- Gaurav 16:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Guarav, if it were unintentional, no issues; But the present artilce neither represents what is in practice nor represents what Hindus themselves want women to be. Would be happy, if you could rewrite the article; else i will restore my stub in a weeks' time :)

Ramashray

Hey Ramashray, what's with the threat? I merely reformated an existing article to try and make it more NPOV. If you disagree with any part of the article - or the entire article itself - be bold! I think my current revision has more content than your stub, but if you want to put your stub back in - or, ideally, if you'd like to expand it to a full article length - well, that's the whole idea. Let's fight this one out on the article page, yeah? -- Gaurav 06:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

p.s. also, I'm not very sure what we can do with this article. There aren't any other major articles in any other major religion or culture on "Women in {religion}"; I thought the anon user's perspective - looking at the historical abuses of women rights - was interesting, but if you're going to make an article about famous Hindu women, I don't see how this will be interesting, or what point the article will make which isn't covered by History of India. If you have a better idea, merge your content with mine or set up a different article, and we'll talk. -- Gaurav 06:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removing content - female foeticide

The sentences in the verse (Taittirya Samhita - VI.5.10.3) preceding the alleged line are:

gárbʰeṇā́vijñātena brahmahā́ \

avabʰr̥tʰám áva yanti

párā stʰālī́r ásyanty úd vāyavyā̀ni haranti

followed by-

tásmāt stríyaṃ jātā́m párāsyanty út púmāṁsaṁ haranti

In sanskrit, the meaning of the verse doesn't always follow the order of the words. Poetic license is usually taken with the order of words to fit the meter/rules/style of the poem. This particular verse is to be read the following way (per an experienced pundit with a Phd in Vedic studies)-

Meaning (by order to be used) - Striyaha - woman; aavignatena - dual meaning of deliberate knowledge/innocent knowledge (in lust) ; brahmaha - Brahma's form (Jivatma - soul) ; garbhe - in pregnancy/womb ; avabrtam - bath (can be used to mean the bath that is done as part of ceremony (srimantam) performed during pregnancy, conceive; avayanti - accepts; para stalir - nutritious food; asyanti - eats (aswadana); ud - good ; vayavyani - environments (for the feotus); haranti - accepts with joy; tasmat - therefore; jatam - the resultant (labour pains); parasyanti - ignore, push away; ut pumamsam - good jivatma/jiva (live foetus) (jivatma is male gender); haranti - accepts;

Literal translation: The woman conceives (in lust) the foetus (jivatma - soul) and accepts it during the ceremonial bath performed during pregnancy. She eats nutritious food and accepts with joy good environments. Therefore, she pushes away the pains she has to bear, seeking a good jivatma (soul) for the world/seeking to continue creation.

I have had to be creative to translate the gist of some words into English, please excuse any approximations.

The order of words and interpretation has caused the confusion. Here the Striya is the expecting mother and the pumamsa is the to-be-born jivatma (soul).

I am removing the subsection --Pranathi 01:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removing content

The Pancatantra stories are fables like aesops fables and involve animal characters for the most part. They are not all part of Hindu texts. Removing the content on story.

To retain the portion from [EB 8:986 'ordeal'], please provide complete name of hindu text or historical reference that it was derived from. Meanwhile removing content. --Pranathi 04:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The rigveda passage mentioned supporting Sati in fact conveys the opposite meaning. See [1] for english translation and [2]for explanation. --Pranathi 00:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Discuss adultery section

I am trying to understand how this section is relevant to the page. * First parah shows the woman as well as the man being punished severely. * The last parah is about a man that commits adultery. * The second parah condemns adultery, a stance taken, even though much milder, in today's world also. * The story about sage Gautama does not reflect the condition of all mortals. Having acquired powers from penance he has the unique potential to place a curse on his wife with whom he is understandably (though incorrectly per story) angry, especially given the sanctity given to marraige.

Let me know if someone agrees/does not agree with me. If I don't hear back I will remove the section soon. --Pranathi 01:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Reorganize

I am reorganizing the page. The positive/negative reference presentation is very blunt. I plan to make different sections like - study of scriptues (both pos & neg)-, sati, marraige (include child marraige, equality of gender in marraige etc), property rights, women (characters) in hinduism etc. Any thoughts, suggestions, discussions are invited.

Also, please clarify what book 'Hindu law and custom' refers to (in restrictions section). I will remove until clarification is given.--Pranathi 22:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

No mention about Hindu Nuns?

?--Dangerous-Boy 11:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Tone

Please make this more encyclopedic. This now sounds like a lecture given by a Hindu reformer. ^Babub→Talk 15:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Resolved Issues

• Copyright: Original website ([3]) has been placed in the public domain by the author (see last line). However, permission has not been sought from him directly.

It is not at all clear whether the notice places this text in the public domain.

The Authors give Full Permission to Use any of the Above Material As Your Own to distribute for Free.

The meaning of this wording is unclear. The copyright may well be retained. What does "use as your own" mean? Perhaps this only allows redistribution. It does not explicitly grant derivatory works or integrating the article in WP. Maybe this should be tagged copyvio after all? The article probably be needs to be done from scratch anyway, given the polemic content.

Dowry?

"The Vedas prescribe, as do most ancient cultures, that a dowry be given by the bride's family to the groom. The Rig Veda states that cows and gifts given by the father of the bride to the daughter accompanied the bride's procession [Rg Ved. X.85]. I didn't find anything as such in the sukta, even in the translations by Griffith. Can anyone provide clarification upon this? I've instead read the opposite - that the groom gives money or the like to the bride's father. Leafy 14:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I read some comments on DaGizza talk page and I wished to state..

Am sorry, Hinduism don't advocate Sati, Purdah or Dowry. As far as I know Sati Pratha took roots in Rajput communities when Muslims attacked Rajputs and invaded Rajput domains. Rajput women who lost their husband in war preferred to die than go in the hands of Muslims. There is no system of Purdah in Hindus. Regarding dowry, it is not religious dictate, howsoever gifting a woman at her marriage by her parents and relatives is a Hindu custom from ages. Dowry is a social evil of Hindu society but a large section of Hindus do not get involved in dowry demands. Swadhyayee 04:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You're mixing up sati and [jauhar] - the page on Sati (practice) has a competent history of sati in India, with references pre-dating the medieval period.

Recently added information

I realise this article is in need of general clean-up but I removed this text (below) because I felt it was not written in a formal manner, and sounded more like WP:Original research even though it was referenced. Maybe it could be cleaned-up and something along similar lines could be added into article? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 13:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)  :

Male gods (including Shiva and Indra) are too said to be the devotees of the supreme Mother Goddess, Durga. "O Parameshwari, (The supreme Goddess) who is praised by the husband of the daughter of Himalayas (Shri Shiva)..." "O Parameshwari, who is worshipped with true feelings by the husband of Indrani (Indra) please give us the spiritual personality, the victory, the glory and destroy our enemies."

How could this quote possibly be 'cleaned-up'? It is a quote, we have to leave it like it is. Also, it expresses the devotion of male gods to female gods, symbolizing how all male should behave.

ENVI1

I've reworded the text in question to read as per below. Please let me know if this reads okay to you. Regards Gouranga(UK) 12:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternate paragraph

Male deities (such as Shiva and Indra) are believed, in some traditions, to themselves offer worship to the Goddess Durga:

"O Parameshwari, (The supreme Goddess) who is praised by the husband of the daughter of Himalayas (Shri Shiva)..." "O Parameshwari, who is worshipped with true feelings by the husband of Indrani (Indra) please give us the spiritual personality, the victory, the glory and destroy our enemies."

Elsewhere Shiva and Vishnu are also described as possessing feminine qualities represented through their Ardhanarishvara and Mohini forms respectively. There have also been male devotees who have claimed to be incarnations of goddesses. Similarly, Narayani Peedam of Kerala and his followers claim that he is a form or avatara of the goddess Shri Narayani.

GourangaUK misreading

GourangaUK, you have misread my insert. I inserted the name of Sri Bangaru Adigalar, not just the honorific title "Sri" as this Swami also claims to be an avatar of Sri Narayani.

Furthermore, the "Sri" communicates to readers that these religious Hindu figures are greatly admired by their followers and other Hindus.

ENVI —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ENVI1 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Both 'Narayani Peedam' and 'Bangaru Adigalar' are currently mentioned in article. However, we really need a citation to back this comment up, especially as it concerns living persons. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Indira Gandhi etc

Please! The current description of Indira Gandhi etc is laughable. "Loved by many Indians"? How is this even remotely NPOV? Please help rephrase everything and put it in the context of this article. -- 74.132.201.173 01:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for editing

I moved this from the article text.

Suggestion for editing: This part of the article, although informative, includes a slightly illogical comparison. One cannot contrast a 'modern Hindu wife' with the types of women that you list afterward, which would not in most cases have been wives at all! Rather, a comparison and contrast between both the reality and the conceptual image of a modern Hindu wife and an ancient Hindu wife should be done.

Benandorsqueaks 08:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article

It seems to be working too hard to stress that Hindu women are not looked upon as "property" by men. It only lightly touches on the injustices these women face and instead chooses to pretend these are trivial in comparison with the great honor they receive as mothers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.166.233 (talk) 06:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please talk about verses from Vedas to understand women in Hinduism and her rights. Since Vedas are considered to be the supreme text for Hinduism excluding is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.253.175.44 (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

More balance and explanation

The article needs to address some of the apparently negative texts in the Manu smriti towards women. The status of the likes of the Manu smriti also needs to be questioned in a contemporary sense. What value does it hold for hindus today? There should be reference to the current Hindu Personal Law that applies (at least legally) to ove 90% of the worlds Hindus. Hindu Personal Law is not the same as the Manu Smrti which suggests the smriti is not held as an authority by many hindus.--147.89.224.69 (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In order to address balance, it may be beneficial to actually compile segments of scripture that address the issue, and fact based analysis. The article currently is slightly anecdotal, and doesn't contain the balance necessary to explain the presence of women in the religion. Additionally with balance, there are also positive depictions of women in the religion which should be addressed. Ensquared (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed changes

It may also help to consider movements to ban discriminatory practices against women that were thought to have originated from Hinduism, but were man created rituals.Ensquared (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I am planning on editing this article as part of a class assignment. If anyone is working on re structuring this article as well, I am open to input and suggestions. This is part of an ongoing project in a Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities class and I have acknowledged Women in Hinduism as an important topic to address. Ensquared (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

New Additions

Overall, I think you had a great preliminary contribution to your article. There are still a few grammatical/structural spots that if changed, could improve the article further. Additionally, there are just a few claims within the additions that would be good to add further citations to. The structure and format overall I think is done pretty well, and is relatively easy to read and follow. Further illustrations would also add to the article further as well as the addition of more diverse number of sources and perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lnicholson14 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Ensquare's Initial Contribution Review

The quality and depth of the contributions to the article were noted and appreciated. Adding more dimensions aka subsections may keep you from being limited in terms of information that may discussed as it would be unfortunate to be restricted to the categories that already exist. Linking to other articles for information that is a bit more esoteric or expounding upon them would also be helpful.Vnguyen518 (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Women in Hinduism and Women in India

@Ensquared: Your historical context contribution is a summary about India, not Hinduism. The source title is "The Female Element in Indian Culture", and Indian culture includes ancient Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Animist and 2nd millennium Islam, Christian and Sikh aspects. What you added, even for India is from a bit old source and now disputed among scholars. We need an WP:NPOV summary of various scholarly sides. Please see more recent papers and books published by Brian Pennington, Gavin Flood, Andrew Nicholson, Arvind Sharma, Ronald Inden, Michel Witzel, and others. There you will find more diverse presentation and content for 'women in Hinduism'. A balanced summary from these sources in this article would be welcome. Are you part of a school/course-for-credit editing project? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your recommendation, I will definitely address the issues you have mentioned. I am working as part of a school project Ensquared (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Offtopic, generic comments

@Ensquared: I removed the long para you added that started with, "Hinduism is often described a lifestyle, rather than rigid religion....." with some inappropriate language from the lead. This is not an article on Hinduism, and including it in this article's lead is offtopic soap, it is also not appropriate per lead and style guidelines. If you wish to include it, please explain. I suggest we work on the main article first, and we can return to the lead summary later. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the lead. I will look at the resource you linked to and brainstorm a more appropriate lead. The reason why I additionally included it was due to feedback that suggested I provide a context of the religion before going into specifics of women in Hinduism, however the historical context section should address that. I agree with your suggestion of ramping up the main article before the lead. Ensquared (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't think we need to provide a context of Hinduism in the lead, just like articles such as Women in Buddhism, Women in Christianity etc don't provide a context of Buddhism, Christianity, etc. in the lead. Let us revisit this after the main article is in better shape. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Education section

@Ensquared: You added the following to Hindu Education of Women section, "However, another section of the Upanishads overrides such a desire by explaining that women could not involve in Vedic studies." You also added a 1956 book by Altekar as source at the end of the paragraph, without page numbers. Please identify the page number of the source, where this statement is, for WP:Verifiability, because I have the Altekar book and it states something very different. BTW, Altekar book was first published in 1938 (1956 edition was a reprint with some updates), it is an old source, not WP:HISTRS, and it must be cross checked with more recent sources. But for now, I wait for a page number. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I will update the page numbers later today. Thank you again for your feedback. Just as a personal reference, here is the link to the book version I have been getting the information from. I will definitely incorporate your thoughts, however. For now I have deleted the initial statement you identified as problematic, but will look into the page number and update. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VYG4K0yYHQgC&oi=fnd&pg=PR12&dq=The+position+of+women+in+Hindu+civilization,+from+prehistoric+times+to+the+present+day&ots=HuZAlwF-jz&sig=woihOgz1Sl2O3GLt3Y_oc03aKfA#v=onepage&q=The%20position%20of%20women%20in%20Hindu%20civilization%2C%20from%20prehistoric%20times%20to%20the%20present%20day&f=false Ensquared (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I am also working on adding a section on Hindu women clothing and dress, do you have any suggestions on where in the article that would be most useful and relevant? Ensquared (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ensquared: I will wait for page numbers for the rest of the section. A dress section would be an excellent addition. You can find a good historical coverage about the diversity yet common elements of dress of women in Hindudism, across ancient, medieval and modern times, in the old but respected source GS Ghurye (1967), Indian Costumes, ISBN 978-0718922801, pages 65-100, 105-125, 150-180 respectively. A more recent source is Emma Tarlo (1996), Clothing Matters: Dress and Identity in India, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 978-0226789767, (Chapter 2 discusses dressing history among Hindu women, which is what this article should focus on; other chapters discuss the dress as identity issue in Hindu-Muslim conflict first, later anti-colonialism). Google for 'dress, women, hinduism' literature by Bernard Cohn, Christopher Bayly. That should get you started on a good foundation. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Great, I will look into all of those sources. I'll probably updating in the next fews days or so. I see you also added a fine arts section which I can also contribute to. The last section I am hoping to add is a Notable Women in Hinduism section. Ensquared (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ensquared: Excellent. I will leave those three sections empty, in your good hands. If you need Hindu text sources for women and fine arts, see this section. Of those listed there, the three books by Baumer, Khokar and Nijenhuis would give you a good foundation, as they are fine reviews of relevant scholarship on "arts, women and Hinduism". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Review

Great job providing diverse and competing viewpoints on women in Hinduism! This article is very informative; it highlights the complexities of gender in Hinduism through a multidimensional job. Impressive work remaining neutral and supporting different claims. The images also help capture the diversity in thought and provide a visual representation of some of the ideas you discuss. If anything, I would suggest simply going back through the article a couple more times and maybe simplifying some of the sentences to make them a little more concise and understandable for all audiences. Good job!! Efoxman42 (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)