Talk:Raksha Bandhan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Implicit Advertisements

Most of the external links provide advertisements to Rakhi greeting cards, rakhi gifts etc. Not sure if these links should be kept. Simynazareth 06:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

How to?

Disposal of Rakhi part was removed by user Ronz with reason: Removed - this is not a how to. Could you kindly explain about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.88.145.9 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 28 August 2007

Thanks for asking. The comment was a bit brief, and I should have probably explained further here when I made the edit. WP:NOT#HOWTO describes how articles should not instruct or otherwise serve as manuals. Further, the section was not written per WP:NPOV, but rather is taken almost directly from the source, a source that assumes certain religious beliefs and attitudes. Finally, the section did not make sense grammatically (neither does the source). --Ronz 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. I have some doubts. Appreciate if you can help to understand. Refer the 'featured' article Flag of India. Under 'Proper flag protocol', method of disposal is provided. How do you see this? And about article, I must say that the article I had referred is providing very good and pure information about Raksha Bandhan without any religious bias.

Next point - If you are going at gross level, then even Google has also faced allegations of WP:POV. Many newspapers are sued for editorials with WP:POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.88.145.9 (talk) 07:32, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

The religious source here is not equivalent to a government source in Flag of India. Please review WP:NPOV, especially WP:WEIGHT.

"If you are going at gross level" I dont understand. I'm guessing your review of NPOV will help clarify though. --Ronz 17:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Main article

Shouldn't the main article be Raksha Bhandan and that one mention Rakhi, rather than the way it is now? Sfacets 13:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• I second that. Does anyone have a legitimate reason for making "Rakhi" the main article, rather than "Rakshabandhan"? FashionNugget 14:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The story of Humayaun and Rani Karnavati is a fiction and not a true history. There is no historical account or evidence to prove this incidence. Please remove this misleading Para about the history "Rani Karnawati and Emperor Humayun ". This incidense of Rani Karnavati is derived from AMAR CHITRA KATHA which is a comic book, hence the incidense in more or less a fiction and doesn't represents the history. Hence needs to be removed from Wikepedia about Raksha Bandhan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikramaditya dalvi (talk • contribs) 07:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Indra's Wife

Indra's wife is Indrani (Aindri). Rakhi was tied by Indra's sister and Brihaspathi; not Indra's wife. In that case - even today, Rakhi should be tied by wives, not sisters. Simynazareth 05:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK nomination

What about Sikhs?

I have read through the article and no where I see signs of mentioning Sikhs, who also celebrate this festival. In the introduction, the text clearly says that "...is observed by Hindus and Muslims". This is not the whole truth. Although, Raksha bandan is not an official Sikh festival, it is celebrated by the younger generations of Sikhs, both in Punjab and abroad. I am a Sikh myself, and our family celebrate this day every single year. This is a festival common to Hindus and Sikhs, as well as some Muslims. With regards − Sandip90 (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Time to protect the article?

The article is regularly vandalized and used for promotional purposes. Obviously some cultural differences are coming into play with the editing. Shall we protect the article from ip editing? --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm giving it a few more days, now that it is past and interest in the article declining. --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced material: Indra and Indrani, Rabindranath Tagore & Rakhi

Anyone have time to find some sources for this ?

2013 date

What is the date for this festival in 2013? Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 05:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Misprint in the title

There is a misprint in the title, it should be Raksha Bandhan, not Raksha Bhandan. Word raksha (रक्षा) means protection, bandhan is derived from the verb bandhna (बंधना or बँधना) meaning to be tied (see in WordAnywhere). The correct Hindi name is रक्षाबंधन॰ --Zdeněk Wagner (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

actually it should be raksha bandhana, not bandhan. bandhan has no meaning in sanskrutam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.67.10 (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Vastra Haran

From the article: Krishna paid the debit of love during Vastra haran of Draupadi. Draupdi's Vastra Haran was done in the assembly of King Dritrashtra,when Yudishter her husband lost her in gamble.

What is the Vastra haran of Draupadi? What is Vastra Haran? Should it be made a link to an article called Vastra Haran? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.8.84 (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Chittor legend around Rakhi

The legend around Rakhi, attributed to Rani Padmini in section - Raksha_Bandhan#Rani_padmini_and_Emperor_Humayun is also attributed to Rani Karnavati, which seems more plausible, as Rani Padmini committed Jauhar on August 26, 1303, much before the time of Humayun as suggested in the section. Someone needs to correct it, by checking facts through appropriate sources --Ekabhishek (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

there is no evidence of this festival "growing in popularity" after the Humayun incident — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.13.238 (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

We've a source that says otherwise. You removed the source with the information. Why? --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

says who? oh, "Criminal lawyer Majeed Memon" says so? who is he and what is his authority regarding Raksha Bandhan? Just because some random person who celebrates the festival says so, doesn't make it a credible statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.13.238 (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"According to a mid-seventeenth century Rajasthani account, Rani Karnavati, the Rana's mother, sent a bracelet as rakhi to Humayun, who gallantly responded and helped. Since none of the contemporary sources mention this, little credit can be given to this story ..." It is simply a legend. You cannot state it in such a matter of fact way, that Raksha Bandhan's popularity grew after a legend. It is acceptable for the legend to appear further below and it is backed up with a number of sources- that is perfectly ok. Just dont have it in the beginning in such a way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.13.238 (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

So this problem here appears to be the source is being removed without even a glance at the footnote. I'll copy it here to make it clear:

"Raksha Bandhan is a secular festival, say liberal Muslims who have no qualms about celebrating it within and outside the community. Even the ulema has given its nod of approval. “We should not forget that historically, the festival became popular after Rani Karnawati, the widowed queen of Chittor, sent a rakhi to the Mughal emperor Humayun when she required his help,’’ says eminent cleric Maulana Abu Hassan Nadvi Azhari. “Islam favours everything that promotes peace and harmony. Raksha Bandhan cannot be associated with one particular religion. It is a secular festival and Muslims should not have a problem accepting a rakhi.’’"

So, we aren't quoting a lawyer.

I understand, and can see in the editing by others, that there are cultural objections to the origins, popularism, and secularization of the festival. Removing this sourced content without even reading what the source states appears to be another way of expressing such an objection.

Best way to continue is to provide other sources, while properly identifying the nature and content of those currently in use.

However, there are many ways to proceed. WP:3O would be a simple way to move forward. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"According to a mid-seventeenth century Rajasthani account, Rani Karnavati, the Rana's mother, sent a bracelet as rakhi to Humayun, who gallantly responded and helped. Since none of the contemporary sources mention this, little credit can be given to this story ..." This is stated by one of the sources present in this article.

This Maulana isn't a credible historian. If historians state that little credit can be given to this story, you cant state it in such a matter of fact way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.13.238 (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added "one islamic scholar believes" to make it better. that way, it doenst seem as though Raksha Bandhan's present popularity owes entirely to one isolated episode which may not have occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.13.238 (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be an improvement.

I think this would be best addressed by finding better histories of this and the related festivals, as well as better sources on the secularization of the festival. --Ronz (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Can someone change the title?

There is a misspelling. it should be Raksha Bandhana, not Raksha Bandhan-this word doesn't mean anything. It's like writing Americ instead of writing America. 74.194.67.10 (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you give a reliable source for the name as you mentioned? -- L o g X 13:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

i had to look around because most of the English papers writing about this are written from Hindi-speaking perspective. http://www.wmich.edu/dialogues/themes/indianwords.htm http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bandana https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bandana

It denotes that Bandana is a meaning for kerchief. Please cite with a reliable source. -- L o g X 17:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Bandhana means to tie.Which is what raksha bandhana means.You TIE the raksha around the wrist. this is a reliable source and the word is bandhana. Only in Hindi is it Bandhan and that's a variant/derivative of the real word. dI'm not sure how this is not a reliable source;it's a dictionary and an university site. You can read the article for a clearer understanding of what Raksha Bandhana is to understand why tying is pertinent and how bandana relates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.224.225 (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 September 2013

This article has many spelling mistakes. The title should be Raksha Bandhana.

I tried to reason w/ a user about the spelling issues but to no avail and it ultimately ended in locking the article and preventing the corrections.

mistakes like: bandhan,shravan,munh-bola bhai,Indra Dev.

These words do not exist in sanskrutam. they have no meaning. this is either Hindi or some other derivative language and this is a long standing tradition that exists throughout India, not restricted to a Hindi speaking area.

Here are the corrections: Bandhan is Hindi for Bandhana which is the real word. Shravan-Shravana munh-bola bhai-should be specified as the regional word for what it is describing. Indra Dev-Indra Deva

Ganesh-Ganesha

Shubh-Shubha

labh-Labha

Shishupal-Shishupala - Wikipedia's own page has most of these corrections

Clearly written by a Hindi(or north Indian lang.) speaking person and biased. I hope someone can make these corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.67.10 (talk • contribs)

(refactored into new section for readabilty)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Since the article was evidently protected due to this dispute over spelling, it is not something that can be handled through a simple edit request. I would suggest providing reliable sources that back up your claims, which as explained above the previously given references do not. BryanG (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

it turns out to be bandha. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=bandana&searchmode=none is this legitimate enough?

even if you disagree w/ this, certainly you cannot disagree w/ the other parts i've addressed. wikipedia itself supports me.

Indian postal department participation

I removed an unsourced addition [1] on the participation by the Indian postal department. A quick search finds articles such as http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/Postal-dept-launches-spl-Rakhi-envelopes/articleshow/9471558.cms that verify some participation. The addition of the information in the ritual sub-section also seems out of place. Perhaps we find a few more sources and create a new sub-section? --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Raksha Bandhan and Muslims

There is no mention of Raksha Bandhan in Quran or Hadiths. Muslims in Middle East, North Africa, Southeast Asia do not celebrate it. There is no verifiable source suggesting Muslim women tie Rakhi to Muslim men in India or elsewhere. To claim Raksha Bandhan as a Muslim festival is WP:OR and WP:UNDUE.

Just because some Hindu queens sent a Rakhi to some Muslims in India, centuries ago, is not sufficient reason to allege it is a Muslim festival in infobox or lead. Nor are WP:FRINGE incidents in modern times. Personal opinions of some Muslims is not WP:RS and is WP:ADVOCACY. Yes, a mention of it being accepted by some Muslims in India can be made in the multi-culturalism section, but anything more is undue. Abbey kershaw (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

These arguments seem to be OR, giving undue weight to personal opinions over actual sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2014

In article "Raksha Bandhan": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raksha_Bandhan, there is an error in the passage Indra Dev under Myths and Parables. Sachi is the wife of Indra then how can she tie a sacred thread around Indra's wrist given in line three. She must have tied it around Lord Vishnu's wrist otherwise the statement is very wrong and makes no sense. (Aikagras (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)) Aikagras (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Can someone provide a source to clear this up? --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Aikagras, see Volume 3 of Encyclopaedia of Hinduism (5 volumes), ISBN 978-8176250641, at pages 536-537. The Indra and Sachi story is there. The short explanation to your question is that the modern practice of Raksha Bandhan celebrates Sister-Brother like relationship. This was not necessarily so in ancient times, and various myths. Rakhi thread had a broader scope and purpose. These threads were amulets of India, an idea very common in the history of Europe, and other civilizations. As amulets, these threads were tied by wife to husband going to war, or by a worried mother on her child's wrist (such as the Yasoda-Krishna story in this article), or etc. to protect the person. Abbey kershaw (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Odds were 1 in 7

SO CLOSE it was almost right - http://www.dayoftheweek.org/?m=August&d=29&y=2015&go=Go Asat (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Celebration by Sikhs

A number of edits have been made as to whether Raksha Bandhan is celebrated by Sikhs, which it is. The festival is not a Sikh festival but it is observed by Sikhs. If this is causing offence, then do not refer to observance by Sikhs in the article but the article should not be a forum to argue whether it should or should not be celebrated by Sikhs. (User:Malikhpur) 1 September 2015

per WP:NOTCENSORED, the material should remain.

It would be nice to differentiate the religious vs other types of observances if it is possible to do so, properly sourced. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to find sources to differentiate the religious/cultural aspects. I need to do more research but thank you for keeping an eye on this article. It is much appreciated. (User:Malikhpur) 20:57 1 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Raksha Bandhan. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140725060221/http://www.dayandnightnews.com/2012/08/bsf-soldiers-celebrated-rakhi-at-border-in-jammu/ to http://www.dayandnightnews.com/2012/08/bsf-soldiers-celebrated-rakhi-at-border-in-jammu/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tourism-uttarakhand.com/janopunya-festivals.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120530125225/http://colorfulnepal.com/culture-and-religion/janai-purnima.html to http://colorfulnepal.com/culture-and-religion/janai-purnima.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140809215313/http://www.odisha.gov.in/portal/LIWPL/event_archive/Events_Archives/89RakshaBandhan_GamhaPurnima.pdf to http://www.odisha.gov.in/portal/LIWPL/event_archive/Events_Archives/89RakshaBandhan_GamhaPurnima.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

NPOV and Multiculturalism

@Malikhpur: After studying this article's edit history, I see you have been adding disproportionately much "multiculturalism, secular" spin to this article. The source you cited are stating something very different, or the sources are non-RS. We need to maintain NPOV by "representing fairly and proportionately" the reliable sources. This means the article must emphasize those aspects of this festival that reliable sources do, and not do OR emphasizing multiculturalism because reliable sources do not do so. Also, please do not add lulu.com and non-RS sources to this or other wikipedia articles. I welcome your comments. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: I share your concerns (sorry, it is over 1.5 year old discussion and I just started looking at the numerous Hindu festivals related articles). In a number of cites, I am unable to verify what @Malikhpur added. For example, with this edit, Malikhpur alleged the support for "secular festival by Sikhs" is in McLeod. I don't see it. @Malikhpur then added Nesbitt as additional support for that sentence with this edit. But, I can't find Eleanor Nesbitt stating that either. Do you remember checking the other sources back then? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't, but I see Malikhpur continues to replace sources to radically change the pov, all without comment. Discretionary sanctions apply. Doesn't look like has been notified. --Ronz (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: and @Ronz: Thanks for your comments. I will not edit further until I have found acceptable sources. However, please be aware that Raksha Bandhan does not hold any religious significance in Sikhism. I will leave it to yourselves to edit the article to reflect this.(Malikhpur) 09:39, 01 March 2017 (UTC)

@Malikhpur: Appreciate your cooperation. I second Ronz's observation, and there are multiple Indian subcontinent's festival-related articles including this one where there is a pattern in your edits. The sources you cited are non-RS websites/WP:Questionable, too old and stating something very different from what you claim. Such misrepresentation and POV-y additions are not appropriate in this or other articles. Your personal opinions / wisdom / prejudice about the significance of Raksha Bandhan in Sikhism are irrelevant. We need to stick to mainstream scholarship in reliable sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Noted. Apologies for the inconvenience. Malikhpur) 10:40, 01 March 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources

@Manishkrisna108: please see WP:RS guidelines. Your contributions would be welcome if they are sourced to reliable scholarship. This applies to spellings and content. If no one has published it in a peer reviewed literature, we cannot WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The aryabhatt.com offering commercial consulting services for astrology etc is a WP:QUESTIONABLE source. Do you have better sources? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

raksha bandhana

title is mispelled as bandhan when it should be bandhana, can someone please make this correction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.177.134 (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC) furthermore there are other misspellings like tilak (should be tilaka or tilakam), indra dev (indra deva). the sanskrit word for bond is bandhana, not bandhan. Ganesh should be Ganesha Shubh Labh should be shubha labha. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.177.134 (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. The spellings need to reflect what is verifiable in the published reliable sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2017

In Prayer, aarti, promise and food section, change "tikka" to "tika". "Tika" is correct spelling for synonym of tilak.

Incorrect: After the prayer, the sister applies a tilak (tikka), a colorful mark on the forehead of the brother. Corrected: After the prayer, the sister applies a tilak (tika), a colorful mark on the forehead of the brother. Zombiegirl704 (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Different Indian languages have different spellings, it appears to me. For example, Tamil may have a different spelling for a word than Telugu. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

An unencyclopedic article

Having been in India during Raksha Bandhan on Monday, I have read this article with dismay. I have reviewed the history of the article. Despite recent improvements, the article remains unencyclopedic. It fails to address the most important features of Raksha Bandhan, that it is rooted in rural Hindu north India's territorial exogamy of matrimonial practice, that it is more about rural married women leaving their conjugal homes to return to their natal ones during Sawan, that the security the brother offers is based in his real-life, life-long, role as a protector of the interests of a woman who has been married away from home to an unfamiliar family in an unfamiliar place, that that it became an India-wide festival, to the limited extent it has even today, only in the last 40 odd years, that it is the subject of work by some of the great anthropologists and sociologists of the day. Instead, we have an article that is more about urban middle class kids for whom the festival has little lived meaning, who "get together" and "hug and kiss", turning silly a custom in which the brother commonly travels to a sister's conjugal home to bring her back to her parent's home, and a ceremony after which he commonly touches her feet in respect to her as an embodiment of the feminine divinity, no matter how much older he is than her. Instead we have silly stories about Alexander and Humayun, all of which are ahistorical, and rituals in which long bogus prayers have been added to a festival that is essentially irreligious rooted though it reains in Hindu rural north India. I will be improving the article in the next three or four days. I will be adding the "inuse" template during times of busy editing, and the "underconstruction" template during other times. I request very earnestly that no major edits be made, none of mine edits reverted, during the time I shall be editing the article, no matter which of the two tags are in place. I will be done by end of day August 16, 2017. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, the revision will take a little longer. I am discovering that the history of the ritual in scholarly sources is much more complex than I had thought. I will need ten days more. So, whatever I have by August 26, will be my final version. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Thanks for your efforts in improving this article, it is now one of the better ones of Indian festivals and should probably be reassessed for its quality score. As noted by you the festival has roots in Hindu mythology and follows the lunar calendar though like many other such festivals it has indeed become a secular festival. 171.78.220.11 (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Cherrypicking of Melton, Goody and other sources

Fowler&fowler: Please see WP:OWN and avoid the aggressive/confrontational language in your edit summaries. I checked the sources in the version I reviewed, corrected to exact quotes, and added more from the sources already cited in this article. I have therefore restored some of my recent edits, since they better reflect the sources you accepted and used in August 2017 such as Goody, Melton, etc. These are acceptable RS. I have also added some new sources such as those relating to this topic in Jainism. If you have concerns about a particular source, please explain why it was RS when you used it a year ago and not okay now, or whatever in light of our content guidelines. Let us discuss and go through the RSN/DRN/etc, if need be. On "South Asia" versus "Indian and/or Nepalese" festival, sources I checked support the latter. Do you have sources that state that this festival is observed in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka? If so, please identify the RS with page numbers. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You don't know the first thing about checking sources. You have been indeffed once. I refrained from saying anything, though I had enough to put you away for good. Please don't tempt me with graduate student sophistry. Are you aware that until 20 years ago, its only significance in Nepal was that of a priest coming around to the various houses in the village and distributing cheap threads and receiving money in return? Obviously not. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

What the heck is this: The threads that bind: Raksha Bandhan celebrated across Pakistan, this, this, this, this, this, and this, chopped liver? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

F&f: Me indeffed for what, why, and why did ARBCom accept the appeal and reverse the block?... it is petty for you to start this 'you have been indeffed once' nonsense, since you don't know what really happened as you were not a party in the due process. All that does not belong on this take page. If you have concerns about me or my editing, please feel free to take that to the relevant boards? You should be using this talk page to work with me and others to improve this article. The current article includes a lot of content and sources you added, because I concur. In some cases, you made mistakes similar to those I noted in our past disputes in other articles. These include OR:Synthesis and NPOV issues. I have tried to correct them by including quotes, additional sources and rewording to more closely reflect what the scholarly sources are stating. Here are some specifics:

• There is no need to doctor the quote from the R. S. McGregor, which states "Hindi the festival of rakṣābandhan". Most sources, including the R. S. McGregor source you added calls it a festival, and not annual rite. We should therefore use the term festival and not 'annual rite' because the scholarly sources use that term.
• Newspapers stories can be reliable for a specific developing story, but they are not RS for a tradition / history and such information? FWIW, those newspapers are not stating that the majority or even a significant percentage of Pakistani Muslims celebrate Rakshabandhan. The links you give are talking about Pakistani Hindus, whose population percentage in Pakistan is insignificant. South Asia includes many nations and stating that Raksha Bandhan is a South Asian festival misleads because scholarly sources do not describe Raksha Bandhan in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Sri Lanka, but they do describe it in terms of India and Nepal. We must rely on what and how the scholarly sources present a subject. If you present your suggestions with scholarly sources and page numbers, I will work with you.
• there is no need for you to be disruptive and be removing scholarly sources I added, with embedded quotes, such as the reference for Raksha Bandhan article in the W.J. Johnson source published by Oxford Univ Press.
• you added "the former colonies of the British Empire to which Hindus had migrated in the 19th-century"... that is a strange POV-y wording and does not reflect the scholarly sources. Hindus have migrated in good numbers to the USA, Canada, Australia and elsewhere in recent decades and many celebrate this festival wherever they have their new homes. Instead, "... in countries where Hindus have migrated since the 19th-century", or "... Hindus outside of India and Nepal", or "...in countries where immigrant Hindus are found", or "... among Hindu diaspora", or such would be more neutral.
• the RS you added and I have recently added present an overview of the customs / practices / traditions during this festival. This article should too. Please explain your concerns with these sources and why delete it (please avoid sharing your personal feelings and opinions, focus on the RS).
• In the lead sentence, it would be better if we stick with a wording closer to the peer-reviewed scholarly sources. How about changing the lead sentence to a "Hindu and Jain festival", instead of "South Asian..."?

I have tentatively opted for a neutral language, with "annual festival" till we reach consensus. For the rest, let us take one source at a time. As in past, I will ignore your "Are you aware that [....] Obviously not" type nonsense you wrote above, because I am not here for FORUM-y discussions with you, nor to educate you. If you bring specific peer-reviewed reliable sources with page numbers, I will discuss those and collaborate with you to improve this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

How many Hindus are there in Bangladesh? 19.32 million, making up 12% of the nation's population. How many Hindus in Sri Lanka? 2.61 million, making up 12.6% of the nation's population. How many Hindus in Pakistan? 3.8665 million, making up 1.85% of the nation's population. There are 21 million Hindus in Nepal. Together the Hindus in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka total 19.32 + 2.61 + 3.8665 = 25.8 million, which is greater than 21 million by nearly 5 million. Pray tell, by what logic of math, will the Hindus in Nepal garner mention but collectively those of the other South Asian nations will not. How many Jains are there in India? 4.5 million, making 0.36% of India's population. Together, the Jains in India and the Hindus in Nepal don't match the population of Hindus in the other nations of South Asia. Next time, please don't waste my time with sophistry. When you get the urge, please revisit the page so ably presided over by you until August 2017 before I made my intervention. @RegentsPark:, @Vanamonde93:: This is why WP is going downhill. Will I edit war? Of course not. Let the encyclopedia rot in the lexical sludge of biased editors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

That really does not answer my concern or my proposal about "South Asian" versus "Hindu and Jain". Nor did it provide a scholarly source that states that Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh, or Buddhists in Bhutan and Sri Lanka celebrate this festival. I have carefully checked the sources, and they either prefer to word it as "Hindu festival" (+ Jain) or narrow it down to Indian & Nepalese festival. I prefer the former, because most sources do. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. To be quite honest, the disputed text is so large that I'm not able to get a handle on what the precise issues are, and I don't know the source material well enough to have an opinion at the moment. Would one of you care to explain what the disagreement is about (I mean I know it's the 4kb of added text, but what about that addition?) Vanamonde (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: In August 2017, I happened to be in India around the time of Rakhsha Bandhan (RB), an annual rite, which in popular accounts celebrates the love between brothers and sisters. I looked at the WP article. It had then latterly had input from Sarah Welch and was in this long meandering state with various popular myths, various bogus "prayers" and rituals, all claiming to be ancient. So, I rewrote the article, demonstrating clearly in the light of anthropological scholarship, much the work of scholars I have known, that there was the overlapping of two traditions. One, a local tradition, in the Hindu heartland of Northern India in which territorial exogamy (i.e. the practice of marrying out of the region of ones natal home) had been practiced for centuries. It was traditional in this region for the bride's parents to never visit her in her married home. It was also traditional in this region for the bride, especially newly married ones, to return to their natal home, for a few weeks before RB, allowing her parents and siblings to spend time with her, and also to ensure her well-being in her faraway married home. On the last day of the natal home visit, which fell on the last day of the Hindu calendar month of the monsoon season, a ritual was held in which the bride either placed shoots of barley behind the ears of her brothers or performed some other similar ritual, which offered ritual protection to the brothers in exchange for the reaffirmation of their lifelong duty to her in face of life's vicissitudes (widowhood, divorce, abuse by in-laws). There was also a more India-wide tradition of a priest coming around various homes on this day, and tying threads on the wrists of his patrons, both men and women, also a form of ritual, spiritual, protection. In the language of 1950s anthropology, now more universally used, the first constituted Little tradition(s), the second a Great tradition. As India modernized, as joint families broke up, with the bride's brothers seeking their fortunes in distant places, the Great and the Little were fused into one, which, promoted by capitalism, became a celebration of brother-sister love. In the commercials which promoted this transformed tradition, little girls were now tying threads, and their toddler brothers pledging to defend their sisters. I wrote a scholarly lead, and two more sections, ending with this version of 24 August 2017. Sarah Welch made no changes until last week, or the week before, and then she went around reinstating, the errors of old. She is now attempting to argue with me about Nepal of all places, or the Jains in India, both of whom, together number less than the Hindus in the other nations of South Asia. Do I have to energy or the slightest inclination to argue about this form of nitpicking? I don't. I pinged you because if you care about Wikipedia, then this form of superficially rule-abiding bias, which I have no appetite for, needs to be identified, if not rooted out. And now, she's attempting to lecture me below about the nuances which I myself introduced. Just compare her version of early August 2017 and mine of three weeks later. Thanks for replying. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde93: It is unusual to expect that this or any other article that "latterly had input from Sarah Welch" or "any other editor" would be a total rewrite. In some articles, we simply remove vandalism / OR / NPOV issues and fix other issues. In some, we bandage and patch an article hoping to work on it later, in others one or more editors make significant changes or do a rewrite. This article has been on my watchlist that has nearly 1000 articles, and I saw F&f revising it back in 2017, thought the constructive rewrite was long due and so left him alone. Pretty much anyone is free to edit any article in wikipedia whenever she or he wishes. There should be no WP:OWN behavior and there is no need to repeatedly harp back to August 2017 etc. I feel F&f's language and edit summaries have been hostile and OWN-ish, not helpful in further improving this article. You ask, "what the disagreement is about"... the bulleted points above list some of those disagreements. I hope to return to this article in coming weeks and collaborate to further improve this article as there are more issues here than those bulleted points, in light of scholarly sources. Your review and intervention is welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, @RegentsPark:, @Abecedare:, @Ben MacDui:, @SlimVirgin: The bane of Wikipedia will ultimately not be the people such as Nadir Ali, who lose their cool and do something stupid but without limitless guile, which gets them banned, but graduate students (I'm using that term metaphorically) with infinite time, with access to the sources in their libraries, with firm insidious bias which together with their lack of knowledge, and a facile knowledge of the WP rules, allows them to promote their bias relentlessly. Sarah Welch, she or he, is the worst of the latter type I've seen on Wikipedia. I have met no more obsessively anti-Muslim editor in my 12 years. I say that as someone who has written most of the FA India, and at least one version of the History of Pakistan article. One dispute here is about using the term "South Asia," because it admits Pakistan, a Muslim nation in the mention of the celebration of a festival with Hindu antecedents. It is not enough for her that together the Hindus of Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, number more than the Hindus of Nepal and the Jains of all seven continents, which last two clog up the current lead sentence. For Pakistan to be included, the Muslims of Pakistan must join in too in this festival. By that benchmark, we can't say that Christmas is celebrated in Palestine (despite Bethlehem and Nazareth) because Palestinian Muslims, who constitute some 90+% of the population don't join in. Sarah Welch had no knowledge, I repeat, zero knowledge, of the anthropological and sociological significance of Saluno/Raksha Bandhan/Rakhee between February 2017 and August 2017, when she edited the article, and before I did; otherwise, she would have at least put in one sentence about it in the text. During the same time she was rearranging pictures of children, who from the decor around them, appeared to be Indian immigrants in America, rather than residents of India and Nepal. A section on rituals included "gifts and hugs," an apparent illustration of this ancient Hindu and Jain celebration. She did not touch this doozy for those six months either. Already, when she first appeared, as Ms Sarah Welch, on Wikipedia, during the 2014-election build-up, there were several instances of her adding gratuitous but subtly anti-Muslim "facts," such as there is more child labor among Muslims (See Child Labor in India majorly edited by Apostle von Colorado). It is similar relentless anti-Muslim obsession, which made her add pictures of halal slaughter, and in vengeance remove a harmless video of stray cattle in Lutyen's Delhi which I had added elsewhere, which showed the street signs as well for identification. I wasn't born yesterday. I can smell out bias from a mile away. Eventually, as most people who have edited India-related articles know, when I get fed up, I can dredge up the sordid history of that bias. This is not a threat, only a request to the WP powers-that-be to intervene before it gets to that point. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

For context and details skipped here, see this, when F&f pinged RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, Doug Weller, Bishonen, Vanamonde93 etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• My apologies for taking some time to respond here. To begin with: it's not news to anyone that you both don't see eye-to-eye. I'm not going to comment on your relative worth to the encyclopedia or on general biases, etc, because at the moment it's not germane; as long as you are both active on the topic, we do have to find a way to collaborate. I don't see you being able to agree on any of the large issues, and so the way forward is to break down the problem as far as it will go. I'd suggest bringing your main sources to the talk page first, and discussing them to see which of them might be acceptable to both of you. MSW, your edits to the article have made large changes to content that had existed for a while. For better or for worse, that would suggest that the burden of obtaining consensus falls a little more on you: ie you need to obtain consensus for your changes, F&F does not necessarily need to get consensus against them. Also, while I'm still a little uncertain about the specifics of your debate, I will say that we need to tread very carefully with the labels "Hindu", "Indian", "South Asian", etc, in reference to traditions from this general region. The lead as is stands right now is a significant problem, because we're calling Raksha Bandhan a Hindu festival and then going on to say it's celebrated by Jains and Sikhs; which is a bit self-contradictory and/or non-neutral, as we're suggesting that their celebrations are somehow appropriating the tradition. Vanamonde (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Here are the two best known dictionaries of Urdu and Hindi. They are a little dated, but still very widely used. The first does not even mention "Raksha Bandhan," but Saluno. This was the "little tradition," changing subtly both in ritual and name from district to district, sometimes village to village, in North- or Western India. The second is the Great Tradition, more widespread than just North or Western India: the Brahmin (the village priest) coming around the different households and tying threads. Little Traditions: rakhi " 2) راکهي राखी rākhī (p. 582) H راکهي राखी rākhī [S. रक्षिका], s.f. A piece of thread or silk bound round the wrist on the festival of Salūno or the full moon of Sāvan, either as an amulet and preservative against misfortune, or as a symbol of mutual dependence, or as a mark of respect; the festival on which such a thread is tied;—fee paid for protection; (local) the portion of the land of a village which is assigned for the maintenance of a watchman;—the black mail formerly levied by the Sikhs in the parganas on the Jamnā:—rākhī-bandhan, s.f. The festival called rākhī, q.v." (From: John T. Platts, A Dictionary of Urdu, Classical Hindi and English (Data last updated February 2015) Great Tradition: राखी १ "राखी १— संज्ञा स्त्री० [सं० रक्षा] वह मंगलसूत्र जो कुछ विशिष्ट अवसरों पर, विशेपतः श्रावणी पूर्णिमा के दिन ब्राह्मण या और लोग अपने यजमानों अथवा आत्मीयों के दाहिने हाथ की कलाई पर बाँधते हैं । (That Mangalsutra (lucky or auspicious thread) which on special occasions, especially the full moon day of the month of Shravani, brahmins or others tie around the right wrist of their patrons or intimates.) From: Dasa, Syamasundara. Hindi sabdasagara. Navina samskarana. Kasi: Nagari Pracarini Sabha, 1965-1975. 4332 pp There is nothing about Nepal or Jains. The second dictionary is published by the Nagari Pracharini Sabha, an organization devoted to promoting the Hindi script. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Welch objects to my using "South Asia," but the source she cites for including Jains says on page 85: "Lay Jains also participate in some holidays more broadly associated with South Asia. The most popular of these pan-Indian festivals among the Jains are Divali, Kartik Purnima, and Rakhsha Bandhan." I don't see mention of Hinduism or Nepal, only South Asia and pan-Indian. She also objects to my using the word "rite" instead of festival. The same source (that she cites) states on the next page, "For example, Raksha Bandhan—during which a sister ties a bracelet on her brother as a rite of protection—is indistinguishable from the Hindu celebration of the holiday." I've very confused. Does she really have an argument, or is she just changing the text for the sake of changing it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde: We are not relying on 1884 source, while ignoring numerous recently published scholarly publications, are we now? In past, you clearly emphasized this point and we do not need to go over it again. On the second point: Festivals may and often do have "rites", but an annual rite need not be a festival. The Jain-related source is clearly stating, on p. 85, "The most popular of these pan-Indian festivals among the Jains are Divali, Kartik Purnima, and Rakhsha Bandhan." Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde93: Please see this version, not the current version because additional editors have changed the article recently. A better wording may be "an annual festival observed by many Hindus, Jains and Sikhs" with WP:RS cited. I will start expanding the bulleted list above. There are several additional issues in the lead and the article, and I will bring out the main sources with quotes to explain in the due course. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Rewording / reorganization proposal for Nepal's Janai Purnima / Raksha Bandhan

The article currently conflates Indian Raksha Bandhan practices with what are two overlapping festivals on the same day in Nepal called Janai Purnima and Raksha Bandhan. In Nepal, the thread change and wearing by priests and other higher caste Hindus is observed on this day every year and it is called Janai Purnima. On the same day, the Hindus and Buddhists in many parts of Nepal, both males and females, get red-colored protection threads tied on their wrists from priests in shrines and this is called Raksha Bandhan there. Men get it on their right wrists, women on the left. This contrasts with Hindus in India and elsewhere, who celebrate it as a sister-brother day with the female tying the thread on her brother or brother-like friend (Hindu females in India do not get threads tied on their wrists, unlike the Nepalese). This needs to be separated and explained properly. I will do so in the future, but I will wait for further comments. For an illustrative scholarly source on Janai Purnima and Raksha Bandhan practices in Nepal, please see the chapter by Larry Peters in Pilgrimage and Healing (editors: Jill Dubisch, Michael Winkelman), University of Arizona Press, page 203 onwards. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Addition of Johnson source

@Vanamonde93: Any issues with W.J. Johnson source I added to this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Well, it's really F&F who you should be asking, but in any case: the source as far as it goes is excellent, as OUP publications usually are. The question we need to ask is whether it goes far enough. I would not use such a source in this article because it is too brief. This would be a appropriate for a different page that required a two-sentence summary of "Raksha Bandhan". This article is better served by more detailed sources, which do not seem to be lacking. Vanamonde (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: You say, "it's really F&F who you should be asking" Not really! Our content policies as guided by the likes of you. The content guidelines determine what we add, not what F&f or I feel like. FWIW, I tried asking already in my bulleted list above. All I got in return was stonewalling, misrepresentations, ad hominems and aspersion nonsense on this article's talk page. That should tell you his state-of-mind. If you read the sources, you will discover more problems with F&f version. Our goal here is to improve this wikipedia article. Your reading and updating the article would be helpful. I think it would be best if you reviewed the sources F&f has been referring to (e.g. several dictionaries, a few odd ones where Raksha Bandhan is mentioned as a passing remark, some questionable ones such as the one published in 1884). To be fair, I also urge a critical review by you of sources I have added so far, as well as a look at the various versions – one by F&f, one by me, and those by other recent editors. Then create a compromise language in light of what the sources are actually stating. Would that be a possible approach going forward? Meanwhile, I will continue to post more sections on this talk page over the coming weeks, then wait for comments. If none are forthcoming, I will add the content. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Johnson who is writing an encyclopedia with two sentence entries doesn't understand everything, he didn't do field work in a village as Jack Goody, or Kim Marriott, or David Mandelbaum did. Since you seem to like Jack Goody, a source I introduced in the article, and a man whose WP biography bears ample testimony to his credentials, let's see what he says. Please read page 224: "As Mandelbaum notes: 'a man may receive charms from several donors, from his wife, from a Brahmin with whom he has dealings, or from others who can give him ritual protection. But usually the principal charm is that given by his sister, ..." What does that say? It says that the sister is the one who is offering the ritual protection. The brother is offering secular recompense for that ritual protection in the form of an affirmation (or reaffirmation) of help during life's downturns. Is that clear once for all? I'm tired of repeating it. Please don't keep arguing when you are so clueless. I'd be embarrassed if I were you. I see that this article is fast going from sublime to ridiculous. I wish you all the best Sarah Welch in that endeavor. Goodbye. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The Johnson source published by OUP, if you read the version where it is cited, is with other OUP 'dictionaries' cited by F&f. It seems F&f feels he can cite a dictionary for a certain content, while others cannot cite similar or better quality dictionary source for the same certain content to help address NPOV issues. Let us avoid double standards. It can't be right if F&f adds in a "two-line dictionary source(s)", wrong if others add "two-line or five lines or a paragraph or similar source". Let us stick to the community-agreed guidelines. The need for the Johnson source is the "is Raksha Bandhan a festival" issue. All these sources including those cited by F&f, and more, call Raksha Bandhan a festival, but the lead sentence in the F&f version did not. We should reflect the multiple mainstream sources, per our NPOV guidelines. There is no need to conflate the Goody source with Johnson source because it misrepresents this 'it is a festival' versus 'it is not a festival' issue in the 2017 article version which I have been trying to collaboratively address. I like the Goody source. I already added a bit more from the Goody source elsewhere since August 11, weeks before F&f reappeared. So F&f's remark above, "don't keep arguing when you are so clueless. I'd be embarrassed if I were you" is inappropriate garbage, unhelpful insulting style, inappropriate for this talk page and a waste of everyone's time. Since Vanamonde93 agrees it is a quality source, I will add the Johnson source back with similar quality sources in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• (ps) I hope no one takes Vanamonde's "two-sentence summary" comment above too literally, particularly after F&f's strange and incorrect claim "Johnson who is writing an encyclopedia with two sentence entries doesn't understand everything". The Johnson source has more than two sentences on Rakhi Bandhan (Raksabandhan). I only quoted it partially. The article appears on page 258 of the source published by Oxford Univ Press, is about 20 lines long, comments about this festival's role in "familial love, mutual bond, the Indra-Saci mythology, its historical use among allies for military aid". The article in the Johnson source is about 125 words long, while the first para of the older August 4 2018 version of this article was about 155 words. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

R.S. McGregor source

Restore the exact quote from the R.S. McGregor source, which states "Hindi the festival of rakṣābandhan". The lead sentence should say "festival" and not "rite", because most scholarly sources refer to Raksha Bandhan as a "festival". The R. S. McGregor source, one that F&f added, states so. The Johnson source published by Oxford Univ Press calls it a popular "festival". The Melton source, Coleman source, Agarwal source, Warrier source, and numerous more too refer to it as a festival. We should stick with the terminology in the scholarly sources, remove the OR and misrepresentation. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Since no response has been forthcoming over the last few days, I will now restore the exact quote. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Add back rituals subsection

Per Abecedare's suggested sections for a festival article. Proposed section to be restored is below, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The typical Raksha Bandhan festival as observed between brother-sister starts with the sister(s) selecting a colorful rakhi, a form of woven bracelet, ahead of the festival. On the day of the festival, she meets her biological brother(s), cousins, or adopted brother-like friend, along with the whole family. In parts of north India, women may travel to visit their brothers, typically their natal homes. She ties the rakhi on his wrist on the raksha bandhan day. After the band is in place, the brother and the sister pray. The sister applies a tilak (tikka), a colorful mark on the forehead of the brother. After the tilak, she performs an aarti wishing him a long healthy life. In return, the brother pledges to protect her and take care of his sister under all circumstances. The brother may give his sister(s) gifts or some money, and they may also feed each other with sweets, dry fruits and other seasonal delicacies. According to Jack Goody, these traditional rituals connote "a symbol of mutual dependence and a mark of respect" between the brother and the sister. The brother, states Goody, may wear the rakhi thread for many weeks through the Diwali, or just for the day or two.

References

I don't know anything about Abecedare's suggestion. But this section is bogus. Pure garbage. There is no order to this ritual. Off the top of my head I can do a much better job The bride in most of rural North India (where still 70% of North India lives) arrives at her natal home well before the day of the full moon. Some young brides stay for the entire month of Savana which ends on Raksha Bandhan day. The RB/Saluno day is the day her husband comes to his in-laws place to pick her up. The brothers in most of rural North India still live with the parents. There is a long standing tradition of feeding "bura" (powdered/confectioners sugar) to the "jamaai" or "daammaad" (brother-in-law/son-in-law). The menu is well-known all over rural North India. There are two kinds of fried bread (puri and kachori), two kinds of cooked vegetables (pumpkin and potatoes), and dahi (yogurt) and the sugar (confectioners sugar). The sisters then perform one of several rituals depending on their location within North India. Some tuck shoots of barley behind the ears of their brothers; others tie the thread. The aarti and pledge is pure nonsense. Why have a ritual if you have to enunciate it in words? This sounds like something written by a New Delhi high school kid whose been watching too much American TV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

This is getting funnier by the minute: "sweets, dry fruits, and other seasonal delicacies." I didn't realize dry fruits were seasonal delicacies. Apparently in some seasons in India, they are not dry enough. And, really, the brother pledges to take care of her sister under all circumstances? Even when the sister demands her share of the parents' property? The tradition in much of North India is that he stops talking to her. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

F&f: Perhaps a blog outside of wikipedia would be better for the 'top-of-your-head' version and other 'pure nonsense' to reuse your colorful language. For wikipedia, please read the sources including those you yourself added, and summarize what the source states. The Melton source does mention aarti, tilak, the pledge etc. @Vanamonde93: what do you think, we go with what is in the RS cited by F&f, or shall we convert wikipedia into a personal blog? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm copying what I wrote above: "Since you seem to like Jack Goody, a source I introduced in the article, and a man whose WP biography bears ample testimony to his credentials, let's see what he says. Please read page 224: "As Mandelbaum notes: 'a man may receive charms from several donors, from his wife, from a Brahmin with whom he has dealings, or from others who can give him ritual protection. But usually the principal charm is that given by his sister, ..." What does that say? It says that the sister is the one who is offering the ritual protection. The brother is offering secular recompense for that ritual protection in the form of an affirmation (or reaffirmation) of help during life's downturns. Is that clear once for all? I'm tired of repeating it. Please don't keep arguing when you are so clueless. I'd be embarrassed if I were you. I see that this article is fast going from sublime to ridiculous. I wish you all the best Sarah Welch in that endeavor. Goodbye." I know you are not embarrassed. Fortunately, I am. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MSW, you know very well that that's a loaded question; what's the purpose served in asking it? I've said before that I don't have the time to read as much of the source material as I can (as I would do if I were rewriting this). So my advice remains the same as above. You've proposed a rewritten section: F&F doesn't like it. Either you break this down further and try to come to an agreement sentence by sentence, or begin an RFC. I would prefer that you did the former, as an RFC on an entire paragraph is rarely productive. Vanamonde (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• A general comment. I think Vanamonde has the process well in hand so F&f and MSW, perhaps the best way forward is to let Vanamonde direct the process. I've been reluctant to butt in because I don't know what is right or wrong except for generalities (e.g., South Asia is probably better than naming individual nations or religions) that may or may not have a basis in sourced reality (frankly, I'm amazed that so many sources exist on this rite/festival in the first place!). F&f, you know I and many others have a great deal of respect for you and the amount of content work you've done on Wikipedia but (and there is always a but!) it is not helpful to label MSW as an anti-Muslim editor. My suggestion, stick to the content and follow the process with Vanamonde93 as a guide, and we will all be in a better place. --regentspark (comment) 20:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Vanamonde, did you recommend reverting to 4 August, as the edit summary says? SarahSV ^(talk) 01:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  @SlimVirgin: What I said was that since MSW had sought to make changes to a version of the article that had been stable for nearly a year, the onus of obtaining consensus was more on her than on F&F. I did not specifically recommend reverting. Vanamonde (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks, Vanamonde. Fowler&fowler had earlier reverted, with the edit summary "This was the version of the page that stood stably for almost a year". Three hours later, Ms Sarah Welch reverted to a different version, with the edit summary "go back to the last stable version as of August 4 2018, per admin Vanamonde93". So I'm confused about which is the stable version, but I see Fowler is editing again, so I assume it'll work itself out. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93, SlimVirgin, and RegentsPark: Thank you for the intervention and the comments so far. I believe the better article is the August 25 version with revisions that would incorporate both F&f concerns and my concerns plus cover the input of other appropriate minor edits in the last 2 weeks. But F&f has begun editing again, and this version is not okay. It is unacceptable for several reasons including the unsourced WP:Coatrack-ing and the unencyclopedic editorializing such as "whose ancestors sojourned on the Indian subcontinent after humanity's common origin in Africa" (I would object to this if it was in Hanukkah and other festival/holiday article; frankly, I do not expect this from experienced editors). I urge F&f to revert this, or I will. I support a revert to a standstill version, plus I invite F&f and others to work the content dispute on the talk page first. As we reach a consensus for a section or sentence, we can update the frozen article. I am okay even if that version is closer to F&f preferred version, for starts, during this discussion and consensus-building process.
Here is the approach I will follow:

• refer to the sources F&f added and the scholarly sources that I have added / intend to add;
• if necessary, discuss and confirm that these sources are acceptable per our content guidelines;
• provide quotes from these RS;
• propose and/or welcome suggestions for reworded text to respect our WP:Copyvio etc guidelines;
• then update the article appropriately;
• anything else you admins suggest we do in the interest of building this article and following our community norms / best practices.

As the first example, for the "rituals subsection" proposed above, I invite everyone to review the Melton source that F&f added in 2017 (edit diff above). The source is acceptable, and it states the following (partial extract):

Quote: "Raksha Bandhan is primarily a north Indian festival carried out on the full moon of the month of Shravana, hence it is also known as Shravana Purnima. It is one of several occasions in which family ties are affirmed ritually, in this case, the bonds of affection and duty that tie together brothers and their sisters. On the day of the Raksha festival, the ritualized activity is initiated by a female sibling who will tie a Rakhi, a woven bracelet, on the wrist of her brother. (…) After the wristband is put in place, the brother and sister engage in prayer for the well-being of the other. The woman will then perform "aarti," a ritual in which light from wicks soaked in ghee or camphor is offered to a favorite deity, and apply tilak (a mark made with kumkum powder) on the forehead of her brother. In return, brothers pledge to take care of his sister under all circumstances. Traditionally, men will present their sister with a gift as a sign of the pledge. This ritual is done in the presence of the whole family, which has begun preparation for the key ritual early in the morning. Integral to the event are sweets that have been prepared for everyone's consumption. The activity is also accompanied by a ritual wishing the major participants a long life. The most serious part of the ritual is the vocalizing of the responsibility of the male children of the family to protect the females."

A draft is above. I am okay with removing "dry fruits etc" that has been objected to. I welcome a revised draft that is better than the one proposed above and that faithfully reflects the Melton source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Welch, I don't think you understand. Or, more likely, you do understand, but are feigning earnestness. I've lost interest in the article. I'm turned off by editors such as you. Feigned earnestness on top of unfeigned bias doesn't do anything to change my disgust. The "lead" that I put in, which speaks the truth to power in a tongue-in-cheek vein, was my way of saying goodbye to India-related articles on religion, caste, politics, and any other place in which you might appear, or might the metaphorical professional graduate students that I've had brushes in the past on Kashmir, Indus Valley Civilization, or famines. I have grandchildren. I read to them, simplifying the words as I read along. I've recently discovered the Oxford Children's Library from the 1950s and 60s, and managed to acquire most of it accidentally in a bookstore in which even the owner himself had forgotten he had them. I read the first few chapters of W.W. Tarn's Treasure of the Island of Mist, a little-known masterpiece, yesterday, and was carried away far, far, from this page. I have no intention of returning. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Given the reply above and since no reworded draft has been offered, I will add back the rituals section. I will remove the objected language. I hope to expand the rituals section further as I find time from my RL commitments in the coming weeks. This expansion will cite additional sources and summarize the regional variations in the rituals. I welcome other editors with access to relevant peer-reviewed scholarly sources to expand the section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Re-org of the lead

The lead of this article is too long and does not comply with the WP:LEAD guidelines. It states, amongst other things, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. (...) Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." I will move some of the content from the lead into main, trim it down to be a concise summary, and make changes to better meet the WP:LEAD guidelines. Thereafter, let us work on the body first, then revisit the lead. Objections and suggestions are welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

A proposal for ending this expeditiously

Dear @Vanamonde93:, @RegentsPark:, @Abecedare:, @Ben MacDui:, @SlimVirgin: I am sorry to bother you, but I've had numerous emails urging me to continue editing the article after I had abandoned it, exhausted by what I considered unproductive arguments.

Ms Sarah Welch first edited the article in February 2017 and left it in with these references on the 9 August 2017. I then edited it for 12 days and left it in this state with these references on 27 August 2017, editing only until the first pargraph of the traditions section.

As you will have noticed the lead became much more scholarly after my edits, it introduced many perspectives on the festival that had not been included before in the article and its references had increased many fold, all scholarly. This is the version which, except for minor changes, lay stable until two weeks ago, when Ms Sarah Welch again began to edit the article.

I have one earnest proposal. I simply do not have the time, nor the heart, to bicker about every sentence. The revision history shows that I am far and away the top editor. I have the following proposal: Please allow me to edit the article for one week, uninterrupted by constant reverts by others. I will only edit the material that I have added, mainly move it from the lead to its own sections. Then I can have Prof Ralph W. Nicholas, who is William Rainey Harper Professor of Anthropology and Social Sciences Emeritus at the University of Chicago and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the American Institute of Indian Studies review my version. He is also the lead author of the Encyclopaedia Britannnica article on Anthropology. As I said, I will only edit the first three or four sections, the one's I have edited before. I will abide by whatever Professor Nicholas says in his review. He can send the review by email to Vanamonde. If additional reviewers are needed I'm sure he can suggest some, or I can ask a former chairman of the Department of South Asian Studies and Civilizations at the University of Chicago, who though working in another area of expertise, can recommend someone competent in this area. If there is a feeling that the opinions of American experts will smack of systemic bias, I can have Prof Andre Beteille, National Professor of Sociology Emeritus, University of Delhi take a look at it, though he has not been well. I sincerely feel that Ms Sarah Welch has not understood the sources, and her contributions are doing harm to what could be a decent article. If you will allow me to edit the article undisturbed I would like to request that the article be reverted to its version of 27 August 2017, which stood more or less unchanged for almost a year. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

"... smack of systemic bias", we may consider authors from the subcontinent where it is celebrated. Even local language sources can be used, they may be rich, because it seems to be an old festival. Many times this is a challenge on Wiki because Oxford or Cambridge may not have adequate, unbiased coverage spanning millennia for some cultures like in this case. Surely we can consciously avoid these drawbacks? For example, येन बद्धो बली राजा दानवेन्द्रो महाबल: isn't mentioned here, and I suspect one reason could be because it is mostly oral tradition and authors not natively familiar with the festival would not come across it from other written sources in English. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 10:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The Government of West Bengal, does not bestow its highest literary honor, the Rabindra Puruskar, as it did for 2006 on people who are not "natively familiar" with things in their area of expertise. Best regards Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no objections in principle. The difficulty here is the disagreement between you and MSW has been so general, rather than limited to specific sources or statements as is usually the case. I don't know if this is a solution, but why not? Also, about sources: Gbohoadgwwian, analyzing oral traditions and informal local sources is not our job, it's that of anthropologists and scholars (who may be from Kolkata or from Cambridge, or from Buenos Aires, it doesn't particularly matter). We should evaluate sources purely based on their reliability: "correcting" for perceived systemic biases in the sources by using unreliable local sources is contrary to policy. Vanamonde (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, I agree. Fowler, would you be okay to pick up a Bengali source, if the author awarded by The Government of West Bengal? Do you see what I am saying, West published English source gets highlighted, naturally so, but as editors, if we have access to non-english or non-western author it shouldn't need mention in western journals to be picked up, because... that is sort of part 'systemic bias'. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 13:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Gian, I did not suggest Prof Nicholas's name because he had been awarded the Rabindra Puruskar by the Government of West Bengal's Literary Academy. I merely mentioned that as a counterpoint to your notion that he may not be "natively familiar" with his field of study (which is ritual in Bengal). Being "natively familiar" is not a sufficient condition for being reliable; it is only at best a necessary condition. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

"... not a sufficient condition for being reliable" indeed, but a prerequisite of course, can one be reliable without? Anyway I sincerely hope you understand I am not against any western scholar or English, I am bringing on table a reasoning that relying overly on them is a part of systemic bias and native scholars, articles in native language can be considered an option even though they may not be referenced by Oxford and Cambridge. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 15:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Noting that, per Vanamonde93, I have no objection to Fowler&fowler's proposal. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Noting also that, per Vanamonde93, I too have no objection to Fowler&fowler's proposal. --regentspark (comment) 00:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

+1. Vanamonde93: whatever review you get, it would be good if you can get the reviewer's permission to post all of it here on the talk page, request the reviewer to comment beyond sociology/anthropology aspects such as the history and rituals tradition subsection as well, and identify any additional sources/sections that we should consider. I will make parallel equivalent efforts to invite other scholars with relevant expertise. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde93: It is unhelpful for F&f to keep misrepresenting my efforts and harping back to the pre-August 2017 version. I welcomed F&f efforts to revise this article in August 2017, because I agree it was not in a good shape back then. In 2018, I have not tried to revert all of F&f efforts. Far from it. I have tried to move it forward. F&f had ample time to create what he then called his "final version" of this article. Just like we should not harp back to "F&f's promised final version", I request that F&f stop harping back and misrepresenting my efforts in 2017. Let us move forward. I believe F&f has misunderstood the sources and his edits reflect a biased rejection / biased cherry picking of the sources for OR/synthesis. For evidence, please see illustrative edit diff and quote above. The article that F&f created has NPOV issues and it did not reflect what the different sides in WP:RS are stating. F&f's approach of ad hominems above has been unhelpful and has made the content dispute appear as a "disagreement that is so general, rather than limited to specific sources or statements". We must focus on "specific sources" or "statements", i.e. content and the WP:RS. We have community accepted procedures and noticeboard resources such as the DRN. Let us follow them, step by step to collaboratively improve this article. I welcome F&f to return to the subsections above and submit his comments / suggestions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I wrote a new lead with some 25 or 30 scholarly sources with long quotes. You added nothing scholarly in the one year after that. I haven't counted, but there are no more than five scholarly source in the article that have not been added by me. If you think I have cherry picked, let me move the material from the lead into the separate sections, and let Ralph Nicholas, or a host of other anthropologists who have worked on the different rituals, find the cherry picking. After all I have the entire quotes in the notes, which I have drastically summarized in the lead. I've said repeatedly that the sister offers ritual protection by tying the thread; the brother offers utilitarian recompense (either in a small gift in the ceremony or the reaffirmation of his expected help in her life's potential downturns (widowhood, desertion by husband, abuse by her conjugal family, ...), you keep picking little sentences here and there to state exactly the opposite. You quote Jack Goody, but only partially, saying only what he says on page 222, but not on page 224, where he quotes Mandelbaum about ritual protection. We use "talisman, amulet, or charm." What do they mean? Amulet: An ornament or small piece of jewellery thought to give protection against evil, danger, or disease. (Oxford on line) Talisman: "A stone, ring, or other object engraven with figures or characters, to which are attributed the occult powers of the planetary influences and celestial configurations under which it was made; usually worn as an amulet to avert evil from or bring fortune to the wearer; also medicinally used to impart healing virtue; hence, any object held to be endowed with magic virtue; a charm." (OED) Who is tying the amulet, talisman, or charm in the Rakhee ceremony? It is the sister. What else is she doing other than offering symbolic, magical, or ritual protection? I am frustrated because you keep obfuscating. It is not the first time. You were doing it in the Cattle theft pages, turning a local minimum and a small increase in cattle theft in the otherwise monotonically decreasing statistics of 70 years (see my graph here, into sharp increase by drastically reducing the scale, and showing only the last five years. This is certainly not an issue about interpretation of one or two sources. It is very simple: I'll have a text. I'll send it to Ralph Nicholas, or if he thinks there is a conflict of interest, some expert he suggests who doesn't know me, and have him email the comments to Vanamonde and also RegentsPark, Abecedare, and SarahSV (if they agree). Name your expert of choice and I'll send it to him or her too and get their feedback about my text. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You misrepresent the history here and elsewhere. Again. Ralph Nicholas' review, if available, would be welcome and hopefully would cover more than anthropological aspects of this festival. I will also, in future after I have completed my improvements, reach out and seek equivalent reviews from scholars with relevant expertise. As you know, I do not like the current version in many parts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Ritual protection

Here are more sources. Seriously, who is offering the ritual protection?

• Mayer, Adrian C. (2013), Caste and Kinship in Central India: A Study of Fiji Indian Rural Society, Routledge, pp. 219–, ISBN 978-1-136-23482-8 Quote: A man's tie with his sister is accounted very close. The two have grown up together, at an age when there is no distinction made between the sexes. And later, when the sister marries, the brother is seen as her main protector, for when her father has died to whom else can she turn if there is trouble in her conjugal household. In return, the sister bestows ritual protection on the brother at the Raksha Bandhan festival. In fact, of course, the relations of brothers and sisters vary after marriage. If the mother is alive, there will usually be closer links between them. For she will wish to keep in contact with her daughter, and the son will be the main means of doing this. The tie also depends to some extent on the distance of the sister's conjugal from her parental household, and on her relations with the husband's family; for both of these will influence the frequency of her visits to her parental household. If it is near, or if she is badly treated, she may come often and in the latter case not wish to return. The brother may then have to take a strong stand on her behalf, and even risk an open rupture with her husband's family. “
• Mandelbaum, David Goodman (1970), Society in India: Continuity and change, University of California Press, pp. 68–, ISBN 978-0-520-01623-1 Quote: “There is ritual recognition of the special bond between brother and sister in an annual rite observed in northern and western India. The sister gives her brother a charm, often a thread which she ties around his wrist, as symbol of her solicitude for him. He gives her a gift in return, token of his role as benefactor. On this day (called Raksha Bandhan or some variant thereof) a man may receive charms from several donors, from his wife, from a Brahmin with whom he has dealings, or from others who can give him ritual protection. But usually the principal charm is that given by his sister, and the occasion is one when sister and brother should meet. If they cannot meet, a man's sister may send him the charm through the mail.
• , Jains and Buddhist.

Where's the confusion?

References

LearnIndology (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• I am not much aware of this festival (for that matter, any Indian festival). However, neither is Bhojraj Dwivedi a scholar of repute (he is an astrologer) nor Diamond Pocket Books, a publisher of repute. I am of the same opinion about the two remaining sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

  And where did I quote them here? LearnIndology (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

  You claim to have not used a book authored by Dwivedi, as a source?

  You think that a school-reader of Hinduism, published by Nelson Thornes, is an appropriate source in Indology? What is the academic qualification of Dave Symmons; who are the prominent scholars citing his works? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

  I have quoted Kristen Haar, Sewa Singh Kalsi; David Bryce Yaden, Yukun Zhao , Kaiping Peng, Andrew B. Newberg, not Dwivedi. You are confused between these two different edits.[2][3]. This particular thread is regarding re-addition of this particular edit [4]. LearnIndology (talk) 08:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  More CIR issues. Which one of your edit did I revert? Did that reverted edit cite Dwivedi? Did my talk-page note mention of Dwivedi?

  Why do you expect me to open new threads for taking issues with each line of your proposed inclusions?

  That being said, what is your justification of using an astrologer and a K8 reader of Hinduism as reliable source in Indology? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Poorly written

This article needs to be re-written. Grammar and punctuation errors everywhere. 2600:4040:A792:6B00:74C3:6F03:C86A:367D (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Such as ...? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I have tried to simplify the lead somewhat. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this post. I will rewrite the article later in the day. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The use of term South asia

The festival belongs to india and i see using south asia as a propaganda to remove the term India as all the positives of india are termed as south asian and the positives of other countries only belong to them and the negatives of india only belong to india whereas negative of other countries are termed as south asian i request you to solve this Kinggrey12 (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Kinggrey12 (talk · contribs) Welcome to Wikipedia and congratulations on making your first edit! May your stay be a long and fruitful one.

To answer your question, Raksha Bandhan is celebrated not just in India, but in Nepal and by Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan. Also, to the extent that (as a traditional festival of the Indo-Aryan speaking regions of the northern Indian plains) it is celebrated in South India, it is also celebrated by Hindus in northern Sri Lanka. So, it truly is South Asian. We can't even say its celebration is limited to the "Indian subcontinent."

And where did you get the notion that it is positive? It is a remnant of the subordination of Hindu women, that became an integral part of Hinduism from the time of the Mauryas (please see the lead of Women in India and the references, with quotes, therein). When a woman (often an underage girl) married, she could not marry someone locally where she could be seen, but in a system of social endogamy and territorial exogamy, she had to marry someone of the same caste, but far away. Her parents could never visit her in her married home, and she had no right to their property. The rakhee—the amulet tied on the wrist—was just the ritual window dressing. The real reason for the festival was that it afforded a once-a-year opportunity for a married woman to visit her natal home, where people could determine if she was being mistreated in her married home. In other words, it was a kind of safety valve built into the territorial exogamy.

But she had also renounced her right to her parents' property, which went entirely to her brothers, by the patrilineality implicit in the custom. Dowry had also become firmly in place in Hinduism during the inter-imperial age (between the Mauryas in the Guptas). It was as if, the dowry was her part of the inherited property of her parents; the catch, however, was that its value was nowhere near that of the parents' landed property, or other major assets. This custom, along with the continuing taboos on widow remarriage in Hinduism, female infanticide (and now feticide), and bride burning (a kind of revamped Sati, but not any more following the husband's own death) are aspects of Hinduism's abiding failings. Until those are rooted out, Raksha Bandhan will not be a simple celebration of the love between a brother and a sister. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

first of all thanks for replying but i cant just ignore what you wrote first of all it is mainly celebrated in india for eg some people celebrate diwali in usa it doesn't make it an american festival now,does it and whats the problem with using indian subcontinent and if there us why there isn't a problem by using united states of america lol and i would like to tell you that you have wrong info about the start of rakshabandhan festival (according to mahabharat it was started when lord krishna by mistake cut his finger and then draupadi brought a bandage and tied it it became a sacred thread and lord krishna then vowed that he would protect draupadi which he did at the time of her chirharan and now lets come to the so called sati practice let me ask you a question why didn't the wives of king dashrat did sati after their husband died and why didn't kunti do so after pandu died lol the answer is simple the Hindu religion (sanatan dharma) has always been exploited due to its vast knowledge i hope you you understand what i want to say and once again if by using indian subcontinent other countries are being marginalized then why countries other than usa are not being marginalized by use of "american" Kinggrey12 (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid without scholarly sources to support reliability, without WP:TERTIARY sources to support due weight there is not much I can make or do with your post. Stories from mythology are not sources. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

First of all they are not mythology its our history i dont know hiw much proof u people need even the distance between sun and earth was told hundreds of years ago and that the earth is not static and even if it is mythology it is related to hindu culture and do you think they won't add sati as a part of their stories if it were true and what about the marginalization of countries other than america ✌️ Kinggrey12 (talk) 09:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

bro/sis i would request you not to use nonscholar word for our vedas and our"true history" cause i can take it as your not knowing about it but some people won't Kinggrey12 (talk) 09:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Etymology, meaning, and usage

Hello!

I have a few thoughts about the Etymology, meaning, and usage section of this article. In my personal opinion, when I read this section, I found it to be quite lengthy. Seeing that Raksha bandhan is tagged a Hindu festival page, I would expect as a reader to read a lot more about the festival itself. WP:Undue is one particular policy that I want to tag because "avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."

The second policy that comes to mind is Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the last policy that I would add on here is WP:Excessdetail.

I would be very interested to hear what people have to say about this. Maybe learn a new perspective in the process. But, overall, the point that I'm trying to make is that I feel this portion of the article should be condensed somewhat. Chilicave (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)