Talk:Vajra

Untitled

Note on assessment: Article is informative, but lacks any inline references. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Symbols

• [1]
  • [2]
  • [3]

Austerlitz -- 88.75.76.245 (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.windhorse.co.uk/acatalog/RITUAL_OBJECTS.html Ritual Objects]

Austerlitz -- 88.75.76.245 (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• [4]
• Viswa vajra], Viswa Vajra
• [5]

There are still some informations to be inserted into the article.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.71.123 (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Viswarupa, [6], [7], [8]. Vishwarupa,

Austerlitz -- 88.75.71.123 (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

ghanta

Shouldn't there be more on the ghanta (bell) and it's use with the dorje? 72.68.162.155 (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC) R.E.D.

Removal of content

There is some dispute as to the removal of some content from this article. The IP who wants to remove it has commented on my talk page, but the discussion really needs to be conducted here, so here is a copy of that comment with my reply...

Whats to discuss, WP:V says provide RS, preferably inline, or material may be removed ? Any editor who feesl strongly about the article, and wants to save it, can provide RS. 188.116.2.127 (talk)

Yes, that means it may be (as in "it might be", not as in "you may") removed after the appropriate policy has been followed - it does not give you permission to remove it on sight (though there are some cases where that can be done, like unsourced defamatory claims in a BLP, but that is covered elsewhere). The policy is to tag existing unreferenced material with, for example, - see Template:Citation needed, which will add the article to Category:Articles with unsourced statements, bringing it to the attention of editors who may try to improve it by looking for references. They need to be given a reasonable time in which to do that, and if the material in question is not contentious, the consensus seems to be that that time can be quite long. Also, you should not remove article content if a discussion shows that you do not have consensus for its removal (see WP:Consensus), and as I currently dispute your removal, that means you do not have consensus. I have reverted your removal of the content again, as you should not remove content when it is still under discussion on the Talk page. I will add the {{cn}} tags myself shortly. -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've tagged the appropriate statements and sections with the relevant tags (and in the process, I noticed that your large-scale removal of content also removed some material that did cite references). If and when I have time, I will investigate this myself and see if I can find any suitable references. -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no "content dispute" with you. As I have absolutely no interest in the subject matter of this article or the actual contents thereof, the question of reaching "consensus" does not arise. My only concern is that generally this article (and numerous others like it) must be well referenced from reliable sources. Shall we wait 3 days ? Somendas (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes we do have a content dispute - you say that the content should be removed quickly, and I say it should not - that's a dispute. And consensus does arise - consensus over whether the material in question should be deleted. We will not wait 3 days, we will proceed by accepted policy, and now that the content in question is properly tagged, we will wait long enough to give others a chance to improve those articles - I will seek guidance as to how long later, when I have time. If you continue your blanking while our dispute is unresolved, that will constitute edit warring - see WP:EDITWAR, and you could be blocked -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear User:Boing!. We must definitely proceed in Good Faith (on this article or if we ever cross paths again) strictly as per accepted policy which is summarised in WP:5P. Firstly, please adhere to WP:Civility, you have needlessly imputed that I am a "vandal" and have also threatened me with "blocking" notwithstanding that I have always treated you with respect and consideration while clearly indicating the policy WP:V I was following. It was my considered view when I came across it, that this article reeked of Original Research specifically concerning a WP:UNDUE weightage towards Buddhism. The applicable policy WP:EP is unambiguous that content must be verifiable WP:V, if not it "may" (which I interpret as "can") be removed. Furthermore, WP:BURDEN places the onus of proof on the editor who adds or restores material. As you have restored the unreferenced material I had deleted, the onus of proof is now primarily on you to provide sources. I think 3 days is more than sufficient for referencing a low level article like this. You may also note the following before describing me as a "vandal" (which I resent) a) I have not added or restored any content to this article but only deleted unreferenced content b) I have not "edit warred" or crossed 3RR at any stage, c) I have always described (through edit summaries) my edit actions d) I have engaged in talk with you to the extent of providing my UserHandle for better communication in the event of my IP address getting altered. Finally, there is no content dispute between us, because I don't give a s*** about the actual content of this article, as long as it is relevant and properly referenced. My editing approach is that of a regular reader of Wikipedia who is often fed up with dubious and false articles, and who knows s*** when he sees it.Somendas (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Somendas, thanks for your thoughts. I'm very happy to consider them, and having looked at a number of your previous edits, I have no doubt that you are acting in good faith. I would very much like to discuss this with you, and would be very happy to do so over the next week or so. However, you absolutely do not have the right to impose a 3-day deadline on this, and you really do need to give other people time to think and act. I also see large inconsistencies in your claims, but I need to sleep now and will expand further tomorrow. -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't expand further now, as an admin has confirmed, below, that you should not be blanking this material, other than to point out that the "onus of proof" bit that you quoted above applies to material that has been properly removed according to Wikipedia policy, not to stuff that you have blanked on sight without a valid reason -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Somendas is welcome to pursue his badass "RS or blank it" approach, but only using a single logged-in account. To prevent further anonymous prancing around, I have semiprotected the article. This is a case for {{refimprove}}. Literature on Buddhist symbolology is cited, but no page numbers or inline notes are given. It is undisputed that the vajra is an important concept in Buddhism, and blanking all references to Buddhism (while leaving the equally unreferenced material on Hinduism alone) can only be interpreted as motivated by some ideological agenda. The content is eminently verifiable, it just isn't served on a platter with footnotes and page numbers. So please go and verify (or falsify) it, start looking at google books, jstor et al. for references, don't blank content. --dab (𒁳) 19:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi dab, thanks for that. I'll try to improve the references myself as and when I have time - just a bit too busy for a while. I've also removed the section tags I inserted, seeing as you have placed a {{refimprove}} tag on the article as a whole. (The same IP has been selectively blanking content from other Hinduism-related articles too, but I'll keep an eye on them) -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear User:Dab. On what basis do you presume to describe me as "badass" ? FYI, the policy on what is termed "deletionism" here is still fluid. WP:EP states "Editors need to be aware that unsourced information may be challenged and removed (WP:BURDEN), because within Wikipedia no information is better than misleading or false information— Wikipedia's reputation as a trusted encyclopaedia depends on the information within articles being verifiable and reliable. The concerned policy then goes on to state Depending on the degree of its suspected inaccuracy or negative impact, the information may be removed either immediately or after sources have been requested and none has been provided for some time. Accordingly any editor (and admins are not super-editors) has the right to remove the material immediately if he/she considers the information "suspect". Furthermore, at the present time I dispute that Vajra is an "important concept" in either Buddhism or Hinduism. A google book search for "vajra" threw up only 10 Ghits. Accordingly, I suspected that this lengthy article on a Religious subject (alway controversial) violated WP:NOR and WP:V and after due consideration of the degree of negative impact, deleted it immediately per policy. Had I also deleted the much smaller section on Hinduism, there would have been nothing surviving in the article. I may also point out that wherever 2 interpretations / options are permissible, no editor (admin or not) can impose their views unilaterally without either achieving consensus or pursuing dispute resolution. Furthermore, nothing (except courtesy to my fellow editors) requires me to locate sources for dubious matter I have neither added nor modified. Also, anyone who reads this Talk page will observe that I am not the only editor to note that this article has had no inline references since 2008 - this also caused me to delete the uncited material immediately. Lastly, as Wikipedia's secure login is buggy with my preferred browser (Opera 7/8), I purposely dont login here if I am using a public / shared terminal, so AGF before speculating, especially as my editing is not disruptive / vandalism but policy based no matter how much we disagree on its interpretation.Somendas (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Weapon

Not a single word is mentioned here of the vajra's origin as a weapon. Maybe most editors here only know of the vajra through Buddhism but it was historically used as a weapon in Asian martial arts. Morinae (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say some editors come here not because of religion or martial arts, but because a "dorje" is a psionic implement in the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game. CapnZapp (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Changed "diamond" to "something more durable than diamond"

Diamond can cut diamond, but vajra cannot cut itself. Diamond can be destroyed by nuclear bomb, but vajra can not.71.251.34.184 16:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Dalauhu (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vajra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070421195923/http://www.urday.com:80/dadichi.html to http://www.urday.com/dadichi.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Etymology section

So the etymology section says that the PIE origin for the word vajra, *weg, is related to Proto-"Finno-Uralic" (not Finno-Ugric?), which is impossible because these are two unrelated primary language families. The sources were unclear as to this explanation. Is this saying that the Indo-Aryans got the word from Finno-Ugric or vice versa? I think the section might need to be rewritten to be more clear. ForestAngel (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

In theory it's not impossible; the "primary" language families might actually form larger macrofamilies, although proposals for such relationships aren't yet widely agreed upon.

However, looking at Parpola's Roots of Hinduism, one of the 3 references given, he writes: Another loanword for a metal object is Proto-West-Uralic *vaśara, “hammer, ax,” from Proto-Indo-Aryan *vaj’ra-, “weapon of the war-god”; it probably originally denoted the ax or mace of the Sejma-Turbino warriors, but later acquired the meaning “hammer” from the Nordic war-god Thor. He does not use the term "Finno-Uralic". It may be that "Proto-Finno-Uralic" is a synonym for "Proto-West-Uralic" used in the other two sources.

It seems you're right that the section needs to be reviewed and amended. Certainly, it needs to make it clear that *vaśara was borrowed into Uralic languages from Indo-European languages, rather than vaguely stating that they are "related" as if to imply a phylogenetic relationship. – Scyrme (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I've been able to look at the other references. The relevant part of The Indo-Aryan controversy reads: Among the other early Proto-Indo-Aryan loanwords in Finno-Ugric is *ora ‘awl’ < Proto-Aryan *ārā = Sanskrit ārā- ‘awl’ (cf. Koivulehto 1987: 206f), which is likewise not found in the Iranian branch at all. Also Proto-Finno-Ugric *vaśara ‘hammer, axe’ (cf. Joki 1973: 339) on account of its palatalized sibilant is from Proto-Aryan or Proto-Indo-Aryan rather than Proto-Iranian, where depalatalization took place (cf. Mayrhofer 1989: 4, 6), cf. Sanskrit vajra- ‘thunder-bolt, weapon of Indra the god of thunder and war’ versus Avestan vazra- ‘mace, the weapon of the god Mithra’, possibly from the Proto-Indo-European *weg’- ‘to be(come) powerful’. Here "Proto-Finno-Ugric" is used instead of "Proto-West-Uralic".

It may be relevant that this book is from 2005 whereas Roots of Hinduism is from 2015. Looking around (eg. [9]. [10], [11] - use ctrl+f to find the relevant bits), it seems that "Proto-Finno-Ugric" and "Proto-West-Uralic" are not synonyms, suggesting that Parpola's views have changed between 2005 and 2015. The gist seems to be that Proto-Uralic split into West, Central, and East branches; "East Uralic" is "Ugro-Samoyedic", "West Uralic" and "Central Uralic" are, together, roughly "Finno-Permic" with "Central Uralic" being the Mari and Permic branch, and "West Uralic" being the Finnic, Sami, and Mordvinic branch. Contrastingly, "Proto-Finno-Ugric" suggests that Proto-Uralic split into Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic branches; this appears to be the older view on the relationship between the Uralic languages.

The article's use of "Proto-Finno-Uralic" is probably the product of confusion, misreading, or editorial synthesis. If we're citing Parpola, it would probably be best to go with his more recent views on the matter as they are most likely more representative of his views on the evidence. ie. it would be best to use "Proto-West-Uralic".

The relevant part of Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture appears to be a single passing mention: Av vazra- 'mace, cudgel' (when Finnish vasara 'hammer'), OInd vajra- 'thunderbolt, cudgel' (when TochAB wasir 'thunderbold'). Presumeably "Av" is "Avestan", which is dubious. Regardless, this also implies that it's a loanword. Given this is only a passing mention and better sources exist, I'd recommend just cutting this ref entirely; it's not needed and is misleading in suggesting that the term was loaned from Avestan rather than from Proto-Indo-Aryan. – Scyrme (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@ForestAngel: I've amended the section to try to make it more accurate to what's written in the sources. Take a look if you're still interested. – Scyrme (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That looks much more straightforward. Thanks! 21:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC) ForestAngel (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)