From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. |
|
|
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. |
| Additional information: |
| B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| ??? |
This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. |
|
|
The following comments have been left for this page:
This article is definitely not a stub; and is best informative. Why this article is tagged as a stub? - Paul 18:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Does such a long and refrenced article deserves only a 'B' Class ? - white dot...!!! 06:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Below are comments by another editor. Good luck guys! Ncmvocalist 10:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- MoS-wise, this article is close to FA material. But content wise, the problems with this article are plenty and deep. Several people have questioned its notability and some have even called for deletion (I personally wouldnt go that far). The entire article(dozens of related articles, actually) is sourced to an author and a book that nobody has heard about. No Indian editors (including natives of Tamil Nadu) other than the couple editing that article have even heard of this religion or sect. Talking of which, brings us to the other major point of contention - is it a religion or is it a sect? Is it a sect within Hinduism or Christianity? The only source used in this article is patently lopsided in this regard and nobody is prepared to buy its views. The problem is compounded by the fact that there are literally no reliable sources at all with which to corroborate what is said in the article. The paucity of sources is so great that it wouldnt be too far fetched for someone to make a case that it is an elaborate hoax! Until these core and basic issues are addressed, I dont see the article advance beyond a "B". Sarvagnya 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, only for the questions about its notability I cited those large number of Leading News paper reports. And that "one book" is nothing but, 'Religion and Subaltern Agency', From Madras University, to which 'G.Patrick' is the author who is a lecturer in the Department of Cristian Studies in that University. I've told this many times to 'that community' people you mentioned. And till now I don't understand how an university book from a leading university from India become obscure.
-
-
- And comming to the matter, this book is cited there only for the religiosity related things for Ayyavazhi. All belief and faith related things are cited with various religious books, commenteries and other publications. About the social exsistence of Ayyavazhi, Vaikundar and their existence and their influence over the society, number of worship centers, and all, large number of citations were provided from news papers from Tamil Nadu, and from some leading news papers of India ,(The Hindu, Daily Thanthi...) Also other citations for these includes that from independent websites, Govt publications from Tamil Nadu, Kerala, And various university publications etc..
-
-
- See the large number of citations there in this version of the article. Now many citations were removed that too many citations are making the article completely un-readable.
-
-
- And after seeing these number of references, i am wondering that how they are dare to say that "I don't know", "I've not heared of it" etc. May be it's their mistake of not knowing what is happening there around the world. Still I really wonder how you tell that this article is an elaborate hoax!
-
-
- As per wiki-guideline I've added many valid citations citation and the article looks fits to a FA, but still some copy-edit to be done. Thanks - Paul Raj 12:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Also how or in what base you decided that Ayyavazhi is a Cristian sect? Does the article says so? And for the view that it is a sect and that it is a religion itself, there are different opinion from different groups, organisations, news papers and faculties. And all were cited with appropriate sources respectively. I don't understand this --> "nobody is prepared to buy its views" Who need to buy? No one is needed to buy it's views - Paul Raj 12:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC) (edit)
|
|
[edit] Lots of disambigs
The following links need disambig:
absolute
ayya
celestial
devas (2)
kanyakumari (2)
LMS (4)
lotus
maya
mayon
oneness
Randomblue (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- DONE, Thanks for your suggestions. - PAUL RAJ 14:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Citation
Citation 7 in the lead section is from the book Land of Charity: A Descriptive account of Travancore and its people . I quote the passage here:
Truly we may say, in view of these enormities perpetrated in the sacred name of religion, "The dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty".
We have not space for more than the bare mention of a curious phenomenon in the religious history of Travancore, which has appeared within the last forty years, - namely, the rise of a new sect of religionists, who have adopted an absurd medley of Hinduism and Demonolatry, with a slight tinge of the Christian element. This superstition was originated by one Muttukutti, a poor Palmyra climber, who laid claim to be an incarnation of Vishnu, and pretended to possess miraculous powers; by these means he attached himself to thousands of credulous followers. Since the death of their leader in 1848, he has been worshipped by followers as a manifestation of the Supreme God; and this singular people display considerable zeal in the defence and propagation of their destructive errors.
How does the above passage provide reference to the statement "It is conceived as an independent monistic religion by... academic research" in the article? Maybe the editors of the article are referring to the use of the phrase "the rise of a new sect of religionists.."?
On a different note, the above passage talks about "superstition", "pretended to possess miraculous powers", "attached himself to thousands of credulous followers", ".. display considerable zeal in the defence and propagation of their destructive errors". IMO, this source would be more appropriate when used to discuss questions on the credibility of Ayyavazhi. --Madhu (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Since so many questions raised so far on the creadibility of Ayyavazhi I personally feel that it will not benifit the article if this citation was removed. But since it promote negative view over Ayyavazhi it will be appropriate to leave a notein the reference section itself about this and have done. Thanks for your valuable comments. - PAUL RAJ 07:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This article has an assessment summary page.
