Talk:Lingayatism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lingayat survey

The following material was located at Lingayat survey but did not fit cleanly when I merged to this page. Please merge it in if you know the subject well enough to do a good job Kcordina ^Talk 11:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Extended content

Founder Basavanna along with Allama Prabhu, Chenna Basavanna, Akka Mahadevi revived this socio-religious Bhakti movement. Some believe that saint Renukācharya founded veera-shaivism Year & place of founding When Lingayats came to be considered as a separate sect is not clear. Many of the leading personalities belong to 12th Century AD. The place was Kalyan, North of Karnataka, India Aims & ideals Lingayats believe in supreme godhead whom they call as Shiva, who is sagunātmaka (with attributes) but nirākara (without form). They were Lingam, symbol of their chosen deity on their body. Monastic / Non-monastic Includes both monastic and householder followers. Administrative set-up The community is headed by sevaral mathas. All India Veerashaiva is umbrella organisation. Provision for joining One becomes a Lingayat through formal initiation called Linga Diksha, a rite, enjoins the devotee to worship the personal Sivalinga daily. There are several training centres attached to maths for training the monastic members. The training includes study of scriptures such as agamas, vachanas and other literature. Activities Religion & spirituality Different math leaders serve the local public through sprititual and religious discourses. Major Colleges of Engineering Siddhaganga Institute of Technology KLE Society's BVBCET, Hubli Basavakalyan Engineering College, Bidar Poojya Doddappa Appa College of Engineering, Gulbarga Basaveshwar Engineering College, Bagalkot JSS institue is one of the largest educations in India. To illustrate this point, a list is given. Primary & Secondary education 11 pre-primary schools, 12 primary schools, 44 high schools, 6 schools, 2 free schools, school for physically and mentally challenged children, Higher Education 10 pre-university colleges, 7 arts and commerce colleges, 1 law college etc. Technical Education 3 engineering colleges, 4 polytechnic colleges, 3 industrial training centres etc. Medical Education Ayurvedic college, Dental college, Hospitals, Naturopathy college, Physiotherapy colleges, Pharmecy college, Medical colleges etc. Training Institutes 3 teachers' training institutes Shri Murugha Math Dharwad is one of the math among greatest lingyat maths (Shri. Mruthunjya Appagalu. main founder of math) which is providing free accomidation and food to poor student of lingyat community who are studying from 8th std to Phd, in Dharwad city. Shri Shivayogi Swamiji is present chief of the math. for more details visit www.murughamath.org Cultural field Preservation of Traditional scriptures and publication of contemporary literature Taralabalu Math Sanskrit schools Lingayat Adhyayana Samsthe, Gadag Veerashaiva Adhyayana Samsthe, Belgaum Province of its influence The Lingayat community is very active in all spheres of life in Northern Karnataka, parts of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. Their number may be around 1 crore. Major publications== Samagra Vachana Samputa (Vol. 1 to 10) - Kannada Sahitya Parishat publication Shoonya Sampadane

Name

I'd be interested to see an explanation of the variant name Veerashaiva, and the connotations and significance of saying Veerashaiva or Lingayat. QuartierLatin1968 17:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Headline text

i'm writing a paper in my colloge class at DACC. and i would like to see the belifs . in theis religion.... email me at yahoo.com q_dee_8080@yahoo.com

Rewrite

I am starting a rewrite of this article. The article is in very bad shape and lots of random information has just been dumped in it. For example, before I changed it, the introduction itself took up nearly 3/4th of the article.

Much of the information is encyclopaedic but quite a bit of it is in blatant POV, weasel, peacock domains. For example there are sentences like,

"Basavanna attempted to rid society of caste distinctions, although these can still be found to a severe degree in modern Lingayats who pretend to be Lingayats."  !! and

"It was so much ahead of the generation that our constitution can be seen as based on its simple ideas and widely debated upon."

While sentences above may or may not be true, I am sure that it will be seen as POV on Wikipedia.

So I am tagging the article as "underconstruction". I have also added some sections that need to be expanded upon. If anyone has any information please feel free to expand the sections.

I will also try and rearrange the already existing info and also use the info by User:Kcordina that we see here . If anybody has photographs of Lingayat pilgrimage centers etc., please upload them. Sarvagnya 20:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Groupism i.e., Caste origin

The origin of groupism i.e., caste seems to have started with people trying to refer to themselves as one group. There was no divisions and sub divisions until different people started competing for the same resources and had to organize themselves into groups to improve their chances in competing.

Lathead 12:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

New introduction needed!!!

This page opens with "The history of the Lingayat faith goes back to the Basavanna(1134 - 1196 AD)..."

How about: "Lingayatism is .......". I came here to find out what Lingayatism is. I'm sure I can work it out, but how about helping me a little here? 220.233.208.223 16:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refer following evidences for existences of Veerashaivism prior to basava.
1. Allahabad high court ruling in 1920: regarding kashi jangamawadi math, says about anciency of Kashi Vishwaradhya peetha is about 6th Century AD, 600 years before basava.
2. "Shasanagalli Panchacharyaru": Ph.D Awarded to Dr|| Rajeshekhar swamy gorata by Bangalore. University
3. Pancha peethagala parampare: By A.S.Hiremath Chenna chetan prakshana Ranebennur.

Here we can start with following things

1. Change first chapter title as Mythology and Origin.
2. Some introduction of Shaivisim, Veerashaivism also hinduism.
3. Introduction to "Shakti vishistadvaitha Siddhanta"

Importance: since "Shakti vishistadvaitha Siddhanta" is first principle that gives equal importance to both male and female, so stands distinct from other religions

4. Mythology behind Veerashaivism---Arise of Panchacharyas from sthavaralinga:

Also Jagadguru Renukacharya and the Jagadgurus of his clan and Panchachryas.

5. Shiva deeksha to Adi SHANKARACHARYA BY adi renuka.

(There some of the ritulas carried out in Shringeri Regarding this

6. About Basavanna and other Sharanas etc.

For more information check : Google Boook Search with History Of Panchacharya and also, for the shankaracharya and his sheeva deeksha search same.

Please sign your comments with ~~~~. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Lingayat/Virasaiva/Veerashaiva Canon

Does anyone know the sacred text of this non-vedic sect? No academic source seems to know, I've checked the Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia, Encyclopedia of Religion 2nd edition, Oxford Referance Online, several Lingayat websites and so forth. The only thing I've come across was a statement that the Vachanas were comparable to the holy bible for the Lingayats. This however cannot be the case, as several holy texts seem to be held in high regard. On the Saiva Siddhanta Church website, which includes an electronic edition of their publication, Dancing With Shiva, a statement is made that the Lingayats derived their religion, and are successors to the Pasupata saivites. This would make perfect sence, given the fact that the Pasupatas are non-Vedic, ie. heterodox. The question on the Lingayat seems open and unanswered, who knows? I sent an email to an adherent from a Lingayat website, he himself did not even know and told me that he forwarded my email to scholars who may be able to answer my question. That was several weeks ago, and thus far I have gotten no responce or correspondance. I also sent an email to the author of the article 'Saivism: Virasaivas' in the Encyclopedia of Religon 2nd edition, one of the contributors, Andre Padoux. Months later, I haven't gotten a reply back.

For further historical evidencesyou can contact Kashi Peeth Jagadagurus In case you really interested to contact i can provide contact numbers and can try to make arrangements. Hope you can go thru their evidences. Can find details in : http://www.shaivam.org/virashaivam/index.html

Please sign your comments with ~~~~. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Lingayat is caste in Hinduism. They do not reject Vedas altogether but disagree with some parts. Shaivism predates Basavanna by many centuries. There are sub castes in Lingayats. There is a huge caste based politics centred around Lingayats and their opposition to Vokkaliga caste. So this "reject caste system" etc is just propaganda. It is also false that they are monotheists. They worship several GODs Naga, Chandra, Bull, Veerabhadra etc. ~rAGU (talk)

Lingayat and Marulasiddha

Reading through the phrases I observed text "Lingayat", "Panchapeeta" and "Marulasiddha". To clarify honestly, REAL Marulasiddha never associated himself with any religion, caste, tribe. This saintly person was born to a untouchable couple, adopted by a village head called Maachi Gowda. Marulasiddha real name found to be just Siddha which is still a common in so called untouchable Harijan (that’s the name given by our so called father of nation). Marulasiddha become popular for his magical and hypnotic skills in his early days. This holy man's name is often referred as one of the Panchacharya (though hard to believe how did they accept an untouchable as their one of udbhava murthy) [There is an story floated by Panchapeeta followers that Marulasiddha met Revanasiddha (one of Panchapeeta guru) in hills of Chitradurga while wondering places and gave gurudeeksha. How can a guru who sit 3 feet above others can give a gurudeeksha to an untouchable?]

Ans: Hey man you are short of knowledge about panchacharyas, panchacharyas referrring marulasiddha is not only whom you are referring, the marulasiddha referred by panchacharyas is the real marulasiddha who was there is Madhyapradesh, The history says that. you need see the history of ujjain, please accept the facts, the marulasiddha ur referring is one of the marulasiddha out of n no of marulasiddha s of panchacharya clan. If you are taliking about udbhava murthy , do you really believe in god then all gods are not historical figures(they are mytholigica figures, everything imaginary), please think broadly. What you are contradicting(u belive about god but not udbhava murthy.), Basically religion is the faith.
Marulasiddha without his concise made huge followers shortly and now these are called by 'Sadu Lingayaths'. Sadu Lingayaths does not believe in IDOLS, but they believe truly in "Shoonya", i.e no idol require to pray or praise. At end of his time Marulasiddha gave first blessings to a wisely kid as "Tarala Balu", which means "kid, do live for ever" (I agree it’s not an equivalent).

Frequent usage of Panchacharya in Lingayath's context does not mean only Panchacharya are Lingayaths. There are larger Lingayath groups and subgroups (100 odd to recall) spreading in states of Karnataka, Andra, Maharastra and Tamilnadu.

By your discusion, you only aware of basava centric and Karnataka, Andra, Maharastra and Tamilnadu realeted veerashaivism, you need read the book "Gadwal ka itihas" Gives clear idea. If you really interested i will provide more books on history and proofs they will how old is Veerashaivism it is around 5000 BC old.

My intension is not to hurt anyone, but to put the records straight.

Dear friend we nevere talk about who has given deeksha to Marulasiddharadhya, but one thinh we were discussing the history, History is always the history, without evidences one cannot be falsely propogate false facts.

Please donot write provocating thinsg like, "How can a guru who sit 3 feet above others can give a gurudeeksha to an untouchable?" This will really spoil discussion.

Please sign your comments with ~~~~. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ghaniga community

Some places in karnataka they also knows as Ghanigas.

Please sign your comments with ~~~~. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Word lingayat

The origin of the word is Linga means Shivalinga pointing shivism

Please sign your comments with ~~~~. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Tenets and beliefs?

Reading the link lingayathism.net - brief history I see lot's of information that is relevant to the article. If anyone feel inclined to, it would be nice to have the basic beliefs and the separateness from the "religion" hinduism in the article. That as a basis would strenghten the process towards a full informative (also for outsiders like me) article on this "religio-sociological movement" ("religion" if you wish, I'll buy it personally, but in an encyclopedia outside opinions have to be reflected, and I can have no say). ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

General questions

1. Seems like there is a difference between Veerashaivism and Lingayatism, hinduist sources tend to say that Lingayatism is a kind of Veerashaivism, but of course many of them claim Buddhism and Jainism to be kinds of hinduism which is a "non-standard" interpretation on what constitutes a religion. It is possible that we must have two articles, one on Lingayatism and one on Veerashaivism...
2. The Āgamas seems to be a critical issue: the few lingayat sources (more needed), seem to reject the Shaiva Agamas, while the text claims that the Lingayatism uses the Shaiva Agamas. Which is correct? Possibly (my speculation) some Lingayats accept the Shaiva Agamas and others not. Or the ones that call themselves Veerashaivas accept the Shaiva Agamas. Which is correct? This hinduist source agrees on the Vedas and Āgamas being the defining factor for what is to be regarded as a hinduist religion, and what is not.

I'm the neutral outsider, wondering why there's a tendency for a perfect equality, and another for monotheism in the majority of religions. Your opinions? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Lingayat as Caste/Community

Currently the article is set up as an article on the religion, rather than the people. There is a little information on the modern community, but it's very little. Yet searching for "Lingayat" redirects here. Maybe there should be a separate page on that. I'm not knowledgeable enough to write it, though. Lewis Trondheim (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Lingayat is caste in Hinduism. They do not reject Vedas altogether but disagree with some parts. Shaivism predates Basavanna by many centuries. There are sub castes in Lingayats. There is a huge caste based politics centred around Lingayats and their opposition to Vokkaliga caste. So this "reject caste system" etc is just propaganda. It is also false that they are monotheists. They worship several GODs Naga, Chandra, Bull, Veerabhadra etc. ~rAGU (talk)

Supposedly famous Lingats moved from article

The following are supposedly famous people but are red links so moved to talk. RJFJR (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Vijay Sankeshwar, former MP, founder of VRL logistic ltd
• Nilkanthrao Kalyani, Industrialist
• M.P. Prakash, Former Deputy Chief Minister of Karnataka
• Dr M.P Nadagouda, Member, Legislative Council (M.L.C)
• Chadrakant Navande, Shiv-Sena Leader, Parli-V, Maharashtra
• Sangamesh V.K., Famous Industrialist
• Somashekar Patil, Famous Industrialist
• Ashok S Humbarawadi, Iron man, Famous Industrialist
• Dr. Anand Kumar Kodliwadmath, M.B.B.S. (KU), D.A. (Bombay),MBA.(UK)
• Patil Puttappa,renowed kannada activists
• Prabhakar B. Kore, KLE Society (The biggest Education society in the state) Chairman, MP and former minister
• Shamanur Shivashankarappa, Great Educationalists in Davanagere and former state minister
• M.P.Prakash, Congress Leader and Farmer Dy Chief Minister of Karnataka
• M.Rajashekar Murthy, Senior Congress Leader and Former Finance Minister of Karnataka
• Basavaraj Patil Yetnal, Senior BJP Leader, MP and Former Union Minister of India
• Smt.Basavarajeswari, Senior Congress Leader, EX-MP and Former Union Minister of India
• Basavaraj Patil Anwari, Senior Congress Leader, EX-MP and Former Union Minister of India
• Smt.K.S.Nagarathnamma, Senior Congress Leader, Former Minister and opposition party leader in Assembly
• S.Mallikarjunaiah, Senior BJP Leader, MP and former Deputy Speaker of Parliament
• Babugowda Patil, Senior BJP Leader, former MP and Union Minister of India
• Pramila Nesargi, Senior BJP Leader and State Women’s Commission Chairperson
• Ashok Kheny, Award winner, Head of Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Project (NICE)
• A.S. Posetty, Famous Lawyer, Senior TRS Leader. Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh
• Pandit Prabhudev Sardar, top ranking All India Radio Hindustani classical artist, gifted with rich and powerful voice
• Bhimanna Khandre, Senior Congress Leader, Former Minister in Karnataka Assembly, Former President of the All India Veerashaiva Mahasabha
• Niranjan.M
• Justice V.S.Malimath,Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka and kerala.
• Justice Shivaraj Patil, Judge High Court of karnataka, Chief justice of Rajastan and Judge Supreme Court of India
• Sidramappa N. Alure Guruji, Ex-MLA, Osmanabad District, Social worker
• Late Shri P.M. Nadagouda, Ex.Co-operative Minister of Karnataka,
• Dr. Siddayya Puranik (Kavyananda), IAS, famous kannada poet -->
• Go. Ru. Channabasappa, Writer and critic, President, Akhila Bharatha Sharana Saahithya Parishath.

Article in a Bad Shape

As a person from Karnataka where there are a large number of followers of Lingayatism,I find the article in a bad shape with lot of POV.Also Lingayat is not a caste.Lingayats are found in several castes on the contrary(Will be giving links for the same).However,they identify themselves as Lingayats and not by their caste since Basavanna's main motive was to fight Caste System.I'll be gratified if someone comes forward to help me edit this article.:)-Raghavan(Talk) 16:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I see strong POV in the social work part of the article. It's unfortunate that this contention spills over onto what should be an impartial informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.95.128 (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Lingayat Caste : is it a caste ????

I don't know from where and how Lingayat Caste has any relevance and why the page name is called Lingayat Caste. I propose to rename page to Lingayatism. Lingayatism is a philosophy infact a kind of reform/refinement in/of Hinduism. It is by no means limited to Lingayat people. --Onef9day ^Talk! 06:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The name of the page is "Lingayatism".इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 14:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Not specifying the ground realities is not correct. There should be a statement saying what was the vision of Basavanna & what is the current state of Lingayat caste (Of course it is caste & a pretty rigid one). The statement was present sometime back but i think someone edited it out. If you don't believe that it is not rigid try to enter a matha in a rural area telling that you are from a lower caste & see what happens. I don't know how do you collect info to distinguish POV from facts, but this can be done. Behaving like an ostrich when there is a problem is of no good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.252 (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This article should mention contributions from other regions and languages

For example Basava Puranamu by Palkuriki Somanathudu from the Andhra-Telengana region — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free2doubt2 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

What'te'cr*p!!

This intro is not acceptable:

Panchacharyas are the founders, the selfish oppose them, to earn their selfis things

Wikipedia is not a propaganda central for this or that religious position. As of 27 Dec 2008 the intro was OK, although about the factual correctness I cannot deem. That version was better than this embarassing one. The one(s) who messed the intro up, could restore it according to Wikipedia policies, foremost WP:NPOV. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I took a vast look into the history and found that there were disruptive edits that were not intended as such. My first point: I copied an intro from 4 dec 2008 that I found said something of what Lingayatism is. The best intros of the article occurred in the early 2007:s. An intro of an article shall give a fast overview, but the current one is much too small. An intro for this topic should be c:a 3-4 paragraphs, not just one paragraph. The linguistic issues, such as how it is spellt in Kannada is not necessary for an overview, it could occur after the intro. Instead the intro should describe what Lingayatism is, i.e.

1. it is classified as a hindu sect or as an independent religion according to differing opinions,
2. it is also connected to a reform movement that according to it's own tenets wants to counter superstitions and social prejudicies,
3. it is anti-caste,
4. it regards Shiva as supreme godhead (or some such, I'm a christian so I don't know the correct terminology),
5. in opposition to this or that Hindu denominations, it interpret this god/philosophy such or such.

... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am lingayat believe in truth adore both Basava and Panchacharya's, the above said statements are written. After someone started scoulding Kashinath Shastri. Eventhough Basavanna has given enormous contribution to Veerasahaivism, how can one hide truth of ancient history of veerashaivsism, also one thing is that Basava never opposed Panchacharyas. See there are so many inflamatory write ups in the wiki on panchacharyas.

Also you need reference and historical evidenece, Allahabad Judgement, I can provide you the copy of that, also we cannot do injustice to history of veerashaiva's by limiting it to Karnataka and Basavanna.

Thanks Veer

In short: "you're certainly right, please update the text accordingly, and dismiss my errors".

In long: My statements can and should be questioned – I won't object. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. Then please improve the text yourself according to WP:BOLD – be bold and take direct action, unless a topic is controversial (and please note that I'm the neutral outsider trying to make an inventory of religions). If the topics are controversial, the subject can be discussed on this talk page until some reasonable consensus is reached. If there are many opinions about Lingayatism, then the most of them should be treated in this article. What I'm doing here, is trying to help making an article readable for outsiders as well as acceptable to all insiders, that is neutral but carefully treating all opposed views in a neutral tone. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

sushil kumar shinde is also Lingayat why how can you forget him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.74.85 (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Vegetariansim in Lingaytism

Is vegetarianism as practiced by Lingayats any different from others? Do we need the template pointing to a (red)-link as 'Vegetarianism in Lingayatism' ? Suggest pointing to page on Vegetarianism instead.Antariki Vandanamu 12:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Few more names are Missing

Sushil kumar shinde, Bhimanna Khandre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.74.85 (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No consistency in the article, and need for a separate article on Lingayats as a contemporary demographic community

The debate about relationship between Lingayatism and Veerashaivism, as a single entity or two different sects, has become an endless debate. Perhaps, a common lingayat is unaware and uneducated about the significance and correctness of this debate. The two views by experts, scholars and historians, all lingayats themselves, have become so polar that nothing can be deciphered as the truth. So, this article should be rewritten from a contemporary viewpoint of Lingayat history and the debate about Ishtalinga representing Lord Shiva, with due weightage to scholarly interpretations. Also, as the government recognizes the community as Veerashaiva Lingayats, there is a strong need to incorporate things about Vedic Veerashaivism in the article, since a significant population of the community also adheres to Panchacharyas in addition to Basavanna. I myself a Lingayat, through my constant observations about this vast diverse ethnic community, will apply my own knowledge about the demography to the article. I request all interested users to contribute in this direction. Also, this article needs to be semi-protected to prevent constant addition of unsourced biased content as there is a vast scope for Cherry picking about Lingayatism. Rather, a significant portion of the article can be concentrated on the present Lingayat Mutts and their vast contributions to the society, and their stronghold over non Lingayats as centers of faith and trust.

In addition, there is a strong need for a separate article about Lingayats as a community in addition to the existing article Lingayatism which is about the faith they adhere to. I will start a article soon on this.

Thank You. ~ Irrigator ^talk 04:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Allama Prabhu infobox as Hindu leader - copied from Talk:Allama Prabhu

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Question: "Should Allama Prabhu be called a Hindu leader? Is Lingayatism a Hindu sect? Is XYZ a Hindu sect/denomination?"

@Joshua Jonathan:: Good points above. Frankly, most scholars and I too have struggled with that question. It is the same sort of controversy you find in other religions (e.g. was or is Sufi or Ahmadiyya or Bahai an Islamic sect?). The answer depends on the premises / presumptions / stereotypes. I have no particular preference about the classification, and what is or what isn't included in Hinduism (or some other religion).

The challenge for Shivaprakash and much of the literature about Indian medieval history is the authenticity of the documents they rely on. Most, if you dig deeper, are hagiographies full of myth and miracles, where multiple manuscripts exist, and each says different things. While @Mohanbhan calls "HS Shivaprakash is a well-known authority", this is irrelevant in an encyclopedia. Wiki articles are to be based on the "widely held scholarly views, that can be verified", and according to community agreed policies and guidelines. In this case, that does not mean we ignore Shivaprakash, it means we consider Shivaprakash and additional scholars.

Now, lets return to the above Question. In Shivaprakash's book, I do not see the conclusion anywhere, "Lingayatism is not a Hindu sect". I see a mention of Hinduism on page 3 of introduction of Shivaprakash book, the second para, where it also reads, "[At the time of Vijayanagara's resistance to Muslim invasion], Sharana movement was no more an immediate reality. It was glorious memory, a myth. They carried out a reinterpretation of the myth....". In The Context of Vachana Translations section of his introduction, 6th to 8th paragraph, I see a review by Shivaprakash, where he acknowledges "many" non-Virashaiva scholars, Brahmins in particular and others, presenting Virashaivism as "extension of Hinduism" and "reformatory Hinduism" (his words). Thus we do see support, "Lingayatism, to many non-Virashaiva scholars, is an extension/reform movement in Hinduism".

Now lets go beyond Shivaprakash, consider additional scholars, as summarized in tertiary literature. Here is the opening line in Encyclopedia Britannica's article on Lingayat:

Lingayat, also called Virashaiva, member of a Hindu sect with a wide following in southern India that worships Shiva as the only deity.

– Lingayat, Hindu sect, Alternative title: Virashaiva article, Encyclopedia Britannica (2015)

The reliable sources are suggesting the answer to the above Question is Yes. However, I must also note my agreement with you (except that your wording may be conflating Brahmanism with "priestly class Brahmin-ism"?, as some others do). Scholars do question, what is Hinduism? and is Lingayat or Shaivism or Vaishnavism or Shaktism or Smartism or XYZ a distinct religion, if yes or no, how, since when, where, why?

The constructive approach here would be to "better try to provide additional info, which makes clear the nuances." @Mohanbhan's approach of picking a side, calling sources as fringe/undue, deleting the content and those sources, and then failing to provide mainstream source(s) with page numbers that actually say what he imagines/alleges they say, is not constructive, and does not help in "making clear the nuances". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lingayatism as Hinduism source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Joshua Jonathan:: Should we be using Hindu leader infobox in this article? For WP:V, on page 3072, Melton and Baumann (2010), Religions of the World, ISBN 978-1598842036, mention Allama Prabhu in their section on Virasaivism, and call it a form of Hinduism, where Vedas hold no place of special authority.

Similarly, in Appendix II of the Ramanujan's book "Speaking of Siva", William McCormack writes, "we believe Lingayats to be Hindus because their beliefs are syncretistic and include an assemblage of many Hindu elements, including the name of their God, Shiva, who is one of the chief figures of the Hindu pantheon. AK Ramanujan documents this point in his introduction to the present book, where he discusses Hindu symbolic elements in vacanas." Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather use an infobox for writers or poets or so, given the sensitivities surrounding the question "Who is a Hindu?" In a scholarly sense, of course Lingayats are included within Hinduism, since adherence ot the Vedas is not the conclusive criterium. But in India, this is an important criterium. Orthodox Hindus seems to take as the criterium (see Frank Morales), blissfully unaware or disregarding the Agamas etc.; neo-Vedantins and Hindutvas want to include everything with Hinduism, with the Vedic tradition as its proud origin; and non-Vedic people reject this, and don't want to be included into the Vedic fold. And, last but not least, we also have to reckon with the sensitivities here ate Wikipedia. So, a neutral may be better. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: You mean Frank Morales, the episcopal priest activist? Does he discuss Lingayats, or Allama Prabhu, or both ? If yes, which book and page number? I note your request to consider sensitivities, but it is better done in this and other articles, by presenting all sides and POVs, with reliable sources, rather than suppressing information to please bullies on either side. I will go with your call on the current infobox. How about adding a short section in the main article summarizing the debate of whether Allama Prabhu and his movement Virasaivism are considered a part of Hinduism. We can summarize Melton as well as Ramanujan's book on this, and add in a summary of the disputing side with similar quality sources? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Remember that "Hindus" only tip their hat to Vedas. Vedas are largely irrelevant to Hinduism (excepting Upanishads). - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This is how the Supreme Court of India understands Hinduism:

"..the basic concepts of Hindu religion, are stated thus:

(35) The first amongst these basic concepts is the acceptance of the Veda as the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters. This concept necessary implies that all the system claim to have drawn their principles from a common reservoir of thought enshrined in the Veda. The Hindu teachers were thus obligated to use the heritage they received from the past in order to make their views readily understood. The other basic concept which is common to the six systems of Hindu philosophy is that " all of them accept the view of the great world rhyme. Vast periods of creation, maintenance and dissolution follow each other in endless succession. This theory is not inconsistent with belief in progress: for it is not a question of the movement of the world reaching its goal time without number, and being again fforced back to its starting-point. It means that the race of man enters upon and retravels its ascending path of realization. This interminable succession of world ages has no beginning [Indian Philosophy by Dr. Radhakrishnan, Vol. II, p.26] `It may also he said that all the systems of Hindu philosophy belief in rebirth and pre-existence. `Our life is a step on a road, the direction and goal of which are lost in the infinite. On this road, death is never an end or an obstacle but at most the beginning of new steps [Indian Philosophy by Dr. Radhakrishnan, Vol. II, p.27].' Thus, it is clear that unlike other religions and religious creeds, Hindu religion is not tied to any definite set of philosophic concepts as such.'"

Source: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5047

So there is no question of using the Hindu leader infobox here. -Mohanbhan (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan: You are interpreting and deriving strange new conclusions about Lingayatism from what that paragraph's first and last and other sentences say. Similar debate is found in aspects of all religions, such as Christianity (see George Coates for a more scholarly discussion on whether someone can question or deny Bible's authority on some or all matters and still be a Christian). One can question or deny the authority of certain scripture, but still conclude as above paragraph does – "religion is not tied to any definite set of philosophic concepts as such" (Vedas include Upanishads, and a lot of inconsistent non-Upanishad stuff, inconsistencies even Indian scholars such as Adi Shankara and even older ones debated in their works). But, such discussions make this talk page into a forum for WP:OR, which it is not. If you have specific scholarly source that assert Allama Prabhu-Lingayatism is not Hinduism, please provide it with page number. @JJ can help include it in the proposed section in the main article on "whether Allama Prabhu and his movement Virasaivism are considered a part of Hinduism". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

(ps) @Mohanbhan: In case you missed it, I accepted @JJ's suggestion to not change the infobox of this article to 'Hindu leader'. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This Frank Morales. I don't think that the Supreme Court of India provides the final scholarly criterium on who is a Hindu. At least not at Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

regarding the question "How about adding a short section in the main article summarizing the debate of whether Allama Prabhu and his movement Virasaivism are considered a part of Hinduism", I don't think that would be wise to do here. For whom is it relevant? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: To whoever interested in learning if scholars consider Allama Prabhu to be, or not to be one of the 12th-century Hindu religious leader? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lingayatism as Hinduism

There has been discussion on talk:Allama Prabhu on whether Lingayatism is part of Hinduism. It was pretty much deadlocked. I suggested that the discussion be moved here in order to seek broader input, and copied the relevant talk page sections above. @Ms Sarah Welch, Mohanbhan, and Joshua Jonathan: please continue the discussion here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: The following sources include Lingayatism as a sect of Hinduism: [1] Ramanujan (1973), Speaking of Siva, Penguin Classics, ISBN 0-14-044270-7, Appendix II, pages 175-187 [2] Melton and Baumann (2010), Religions of the World, ISBN 978-1598842036, page 3072 [3] Dalal (2011), The Religions of India: A Concise Guide to Nine Major Faiths, Penguin, ISBN 978-0143415176, page 209. As @Kautilya3 has conveniently linked into this talk page, the discussion on talk page(s) elsewhere, please see the quotes above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Different religion

@223.31.27.82: you reverted my revert, writing "The link clearly says it is an independent religion. Please use talk page if views differ." Which link are you referring to, and why don't you follow-up on the discussion above? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

This one, I guess: "Lingayatism – An Independent Religion". Which is a dead link... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's the correct link. And now for some serious sources please. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the discussion. I am not sure why the source is even listed if it is not credible. There are a few sources I would like to give you in to ascertain the validity of Lingayatism being an independent religion.
(1) Two books:

• The Lingyat Movement by S.M.Hunshal
• History And Philosophy Of Lingayat Religion Lingaharanachandrika by M.R.Sakhare

Both talk in abundance about the independence of Lingayat religion. Unfortunately both links only have downloadable versions of the books and I cannot link references. You can find them [1] and [2].

(2) The definition of Hinduism was given in 1995 in the Bramchari Sidheswar Shai and others Versus State of West Bengal case by the Supreme Court of India as "Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence as the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters". Lingayatism outrightly rejects the Vedas as highest authority (multiple vachanas are testimony to this). The Veerashaivas however have accepted Vedas.
(3) Many Lingayat leaders have been saying that Lingayatism deserves separate religion status. References are in the article but I shall yet produce [3] here.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.31.27.82 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)‎

Thank you for your response. I've taken the liberty to copy-edit your response, for a better overview; I hope that's okay with you. Regarding your sources:

1. Are those sources WP:RS? or are they 'insiders-views'?

2. Verdicts by the Supreme Court are irrelevant here at Wikipedia, especially when you yourself conclude from such a verdict that Lingayatismm is a separate religion; that's WP:OR. Here at Wikipedia we present the relevant scholarly views; see WP:RS.

3. Wishing a separate religious status, again, is a legal matter. This wish, on its own, may be the subject of scholarly studies, but is not per se a scholarly criterium.

Thanks, again, for responding. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

PS: the links you provided don't work; probably because I'm in Holland, not in India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:, @223.31.27.82: They indeed are not RS. Tertiary sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica states Lingayat to be a Hindu sect. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Notable Lingayats

What's the criteria for including "Notable Lingayats" in this article. What makes these 5 people more prominent than the others mentioned at List of Lingayats? utcursch | talk 16:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Good question utcursch - there do not appear to be any criteria, so we run the risk of the entire List of Lingayats being repeated here, which would dominate this page and make the separate list redundant.
How can we assess "relative notability" B. D. Jatti - Acting President of India - V - Vaijanath Biradar a comedy actor? let alone write an all encompassing criteria that avoids never-ending arguments?
The problem is that, if one name is included, numerous others will then be added - do we just leave the hatnote to List of Lingayats and remove everything else? - Arjayay (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Lets take it out, and keep it out. No need, the link in See Also suffices. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. A link in the See also section is enough. utcursch | talk 14:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

ELNO

@182.72.149.101: You keep re-adding a website that does not meet WP:EL accuracy requirements. It triggers several WP:ELNO and possibly WP:COI concerns. Please explain why it meets wikipedia's external links guideline, and your relationship with that website? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lingayatism. 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/20110721182106/http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/bitstream/2009/3513/10/SHU-1989-019-9.pdf to http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/bitstream/2009/3513/10/SHU-1989-019-9.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721182219/http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/bitstream/2009/3513/13/SHU-1989-019-Bibliography.pdf to http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/bitstream/2009/3513/13/SHU-1989-019-Bibliography.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 10:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Shiva etc

@49.207.55.250: Wikipedia is a resource for the general reader, including those who are not familiar with Indian religions / theologies. We must stick to the sources. Please explain your concerns with this and this edit. Please do not repeatedly remove sources and sourced content through an edit war. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted to "hindu god Shiva" on your request. Please note three things.

1. I have updated the section "Demand for separate religion" with two new references. Also, a news article cannot be attributed to it's author. Further the reflection of one scholar cannot be deemed with the words "according to most scholars".

2. There is a link to Shiva. If anyone is not familiar with Shiva, they can click on the link to know better.

3. Theological debate: Shiva of Lingayats is not the same as Shiva of Hindus. He is formless, boundless, shapeless and does not have consorts or physical stature.

The above notwithstanding, I shall not edit it further. However the two links shall stand. I also feel that the article is getting more and more biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.55.250 (talk • contribs)

Attribution is appropriate per wikipedia content guidelines. Wikilinks are for more detailed information, not essential information. Your #3 is OR/personal opinion, please see the cited sources in the Shiva article... Shiva is also "formless, boundless, shapeless, etc" in Hinduism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism problems=

@Ms Sarah Welch: Please keep an eye on vandalism on this page. There has been various, strange vandalism on this page since your last edit. I have undone the recent one. Thanks. 117.192.215.207 (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Listing names is soapboxing, not encyclopedic

@Onlyeko: Please explain why a list of names is due and meaningful to this article? A list of names for either side, reads like a meaningless WP:SOAP. If you could summarize their rationale, that would be welcome because it could improve the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I see no way in which this is SOAP. I have merely listed, using a reliable news source, some prominent Lingayats who support this stance. I don’t see why approval for inclusion must be dependent upon specifying each individuals reason for their stance, even though the source does provide such information. However, if you would like to read the source and add your desired additions then you are more than welcome. --Onlyeko (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Onlyeko: I have read your cited source already. It reads like soapboxing and news. I will add a few more words from that source for now, but I lean on removing it as wikipedia is not a vote tally/list of supporters and opposers. @Kautilya3:, @Utcursch: thoughts on this sort of content? Should we add a list of Lingayat / Virashaiva / Hindu / non-Hindu names for the other side for NPOV? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Well, I completely disagree about your interpretation of the source. I see nothing more than a news source that describes the opinions of anti-Hindu-sect Lingayats within the broader context of Indian political machinations. Listing prominent members of this group in a Wikipedia article, to me, appears no different to listing prominent anti-Scottish and -Catalan independence proponents. --Onlyeko (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I see no harm in a short list like that. But adding substance would be preferable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thankyou. --Onlyeko (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Onlyeko: Lets not quote other wikipedia articles as defense for soap/advocacy in this article! WP:WWIN guidelines caution us that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a list of who votes how. I yield to Kautilya3's suggestion above. On Shivakumara Swami, please note that the cited source is far more nuanced on who is claiming what the Swami supports. See also, "and persuaded its leaders to refrain from any such judgment. A steady stream of politicians has since made the pilgrimage. Delegates from both parties, all Lingayats, plead quietly for a moment of the swami’s dwindling time" part. The article does not say anywhere that the Swami has publicly announced his position. We need to be careful and pay attention to NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: What about this sentence, regarding the Swami, from the source? “Mr Patil came away announcing that the great seer had agreed with him that Lingayatism should be declared its own religion, distinct from Hinduism.“ The Swami’s position could be restored with the qualifier that it is according to Patil’s claim. --Onlyeko (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Onlyeko: It is hearsay / rumor, doesn't belong in this article. It is also a WP:BLP issue. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Fair enough. Anyway, I’m quite pleased with the fruits of this discussion. Hopefully you feel the same way. --Onlyeko (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2017

The sentence "Lingayatism shares beliefs with Indian religions, such as about reincarnation, samsara and karma" is totally contrary to the teachings of the founder of Linagaytism, Basavanna. Lingayatism in fact rejects the concepts of reincarnation and Karma. Please change the sentence to Lingayatism rejects the concepts of reincarnation and karma.

Also, please add this sentence: Basavanna built upon the philosophy of 11th century philosopher Jedara Dasimayya in establishing the Lingayat religion. Hash50 (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Nihlus 13:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Dress code

So, which one is it? This:

During this period, the followers of Lingayatism were persecuted. Tipu Sultan, for example, found the practices of Lingayats offensive and ordered the mutilation of Lingayat women not meeting his dress code.

Or this:

During this period, the followers of Lingayatism were liberated. Tipu Sultan, for example, in one of his regular market rounds found out about oppression on lower caste by upper caste hindus. Women could not cover their breasts, a practice still followed in few rural areas. Tipu passed law to protect these women from oppression. In some parts of South India lower case women had to pay tax to cover their breast.

References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The second source may be okay for news, but is not RS for history/religion scholarship. Instead of these blog-like news articles which never state which law are they are talking about and what are their sources, we need to find scholarly sources that do... and then we can include that. I was in Kerala a while ago visiting their archaeological sites / monasteries / temples, and the historical evidence does not support the allegation that "women could not cover their breasts". Tipu Sultan's legacy in Kerala and south Karnataka is controversial and there is much unscholarly revisionism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Mixture of half-truths and misunderstandings

Objections

The Wikipedia article on the Lingayatism seems to me to be a mixture of bald facts, half-truths, misunderstandings and outright hoaxes-its a propaganda site not an encyclopedia.wiki editors bluntly censor views they disagree with.

Yesterday I corrected some points mentioned in article about Lingayat beliefs, but wiki editors bluntly censor views even if they were properly cites/sourced.

What was Initially:

Lingayatism shares beliefs with Indian religions, such as about reincarnation, samsara and karma.

References

What I corrected:

Lingayats do not believe in rebirth and, consequently, have abandoned the doctrine of karma (the principle that actions in one life determine the nature of subsequent incarnations).Though they accept the general idea of transmigration of the soul, they believe that Lingayats are in their last lifetime and are not subject to rebirth. Lingayats do not cremate their dead; they are buried in a sitting, meditative position, holding their personal linga in the right hand.

References

What wiki editors bluntly censored down eventually diff:

Lingayatism shares beliefs with Indian religions, but rejetcs the idea of transmigration of the soul.

References

wiki editor wrongly boiled down some points and did not allow more true facts to be added to the paragraph:

• 1.Lingayatism accepts the general idea of transmigration of the soul, but you mentioned incorrectly.
• 2.What beliefs does Lingayatism share with indic religions? Not mentioned!
• 3.Why did you remove last two lines added with good resources?

I request wiki editors not to be biased, adamant and not to behave like an eccentric old grandpa! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavantenkale (talk • contribs) 01:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have a point about reincarnation; I'll look at it again later today. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

So, the pain is with this separate identity versus Indian religions c.q. Hinduism. NB: you wrote "Lingayats do not believe in rebirth" but you also wrote "Though they accept the general idea of transmigration of the soul, they believe that Lingayats are in their last lifetime and are not subject to rebirth." So, you're contradicting yourself; apparently, Lingayats do belief in rebirth. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Analysis

Pavantenkale text

Lingayats do not believe in rebirth and, consequently, have abandoned the doctrine of karma (the principle that actions in one life determine the nature of subsequent incarnations).

• Gall, Timothy L.; Hobby, Jeneen (2009). Worldmark Encyclopedia of Cultures and Daily Life. Gale. ISBN 9781414448923. - inaccessible for me; I note, though, that you've searching again for confirmation of your views.
• Malik, Dr Malti. History of India. Saraswati House Pvt Ltd. pp. Pg. 263. ISBN 9788173354984. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help) - "The Lingayats belief that on death the devotee will not return to this world and he or she will be reunited with Shiva."
• Sinha, Surajit; Saraswati, Baidyanath (1978). Ascetics of Kashi: An Anthropological Exploration. N.K. Bose Memorial Foundation. pp. Pg. 107. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help) - "they also do not believe in rebirth, for they hold that by wearing the lingam round their neck they automatically get salvation after their death."
• Kainiraka, Sanu (2016-03-01). From Indus to Independence - A Trek Through Indian History: Vol III The Disintegration of Empires. Vij Books India Pvt Ltd. ISBN 9789385563188. - "do not believe in the concept of rebirth"

Though they accept the general idea of transmigration of the soul, they believe that Lingayats are in their last lifetime and are not subject to rebirth. Lingayats do not cremate their dead; they are buried in a sitting, meditative position, holding their personal linga in the right hand.

• Curta, Florin; Holt, Andrew (2016-11-28). Great Events in Religion: An Encyclopedia of Pivotal Events in Religious History [3 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781610695664. - straight quote from the source.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

JJ text

Lingayatism shares beliefs with Indian religions,

• A. K. Ramanujan, ed. (1973). Speaking of Siva. UNESCO. Indian translation series. Penguin classics. Religion and mythology. Penguin India. p. 175. ISBN 978-0-14-044270-0. - McCormack: "But we believe Lingayats to be Hindus because their beliefs are syncretistic and include an assemblage of Hindu elements"
• Frank D'Souza (2014). A Victor of Circumstance. Notion press. p. chapter eight, page 4. ISBN 978-93-83808-97-7. - "Lingayatism, also known as Veerashaivism, makes several departures from mainstream Hinduism [...] It also rejects [...] some Hindu beliefs such as reincarnation and karma." - okay, point taken.

but rejetcs the idea of transmigration of the soul.

• "Lingayat." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 09 Jul. 2010. - "In their rejection of the authority of the Vedas, the doctrine of transmigration of souls"

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

Although Lingayatism is often considered a Hindu sect, sharing beliefs with Indian religions, it also "makes several departures from mainstream Hinduism." Lingayats reject the authority of the Vedas, and the Hindu concept of rebirth. It's worship is centered on Hindu god Shiva as the universal god in the iconographic form of Ishtalinga. While they accept the concept of reincarnation, they believe that Lingayats are in their last lifetime, and believe that will be reunited with Shiva after their death by wearing the lingam. Lingayats are not cremated, but "are buried in a sitting, meditative position, holding their personal linga in the right hand."

References

Some doublure references are to be edited, but this may been a compromise. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Mr JJ,

• 1 Why are you not adding the line i.e. "Lingayats do not believe in rebirth" in the article?
• 2 You are getting confused about meaning of transmigration. Transmigration, in context of Lingayatism, is "to move or pass from one place to another." i.e. from body to Formless god a.k.a. super soul
• 3 You have not specified the beliefs that Lingayatism shares with the Indian religions. Looks as if wiki admins have double standards, as you ask only to us to specify the things but you yourself dont specify the things. E.G. Earlier I had mentioned that 'Basavanna is considered by many as India’s ‘First Free Thinker’ ', but you censored that saying I didn't specified 'Many'.
• 4 WHAT WIKI DOES WHEN THERE ARE TWO SOURCES CONTRADICTING THE SAME INCIDENT/LINE(S)?
• 5 Many a times, on this page, mythological sources are used as standard reference. How far is this justified?

e.g. title = Speaking of Siva| series = UNESCO. Indian translation series. Penguin classics. Religion and mythology

• 6 WHY DID YOU NOT MENTIONED THE VERy BASIC FACT THAT -"Lingayats are not cremated, but "are buried in a sitting, meditative position.."? Why did you revert that?
• 7 LASTLY, BE DEMOCRATIC , BE UNBIASED AND OPEN TO ACCEPT FACTS .

Pavantenkale (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Glad to see you come here in a cooprative spirit... Anyway:

• 1 - Curta & Holt: "they accept the general idea of transmigration of the soul"
• 2 - sources, please.
• 3 - "Many" is WP:WEASEL. I just follow the sources here.
• 4 - WP:RS, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:TRUTH.
• 5 - You eman, sources on mythology? So? See the links above to Wiki-policies.
• 6 - That line is in my proposal.
• 7 - And get acquainted with basic Wiki-policies.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Objection with line i.e. "Lingayats also referred to as Veerashaivas,"

Hi There,

Be informed that referring Lingayats as Veershaivas is controversial and objectionable. These are not same. Veershaivas are subsect of lingayat sect, not vice versa. Lingayatism is a 12th century phenomenon , while veershaivism is a later 14th century phenomenon. Please refer below sorces for reference:

1)The book named 'Voyages of Body and Soul: Selected Female Icons of India and Beyond',Edited by Ketu H. Katrak, Anita R. Ratnam, at page no.55, clearly mentions that

Virashaivism (the philosophy of a distinct Lingayat sect) that is later phenomenon from the 14th century

2)Section 2 [2] of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 says:

"This Act applies - to any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms or developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj; to any person who is a Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion; and to any other person domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion, unless it is proved that any such person would not have been governed by the Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of that law in respect of any of the matters dealt with herein if this Act had not been passed."

Section 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 mentions two separate words without using "Or" conjunction denoting difference between Lingayat and Veershaiva/Virashaiva.

3)latest news paper sources depicting the conflict and difference:

• 3.1)http://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/others/bangalore/others/lingayats-veerashaivas-different-research-says-it/articleshow/59798148.cms
• 3.2)https://www.oneindia.com/india/how-are-veerashaivas-and-lingayats-different-2510776.html
• 3.3)https://thewire.in/167389/karnataka-lingayat-veerashaive-debate/
• 3.4)https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/110817/lingayats-veerashaivas-not-same.html

SUGGESTION: My suggestion is that you should add lines denoting controversial nature of the issue.

References

Pavantenkale (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The article says

Lingayats also referred to as Veerashaivas, and the terms Lingayatism and Veerashaivism have been used synonymously.

References

That's not the same as "Lingayats are Veerashaivas." Nevertheless, you seem to have a relevant point here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Some additional sources:

• Lingayats left wing, Veerashaivas right wing, they can't unite: Champa
• Times of India: Lingayats

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

According to Schouten (1995) p.71, the Lingayats were initially called Virasiavas, while the term Lingayats came to be commonly used during the colonial period. He also states that, in the 15th century, much of the social idealism of the initial movement became lost. he also refers to Dubois, who used the term "lingayat" for all Shiva-worshippers, and mentioned the Virasiavas as a sub-sect of the Lingayats, that is, Saivists. Quite relevant, I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Kalachuri inscriptions

The article says:

The traditional legends and hagiographic texts state Basava to be the founder of the Lingayats. However, modern scholarship relying on historical evidence such as the Kalachuri inscriptions state that Basava was the poet philosopher who revived, refined and energized an already existing tradition.

References

I can't access Olson nor Rice, but the text seems to come straight from the Encyclopdia Britannica:

According to South Indian oral tradition, he was the actual founder of the Lingayats, but study of Kalachuri inscriptions indicates that, rather than founding a new sect, he in fact revived an existing one.

This statement is flatly contradicted by other sources, such as Schouten (1995) p.6, which state that the Pancharya mythology is a later development. The EB also doesn't give any source for their statement. What to do? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

NB: Kalachuri insciptions seems to refer to Kannada inscriptions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

OR

"Lingayatism is a distinct Shaivite religious tradition in India." is not mentioned in any of the sources cited. It is mentioned as Shaivite sect or caste but not "distinct religious tradition". Capankajsmilyo (talk) 08:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Schouten (1995) p.6: "the distinct religious and social convictions". See also the most recent developments in Karnataka. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Page-views

Hm, the numbr of page-views seems to explode. The page is probably mentioned somewhere on a website? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Presumably because of the political turmoil in India.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Lingayatism and Veerashaivism

@Iṣṭa Devatā: I appreciate the depth of your knowledge, as always, but your edits in the lead on the relation between Lingayatism and Veerashaivism are not verifiable, as requested by WP:VERIFIABILITY, nor do they summarize the article, as requested by WP:LEAD:

• diff "Removed and reworded some partisan opinions. Still need to add citation for Lingayats worshipping in Veerashaiva temples."

• You removed "Initially known as Veerashaivas, since the 18th century adherents of this faith are known as Lingayats." from the lead. This comes from Schouten (1995), and is referenced in the article.
• You removed "while Veerashaiva is also considered by some to be akin to Lingayatism." This too is referenced in the article several times
• You added "Lingayats have historically worshipped in Veerashaiva temples since Lingayatism does not condone building temples. This has led to syncretisms within these communities." but indeed without a source. First add it to the body of the article, with reference, then to the lead, if necessary. Note, though, that several 'theories' on the origins of these influences have already been mentioned in the article.

• diff: you changed, c.q. removed

Yet, the term Veerashaiva is also being used to denote a distinct subtradition of Shaivism with Vedic influences. While some consider Veerashaivas to be a subsect of Lingayatism, not all Lingayats consider themselves to be Veerashaivas, and Lingayatism may also be considered as a subtradition of the Veerashaiva philosophy.

into

Yet, the term Veerashaiva is also being used to denote a distinct subtradition of Shaivism with Vedic influences. While some consider Lingayatism to be a subsect of Veerashaivism, not all Lingayats consider themselves to be Veerashaivas.

The article is quite clear that the subtradition called Veerashaivas developed after Basava, while it also says that Lingayatism as a (sub)tradition may also be seen as an expression of the Veerashaiva '"philosophical or theological system." The article does not say that there are people who regard Lingayats as a subtradition of this Vedic Veerashaiva (sub)tradition (though it does contain a quote from Yeddyurappa, saying " "Lingayats are Veershaivas"). As per Blake Michael, in the Wiki-article:

According to Blake Michael, the term Virasaivism refers both to a "philosophical or theological system as well as to the historical, social and religious movement which originated from that system." Lingayatism refers to the modern adherents of this religion.

Yet, you make it seem that Lingayatism as a (sub)tradition is part of the (Vedic) Sheeravaisa (sub)tradition. I don't think that that is a correct summary of the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:Yes, perhaps not the cleanest edits. I would truly be astounded if any Veerashaiva identified their religion as derived from Lingayatism...like a Hindu saying he practices reformed Buddhism. To explain my thoughts: While the founding of Lingayatism by name is older than the naming of the Veerashaiva community, it was my understanding that the de facto practices of the Sharanas was Veerashaivism before it was called as such. Bassava creating the Lingayat movement led to the retronym of Veerashaiva being coined for Sharana Shaivism and mistakenly being used to describe all Sharana faiths (enshrined by naive western academics unaware of the decades old debate). Hence, Veerashaiva practices (before they were called Veerashaiva) are the older faith that Lingayats reject in Bassava's reformation. The other reason for the viewing Lingayat as the subsect is that Lingayats may practice certain Veerashaiva rights (as a result of not having their own temples) meaning that certain Lingayats may also identify as Veerashaiva while Veerashaivas do not generally regard themselves as Lingayats (just like how a duck is a bird but not all birds are ducks, duck being the suborder of bird).

In purely phylogenic terms as well, Veerashaivism does not contain any of the unique identity of the Lingayats while the Lingayats possess an altered form of the Veerashaiva faith...in other words, Veerashaivism is a later word for an older orthodoxy, while Lingayatism is its developmental offshoot as the heterodoxy that rejects the older established orthodoxy...this is the textbook definition of derivative. For Veerashaiva to be derivative of Lingayatism, it would have to have started as a rejection or reformation of Lingayatism, which no one seems to be claiming. In other words, Lingayatism is the reformed Sharana faith and Veerashaiva is the older Sharana faith. The orthodox is never derivative of the heterodox, but it can be a rejection of it aka a re-embracing of old orthodoxy as with modern Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

So even if the Veerashaiva movement is later than the founding of Lingayatism, it is a revivalist movement of the pre-lingayat faith of the Sharanas. They are not Lingayats who rejected Bassava's reform, they are Sharana's who never accepted the reformation in the first place. This is the picture painted in current and native Indian sources (e.g. [4], that is absent from older sources that unknowingly conflated the two groups. As for citations, I hope deference for the oversimplified and outdated etic encyclopedia definitions do not slow down the editing this page needs.

Ultimately I trust your logic, JJ.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devatā: thanks for the term "Sharana Shaivism"; I found this source: Medieval Indian Literature: Surveys and selections, which also says that the sharana movement started in the 11th century, before Basava. "Sharana movement" gives more hits.

If I understand it correctly: the term "Lingayat," in the ongoing debate about Lingayatism within/without Veerashaiva, denotes the ones who want a separate status, and see the Veerashaiva as conservative/right wing Hindu-adepts; while the socalled Veerashaiva argue that their tradition goes way back, while the socalled Lingayat-fraction is a sort of revivalist movement which wants extra rights. Well, I'll read on, and try to improve the article further. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Good finds. (p.168 of Ayyappappanikkar): "The Sharana movement is considered by one school of thought to constitute the beginning of Veerashaivism (Heroic Shaivism). The same school cosiders Basavanna to be the founder of Veerashaivism." This might refer to Lingayats, "Another school believes that Veerashaivism is an ancient faith which was given a radical reinterpretation by Basavanna." This may be the Pancatirthas who claim Basava was initiated into their tradition. Interestingly this author does not distinguish Lingayats from Veerashaivas, but this gives a good description of the Sharana milieu the group(s) came from and establishes that this is where Basava arose. It also shows the differing opinions over the antiquity of Basava vs Veerashaivism. He describes how "Most, but not all, Sharanas rejected temple worship, probably because the doors of temples were open only to the high castes. They worshipped Shiva in the form of a tiny lingam worn on the body." (p.169) This seems to be a description of the specific heterodox features of Lingayatism. In other words: most, but not all Veerashaivas, according to this author, follow the practices we can identify as Lingayatism. Ergo, some Veerashaivas are just practicing Sharana Shaivism without the features of Lingayatism. Those are Veerashaivas, but not Lingayats.

The ultimate distinction is that Lingayats are the heterodox system that rejects the definitive Hindu practices of caste, temple, reincarnation, and vedic authority while Veerashaiva is the larger group that describes all of the practitioners of Sharana Shaivism, both in orthodox and heterodox (Lingayat) form. Lingayat therefor is more specific than Veerashaiva.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Lingi Brahmins

@Capankajsmilyo: the article now says:

Veerashaivism is continued to this day by a class of Shaivite Bramhins called Lingi Bramhins

You questioned this piece of info somewhere. Ramesh Bairy (2013), Being Brahmin, Being Modern: Exploring the Lives of Caste Today, Routledge (Google, top of the list; the original url is blocked by Wikipedia), has more information on this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Merge

I propose to merge Veerashaiva's sourced content into this article and convert it into a redirect. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support; I was considering the same, though I'd like to first check what sources are given, or can be found, for the claim that Lingayats and Veerashaiva's are different, and how this is related to the Siddhanta Shikhamani. See also Making Sense of the Lingayat vs Veerashaiva Debate by Gauri Lankesh. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Object - I don't recall the template here, but I would object to the merge. As an issue of cultural sensitivity alone, I know that living groups I have interacted with have separate self-identities as virasaiva and lingayat and that many virasaiva would be correct to say that they are not followers of Basava's lingayatism, but are practitioners of agamic virashaivism. In fact, Virashaivas, since they follow the Vedas and worship in temples, consider themselves Hindus, while Lingayats reject the Vedas, reincarnation, idol worship, reincarnation and the majority of the things that define Hinduism which is why they consider themselves non-hindu. I can't post a youtube link but you can find the relevant video here [5]. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Essentially, us merging these topics would appear to be a validation of the Hindutva campaign to avoid the "diminishing" of Hinduism by recognizing Lingayatism as a distinct faith. There is a lot of political vitriol behind this debate, but ultimately I believe a people can define themselves and we will honor their emic identity over a politically motivated etic perspective. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments; helpfull. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I've added these quotes today in a note:

* Schouten (1995): "The death of Basava certainly did not bring the Virasaiva movement to an end [...] Virasaivism gained a firm foothold in Hindu culture. In this process of consolidation, it was felt to be appropriate to emphasize the agreements, rather than the deviations, with the dominantt religion. Hence, the Virasaavas tended to present themselves as pure Hindus who shared the age-old religious tradition. This went so far that the role of Basava as the founder of the movement was downplayed. Virasaivas even claimed that their school of thought already existed long before Basava. In their imagination, they sometimes traced the history of Virasaivism back to primordial times. Legends arose among them which related that five teachers, sprunf from the five faces of Siva, descended to earth, in each of the ages of the world under different names, in order to preach the eternal truth of Virasaivism. Basava would have been nothing more than a reviver of this religion which had existed from times immemorial."
* Bairy: "[Venkatrao, in 1919 the president of the Karnataka History Congress], mentions that many Lingayaths took objections to him mentioning Basava as the founder of Veerashaivism in his writings. Finding that very strange and unfathomable, he asks a Lingayath friend about the reasons for this. The friend tells him how that very question - of whether Basava is the founder of Veerashaivism (accepting which would not only mean that it is dated to as recent as the twelfth century but also subverts the Panchacharya tradition which claimed a more antiquarian past) or just a reformer - was a major bone of contention between the two sections of Lingayaths.

Given this info, I think we can regard the Virashaivas (as a community) to be a part of the Lingayat community, despite their own objections. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - It is a raging controversy. We better not jump the gun by claiming to know what is what. I don't think there is any overriding need to merge. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Recognition as a separate religion

This source, Chandan Gowda (23 march 2018), Terms of separation, The Hindu, does not justify the following change:

Lingayatism is a Shaivite religious tradition in India.

into

Lingayatism is a religion in India.

Nor does it justify the removal of the following info:

Meanwhile Lingayatism may refer to the whole Lingayat community, but also to a contemporary (sub)tradition within this community which strives toward recognition as an independent religion.

into

Meanwhile Lingayatism may refer to the whole Lingayat community, but also to a contemporary an independent religion.

What Chandan Gowda writes is:

Reflecting the changed nature of Lingayat mobilisation, the six-member Nagamohan Das committee, which was constituted three months ago, views Lingayats and those who believe in Basava’s philosophy as belonging to a separate religion. The latter criterion is an opening offered to Veerashaivas who are clubbed with Lingayats in official documents despite their theological differences with the latter. The Siddaramaiah government has now asked the Centre to endorse the committee’s view that Lingayats form a separate religion [...] The Veerashaivas, who form a tenth of the total Lingayat population

A part of the Lingayat-community wants recognition as a separate religion; committee has made a recognition; this recognition is supported by the Karnataka government. That's what can be stated factual. Not all Lingayats want to be recognized as a separate religion; most, if not all, scholarly sources do not describe Lingayatism as a "separate religion." See also WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:RECENTISM. As an aside: the last sentence also does not make sence in itself. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Idem for this change. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

And this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Caste status controversy

Bairy does not say explicitly that the Lingayats demanded a Brahmin status. The fact is that they had abandoned varna distinctions, but the census straitjacket was trying to put them into a varna. This is a brilliant example of the problems with the colonial census exercises. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, Bairy does state that Lingayats wanted to be treated as Brahmins. Anyway, I guess you're right. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Veerashaivism

Veerashaiva or Veerashaivism is a seperate tradition or sect, it has no relationship with Basava movement or Lingayatism. Purposefully some writers mixing Veerashaiva with lingayatism to destroy Veerashaiva traditions.

Veerashaiva is unique path which worship Shiva which has no connection with lingayats, lingayats don't belive in temple worship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.209.6 (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Separate religious identity

I've twice diff diff removed the following addition:

According to SM Jamdar, a retired IAS officer and researcher who is spearheading the demand, the Lingayats are reasserting their separate identity, which existed in the 1871 Census of India. They were subsequently classified under Hindu religion in the 1881 Census.

In January 1966 while delivering a verdict in supreme court of India, then Chief Justice of India P.B. Gajendragadkar had mentioned:

"...Buddha started Buddhism, Mahaveera founded Jainism, Basava became the founder of Lingayat religion..."

References

• The sentence "According to SM Jamdar[...] the 1881 Census." is a straight copy from "Minority status for Lingayats: Who they are and how they affect Karnataka elections". https://www.hindustantimes.com/. 2018-03-20. Retrieved 2018-05-16. {{cite news}}: External link in |work= (help), and therefore a WP:COPYVIOLATION. It also contradicts Bairy (2013), at subsection Caste status debates (19th–20th century), "In the 1871 and the 1881 census, Lingayats were registered as shudras,[34]." At best, this info could be added to the note there, which I did here.
• The Gajendragadkar quote is anecdotical, inserted here to "prove" a point, and does not belong here.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Buddhakahika socks

Just a note in case the socks return - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Buddhakahika. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Some historical notes on Lingayatism and Veerashaivism

@Joshua Jonathan: See this interesting historical theology and anthropology note on Lingayatism, in the The Journal of the Anthropological Society. It is too dated to use here other than perhaps with caution in the history/historical studies section. Parts therein are also incorrect per later scholarship. Still, information in there such as the table that starts on page 183 onwards is interesting, as is the theory on Lingayats/Veerashaivas on how and why they attracted Shaiva Brahmins and others who championed reforms. Part 3 starts on page 250 and discusses how the community grew and evolved over time, calling non-Veerashaivas as Bhavis and avoiding any association with them, as well as the disputes about their status in the colonial era Bombay High Court. This old paper gives another perspective, in contrast to the recent revisionism and non-scholarly claims on Lingayatism and Veerashaivism in Indian newspapers/blogs/tabloids by the different sides. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Avoid newspapers / tabloids / blogs / websites for this article

I have removed recent addition of unreliable and questionable sources. We should rely on peer-reviewed sources, and newspapers are okay as sources for recent developing news, but they are not appropriate for history, theology and other details. For these, peer-reviewed scholarship should be relied upon. There is too much advocacy and emotionally charged biased propaganda / allegations / counter-allegations / politics in blogs / op-ed newspapers etc particularly now that their election season is underway. Please see WP:RS, WP:HISTRS and WP:WWIN guidelines for more reasons. Lingayatism is centuries old and there is plenty of peer-reviewed scholarship. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

A relevant note from an admin, from another wikipedia-article-talk page:

Newspapers can be RS for news, but not RS for history / anthropology / etc

Newspapers can be RS for news, but not RS for history / anthropology / etc Journalists virtually never have scholarly training in history/anthropology/ethnography/etc. — they're generalists as far as this kind of thing goes, not knowing more than what's needed for background purposes, and as such we mustn't consider them reliable sources for such fields. Exceptions can exist, of course, and we can't discount a journalist merely because of his job (e.g. he could be an avocational anthropologist so dedicated to the field that he's a member of a learned society), but even then we should only trust his writings if they've gotten reviewed by other experts; the most scholarly journalist will have his newspaper writeups reviewed by nobody except the newspaper's editors, whom again we can trust to know a lot about news reporting but we can't trust to know much of anything about "olds" reporting. We can take newspaper reports as authoritative if we're writing a middle school report for our teachers, but encyclopedia writing demands better sources: whether they're written by professional academics, journalists with a lot of experience in scholarly work, or anyone else, they need to have gone through a scholarly review process. – Nyttend

Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)