Hinduism:
Thanks for you work on the Hinduism article. I agreed with most of your edits. You have a good sense for wording and style. Thank you also for making edits only after considering the overall organization--some people edit one part without considering it's effect on other parts. One suggestion: Be careful not to make too many changes all at once. There are a lot of debates on the discussion page of this article. If you change too many things too fast, then if other editors disagree with just a few of your edits, they may revert all of them. Thanks again for your hard work! HeBhagawan16:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Exceptional Newcomer Award
I, HeBhagawan, present you with this award for your outstanding contributions to Hinduism. This award is meant to recognize your good editing decisions, and above all your willingness to work cooperatively with others. Congratulations!
Hi Abe,
Good work on the copyediting. I won't mention all the things I do like, b/c there are so many, but here's one I don't like: I think it is a bad idea to add "lit." to every translation of a word. There are several reasons I think it's a bad idea:
It adds length to the article
It is not necessary--there is no danger of a reader misunderstanding what the function of the word in parentheses following a foreign word it.
It is by no means a universal convention in English writing. Everybody understands it, but not everybody uses it (I'm talking about professional publications here).
The translation of the word is not always literal, as "lit." implies. Sometimes it is a loose translation provided for purposes of clarity. For example, the article translates "yoga" as "path." The literal meaning of yoga is "joining." But since it is more commonly used to mean "path," that is the translation we have given (this word comes to mind since I was discussing it with SaivaSuj, but there are more examples).
Definitely! I personally don't like the term either, but somehow I formed the impression that that was the convention being used on the page, and therefore added it for consistency. Looking back at the page, I see that my impression was incorrect and perhaps a carry-over from some other wikipedia page (no hope of tracing the source now ! :-) ). So please edit out those pesky "lit."s; or I'll do so myself later in the day.
By the way, is it preferable to reply to your (and others') talk messages on their or my talk pages. I prefer the latter, since it allows other readers to follow the thread of the conversation; but nothing is written in stone, especially on wikipedia Abecedare17:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's better to reply on the talk page of the person you want to hear your message. I'm pretty busy at the momemt, so I'm sorry I can't comment more extensively on the other stuff on the Hinduism page. I will comment when I can. Thanks for all your hard work! HeBhagawan01:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I have not gone through the entire discussion on Bhakti Yoga etc.
I am sorry, I have not gone through the entire discussion on Bhakti Yoga etc. It's night here and too tired to read entire discussion today.
According to Geeta, there are only 3 Yogas, Bhakti, Jnan & Karma. I have argued that placing Raja Yoga with these 3 is incorrect. Raj Yog is a session bound method to meditate and to me, Raj Yog is covered in Jnan Yoga as the end-result is acquiring Jnan.
Bhakti, Jnan and Karma are way of life (Dharma as said by you or Saiva_sujit) where as Raj Yoga is a method to discipline mind, body and intellect for a session.
Pl. don't try to support gross wrong and un-holy in the name of Wikipedia policy.
I wonder how can you place grossly wrong and un-holy links on talk pages. Why do you support the subversive method on creating prejudices for Hinduism. It's not right on your part as a good editor. swadhyayee08:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Picture
Oh...I was glad I got some feed back on it! Thanks, I replaced the Rama picture with the Krishna picture since the Rama pic did not have a known copy right info. I am glad someone likes it.__Seadog♪19:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in fact next week I may web-search around for some usefull info and try to work on it. Also you can search around the commons for some good pics!__Seadog♪20:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very good job with the new article that you have created. I added some info on the conch section. Please feel free to take a look.__Seadog♪02:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
Bakaman: Can you please let me know why my edit was incorrect ? I don't have any objection to mentioning the 'Upanishads' in the introduction - I just think it is incorrect to mention the vedas and then say that " other scriptures include Upanishads". Thanks. Abecedare 03:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC) (This message was originally posted on Bakatalk)
Both are completely separate works. Also the user you reverted (I did look at the diff by the way) was the user who got the article to FA status in the first place.BakamanBakatalk03:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused now, since the Upanishad article begins with "The Upanishads are part of the Vedas and form the Hindu scriptures which primarily discuss philosophy, meditation and nature of God; they form the core spiritual thought of Vedantic Hinduism." and the Hinduism page also says "The Upaniṣhads constitute a major portion of the Jnāna Kānda and contain the bulk of the Vedas philosophical and mystical teachings."
I agree nothing was meant by you toward the editor. I understand you are new to the Hinduism articles, and my edit summary was probably out of place. The beginning of the upanisad article is a contradiction. The second statement you listed above does not necessarily suggest that it is a part per se, merely that it is commentary and embellishment of the vedas.BakamanBakatalk04:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all... several years ago, I was a mainstay in Wikipedia, but eventually left after I saw all the hard work that a few dedicated writers and I did (getting Hinduism to FA status) completely destroyed. Occasionally, in spite of myself, I take a look and add my two cents.
If I had the will, I would dive headfirst into a complete overhaul of this page. But regarding the Upanishads thing, here's the deal.
The Vedas are four in number, the Rk, Yajur, Sama and Atharva. By all accounts, they were composed and passed on orally from around 2000 BCE and written down some time later in the 2nd millenium BCE. The oldest Upanishads (Brhadaranyaka and Chandogya) were written, at the earliest, around 1000 BCE, though maybe a tad bit later. The bulwark scriptures for the Vedanta (or end/essence of Veda), they were conceived of as commentaries (as Bakaman has pointed out) and embellishments of the Vedas. However, it is evident that a clear break in philosophy and new developments in ideas was witnessed. The development of at best implicitly or barely mentioned ideas (like dharma, karma, atman, brahman, yoga, sadhana) and the stress on a very Luther-like break from the mediation of spiritual growth by the priestly class was first truly witnessed in the Upanishads. Thus, while they have been classified as 'part of the Vedas', from a scholastic and historical perspective, they form a distinct set of scriptures. That's why I added them as separate, since the first two or three paragraphs of the article should be powerful but attempt to be, in their brevity, a thorough recap of things most important to Hinduism en generale. If the consensus among active editors/writers is that the reference stays, great, or that it goes, fine. I don't think, considering the horrific bloating of the article, that it would make a big difference either way. --LordSuryaofShropshire22:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was amazed that the initial page was so good. It only came to my attention through a "see also" link on Amadou Diallo, which I have watchlisted, but it's ridiculously POV, which is incredible for such a contoversial event. You may want to look at the talk page - I suggested moving it to a different title - perhaps you have an opinion. Natalie18:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed what you say but it's not supposed to show as "m" when description for edit is provided. Seems to be some technical fault. swadhyayee05:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know. My preferential settings were to give me an alert when I forget to describe the edit summary. By selecting this, the edit does not take place at 1st instant. If, you do not describe the edit summary for the 2nd time, it edits with "m". Now you can see, inspite of edit description, "m" reflects so I presume it to be technical fault. My watchlist also not show all pages kept under watch even if they are edited. I ignore such things. It's better to ignore and accept rather than making a fuss about. swadhyayee06:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. I spotted the article you had started from a picture on the main Wiki homepage (DYK section) this morning. It's coming along nicely :-) Ys, Gouranga(UK)16:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work
Good job sniffing out those references for a new comer you have shown a very good grasp of wikipedia policy. Keep it up. Also I originally deleted that statment on the article about 15 minutes ago but then he added them again with references but as you pointed out the refs are not reliable for the article. Once again keep up the good work.__Seadog♪05:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The comment about Psychology is what one of the HSS profs, Milind Malshe said to me in the class. And its not exactly true of some psychologists that psychological object of study is not subjective; many believe otherwise. After all, in non S&Tech subjects, 2 + 2 is not always 4. Cygnus_hansa07:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sure I will see what I can do. But would you like them like they used to be, or do you like them how they are now? Cheers! — Seadog_MS19:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have read your message.
Thanks, I have read your message, have to go out now. Will try to understand the transliteration part and write back. Thanks once again. swadhyayee03:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category
The only reason for placing them in that category was that they were followers of Sathya Sai Baba. Kkrystiantalk 23:38 (UTC+1) 23 Dec 2006
Abecedare, the proof that the people who I added to the Category:Famous followers od Sathya Sai Baba is described in either: 1) the Sathya Sai Baba article 2) the history of the Sathya Sai Baba article (by SSS108) 3) the articles about these people. I think there is nothing wrong with having a category page with famous followers of Sathya Sai Baba. If there can be a category page with famous Muslims (Category:Muslims) than I see no reason why there shouldn't be a category page with famous followers of Sathya Sai Baba. Kkrystian 11:14 (UTC+1) 26 December 2006
Thanks as well. Kkrystian 14:10 (UTC+1) 28 Dec 2006
The point is that that short encyclopedia entry on Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't cite any sources (so we don't know where the authors of it got the information from). Moreover, saying that Hinduism is polytheistic is too far-fetched a statement. The Gita, Vedas (etc.) do not mention in any palce that there are many gods (rather the opposite - that there is only one God) so we cannot say that Hinduism is polytheistic. Kkrystian 17:39 (UTC+1) 3 January 2007
By the way, I have a doubt relating to the matter we are discussing - whether Hinduism is monotheistic or polytheistic. Could you please explain to me what is the difference between ancient Greeks worshipping Apollo as the god of music, Dionisis as the god of wine (etc.) and the Hindus worshipping Agni as the god of fire, Vayu as the god of wind (etc.) I would be very grateful if you explained it to me. Thanks in advance. User:Kkrystian 19:27 (UTC+1) 3 Jan 2007
I think although the religious beliefs of Hindus are neither monolithic or static we can state definetly whether Hinduism is monotheistic, polytheistic (etc.) basing on what the Vedas, Shastras, Gita (etc.) say. Do you agree with me? Kkrystian 15:37 (UTC+1) 5 Jan 2007
Just wanted to thank you for your great work on the Hinduism article. It's a big complicated article, with alot of complicated opinions on which way it should go. You're doing a great job at helping to move it in the right direction. At some point I hope to get back there and help. Thanks, ॐ Priyanathtalk02:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Abecedare, Happy new year to you, I was on vacation all these days, thank you for your edits on Taittiriya.
Hi. I am just happy to promote to GA. It is just fair, because the article has been eligible for GA status for a while. But I didn't want to review it for the GA project, because I was an advocate for HeBhagawan, an editor on the page.
I already provided some suggestions at Talk:Hinduism/Archive 13. There you also can see that my involvement was controversial at the time.
Basically I wanted to shorten the article. The same suggestions have been made again at Talk:Hinduism#Length. It's not too difficult to achieve, actually... just involves a sturdy copyediting hand...
Just chiming in again - Thanks for posting your views and the Britannica article again. While some of us are debating and learning a lot from one another, I'm finding more and more evidence to suggest that at least one of the editors on the debate page may not be interested in conducting a good faith debate. It's troubling, but it's inspiring as well. The more concern I have that information is being suppressed, the more I'll be doing research to better inform these articles and improve/protect WP. Have a great night. -- User:RyanFreisling@04:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I too am most grateful for your kindness and conviviality. Whichever way the debate goes, if it improves WP and helps people learn just a little better to avoid attacking one another, I'll continue to be grateful for the opportunity to have participated at all. -- User:RyanFreisling@05:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Defensive
I have every reason to be defensive because it took all of about 24 hours for the editors to remove almost all the content under the old title because it offended someone. Of course no one would tell me what they found offensive, they would just remove big pieces of text and rewrite it in ludicrous fashion.--Filll23:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said before, it took very little time for the entire article to disappear. This is frustrating. Two or three other editors had warned me that editing articles having anything to do with Hinduism was hopeless and I start to understand. At least this educational. But it will not take very much more for me to ask for the article to be deleted because it is clearly much too sensitive a topic for too many people. It is absolutely amazing to me, since I have gone to school with many Indians, and have been good friends with them, but the attitudes I am witnessing here just astound me. I will maybe have to change the name again, or move the entire content into an article about Christian creationists so it can be defended properly. I dont want to do that, but I might have to. --Filll00:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not claim a conspiracy and I would welcome collaborators who are constructive and do not just remove things instead of correcting them or putting weasel words in or finding contrary references that dispute the references I have turned up. I do not know how much of the history you looked at, and I will grant you there might have been some mistakes, but it is better to edit and correct the mistakes rather than just remove them. So I tried to understand what was going on so I could try to write a less offensive version. I have no idea what Hindutva is, and I did not realize that some of what I was reading was essentially a war between different political parties, different castes, different groups etc. So I am trying to avoid that but still indicate that there are some who claim to be hindus or draw some information from vedic scriptures to invalidate evolution (the modern synthesis called NeoDarwinism), and some who are charged with behaving like western creationists for a variety of reasons and whose writing sure looks like western creationist literature to me.I do not want to step on any toes. I do not want to imply that all hindus believe this stuff. But that is what I was beaten badly with before. etc etc. --Filll00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what was offensive about a picture of the murti Ganesh? I liked that picture. I want more pictures but I dont want to offend anyone.--Filll01:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Well I removed all references to Hindutva. Many references call it a Hindu supremacy movement (many people view black power movements in the US as black supremacy movements, and there certainly exist black supremacists, but not all black civil rights activists are supremacists definitely). But I will not mention that at all even though it is dozens of references. I do not want to get into much more than some anti-science or pseudoscience beliefs that are reminiscent of western creationism, point out some of the stories in some of the vedic scriptures that appear to not agree with Darwins theory of evolution, and talk about the ISKCON antievolutionists. All with references. Which might be complete nonsense but at least they exist. Do you have any answer to the Murti ganesh question? --Filll01:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My aim is not to be inoffensive, but rather to be factual and on topic.
Well I am quite nervous about offending. I know what the references say. But it appears that everyone disagrees with them and/or is offended by them.--Filll05:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However it is not sufficient to present, "anti-science or pseudoscience beliefs that are reminiscent of western creationism" in this article. Abecedare 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
"That is what the references say. If you have references that say the contrary, please produce them so they can be incorporated". I could be more blatant and quote directly from the articles, but I am trying to make it as mild as I can. Better ? --Filll05:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is what the references say. If you have references that say the contrary, please produce them so they can be incorporated.-Filll02:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving that. As you can see from the history, that was not my last move or choice of title. I am glad finally that people are being productive and turning up great references that I could not have found easily myself. If we can pull together instead of at cross-purposes, a much better article will result and be more balanced.--Filll18:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hinduism and creationism
I have not deleted anything (I am not that sort of person, I debate fairly), where did you get that. I take note of your advice. Let us see how the article developes. Aupmanyav17:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No you have not deleted anything and I really appreciate that. If one looks at the history, unfortunately, many people did delete things with no explanation or minimal explanation in the first 24 hours. And that was frustrating because obviously people disagreed, but they did not give an alternative wording, contrary references, etc that could be used to flesh out the article and make it balanced.--Filll18:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is exactly what I too was referencing. Although I don't disagree with the changes the editors made to the earlier version, the same changes could have been made more cooperative. Abecedare18:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only disagree with deletion with no explanation. So if the Ganesh Murti is offensive to some, I understand and I am glad to have it removed. I had it there only because I personally find it very appealing and interesting. I have incorporated 3 of the references you thoughtfully dug up now with a couple of new sections and some new wording, and a couple of the previous references another editor found. I do not seem to be able to access the study article here about differing student attitudes in the Phillipines but maybe we can find something similar or get access to it eventually. I want to explore ALL the ways that different versions of creationism impact and interact with Hindus and Hinduism. I wonder if we can find references to the teaching of evolution in Pakistani public schools? I have looked a little and so far I am coming up empty, although my Pakistani friends have assured me this is true. Interestingly, the Pakistani Academy of Sciences (I might have that name wrong) disagrees with this policy and has issued statements supporting evolution. So I am at a bit of a loss.--
Filll19:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont mind it because it summarizes the article topic a bit better (although it still might give offense to some which I want to prevent if possible) however I would be more happy if we could get the words Hinduism and creationism in that order closer to the start of the first sentence somehow. I gave it a try but I will admit that it does not really cover the topic quite as well as yours. On the other hand, mine might not offend some who are a bit sensitive. So ??? I am not sure what to do but hopefully we can think og fomsething. --Filll02:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally do not care if the reader has to read 3 sentences instead of 1 to find out the topic. At least the version so far matches WP:LEAD more or less.--Filll02:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A potential source of confusion
We probably need a tag to direct people to the other meaning of the phrase East Indian as I pointed out on that talk page some weeks ago. Do you have any comments?--Filll03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I did it the right way. East Indians (ethnic group) is sort of ambiguous, since there are at least 3 different ethnic groups that are called East Indians. So I tried a tag at the top of East Indians (ethnic group). Take a look and see what you think. --Filll04:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll copy your version into the page, I wrote mine really quickly and didn't bother rereading it or anything. By the way, for future reference, it's in the Wikipedia namespace, not my userspace, so WP:BE BOLD and make whatever changes you see fit! Nobleeagle [TALK] [C]07:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that you reverted one of the edits made by sockpuppets user:Cerebralsun and user:Nutramul of permbanned user user:Himalayanashoka. I have been reverting his vandalism too, but my effort by itself may not be enough. Please keep an eye on the India page and please help revert Himalayanashoka's vandalism when you can (within 3RR limits of course). Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IAST
Thank you for your comments. I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to learn correct style and citation methods. I understand the the discussions about IAST have been underway for some time. Please help me to learn how to work effectively with these tools and with this team.
Finding the right balance for inclusion of IAST is an interesting task. Ideally, the inclusion of unfamiliar writing elements such as IAST and Devanāgarī, if not overdone, could stimulate interest in some readers. But overdoing it can be pedantic and make people feel bad. Perhaps we can use it like hot pepper on food, to spice things up a bit, but recognizing that not everyone likes the same degree of curry. Buddhipriya22:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you can request it at WP:RFP. The page was fully-protected for a while earlier today, and it has been semi-protected recently because of Himalayanashoka's persistent POV-pushing. I'm not sure why the protection was removed. -- Jim Douglas(talk)(contribs)04:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I see from his user page, his point is that the British have been involved only in a small fraction of the length of Indian history and therefore only a proportionally short mention of it should be made in the article; he also seems to hold the view that the fact that British colonized India is somehow a British POV and insulting to Indians. I don't claim to understand much of this; and unfortunately for him, the tactics he has adopted overwhelm the credibility of any message he may want to convey. Fair-or-not I would rather devote my attention hearing the argument of some other user for whom I find it easier assuming good faith ... and incidentally, I have only recently started editing the India article and have never interacted with this user. To me that illustrates the futility of his tactics. Abecedare05:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, he might be confusing India (an article about a modern nation-state) with History of India (an article about the history of the subcontinent). Personally, as a citizen of one of the countries colonized by Britain, I'm ok with British colonialism. And it seems to me that 21st-century India is doing pretty well economically specifically because it was colonized by the Brits. But I guess that would be a pro-British POV. :-) -- Jim Douglas(talk)(contribs)05:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this regard, and with apologies to JFK, "Eich bin ein Britisher"
Come to think of it all Himalayaashoka has achieved is unite previously independent editors under the rubric of "British POVers" ... could he in fact be a British implant ? I wonder ! :-) Abecedare05:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, seriously ... irrespective of whether one is ok or not with British colonialism, denying or minimizing its factuality doesn't make much sense to me. Abecedare05:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that's really the bottom line. The history of the modern nation-state of India is deeply connected to British colonialism; it's impossible to write a factual and neutral article while trying to minimize that reality. -- Jim Douglas(talk)(contribs)06:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
protection
Unfortunately, a large portion of the content is disputed by established editors. So to prevent edit warring, I have locked the page until things cool down. The longest the page was locked was for almost two months way back in 2005. =Nichalp«Talk»=18:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Namaste! I, Buddhipriya, humbly thank you for helping me get started as a contributor to Hinduism. You were one of the first people I communicated with when I began using Wikipedia. You quickly helped my create the Ganesha Purana page which was just featured as a DYK. It is only due to your guidance that the page has any merit. If you have any further advice or comments for me, please post me a message at my talk page. Thank you for your kindness! -- Buddhipriya
Dating Krishna
Hi Abecedare, the best link I've found so far is (this one) which I thought might be of interest. Critically reviewed sources seem pretty hard to come by, or at least they are on the web. Regards, Gouranga(UK)12:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I was going to file an ANI the other day when the IP edits started up again but didn't have the time. The username he's picked this time is so blatant that surely a lengthy block must be around the corner. As for reverting, he's so predictable a bot could probably do it :)
Thanks for the edits. As you asked, the second paragraph of geography is incorrectly placed. It should rather be a part of "Economy". Can you do that yourself. I am not editing it, as it may cause an edit-conflict with you. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 09:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! We seem to have run into edit conflicts. To avoid such a situation, could you please add {{inuse}} to the top of the page?. I'll then wait till you're done, and the template is removed. Thanks! =Nichalp«Talk»=10:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me see how to map the term "Ganapati Upanishad" so the page "Ganapati Atharvashirsa" comes up? I don't know what the rules are about such redirections. Thanks! Buddhipriya01:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain if I understand the meaning of "map the term" correctly . Do you want a user searching for information on "Ganapati Upanishad" to be directed to the Ganapati Atharvashirsa page ? If so, all you need to do is create a page titled Ganapati Upanishad, and then edit it so that all it says is
#REDIRECT [[Ganapati Atharvashirsa]] {{R from alternative name}}
That will also ensure that any wikilinks to "Ganapati Upanishad]] link to the directed article. (Check out the details on WP:R if needed).
As followup on our comments the other day I made some edits to Nastika. I am done with that one, would you please look at it and see if it is better or worse than when I started? I am fiddling around with Carvaka now but it will take longer. Any suggestions? Buddhipriya03:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indian mathematics
Greetings, I was involved in the RfC in Indian mathematics. My efforts were directed towards creating a version such as this one, as compared to the this, this and this version. My efforts initially began with removing misrepresentation of quotaions and then I tried providing some of the "citations needed" tags with actual citations. The situation resulted into an RfC, timed during my examinations, to which I could admittedly, not work on adequately. Fowler&fowler has asked me to work with him but since I am sitting my examinations and the article has been edited extensively since the RfC by other editors I no longer can keep up the pace. My exams will continue and after that I will be leaving, taking a few days off WP. I have reviewed my future with the Indian mathematics article, and have come to the conclusion that since I am under time constraints and am under such pressure in real life that adequate responses or editing actions on "Indian mathematics" are just not possible for me right now. I can't contribute to it in the manner that I usually would; it would be unethical to the extreme to ask the other editors, who have wished me well during my examination, to wait. The article is under the watch of many good editors and I see and hope that it's quality benefits from the present situation. Many regards, Freedom skies| talk 02:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Emendation
Abecedare, it seems Krishna Kant did refer to the Supreme Court of India as the Indian Supreme Court, but I don't like it. May I know on what page of Justice Sabharwal's citation does he refer to the Supreme Court as Indian Supreme Court? Can you find out if the Supreme Court is called and referred to as Indian Supreme Court in the mainstream media in India?Kanchanamala16:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nirukta
I have made some edits to the article on Nirukta and I would benefit if you would give it a read when you have nothing better to do. Since we are working together on a practical example of Nirukta with the word nastika, perhaps you would enjoy helping with this article as well. At one time people used nirukta as a form of entertainment, but they did not have the Internet then. Buddhipriya07:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nastika
Thank you for doing the merge. It will be interesting to work out the combined language. I notice that in your edits you are removing the IAST, which makes it very difficult for me to make the case that the word is not based on the verb form "asti" as the article now says. It is based on the adjective āstika ("believing"), which is a completely unrelated concept. The article now uses the common false etymology. The footnotes are now somewhat misplaced as well, as they do not prove the points with which they are associated. Overall these are minor concerns, and your general improvements to the article are excellent as always. If you let me know when you have completed your pass, I would like to go through it again to find points where the sources no longer support the arguments. It is always enjoyable working with you!
The difficulty is that Devanagari has (at least) 46 letters of the alphabet, while English has but 26. This means that when discussing these ideas in simple English we must throw out 43% of the Devanagari writing system (20/46). If a similar burden were imposed on English, it would be necessary to omit eleven letters of the English alphabet (.43 * 26). Which ones would be easiest to do away with? To make it fair, at least one of the vowels would need to go. I suggest "i" since it causes the most trouble. (This is a Sanskrit joke). :) Cheers! Buddhipriya04:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I retained the IAST in the lead and the etymology sections, but removed it from the remainder of remainder of the article - since my personal taste is to use standard English as far as possible. :-) As for the asti origin, I got that from the MW dictionary (the online link, [2]; not the cited 2006 edition which I don't have with me right now). It may be wrong, but we will need a source that either (1) says that MW is wrong, or (2) at least provides an alternate derivation, which we can cite. Does Apte provide the word's etymology ?
About the footnotes: I had meant to leave a note requesting you to check my edits to make sure that my changes had not caused them to be misrepresented. It slipped my mind to do so though, so thanks for bringing that up ! Can you please make sure that the associations are correct ?
To be clear: I have no personal take on the derivation/usage/preference of nastika/astika - I just want to make sure that whatever we claim can be backed up by references. Unfortunately for us, AFAIK, Sanskrit has no analog of the Oxford English Dictionary which would serve as a authoritative reference for the etymology and (different) uses of the terms. So we may have to do the best we can with whatever is available.
Here are my reasons for wanting to avoid IAST within an article:
Very few Indians and even fewer non-Indians know IAST and the others should not be forced to learn it just to understand the content of a India/Hinduism related article. For example, I can read the French and Greek alphabets and we can surely learn the Cyrillic within an hour - however I (ashamedly) will skip over some articles related to Russia if every city was spelled out in Cyrillic, even though that would provide a better guide to the pronunciation.
I agree with your idea of English possessing fewer alphabets, but I disagree with your math above, because many Devanagari characters are accurately transliterated by letter pairs, for example "sh" and "ch". So the main problem is with vowels and with sounds like त which English simply does not possess.(On the other hand, Hindi does not have the "F" sound used in "fool" and can only approximate it as "pool" or "phool" :-))
If getting across the pronunciation is the aim, then IPA should be preferred to IAST, since the former is not restricted to Sanskrit (and related languages) and therefore is accessible by a larger audience.
I list the above points only for your general interest. I don't insist on my reasoning being accepted, since I think improving article content (which is sometimes very woeful) is of higher priority. I am certain we agree on that :-) Abecedare04:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to discuss the IAST issue, but almost missed your comments here because they were embedded in an older thread. I find it hard to keep track of the location of discussions, sorry. I notice that you sometimes edit articles related to math, which baffles me. I am unable to balance my checkbook. I disliked Calculus and quickly forgot all of it a long time ago. I wonder, would it be good to remove all of the mathematical systems from the math articles in order to help users like myself? Perhaps a form of simple English could be used, so strange symbols are not needed. I also feel that there is unnecessary use of details like showing what ranges a differential is made over. Could we not just say that a lot of numbers are involved and leave it at that?
I think any mathematician would recoil in disgust at such a proposal. In order to be credible, Wikipedia must present content in a form that makes sense not to the most ignorant user, such as myself, but to the mathematician. Do you really wish to discuss the details you raise? If so I will do so, but I hesitate to do so here as the ideas need to be preserved somewhere else. IAST is the academic standard. All of the books on the subject directed at an academic audience are in IAST. Transliterations such as sh are meaningless because there are two aspirated sibilants, not one. All of the cerebrals are lost in simple English, etc. I repeat the assertion that you cannot throw out 43% of the writing system without loss of clarity. This is not primarily an issue of how to pronouce the words, it is about what the words are. This confusion over nastika was a perfect example, and led to a possible claim that I was presenting original research when I was simply looking words up in the indexs of academic books on the subject, all of which use IAST, and which make the derivation obvious simply by looking at the characters used.
The root problem in my view is a lack of standarization on this question across the Indic articles. I will do it however the rule is. But the rules should be influenced by academic standards. Anyone submitting a paper that contained only simple English would be laughed at. This is the problem.
I have decided to found a new sect, which I am naming IASTarianism. It is in the Vedas! I have just had a similar conversation trying to promote this new sect which fell on fertile grounds with another editor. You too may eventually be converted. Buddhipriya23:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My proofs were based on first looking at the primary term (flammable), and then applying negation. The references were to the indices of books using the word as a term of art in philosophy, where āstika ("believing") is in the index and text, but no word "astika" can be found. I would be interested to know if you can confirm this in any other sources you may have. Buddhipriya04:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that I am following the logic, since if I recall my sandhi rules correctly the complex of na + astika will also equal nāstika (I have had to use IAST here! :-) ). Is that wrong, or am I missing the point completely ? Abecedare04:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if this online tool (that I just discovered!) is reliable, but it confirms my memory: [3] and [4] ... although that may not be your point at all. Abecedare
I think I see why we may have accidentally been talking past one another, as seems to happen often with lack of face to face communication. I think we are both correct, but are looking at different aspects of the etymology. I was trying to show the derivation of the term nāstika, not the derivation of the term āstika. :) The derivation of āstika is what MW has (and I am not arguing with Panini).
The actual page from MW is also available here: [5]. See bottom of first column. So the derivation of āstika from asti is not in dispute. It is the derivation of nāstika that I was working on, which is not from asti directly, but from the derivative āstika.
To find the derivation of nāstika as a term of art in philosphy, you must ask if the term "astika" is used to mean "orthodox"? The answer is no, it is always "āstika", that is, the derived term meaning "believing" (from whatever the original root may have been). The adjective "believing" may indeed have come from asti as a source, but the word "heterodox" comes from na + āstika, not from na + astika. Since the sandhi resolves both possibilities to nāstika, either could be true in theory. (That is, you are completely right about the sandhi being ambiguous.) That is why we must turn to the books that use it as a term of art and see, does the term "astika" ever appear. Since it does not, the derivation is na + āstika.
I suspect we are the only two people on the internet who will care about this, by the way. But it is refreshing to have the exchange. :) Buddhipriya05:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all your points (including the last)! The question now is if the article states the issue correctly. Do you think the following description is clear enough, or would you recommend a change ?
"Astika is a Sanskrit adjective (and noun) that is derived from asti ("there is or exists")[4] and literally means "believing" or "pious"[5]; or "one who believes in the existence (of God, of another world, etc.)."[4] Nastika (na (not) + āstika) is its negative, literally meaning "not believing" or "not pious"."
I think I would need to read the whole article again to be sure, but the idea I am concerned about is that when applied to great religions such as Buddhism or Jainism, they are defined by lack of belief in the Vedas. The crucial issue is rejection of Vedic authority, which drove the orthodox mad with anger at the time. That is the crux of the matter. It is not that they are atheists. Many of the orthodox were atheists. I think this is where this whole question began, because the false derivation of nāstika as na + asti + ka is taken to mean "they do not believe in God". I think at least the two of us have finally worked out what we are trying to say, now the trick is to explain it to someone else. Buddhipriya05:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, good to know we agree (and with hindsight its apparent that we always did). :-)
I did attempt to get that meaning across in the article, while also specifying that there is a layman (not "wrong") use of the term as "atheist" (see also my note on Talk:Nastika). It would be good to get your view, whether the notion is clear or not. So feel free to edit the language as you see fit, and/or drop me a line here or on the article's talk page. Cheers Abecedare05:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another detail is that Sikhism has been added to the list and is included under the original reference, but Sikhism is not referred to in the reference I have. We must cite that independently, I do not have a reference at hand. Buddhipriya05:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left Sikhism in from the previous text in astika/nastika (didn't add it intentionally). If we don't have a citation, we should either add a "citation needed" tag, or if you think the label is false, remove Sikhism altogether. Abecedare05:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have kept my hands cleanly off of the editing interface for the page pending your adjustments. Why don't you go ahead and make a few changes and I will do a pass when you are done? Then you can correct it again. The list of the six schools was fixed in stone during the medieval period, and so keeping the six clear is important. I can provide a reference regarding that. Prior to the medieval period lists of schools were much longer. We must also be careful about the samkhya/atheist claim, which is also arguable. The Gita, for example, shows strong samkhya influence, but it is from an age strata before samkhya became Samkhya with a capital S. Buddhipriya05:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With reference to the warning and edition on Siddhivinayak Temple article, the extrenal link, referred by you was already removed after mutual agreement with Buddhipriya. Still you shot a warning to me. I must say, this is not proper for esteemed editor like you.
If you are not aware/sure of the issue, better move it to User Talk; but it does not mean you should send a warning note. Also I hope you will respect the edits done by other editors and show courtesy to remove the warning sent to me. FYI - The statement you removed was already edited by Aadarniy Shri. Buddhipriya ji.
Having looked at the edit histories associated with this subject more closely, I now agree with removal of the link. User Anit, please do not continue to reintroduce it, as I do not agree it is appropriate. Buddhipriya20:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume your remark above is addressed to Anit :-)
Yes, the remark was directed at Anit. :) I will look at the IP you mention. I also detected the sock earlier, and already had placed a warning on the talk page for that IP with a note that it was a suspected sock. Seems to have thrown a wet blanket on the IP. Regrettable that it is not possible to devote full time to spam fighting. Buddhipriya22:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Namaskar Friends
I have not forced the link on Siddhivinayak page, but it seems that you have decided to remove most of the contents contributed by me. Do not be such prejudiced. Most of the content was informative and related to subject and unique. I think you have got baised and your NPOV is no more appilcable in your own case. Still I think Wikipedia is an open place and not a private board of any specific member to exercise own views. Your baised nature is ultimately causing harm to Wikipedia and thereby society.
Anyways Happy Holi and RangaPanchami.
Message for Holi: 1. Do not apply colours forcibly. Stop people from doing so and give them the reasons. 2. Stop those who extort money from people on the roads. 3. Stop beggars from wearing masks of deities. 4. Stop people from using excessive colours and hurling water balloons. 5. Do not use harmful chemical colours. [Taken from From HJS]
Hi, I just want to make sure you understand the history. If you already know this, just ignore me. But your remark about avoiding the article suggested you didn't. Katefan did choose not to edit the article. She never had anything at all to do with Brandt or his article in any way. As far as I'm aware, neither did Essjay. Yet there has been an active hit campaign against him at WR for about a year. The only way to stay off Brandt's admin stalker list is to stay off Wikipedia. When the information could equally well be organized in another way (merged), and probably would except for pure historical chance, it seems to me there is no principal at stake, but plenty of practice. Cheers, Derex06:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
India Dem
Because of India's rich diversity, no one image can represent all of India's one billion people. That is why I propose selecting a new demographics image every three months. This would allow for a regional balance and would show India as a whole. Many people have agreed that this is the only way to represent India's rich and varied diversity. Since you have voted for a change in the demographics section, I wanted to update you on this proposal. I would love to hear your comments on talk:India. Thanks so much. Have a great day!
Thanks for telling me which part was 'Kali'. Is there any kind of code that I should type along with his name? The reason I ask is because his Devanāgarī name has {{lang|sa|कलि}} (Ghostexorcist04:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The 35 points and 6 three-pointers were both records for a half in a finals game. I can find a source to verify both and will wait until you're done looking it over to put a source in there. Thanks for the help by the way and don't hesitate to be WP:BOLD. Quadzilla9903:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Feel free to add that back with the source. I didn't want to add a disputed/verification needed tag since that would look really bad for a FAC; so though it better to remove the detail and mention my reason explicitly in the edit summary. I am done with that section and will be proceeding to the next. Cheers. Abecedare03:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw I removed mention of the 39 points that he scored in that game; since that was an (relatively) unremarkable detail. Abecedare03:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay here's a source, it's in the eleventh 12th paragraph down:[6] I can add it maybe you'd prefer to though, that way you can think of the correct wording. Quadzilla9903:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay no problem, I agree with almost all of your edits, you definitely cut from the right sections. The only thing I re-inserted was the comment about him maintaining a low profile while with Charlotte. It gives the general reader an idea of what he's doing now. If you'd like to read through the actual source it talks about how he doesn't want to be used to market the team and he gives the team personnel strict instruction not to show him on the video board/Jumbotron during games etc. etc. Maybe you could think of some way to re-word it or make it better. It's in the last sentence of the "After retiring as a player" section. Quadzilla9907:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<deindent>
That is fine. Note that I don't dispute the correctness of most of the statements that I deleted from these two sections; my motivation is rather to keep the focus of the article on matters that people will care about 20 years from now; which is clearly MJ's UNC and Bulls playing period, followed by his stupendous marketability. (That is the reason I think it's fair for the article to discuss in such detail the 1998 Finals game against Jazz; while I trimmed details from MJ's final wizard game, which has more sentimental value than biographical worth.) As for the specific edit you mention, that is a borderline case IMO and I have no problem with it being kept in the article. Cheers. Abecedare08:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know I agree with your cuts almost completely I probably would have done it myself, but would have spent too much time agonizing over details. I wasn't providing you that source to show you it was correct, I was providing it to you in the event that you might want to re-work the sentence. That's all water under the bridge now anyways. Thanks for all your work on the article, it really is a lot better. Quadzilla9909:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may have noticed that I just voted support for the article at the FAC review. I commend you again for the diligence with which you are addressing the various editors' concerns and queries. Do you even sleep ? :-) Abecedare09:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do sleep, I'll stop pestering you. It's your own fault for doing such good work, if you're not careful I'll have you working on all my favorite articles. Quadzilla9913:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Due to FAC concerns I had to put back in one or two things of the things you removed. I didn't really agree with it personally but I was trying to address the concerns of another editor. Please feel free to comment to me directly or on the FAC. Basically it was the sentence or two about why he may have got fired by the Wizards, and one or two things in the Wizards section. Quadzilla9920:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...very much for the friendly welcome back. Unfortunately, I have been extremely busy with my love-affair with physics and mathematics that I have had scarcely any time on a computer not dominated by my software overlords such as Maple (software), etc. Hopefully in the weeks to come I will have time to contribute to Wikipedia. I also thank you for pointing that discussion out to me, as it is an important article to me! ॐ नमःशिवायŚaiva Sujītसुजीत ॐ12:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add my thanks to this here subject rather than create a whole new one. Thanks for the whereto with the warnings. Mykll4204:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that he's been indef-banned, you can just add {{db-banned}} to the top of any page he creates or image he uploads, and it'll have a very short lifespan. No lengthy AfD debate required. Orpheus14:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GourangaUK and I suspect that we have another sock of Maleabroad active, e.g. this diff. Could you please take a look and see if you agree this could be another incarnation? Buddhipriya16:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to say, although I'll keep my eyes open. By the way, many of the images this user has added are likely to be copyvios. I'll be too busy in the next few hours to do so, but they should probably be tagged for deletion. Abecedare17:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just added {{fairusereview}} tags to two of the pictures, but this is the first time I have reported a copyright problem so I am unclear on the processes. I guess this is a good time to learn them. The name Randomatom001 is suspicious because it fits the naming pattern used by Maleabroad for some other socks, ending with numbers. The edit behavior is similar in that when he is reverted, he reverts back with a personal threat of some sort. He has shifted the pages he is focused on, however, adding some new ones. Can you add Ganesha beyond India and Hinduism to your watch list, as he seems to now be targeting that page as well. Rather than get into a reversion war I have put some information on the talk page explaining the problem with the picture he has uploaded. Buddhipriya20:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just replaced the {{sockpuppet|Maleabroad}} tag on his userpage so there will be more support in the edit log for that page. I am trying to learn the correct procedure for reporting socks. My understanding is that any user may place that tag, not just an administrator, is that right? Buddhipriya22:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been away for a couple of days from wiki, so I've seen only now your request. In my mind, you've just done the best thing; while suspicious, this account isn't a so obvious sock as in previous cases, judging from his editing pattern. If it comes out that it's really him, probably a range block will be needed.--Aldux17:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Algorithm was an easy one, so I've blocked him. As for the images, unfortunately it's never been my sector of expertise, to use an euphemism, so I've brought them to the attention of an admin I know, User:Robth, who's quite an expert on the issue.--Aldux18:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abecedare, I have just posted a suggestion for you to review on the talk page of Hindu. Please permit me to make suggestions from time to time on a 'line item' basis. I am confident we shall make an excellent team. By the way, you can say cheers. I shall apologise to you for the misunderstanding on my part. Thanks.Kanchanamala07:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sean Bell
No need for an apology, and no harm done. I didn't mean to 'derail' the talk page. As you can probably tell, I'm fairly new to participating on Wiki so I'm not very familiar with all the rules and etiquette yet.Invario14:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baarhaspatyua Samhita
A bit late with this, sorry. The spelling is a barbarism. Assuming 'Barhaspatya' is meant, the reference would seem to be this screed. But, frankly, I've never heard of it, even though I've seen the alleged sloka here and there on the net. 'Brhaspati samhita', OTOH, is a legitimate name but unfortunately not unique. There is a work on astrology by this name; part of the Garuda Purana is known by this name; and so on. The basic point, though, is correct: any Sanskrit text with 'Hindu' in it can't be old (the earliest attestation may be an inscription by Bukka, the founder of the Vijayanagara Empire, 14th CE.) rudra06:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional information. Another equally impeachable source for the Vedic "Baarhaspatyua Samhita" shloka (and spelling) is this newsletter.On wikipedia this shloka is apparently been added to multiple articles, such as Hindu and Hindu (Culture) (before that POV fork was deleted) by sockpuppets of User:Maleabroad (and he has many of those).Abecedare06:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
