Talk:Surya Siddhanta

Mamuni Mayan or Mahamuni Maya (Asura)

In the introduction, it is written that the work was done 10,000 years ago which can not be true! NicolasDelerue 20:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Vastu ² Vaastu Consulting and Audarya Fellowship, Brahmarishi Mayan is supposed to have lived over 10,000 years ago in a now-submerged land south of India and then migrated to southern India. He is supposed to have written many mathematical and physical texts at the level of modern science (nuclear physics, etc.) which were not understood by past scholars so they excluded them from the Vedas. V. Ganapati Sthapati claims to have recovered those texts. Vedic astrology includes the "Ancient Surya Sidhata" by Maya. I have doubts that this is the modern Surya Siddhanta, so I am removing that entire paragraph. Furthermore, no specific source was provided, just the government of Tamil Nadu, whose capital, Chennai, is where Sthapati is headquartered. If Mayan is supposed to have written at the level of modern science, how did he manage to write a treatise that had to be revised at least twice and is still inaccurate? — Joe Kress 03:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Translations

no evidence for translations (into Arabic, Latin or any other language) is presented for times predating 1858. The Arabs in the 8th century translated Brahmagupta and Aryabhata, but I can find no evidence that this obscure text made it into Arabic. dab (𒁳) 09:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Vinay Jha

you can recover your old version by using the "history" tab at the top of the page. Please be aware of WP:NOR, you cannot publish your calculations here. dab (𒁳) 14:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

To DAB : please give me your email address so that I could explain my view to you. I know you are not interested in my views, but you do not know what harm you have done to Wiki. Your article contains serious errors. I could not find link to your email address in your user page. I know why you are avoiding communication with me, but you do not know the truth about Surya Siddhanta. - vinayjhaa@gmail.com

nonsense, I am not avoiding communication. I am communicating with you right here. Please try to figure out how to use these talkpages. Also, if you cannot find the "email this user" link on my talkpage, I don't know how to help you. Also, try to get a fundamental idea of the purpose of Wikipedia: read WP:ATT, WP:NOR. I have created Mamuni Mayan, which appears to be a topic of Tamil national mysticism, including the claim of Surya Siddhanta authorship. If you can point us to more information on that, I will be grateful. What is the Tamil spelling of Mamuni Mayan, and where in the five epics does he appear? Who has identified him with the Mayasura of the Sanskrit epics? Is that identification in the Tamil epic itself, or is it a later claim? dab (𒁳) 09:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

cut from article

You article claims that it is based upon Burgess. But it actually is based upon wrong ideas of a theosophist Dwight William Johnson which he deliberatety publicised in the name of Surya Siddhanta. Fowlwe and Fowler innocently took the wrong values of years from Johnson. From Fowler,you took it. I do not want to quarrel with all these people. I have a lot of valuable information, which you will be glad to read once you give me your email address. You can creeate a temporary email address for purpose, if you think I do not deserve your email address.

You will be surprised to know that a western publisher is publishing Surya Siddhanta editions after aditions, while the material inside has nothing to do with Surya Siddhanta. How many of experts of Surya Siddhanta have actually read it? Do some soul searching. Wiki is yours, and I will keep out, as you wish. But I cannot keep out of Surya Siddhanta, because I know it million times more than you do. I am not insulting you. I simply mean to say that I know the published as well as unpublisher oral traditions of Surya Siddhanta, from which almanacs are still made in India. You must change your attitude . If Wiki misinforms the public, the loss will be great. )

you are free to help improving this article. But if you want to contribute, you need to make an effort to understand how Wikipedia works. Read the following:

Wikipedia:Talkpages: Post your messages on the talkpage, not in the article

Wikipedia:No original research: We will only consider material that can be traced to notable publications.

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth: We do not aim at presenting the "truth" on Surya Siddhanta. All we want to do is report on notable opinions. Your knowledge of the "unpublished Surya Siddhanta" is completely worthless on Wikipedia until you have published it somewhere else first.

until you show signs of having read and understood these pages, I will not continue this debate. dab (𒁳) 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

FACTS AND FICTION

To DAB : I had read WP:NOR &c before I had made my contribution to 'Surya Siddhanta' , which you removerd. I had merely mentioned in my message to you that I know published as well as unpublished versions of knowledge of Surya Siddhanta, but I had not added these unpublished things to Wiki. It is presently impossible for me to publish this unpublished version either in press or in Wiki,even if you wish it. But this unpublished version is completetely verifiable and in total conformity to the published version; it is not my invention. My mistake was that I informed you about my knowledge of this oral tradition , which you mistook to be what I had contributed to Wiki. Every word I had contributed was already published. For instance, I made a reference to Panchsiddhantika published by Chowkhambha of Varanasi, which you removed because you thought it to be outside your definition of "notable publications". But Chowkhambha is world's biggest publisher of books related to indology, and it has published scores of thousands of indological books in English, Sanskrit and Hindi, which are damned cheap compared to Western publications due to low costs of publication in India. Can it be declared to be unreliable just because it happens to be in India ? The book I had quoted was written by a German and an Indian, who were original researchers and original commentators of Panchsiddhantika. Hence, I think your comment refers not to Chowkhambha but to my book published by Sky Research Centre of Delhi, which is not a well known publisher. This book (Deduction of Modern Astronomy from Surya Siddhanta) contained what is expicitly implied in the name of the book. I knew that these equations would not be understood by those who do not possess a first hand knowledge of Surya Siddhanta, and therefore I was already constructing a web site where I wanted to transfer these calculations. But you intervened before I could shift this complicated material. But if you think this material is my invention, then you you are mistaken. You have yourself included materials in your articles which are figments of imagination from Johnson's 'Exegesis...', not verifiable. But each and every word I had contributed is absolutely veriable. Instead of allowing me a chance to defend myself, you imposed a ban, and refused to respond to my messages, which was leading me towards misgivings. Now as you have responded, I find your approach is perfectly rational and welcome. But I must clarify some points.

E. Burgess was unfortunate to have worked during a period when relations between Christian missionaries and Hindu pandits were at their worst, due to 1857 uprising in India. Burgess was a missionary. He could not win the confidence of a bulk of pandits, and therefore could not gain access either to the available commentaries (e.g., Siddhanta-tattva-viveka by Kamlakara Bhatta of 16th century,as well as other Sanskrit commentaries, which have never been translated in any language even today). Even the oldest commentary on Surya Siddhanta (Gooraartha-prakash by Ranganaatha) has not been translated even in any modern Indian language, leave aside any Western language. In spite of such problems, Burgess made dauntless efforts and succeeded in deciphering a majority of original verses, for which he must be thanked. But Sootiswoode, a fellow of Royal Society of Britain, made a better clarification of most important mathematical formulae of Surya Siddhanta in 1862 (Journal of Royal Society). I was surprised to find that Sootiswoode knew better than many heads of departments of Jyotisha in Indian universities who are supposed to be experts of the subject. Unfortunately, Sootiswoode was forgotten by later generations. But there were significant shortcomings in his work too, which no commentator cared to remove. Pandit Sudhakar Dwivedi (the collaborator of G.Thibaut in the commentary of Panchsiddhantika) wrote a commentary on Surya Siddhanta in Sanskrit, which was worse to that of Sootiswoode as far as elucidation of practical equations are concerned. At present, Sanskrit commentary by Pandit Kapileshwar Shashtri(1948) is considered to be the most exhaustive and clear among all commentaries on Surya Siddhanta by teachers and students of Jyotisha in all Indian universities where Surya Siddhanta is taught in Sanskrit medium. But even this commentary made no advancement upon Sootiswoode. Recently, some Indian and Western scholars stooped so low as to publish fake commentaries. Pt Ramchandra Pandey published a Hindi commentary of Surya Siddhanta (2000), which Chowkhambha published because Pt Pandey was head of department of Jyotisha in Benaras Hindu University (a central university of the government of India). He did not know practical formulae, but was bold enough to publish utterly false explanations, which I refuted in a peer-reviewed Journal of Jyotisha published from Varanasi(Jyotisha Vaijnaniki Patrika,2005). Pt Pandey failed to refute me, and kept silent. In my refutation, I published some unpublished equations, together with their explanations on the basis of existing text of Surya Siddhanta. But I did not publish all equations, because I had myself filed a lawsuit against another government Sanskrit university of India(KSD Sanskrit University), charging its faculty of being incapable of theaching Surya Siddhanta or any ancient astronomical text prescribed in the syllabus at post graduate level. I won the battle, but the university is not implementing the court order, for which I have again filed a contempt of court petition. Before this lawsuit is finally decided, I am unable to publish the obscure equations of Surya Siddhanta. Hence you should believe in me if I assert that I am not desirous of adding these unpublished equations of Surya Siddhanta to Wiki.

These equations are not mine, but are part of the original Surya Siddhanta, from which Surya Siddhantic Makaranda Tables were made in AD 1478 , which are the basis of all Surya Siddhantic almanacs being published in India. These tables can be made only from the unpublished equations I possess. Is it not a proof that these equations are not mine,but belong to the old tradition of Surya Siddhanta ? Makaranda Tables had been translated into Engligh by John Bentley who had opined in 1799 that Surya Siddhanta belonged to 1091 AD (Makaranda Tables has been translated into Hindi and published by Chowkhambha in 1998). Makaranda Tables are Surya Siddhantic : first verse of original Makaranda Tables (1478 AD) explicitly calls these tables to be Surya Siddhantic, and published as well as unpublished equations of Surya Siddhanta also prove these tables to be Surya Siddhantic. On these grounds even these unpublished equations are proven to be completely Surya Siddhantic. I did not give these unpublished equations in Wiki. I merely referred to these unpublished equations in my misplaced messages to you, and unfortunately you misunderstood me.

As far as ' Deduction of Modern Astronomy from Surya Siddhanta' is concerned, it is my book, but all its equations are totally based upon published versions of Surya Siddhanta. I am intending to put these equations on a new article ( in Wiki, if you agree, or in a new website if you disagree). But I am myself against the inclusion of these calculations in the article on Surya Siddhanta, not because they are unverifiable or wrong, but because these calculations are known to a few people and may lead to misgivings among those who rely upon popular commentaries and do not have time to examine the original text of Surya Siddhanta. The detailed verification of these calculations involves complicated math (which I did not and will not give in Wiki) and should not be included in the article on Surya Siddhanta. I had stopped editing Wiki due to this consideration, and was revising the article on Surya Siddhanta in Ms Word when you intervened.

Lack of commucication leads to misunderstanding. Now that you have responded, I see you are a rational creature. I want your cooperation. But I differ on one point from you : you say "We do not aim at presenting the "truth" on Surya Siddhanta. All we want to do is report on notable opinions". Who will decide whose opinion is 'notable' and whose opinion should be ignored ? Clearly, those persons should decide this issue who know the topic well. And it should be done in collaborative manner, within the guidelines of Wiki. 'No Original Research' may imply different meanings to different persons. Johnson's "Exegesis..." may be viewed by some to be an original research which gives results in the name of Surya Siddhanta , but it is actually the result of personal calculations made by him on the basis of certain intuitive observations made by Madam Blavatsky one century ago( the latter did not mention Surya Siddhanta). It is utter dishonesty to propound a new theory in the name of an ancient one. I improved that passage, and gave lengths of sidereal and tropical years as stated in existing version of Surya Siddhanta. You regarded Johnson's opinioons to be notable, because he published his work in West, and my opinions, which have been vindicated by Patna High Court , are not notable in your view because my book was published by a small Indian publisher. Surya Siddhanta is a book of mathematics, as far as its equations are concerned, and in mathematics personal opinions do not count, whether they are notable or not. The original text of Surya Siddhanta is the only authority about itself, and no third person has the right to say, rightly or wrongly, what is there in this text. If you feel it to be a tricky issue, you can resolve it through emails. I have guided many doctoral researches , and I know the policies of Wiki well. But I was annoyed because you were not responding, and also because I was unable to create an account in my name ( I created one in a fake name later) : 'Vinay Jha' and 'Vinayjhaa' still exist as users (these were created by me), but they do not work. If you can afford some time, please delete these two user names 'Vinay Jha' and 'Vinayjhaa' from Wiki, which were created by me but could not be activated due to reasons not known to me, so that I could change my fake user name to the genuine one and work in the Wiki.

You know I made no change to your editing after you removed my contributions, hence you should not prevent editing of Surya Siddhanta in Wiki: others may want to edit it.I was already observing a self-imposed ban. My only trouble was that I still do not know your email address, which you can post to vinayjhaa@gmail.com . I know the objectives of Wiki well and you can rely upon me, but you should not take any drastic action without trying first to communicate with me : this is also a Wiki policy. I hope you may work with me in many projects in future,once your misgivings are gone. This long letter is not fit for Wiki Talk, that is why I asked for youe email address.

The Surya Siddhantic sidereal year has 365.258756481 days, which is different from modern value, yet I call Surya Siddhanta to be accurate. It will seem illogical to you. But Surya Siddhanta clearly states that its planets are not the planets of physical world, they belong to a different world, and mathematical verification of this assertion of Surya Siddhanta is possible but very difficult and complicated. Before being repulsed by these comments, you should read the whole argument. If no 'NOTABLE' Western commentator recognised that Surya Siddhantic planets should not be confused with material bodies in the sky, it is their fault. Commentators are not the yardstick; the criterion is the text of Surya Siddhanta, which is available in English as well.Kamlakara Bhatta had stressed this peculiarity of Surya Siddhanta in 16th century. I had quoted Surya Siddhanta that "it states that it was composed over 2 million years ago". You asked for "citation needed". I can cite the chapter and verse of the text.You may find it in Burgess too. But modern commentators assumed Surya Siddhantic planets to be material bodies, and made a direct comparison with scientific values without taking a recourse to the Drik-pakshiya Ganita of Surya Siddhantic school. What I believe is immaterial, what the text states is truth, which Wikipedians must accept and write about,even if notable commentators overlooked these facts. You may avoid personal opinions, you should not avoid facts even if is stated by me or you. You must allow the truth of Surya Siddhanta to come out, which is not my personal opinion, but what is explicitly stated in the Surya Siddhanta itself , but deliberately or innocently ignored by many modern commentators. If one insists that Surya Siddhantic planets are material planets, then I cannot work for Wiki, because it is a falsehood not supported by the text. The best authority on Surya Siddhanta is Surya Siddhanta itself, which you should help me to bring forth. Many past commentators have stated true views about Surya Siddhanta, but they are being ignored. If Johnson's 'Exegesis..' is propagated as a genuine work on Surya Siddhanta, it will be disastrous for everyone interested in facts. He is guided by fanatic intuition which has no connection with Surya Siddhanta. Surya Siddhantic period of precession is 24000 years, on whose basis I had given correct values, which you removed.- Vinay Jha VJha 12:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Asura Maya

Further information: Mamuni Mayan

Surya Siddhanta,Old or New, has no connection with a single Dravidian word. Even Maya is etymologically related to Sanskrit root *ma, which means to measure. Surya Siddhanta is organically related to Vedic-Puranic tradition in its entirety. The only debatable point is that Surya Siddhanta was given to Maya Asura after the latter performed excruciating Tapasya (mortification of body to awaken the soul or to appease gods/God). Asuras were opponents of Vedic tradition and of Vedic gods. But asuras and rakshasas like Prahalaada, Vibhishana, Maya,etc had reformed themselves. Ethnically or linguistically, it is impossible to distinguish asuras from the adherents of Vedas. The difference was ideological and religious,not racial. Maya belonged to Vedic bandwagon, which is clear from all ancient stories about him. It is also not proven whether this Surya Siddhantic Maya was the same as that of Mahabharata or of Ramayana. The oldest strata of sangam literature can be placed to a few centuries before the Christ, although many historians believe that some fragments of this literature contains much older stories preserved by oral tradition . Harappans had links with Kolar gold mines in Karnataka and iron was used in South India as earlier as its use began in North India(circa 11th century BC). Hence ancient peoples ( perhaps Dravidians) existed in the south. But they were megalithic, and had a low level of material culture. No trace of Jyotish in Tamil Nadu can be proven before the Christ, although it might have existed. Surya Siddhanta is a non Dravidian work. In south India, Arya Siddhanta is hundreds of times more popular among traditional almanac-makers, which also proves that Davidians had no native siddhanta of their own (the lost Arya Siddhanta is the basis of many present day almanacs !). Your site Mamuni Mayan is well conceived, but you have opened a Pandora's Box, which will grow out of control later. Some people correlate the Maya with Maya of Americas, while other find Maya in the name of Ptolemy ('-my ' in Ptolemy originally sounded very similar to Maya-s). But no serious scholar takes such views into consideration. Some Dravidian nationalists are so desirous about inventing a non-Aryan pre-history that they are ready to associate themselves with demons of Aryan mythology. Such 'scholars' do not represent the Tamil masses, which believes in gods of Hinduism and not in demons of Hinduism.Tamil Jyotisha is very old, and one may conduct research on the similarity between geometrical design of Chinese horoscope with Tamil.None of the fundamental concepts of Tamil astronomy or astrology can be distinduished from those of North India, the differences are minor and of regional nature,and belong to post Christian era.- Vinay Jha VJha 12:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

are you sure you have read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines? It says there,

if your post is longer than 100 words consider shortening it. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood.

most of what you say is completely beside the point. Obviously, the Chowkhambha edition of Panchasiddhantika is perfectly fine. Discuss it at Pancha-Siddhantika. You may also introduce a "Pancha-Siddhantika" section here. The point is that there is no fixed text called the "Surya Siddhanta". It is impossible to discuss a text that is really just a title with lots of varying texts attached to it. The Burgess edition is "the" Surya Siddhanta for present discussion. All other versions need to be introduced and qualified. I have no idea what you are referring to when you say that "The Surya Siddhantic sidereal year has 365.258756481 days", [the precision of 1E-12 or 30 microseconds per year alone establishes this as nonsense] you need to cite who has calculated this number, in what publication. dab (𒁳) 12:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Jha (2006)

your own book,

Vinay Jha, Deduction of Modern Astronomy from Surya Siddhanta, Sky Research Centre, Delhi (2006), ISBN xxxxxxxxxxxxx

may well be cited here, responsibly, with a brief summary of Jha's (your) opinion on the topic. It appears that this is self-published. No evidence of the existence even of this "Sky Research Centre" is available online. worldcatlibraries.org (which lists very obscure literature) gives no pertinent result for Vinay Jha. I am afraid you will first have to show that your book even exists. Maybe your first step should be to compile your own website on your ideas, so that Wikipedia will at least have that to work on. dab (𒁳) 12:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

according to your self-description,

In 2006, a book was published in Hindi in which all major constants of modern astronomy were mathematically deduced, by means of theorems, from Surya Siddhanta ! But the author stated that Surya Siddhantic planets occupy different positions in heaven than material planets (Vinay Jha,2006),which amounts to stating that there are at least two universes, one phenomenal universe of matter open to human senses, and the other noumenal universe of gods who are presiding deities of material planets of phenomenal world [...] If the claims made in this Hindi book is accepted, it will mean that constants of modern astronomy were known to ancient Surya Siddhantic scholars with a high degree of precision !

I am sorry, but this is blatant WP:FRINGE/pseudoscience. If you really have a stringent derivation of "all major constants of modern astronomy" (which ones? "all"?), I suggest you publish a preprint on http://arxiv.org/ -- once your paper is hosted on arxiv.org, we may briefly refer to it. This is the very, very least: you cannot just come to Wikipedia and announce ground-breaking philological/archaeoastronomical discoveries that have not been announced even in preprint form. For chrissakes, even Subhash Kak puts his merry exploits on arxiv.org before pestering Wikipedia with them. dab (𒁳) 12:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of where Vinay Jha's researches and writings goes, if it's not where we can look at it, than the useful parts can't be included in the articles. It sounds like there might be enough information to put stuff in lots of articles (maybe not the main points, but the minority opinion sections for sure). I add my voice to Dab's, please host the information somewhere it can be looked at. --Rocksanddirt 15:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please take this original research elsewhere: once it's published, we may perhaps be able to briefly mention it as minority opinion. Until then, however, we really don't need this material. Moreschi ^Talk 15:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH

To DAB : You conjectured that my book 'Deduction of Modern Astronomy from Surya Siddhanta' was self-published, because no evidence of the existence even of this "Sky Research Centre" is available online. I did not publish it ; the person who published it in his own press is Murari Vajpeyi, who has never visited the town I live in, but we had met in a conference on Surya Siddhanta in Varanasi's Sampoornanand Sanskrit University. But Sky Research Centre is a small publisher, as I had stated earlier, and it might not have tried to make any of its publications online. As far as my book is concerned, it is certainly not online. I had provided full address of the publisher, which you deleted, and now other users think that my book cannot be located or does not exist.Only a small minority of publishers in India are online. Its second edition is in pipeline.I was planning to make this book online, but now I find that people want to learn Surya Siddhanta without reading the original text(of Burgess or of anyone else). Taking cue from you, Moreschi has also advised :"take this original research elsewhere: once it's published, we may perhaps be able to briefly mention it".He though my book was unpublished and original,not based upon Surya Siddhanta. He ought to have said "take the section 'Deduction of Modern Astronomy from Surya Siddhanta' elsewhere, which was what I had also opined. I am sure Moreschi did not read this section which you deleted. It is not an original research, because it is based upon published version of Surya Siddhanta (including that of Burgess). Original reasearch was conducted by Dwight William Johnson in his Exegesis of Hindu Cosmological Time Cycles...' which you wrongly believed to be based on Burgess . Johnson quoted a few verses from the translation of Burgess, and then said that on the basis of these verses the length of Surya Siddhantic sidereal year actually comes to be 365.2563627 days, although the text(and Burgess) gives a value 365.258756 which appeared to Johnson to be an slip of pen by the original author of Surya Siddhanta ! Please read Johnson's work which is online, his value 365.2563627 is proven on the basis of his imaginary method for which he could not provide a single reference to any ancient or modern source. He is deliberately distorting the contents of an ancient text, presenting his baseless calculations as being based upon Surya Siddhanta. I suspect him of being influenced by some Theosophist or Hindu-chauvinist organisation, because I found that his method is based upon certain writings of Madam Blavatsky and not upon Burgess and he deliberately and wrongly tried to prove that the sidereal year of Surya Siddhanta was very near to modern value, which is a lie. You included this original research of Johnson in your article on Surya Siddhanta. My work was not an original research, but an elaboration of Surya Siddhantic mathematics. You are a balanced and rational person, and I believe you will ultimtely discard your over-scepticism of me once you know the matter. Before that, do not declare my work to be an original research or pseudoscience, because those users who have not read either the original text (of Burgess or of anyone else) or my book are being misled by your epithets about my work. Your own article on Mamuni Mayan is based upon original research by dubious persons, please read my notes on talk page of Mamuni Mayan.Your article on Surya Siddanta also contains original research taken from Johnson, which no one will be able to prove on the basis of any original or translated version of Surya Siddhanta. Wikipedia does not deserve such items, but if you want to include them, you must state the whole truth and not a lopsided account, or allow me to do so. I have edited Vedanga Jyotisha recently, in which I found a lopsided account was given which did not tally with views of mainstream indologists; please read it together with my notes on the talk page. But I did not delete what I knew was a lopsided view, I merely gave a balanced account, giving all points of views and arguments behind all principal views. Wikipedia should not present a lopsided view. Please bear patience with me, and wait for further articles and messages from me before taking any decision. Indology is a tricky issue and no one can be allowed to have a final say.- Vinay Jha.

take it easy. I take your word for it that your book is "published", i.e. exists on paper somewhere. The trouble is, if it doesn't have an ISBN, if it isn't catalogued anywhere, you might as well have written it on the inside of a cave. We could list your book here, if it was just listed in some Indological bibliography, somewhere. But for us to actually discuss any claims contained in it, per WP:RS, you will need to show that your book is peer reviewed, that means, it has been reviewed in some notable journal, in this case either of Indology or Astronomy. Fortunately, since you are the author, this is not necessary. Surely, your book, being a quality publication, in turn relies on notable sources. This means that you can refer us to the published literature you base your claims on. Why don't you post the bibliography from your book and we'll see where this takes us. If you cannot get your book peer-reviewed and you cannot get an ISBN, I wonder what makes you think your book should be discussed on Wikipedia. You would do better to spend your time online compiling your own website, where you will be free to express your views without being hampered by Wikipedia policy. dab (𒁳) 13:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well put, Dab. To V. Jha: I understand that in this busy world you have "no time to be brief" (as Karl Marx put it). My advice: please find the time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To Vinay Jha: You misunderstand original research. It is not necessarily psuedoscience. Every advance made by modern science was original research before it was published in a peer-reviewed journal, at which time it ceased to be original research in the view of Wikipdeia. However, even after it has been peer-reviewed, the amount of space devoted to it in Wikipedia should be in direct proportion to the number of scholars in that field of research which hold that view. By your own admission, you seem to be having difficulty convincing other scholars, resorting to litigation against a university and denigration of some scholars' views as "fake commentaries". Citing the Surya Siddhanta is not sufficient—you must convince other scholars to show that your view is not a minority view. Unfortunately, entrenched views of the "establishment" may not allow that to happen for several decades. Alfred Wegener had proposed continental drift in 1912, but it was not accepted until the 1960s. Nevertheless, during most of this period, his opinion would not have been viewed as original research by Wikipedia simply because other scholars were aware of it and had commented on his published views, albeit negatively.

To dab: I have seen several editors revert the work of other editors by citing Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guideline. Here, the Legal antagonists section and excessively Citing oneself section are applicable. — Joe Kress 19:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To Joe Kress

DAB's viewpoint is perfect. I never insisted that my book must be discussed in Wiki. I had only asked for his opinion whether I should put some intricate math relating Surya Siddhanta with modern astronomy on a new website or on a new page in Wiki, because I was sure the article on Surya Siddhanta was not a proper place for it. He voted for a new website, adding that my book "may well be cited here, responsibly, with a brief summary of Jha's (your) opinion on the topic." I fully endorse this view of DAB,and therefore there is no controversy now.

The confusion was created by additional remarks by DAB and some other users, which implied that some users had not read my contributions to Wiki and were misinterpreting mine or DAB's remarks. You(Joe Kress) should not think that I do not know the meaning of original research, I was using this term in irony which you missed, but DAB understood because he has worked on the topic. You are mistaken that mainstream scholars are against me. Only one person (head of department of Jyotisha in KSD Sanskrit University) is against me, not on any academic point, but because he wanted to keep me out of any discussion on Surya Siddhanta in order to hide his own incompetence which was later proven by his own university which voted overwhelmingly in my favour. I won the legal battle against him due to overwhelming support of all experts who were invited by the university to resolve the issue, but the head of department is now taking recourse to hideous means in order to convinve the court that my views had been implemented, while in reality he does not want to implement the decision which have been ordered by the Vice Chancellor (in my favour).

There is another scholar( a retired professor of Varanasi) whose commentary of Surya Siddhanta was refuted by me in a peer reviewed Journal of Varanasi, and no one refuted my views, and the debate ended there.

But these debates were mostly about method of finding true position of planets acoording to Surya Siddhantic method, and not about comparison of Surya Siddhanta with modern science. You are right in saying "citing the Surya Siddhanta is not sufficient—you must convince other scholars to show that your view is not a minority view. Unfortunately, entrenched views of the "establishment" may not allow that to happen for several decades." My book was read by almost all the mainstream scholars of India concerned with Surya Siddhanta, but no one has yet has either refuted or accepted my views. They are shying away from discussing this subject because it is not only difficult but risky as well. The theorems given in my book were not invented by me, they were handed over to me with the blessings of my departed teacher who was the Vice Chancellor on my university. Most people rely on secondary sources and do not read the original text of Surya Siddhanta (commented by Burgess or others). I will never be able to convince such persons.

Your remark is unjust that I am denigrating some scholars' views as "fake commentaries". You will laugh at those fake scholars when you know the truth. One was Pt Ramchandra Pandey, who wrote in his commentary that the value of equation of centre depended solely upon latitude of the onlooker ! I refuted his view and he refrained from challenging my view, because he was almost cipher in math but wanted to show himself as an expert of Surya Siddhanta.The debate ended there. Academic debate is not denigration. Students in India are being misled by his wrong commentary (in Hindi) of Surya Siddhanta.

The main point which all of you outside India fail to see is that Surya Siddhanta and methods based upon it are still the basis of religious almanacs for a majority of Indians, while for you it may be merely an ancient text having little or no relevance today. Whether Surya Siddhanta is correct or incorrect is another issue; I just mean to say that it still indespensable for Hindus. Timing for events like marriage cannot be decided without it. That is why it is a compulsory part of syllabus in all government sanskrit universities of India. I am sure it is not compulsory in any Western university. Therefore, I fear I will find few peers of Surya Siddhanta in West at present, although there were many in the past. I have not called any Western commentary as fake. Johnson's book 'Exegesis of Hindu Time Cycles' is not a commentary of Surya Siddhanta, it merely cited a few verses of Surya Siddhanta and then (deceitfully) said that on the basis of these verses the value of tropical and sidereal year was such and such. DAB thought these conclusions were genuine and cited them in his article on Surya Siddhanta. But Johnson was actually giving his own views, which had no connection with Surya Siddhanta. It is wrong,ethically, to express a novel idea in the name of an ancient theory. Johnson wanted to prove that Surya Siddhantic year was very close to modern value, which is not the case. Surya Siddhantic year has a very complicated relation to modern value, which I wanted to show, but DAB misunderstood me before I could finish. I will pu this matter elsewhere,mas suggested by DAB. Unfortunately, you are thinking Johnson belongs to 'mainstream' and my view is a minority view, because you have perhaps not read either his work or my contribution to Wiki. Your remarks are mainly based upon material in the talk page.

DAB has asked me to contribute to Surya Siddhanta page of Wiki, with just one qualification that the section dealing with relation of modern astronomy should contain my views only in a responsible manner, and the calculations of my book should be put elsewhere (on a separate website). I do not differ from him, hence you are mistaken if you think that there is any conflict of interest between DAB and me.

I have made scientific software for almanac making, and that has been used by Hindus in the New World. In India, many government and non-governmental organisations, including Bihar State Sanskrit Academy, are publishing Surya Siddhantic almanacs from my free software in many states of India .All my work is free, I do not work for money. I made these softwares because a majority of people in India cannot do without Surya Siddhanta, and hand-made almanacs are highly crude. The top brass of academicians entrusted with teaching Surya Siddhanta at post graduate level in India are in the editorial board of almanacs made from my software, of which I am only the mathematician. I am myself regarded as a peer by all these peers. Even those who may differ from me in private have never refuted any of my views publicly. It is only the relation of Surya Siddhanta with modern astronomy which is causing problems of comprehension, being a difficult topic. I do not know how to make this topic simple. Scientists do not know Surya Siddhanta, and pandits do not know science. I fail to find scholars like Bapu Dev Shashtri or E. Burgess in the present generation. Hence I am even thinking of burying my book, as my late teacher did, from whom I got all the crucial ideas. Everywhere indology is in decline. Original texts are not even being read .

Ask DAB if he has any conflict of interest now . Conflict was created by lack of communication. I am sorry that a useless debate was created, just because there was some unknown technical problem which prevented me from becoming a user, and therefore I was forced to contribute anonymously. Otherwise he must have contacted me before taking recourse to extreme steps. I think the controversy is over,and it is growing too big and is not necessary for future contributors to this article.

Please read my contribution to talk page on Mamuni Mayan. - Vinay Jha.VJha 05:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

can you please be more concise? I don't think anybody has the time to read your lengthy posts. Wikipedia is very simple: it wants you to cite your references point by point. Very boring really, but there you are. You are welcome to cite published academic references point by point, and we'll include those in the article. Protracted ramblings about epistemology in general on talkpages will be ignored. dab (𒁳) 12:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Requesting expert help to understand origin of planet diameter estimates

I am looking for help understanding recent edits to the articles Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn that claim there are estimates of the diameters of these planets in the Surya Siddhanta. If anyone can help confirm this and explain what method was used, I would appreciate you dropping by at this section in the Jupiter talk page. Thanks. CosineKitty (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the reference, it's complete bull. The Surya Siddhanta vastly overestimates the angular size of the planets and vastly underestimates the linear distance to them... about 1000% errors in both cases. This leads to a fortuitous calculation, but the result is quite tenuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsdillon (talk • contribs) 13:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Unheard of "theories"

1) The paper by Johson on "Exegesis of Surya Siddhanta", which I have canceled, is unacceptable on many counts. First was never published. Second many formulas are screwed up (at least on my browser) and can be fixed only with considerable effort. Most importantly is deceitful: for instance he proposes a formula to compute the sidereal yare and provides the result with many decimals, but unfortunately he is not able to compute them correctly. So the value, which he proposes and which appears everywhere in the paper, has no foundation at all and is also one day off values accepted by modern science. 2)The different value, so unbelievebly close to exact values, proposed in the paper has no source nor explanation. I assume is simply a claim boasted by a theosophist or other esotericist species. Pinea (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Surya Siddhanta. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_11_2_thompson.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Journal of Scientific Exploration

Is Journal of Scientific Exploration reliable enough to use as a source for planet sizes?

Right now, in the planet characteristic section, it reads as if the Surya Siddhanta gave exact diameters of the multiple planets. There is no direct size given in the book but only apparent (angular) diameters and distances. Both of these are wildly wrong, but multiplying them gives a few numbers right. The paper given as reference suggests that this is because ancient Indians had some unknown method of measuring planet sizes accurately but not distances. This seems like a fringe theory to me. Also, the way the paragraph was written, it neglected to mention these issues. I have added a sentence about the problems now. But even now, things like the completely wrong size of the sun is missing, for example. I think that the entire paragraph needs to be considered fringe and removed. -- Raziman T V (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Also noticed that the paragraph was added by a user who is currently banned for "Long-term source misuse" -- Raziman T V (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, I have gone ahead and removed the paragraph. Ready to restore it if need be -- Raziman T V (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. This is bunk. Stuff related to the Society for Scientific Exploration may be mentioned, but only with due caveats that this is about WP:FRINGEcruft. It is hilarious to me that, in 2019, there is still "Jagged85" material lurking in article namespace. --dab (𒁳) 17:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Raziman, if you have the time, please review Indian astronomy, Hindu astronomy and Jyotisha for fringecruft and scope overlap between articles. These topics need constant attention, because there is no end to the flood of dedicated but misguided or sub-standard additions (I exhausted my patience on this topic about ten years ago). --dab (𒁳) 17:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

There is an unfortunate amount of fringe on these topics on Wikipedia. I am not very active here, got to this page only because someone on Quora was using this Wiki page for bloated Ancient India claims. I will see what I can do -- Raziman T V (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

If someone wants to add a paragraph on the 2010 archaeastronomy paper, they should write a proper summary and create an "archaeastronomy" section. --dab (𒁳) 12:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism occurring on this page (removal of experimental and scientific publications)

I have noticed that few people (possible in a team) are working together to remove any section or references which dates the Surya Siddhanta to BC era.

In the modern science, much scientific testing and analysis has been done by several researchers. They have tested several astronomical observations recorded in Surya Siddhanta to date when those updates were recorded in the text. In consensus, the researchers have found that Surya Siddhanta had been a living text in which the latest updates is around 580AD and earliest update being made in 8th millennium BCE. Several updates were made in the mid period such as 6th millennium BCE, 3000 BCE etc.

there are two observation regarding the measurement of Obliquity of the ecliptic taken at different times which dates this update to Surya Siddhanta back to 2900BCE and 3000 BCE. Then there is an Observation of pole star both at NCP and SCP which can be easily confirmed by google that phenomena in around 3000 BCE.

These editors who are vandalizing the sections of dating of Surya Siddhanta, they have no standing in terms of modern science, have no bearing to reality whichever way you look at it.

I have tried to contact ChandlerMinh, RazimanTV, Dbachmann. They have no response to me raised concerns but rather are contacting each other to remove the edits. Now this new editor RegentsPark whose page is filled with many many editors blaming him for prejudice against Indian Antiquity had jumped in. This completely seems like Vandalism.

WIKIPEDIA IS A NEUTRAL SOURCE OF INFORMATION

The sanctity of Wikipedia must be protected by stopping vandalism. Removal of sections and references is against Wikipedia policy, when it is done only on the basis because a group (possibly) a team of editors "do not LIKE" it.

Science does not progress with someone's liking or disliking. It progresses by proving the past narrative incorrect with new and better experimental and empirical evidence.

regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by RahulChawla1990 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

: @rahulchawla1990 thanks for writing this article. I agree with you. I checked your references of several researchers. They are interesting read and seems very reliable. I support you to stop the vandalism of this wikipedia page of Surya Sidhant. I have also reverted back to your edits. I try to add more sources to it if I have time. --Gurnidar (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC) self-support comments from blocked sock puppet struck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

: @Gurnidar Thanks for your support here mate. You figured out the issue here aeye? Good on ya. Regardless, you are welcome to contribute to this Wikipage. It is certainly missing a lot of useful information. I have been reading Surya Siddhanta lately. I have read through several chapters - almost halfway. It is a very interesting book, I would highly recommend. But note that you are going to need a good understanding of Observational Astronomy to make sense of it. It is not an introductory text in any sense rather very advanced. So good luck.

I have realised that a lot of research is happening in the ancient Indian antiquity in terms of dating, deciphering, cracking codes and cracking the old astronomical observations encoded in stories and in Sidhantic forms such as this one in Surya Siddhanta. --RahulChawla1990 (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC) self-support comments from blocked sock puppet struck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

: I have been reading works of several researchers about Surya Siddhant I agree with you @Gurnidar and @rahulchawla1990. There seems to be a group of people trying to remove as you said. No person has come here to dicuss this further because they have no response to why they would remove completely referenced sections from wikipedia.

Surya Siddhant is a book of science and they are infact in the page using very few references which contain to scientific analysis of the text rather are speculative in nature. Where as the references you added were scientific analysis and tested using computational analysis as the work of Anil Narayanan. --Harpreet1292 (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC) self-support comments from blocked sock puppet struck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

: @Anyone who would like to discuss the "HEAVILY REFERENCED" sections about the dating of Surya Siddhant, come here and discuss.

Removing "HEAVILY REFERENCED" section without reason is against the Wikipedia policy.

Some people are ganging up to remove heavily referenced sections from Wikipedia. From History I can see One person comes and remove the section without reason. Internal communication is happening between them. Then another person comes and remove the "HEAVILY REFERENCED" section again without reason.

No body responds to the Talk page.

This seems like a group of people are trying to VANDALISE the wiki page. and removing "HEAVILY REFERENCED" sections which are based on scientific evidence and empirical results.--Harpreet1292 (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC) self-support comments from blocked sock puppet struck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

: Welcome to the Page Harpreet1292. looks like the anti Surya Sidhant group is increasing and NO ONE IS RESPONDING HERE. anyhow, I have added a small section in the introductory part about the other later and contemporary texts of Hindu origin just to give a taste.

If you look above this Talk page you will realise that even in the past for almost a decade some people have been vandalising this page with all the nonscientific nonsense. Any how this page needs a lot of work. Many things from Surya Sidhant text can be added to make this page scientific as it is about the book of science - the Surya Sidhant. --Gurnidar (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC) self-support comments from blocked sock puppet struck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone has added some nonsense by the renowned pseudo-scientist Nilesh Nilkanth Oak, which I have removed for the sake of sanity. His speculative pareidolia has no place in scholarly literature, and he doesn't even claim to be qualified as an astronomer or a Sanskritologist. GPinkerton (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No matter how many all-caps are used, "HEAVILY REFERENCED" text is required to be removed by the core content policies if the references are not to reliable sources. "HEAVILY REFERENCES" garbage is still garbage. Claiming removal of poorly-sourced material is vandalism is not actually what the vandalism definition actually says. Claiming that the removal of material is due to some form of co-ordination or due to some form of bias is casting aspersions and violates the No Personal Attacks policy. For all the repeated claims that unspecified policies require retention of this material, multiple policies actually work to the contrary. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

: Before making such claims and hollow words. Present scientific evidence to prove your dating. I have presented works of several researchers such as Rupa Bhaty, Anil Narayanan, Sudarshan Bhardwaj, Nilesh Oak, Sarma, Roshen Dalal, Subbarayappa, Subhash Kaka with several of their works. Where is your scientific refutal ? Where is it ? Some of you people sitting and have started to hunt the "dating of this article" with NO scientific basis. What are you trying to establish here by removing works supported by many many researchers?? You are actually at a state of mind of abusing the authors of the works based on what? Any scientific refutal work? NO, any epirical analysis? NO, any scientific evidence? NO.

None of your colonial era works or should I say speculative works should be kept on Wikipedia unless you have scientific backing to prove otherwise. You are one CLAIMING the work of many many researchers I have added here is no good. Why Hollow words? Where is the scientific refutal evidence? DONT have it? Then stop adding lies to this wikipage and let it live on Wikipedia and let people read the divrsity of view which is one of the pillars of Wikipedia.--Gurnidar (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC) self-support comments from blocked sock puppet struck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gurnidar:, please read, understand, and follow the WP:CCPOL and WP:RS before attempting to reinstate these edits or to post further here. Shouting at me or any other editor will not change anything. You are plainly engaged in an edit war and violating the neutral point of view policy. Note that "neutral" does not mean "all sides are presented". In particular, the sources you added included the religious text itself, and article from a journal on Beall's List of predatory journals, a website called India facts, and unverifiable books from doubtful publishers. According to this site's policies, I have no requirement to satisfy your demand for "scientific refutal work", whatever that may be. You, on the other hand, have the responsibility to demonstrate that these sources are reliable and that you have a WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion. Failing to comply with these standards and practices may result in blocking. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

: There were claims of CE era dating on this Wikipage. I added several references to support the BC era claims which you undid. Who is violating the Wikipedia policy on Neutral point of view the neutral point of view policy? Answer this simple question.--Gurnidar (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC) self-support comments from blocked sock puppet struck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

: Wow a lot has happened. I second that and support Gurnidar. I do not understand why BC era dating cannot stay on wikipedia given that it is supported by several researchers and several references on this page. Is this not violation of Wikipedia policy? the neutral point of view policy I would like to know the answer to that. To me it seems like a suppression of BC era point of view (which is in fact supported by several referenced).--Harpreet1292 (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC) self-support comments from blocked sock puppet struck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

: I extend my support to Harpreet1292 and Gurnidar, I started these edits to add BC era dating supported by reliable publications and references. But It had been hunted by what seemed like a team as they were internally communicating that somebody is adding C era dating and were collaborating to come and delete my edits. It still continues and I am so very serprised to see this. I ask the same question or similar perhaps, why can BC era dating exit on this page along with CE era. Which infact our own references and cited publications support. Updates made to Surya Siddhanta in CE and also in BC era. For exmaple Burges sfigured out CE era dating by working out updates made to longitudinal data. I think what is being done is the suppression of BC era dating and complete removal of scientific references from this page. --RahulChawla1990 (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC) self-support comments from blocked sock puppet struck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

:: I have read both links provided by Eggishorn - WP:CCPOL and WP:RS. On the core content policy WP:CCPOL, my edits have no issues on all three points stated. Also my references contain books, scientific publications etc. there is no issues on WP:RS Reliable sources either. Mine and @rahulchawla1990 edits rather support the idea as stated above to the dating of CE era as well as BC era. Having neutral point of view is the wikipedia policy isn't it? We should adhere to it. I have provided references by several researchers such as Rupa Bhaty, Anil Narayanan, Sudarshan Bhardwaj, Nilesh Oak, Sarma, Roshen Dalal, Subbarayappa, Subhash Kaka with several of their works. Are you saying all of their work is non reliable source including the Indian Journal on history of science from where two of my publications come from? Please provide answer.--Gurnidar (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC) self-support comments from blocked sock puppet struck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Anything with Nilesh Oak is automatically not reliable. Moreover, the sources you propose are not reputable nor reliable, and most certainly have not been peer-reviewed. Including their fringe beliefs would definitely violate NPOV. GPinkerton (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

::: I can recall that we are asked for discussion. You are asserting something. There are several researcher I have mentioned above. Please answer and discuss. Asserting something is your point of view not a neutral point of view which is against. NPOV by wikipedia.--Gurnidar (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC) self-support comments from blocked sock puppet struck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

::: I agree, just because Gpinkerton calls someone bad names or unreliable does not make it unreliable that is your point of view not NPOV. Please answer discuss and do not make conclusions based on your point view because it is against NPOV. --Harpreet1292 (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC) self-support comments from blocked sock puppet struck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

looks like no one is providing any reliable answer but are running away.--RahulChawla1990 (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

::: To me it seems like a suppression of a point view. Without evidence they are calling all the researchers and references unreliable. Wow Wikipedia just wow.--Harpreet1292 (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC) self-support comments from blocked sock puppet struck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Produce evidence that any of these sources are reliable. Which of them is published in a reliable peer-reviewed journal? GPinkerton (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Where also is the consensus of scholarly opinion in support of this view? Paul August ☎ 00:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

:::: The experimental work is peer reviewed and published in many journal by Indian journal on history of science as I found the references. On the contrary view, Burgess is referenced by everyone here on the whole wiki page but there is no peer review of his work and he at places say the obliquely of earth is 23.4 and cannot be 23.97 or 24 as recorded in Surya Siddhanta because he did not know that it changes with time this shows his primitive understanding of the topic yet his work is referenced here. I think the problem or elephant in the room is “how to remove the BC era dating and scientific references” from Wikipedia. The references not just give statements or speculations but are rather evidence based in nature and you people seem to not like that. Which is very surprising to me. I never thought Wikipedia is like this where groups of people will hunt such a small thing which is the BC era dating which in fact is supported by journals, authors, researchers.--Harpreet1292 (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC) self-support comments from blocked sock puppet struck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

this was my point all the way from start. I lost faith in Wikipedia because my edits were being removed by a group of people who were communicating with each other on wikipedia. Its out there anyone can check and confirm. They removed and edits and I completely gave up. I looked up videos on youtube where many people have said the same thing. That on wikipedia there is a supression of point of view and it happens at a massive scale. Many editors will gang up and out weigh your edits in terms of the editor consensus. Which is apparently what is happening here. Think about it, There are archeological evidence and published papers and is all over google about dental surgery in skeletons found in Indus valley civilisation whicg dates dental surgery back to 7000BCE. How hard it is for Surya Siddhanta authors to find the latitude, longitudes or obliquity which in terms of modern day are not hard to find manually. I dont understand what is their problem with this BC era dating of Surya Sidhanta. It is completely UNFAIR and UNBELIEVEABLE. i give up. I dont have time to fight teams of editors who are probably working and getting paid who knows? Wikipedia is a lost cause. --RahulChawla1990 (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

: since this discussion is supposed to get agreement right? Why don’t you guys add a section on the Wikipedia page which can details the findings of the published journals and works of other authors as referenced? Any issues with that. Section named Archeoastronomy. This way we will have a diversity of views and reliable sources and no conflict. if the admins are okay with this? Can we atleast agree on this? --Harpreet1292 (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC) self-support comments from blocked sock puppet struck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

: I was going through this stuff. Gpinkerton call the work of Nilesh Oak as unreliable. But he did not know that I did not reference the work of Nilesh Oak at all. Nilesh oak discussed the work of Anil Narayanan which is what is reference is all about as I reconfirmed. Now this clearly shows that the editors are not properly reviewing the work but are using their privileges to our weigh another point of view. I hope we get an agreement on adding a section on Archeoastronomy and discuss these findings. Looks like Gurnidar and rahulchawla1990 are not interested anymore?--Harpreet1292 (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC) self-support comments from blocked sock puppet struck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Harpreet1292: @RahulChawla1990: Nilesh Oak is not worth mentioning in any scholarly context and neither is India Facts considered reliable. Where is the scholarly literature? Self-published blogs and websites making grand claims about science 1000s of years ago are not good enough. There is no problem with a BC date for an ancient astronomical text, but there are big problems if you want to claim that there is an ancient astronomical text from many 1000s of years ago, before writing existed. This is an especial problem if the only evidence manuscript witness for such a text is less than 600 years old. There might well have been dental "surgery" happening in 7,000 BC but even the Indus script, which is not even true writing, is no older than 2600 BC, so there most certainly was not a textbook on dentistry, or on astronomy, at that early date. Please, link some peer-reviewed articles here to support your claims and we can discuss their reliability and whether to include them in the main article. GPinkerton (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

: Since you have asked me makes it sure that you had not looked at the references that you deleted. Thanks for publicly admitting that. Point 1: Your POV of Nilesh’s work is unreliable is a fact that his work has not had any scientific refutal since 2010, is itself a loud statement. By the way I did not refer to his work at all which again solidified my previous concern that the references are deleted without review. Thanks for acknowledgement. Point 2. The references you deleted contained scientific publication of Anil Narayanan which were peer reviewed before getting published. https://insa.nic.in/writereaddata/UpLoadedFiles/IJHS/Vol45_4_1_ANarayan.pdf

another one here https://insa.nic.in/writereaddata/UpLoadedFiles/IJHS/Vol46_3_2_ANarayanan.pdf

These are Anil’s publications. Point 3. As I have found you would conveniently make any website or source unreliable based on NO EVIDENCE. I named researchers above who had referenced Anil’s work as well.

Regardless this will probably my last response. As you people are highly prejudice and do whatever you like. You call any website or source unreliable.

the wiki page of Surya Sidhanta is constantly using reference of one book of commentary by Burgess which is a complete joke of you read. And many Indian researchers have discredit his work to highly colonial influenced work where he is making claims based on contemporary western understanding of observational astronomy which now a child can go to google and check that it was wrong such as his comments on Surya Siddhanta Obliquity measurements.

Point 4 is that you are asserting that no writing existed that is probably because the scripts cannot survive thousands of years, your assertion of absence of evidence is the evidence of absence is just propostrous. Even you know that.

Point 5 if you had any knowledge of how observational astronomy changed from story format to Siddhantic format across several Ancient Indian texts, then you would not have asked me that question.

I rest my case here as I cannot talk anymore as It is very much obvious that there is no reasoning here, admins are using their privileges to call any source, book or reference as unreliable.

now I understand why throughout my university time, my professors called Wikipedia as academically unreliable. No Womder. And no wonder why YouTube is filled with how Teams of admins and editors are hanging up to control information and suppressing any POV which does not fit their world view. --Harpreet1292 (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC) self-support comments from blocked sock puppet struck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

As I figured out days ago and as the video says these are probably paid admins by various organisations to control information. Why do you think they are sitting all day night to do this. Without being paid? Probably not. It is evident here that they have been deleting references without even reviewing them. They are running a propaganda nothing else. Working under fake names is a clean give away. I rest my case here as well. Load of bullshit by wikipedia. I lost complete faith it it. Bye bye paid propagandist admins. --RahulChawla1990 (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

: Good responses guys. This is a gang of admins who we can't fight. There is a hierarchy here in terms of editing. They add what they like, as it is now completely evident here. They won't care removing all the scientific evidence or publications you cite. It will get removed if this gang of admins do not like.

Anyone who is reading this should know, and read the whole chain and see that there is not a single academic reference presented by this gang of admins and they are declaring references, authors to be unreliable based on NOTHING.

This is called Fraud, After media/news channel Wikipedia should get the second place for public fraud and information fraud. I can't stress more with these frauds.--Gurnidar (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC) self-support comments from blocked sock puppet struck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

: Now they have removed the sin angle calculation of 23.97 degree from the section (Note that observation of Earth's Obliquity is done twice in the text one is of 23.97 degree in chapter 2 and other is 24 degrees in chapter 12 in Surya Siddhanta, Please go and confirm this). This is a PROOF that this GANG wants to remove any BC era dating. Welcome to propaganda people. This is how you control information by removing and disabling people from knowing a simple sin angle in degrees. This is the real reason the BC era datings had been removed again & again for last many days. "Gangs of Wikipedia" should I say. GOOD you proved us right. The fact is that they removed it becuase if you know degrees, you can go to google and easily date when this observation was recorded which was around 3000 BCE. Go and check it out. Note that Earth's Obliquity changes between 22.1 and 24.5 in the period of about 41,000 years, this predominantly occurs because of the gravitational pull of moon. These frauds DO NOT let that be published on Wikipedia. Proof is right here in front of the READERS. --Gurnidar (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC) self-support comments from blocked sock puppet struck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see: WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:GOODFAITH, and WP:RELIABILITY. I'm yet to see those sources, though there a lot of text above this comment, some quite entertaining. GPinkerton (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

: If you care to read you would have seen the links I provided. Again just like removing references without review with intension of removing any BC era dating. You are again demonstrating same skills of ignoring information. Bunch of paid frauds trying to control the information. RIP Wikipedia. I would like people to read all this, unless of course if you remove this entire chain as well. You are just shouting unreliable without any evidence or proof to make your case. ANyway this is my last message to the FRAUDS aka "Gangs of Wikipedia" again RIP Wikipedia. there is no NPOV here anymore.--Gurnidar (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC) self-support comments from blocked sock puppet struck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to cite Narayan 2010 here at all. It has been a decade since the paper was written, but look at its citations: Except for a seemingly non-peer-reviewed pdf from Oak (who is himself a fringe theorist), all citations are from Narayan himself. Narayan's other articles find only self-citations too. Meanwhile, multiple articles have appeared since mentioning Surya Siddhanta (examples: 1 2 3) all accepting first millennium dates for the book. Combined, this is enough evidence for us to treat Narayan and millennia-old authorship as a fringe view not worthy of mention in the article -- Raziman T V (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Paul August ☎ 16:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I read this long argument and want to add my opinion. It's not uncommon in archaeoastronomy to speculate on dates based on position of stars, or how monuments or images may align with stars (thus dating them). Similar things have been done with Stonehenge, dots on neolithic murals, etc. These calculations often extrapolate far, far back into pre-history and are usually considered highly speculative even by the scholars who make them. They are meant to be taken with a grain of salt.

That's not to say that all such speculation is unfounded. Some theories from reputable scholars are well justified, based on easily calculable events like eclipses, or fall into plausible historical ranges (1~2 thousand years before emergence of writing). However, the 8th millennium date given by Narayanan seems quite far-fetched and needs more consensus and support. He also writes for Indiafacts.org, which is quite upfront with Hindu nationalism, if not chauvinism. The notorious Subhash Kak also falls into the same category. On the other hand, B.V. Subbarayappa is a respectable scholar, but I don't see him cited, nor do I remember him making these extreme claims. - AMorozov ^〈talk〉 01:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@AMorozov: If you have sources to add, please do so! The article is crying out for scholarly updating. GPinkerton (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@AMorozov: When a scientific analysis is done and mathematical models are prepared, the precision and accuracy of collected data becomes very indicative of its nature. Just like one point is not enough to draw the line, similarly date based on one observation is not speculative but is completely unreliable, Unless that one data point of observation is so decisive. (for example if someone say, he met with Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein met in London in 1949, only one data point that Tesla died in 1943 is so decisive that any other arguments becomes worthless). Coming back data points - more the data better the convergence or divergence can be seen. Similarly, in case of publication by Anil Narayanana, he did not analyse one data point but several latitudinal measurements of several Nakshatras were tested by varying ecliptic obliquity, ecliptic-node-location, ecliptic-sink and proper motion. Here you see its not measurement of one data point but the latitudes of several Nakshatras and method is much complex computations considering al possible factors to get realistic results. The several data points converged to the time frame of 7300-7800 BCE. Second is the measurement methods of ecliptic obliquity - there are two measurements in Surya Siddhanta, one in chapter 2 and other in chapter 12. Now in present day we measure angles in degrees and there are 360 of them in a circle and decimal points give us further precision. In Surya Siddhanta rather than dividing circle in 360 segments, they divide the circle into 3,438 segments - this in itself is a profound because to get more precision and absence of decimal points lead them to divide circle in 3,438 divisions and their ability to deal with that level of precision. They recorded 1,397th segment at the time time of measurement, when you divide this by 3,438 an take the sin inverse - in degrees you get 23.9751819 ecliptic obliquity. If you date it, it takes you to around 3,000 BCE - this is a decisive data point. Thirdly, there is an observation of two pole stars one at north celestial pole and other at south celestial pole - you can go to wikipedia and check that it was around 3,000 BCE when we had pole stars at both poles - Thuban at north pole and Achernar at south pole - please check and confirm and there is no more recent observation. Then at other place in Surya Siddhanta that update is dated to 580 AD, when a fixed precessional increment was added to latitudinal & longitudinal data. The entire book is filled with observations and data points, but not all observations can give us epochs or time frames/period, some are capable as stated above. Another is the pulsating epicycle parameters of the sun which adds a date of 6th millenium BCE.

Note that these are scientifically testable observations. How much researchers are testing them? a few right. Has anyone refuted these results? No. Another is that the editors here are enjoying the privilege of calling any source which does not fit their narrative to be unreliable - this in itself is a fact of lower confidence in discussing it further in depth. Some editors above started calling the works of Nilesh Oak as unreliable, although I didnot use his work at all, for sure he can be wrong, but if his work has publicly shown the convergence of 300+ astronomical observations from Mahabharata to a date of 16th Oct 5,561 BCE to be the first day of Mahabharata war supported by atleast 12 different disciplines of science as per the papers published by non related scholars all around the globe - then abusing him is probably a thing of an idiot - You must prove his work wrong rather than calling him names and abusing him as it was done by one of the edior above - this shows the lack of credibility in the editors. Last thing is the amount of work done - I verified there are atleast 30+ scientific journals published dating the Sarasvati river, yet wikipedia calls it hindu mythical and add a spice of hindu nationalism in the article - what a SHAME it is. 30+ journals are published but wikipedia is completly talking bullshit. to put this in context - the Satluj river started to divert west around 13,000 BCE and completely stoped feeding into Sarasvati after 6000 BCE or 8,000 years ago after which it was monsoon dependent then there is a decline in Indian monsoons and sarasvati dries about 4,000 years ago and remained in the form of Ghaggar Hakra paleochannel. At some places river is nearly 22 km wide as per the published papers. If I can recall it right, the river went from himalayas to ocean with full water only around 18,000 years ago. Now if you go to Rigveda it mentions about river being flowing from Himalayas to ocean like it is a sea of water. Then Rigvedas, Ramayana talks about river Satluj started to turn west then Satluj being completely stopped feeding into Sarasvati river and last chapter 10 of Rigveda talks about Sindhu being the Grand river and sarasvati is just one of the rivers. I am making it too short here but Rigveda has nearly 200 mentions telling the story of river Sarasvati which is now easily confirmed. be my guest and read all these tens of papers. for reference I will provide link to one of the recently (2017) published paper by Imperial college London and IIT kanpur + other researchs. - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01643-9 " my question is where does wikipedia bullshit stands on it???? As I would say RIP wikipedia. --RahulChawla1990 (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@RahulChawla1990: You obviously haven't read the paper you have linked to, (which nowhere supports your view) because, instead of proving the Veda right in saying there was a lost Himalyan river in the Indus vallery, it proves the exact opposite. I'll quote it for you, since you don't look hard enough. "In conclusion, our results firmly rule out the existence of a Himalayan-fed river that nourished Indus Civilisation settlements along the Ghaggar–Hakra palaeochannel."! As for your contention "Has anyone refuted these results? No." that simply isn't how science works. Has anyone repeated the study and obtained the same results? No. Could they? No. Could it suit the BJP to claim otherwise. Maybe. GPinkerton (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@RahulChawla1990: For the purposes of Wikipedia, it does not matter whether this dating is correct or not. What matters is that it is judged to be correct by the consensus of scholarly opinion. That does not seem to be the case here. For example the Encyclopædia Britannica (along with many other such sources) describes the Surya Siddhanta as "a Hindu astronomical handbook from the 4th or 5th century AD". If a scholarly consensus supporting these proposed new dates were to form in the future, that would be indicated by several reputable secondary sources (such as textbooks) accepting these dates. In that eventuality, we can rewrite this article to conform to the new scholarly consensus. Paul August ☎ 09:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RahulChawla2907, it is plain that all the editors expressing agreement with RahulChawla1990's OP here were really that same editor using sock puppets to create the false impression of support. Gurnidar and Harpreet1992 have now been blocked and so I have struck their comments above. There does not appear to be any actual dispute, therefore, and I recommend closing this with no action. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Calm down everyone, the Anil Narayanan paper it self ends with a disclaimer

A major assumption made in this investigation is that star proper motion is fairly constant over several thousands of years. The results maybe adversely affected if this were found untrue for the stars set under consideration

ChandlerMinh (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Nilesh Oak’s “300+ observations” revolves around astrological metaphors and wishful translation. I have gone through many of the claims and many are based on planetary conjunctions and periodic comets. Anyone with basic understanding that conjunctions are not at all rare. For an example Oak claims that on the day of Vāli-Sugrīva fight, there was Mercury-Mars conjunction. But that is just another Astrological metaphor. Mars and Mercury are considered as sworn enemies in Hindu astrology.

Now the question of obliquity: Obliquity changes between 22.1 and 24.5. Everything in the 40000 years happens between this mere 2.4 degrees—narrow enough to be prone to errors. These such dating can be taken seriously only if you assume that people in the past had very highly sophisticated instruments to do such precise observations. ChandlerMinh (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Continuing Discussion

Koch has written an entire book rebutting Oaks claim. And Oak's claims of finding astronomical data hangs around one Sasnkrit word 'pr̥ṣṭham' that can be translated as many things. ChandlerMinh (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@ChandlerMinh: That sounds like it could be something worth citing; I don't see any work under that name cited in the article thus far. GPinkerton (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

That paper deals with dating of Kurukshetra war. PDF is available online Search 'Koch Mahabharata Arundhati Vasisht' ChandlerMinh (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh OK, if it doesn't deal explicitly with the Surya Siddhanta specifically it's probably best to leave it out. GPinkerton (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

My point is that these people rely on mistranslation to claim mentions of accurate astronomic data. Even in this Anil Narayanan paper he says Surya Siddhanta "is somewhat cryptic for a rank beginner". Narayanan translated chapter 1 verse 8 so as to claim that the verse suggests 'precessional changes', while none of the words in the original Sanskrit verse can be translated as 'precessional' or even 'revolution'. I have only started to read the paper and the paper doesn't quote the verses in original Sanskrit but only translations which are likely Narayanan's own. ChandlerMinh (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Per the suggestion above, shall we eliminate the cites of "Anil Narayan (2010)"? Paul August ☎ 18:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be undue weight to do anything but. GPinkerton (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I've done so now. Paul August ☎ 19:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Addition of sine tables

Hi Guys, I added the sine tables as described in Surya Siddhanta and translated by E. Burgess in his book. I found these sine calculations very interesting. As Burgess described in his commentary that for an acute observer these second degree differences are remarkable, which provides an increment of about 1/225th part to the corresponding sine values. I am a new user and spent a lot of time understanding formatting and stuff. I am fascinated by these sine and declination calculations. I think these will be interesting for the users too. God it took a little while to find how to add sign here --Xavidesh (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Xavidesh: Thanks, and welcome to the project. GPinkerton (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Thank you. When I have time, I will try to add more useful and interesting content to this wiki page. Will probably seek your feedback in future. Cheers.--Xavidesh (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Heliocentrism?

Can anyone clarify this from the third paragraph:

It treats Sun as stationary globe around which earth and other planets orbit

. ChandlerMinh (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Proof

The tradition of Hellenistic astronomy ended in the West after Late Antiquity. According to Cromer, the Surya Siddhanta and other Indian texts reflect the primitive state of Greek science, nevertheless played an important part in the history of science, through its translation in Arabic and stimulating the Arabic sciences.[39] According to a study by Dennis Duke that compares Greek models with Indian models based on the oldest Indian manuscripts such as the Surya Siddhanta with fully described models, the Greek influence on Indian astronomy is strongly likely to be pre-Ptolemaic.[16] Please provide a better source for these lines Bhima Palavīṉamāṉa (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Pattern of sabotage

I see many such Indian wiki article which refers to Vedic era are sabotaged by someone who want to wipe out the fact that Vedic science is advanced and older than west and referring Greek or Alexander as source of all such knowledge. 84.67.25.120 (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

If what you say is true (that "Vedic science is advanced and older than west" [sic]), you'll be able to find no end of reliable sources confirming as such. Please feel free to add them when you do. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The Mahabharata literally calls the Greeks as ‘Sarvajna’ meaning ‘omniscient’. Greeks had made a mechanical computer 2100 years ago. can you show any one single thing from India that can match the craftsmanship like that of Antikythera Mechanism ChandlerMinh (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

505 really?

The article starts by saying that “The Surya Siddhanta… is… dated to 505 CE,” giving two references. One is Brittanica which, when I visited a moment ago, did not even mention Hindu astronomy, let alone the Surya Siddhanta. Plus, the reference is accompanied by a quote (from a previous version I would suppose?) that says: “Earlier, in the late 4th or early 5th century, the anonymous Hindu author of an astronomical handbook, the Surya Siddhanta [ . . . ]” The other reference is to a book that says, as quoted in the article and reference: “c. 350-400: The Surya Siddhanta, an Indian work on astronomy [ . . . ]”

My question is therefore: How do these two quotes date the Surya Siddhanta to 505 CE is one mentions “4th or early 4th century“ and the other says “c. 350–400,” which are both at least ≈100 years earlier?

I’m tagging this as failed verification.

CielProfond (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

505 AD is the date of Panch-Siddhantikaa by Varaha Mihira who said that Surya Siddhaanta was the Siddhaanta of Savitaa-dev (the deity of Gayatri Mantra of Vedas). Hence, it is foolish to suppose that Surya Siddhanta was composed in 505 AD.

Those who are adamant to put Surya Siddhanta around 400 AD fail to perceive that a text composed in 400 AD cannot acquire the status almost equal to that of Veda by being attributed to Savitaa Deva within one century.

-Vinay Jha VJha (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Heliocentrism

There is a reference to heliocentrism that says

It treats Sun as stationary globe around which earth and other planets orbit.

But the reference does not mention anything about heliocentrism.It was added two months ago by an anonymous user Kudiophi clopsvimbi (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

it was previously:

It treats earth as stationary globe around which sun orbits, and makes no mention of Uranus, Neptune or Pluto.

and now it says:

It treats Sun as stationary globe around which earth and other planets orbit, It calculates the earth's diameter to be 8,000 miles (modern: 7,928 miles)

in both cases, the source cited is the same (Thompson, 2007). but the source does not talk anything about heliocentrism. so I suggest it is changed to original ChandlerMinh (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

ok Kudiophi clopsvimbi (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Heliocentrism without a proper source

Second sentence in the third paragraph of the lead was previously:

It treats earth as stationary globe around which sun orbits, and makes no mention of Uranus, Neptune or Pluto.

and now it says:

It treats Sun as stationary globe around which earth and other planets orbit,)

In both cases, the source cited is the same (Thompson, 2007). However the source does not talk anything about heliocentrism. so I am changing it to the original. ChandlerMinh (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC) ChandlerMinh (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Why is Alan Cromer's "Uncommon Sense : The Heretical Nature of Science" considered a reliable source for history?

There are two claims made in the 'greek influence' section, both citing the same book by Alan Cromer which doesn't seem to have any traction in the history community. Removing those lines.

>According to Alan Cromer, the Greek influence most likely arrived in India by about 100 BCE. The Indians adopted the Hipparchus system, according to Cromer, and it remained that simpler system rather than those made by Ptolemy in the 2nd century. Erebus oneiros (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

References