User talk:Buddhipriya/Archive 1

Please add new sections at the bottom of the page in chronological order to make it easier to see what is new. Also, please sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end. That will automatically insert links back to your user page along with a date stamp. If you ask me a question here I will probably answer it here. Buddhipriya 18:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

My first contact with someone on Wikipedia!

Welcome!

Hello, Buddhipriya, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 

I've seen that you edit Hinduism articles. You may consider joining WikiProject Hinduism. Thanks Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

SAntoshi Ma

DO v really need 2 write abt a 'goddess', who has 'no Puranic evidence' in the Ganesha article????

- Redtigerxyz

Thank you so much for opening a dialog about this! I see from your edits that you have an interest in Ganesha, and your help in improving his page is very welcome. Because the question pertains to an edit for that page, it may be better for me to reply in detail on the talk page for Ganesha so we can exchange views with other editors who may miss it if they are here. I will raise your very valid question there and try to answer, so please take a look and we can continue this dialog there. Thanks again for the direct communication! ॐ गं गणपतये नमः Buddhipriya 19:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Vairagya

Namaskar Buddhipriya! I fixed your edits on the Vairagya page so that is follow Wikipedia's conventions. To understand some important Wiki-policies please read WP:MOS and WP:CITE#HOW. Also may you read the main Hinduism page on Wikipedia (here - Hinduism). Many of us here want to make the main Hinduism article and other articles into Feature articles, which in short mean they are up to the highest standard of quality and quantity on Wikipedia. If you think the article has too much detail on particular topics, has very little information on more important areas, or something isn't explained well, please provide feedback on Talk:Hinduism. Thank you very much and keep up the good work! Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha Purana

You must have noticed that I moved the article you created to Ganesha Purana as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). The main reason for this guideline is that the if a user searches for Ganesha Purana (and surely he won't type IAST in google or wikipedia search :-) ) and the article title is in IAST, he will not find it ! I have also made an attempt to wikify the article and add the standard nuts and bolts to the content you had typed earlier. I hope you agree with the advisability of the edits.

I think the article as it stands is a reasonable stub. However content needs to be added to discuss (based on reliable sources) the contents of the purana and what commentators have said about it. Ideally we don't want to simply say that there are 3 books written about the purana (although even that is better than saying nothing), but rather what the books say about the purana itself. But it is a good start - good job! Abecedare 23:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent improvements you have made so quickly. I will be able to learn much about Wiki formats by studying your changes. I am unsure how much detail to provide on this and other topics until I get a better sense of how stable Wiki articles are. For example my remark that "no critical edition" had been issued was deleted, perhaps because the term "critical edition" was not recognized. A critical edition of these sources means that many alternative readings have been reviewed and reconciled by scholars to produce a consensus text. If there is no critical edition, it means that individual editions may show significant variations from one another. This is indeed the case with the Ganesha Purana, so the 1993 edition by Sharma and the Bailey version are not quite the same text. It is fascinating seeing what elements of the text "stick" in Wiki and which fall away quickly. ") Buddhipriya 23:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually that was my mistake. What I meant to delete was the word "unfortunately" (which is an editorial, rather than factual or informative comment; we should state the facts and let the user decide if it is to be celebrated or bemoaned. The exception being, if we quote/cite someone saying that Fact A is unfortunate) , but deleted the whole sentence in error. I have added back the info.

I have also created an article talk page at Talk: Ganesha Purana where future discussion about the article content can occur. Abecedare 23:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just curious

What Hindu denomination do you follow? I think you are either a Shaiva or Ganapatya. Best wishes Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"God can be realized through all paths. All religions are true. The important thing is to reach the roof. You can reach it by stone stairs or by wooden stairs or by bamboo steps or by a rope. You can also climb up by a bamboo pole." - p. 191, The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, tr. Swami Nikhilananda.

"It is not good to feel that my religion alone is true and other religions are false. The correct attitude is this: My religion is right, but I do not know whether other religions are right or wrong, true or false. I say this because one cannot know the true nature of God unless one realizes Him." - pp. 558-559

"God has made different religions and creeds to suit different aspirants. By no means all are fit for the knowledge of Brahman. Therefore the worship of God with form is provided." - p. 486

ॐ गं गणपतये नमः

Buddhipriya 18:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of my name

Hello again. It seems to me that you are not from North India or at least you do not know Hindi. The Hindi pronunciation (and many othe Indian languages) of Devanagari is different from Sanskrit. Firstly, the virama is not needed on Hindi words. This is why in most modern Hindu Indians, North or South, have names like Shiv, Ganesh, Ram, Govind instead of Shiva, Ganesha, Rama, Govinda etc. Secondly, अह् is really pronounced like एह् for non-Sanskrit derived Hindi words. That means Taj Mahal is pronounced as Taj Mehal. This is because of Persian/Muslim/Urdu influences on the language. Often, the "a"s (अ) in the middle of North Indian language words aren't pronounced too if the vowel isn't stressed, expecially in informal usage, like the word tyaar तयार (which means ready). If you see the Sehgal page on Wikipedia, you may notice alternative spellings though the pronunciation is still the same as mine. Of course Sanskrit derived words with अह् are pronouned properly like Maharaj (Great king/emperor) महाराज. Another common pronunciation difference between modern Indian languages and Sanskrit is the "ai" ऐ and "au" औ. Now they are pronounced as ē and ō in all modern Indian languages apart from a few Southern ones like Tamil and maybe some Eastern ones like Bengali. Gizza^{Chat ©} 05:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful education for me, thank you! You are correct that I do not know Hindi. Can you comment on regional variations in how the vowel ऋ is pronounced in Hindi? It is my impression that the "trilling" is more pronounced in Northern India but I am not sure if this is correct. By the way, once questions like this have been answered is it OK to delete them from talk pages? I am unclear on Wiki protocol for these exchanges. Is it best to answer on your talk page or keep both questions and replies on the same talk page?Buddhipriya 06:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

ऋ in Hindi tends to be pronounced as "ri" except at the end where it is "ra". Example - ऋषि is rishi but पितृ is "pitr" or "pitra." so it is slightly trilled at the end of words. In Gujarati, ऋ is pronounced as "ru" which is why they say rushi and Sanskrut!

For your talk pages, it is best to keep all messages unless they are very bad (offesive material, swearing, attacks but hopesfully this won't happen). Of course, after awhile your talk page becomes too big but we don't delete the old discusion. Instead we archive it. Please read WP:ARCHIVE on how to do that. Don't worry, at the moment your talk page isn't very big. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

An award !

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		Here is an award both for your significant contributions to wikipedia as a knowledge repository, particularly the articles Ganesh Purana and Mudgala Purana that you brought up almost single-handedly, as well as the manner in which you comport yourself and interact with other users. Keep it up ! Abecedare 06:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I noticed that you already correctly dealt with vandalism on the Ganesh Chaturthi page. For future reference, here are somethings you can do about obvious vandalism:

• Revert the changes either manually or using popups, such as WP:POPUP.
• Leave a message on the user's talk page. You can use one of the user warning templates for this purpose.
• In cases of persistent vandalism you can file a report at WP:AIV or WP:ANI as appropriate (see further notes on those pages) to draw an admin's attention. The page may need to be protected/ semi-protected or the editor blocked - although for obvious reasons these steps are not taken lightly.

If you are not certain that the edit is vandalism, assume good faith and leave at least an edit summary informing the editors (and others) the reason why you have reverted the changes. You can request editors to discuss disputed changes on the article's talk page. In such cases also be aware of the three revert rule !
Finally, my personal advice is that while you should undo vandalism whenever you can, don't get emotionally involved even when you see persistent vandals attacking pages you have devoted time and attention to. As you continue to edit on wikipedia it is inevitable that you will run into persons whose mindset will appear alien to you - rather than let that upset you, it is more fruitful to take some time off, or move to other pages, or get help from admins and the wikipedia community. Above all remember the original reasons you started editing here, which are likely to be out of an desire to contribute to this incredible knowledgebase while having fun and gaining personal satisfaction.. Abecedare 07:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Ganesha Purana, was selected for DYK!

On February 9, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ganesha Purana, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 22:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the barnstar!

You have done tremendous work on Wikipedia so far and I hope you continue to do so! Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me too, and congrats on the DYK ! Hope you keep working on new + existing wikipedia article; let me know if I can be of any help. Thanks. Abecedare 18:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I honestly have not done much with Hinduism-related, or Indian-related topics, as far as I know. Anyway, thanks again, and keep up the good work on Wikipedia. =) Nishkid64 14:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam links

Thank you for removing the commercial spam links from Japa related pages. Appreciated. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Jai Santoshi Ma

Nice work ! By the way, IMDB spells the movie name as Jai Santoshi Maa (the simplified transliteration; see [1]), so it may be good to move the page to that spelling. (I can do that, if you agree to the move) By the way, I too have never created a Hindi movie page and so cannot offer many pointers. I have added a film infobox to the page, although I was too lazy to fill in all the fields :-) Abecedare 22:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right, IMDb does use "Maa" -- so that is what I think we should go with. I have done the move and normalized the links to use "Maa". Thank you also for your guidance on how to build more consensus on some of the complex topics. The ability of anyone to change anything is a mysterious and chaotic process. Any suggestions on what to do with the issue of the history section for the Ganesha page?Buddhipriya 22:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Kak and Twin Paradox

Dear Buddhipriya, I noticed that you replaced 'meaningless' in the twin paradox section with 'unclear', asserting that 'meaningless' is harse (sic: harsh?), and that you are not qualified to assess the claim. I sincerely recommend that we discuss this, and that 'meaningless' be re-inserted into that section. Firstly, I am qualified to assess the claim, as special relativity (being part of any undergraduate level course on modern physics) was taught to me in college, and understanding it doesn't even require you to be a physics major. Moreover, the person who inserted the word 'meaningless' is Lumidek, a physics professor at Harvard. I hope this clarifies things a bit; if not, please discuss with me or other Wikipedians who can comment on this topic. Thanks and with best wishes, Gajamukhu 23:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Gajamukhu, I have self-reverted that edit. Thank you for your communication about it. My intent was only to look for things that seemed POV to me as a non-specialist. Buddhipriya 23:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Gajamukhu 00:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick tip

An easy way to link to wikipedia policies, guidelines etc is to use shortcuts, instead of typing the whole URL. For example here are five options for pointing to the reliable source guideline:

1. "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources"
2. "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources]" which appears as [2]
3. "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources reliable sources]" which appears as reliable sources
4. " [[WP:RS]] ", which appear as WP:RS; and
5. "[[WP:RS|reliable sources]]" which appears as reliable sources

Typically, options (4) and (5) are preferred (depending upon the context), since they are easier to remember, type and read. Over time, you will have memorized the more common acronyms anyway. Cheers! Abecedare 23:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued coaching! Buddhipriya 00:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

appropriate external links

Hello, I am writing in regards to your removing the external link I have placed under Ganehsa. You indicated that it is not a suitable link but did not say why you believe so. Please see the link if you have not already. The site is from Sahaja Yoga (Canada) which is a universal religious organization that holds Shri Ganesha in the highest of regard. [3] The information from the link is from scripture. Please see Dnyaneshwari as reference. Dnyanshwari (aka Jnanadev) expounded on kundalini and the chakras in a most lucid and poetic way. I would like to add the link again and see that it can remain as an appropriate external link.Workie77 20:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Namaste, thank you for your message. According to Wiki policy on reliable sources the issue is that anyone can put anything on a web site, so in assessing web links one must look for quality of primary source references. There are none on that web site, and the site adds nothing to what is in the article. The Wiki policy also points out that web sites operated by religious groups are to be used with particular caution. If you want to add material of a general nature about chakras, perhaps you could give it a try on the talk pages for chakra. The Ganesha page currently contains a lot of unreferenced material which we are trying to clean up. Wiki articles that reference other wiki articles as sources can be circular in nature, by the way, and at some point a verifiable resource such as a book needs to be cited. I have no question that your organization holds Ganesha in high regard. The issue is that the content does not meet tests for verifiability.Buddhipriya 20:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

deletion of content

Thank you for wisiting may talk page:

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Sarmatians. It may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Buddhipriya 01:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

here is my answer. The map is false. Nasz 02:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

sory

i was very mistaken, plese forgive me that i talked to you

Nasz 05:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Template test

Hi Buddhipriya -

Thanks again for all your excellent experimentation, guidance and encouragement. If I may just provide a slightly modified test 2, this test shows the embedding of an IAST template within the DisplayTranslations template works correctly if the pipe-escape ({{!}}) is used instead of the standard pipe (|). (I've added some text to Template:DisplayTranslations' introductory text to attempt to further explain this.) Hope you find this encouraging :-)

With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the template

Thanks for the vandalism template. I'll be sure to use it in future. GrimGary 06:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

disney incidents

You questioned the facts on the statement, so I just removed it as the appropriate article is already linked in that section. The Incidents at Disney parks article has all the documented details regarding major injuries and deaths that have occured at Disneyland and elsewhere. SpikeJones 23:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks! Buddhipriya 00:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is a Hindu?

You'll note I have reworded the list you created. My main goal was to change "Thus a Hindu could be defined as a person who:" into "Thus a Hindu could:" because the former sounded as if we were giving the formula for becoming a Hindu with 5 possible options; and I was afraid that such a list would become a magnet for every Hindu editor to add their personal reasons for considering themselves Hindu. Thus soon we would see "born in India", "believe in Ganesha" etc added to the list :-) I am hoping the rewording will instead simply indicate that Hindus come in diverse flavors.
I also combined some bullets of the list since the details of Hindu philosophy are better left to the Hinduism article; while Hindu deals better with the demographics and practices.
Finally, do you think it would be a better idea to mention a nastika (atheistic) school in addition to the dualist and non-dualist schools since that illustrates the broad possible range ? We can possibly remove the "subtle" variants, if needed. This is only a minor point and can be left for later/other editors.
Thanks for your help ! Abecedare 02:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

By atheistic, I was thinking of something like Samkhya or Carvaka. What do you think ? Abecedare 02:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me build up this reply with a series of edits. The short list is much better, I agree.

I think where you are going is to try to work in Samkhya or Carvaka pages. Perhaps good, but there are some terminology issues. Let me say that I do not know much about Cavaka, I would want to crack the books before answering on that. Regarding Samkhya, the page on Wiki is almost worthless as it fails to explain how the use of that term changed over time. In fact, Samkhya as a general term has little to do with whether or not one wishes to believe in a deistic system. In fact, different views within the general rubric of Samkhya take diametrically opposing points on deism, meaning the personification of the Divine as a personality or Lord (Ishvara). The confusion of Samkhya with "atheism" is common. It does not mean that. The term "na āstika" ("nāstika", simple English may write: "nastika") does not always mean atheist, either. It can simply mean "not pious" in addition to the way most people think of it ("not believing"). āstika means "believing" or "pious". Perhaps avoiding all of these technical terms would be a good idea and try to put the concept into plain English. For example, I think it is true to say that "Not all Hindus believe in a Divine Being." Is that what you are trying to get at? The wiki articles on Hinduism are generally of limited value, in my opinion. Has this raised more questions than it answered? Buddhipriya 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right about nastika not being same as atheism - I knew that but was still using a lazy shortcut :-)

My main point is that since the aim is to illustrate the broad range of thought that Hinduism can encompass, we should give examples of schools that are at the extremes (not same as extremist schools :-) ) - so perhaps reference can be made to Atheism in Hinduism article or the above mentioned schools. Of course, we will need to be as accurate as possible in labeling the chosen school atheistic, non-deistic etc. As you said this is particularly problematic for Samkhya, since it itself has evolved over time and has different strands of thought !

Perhaps the best definition of Hinduism is provided by Neti neti (this is tongue in cheek) Abecedare 03:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I had not seen the article on Atheism in Hinduism before but it looks not obviously wrong like the others. I think it would be fine to link to it for now. I would avoid falling into the maze of technical distinctions which has arisen around these questions. At the other extreme, I have in my hands a popular devotional book for English readers which contains a form in the back which one can fill in and sign in order to become an authorized Hindu. All that is needed is to send it in. Buddhipriya 03:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That's great ! Perhaps we should add an point to the article: A Hindu is ... "someone who fills in the form at the end of Book X and sends it to the authorized address" :-)

As for the "schools" - we can wait for other editors to take a look and chime in about the recent changes. They may have more serious objections to the edits, than this relatively minor point. Cheers. Abecedare 03:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflicts) One of the closest definitions of being of Hindu (though even this has some faults) is the acceptance of the Vedas in terms of scriptural authority. All the six darshanas and four main denominations today (Vaishava, Shaiva, Shakti, Smarta) generally believe that their sacred texts contain the essence of the Vedas and that in the current age Kali Yuga, they are easier to understand than the Vedas themselves. There is the odd exception, such as some South Indian Shaivist sects though, which only accept Tantric texts. Gizza^{Chat ©} 03:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

DaGizzaji, it is nice to hear from you. Regarding the role of the Vedas, you are quite right that they occupy a pre-eminent place. And as you mention, all the major groups claim that their scriptures (which often are of comparatively recent origin) are true renditions of Vedic authority. But as the Christians would say, "the Devil can cite the Bible to prove his point" (or something like that). And in fact if you look at the actual practices of these groups, they have virtually nothing in common with Vedic modes of worship. The distinction between Veda and Vedanta is like that between the Old Testament and New Testament. Christians read the Old Testament but they no longer sacrifice goats on Sunday. If you look at the lines of argument that many of the jingoists use on these pages, notice how often claims of "Vedic authority" are put in the front window to justify whatever claim is being made. You mention the Tantrikas, and that is a very good example. I have a very great respect for the Tantrikas, who have developed very sophisticated philosophical materials in addition to the nonsense published about them in Western sex books. But I would not characterize the Tantrika as practicing Vedic religion, if that means reading the Vedas and doing worship as is specified therein. As I mentioned in a post the other day, the Ganapatya tantrika scriptures number in excess of 100, and none of them have anything to do with the Vedas except by way of indirect claims of authority. For these reasons I would be cautious about making references to the Vedas the touchstone. Buddhipriya 03:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you. After much discussion, the main Hinduism page now says that the religion came from both Vedic (Aryan?) and local (Tantric/Indus Valley?) traditions. If one considers the various sahasranamas to be authorative, then it can be argued that a large portion of the Vedas are related to modern Hinduism such as Shiva-Rudra. In reality however, the only Vedic remnants are the yajñas that are only practised occasionally, the navagrahas who have diminished in importance but are still there and the Gayatri Mantra. OTOH, I think a lot of Upanishadic notions begin to creep into the Atharvaveda, which is the fourth Veda. Even then, the seemingly polytheistic Rig Veda contains the ekam sad bahudha quote, so the extent to which the Vedas influence modern Hinduism will always be debated. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be cautious about citing any of the Sahasranamas as having anything authoritative to say about Vedic materials. All of the great Sahasranamas are of relatively late composition, certainly post-Vedic, and are mainly the product of cultic groups. The figures of the divinities reflect as given in the Sahasranamas reflect very late developments in how those personalities eventually developed from Vedic precursors. For example, there are eight different Shiva Sahasranamas, and none of them has much to do with the precursor figure of Shiva (Rudra) as he appears in Vedic sources. R. K. Sharma has done a wonderful book comparing the eight versions (I have given a refernce to it in the Sahasranama article. But of course I agree completely with your main point, which I think is that most of the topics that are of central importance in the Vedas are no longer the axes around which modern practice revolves. Buddhipriya 20:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sai Baba website link removal

Hi

Just want to check why http://www.shirdi-sai-baba.com link was removed from Sai Baba page? This website is 100% relevant.

Are you guys kidding or playing a game?

Can you pls answer? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.167.141.217 (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for asking aobut link policies on Wikipedia. Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Buddhipriya 16:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nastika

I just glanced at the page and here are my top-of-the-head comments:

• Do we really need a separate pages on Astika and Nastika, especially if each is going to be a short article (as is likely, since the details of individual schools obviously will be discussed on their own page) ? Can't we have Nastika redirect to Astika, just as nonflammable redirects to flammable ?
• Is there a reason to comment out the references (footnotes), or is that an oversight ?
• Giving only the literal meaning of nastika as "non-pious" is perhaps misleading, since when used in the technical philosophical sense it surely does not imply that Buddhists/Jains/Carvakas are non-pious (although that presumably was how the initial link arose)! To give an analogy Hasidic also literally means "pious" but it would still be wrong to equate astika and hasidic or use them interchangably, since their usage clearly goes beyond the literal meaning (although isn't the similarity remarkable! :-) )

Hope these points are helpful. Abecedare 03:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very helpful. There is another derivation of the word which I know is used but I cannot find a citation for it. In that derivation it is from na + asti (with a short "a") literally meaning "it is not". This is a technical term in Buddhism referring to denial of existence of the Atman. I did not put it in but I can, and try to find a reference.

• I am not sure about combining the articles as I have not really looked at the other. Let me do that and think about it.
• I am not sure what you mean by commenting out the references. I certainly did not intend to do that and cannot see in the code where I did. Can you please restore them if you see them?
• You are right about the opening not being clear about "pious". I will look for more citations that may allow me to expand the opening.

Buddhipriya 04:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I just uncommented the references.

By the way, I am not disputing the etymology of the term as "not pious" or "non-believer"; that sounds about right to me - although we can go further and say that as (asti?) means "is" or "to be " etc if we can find suitable sources. My point is that it is important to distinguish between the etymology of a term and its meaning in current usage(s) (even though some people on wikipedia take the proto/literal/etymological meaning to be the only/true meaning - "Hindu" being a familiar example.)

The astika article itself has several far-fetched statements and can be improved. This IMO is ever more the reason to merge the two articles since it will make it easier to write and maintain a single article; and explaining nastika requires one to explain the concept of astika anyway. However that is not my decision to make unilaterally - if you concur, we can place a merge tag on the two articles and see what other editors think. Abecedare 04:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the astika article and see what you mean. It is a good example of a "near-miss" in that it actually has some of the right ideas, but not put precisely. There is also some confusion arising because of the use of simple English rather than IAST to write the words. I know that you think I am a crank regarding IAST, but this is actually a good example of why it matters. Because of the way Sanskrit compounds are formed, the word nāstika could mean two completely different things, which can only be understood in context. It might mean "not believing" (na + āstika), that is, not believing in the Vedas, which is why the technical term in the philosophy books is "heterodox".

On the other hand, it might mean "an adherent of the it-is-not philosophy" (na + asti + ka). This is grammatically a completely unrelated usage. Speakers of modern Hindi reflexively think it means something like "atheist" because in Hindi na + asti means "He is not" (meaning God). In Buddhist technical usage, it can mean "it is not" (meaning the atman). I will work on the nastika article some more to work some of this in, but I need to find citations. I know it is true, but my opinion is not worth much. We also should ask others what they think about combining the articles. Buddhipriya 05:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A correction: I don't believe you are a crank regarding IAST :-) Abecedare 05:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been checking sources regarding the derivation question, and am now sure I can prove that the derivation is from āstika and not asti. I reached this conclusion by searching for the opposite term "orthodox" and consistently find that the word used is āstika and not astika. IAST triumphant! Based on this search I now agree that combining the two articles on astika and nastika would be a good idea. I would like to learn the procedure to do such a thing. Can you explain it to me so I could do it? What is the notice process? Buddhipriya 05:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya, the instructions for first proposing a merge and then carrying it out are at WP:Merge. I think Astika +Nastika merge should be non-controversial, given the little attention the two pages receive. Let me know if I can be of any help. Thanks. Abecedare 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have set the ball rolling. fell free to chime in, especially if you object to the merger! Abecedare 23:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I have agreed in writing. I have edited Nastika to try to address the points you raised. How is it coming along? Buddhipriya 23:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the concurrence. Nastika seems a better title to me too. We should give other editors at least a couple of days to respond, before actually performing any merge. In the meantime, it may be better to resist the urge to edit the two articles; since the content will probably need to be reorganized soon anyway. :-) Abecedare 00:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do, I will fix one book title and then leave them both alone until you raise the issue next. Thank you for all your help on this. Buddhipriya 00:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

By "resist the urge" I only meant "I will resist the urge". Ah, the perils of non-face-to-face-communication. :-) Abecedare 00:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		In regards to the development of Template:DisplayTranslations, I award you this barnstar for sharing your vast knowledge regarding Indic languages, for sharing it in a patient, thoughtful and tireless way, for sharing it for the betterment of a broad array of WP articles, and for sharing it across a cultural wall that too often is barbed with bitterness and hostility. Your tireless, kind heart gives me hope, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hindu Deities Vandalism

Namaskar Shri. Buddhipriya ji

First let me clarify that I am not aware of how to communicate with a user as I had never done it. So updating this page. I would appreciate if you can guide me here.

Now coming to the point, I am not sure why you have shot the third warning messages to me for updating page "Hindu deities". (This third update was nothing but a spelling correction!!) On other side of content, one who loves God/Deity and pray them can never be ignorant towards their denigrations. As you are an editor that does not mean you have rights to supress the thoughts of other devotees. I hope you will respect the feelings of others and understand that protecting good image of deity is a practical way of worship of deity. Mere writing long articles and keeping mum while one defames Lord Ganesha is NOT attribute of a real devotee.

With regards,

Anit

28-February-2007

Thank you for contacting me. On Wikipedia you may contact other users either by placing a general remark on the talk page for a specific article (if your comment is something that others would benefit from participating in) or by placing a remark on a specific user's talk page, as you did in this case (which is quite appropriate if you are mainly wanting to clarify a point with that person). In either case, the content can be seen by anyone and often others will be able to contribute a point in ways that may not have been considered at first. To keep conversations intact it is usually best to keep questions and answers on the same page.

If there is a disagreement about content on a page, the best approach would be to raise the question on the talk page for that article so that you may build agreement for your views. The need to cite reliable sources is a Wikipedia guideline, and currently in the Hinduism Project there has been a call to upgrade the level of sourcing on articles in general. You could help with that effort by identifying pages which lack reliable sources and raising the question of sourcing for any page where you feel that the facts are not right. You are completely correct that in matters of faith all points of view must be respected. At the same time we must work together to ensure that a high level of quality is maintained for all statements in encyclopedia articles. I look forward to your comments on the talk pages for the particular articles which you feel can be improved. Buddhipriya 17:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Namaskar Shri. Buddhipriya ji

Dhanyavad for your prompt response. I appreciate your efforts for maintianing high quality of articles. I support this cause. But you have not answered my query that why have you decided to give me a "final warning" for a change of spelling. I expect you to reconsider that as I take such remarks very seriously.

Responding to your appeal, I will definately work on those lines.

With regards,

Anit

28-February-2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anit.pimple (talk • contribs) 18:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

The warning system at Wikipedia is based upon the idea of graduated responses which go from mild to more strong based on the number of reversions which have been done. The language of these warnings is standardized, and there are actually a great many of them. I too find it confusing to find the right one at all times. To help you find links to the documentation I will add one of the standard infoboxes for these warnings here. Most of the warnings have three or four levels.

Warning templates PageName is optional {{subst:uw-vandalism1|PageName}} ~~~~ (unintentional vandalism/test) {{subst:uw-delete1|PageName}} ~~~~ (unintentional removal of content) {{subst:uw-vandalism2|PageName}} ~~~~ (suitable for intentional nonsense or disruption) {{subst:uw-delete2|PageName}} ~~~~ (variant for removal of content) {{subst:uw-vandalism3|PageName}} ~~~~ ("please stop" for use after level 2 warning) {{subst:uw-delete3|PageName}} ~~~~ (please stop removing content) {{subst:uw-vandalism4|PageName}} ~~~~ (last warning for vandalism) {{subst:uw-delete4|PageName}} ~~~~ (last warning for removing content) {{subst:uw-vandalism4im|PageName}} ~~~~ (only warning; for severe or grotesque vandalism only) {{subst:uw-delete4im|PageName}} ~~~~ (only warning; for many blankings in a short period of time) See additional templates and examples of output

When users make series of edits, it is the cumulative edits that will determine how the admins eventually think of things. Generally it is easy to nip a warning series in the bud if you simply take the issue to the talk page for an article upon receipt of a first warning rather than continuing to edit the point into the main article. Since anyone can warn anyone for anything, first warnings are as common as flies and in many cases they are mainly intended to get the attention of a user in a way that complies with the Wikipedia warning system. Has this clarified anything? If not please continue to dialog so we may work together effectively.

I have a great love for Ganeshji and certainly do not want to see him abused by anyone. If you are eager to draw more attention to a particular issue I will look forward to learning more about it, as I know nothing of the specific facts which you are raising. ॐ गं गणपतये नमः Buddhipriya 18:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Namaskar Buddhipriya ji

Firstly let me be very frank but still I do not see any reason to call my spelling change any kind of Vandalism.

Second, you had asked for particular issues of abuse of Lord Ganesha. Visit links below to view a few of them.

http://www.hindujagruti.org/hinduism/festivals/ganesh/gallery.php?level=album&id=13 http://www.hindujagruti.org/denigrations/ (Same link you objected)

Successful Protests against abuse http://www.hindujagruti.org/denigrations/successful/index.php?id=17 http://www.hindujagruti.org/denigrations/successful

There are links provided of the sources. Hindu deities are being abused on such mass level but we are so ignorant that we hardly raise our voice against them.

Also there was a scam of rupees 24 lacs in Sri Siddhivinayak Temple.

You can drop me a mail if you are interested in knowing more and willing to get alerts for such incidences.

Regards

Anit

Thank you for your dialog on these matters. There may be two different issues here which could be addressed independently of one another. One issue would be the specific content of these matters, which is best done on the talk pages for the specific articles in order to encourage others to express their points of view on them, helping to reach agreement on what should be done about the articles themselves. Another issue which may be more general is the best response to content of any type which may be viewed as disrespectful by some. That general issue could affect many pages and I am not sure where the best place to discuss it would be. Perhaps the Talk page for the Hinduism Project would be a good place to raise the question, but I have not really considered it and so may be ignorant of where it to do it.

There is no question that cultural variations in attitudes about religion often result in apparent disrespect. Hinduism is not alone in this matter, as witnessed by the controversies over cartoons pertaining to our Islamic brothers which raged across the world and resulted in street fights in Europe. Western cultures which have historically emphasized concepts such as free speech quite correctly protect the rights of those who wish to express various views. Unfortunately, to people of faith often such depictions are offensive. Consider a similar example of the Christians who have been offended more than once by the depiction of Jesus in movies. In some cases they have organized protests against movie theaters, etc. They certainly have the right to do this so long as their protests conform with whatever laws pertain to their locale.

From this perspective, then, it is quite right for those who offended by Western or other depictions of Hinduism to present their points of view in a responsible manner. This helps raise awareness of the issues among Westerners who may not realize the offense that some of their depictions give.

So if we can surely agree that such counter-arguments are valid, the next problem is the best way to include different points of view in a specific Internet project such as Wikipedia. I am qute new to Wikipedia, having been an editor here for less than a month. For me to claim authority on Wikipedia policies would be the height of foolishness. During my time here I have come to see it as primarily an experiment in social behavior. It seems that in an environment where anyone can edit anything, and every schoolchild has equal authority to counter any pandit, movement toward quality and reliability depends most on how well those of us who are people of good faith work together with one another, as you have rightly suggested by your offer to continue communiation on these matters.

It seems that disagreements about which web sites should be linked to are common. I have tried to find clear cut guidelines on external links, but the vast number of them defies easy categorization. I have been trying to learn about external link policies by reading the WikiProjectSpam, which seems to be taking an increasingly hard line on external links. I would welcome your views on these matters.

Incidentally I just noticed that you may have inadvertently made your most recent comment without having logged on, a common error which unfortunately could be misunderstood. It is best to always log on and use a single account for your contributions, or those who track such matters may misinterpret honest errors. Buddhipriya 19:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Namaskar Buddhipriya ji

You reply hardly gives me any idea about 'your' opinion. Here is one more important point you touched upon, that is Muslims and Christians are very alert about the defamation of their faith and Hindus are equally ignorant. When there was one cartoon drawn, whole world was shaken.

Whereas there are so many defamations even more serious than those cartoons but we are still in process of judging and thinking?

Images like these must boil blood of real devotee.

http://www.hindujagruti.org/hinduism/festivals/ganesh/gallery.php?level=picture&id=55

And he/she will definitely prefer to protest with whatever ways they have. Putting this in wikipedia was a way to reach people. But unfortunately I have face warnings. But I am sure Lord Ganesha is looking at my small efforts and he only will suggest me ways out of this.

With gratitude to Sri Ganesha

Anit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anit.pimple (talk • contribs) 20:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

According to the guidelines given for user pages these pages should not be used for discussion about political matters. As such, I think it best not to be drawn into a general discussion on such things. I urge you to raise specific questions related to article content on the talk pages for those articles in order to build consensus on how to best write well-referenced encyclopedia articles on specific topics. I am making efforts to comply with Wikipedia policy. Buddhipriya 21:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Incarnations of Visnu

I understand you removed it by mistake. I appreciate your humility. No need of apologies. Jbarot 15:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks

		The Minor Barnstar
		For your honest and open approach to things, I hereby present you with the minor barnstar. Your good faith is a refreshing breeze in the often troll-infested maze of "Aryan" topics. dab (𒁳) 19:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I have been on Wikipedia for less than a month and it has been a fast ride so far. Buddhipriya 19:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

sri tattvanidi

Dear Sir,

Thanks for noticing the additions so soon.

You can get the book from: Director prasaranga University of Mysore Manasagangothri Mysore-570006

you can also get the books from online sources like https://www.dkagencies.com/doc/Home.html and serch for mummadi.

I also feel the title srittavanidi for your post on ganapati is not right.

If you need any more info ot if you feel i should post all the 32 paintings along with the original kannada texts, kindly let me know. raja

Fairy Tale edit

I replaced the link to *Art Passions Fairy Tale Art - Classic Fairy Tale Illustrations that you removed from the Fairy Tale page. First, it's clearly identified that it is Fairy Tale illustrations and therefore no one is going to go there looking for Fairy Tales. Second, I don't think the links to Fairy Tale text should be the sole criteria and neither do you, if it were you would probably not have included sites with copied text but that are mainly intended to generate income through affiliate programs. Those are the head reasons. The heart reason is that I have been spending my free time since 1998 creating this site, doing the scanning, buying antique fairy tale books, and I'm not doing it for my cats. I'm not leading anyone there to sell them anything, unlike sites you did leave in external links.

I see that your vision is a place to contribute "serious" material but I invite you to rethink that. As long as Wikipedia is an open door, and I hope it remains an open door, it will never be accepted as a valid source unless the person citing wikipedia follow the same path as the articles cited. Removing everything that isn't serious (i.e., the fairy tale link) moves Wikipedia ever more toward its transmogrification into an academic hydrant-pissing contest and don't we have enough of that soullessness?

In short, I put my heart into the fairy tales, I want to share them with the world (notwithstanding the many images from my website that now find homes in wikipedia commons), and even if you don't share these values, I ask that you respect my efforts and not remove this link from Fairy Tale.

Thank you.

Xineann 05:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xineann (talk • contribs) 05:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your message. I am sure that you are very sincere. If you have disagreements about what sites should be included in external links, feel free to raise these points on the talk pages for the articles involved to help build agreement with other editors on approach. You are very correct to note that there is inconsistency in the level of academic content on many of the folklore pages, which makes it difficult for those who are primarily interested in one aspect or another to get real value from the articles. These general guidelines on links, may be relevant. I suggest that you take any further discussion of this to the talk page for the artciel so other editors can see your views. Regarding other sites that may be in the links, I have added nothing to what was there. I have been removing links to some sites when they jump out at me as being particularly clear examples of sites that fail to meet the tests outlined for WP:EL.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Buddhipriya 15:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha beyond Hinduism

I have started this new article and would like you help me expand it. I intend to the role of Ganapati in Buddhism , Jainism n also his presence in other countries like Sri lanka, Thailand , Japan etc. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz 12:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am so glad that you have created the article and that you are asking to collaborate on it! It is a wonderful subject. Perhaps what I could do first would be to add a section for book references. There are several good books that include material on this, with very beautiful color plates. Since you have asked for participation I will go ahead and add a few that are available fairly widely with ISBN numbers. I was pleased to see that Wikipedia has a very good system for handling citations with ISBN numbers. So long as the ISBN number is included, a user can click on it to get to a variety of book search services to find the item in libraries and online booksellers. I will add at least one or two references today just to get some quality items up. Buddhipriya 18:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Narada & Krishna

Hello Buddhipriya, I'd be happy to collaborate on the Narad Bhakti Sutra article. At the moment it's neither one thing or the other. What wdo you think about removing the masses of sanskrit and turing it into a more encyclopedic article containing quotations and disussions of the main points and different philosophical viewpoints on the text etc... is this what you were thinking of? I'm not so much into the wikisource idea as the straight text already exists elsewhere on the web.

In regards to the chronology of Krishna's days on earth I'm not sure if you've seen the discussion on the Krishna talk page? I agree with Abecedare's point, but just didn't want to loose the whole section. The nearest I could find to good reference is the one linked in here (Dating Krishna). Hope it didn't sound like I was shouting. Best Wishes, ys, Gouranga(UK) 10:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've completed 'my pass' on the Narada Bhakti Sutra - it is from one source only at the moment so if you want to compare it to the other source you have and add/remove parts etc... that would be great. You might want to replace some the quotations I have given with those in the other work to create a balance? (I'm not sure how much they differ?). Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 12:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will begin going over it, but will do so slowing over the next few weeks. I have a copy of the version you have quoted on order which will make it easier for me to compare. I have already seen at least a couple of points where the commentators take different spins on things. I will also search for references. This will be a refreshing change of pace from some of the political debates that are so tiresome. I do not know this scripture well but I like it very much and so will use this as an opportunity to study it in more detail. So I will go slowly and will add things here and there during March, most likely. Please keep the page on watchlist and by all means clean up any errors that I introduce. Buddhipriya 17:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does make a refreshing change when a chance for positive collaboration comes along. I appreciate your approach. In terms of IAST I like reading it, (I find it a good mid-ground between the two alphabets) but have never made the endeavour to get into typing in it online. You won't have any complaints from me for using IAST all over the place. I'll look on the article and add extra info where I can. Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 21:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I work with IAST and Devanagari quite a bit with document composition so it is actually harder for me to think and work in simple English than in IAST. Regarding other possible articles where I would benefit from having another set of eyes, the fact that the article on Tantra was the collaboration of the week made me look at that article (with some alarm at the level of sourcing). That in turn led me to Kundalini and Chakra, both of which seem to me to need an overhaul. I know you are busy, but if you could put those pages on your watchlist I would appreciate it. There are some very strong POV issues arising as I try to add references to the actual source materials, as opposed to recent Western interpretations. I could do some strong sourcing on those articles but hesitate to go into the swamp alone. Buddhipriya 22:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your comments on my user talk page, and a linking note

Hello, I replied to your comments on my user talk page. Thanks for the kind words. If I may make a suggestion, I would advise looking for a word other than "nonsensical" to describe a current Wikipedia policy, because that could trigger an unproductive emotional reaction from the policy's proponents. Yes, the policy in question does seem rather nonsensical to me too, but merely saying so won't sound very convincing to people to whom the policy makes sense. Instead one has to find out what they do believe currently, and argue on the basis of that. It's hard to change a person's beliefs, but sometimes we can show them that what they are doing in one area is contradicting what they believe in some other area. In other words, to change another person's behavior, one has to show that person how the change we are recommending is more in keeping with that person's values than whatever that person is currently doing. And yes, this is often difficult, but it is much simpler than changing a person's values.

You may wish to add this to your list of links:

• User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia

Almost everything a person could need to know about editing on Wikipedia is reachable from that page, and I think easier to find there than by many other means.

I noticed you are linking to some Wikipedia pages as external links rather than as wikilinks. For example, instead of:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings

you could say:

• Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings

but of course you can use whatever link style you prefer. --Teratornis 21:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful tips! I am new to Wikipedia and am still learning the various link formats. You are correct to focus on ways our language can affect the progress of debate, thank you for the suggestions. Buddhipriya 22:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Also worth noting: the final authority on Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, appears to hold as an article of unquestioning faith that everyone must be able to edit everything. He even invites you to edit his user page. However, that strikes me as a bit disingenuous, because he also mentions that lots of people watch his user page and quickly revert unconstructive edits. Wales' philosophy might make sense in the "capital city" of high-profile pages patrolled by armies of trained experts, especially pages that large numbers of Wikipedians can understand, but what about out in the "provinces" and "hinterlands" of Wikipedia? There aren't enough trained eyeballs to police 1.7+ million pages. Furthermore, there is no obvious indication, when looking at a page, of how much scrutiny it is getting. Text written by some eminent scholar in an article's subject looks the same as text written by a teenaged prankster. Wikipedia:100,000 feature-quality articles#What would it take to do this by the end of 2007? says there might only be five Wikipedians qualified to contribute to an article as specialized and well-developed as Aldol reaction. Can those five guard the article against blatant (or worse, subtle) vandalism by potentially innumerable hordes of vandals? And more importantly, will they? It seems Wales' philosophy of equal access for all must eventually drive some (large?) fraction of experts away. At some point, Wikipedia is going to have to institute a system of editor rankings, so we can tell by looking at an article which parts originated with experts or have received recent expert scrutiny. If an article is edited by an editor of no standing, the article should be marked as on probation pending a re-review by a qualified editor. There needs to be some kind of flagging or warning that what you are reading has or has not been expertly checked. --Teratornis 15:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, everything you say here is absolutely true and must be repeated early and often. I will begin citing you as an authority that "No matter how efficient the experts are, they cannot win against the numerically superior barbarian hordes under a system of equal access..." which sums it up perfectly. I like your idea about having some system for editor rankings and I see no reason why such a system could not be implemented using objective statistical inputs as at least one factor, such as ratio of reverted to retained edits. New voices must have a way to be heard, but they do not have to be given equal weight with established editors who have proven they add more value than they take away. The article on conflicts involving expert editors includes a number of funny (tragic?) stories where people making novel claims with no reliable sources have held experts at bay.

Via a link you provided me with I found this Harvard Business School article which so far is one of the best current reviews on these issues that I have found. That article has a quote from Nicholas Carr, a former senior editor at the Harvard Business Review, posted on July 10, 2006:

"For some of us, the popular online encyclopedia has become more interesting as an experiment in emergent bureaucracy than in emergent content.... Wikipedia is beginning to look something like a post-revolutionary Bolshevik Soviet, with an inscrutable central power structure wielding control over a legion of workers."

Buddhipriya 17:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a great article you found by actually following the links I merely pointed to. The history of Wikipedia makes clear that over time, there is a tendency to add steadily more protection, for example after the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. It's easy to see how Wikipedia locked its thinking early in favor of openness, given the spectacular success of Wikipedia after the equally spectacular failure of Nupedia. But Wikipedia is less open now than it once was; anonymous and newly registered users cannot create new articles. How that discourages the vandalism of existing pages I cannot fathom. It's probably just a matter of time until some vandal creates another Seigenthaler-type controversy, since the ability of vandals to do this sort of thing has hardly been checked, and then Wikipedia will belatedly introduce more protection, futher relaxing its populist anti-intellectualism, and making "some animals more equal than others" after all.

The paragraphs about the plight of experts are telling. Expertise is in fact a very fragile and tenuous thing. Imagine the one lone voice of expertly trained reason attempting to calm a rioting mob, or simply trying to dispel one emotionally appealing logical fallacy after another. There is a reason why experts tend to retreat to cloistered institutions of higher learning - so they don't have to keep wasting their time trying to beat the rabble at their own game. Creation-evolution controversy#Debates briefly overviews the fondness creationists have for debating scientists; creationists cannot win in the process of science, where claims must stand or fall based on the evidence. But creationists can do very well in the information-deprived environment of public debate, where the real-time constraint and the limits of one opponent's personal expertise can allow a rhetorical trickster to "win" even while being wrong. After all, most scientists haven't received much if any training in the art of debate, so they cannot always recognize and dispel an opponent's carefully prepared logical fallacies within the arbitrarily allotted time. Science works better because it doesn't depend on personal charisma or swaying the audience with emotional appeals. Instead, scientists take all the time they need to analyze arguments and evidence, and continually re-analyze them from more perspectives. Over time, the final result is more likely to be accurate than the result of extemporaneous responses to prepared trick questions.

Experts are trained to do their jobs, which generally involve advancing the boundaries of knowledge, filling in gaps of knowledge, or plying a trade via standards of practice accepted by their guild. They often aren't up to speed with the apologetics of their domain of knowledge, and they may have little idea of how to prove their belief system to the man in the street. As a result, creationists have been known to fluster and embarrass scientists who naively agree to debate them, but without specific preparation in the types of prepared rhetorical tricks the creationist will spring during the debate. I read somewhere that even some expert Flat earth proponents can "win" debates against scientists. This is similar to the way a high-pressure salesman can pressure a "mark" by rattling off one prepared argument after another, faster than the surprised mark can see the way through each successive trick.

Wikipedia, then, can be for the expert something like the Cultural Revolution experience of being made to go scrub toilets with the proletariat. In the real world, expertise has traditionally been at least partially protected from too much direct content with the unwashed masses. Experts wouldn't be able to get much done if they were continuously surrounded by average people who question their every claim, particularly when understanding the claims might require years of specialized study. Experts have to limit much of their contact to fellow experts, or they end up wasting their expertise. --Teratornis 19:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

Can you please explain why you have accused me of a POV statement here [4]? Please look at the Sokal article referenced, it is available online. Kak is clearly accused of practicing pseudo-science by the world's foremost expert on identifying and classifying PS. Please explain yourself. Hornplease 00:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for getting in touch. I see that I am the second editor who felt that your change to existing sourced material was inappropriate. prior revert for "poisoning the well" The effect of your edit is to put a 180-degree change on the comment being cited. Since no direct source text is provided in the article, if you feel the statement is a misquote please provide a link to the source materials on the talk page for the article. Please build more consensus before re-reverting the edit as you did with the other editor. Buddhipriya 00:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A direct source link is available here [5]. I see you did not bother to so much as google the reference at the end of the article. . Please consider reading the article or trying to look for it before making an accusation. I am returning it to the more accurate version. Hornplease 00:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please direct further discussion related to the article contents to the talk page for that article so other other editors will have the benefit of your thinking. I voluntarily follow a one-revert rule for situations like this, so will not re-revert your edit. I encourage you to use the talk page for the article to build consensus when disagreements take place rather than simply continue to revert changes you do not like. Buddhipriya 01:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you choose to get snippy: this is not a discussion about the article, or it would be on the talkpage. I initiated this discussion to question your accusation of POV; and this became a discussion about how you chose to make a revert (and an accusation) without making any effort to do the required research. I encourage you to attempt to make that effort in future. Hornplease 01:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you have taken offense. Regarding use of the article talk page to build consensus rather than re-reverting changes you do not like, this BOLD, revert, discuss cycle summarizes an approach I feel comfortable with. Thanks again for getting in touch. I have moved your comments to the talk page for the artile so other editors will benefit from seeing your views. Buddhipriya 01:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am avoiding getting involved with the Subhash Kak page (although I have it watchlisted and follow the changes there), since the page is a can of worms and IMO too positively slanted toward Kak than any article written by an expert in say Britannica or Encarta would be. Of course wikipedia cannot, by design, rely on unpublished "expert" opinion and its articles need to be based on published sources. That policy works brilliantly for mainstream topics (including controversial ones, such as Intelligent design), since all aspects of such topics have usually been discussed in print. However for subjects that are only of specialized and marginal interest, this doesn't hold true. For instance, X can propose in a press conference that his "latest research has proved" that Ganesha was an historical figure and in fact, the first example of inter-species organ transplant (hope you recognize that I am picking a completely facetious example on purpose), and if X happens to be, say, an Indian doctor who has "made it in America", a lot of (especially Indian) press will give the "discovery" wide coverage. On the other hand no serious medical researcher or historian will even care to refute the notion in print, let alone write an academic article on the subject. So wikipedia's article on X, perforce, will have only one side (albeit the nonsensical side) of the story.
Coming back to Kak: His writings in fields of which I have (real-life) knowledge are, to put it bluntly, unadulterated nonsense ^[1], and I have not seen any evidence that he fares better in other areas where I have no personal claim of knowledge or education. Of course, the previous sentence is only my opinion (i.e., original research in wikipedia terminology) and as such deserves no place on Subhash Kak's page or any other article on wikipedia. But since there are so many other topics on wikipedia that I consider more interesting and worthwhile, I choose to devote my attention to them instead.
^[1]: I know this description will sound uncharacteristically harsh, but honestly some of his published writings would earn even a high-school student failing grades. See [6] and [7] for discussion on the latest example. These sources are non-reliable for wikipedia purposes, but you are free to use them to form your personal opinion. Abecedare 03:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I started watching the Kak page only after he came up in connection with the Ashvamedha nonsense, which was my first exposure to the Wikipedia community wars over "Vedic wisdom". I have read nothing of Kak's writings and had never heard of him before now. What little I have read here about his claims of Vedic history seem to me to be complete nonsense. I understand that on the article pages my opinions count for nothing, so it does not seem helpful to get involved in the direct conflict about him. I am certainly incompetent to evaluate any scientific claims. I have been watching some of the edit wars on various pages related to Aryan history, etc., and find there is frequent departure from rationality on many of the topics. I foolishly tried to be a moderate voice on the Indigenous Aryan conflict and was summarily ignored, as was the official mediator for the case. So I realize there is little point in throwing myself into the midst of things like this.

By the way, I hope you will look again at the summary of the IAST discussion we had and delete anything in the list of points I made trying to find agreements between us on IAST. I think we were close to having something we could both agree on, in which case it could be shared with others to try to build further consensus. Buddhipriya 03:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The Ashwamedha discussion was also how I first heard of Kak. Have been following the push-pull on his page since. I have read some of the Vedic history/science/origins debate on wikipedia, but usually I avoid joining in as a participant since the dicussions are likely to be aggravating and there is only a minimal chance of even a temporary resolution, given the entrenched opinions and ideological beliefs involved.

As for the IAST discussion, I will read through again and get back to you in a day or too (too lazy, right now :-) )

By the way, do you have email enabled on wikipedia (you can create a dummy account exclusively for wikipedia, in order to preserve your privacy) ? Abecedare 03:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not thought to enable the email interface and do wish to preserve my privacy. Is there a specific benefit to setting things up in that way that you think would be desirable? Buddhipriya 03:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You certainly shouldn't use your regular email ID for wikipedia email if you value your privacy, as you should. In my case I have set up a gmail account under a pseudonym which I use only for this purpose. I asked only because if you did have an email account set up, I would have emailed you my above rant (since it was an off-topic "philosophical" essay that was not directed towards improving any particular wikipedia articles), rather than place it on talk pages ... of course that could be an incentive not to set up an email account:-) I hope you pardon the frankness, but just so there is no possible misunderstanding, I'd like to clarify that I have no intention of learning your real-life identity, or indeed revealing mine. Cheers. Abecedare 04:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The insanity that surrounds Wikipedia editing extends even to articles that I expected would be quiet backwaters, such as Samkhya. I made an edit there simply saying that Samkhya has undergone development over the centuries, cited by a study of the topic, and quickly was challenged on the talk page by someone who summarily told me that I was misinformed and that I should go read my Gita. Buddhipriya 03:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As one learns on wikipedia, nothing is non-controversial :-) Abecedare 04:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop being an Idiot

How is "evidence sufficient" to make "identification" that I am a "sock-puppet"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Randomatom001 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Documentation regarding User:Randomatom001 as a suspected sock of User:Maleabroad is available at User_talk:Abecedare#Socks, User_talk:Aldux#Sock_puppets, and here. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Maleabroad. Buddhipriya 17:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

VANDAL

You call yourself a Hindu? I was deleting anti-Hindu view on the webpages but you just keep reverting my material. YOU ARE AN IMPOSTER! Stop calling me a sock-puppet as I am not.

(The above unsigned comment is documented here)

Documentation on User:Maleabroad's newest sock User:Algorithm0 is available at User_talk:Abecedare#Does_this_look_odd_to_you.3F. Buddhipriya 00:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am not sure yet if User:Wikifect is a sock of Mr. M, but as my past record shows, I am often slow to catch on. :) Will keep a watch. Abecedare 02:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Draft1 is already blocked (check his block log). Can you move his entry to the relevant section (I don't want to cause a edit conflict). Thanks. Abecedare 04:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure Draft1 is blocked? There is no block message on the user page. I moved the entry as you asked. Buddhipriya 04:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

A block message is not a reliable indicator of the block status, since anybody (including non-admins) can place/remove it. The only way to definitely know if a user is blocked (or has been blocked in the past) is to look at his "block log". Similarly you can check when the user's account was created, or which images they have uploaded by checking the "User log". The "vandal" template provides easy links to both these special pages. Incidentally the same principle also applies to protection templates on article pages, admin claims on user pages etc. Abecedare 04:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not know that. I will stop adding to the page now, as I have been going over the historical logs trying to see frequent haunts and themes. Buddhipriya 04:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Christian Right work page

Good suggestion. The last time I tried to set one of these up I did it wrong. Could you please create the page and post a link on the discussion page? Sorry for the extra work. This time I'll nake a note on how to do it on my user page. Thanks.--Cberlet 13:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for getting in touch. In my most recent post I actually made two different suggestions, so I am unsure which one you are describing as "good". :) One suggestion was to use a specific resolution method involving a work list, which really should only be set up if the parties involved have agreed to use that particular tool. I would not suggest that you go straight to using that method unless other parties also think it would be helpful, as then the argument could just change focus to whether or not the list approach was good or not rather than to working on the list.

The second suggestion was that you consider getting in touch with the friendly folks at the Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal to invite someone to enter the discussion as a neutral third party. The Medcab is an informal group, as opposed to the Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee or the Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee, both of which use more formal processes. If informal mediation with Medcab fails you can still take the case to one of those two formal committees. A request for help from Medcab must come from one of the parties involved in the conflict (e.g., you) and cannot be initiated by a potential mediator. If you open a Medcab case, a work page will be created automatically for you as part of the dispute resolution process used by Medcab. Here is an example of a standard Medcab work page, which is used to track discussions in a standardized way by Medcab mediators: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-11_Ohio_State_University.

Does this clarify my suggestions? If you wish to discuss any of these ideas further, I would be happy to hear from you again. And thank you for trying to take steps to reduce the conflict and work collaboratively with other editors. It will all work out OK in the long run. Buddhipriya 17:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

IAST

I think our views match to such a large extent, that the isolated point on where we (possibly) differ has perhaps been amplified in our discussions. I'll list my opinion on use of IAST below, so that we can judge if we do have any substantial difference of opinion in practice (i.e. not at a "philosophical" level, which may be irrelevant to our editing at wikipedia). In my view:

• IAST should be specified when:

1. a term is defined in the lead,
2. its etymology is traced,
3. perhaps when it is used for the first time in the article (although this should not be done for every Indian term, especially which are wikilinked and therefore the IAST information is available in their main article)
4. Transliteration should be preserved in any quoted text; i.e. if the original uses IAST, we have to quote correctly. added later, see PPS below

• In the rest of the article the Indian terms should be spelled out using only the standard 26 english letters.
• When Sanksrit shlokas/mantras etc are cited, it is ok to use only IAST and leave out standard english transliteration. The reason for this being that it would be too repetitive to provide the (1) standard English transliteration, (2) the IAST transliteration and (3) English translation ... since including the english translation is a no-brainer (for English wikipedia), if we need to provide only one transliteration IAST is certainly preferable, since it is richer in information.

So leaving aside, any issues regarding why-we-think-what-we-think, is there anything you would change in the above formulation ? Note: I am not really attempting to convince you of my view (or asking you to convert me to IASTranism :-) ) but rather trying to gauge where we differ on this issue.
PS: I realize that my note on the Nastika talk page hurt your feelings. I used the wikipedia short-cut jargon in terming your analysis not incorrect but "OR"; I can see how that comment can come across as accusatory rather than an objective statement. I apologize for the same. Abecedare 01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
PPS: I added point 4 after reading at your comments. I very strongly agree with this as a matter of acdemic integrity, but had forgotten to list it earlier. Abecedare 02:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

---

You are always very clear and helpful in how you go about exchanging views, which I appreciate very much. It is very helpful to see your points so clear. I realize that I may not have clearly thought through my own views, so let me try now. This may be disorderly, but I have less experience with the Wiki environment so must start with my own beliefs.

1. IAST is the academic standard for the romanization of Sanskrit.

2. There is the potential for significant information loss if IAST is not used, and the nature of the loss in meaning may not be obvious. I just had the opportunity to review a source text for the Narada Bhakti Sutra that someone placed online and it was almost completely worthless due to use of simple English.

3. If we are to ever have credibility we must get to a point where an Indologist would look at a Wiki page and see that it is not obviously wrong. That requires IAST. Other disciplines such as mathematics allow the use of special notation on pages, so why can't we? I use the word "wrong" because that is how Indologists often see simple English.

4. Based on all of those points, I believe that IAST should be encouraged as the standard of practice for all content. Those who cannot add IAST should not worry about it, but those who can should not be discouraged from doing it.

5. If an editor has added IAST, before reverting it the reversion should be specifically discussed with that editor in order to understand if there was some particular reason why the editor felt the IAST added value to the argument. In the nastika case, my entire point made no sense without IAST. The equivalent in a math article would be removal of some symbol in an equation because it was too confusing.

6. Virtually all of the books in my library that may make good citations for this project are in IAST or Devanagari. If I am to make a quotation of something, to change the IAST would require some process of converting the text to simple English, and I do not know how to do that. I do not think there is a generally-accepted way to do it, since IAST is the standard. So my conversion of the reliable source to simple English would amount to changing the source. Therefore any quotation that uses IAST should be preserved.

7. At a minimum I certainly endorse the mimimal steps you suggest, such using IAST at the time a term is defined, or when etymology is dealt with. You also mention short phrases such as mantras which also would be tedious to show both ways.

8. If there is no standard for how to do this in the Hindusim project, editors may vary in what they do. See this edit for a conversation I am having with User:GourangaUK, who likes IAST. I asked him about it specifically because we are collaborating on an article and I wanted to reach agreement with him before doing much work, which I envision using IAST. So in the absence of any good guideline, it may be good practice for individual editors to come to agreement on how to handle specific articles.

I look forward to discussing all of this with you, since you are so reasonable. Buddhipriya 02:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I agree with many of your points above, especially 1, 2 and 6 where we have no difference of opinion. My reason for "discouraging" use of IAST in general text is not because it is harder to add, but because it is harder to read for a general audience (and, fortunately/unfortunately, our audience is not Indologists - else someone would have brought Indian philosophy up to shape simply out of disgust with its current condition :-) ).

I'd also like to point out that wikipedia's closest "competitors" are other encyclopedias, led by Encyclopedia Britannica and Encarta - neither of which use IAST etc at all (not even to the extent that I specified above). They (and IMO wikipedia) are very different from academic journals which are aimed at a different audience. Also, most of the math written on wikipedia wouldn't survive a peer review for a mathematical journal article; although (at its best) it is entirely appropriate for a general purpose encyclopedia.

One honest (not rhetorical) question: Do you believe that using kṛṣṇa (instead of Krishna) at every occurance on wikipedia is advisable ? In my opinion, that will only drive away readers and is inappropriate for this medium.

The above three paragraphs aside, I am glad that we have some broad agreement, on the actual prescription of IAST. Abecedare 02:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Taking your last point first, I think Krishna is a good example of a term where the practice of simply defining it in IAST at first use is fine, and then switching to the commonly-known English equivalent is fine. The goal is not simply "an ostentatious display of scholarship", however gratifying that may be. :)

Regarding "harder to read" for a general audience, I think that issue is overblown. The example with Krishna is a good example where I do agree with you that the loss of a recognizable English vowel is likely to confuse the reader (ṛ versus ri). Removal of visible vowel cues for the English reader is a problem with that vowel in particular because it is perceived by the English reader as a loss of information - where has the vowel gone? The confusion between śiva and shiva is of this type, a loss of the aspiration cue - where has the h gone? For a word the English reader is likely to have heard before and has a conceptual model of already, such as Krishna or Shiva, the loss of cues is upsetting. On the other hand, most of the IAST notation involves adding cues to letters, trying to deal with the 42% loss of symbols in the Latin-1 character set. So we get rāja (king) instead of raja (dust). The addition of the cues may not disturb the reader in the same way as removal of cues.

By the way, I have had a few nice exchanges with people related to the Buddhist pages, where they are trying to decide what to do about Chinese and Japanese characters. So I think this conversation we are having has applicability across Wikipedia.

I hope no one in NASA is relying on Wikipedia for math formulas, based on what you say.

When you mention that "fortunately/unfortunately, our audience is not Indologists - else someone would have brought Indian philosophy up to shape simply out of disgust with its current condition" you have raised an important point about attraction and retention of experts. If we want to improve the quality of the articles, it would helpful to get some people participating who actually know something about the topics, or at least possess a book on the subject and are willing to read it.

The problem of Wikipedia:Expert_retention is of particular importance to Indology, where access to sources is more limited than access to information about Anna Nicole Smith. There are probably thousands of people on Wikipedia who are monitoring news reports about her tragic death and can instantly detect and fix irregularities in details about her. But how many people on Wikipedia are prepared to tackle recensions of the Vedas? Is it true that there are but 12 recensions of the Samaveda, as is claimed (without reference) in the article? Does controversy rage over that question as it does over the father of Nicole's child? (In fact, I am the real father of the child, and I think I shall put that into the article now so the truth can be known.)

I am certainly no expert on anything, but I wish we could somehow attract real Indology experts to this project. We could learn so much from them if they were here. But they will never come unless we make them feel welcome and needed. We must somehow create a belief that it is possible to contribute serious material here. That is the vision I have.

Buddhipriya 03:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

---

As we have discussed before, editing on wikipedia is often guided more by passion than expertise; sometimes to the encyclopedia's detriment. I am sure not many "experts" are attracted to editing anonymously, without credit - especially when faced with vandals, trolls and especially uninformed POV pushers. (Speaking of that, you may be interested in this discussion)

So maybe the best idea is to follow Krishna's advice and do our duty/what-we-find -pleaseurable-here and not worry too much about the end results. PS: I know that is not what he said ... and anyway the average wikipedian reading this will be wonder whether we are still talking about Anna Nicole or if we are discussing the Indian dude on The Simpsons instead :-) Abecedare 04:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

... editing on wikipedia is often guided more by passion than expertise, and sometimes sadly with pretense expertise scroll down to "Editor's Note" Abecedare 10:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The New Yorker article is wonderful, thank you for giving me the link. I personally am a past President of the International Association of Federated Organizations, a multinational group working to promote harmony in the world. But I generally prefer to remain incognito when I travel. (In case it is not obvious, these remarks are intended as jokes.) Buddhipriya 21:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

---

This dialog has been very helpful to me in clarifying issues. I have gone over the thread and have tried to refactor it to get a draft of what may become the nucleus of a statement on IAST that we may be able to agree on. If we can get a clear summary that the two of us can agree on, perhaps we could share our points of agreement with others to see if there can be more general consensus reached. Building agreement slowly around even a few points would help the Hinduism Project on this issue. Please give me your reactions to this restatement of ideas:

1. Basic assumptions

• IAST is the academic standard for the romanization of Sanskrit.

• In at least some cases there is the potential for significant information loss if IAST is not used, and the nature of the loss in meaning may not be obvious.

• Currently there is no clear official standard for the use of IAST within the Hinduism Project, leading to inconsistent use of IAST across multiple articles.

• Since Wikipedia is intended for use by English readers, clarity of communication with English readers is of great importance.

• IAST may be harder to read for a general audience.

• While use of IAST may reduce readability for some readers, failure to use IAST may reduce credibility of articles among other readers, but the impact of this loss of credibility is not clear.

• For some editors, use of IAST is a matter of acdemic integrity. Good faith should be assumed when practice varies between editors, e.g.:

1. when a term is first used anywhere within an article (not just in the lead) if the editor feels that use of IAST is important to preservation of meaning.
2. when an editor feels that a particular term may lead to confusion with another Sanskrit term unless IAST is used consistently.

• Editors who do not know IAST or prefer not to use it are not required to add it in order to create new content. Later editors may adjust IAST usage at a later time in such cases.

2. IAST should be specified when:

• a term is defined in the lead.

• its etymology is traced.

• Transliteration should be preserved in any quoted text; i.e. if the original uses IAST, we have to quote correctly.

• When Sanksrit shlokas/mantras etc are cited, it is ok to use only IAST and leave out standard english transliteration. The reason for this being that it would be too repetitive to provide the (1) standard English transliteration, (2) the IAST transliteration and (3) English translation ... since including the english translation is standard (for English wikipedia), if we need to provide only one transliteration IAST is certainly preferable, since it is richer in information.

3. Except as noted above, IAST should not be routinely used when:

• A term has a common English equivalent (e.g., Ganesha for gaņeśa, Krishna for kṛṣṇa).

IAST template

I changed the IAST tags to Unicode in the Panini article for three reasons: to consistently use one template through the article, to make the font in the article appear consistently, and because it looks to me like the extended functionality of the tag wasn't being made use of. If I'm in error about this last please feel free to revert. --Stlemur 03:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted it pending further discussion with you about it. Thank you very much for your reply, as I enjoy dialog on this. The confusion between the IAST tag and the Unicode tag comes up frequently. They achieve different things. The purpose of the IAST tag is to specify which of the transliteration methods for the Devanagari writing system is being used, as there are several different methods for doing this. So when Sanskrit text is involved, the reason for using IAST is to assist in determining what the text actually says. The IAST encoding system uses glyphs which exist in both Unicode and ASCII forms. However the Unicode and ASCII implementations of the underlying numerical values for the same IAST glyph differ for some glyphs. In other words, the Unicode tag specifies a type of computer encoding, but does not specify a transliteration method. In contrast, the IAST tag specifies a transliteration method but does not specify an encoding method. On Wikipedia, which is Unicode-compliant environment (e.g, the editor's interface provides Unicode quick-pick characters), Unicode is assumed as the encoding method for the IAST transliteration method.

So for articles involving Sanskrit text, the general practice is to use the IAST tag, and any articles in which the Unicode is tag is used for a Sanskrit term are gradually being converted to IAST by most of the editors who work on Indic articles. If you spot an article that has both Unicode and IAST, check to see if the words in Unicode tags are Sanskrit or some other language. If they are Sanskrit, the best practice in my view would be to convert the Unicode tags to IAST for the Sanskrit terms. However you may have a different view, which I would very much like to understand.

We have been trying to compile a new guideline for the use of IAST in Indic text articles, and you can read something about that on this talk page User_talk:Buddhipriya#IAST. I could also point to some discussions that have been had on this during the development of language templates for some Buddhist articles which use Sanskrit and Pali terms. (Pali is also written sometimes in Devanagari, thus requiring IAST). You can read Template:DisplayTranslations#Using_Template:IAST_with_.22text.22_parameters_for_Devanagari_transliteration for an example of IAST embedding within a more general Unicode multilingual template.

I also encourage use of the [[Category:Articles containing IAST]] tag on articles that include IAST, as this category helps with quick identification of where the IAST content is located. This is a fairly new category and has not been propagated as widely as it should.

Please reply so I will understand your views fully. Buddhipriya 03:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hindutva revert

Dear friend, Just wanted to let you know that India is multi religion country and that statement in Hindutva page reflects that Only Hindus respect their country and all other religions have no respect for their country of birth. All religious scripts of India define to respect and protect their country of birth, Hence the statement in this page should also state about other religions. Please let me know if you still need more clarifications and would be glad to help you out. with love John Paul 05:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for getting in touch. If you are referring to this revert ([8]) the change was made by a confirmed sock of Maleabroad, a banned user who is currently under close monitoring. If you are referring to this diff ([9]), the statement was an unsourced change to existing content taking place immediately after activity by Maleabroad, making the change suspect. I do not edit that page for content, just on vandalism patrol. Statements added to articles that do not quote WP:RS may be deleted at any time as the goal here is to write an encyclopedia, not an editorial. Hope this helps you understand my point of view. Buddhipriya 17:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

End matter

The problem is, there is an official order for it, in WP:LAYOUT, though I see somebody has changed it without discussion. It is simply not right to use an idiosyncratic layout when there is a standard, regardless of whether you saw it in a featured article. In fact, changing it at all is in my opinion wrong, as it simply creates a hugh amount of unnecessary work, as most articles follow the standard. IPSOS (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I would welcome dialog with you on this, as I am interested in the issue of citation methods on Wikipedia. It would be very helpful to me if you would use the Vamachara article as a test case to try to help me understand your point of view regarding what the standard requires versus encourages. I see quite a lot of variation in citation methods on the featured articles. I am open to influence on this, while at the same time I feel that the current practices leave much to be desired. I would welcome your opinions on the points I made in the citation discussion at User_talk:Sd31415 where similar issues are coming up. Buddhipriya 00:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that articles that display variations from the standard should be fixed. That's what I do when I come across them. There are many temporary aberrations on Wikipedia. We cannot take them as new standards. There are processes for changing the standards, and simply doing it arbitrarily and idiosyncratically is not among those processes. IPSOS (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your above statements completely, and I appreciate your help in getting the articles into compliance with standards. We currently have a request out for peer review on the Ganesha article. If you have the time, I hope you will take a look at this issue on that page and feel free to adjust the references as needed to get compliance with the standards as you understand them. That will help ensure that this issue is fully-addressed on that page as well. I would also like to thank you for the work you do in removing external links to commercial web sites. I noticed several such actions you have taken on pages that are on my watch list. Buddhipriya 05:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have replied sooner, but I don't usually add a person's talk page to my watchlist the first time I post on their talk page. If you wish others to see your responses quickly, you need to post your reply on their talk page, and they will be automatically notified. :-) IPSOS (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip. Please take a look at the further discussion regarding citation formats for the Ganesha article that is in progress at User_talk:Sd31415. That editor and I have been in a dialog trying to test some citation issues on a test group of the over 100 on the page. If you wish to comment on the approach please do so. The proposal made by Sd31415 will be implemented tomorrow or the next day on the test group of the first 20 references. Buddhipriya 05:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I prefer that type of referencing myself, although there are apparently other people who don't like it and undo it. It addresses the disadvantages of how people frequently use named ref tags when using page numbers. Whole book citations get repeated multiple times if different notes refer to different pages.... I believe that what you are trying to do is call Harvard referencing and that there are a whole set of templates designed to not only facilitate it, but which also wikilink the notes to the citations. I've never used it myself b/c I don't quite understand how the templates are used, but it looks like the best form of citation available on WP and when the templates are used I doubt others will undo it. IPSOS (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Sd31415 has completed the conversion of the references. As part of the peer review a new suggestin has been made that "a brief introduction can written about all topics in 'see also' with link to the articles. as in Hinduism article for Brahman, Atman, Ishvara etc." Wikipedia:Peer_review/Ganesha#--Redtigerxyz_14:20.2C_7_April_2007_.28UTC.29. However WP:LAYOUT says that See Also "should ideally not repeat links already present in the article", which is a suggestion that I find unhelpful. Do you have any opinion on this? Buddhipriya 17:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for tolerating an idiot such as myself, you are too kind. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Buddhipriya - I do actually appreciate your tolerance and humility in all this, but was a bit upset by the comment above, and a number of other comments on talk pages where I felt my potential alliegance to an organisation external to Wikiepdia (i.e Gaudiya Math or ISKCON) seemed to be influencing your viewpoint on what I was adding to the discussion more than what I had actually said? Maybe this is just my own paranoia kicking in and Wikipedia is getting to me? In terms of article content you have made a large number of positive and significant improvements to the Bhagavad-Gita page (among many others) and I respect both your approach and editing work very much.

To give a bit more information on myself, I had an initial interest in my youth in Buddhist & Zen philosophy, which led onto Advaita Vedanta, and I practiced a form of sankhya-yoga for a few years before becoming involved in Vaishnavism and Chaitanya's bhakti movement, which I have since followed for ten years or so. I do not believe in having a sectarian outlook on the phenomenon of religion, but at the same time do not think it's possible to agree with everybody, and understand that certain elements of Vaishnava philosophy are at odds with elements of Smartism, Shaktism and Shaivism and vice versa. In practice, committed members in each denomination tend to believe that: "there is truth in all these paths, and ultimately they are all heading towards the same goal - but ours is the most correct".

In terms of Wikipedia, it seems, to me, to often promote a certain combatitive attitude which doesn't neccessarily help with the quality of the articles - especially in areas of contention such as religion. See for example Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cabalism involving fellow editors with an interest in articles related to Hinduism / Indian content. How much time in Wiki is spent in argument?

In conclusion - stuff happens on Wikipedia, but I'm sure we'll all get over it after a few years in therapy. Lol. Namaste, Gouranga(UK) 15:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ramakrishna says that if you want to dig a well for your home, you get the best results by picking one specific spot and digging deeply at that point. Water may run beneath the entire property, but each well must tap into it somewhere. So it is good to dig wherever seems best to you. Your neighbor may tap into the same stream from her house down the road. Buddhipriya 16:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Rigveda and Vedic history

I just edited and revised the rubbish that was put our earlier on these pages and you reverted back to the rubbish. Please explain on what authority did you reverted my edits.

Hulagu

I see that the above post was by Hulagu [10].

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Since your edit history [11] shows no prior edits before placing this comment here, can you clarify which edits you are referring to regarding reversions? Also, in the future it would be helpful if you would sign your comments by ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end, which will sign your posts. The timing of your question suggests that you may be asking about these edits [12]. Is

that correct? Buddhipriya 04:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

undoing without discussion

What content without citing sources are you talking about. Dont undo any changes without discussion. If a citation is required then tag it as such. But dont undo it. I am aware of Wikipedia rules as improvement is an ongiung process. --Anishshah19 07:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. Please refer to WP:Verifiability which says "Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." If you wish to add material that is unsourced, one approach is to put the information on the talk page for the article first to try to get help from other editors to find WP:RS. Perhaps that approach would be helpful to you in the future. Buddhipriya 07:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

blog

Hello. You removed the criticism of The argumentative Indian. I request you to restore it based on the following from WP:RS: "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking."

The above unsigned edit was done here: [13] by User:70.113.114.144.

Thanks for getting in touch. Blogs are classified as "Links normally to be avoided" by WP:EL. If the opinions given are noteworthy, chances are that it will also appear in a more reliable source. I also noticed that you appear to be engaging in an edit war on that page. Please take your discussion to the talk page for that article and avoid repeated reversions.

In the future, please sign your comments by placing four tildes ~~~~ after your name, which will automatically provide a signature. Buddhipriya 03:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but then why does WP:RS allow for this particular blog? 70.113.114.144 03:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any mention of that blog by name on WP:RS. To make a case for an exception you would need to prove the various points of authority and notability first, and still you would be subject to challenge under WP:EL. If the points being made are notable, they should be mentioned somewhere else. You may want to concentrate on finding a reliable source. Buddhipriya 03:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Nirukta

I don't know if I can contribute to the article in content, but I certainly enjoyed reading it! By the way, you may want to request User:Rudrasharman to weigh in - I recall he had referenced Nirukta (particularly Naighantuka) during the discussions on the Talk:Ashvamedha page. Cheers. Abecedare 07:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Nirukta article needs some work to divide material properly among Yaska, Nirukta and Nighantu. Basically, Yaska is the author of the eponymous Nirukta, which was a commentary, cast as a treatise on etymology, on the eponymous Nighantu. So, we have an inter-related complex of (a) the Nighantu, an ancient glossary, which gave its name to a genre, (b) the Nirukta, Yaska's commentary on the Nighantu, which also gave its name to a discipline, and (c) Yaska's specific theory of etymology contained in his work. Considering what's already in the Nighantu and Yaska articles, some material should probably be removed or shortened in the Nirukta article. rudra 05:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent edits. I agree completely with the three-pronged approach. I will look to see if I can find any other possible references and will give it another read within a week or so. The use of it as a rhetorical device in commentaries is an application that interests me. I very much appreciate your help in looking at it. Buddhipriya 03:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha article

Thanks for the heads-up. I've added the article to my watchlist and also made a request for help here. It's becoming a bit of an irritation.

On a more positive note - would you know any article where this photograph I uploaded last year might find a good home? Best Wishes, ys Gouranga(UK) 11:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Maleabroad's new sock is also under discussion at User_talk:Abecedare#Socks and at User_talk:Aldux#Sock_puppets. I think it is only a matter of time now before this particular sock is extinguished but we need to keep all of the pages that he has been working on on watch list for a while as a new sock will probably appear. Who says there is no proof of reincarnation? On Wikipedia it happens every day.

Regarding the photo, thanks for letting me know of it. If you can add any additional details about which festival it was at, the city in which the festival took place, and the size and function of the murti it would make it even more useful in some articles, which could include specific festivals, temples, etc. The image has the look of a large-scale parade image designed for utimate water immersion on Ganesh Chaturthi. Is that in fact what it was? If so, it could be a good illustration to explain that particular type of image, which produces a thriving seasonal economic boost in some parts of India. Buddhipriya 16:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It was from the Ganesh Chaturthi festival in Mumbai in 2004 - I've added the additional information to the image summary. The murthi was gigantic in size, I may have another photo somewhere which shows the size relation with the onlookers below. Will have a look for it... Ys, Gouranga(UK) 09:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The new photo showing it to scale is very nice. The use of large moveable murtis during Ganesh Chaturthi is potentially an issue that could be illustrated by this, particularly if you know if the murti was in fact a temporary one designed to be carried later in the festival parades and finally immersed in water. I cannot quite make out if the location was an enclosed temple, or one of the temporary pavillions that are sometimes built for these images. If it was within an enclosed space with doors, the image would be too large to get out the door (perhaps). If it was an immersion image it may have been placed under a canopy or temporary pavillion from which it could be removed easily. This may seem like a minor detail, but it actually would help with classification of exactly what type of murti it is. From the detail picture it strikes me as of the sort of design and construction that is often used for the parade floats, in which case the material would have been a sort of papier mache or other temporary construction designed to dissolve in water. So anything you can say about the enclosure would be an interesting commentary.

Iconographically it is one of the standard modern forms, with the two upper arms holding the goad and noose (symbols of stimulation and retardation of action) which are common emblems of his role as Vignesha (Lord of Obstacles). The lower hand in the gesture of "no fear" and the other hand holding a modaka are standard for this four-armed variant. The iconography is therefore a good example of a very common representation. Compare this example of the same general form, but in that example the objects held in the upper hands are not clearly of the same type. Buddhipriya 21:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The murthi was within a large temporary Pavillion which was also no more than 30mins walk away from the beach. From that and what you say above I'm assuming he was ultimately going to be immersed into the sea. When I visited there where literally thousands of people queing for darshan, some waiting for many hours. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 17:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful! I think we have figured it out. If you can add the above information about the pavillion and the crowd to the image description it would preserve those sociological facts, which taken with the date of the event make it certain that this was designed as a sort of "parade float". Now that we have pinned it down, I will work on getting it in somewhere. FYI, there is an envioronmentalist angle here, which is there is sometimes criticism of the festival's climax, which involves immersion of hundreds of dissovable images in bodies of water. Buddhipriya 17:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Ganesha picture

No problems at all with the cut & paste - I have no other image of the crowd, but do have a much clearer (& complete) photo of Ganesh taken from a nearer distance if you think that will help? Ys, Gouranga(UK) 13:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Advaita

Alright, I can prepare a presentation for you. Please start by reading this, in case you haven't already. The title of the subsection in question is POV. It would be better to say "Buddha as a non-dualist." There are no sources cited; for this reason I find it somewhat odd that you reverted my edit which gave a general reference. Madhyamika was the first fully developed non-dual philosophy, and its brand of non-dualism is (in my and David Loy's view) more sophisticated than any later philosophies such as Advaita. I hope you can see how a Buddhist would interpret the implication that Advaita is the true development of the Buddha's thought as objectionable. Arrow740 08:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for getting in touch. I will read the paper that you have provided a link to in detail (I will not have time to do so before making this reply). The link says "This paper is part of a Ph. D. thesis on "nonduality" which will be submitted to National University of Singapore." and as such the web site probably does not qualify as a reliable source per WP:RS because it is a "self-published" source. Could you please raise the issue on the talk page for the article rather than here, so other editors will be able to see your comments. You very well may be right on the point you are raising, I am just unclear on what it is and how it is cited. Let's continue dialog on that talk page. Buddhipriya 16:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I got a message from you about me vandalizing some article on Vedas. All I did was remove some "timing" information from the article which I didn't consider to be accurate. It said something like although the Vedas have been around since 2000 BC ... I consider the Vedas as apaurusheya, hence my deletion.

Manas

The above message was posted by the following anonymous IP user: [14], apparently regarding this deletion of sourced content that he made. Buddhipriya 06:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you around?

Haven't seen you in a while and your contributions could be helpful on quite a few articles currently. cheers —SpacemanSpiff 05:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I have not been around. Very sorry for not replying to you sooner. Best regards! Buddhipriya (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)