User talk:Buddhipriya/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The Buddhism articles have problems like that too. Not much is cited. I think what happened is that this stuff got in early on before there was much of a focus on having things cited. I spend most of my time in the Islam space, where every single clause added needs to be cited because the subject is so controversial. Islam-related articles that look like the Hinduism and Buddhism articles get nominated for AfD's. I'm hoping to check out some books and add some more to the Upanishad article. I'm pretty sure that Mahavira and the Buddha weren't concerned with the Upanishads at all. The Buddha said that focusing on an eternal self gives rise to suffering in the Brahmajala Sutta, and Atman=Brahman would probably fall under that. In any case, your point is well taken. Arrow740 03:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am very supportive of your efforts to upgrade the articles. I would be very happy to add some of the articles that you are interested in to my own watch list and assist here and there. I have found that the best approach with some of these is to make only small edits and then wait a few days to see what happens. Making many edits at once invites wholesale reversions. My own area of interest is primarily Hinduism with particular reference to the issue of textual criticism. I am also interested in some Buddhist topics mainly from the point of view of early Buddhism and the development of the ideas from earlier strata of philosophical content. If you flag things with [citation needed] tags it would at least fire a warning shot which other can notice and then assist you with finding references to complement your own. The Upanishads are a collection of over 100 major works which contain mutually-contradictory statements of all types. Any generalizations about them can be risky business as the strains of thought which they contain are not well defined in the articles now. Some of these articles are so bad all I do is start by adding fact tags to the most obvious nonsense, wait a week, and then begin cutting things. Since it takes more time to compose a solid citation than to type in nonsense, those of us who read books are at a competitive disadvantage on Wikipedia. Buddhipriya 03:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The Upanishads article should be much longer. They form a fascinating corpus. I'll try to add to it. I'm going to try to add to the Nagarjuna article as well. You said, "I am also interested in some Buddhist topics mainly from the point of view of early Buddhism and the development of the ideas from earlier strata of philosophical content." I agree that is a fascinating topic. I'm wondering if you've read the Brahmajala Sutta? If you start here and then look at the fourth category of Ekacca Sassata Ditthi here, the Buddha seems to be saying that identifying any of the three more abstract skandhas as the eternal Self is an incorrect view. That could be seen as an attack on the Atman theory, in which the self is the same as Brahman, which is infinite consciousness. Yogic techniques seem to isolate consciousness, which can then be identified as the eternal Self, ground of all being, etc. What do you think? Arrow740 04:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
In looking at the Nagarjuna article I noticed a minor point regarding the use of the IAST tag in articles which contain Indic text. The use of IAST has produced some debate among editors about how to work IAST into the style standards. I refactored a thread regarding this which you can read in summary at Talk:IAST#More_on_use_of_IAST. I would be interested in your views on the issues raised there. Most of the editors who work on Hinduism articles do not also spend a lot of time on the Buddhism articles, so those two groups of articles follow somewhat different style standards, but the transliteration issues for Devanagari are the same (regardless of whether Sanskrit or Pali is involved, as it is about the writing system, not the language encoded).
I will look over the link you provide later. I would like to review the materials before guessing at an opinion on your specific point. I have never studied the Brahmajala Sutta. In approaching the work the first thing I would do is try to place it within the context of a specific Theravada school. I do not see any dating for it in the article, and dating would also be helpful. Many of the articles fail to notice that both Hinduism and Buddhism are very complicated religions with many schools that often are in conflict with one another. If someone says "X" it can be assumed that someone else has said "Y". So methodology could be to first place the work within a context, and then look at how that context relates to the big picture. Buddhipriya 15:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I have looked up the Brahmajala Sutta in Maurice Winternitz' History of Indian Literature and find that he has a rather different background on it than what is in the current Wikipedia article, which contains no footnotes at all. I will try to add some of the material from Winternitz, but I have found that it can be difficult to begin to touch any of these articles. Winternitz points out that one of the main teachings of this sutta is that the true disciple of the Buddha will avoid pointless philosophical speculations, and in that vein no less than 62 different philosophical views are presented in order to show the folly of engaging in such arguments. (e.g, vol. II of Winternitz, p. 38, where he makes that point). The other material on this is too long to type here, and I will look again at the main article to see if any references can be inserted there. For the Buddhist materials that I have not personally studied I tend to want to stick to citations to standard sources. The Winternitz reference is a voluminous reference work that is considered authoritative, and volume 2 includes the Buddhist materials. Buddhipriya 23:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Great, I look forward to seeing your additions there. I recently read the idea that the advaita-type monism in the Upanishads are in Upanishads post-dating the Buddha. Do you know anything about that? It seems unlikely. What do people say about the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad for example? Arrow740 22:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the Brahmajala Sutta, I have added your request for references to my to do list but I may not be able to add them for a few days. I try to focus my time on Wikipedia to certain articles at once, and right now we are engaged in upgrades to a couple of other things. I am not sure I understand your question regarding the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. You may want to repost that question on the talk page for that article to see if others who have studied it have an opinion. Regarding the general issue of Advaita and its relationship to Monism, again, I would recommend that you try to get more input by posting on the talk pages for those articles. Your questions are very interesting and deserve serious comment. Because it would take some time to answer with a solid reference, I hesitate to make any broad statement, but getting the issue onto the talk pages is a good first step. I have found that sometimes it can take several weeks between the time a question is raised and when any meaningful answer arises. Buddhipriya 20:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Himalayan Academy material[edit]

Namaste Buddhipriya! Great name. I am Natha, a member of Himalayan Academy Publications. I want to thank you for the kindness you used when talking about copyright and spamming issues with Anantashakti. I was also unaware of the rules about role accounts in Wikipedia; there's a lot to learn here about policies. I have changed that account to show that I am an individual who is mostly making proper donations of Hindu Art to Wikimedia through my user account.

I also want to tell you that Anantashakti is a person who, out her love for Hinduism, has decided to contribute material from Hinduism Today Magazine to Wikipedia; but actually any content from that magazine of from the publications here can be uploaded, and I'll be happy to notify Wikimedia of the copyright grants. It's a very big resource, made by Hindus, endorsed by swamis and sadhus and followers of the religion worldwide (opinions). It is valuable as a view from the inside, to be compared and complemented by the academic view.

There is a strong line diving editorial policies that apply to our books by Subramuniyaswami and that of Hinduism Today. While the books are specific about the opinions of Saiva Siddhanta Hinduism, the magazine has been working for years to present Hinduism in a broad, objective non-sectarian view that may contribute more to Wikipedia's NPV standards.

We hope it helps. Thank you a lot. Natha 20:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Namaste. Thank you for getting in touch. I have read Loving Ganeśa and enjoyed it very much, so I had prior familiarity with the Himalayan Academy. I also have seen the magazine Hinduism Today. Your generosity in sharing your materials is appreciated. As you have seen, there is nothing on Wikipedia that is not controversial. When I first joined Wikipedia I was told by a wise Wikiguru that I would encounter many people whose motivations would be difficult to understand. That has proved true, but I also have found many nice people who will help if help is asked.
If you have not already done so, you may want to read up on some of the areas of concern that often arise such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. My perception of the problems that arose earlier is that some of them were due to the fact that images were tagged with the GFDL license, which inherently may cause complaints about spam due the attribution requirements of that class of release. See: [1]. Due to the criticisms of the GFDL license, any image tagged with it is sometimes objected to by some Wikipedia editors. The GFDL license, unlike a release to the public domain, leaves a string attached to each image, which is the problem. The problem with restricted gifts is addressed in the Bhagavad Gita 17.20-22, where Lord Krishna points out that gifts with strings attached are classified as rajasic (17.21). I believe your intent is sattvic (17.20) but the trick is to convince others of that fact.
With regard to links to the online version of the magazine, the sticking point is probably going to be that most of the individual articles do not cite what would be considered WP:RS and as such links to individual articles are likely to be reverted by other editors on that basis.
If I can be of any service to you in thinking any of this through, please let me know. And thank you again for your participation. Buddhipriya 20:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Buddhipriya, it's certainly nice to have people whom we can relate to around, who are just trying to help. Nice thing that you mentioned User:Abecedare; the scriptures talk a lot how easier it is to learn from a much more knowledgeable person, and how much less bumpy a road.
Thank you for the information about GFDL. I don't think Hinduism Today is ready for releasing the credits, due to legal obligations.
I understand WP:RS as well. After 28 years and printing 15,000 copies each issue, however, HToday has become an acceptable source to cite, I believe.
Our intention, as you well pointed out, is to make it all available. We hope the world can use it in some way. Thank you for your help. Aum Buddhipriaya namah!
Aum shanti, Natha 21:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Remarks on vandalism[edit]

Before placing any further warning templates on talkpages, please do attempt to learn what vandalism is; a reading of WP:VAND might be instructive. In particular, content disagreements are not vandalism. Accusations of vandalism are tantamount to questioning an editor's good faith, and suchin incivility is taken quite seriously here.

I have removed your templates from my talkpage; I fear they might cause visitors to my page to judge you over-harshly, and one would not want that. Hornplease 07:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for getting in touch. I am sorry that you do not agree with the warnings you have received for blanking cited content. Repeated removal of cited content is not acceptable editing, as the warnings you have received explain. You are welcome to raise your concerns on the talk page for the article to build more agreement for whatever points you wish to make. Removal of warnings from your page does not result in the warnings being eliminated from the system, as they can be retrieved via history, e.g., this final warning for blanking [2]. Your blanking of warnings may be construed by some as further evidence of bad faith on your part. A record of your removal is here: [3] I look forward to continuing this discussion on the talk page for the article itself if you wish to continue to raise the point which you are concerned about. Buddhipriya 07:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Repeated removal of inappropriate cited content accompanied with an explanation as to its inappropriateness is perfectly valid. Your inability to apparently read or comprehend that explanation and subsequent incivility is a little less so. I note that you used the talk page a a grand total of zero times in this regard.
If you construe my removal of your extremely useful warnings as evidence of bad faith, please do say so. You say it may be construed by some as such. I can assure you that nobody who looks at the issue and has been here for long enough is likely to. I can only assume you are talking about yourself; in which, it would nice if you say so, and we can then investigate an appropriate response.
Also, I thank you deeply for your explanation of how the editing history tab works. I had no idea it existed. Now that I see it, I have used it to discover that I have been around in this avatar for several years and I seem to recall editing well before that, from when WP was mainly red links. All this time, and I never knew that editing history was preserved! Many thanks for letting me know. Hornplease 07:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edits...[edit]

Firstly, kindly refrain from presuming that you can dictate editorial policy. Secondly, as I both wrote this paragraph, and provided the citations supporting the six branches of Yoga, including Tantra, I suspect whether or not I make changes to the middle of a sentence when I disagree with a deletion edit the content of which has material support, is my perogative, no? Thank you and Jai. Empacher 21:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. The statement that you have been working on related to Tantric Yoga is disputed by other editors ([4]) so it would be helpful if you would raise the issue on the talk page for the article. More clear use of citations in the article would be one way to separate out material that is under challenge. Buddhipriya 21:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
One editor does not constitute "editors", nor does it constitute a challenge when the reference material supports the inclusion. Everyone has an opinion. Let's agreee to disagree, depite academic support for the inclusion. Empacher 22:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Since both I and the other editor do not agree with the inclusion, there are currently two different editors who have objected to the inclusion of tantric yoga in the list given in the lead. I have placed a request on the talk page for the article asking that this issue be taken up as a separate matter so that sourcing can be clarified. If you feel that further discussion on this is needed, I hope you will participate on the talk page for the article. Thanks again for dialog on this matter. Buddhipriya 22:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warnning[edit]

However I did not "add" content to Adi Shankara, I only put the Adi Shankar's name in Gurmukhi i.e. ਆਦਿ ਸ਼ਂਕਰ ...In my humble opinion that does not qualify for vandalism...Thanks Jon Ascton

Thanks for getting in touch. Are you are referring to this edit by an IP user? [5] If so, the best approach would be to add the translation into Gurmukhi using the LANG template for it, which is how translations into various languages are normally handled. The Gurmukhi is not Sanskrit, which is what the IAST tag following the original text is for. If you feel this needs further discussion, I recommend that you take it up on the talk page for the article, and to ensure that continuity of the discussion can be had you may want to log on when editing rather than using an anonymous IP account for this matter. See also: [6] Buddhipriya 19:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


You said: I object to the addition of unsourced material to the article, and to changes made to sourced material on Hindu traditions. The article currently does not use standard citation sections according to Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout, which calls for systematic use of the Notes and References sections. My effort to add these sections and restructure existing notes to conform to the layout has been reverted. I request opinion by other editors on these changes. The article is currently poorly sourced, and enforcement of better sourcing standards is needed in order to improve the quality of this article. Buddhipriya 19:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated the edits you reverted. Poor form to revert without having the courtesy to inform of your intention to do so. I contend with your unfounded assertion of my inclusion of unsourced material within this article: little new information or content was added. Though a rigorous restructuring of article was instituted, augmented by a number of headings populated with content from information aleady contained within the body of the article. In addition, unsavoury hierarchical paradigms were written out. I invite dialogue to resolve differences.
Namaste in agape
Walking my talk in Beauty

B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 19:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for getting in touch. I recommend that further discussion take place on the talk page for the article. Buddhipriya 19:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Question for you[edit]

Hi Buddhipriya, Would you mind taking a look at Pranayama? There's a confused (to me) explanation of the literal translation of Pranayama in the first two paragraphs. I don't know Sanskrit, so any clarification would be appreciated. If you look on the talk page, you'll see that I mention removal of one unreferenced explanation that needs more linguistic expertise. I was going on common sense and the smell test in deleting the statement that " 'prana' is cognate with Chinese 'chi'. " If I was mistaken, I would be happy to have someone put that back. I found a reference that does compare the two as having similar meanings, and inserted that.

I've also added some references for the common usage/translation of the word by prominent and well-respected teachers of Patanajali, since that's really the main use of the word. That raises the issue of how prominent exponents of yoga use the word, and tranlsate it (which is most relevant in this case) vs. the literal meaning. Both are relevant there, but the article needs a clearer literal translation and breakdown of the word (prana, yama, ayama, etc.) in a way that makes more sense. Thanks, ॐ Priyanath talk 04:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I took a quick look and it seems that this page is another one of the articles like Kundalini and Chakra where there is a quite a bit of Western New Age material passing as Hindu wisdom. I recently have taken a little interest in the articles for Kundalini and Chakra which have the same sort of problems. With all of these pages there is little understanding of the source materials. Would you be willing to help me out by watch listing all of these pages and assist me in demanding a higher quality of sourcing for all of them? I find that when I have demanded WP:RS not all editors are eager to rise to the challenge. The literal translation of the Sanskrit is basically prāṇa (breath, respiration, the "vital airs", etc.) + yāma (cessation). It is a technical term used widely in yoga literature, particularly some tantrika texts. The article has an unsourced discussion of concepts related to it rather than a definition of it. Buddhipriya 04:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Where does 'ayama', meaning expansion, come from then? That's one interpretation that I haven't seen in thirty years of daily practice and study of pranayama, but I well understand that different schools teach differently. The language issue aside, these articles are all tricky because yogic concepts are not necessarily 'scientific', and the leading experts are the renowned exponents of yoga (just as Patanjali was in his day). And there's alot of confusion and debate over who the 'experts' are. I'm sticking with references of renowned and more universally accepted, rather than the latest popular yoga or new age teacher. ॐ Priyanath talk 05:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The "ayama" etymology has no clear basis. I think that it is probably an attempt to deal with the plural use of prana in the first term of the compound, but I am still looking for a source to prove it. Look at the edit history and watch for how it got in there. I personally find most of the New Age literature to be academically weak. If you are willing to help demand quality in the references, together we can at least make clear what is New Age and what is Hindu. Buddhipriya 05:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll watch those other pages also. It is important to include the view of prominent yoga traditions that have their roots in India, which is what I've done. I don't know if you consider them 'academic', but they are authorities, in a tradition where authority is often based more on realization than pure academia. The new agey approach is a different story, as you know. ॐ Priyanath talk 05:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Rudra found a citation in Macdonell (p. 185) to prāṇa + āyāma and defines it as "m. suspension of breath (sts. pl.)". This is in the ballpark with the other variant I found in Mishra. So I take it that there are multiple etymologies out there, so we should keep hunting for more WP:RS. Buddhipriya 20:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


Regarding your reverts of my edits, I understand wikipedia policies for citations, however please note that the introduction is essentially a roundup of all the details that are covered in the following sections of the page, and as such do not need explicit citations.

If no one writes "unsourced content" that ties together "sources", Wikipedia as it is today will not exist.

Specifically, if we discuss my changes, I have added two sentences describing that there are four Vedas and their divisions (which is elaborated in the section on Four Vedas with all the sources cited). What the Vedas mean to people is simply a descriptive sentence and is therefore NOR.

If you have specific objections to the changes, let's discuss. Regards Savyasaachi 15:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The changes you made deleted citations to WP:RS and added material that flatly contradicts them. If you wish to discuss this content further, please do so on the talk page for the article so other editors can have the benefit of your thinking. Buddhipriya 19:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Unclear what this message is[edit]

Buddhipriya: Now, ban the site of Gabriel Pradiipaka. It is a formal request coming directly from him. Then, watch what will happen. Just do it, please, and behold 05:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

Diffs related to creation of the above content: [7] ( (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) and associated vandalism of my user page: [8]. [9] ( (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) Buddhipriya 05:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop moaning about vandalism and ban his site as requested above. Then, you can delete all and behold what will happen. Sometimes one should act wisely, really. You'll reap the fruits of your own actions, be sure 05:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

The above unsigned message was added via this diff: [10] by (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Buddhipriya 05:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Just ban the Gabriel Pradiipaka's site such as you said (google his URL). The reasons are link-spamming and all those lies. Well, if they are not lies but the Truth, nothing will happen after banning his site. If not so, something will occur, Buddhipriya. It is easy to delete, mock at other people and so on, but difficult is facing the fruits of one's actions, undoubtedly. Just do it if you are certain you are behaving in a right manner. And I sign this message because I firmly believe in the power and justice of God 05:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC). That's it, Buddhipriya. Now it is your turn.

How amusing. Reminds me a lot of this. Orpheus 07:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop talking, you and your friends, and do it if you are certain you are being fair with my posts. I have direct permission from Gabriel Pradiipaka to ask you this. He does not care at all if his name is or not here, or if his site is banned or not, because the entire Wikipedia is irrelevant to him. Anyway, I am here struggling. And I defy you to ban his site. Do it and see what happens if you were unfair and behaved in a bad manner regarding him. There is a God, friend, who knows all that is in everyone's mind. You can deceive others but not Him. You know, Wikipedia is not wicked in itself. In fact, it is a great project and vision. However, people like you make other people like Gabriel Pradiipaka indifferent to write an article here and help the community. People like you, in the name of promoting your own country (because this is what you are doing the whole time) are ruining the great vision of James, no doubt about it. Nationalism is healthy when a war is declared and so forth, but it is a cheap thing when applied to spiritual teachings. Kashmir Shaivism belongs to the entire human kind, believe it or not. All of us have our miseries, but when it comes to spirituality, there must be a "stop here". This is the lesson you will be taught by Him if going on and on with your bad behavior and attitude. And this my IP in case you feel I am hesitating 10:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have seen you were deleting other links to the Gabriel Pradiipaka's site under the pretext of link-spamming. This is a blatant lie and you know. You are a vandal and deserve the fate of a vandal. Just wait and see what God will bring to your life. There is a God, man. You will not forget the lesson for the rest of your existence, be sure! You can hide from me behind a phone line, but you cannot hide from Him. And my IP again, in case you think I am joking. I do not joke when it comes to vandals like you. To lie regarding sacred matters like these is a grave sin and to try to harm His devotees is something really wrong. Gabriel Pradiipaka is a compassionate person, no doubt, but I, his protector, am not. And you will see soon what I mean. Hopefully you will be so bold as you were to delete his name from Wikipedia, man 11:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. If you plan on using Wikipedia more, please read Wikipedia:Etiquette which explains basic rules of how to interact with others. One of the points listed there says: "Please register yourself and sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles!), unless you have some excellent reasons not to do so." Building constructive relationships here takes time, and using an account rather than an anonymous IP address would be one step you could take to establish more productive editing collaborations. Buddhipriya 17:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at these and then delete the links, lest I may be accused for spamming links again :):

There you can see "clear" links to this Sanskrit page in Wikipedia. And those links were there for a long time. He has not deleted them even after becoming aware of your behavior (I told him). That's why I protect Gabriel Pradiipaka, because while he promotes Sanskrit by all means, you are here behaving like a vandal, lying and deleting valid links to a very good Sanskrit site just because it is not from your country. Gabriel Pradiipaka is a real human being and loves Sanskrit, even though he is not from India, while you are simply a bandit in the disguise of a moderator. You will not be without the fair punishment by God sooner or later, I swear. Now, delete the links and tell whatever you wish. It doesn't matter anymore as your fate is sealed. 11:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Now it is signed, bandit (moderator or not)!! And you must read what civility and netiquette is on the web. You changed the title to "Notable..." within the "Kashmir Shaivism" page to justify your deletion of the name of Gabriel Pradiipaka. Next, you deleted "valid" and "old" links to his website in other articles of Wikipedia (e.g. Sanskrit) because "the guy was spamming links somewhere". This is a blatant lie and you know what you did. You think "nobody" saw it, but the Lord saw it! You are a vandal in the disguise of a civilized collaborator or whatever you are in Wikipedia (which is sinking due to the weight of the likes of you). People like you deserves their fates, fates of bandits. The Lord will catch you sooner or later. And I sign this again, because I am speaking the truth 11:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The above unsigned message sealing my fate was added in this diff: [11] by User talk: Buddhipriya 06:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The user refers to me as a "moderator", which suggests that he may not be familiar with Wikipedia roles. I am not an Administrator and do not wish to be one. Again I would suggest that the user read WP:CIVIL. Buddhipriya 06:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Balji Nath Pandit[edit]

That page cannot be speedy deleted, since it has been on wikipedia for over 2 years. You can send it to AFD if you do not agree over the articles notability. For speedy deletion, the article must have been created within 3 days--Agεθ020 (ΔTФC) 20:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I was not clear on the policy. Buddhipriya 21:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that's true. WP:SPEEDY contains the criteria for speedy deletion. I've asked the original poster on his talk page to point out exactly where it says the 3 days bit - I'll let you know when I find out. Orpheus 00:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the AFD is complete and I have noticed no errors.--Agεθ020 (ΔTФC) 21:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ageo020, the "3 day" assertion is absolutely incorrect. An article that meets WP:CSD may be deleted at any time, there is no restriction regarding when it was created. Where did you hear that? - CHAIRBOY () 22:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Khilafat Osmania 06:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My reply [12]. Khilafat Osmania 06:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Make a compromise solution? Take the good bits, take out the bad bits, stir in a bit of your own and see if it's acceptable. There's always a middle ground. Orpheus 06:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no difficulty compromising, but what I am experimenting with is trying to avoid reverting the actual article text myself, because if no other editors are participating in the process, puppets like this one can win all battles if an editor actively avoids reversions or edit conflict. I am frustrated by what I see as a lack of neutral editors who are watching the contentious articles simply for process enforcement. If there are no other editors who follow that article who are convinced by the points on the talk page and willing to discuss the issue on the talk page there seems to be no reason to try to work on the article. I am not going to just argue with one sock. Can you at least participate in the talk page discussion? The real issue is how to get more editors who have no ax to grind to at least watchlist the contentious articles. Any ideas on how to do this? Buddhipriya 07:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Indian Caste System[edit]

How do you say I've referred to unsourced stuff. Did the British not host banners saying "Dogs and Indians are not allowed?" at Calcutta Swimming Club? I studied this during my schooling in Mumbai. You mean to say all that was false and it is not referenced? If I do not post that content out there how will right people reach to it and expand the topic further. You mean to say all the scholars in India who know the details know to use wikipedia?

You can edit my article or modify the same or remark it. Who gave you the right to warn me Madam?

The above unsigned comment was added in this edit: [13] by User:BalanceRestored. Buddhipriya 08:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for getting in touch. If you wish to discuss reference issues for that article, please do so on the talk page for the article so other editors can participate. Buddhipriya 08:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You think the talk page is visible to the world? We might miss out people who know details BalanceRestored 08:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is some details of what they British were trying to do..

Copy Pasted From History_of_the_Indian_caste_system

British rule[edit]

The caste system was first exposed to the modern Western world during the Portuguese occupation and rule of sections of India. The word 'caste' in this context is derived from the Portuguese, 'casta'. Later, other European empires, including the British, occupied parts of the subcontinent.

The earliest use of caste as a basis for interpreting social and demographic data arose from British officials' concern to stamp out female infanticide[1]. Later, the use of caste to classify the population formed a basis for British attempts at social engineering. According to certain British laws (such as the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871), many castes and tribes were described as habitually criminal, and adult male members of such groups forced to report weekly to the local police[1]. The caste-based classification (moneylending, agricultural or martial) was also used for other purposes such as legislation controlling land transfers, the grant of proprietary rights, the regulation of rents, recruitment to the armed forces etc[1]. British anthropologist Herbert Risley's The Tribes and Castes of Bengal, published in 1892, was one of the first works on the caste system in India written by a Western scholar.

The earliest forms of classification in the British censuses of India (1865, 1872 and 1881) were based on the varna system, with the population being divided into Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. Denzil Ibbetson, in his introduction to the 1881 census of the Punjab, argued that the Indian caste system was more of a social than a religious institution, and that conversion from Hinduism to Islam had not necessarily the slightest effect upon caste. He stated that the varnas had "no present significance".' The 1891 census was based primarily on castes as occupational guilds instead of the varnas.'

The caste system was brought lawfully brought inside the Indian Society by the British Government. Please visit History_of_the_Indian_caste_system and read things for yourself

Could you please help me adding this reference to the Indian Caste System, if you now agree to my reference as I have a very straight way of representing things which could again be seen by people as a vandalism.


Currently I am not certain that this user is a sock of Maleabroad; mainly because his April edits [14] seem to indicate a genuine attempt to ask for help and try to follow wikipedia policies - that seems very unlike Maleabroad who seems to know-it-all :-)
Worth keeping a watch though; especially as I have been wrong on this count before! Abecedare 08:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, should have clarified: I completely agree that this user's edits have POV issues; just suspect that they may be independent of maleabroad's. G'night Abecedare 08:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of Debatable Headings[edit]

Hi I've started this new topic, your comments are welcomed. I thought it was important for you to know. Article - Indian Caste System BalanceRestored 10:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This user is deleting my content. Since, wiki's had asked for details. I further extended the content so it becomes easy for visitors to understand what's happening. I had actually invited this user to comment on the new content, please look above, but she took off the entire content and surprisingly warned me. Now she is also editing things from my detailing even in the talk page. Looks like the user is up to a mischief under the pretext of understanding wikipedia better. BalanceRestored 08:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not put helpme tags on the talk pages of other users, it could be considered a form of vandalism. If you want help, put the tag on your own talk page, not mine. Please deal with the content issues on the talk page for the article, not on my talk page. Your behavior is disruptive. Buddhipriya 08:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

re: clarification[edit]

That was fair statement, my response on RfArb talk page. As side note, I get offended when my name is linked with any political/religious faction. I don't support either. I was in the mailing list only due to my views on Dab's POV pushing. I have not decided if I will continue contributing to project. If I choose to stay, I look forward to clean-up in Out of India and related pages. Indigenous Aryan page is fixed thanks to another user helping in enforcing policies there.Sbhushan 13:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to Wikiproject Shaktism[edit]

Appreciate your contributions to improving Shaktism related articles. It would be an honour if you could join the group Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Shaktism

Very best regards and good wishes for your project. It is good to have some systematic effort put into this important group of articles. I am not editing much these days but if I can be of some specific help please let me know. ॐ श्रीमात्रे नमः Buddhipriya (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back![edit]

I have seen your excellent contributions across numerous articles pertaining to Hinduism. It was disappointing to note that you had stopped editing in 2011. Really hope you're back for good. Welcome back. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 19:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for saying hello. I had indeed retired and probably will remain semi-retired. I always learn a great deal from the discussions on articles and so may follow a limited number of things again. Very best regards. Buddhipriya (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Nath and Navnath[edit]

Hi Buddhipriya. Am I correct when I think that Nath and Navnath is about the same topic? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your interesting question. Based on a quick look today, in their current versions the articles overlap but they are not identical topics. You may want to sort the two articles out by having Nath talk about the tradition in general, and keeping Navnath to deal with the details of variant views on who the first nine teachers were. Both articles could use cleanup. If you work on these articles, a concise WP:RS for both of these articles would be: Sures Chandra Banerji, Studies in Origin and Development of Yoga, Punthi Pustak, Calcutta, 1995, which covers the Nātha tradition on pp. 330-333 and passim.
The word "Nath" is more precisely "Nātha", which means "lord" or "master". That is used as a general name for the school, as a term for a specific adept of that school, and adjectivally, e.g., "the Nātha tradition". This variation is use is connected to the difference between the two articles.
Navnath refers to a list of nine (nava) specific masters (nātha) that are founders of the teaching line. Lists of these nine masters show wide variation, which is not generally appreciated. The issue of variant listings of the nine founders of the Nātha Sampradāya is the subject of detailed review in David Gordon White, The Alchemical Body: Siddha Traditions in Medieval India, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1996, pp.90-101, where a table showing regional variations in lists appears on p. 93. An entire article on the nine could easily be written based on that WP:RS.
The list of nine that is in Navnath today does not correspond to any of the lists in White, but is given below for comparison purposes:
  • Machindranath or Matsyendranath
  • Gorakshanath or Gorakhnath
  • Jalandharnath or Jalandernath also known as Jan Peer
  • Kanifnath
  • Gahininath also known as Gaibi Peer
  • Bhartrinath or Bhartarinath or Raja Bhartari
  • Revananath
  • Charpatinath
  • Naganath or Nageshnath
Most WP:RS generally give just one or another specific list and do not address the problem of variants. For example, the book "Tantrābhidhāna: A Tantric Lexicon" by N. N. Bhattacharyya, Manohar Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, 2002, p. 107, under the entry for "Nātha-Siddha" (meaning an adept Nātha yogī) lists the first members of the Nātha lineage as 1. Matsyendra or Mīnanātha, 2. Gorakṣanātha, 3. Jālandharī or Hāḍi-pā, 4. Kṛṣṇapāda or Kānha, 5. queen Mayanāmatī, 5. Cauraṅgīnāthata, etc.
I noticed that one of the dubious points in the Nath article is the reference to "twilight language", which was the subject of active debate on Wikipedia some years ago (I would need to hunt down the citations). The term crept into numerous articles thanks to the work of an editor who was eventually banned. You may want to look at that section for revision. The debate is still on the talk pages for The Twilight Language.
Buddhipriya (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for this answer! You seem to know sources; that's good. I'll need to find the sources you mention, but i'd love to clean-up both articles. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Knowing sources is a poor substitute for knowing the subject. But here we are required to always emphasize WP:RS. Buddhipriya (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Vaishnavism and Srivaishnava[edit]

And another question; see Talk:Hindu denominations#Vaishnavism and Srivaishnava. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to this issue. I replied at the link you provided. Buddhipriya (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


Hi. I've moved the page to Ramanandi Sampradaya. It's a more neutral name than "sect", which has "sectarian" undertones. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all the work you are doing on that article. I also appreciate the improvements you made to my citations. I will study your method and try to use them in the future. I am not sure if sampradaya is the best term to use here, and on similar articles. I see there is quite a lot of interest now in reorganizing articles related to "schools", "denominations", "sects", and "sampradayas", but I am not sure if all the implications of those terms have been thought through. They are not interchangeable. In the case of the Ramanandi I am not aware that the same focus on internal teaching lineages is found as with the Sri group in general, which is much larger and therefore must be subdivided into smaller groups. My impression is that it more common to see them simply referred to as "Rāmānandīs" in the WP:RS, e.g., Burghart, Richard. 1978. "The Founding of the Rāmānandīs," Ethnohistory 25 (2):121-39. Also see: Burghart, Richard. 1983. "Wandering Ascetics of the Rāmānandī Sect," History of Religions 22 (4):361-80.
You may want to ask for input on this to see how other editors view these terms. At any rate, be bold and continue to make improvements! Buddhipriya (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


And yet another question: do you know if the The Kaadsiddheshwar Parampara is the same as the Inchegeri Sampradaya? Or is the Inchegeri Sampradaya an offshoot? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I hesitate to answer because I do not have personal knowledge of these groups and a quick check of the most obvious sources did not list them under those names. Both articles appear to show name variations that make checking difficult. Be aware that many groups may have overlapping stories about their lineages. In the case of any group that considers itself descended from the Nine Masters, I have already pointed out the basic facts of who the Nine Masters were differs quite a bit, strongly affected by regional issues. In comparing these groups it would necessary to work backward in the line to try to determine which version of the Nine Masters was involved. Group are often known by one than one name. In these articles, which seem to use the word parampara a lot, I am wondering if that word was recently inserted by you? It would be helpful to know that. There are several different terms that are used to describe what you hesitate to call "cults", and those words do not all mean the same thing. I will look at the articles again and see if I can find some element that would make researching them more sure. Caution is the best approach for all these articles unless you can find a strong WP:RS. Buddhipriya (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)