User talk:Priyanath/Archive 4

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

Wikimedia Commons[edit]

To Commons.svg

Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is, however, another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!--OsamaK 07:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronounciation of Yoga[edit]

Hi Priyanath, I tried updating the page to include a section on how to pronounce Yoga. Almost everybody pronounces it incorrectly and I think there should be something to alert the reader on this Yoga page. Please correct or guide on how best to include this information.

Thank you Brinda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoga editor (talkcontribs) 20:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Every English dictionary I've seen has the pronunciation as yō'gə or yoh-guh. Wikipedia depends on Reliable Sources (see WP:RS), not what some website says, or what we hear somewhere. It may well be that some people in India pronounce it 'correctly' (by your definition of 'correct') - I've heard only one particularly pompous ponderous pundit use that pronunciation. But since this is the English Wikipedia, you'll need a Reliable Source, like one of the top English language dictionaries, that proves everyone else wrong. priyanath talk 20:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


Hey Priyanath, I will try to explain the best I can :) First off, you can read WP:COMMONS#Embedding Commons' media in Wikipedia articles. Basically Commons' images can be used on any Wikimedia project, just by adding the image name like you would for an image being hosted on the local wiki. If there is two images that have the same name, one being on Commons and the other being on a local Wiki, then the local Wiki image will be shown. But if there is no image on the local Wiki, then any image on Commons will be embedded in the page. So if you navigate on the English Wikipedia to an image that is on Commons, then the image and description will be transcluded onto the local Wiki page of the same name. Did that make any sense? « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 20:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons is the central project for free media. This allows any Wiki that is run by the Wikimedia Foundation to use these media files, so any of the 200-some different language Wikipedias, and many of the other Wikis (Wikinews, Wikisource, etc) can use the photos too. If the image is only hosted on the English Wikipedia, it can only be used here. Technically any free-image should be hosted on Commons. While the English Wikipedia goal is to create an encyclopedia, Wikimedia Commons goal is to bring together a collection of free-images that anyone can use. There are some other small benefits to Commons, but those are the main ones. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 21:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been using mine a little bit more too. It's good to lend a hand to all the other Wiki's too! If you haven't already, you may want to check out Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 21:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

enwikibooks usurp[edit]

The other account is moved out of the way - the next time you visit the wiki logged in your account there will be automatically created.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

New sockpuppet[edit]

I have reverted this talk page edit[1] by a new sock of Ronosen. Can someone block him directly or do we have to go through the entire sock nomination process? --Deepak D'Souza (talkcontribs) 10:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've asked the admin who did the checkuser/blocking for advice.[2] I'm about to get busy in real life, but I think it's going to take an admin to start watching the threatened pages. And I'm not even the one who 'labeled' Ronosen a 'puppetmaster', that was yet another admin who put that tag on his userpage. I'm just a measly editor with no personal interest in Brahmo issues. Thanks, priyanath talk 14:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
P.S. And thank you for getting involved - I think it will take a few more editors before this is done. priyanath talk 14:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Mention not! Its about time that serious editors on Wikipedia stood up for the Wikipedia spirit. I had read Ragib's message on the India project discussion. I kept a watch even though Im not into religious articles; but was busy with other things. We have given trolls and POV pushers too much space in the name of AGF, and its time we took that space back. Your'e right abotu the need for more editors to get involved. A show of numbers will be enough to put off the most determined socpuppeteers. And there's no such thing as a measly editor! --Deepak D'Souza (talkcontribs) 04:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
User:SonOfRonoSen has now been blocked by User:Sam Korn after I put a note on his talk page. So that's one way to avoid going through the RCU process in future. And yes, more editors are going to be needed if Ronosen keeps playing his little game.... cheers, priyanath talk 04:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me know if there is any way I can help. Tiptoety talk 19:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you - I think it will help other editors to know that there are admins they can go to who know the history, and can move quickly if there's a need. Because of what Ronosen has done to other editors (revealing an admin's personal info, and harassing a long-time Indian editor into retiring), he apparently doesn't believe in Dharma, so anything is possible with him. priyanath talk 19:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a good feeling about this:Special:Contributions/Project brahmo. Why do I get the feeling that it may be Ronosen pretending to be a nice mediator? --12:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


Hello, can you take a look at and put in your vote to keep or delete, I am rather outnumbered by some non-spiritual bullies, could use someone who has a co-operative energy to look into the matter on a spiritual teacher article. Also please look into another article that was deleted that has been there for years at but was deleted by a user as soon as I linked to it. Thanx (SpiritBeing (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)

Demes Vandalizing All Kriya Yoga Related Articles...[edit]

Hello! Kindly take a look at the activities of username Demes and IP number Loads of unsourced info and possible copyvio. - Shannon Rose (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Above user - Shannon Rose has been ceaselessly vandalising my work of the last days. I added references, sources, etc. without end, but she always reverts my articles, stating it be 'promotional nonsense' etc. - Especially the article on Paramahamsa Hariharananda has been hard hit by her stubborn erasing and false allegations. Is there any help against this? It can easily be proven, by looking at the revision history, that Shannon Rose is constantly erasing all information pertaining to Paramahamsa Hariharananda and even trying to distribute false allegations against Paramahamsa Hariharananda and my editings. Can anyone please help? Please... thank you!!! Demes (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Demes.

Unfortunately he is correct, in that you are using Wikipedia to introduce your own opinion and creative writing about someone who is arguably not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. There is only one third party source, from a local newspaper, in his bio. It would likely not survive WP:AFD because there is no assertion of notability. If you are going to continue to edit his bio, and other articles on Wikipedia, use reliable third party sources to back up each of your statements, or they can be removed. Read WP:RS closely to learn what a reliable source is, and what a third party source is, as opposed to self-published sources. You might also want to spend time editing articles about which you have no strong personal Point of View (see WP:POV), as a way of learning about Wikipedia. WP:POV also explains how you are violating Wikipedia policy with nearly all of your edits. priyanath talk 20:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


Priyanath, Namaste

I moved the discussion from Hinduism talk page here. It had hardly anything to do with that page, and category fits to the new place. Wikidās ॐ 15:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


Sorry I didn't reply to your post earlier.

So Ronosen is back again. I was surprised to know that Raunak Roy (aka Element R ) is also involved in this mess. --Deepak D'Souza (talkcontribs) 05:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this post at a Yahoo group also seems to tie them together.[3] priyanath talk 05:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Great work on the Aundh Experiment!! Congratulations. There is a Checuser case against Raunakroy aka ElementR aka Dualhelix. That there is a sockpuppetry case is no questioned,but going by your investigation it is clear that RR was preparing for along drawn battle as a meatpuppet of Ronosen. i will be adding this to the CU case. Please add anything more if you like. --Deepak D'Souza (talkcontribs) 18:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Here's the link:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RRaunak --Deepak D'Souza (talkcontribs) 19:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


Thanks. Unfortunately I wasn't intending to create a category that would be so difficult to reach a consensus on :( --Shruti14 t c s 15:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for your very kind words. My neutrality comes from complete ignorance. :-) The PBS article is interesting. The right decision certainly was made here. Maybe PBS was watching us! Regards,John Z (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Aundh Experiment DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query On 8 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aundh Experiment, 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.

--Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Smiley.svg Thank you! Your kind words while voicing your opinion against the block on me is greatly appreciated. Though we haven't worked closely before, I look forward to any opportunity in the future. Best regards, Mspraveen (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 15:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:People considered avatars by their followers[edit]

Hello Priyanath. I have made some changes to Category:People considered avatars by their followers. Please review, I have attempted to address your concerns and mine concerning the categories being beyond Hindu leaders. I am open to any changes. Thanks. Ism schism (talk)

I think this may work - the reason I'm not sure is that there is so much room for POV and vagueness. priyanath talk 22:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Who are you?[edit]

Who the hell are you? Are you moderator? Who are you to discredit article writen by Swami regarding Advaita Vedanta? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dattaji (talkcontribs) 17:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Who am I? Who am I. I could probably write a 42kb answer, but I won't be publishing it on Wikipedia because that would be Original Research (WP:OR), which is why the essay you keep adding keeps being removed. priyanath talk 20:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of material[edit]

I understand that you are advocating for the deletion of material on the Ramakrishna article, as you have done here. I would advise you that deletion of well-sourced material such as scholarly sources on the subject can be assessed as vandalism. You may want to consider self-reverting your deletion and pursue instead dispute resolution via WP:3O or WP:RFC. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Goethean's 'edit' deleted a total of 39 well-sourced referenced additions made by Vineeth and SriniG over the previous month. My revert of that edit added 39 well-sourced references. If you are going to be mediating on this article, I suggest you spend some time reading it, comparing the diffs, and reading up on neutral, third-party books and articles about Ramakrishna. As I've pointed out elsewhere, the Britannica article, written in 2008, has not a single mention of Goethean's POV. I mention Britannica because it is a neutral third-party mainstream reference work, which gives a reality check to people who don't have the time to research these issues thoroughly. I believe there is room for Goethean's POV in the article, but it certainly doesn't deserve the undue weight he would like to give it. priyanath talk 20:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to be mediating on this article. I have no such intention, but if you and other editors do not start addressing the concern expressed about deletion of well-sourced material, and if the editing disruption continues while avoiding WP:DR, one thing is likely to happen: the article will be protected for two weeks so that all involved are forced to request other editor's opinions via WP:3O or WP:RFC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
As I responded to Priyanath on the Ramakrishna talk page, there are other mainstream reference works, including Gale's Encyclopedia of Religion which feature the work of Kripal and Sil prominently. This fact undercuts his point. — goethean 02:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, Vineeth's edits have removed mmuch material which is cited to more recent and more notable sources than those favored by Vineeth and Priyanath. — goethean 02:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem in including ALL significant viewpoints? Not doing so violates WP:NPOV. Play nice, and re-add all the material which is sourced to reputable publications. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I did not know we were in kindergarden and needed to insult other editors with jibes like, "play nice." This information is under discussion on the Ramakrishna talk page. I am hopeful in that I believe that both ≈ jossi ≈ and goethean can add their edits to these pages - without insulting other editors. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
"play nice" is not an insult, and you may need to have some tea ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I will gladly drink tea with you. I am hopeful in that I believe that both ≈ jossi ≈ and goethean can edit, without insulting other editors, possibly in a way that actually edifies the content of the page under discussion. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not editing that article, so I do not know why you insist with that argument. I have not insulted anyone by saying colloquially "play nice", so you may want to tone-down the rhetoric, and even lighten up a bit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I am as light as a feather! Please, town down your rhetoric if you want to be percieved as impartial - which I believe you are trying to be percieved as... There are many editors that contribute to the Ramakrishna article, all of whom deserve respect for their good faith contributions. I ask that you please respect each editor to the Ramakrishna article as editors have attempted to make edits in good faith Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've responded at the Ramakrishna talk page, with a new section. That's all I'll say for the nonce, since there are other editors who have made important contributions to the article, and haven't had a chance to speak yet. I think this conversation should be carried on there also, since I have nothing to add here. priyanath talk 04:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Working Group[edit]

Good work cleaning up my changes, thanks. I really think the conspiracy theory angle should be a separate article, much like the 9/11 conspiracy theory article, but at least this way, it clarifies some of the phony tactics used by proponents of this conspiracy lie.Sposer (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


Dear Sir, Please do not keep spreading disinformation about Ramkrishna's influence on Brahmos or vice-versa. All the people named / depicted in the article as Brahmos were cast out from Brahmoism by 1866 and all of them eventually renounced their claims over Brahmoism. (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please post your concerns on the Talk:Ramakrishna page instead of here. Thanks, priyanath talk 04:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


Doh! Thanks for fixing my gaff at ACORN. I'm wincing and kicking myself over my false pluralization. LotLE×talk 22:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have alot of company. My usual method for finding the right spelling is to let Google decide. There were a whopping 294,000 results for 'attornies', though 'attorneys' won hands down with 91,200,000. The big number for 'attornies' makes me think that it's a semi-legitimate alternate spelling, or at least an extremely common mistake. priyanath talk 04:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not that. I know how to spell almost all the words I misspell (including this example). My fingers get ahead of my brain though, and I feel horrible once I read my words and recognize the errors. Ho hum. LotLE×talk 04:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Then in that case, alot of other people did the same thing with that particular word. And please don't feel horrible - humbled might be better :-). priyanath talk 04:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Why You Revert?[edit]

I had sources saying it is true. I checked with wikipedia and they are reliable please don't revert. (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did you identify my edit as vandalism? I had multiple reliable sources backing up the fact. Xrxty (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Bill Ayers presidential election controversy. priyanath talk 00:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

someone did[edit]

BBBH wrote the edit. He or she discussed it. Someone removed the discussion (very bad!) and the edit. So it has been discussed. I put back the discussion and it was removed.

Twice removed is not a conincidence but aggressive action.

So my edit has been discussed and another editor supports it (BBBH) Midemer (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you support Obama. Then you should not remove true information that is not flattering to him. WP demands true and neutral information. This is why McCain temper and Obama's disqualifying all opponents from the ballot is suitable for WP. Wikipedia must never be manipulated by supporters of candidate X. Since you are a supporter, you have to be careful. I support neither man so I am neutral. Midemer (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:ANI. priyanath talk 00:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional sources for you[edit]

I see that you deem the WSJ not a reliable source. I won't try to argue with you. Instead, I agree to study the matter. This is the cooperative way. In doing so, here's what I found.

We need the best article on Obama that we can get, positive and negative material. If you support Obama, you should hang your political opinions when signing on to Wikipedia. I am willing to write suitable stuff (even if negative) for McCain. I am not a supporter of either man.

What about CNN and National Public Radio? Obama played hardball in first Chicago campaign

The move denied each of them, including incumbent Alice Palmer, a longtime Chicago activist, a place on the ballot. It cleared the way for Obama to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district.

In order to fulfill his own ambitions, Obama would have to kill his friend's political career.

Obama stood his ground and went one step further. Using an aggressive procedural move, he challenged the signatures on Palmer's nominating petitions. And he even went beyond that: He challenged the petitions for all three of the opponents.

Midemer (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss article issues on the article talk page, not here. priyanath talk 03:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Working Group on Financial Markets[edit]

I will accept your edit. However, by definition, it has to be a conspiracy theory, since it is denied by everybody involved. Furthermore, the prior quote includes a guy who promotes the garbage denying that he is promoting conspiracy theory. If it wasn't a conspiracy theory, it would not be necessary. Also, the articles that are included as references do call it a conspiracy theory as I recall. Sposer (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against it being a conspiracy theory. But since the term is typically pejorative, and not neutral, and is a description of the theory, it requires a reliable source and who is stating it. Otherwise it's textbook Original Research (WP:OR). To state 'by definition, it has to be a conspiracy theory' is almost, by definition, Original Research. priyanath talk 03:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, but its whole notoriety is as a conspiracy theory. And, as I said, it is called that in probably every one of the quotes. Anyway, your change is fine by me.Sposer (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I know, that's why I didn't remove it entirely like other people seem to be doing. I can't imagine, in this day and age, people thinking that the federal government would have to surreptitiously spend our money and intervene to prop up and bail out financial markets and institutions ;-) priyanath talk 16:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


Why did you undo my edit to Barack Obama?

Read the Obama talk page and learn all about it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


Thanks. I hope another article Vithoba makes it to FA soon. I am planning a FAC soon. I would like you to read the article and give your comments/suggestions if there are any flaws you notice. Thanks again. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and look at Vithoba during the next couple days. priyanath talk 04:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see the talk, i have replied to the suggestions and implemented them. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Leopold Cafe[edit]

Thanks for the good work. --nemonoman (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Work on Ananda yoga[edit]

Barnstar search rescue.png The Article Rescue Barnstar
For removing the copyvio and other issues from Ananda yoga, which have ultimately saved the article from deletion. Nice job! MuZemike (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Trailangascreenshot.png)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Trailangascreenshot.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to delete it, since it was only used to prove a reference for a DYK hook. Priyanath talk 16:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Trailanga Swami[edit]

Updated DYK query On January 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trailanga Swami, 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.

Gatoclass 02:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

sock puppet at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India and state terrorism‎[edit]

What do you make of this? it looks like User:Muzher(who has also !voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India and state terrorism)is a sock of User:Ninj4.WackoJackO 14:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. Probably just canvassing, but I've let a check user know about it anyway. The 'not a vote' tag helps also. Thanks, Priyanath talk 15:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


Isn't this fun and a productive use of everyones time! :)
By socking and throwing wild allegations of bias and partisanship, the editors only ensure that their arguments will be ignored, and their POV (even if valid!) will not be reflected in the article. Have to wonder, if they are actually interested in improving the article(s), or just venting their (off-wiki) anger and frustration. Abecedare (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You read my mind (re: the phrase 'whack-a-mole'). I imagine it's frustration and anger combined with not knowing how to play by the rules of Wikipedia. Their pov does have a thread of possible truth underlying it, but their over-the-top presentation only defeats their purpose. Priyanath talk 17:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. I even tried to search for sources that provided a better and more sober view of the Government/BJP position. But the only source I found on NCERT controversy was this commentary by K.R. Malkani, which was so fringey ("We teach seismology; but is seismology more accurate than astrology?", "today 30 per cent of American males are infertile") that including it would only make the presentation less balanced.
By the way, how long will it be before we are accused of being socks ? After all our article interests and view overlap not only with regards to WPINDIA and WPHINDUISM article, but we both are also somewhat involved in (different) Obama related pages. QED ? :) Abecedare (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It's too bad that the extreme views make so much noise—they drown out any meaningful discussion. The result is that some of the more nuanced and intelligent people who support some of their views are called extremists.
If anyone complains about sockpuppetry, extremism, and fringieness on India and Hinduism articles, then we should punish them by sending them to the Obama articles. That will quickly cure them of the thought. I thought after the election things would calm down there, but it's only worse. It's a full time job for some editors on both sides. Priyanath talk 18:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
"It's too bad that the extreme views make so much noise ..." : True both in Indian and US politics and society, and I guess elsewhere. Abecedare (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
On a more serious note: Despite the constant battles, the articles on US presidents and pols. are generally well-developed and well-written. Compare with Manmohan Singh, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, ... or even the as-non-controversial-as-it-gets Abdul Kalam. The quantity and quality of referencing is especially atrocious. Sad. Abecedare (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Quite true - I wonder if the concept of references and peer review is a Western academic one, so the scales are tipped in that direction here (towards 'western' and 'academic'). Just wondering.... Priyanath talk 19:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, the idea of referencing is academic (so is an encyclopedia!), and given that a much larger percentage of Western population are college graduates, than the fraction in Indian - a lerger fraction of Americans/Europeans etc have been exposed to the idea of referencing. But:
  1. I don't think the idea of referencing is culturally Western (or anti-Indian); for example, Radhakrishnan's writings on BG cites tens of commentators dating back to 10th c., who in turn cite and critique their predecessors.
  2. The users editing Indian/Hinduism articles are far from "average Indians" and AFAIK no less educated than average wikipedians (maybe slightly more educated, given that are relatively few school kids from India here).
If I had to guess the reasons for the poor state of these articles, I'd say:
  1. Most of the Indian editors here have a background in science/technology, and have not been exposed to (or have easy access to) a breadth of scholarly literature in soft-sciences and humanities. So many tend to presume that "if we haven't seen it, it doesn't exist." I am certainly guilty of that - for example, till a few days back I was not aware that there are multiple multiple-volume encyclopedic compilations on history of science and technology in India, by Indian scholars. Given that, how can we possibly defend the references used in this article until recently (before JSR started to rewrite it) ? Similarly, how often do we see publications from Sahitya Akademi being cited.
  2. Many Indian editors view themselves as a minority here and as such we tend to be particularly sensitive and defensive about perceived slights or even "neutral non-fawning" view of India, and especially India's past. This tendency is reinforced by (1) genuine anti-Indian trolling on wikipedia like attempts to create a POV article like State terrorism by India etc; (2) some examples of genuine poor scholarship about India/Hinduism, which we mistakenly attempt to refute on-wikipedia.
Of course the above is simply my personal analysis and OR. But as GWB said, we should be very wary of, "the soft bigotry of low expectations", and holding the Indian articles to lower standards. Perhaps being aware of our biases and faults will help us guard against them. Abecedare (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you answered my misguided wondering with your point about lack of exposure to humanities, vs. emphasis on science and technology. And yes, expectations should be high for India articles. I think this is one of the great benefits of teh internets and wikipedia - the bringing together of people from different backgrounds, and what everyone can learn from each other. In spite of the occasional flesh wounds and hurt feelings, there does seem to be progress here. Priyanath talk 20:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Paramahamsa Hariharananda[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Paramahamsa Hariharananda, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramahamsa Hariharananda (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. – Shannon Rose (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just read your comment and you said something that I did not quite get. What do you mean by "leaning towards Meh..."? Also in the article you will find that an editor removed a note I wrote saying that the Times of India article was an "opinion piece" not a "news report." I did that in keeping with Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations which states that "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text." The Times of India says that Paramahamsa Hariharananda is self-realized, how can claims like that be news reporting? From what I've read this "self-realized" state is something that is so high and spiritual in essence, how can a journalist know and "report" something like that? So I put "in an opinion piece published in the Times of India" and it was removed. another thing that I removed and they put back is a French language book for "recommended reading." The French langauge book is not used in the article at all, yet even those that are used require expert translation into English and still heavily-discouraged as per WP:RSUE "Because this is the English Wikipedia, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source has been used correctly." Why it was placed there as suggested reading is not explained in the edit summaries, so it is just an immaterial nuisance there to show that such a reference exists (yet it was written by Paramahamsa Prajnanananda so it fails WP:RS anyway. I am just explaining to you where I am coming from in all these because last time I did not have the time to debunk all the nonsense since the nominator listened to their bluffs and withdrew the AfD. This is actually a very good case, there exists several rock solid arguments from various angles why this person is unnotable (the obituaries, provided that they were really news reports and not paid ads, if they exist at all are just WP:1E). – Shannon Rose (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


didnt want to reply there just in case someone was going to accuse of going off-topic. i actually didnt read that far down the inteview. --Like I Care 04:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Editors do go off topic at times, though I've seen them warned for it, or had their posts removed, if they were just trying to push people's buttons. And my apologies for doing what I called you on - going off topic, and making an inference that I shouldn't have. It was an interesting interview though, more nuanced than I thought it was going to be. It made me realize that the journalists themselves are largely responsible for the way that India cinema is represented. Priyanath talk 14:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bhakti. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. I am a bit upset by you reverting important references that clearly belong to the article, in the future you can move my references but you can not revert them. Wikidās ॐ 05:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Reg articles Bhakti and Bhakti Yoga[edit]

I feel that the article Bhakti can be improved by adding the following two sections:

Of course, I will add my bits whenever I get time! Cheers. --Nvineeth (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! The idea of a section on major texts is of course a great one (along with a summary section on Bhakti Yoga), and the new section on Bhavas is a wonderful addition. Priyanath talk 15:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the additions, looks more complete now ! --Nvineeth (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Panchamruta ingredients[edit]

Hi, I added banana because I KNOW for sure that banana is a very important ingredient in panchamruta, I am a south Indian brahman and I know most of them add banana in Andhra Pradesh/south India, in so many temples that I have been to. However, I haven't been able to find an online reference for this, I tried my best and finally only found a blog.. But it is so in the real world out there... So can you please suggest on how we can go about this? THanks! Lilaac (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I found some better references and answered at Talk:Panchamrita#Banana. Sorry for your frustration! Priyanath talk 15:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Guru article and the revert of new facts even though referenced![edit]

Hari OM! You have recently removed a set of new facts from the Guru in Hinduism. All added facts had been referenced with book written by a notable author and authority on Hinudism. I admit the edit was not easy on my part, but a simple deletion of facts with valid reference can not be simply overlooked. I hope we can resolve this dispute quickly :)

Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:UNDUE - I don't see that the source qualifies as a peer-reviewed or third-party neutral source. I've seen no evidence that the author is deemed an expert by neutral, third-party sources and/or academics. I won't get into an edit war over it on that particular article anyway, since it's already so badly written imo, so you may as well feel free to continue reverting against policy (though others may rightly challenge you). Cheers, Priyanath talk 16:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, he was given a title of Vishwaguru by Benares Sanskrit University. Are they not reliable? I have noticed a generic problem with all topics on Yoga and Hinduism. A third-party reliable sources are usually considered only westerns. Even before you can cite a source it already has to be misunderstood by some people and printed in the West. If you would want to publish "actual" and "original" understanding, the highest ranking authorities in Hinduism have no authority. It seems like a deadlock to me. There should be some rule put in place that the primary part of the body of the articles presenting "religions" and "cultures" has to be written by homies and not based on imposed views of foreigners. Because these lack of authority given to actual authority, many articles contain mostly fudge, or what is left after you take out the actual meaning.

You also can not have a neutral third party source giving opinion on religion. Religions describe a relation between man and God. Neutral point of view and academics do not believe in God. Consequently you now have Frank the Bubblegum giving lectures to pope about resurrection. Atmapuri (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to change the rules on Wikipedia, you should take it up at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Promoting the views of each and every Guru who has unique views about Guru, Hinduism, etc., should be taken up on personal blogs and websites, not here. Notwithstanding that some of those views may be accurate, Wikipedia's guidelines on WP:Reliable Sources and WP:Verify still have to be followed. Priyanath talk 18:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

For each article, there should be something like official line. It is not about promoting views. All true Guru's agree on key issues anyhow and there is only one view. For example I have not found a difference in view between Paramhans Yogananda and Paramnhans Swami Maheshwarananda in everything I read. The problem is that even that one view has no leverage to make it in to the article, because of cultural gap between west and east. I would have expected a much stronger presence of Paramhans Yogananda because of his books published very long time in the West. But no... Even that has little weight here. I will take the issue to reliable source. Thanks! Atmapuri (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no "official line" without using reliable sources as currently defined. The only way to include the views of a specific school/teacher/sect is 1. if they notable for the subject according to third party neutral published sources, 2. and the article states that it is only the views of that particular teacher. I don't see that Maheshwarananda and his views are remotely notable, according to reliable sources, to include in any article but his own. You are fighting an uphill battle to include or promote the views of the person who is probably your guru in multiple Wikipedia articles. I won't remove it from the Guru article, but other editors will over time - I guarantee it. I think your efforts would be better spent learning Wikipedia policies and abiding by them, or on other websites. I say this in the friendliest way, so that you don't end up wasting a lot of your time here. And there are some well written Wikipedia article in which I would remove any such additions. Priyanath talk 20:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You are taking too narrow and to personal view. My "official line" refered to the subject of the article. For example, you can not put the practices of a small monastery in Greece on the top of the article about Christianity. My aim was not (!) to include views of a specific teacher, but to add content where there was none. Other people added "according to.." first. Namely, once you have a source, you can refere to, you can at least start to think about improving something. The problem with the current policy is that "Gurus" which are de-facto the only authority in Hinduism (and you have a list of 50 or so of them), are not considered an authority on the subject of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If that is not a contradiction in terms, I dont know what it is. The final result is something which could be called cultural colonization.

If it would make any difference, we can make a list of Gurus, who are authority in Hindusim by Wikipedia and who can be considered a reliable source and then the content can be added from their sources. Currently, it seems to me, that is not possible at all (because original content is missing almost completely). In my view all articles in general on religions and cultures should be written in three parts, first the people presenting their own culture, then historical development and finally Western perceptions. Currently you have Western perceptions first, historical development follows and the original is missing. Atmapuri (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I missed seeing your response here until now. I disagree on all counts. Like it or not, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and depends on reliable sources, third-party, neutral, published ones at that, and usually academic sources. "People presenting their own culture" is rife with problems: which "people" would do the presenting?, and do you know what an "encyclopedia" is (not "people presenting their own culture")? There are some good articles written on religion following the rules of Wikipedia, including academic sources presenting their own, or another's culture, in an accurate and positive manner. Learn and follow the rules, or you'll find all your work is reverted over time, guaranteed. I'm just offering practical and friendly advice, again. Priyanath talk 16:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


That's a yes to merge then? Redheylin (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I've been very busy in real life. Go ahead and merge, or I'll do it in a couple of days otherwise. Thanks, Priyanath talk 04:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for that. How have you been lately? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


Yeah, it was a sock. Yes, undeclared sponsorship editing sucks YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject India Newsletter, Volume IV, Issue 1 – June 2009[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter is automatically delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 11:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Biased and unconfirmed reverts[edit]

In response to your comment to me: Editors, who claim themselves as "certified editors", do not have a higher authority over me. Stop instructing me if I have given everything with enough citations, as in case of lingam, and check my edits before reverting them.

Check the discussion on Britannica's quote from its main entry on lingam and compare it to the quote in lingam. What wrong have I done by putting the exact quote? -- Truth only truth (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I've replied at your talk page with some friendly advice, and at the Lingam talk page, with the exact quote from Britannica that three editors have added back over your disruptive edit-warring. Please discuss there if you don't like it. Priyanath talk 23:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for adding your explanation on the talk page. I was at a loss as how to explain my reason for reversion any better than I already had, and your comment will hopefully get the point across. The article is a mess of competing quotes, but I guess that is only to be expected on this subject. Have to choose ones battles. Working on anything interesting lately ? Abecedare (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that article could be much improved. It seems to attract mostly those who want to expose Lingam for what they think it is or should be, and those who want to protect the idea. Like you, it's not a battle I'm interested in. The most interesting thing lately seems to be the paid editing brouhaha. If it's allowed, I'm thinking of starting a protection racket to 'protect' company articles from bad stuff being added, and need a good bagman. Interested? The pay is good, and we surely know WP policy enough to at least give the appearance of following WP policies. (note to admins: I'm just kidding). Priyanath talk 01:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, why should I be a bagman when I can start a lingam racket of my own ?
  • For 1 paise per Hindu fee I'll establish that Lingam is, and always has been, an abstract sybmol of the universal Brahman/Shiva/whatever. With 900 million Hindus, I'll reap a fortune!
  • For 10 rupee/psychoanalyst fee, I'll establish that it is an obvious manifestation of the Oedipal complex in Hindu men and Penis envy in the women.
Start the bidding now. :)
But seriously: I greatly respect Nichalp's contributions to WPINDIA and I always found him to be a fair-minded editor/admin with good judgment for encyclopedic content. Don't really understand why he chose the path he did, but I hope the scandal doesn't overshadow all the good. "The evil men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones". Abecedare (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
But one could probably find a way to monetize almost any subject in creative ways—that's why it's such a slippery slope. I can't judge Nichalp - who knows what got him to do that. He'll surely regret it, if he hasn't already, especially if there is blowback against his clients. Priyanath talk 03:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Interestingly, when Nichalp announced that he was semi-retiring in my farewell message I wrote, "I am sure the qualities you displayed/developed here will serve you well", which I truly believed. However I did not at all expect him to use those writing and organizational talents in this way.
I was quite surprised that many commentators at the RFC were so casual about Conflict of interest (and I don't mean the wiki-policy WP:COI per se), and were comparing paid advocacy on wikipedia with paid advocacy of wikipedia by Jimbo. The latter of course, is almost perfectly aligned with wikipedia's interests since if wikipedia loses its popularity or credibility, Jimbo loses his speaking fees. The former on the other hand is a clear conflict of interest, since the writer gets paid only if the client/subject is happy with the product - and a client of course gives two hoots about NPOV. He/she is unlikely to care about GA/FA status - which I didn't even know about until I started editing here - only about ghits and web-profile. Making money is not the issue; it is whether the monetary interests make one act against wikipedia's stated ideals and interests. Anyway, enough about this topic for now. Abecedare (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was surprised by people conflating Jimbo's speaking fees with paid advocacy. Jealousy, I think. And I'm feeling the passion of the newly converted regarding money-making being opposite to Wikipedia's ideals and aims. Nichalp's alleged puff piece articles are among the worst examples of that. Priyanath talk 03:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


Hello there. Do you know what this might be about?? The account hasn't been used for a couple of years. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Very strange. Looking at their edit history (<20 edits), they've never edited a talk page and probably didn't know how to sign their post. I think they just copied and pasted my signature and forgot to change it, just like they did with my Keep and Don't rename (I think I was the only one on the page who !voted exactly like that). It's unfortunate that heated AfDs bring out one-time editors, brand new editors (see User:Scarish, who also didn't know how to sign, and it was his 'first' edit), sockpuppets, and single purpose accounts. Worse is when someone copies your signature and intentionally pretends to be you, which happened to me a long time ago. Thanks for pointing it out, Priyanath talk 14:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm - yeah I did notice that the diif time and the sig time were different. --Merbabu (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I've added the {{subst:spa|Example}} template below his post and the recent one by User:Scarish. It's helpful for the closing admin to see that these !votes should likely be discounted. A quick scroll through other posts doesn't find any more single-purpose accounts. Priyanath talk 14:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Baljinder Badesha[edit]

I have suggested that this be merged to Dastar in the conflicts with civil law section as parts of it already covered there. Can you take a look and provide your feedback? -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for it, though I think that there should be a bit more than the two sentences about Baljinder Badesha that are currently at Dastar. I didn't see a discussion where I could add my feedback there. Priyanath talk 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of merging most of the content from the BB page to the Dastar section. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good, although evan a one paragraph review would be enough, imo. Priyanath talk 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


Spot on :-)

Thanks - Among those examples, I'm surprised nobody else (that I've noticed) has mentioned government-paid editing. If I was China or Iran (good examples at the moment), I would be all over the idea of paid advocacy editing on Wikipedia. Priyanath talk 20:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I've seen some mention of Germany sponsoring wikipedia editing on topics of interest to them (can't recall which topics but the discussion is buried either on Jimbo's talk page or on the paid editing rfc). I can see the governments of Burma and North Korea salivating at the thought of sponsored pages on wikipedia! I liked your comment because it reduced the idea to its logical level of absurdity.--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Paid editing...[edit]

I have nominated this article for MfD. Please consider weighing your opinions here: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Paid_editing. Erich Mendacio (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


I am not surprised with your segregation of the Vamacara Panchamrita and its relegation to its own section, to the periphery, the end of the article. Are you even aware of your value judgement of the 'normalization' of the Dakshinamarga enumeration? Please take more care with spelling, to misspell the name of a deity is not only taking undue care, it is an offense at the lotus feet of the deity.
B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 02:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
PS: If you have linkages with Wikisource Sanskrit/Hindi, would you be able to do something appropriate with this: User:B9 hummingbird hovering/Mūlamadhyamakakārikā: first chapter in romanized Sanskrit with diacritics. Adhishtana B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 02:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Different usages of the same term go under a separate section. In this case there are two reasons for putting it at the end of the article: 1) since the rest of the article discusses the more common usage it would be confusing to the reader, 2) a much more common usage should go first. No value judgment, since "the last shall be the first". Thanks for the heads-up on the spelling error. Though regarding your warning, you should know that the deity looks into one's heart and not their head. My Sanskrit leaves much to be desired, so I can't help you there. Priyanath talk 02:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Meditation in Hinduism[edit]

Would you be interested in helping settle some content issues in the Meditation article ? See my note on the talk page and recent edit history for the background. Your knowledge of Raja Yoga will help in separating the wheat from the chaff. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I tried, but there is a whole lot of chaff there and not much wheat. I think all of those 'Meditation in X' sections should be reduced/summarized. Priyanath talk 22:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments - I agree with your analysis. In my initial perusal I had missed all the irrelevant details about unscrupulous gurus (sourced to Gita Mehta's Karma Kola! A very sharp and witty satire that I'm tempted to reread, but hardly a fit source), and on re-reading the expanded text there doesn't seem much that is worth retaining.
Instead I suggest that we focus on the current content of the Hinduism section and try to improve it. The main idea should be to briefly explain the centrality of meditation in the Raja yoga school; and the practice of meditation as part of Hatha yoga, and (arguably) Bhakti yoga (not sure in Japa, Kirtan etc can be classed as meditative practices; will have to look at what scholars have to say). Can also briefly touch upon the renunciation tradition, and the roots of meditation in Vedic (?) and Upanashadic texts. That way an interested reader will know where to look for further details.
By the way, I am not sure I understood your comment here: Put simplistically, don't Raja yogi's think of meditation as a means to attain knowledge/moksha, while Hatha yogis think of it as a means of physical/mental purification ? Are you saying that meditation is the end goal of yoga ? That doesn't sound right to me, so I assume I am misreading some part. (This is all an aside, of course). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
That part you're asking about was not phrased well. I meant to say that the goal of all Yoga was originally moksha, and that even hatha yoga was intended as a means to that end. But over time much of hatha yoga became a means toward health or flexibility, etc. So I should have rephrased my quoting of fauncet to "all the practices of yoga were originally designed to lead to moksha (or samadhi-bliss)". I don't know that there are neutral reliable sources to support that view, but many schools of yoga certainly see it that way. I'll look more closely at that section and see what I can suggest. Priyanath talk 22:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In that quote from the BU, there is no "can." I would appreciate it if you would remove that word. If you look at Olivelle's translation ([4]) it seems clear to me that in context the line is saying that knowing that the atman is beyond good and evil, one therefore (as a result of the knowledge) becomes "calm, composed, cool, patient, and collected" (because he doesn't have to worry about doing good or doing bad). He sees the self in just himself and all things as the self etc. Later on this same page a good thing (wealth) follows from knowledge as well: "a man who knows this finds wealth." For the sake of accuracy I would prefer if we remove this reference and instead just state that the evidence of the Buddhist texts shows that meditation was practiced among Brahmins prior to the Buddha, and possibly as early as the time of the Nasadiya Sukta. That is more correct. What do you think? Mitsube (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I've changed it to a direct quote from Flood instead, attributed only to him. I didn't know there was dispute about this - Flood is both a notable and reliable source. I would be interested in what Abecedare and others say about this, so I would be happy to move this discussion to the article talk page with your ok.
P.S. Apologies for the sloppy paraphrasing, using 'can'.Priyanath talk 04:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for being so picky. Thanks for the change. Mitsube (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I sincerely appreciate that you are keen on getting everything right and improving so many articles in this area. Just FYI, I'm not all that interested in the "us first!" approach that other editors sometimes take regarding where and when meditation (and many other things!) began. It's interesting and quite notable, but I don't think there will ever be a concrete answer—just different academics giving their best educated view. And even they change their views over time. I think that's why presenting them as attributed views is best, and also in a non-comparative way when appropriate (i.e., when there's no need for 'X was first before Y'). Priyanath talk 17:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It may well be a reference to meditation. Regardless, it is generally accepted that samadhi was practiced by some Brahmins prior to the Buddha. Mitsube (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I searched for sources related to meditation in Hinduism, and there does not seem to be much scholarly (as opposed to popular new-agey) material on the subject; that is in contrast to Hinduism+yoga and Buddhism+meditation. Not what I expected a priori. Have you come across any authoritative sources ?
PS: With regards to Fauncet, I think we might be reaching the DFTT stage (even though I suspect he is misguided rather than a vanilla troll). Abecedare (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Flood thinks it's a reference to meditation ("one of the earliest references to meditation"), or I wouldn't be so adamant about it. So perhaps it should be qualified even further by saying that "in Gavin Flood's view...". There are a lack of sources on this, I think because it's not that important to most people, and because it is clearly not definitive one way or the other (and probably never will be). Regarding our friend (see Thomas Alured Faunce, I agree. Abecedare, next time you so innocently ask if I would "be interested in helping settle some content issues", I'm looking both ways before I cross that street :-). Priyanath talk 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
To clarify: My 20:23UTC comment above is not related to the preceding conversation between Mitsube and you, or the Flood quote; I was making a generic comment that there are not too many sources on Hinduism and meditation. This may be partly a linguistic issue - in English language scholarly sources on Hinduism, only dhyana seems to be translated as "meditation" while related concepts of pranayama, pratyahara, dharana, samadhi are treated individually. Popular literature does not seem to make this fine-scaled distinction and seems to treat "meditation" is an umbrella term for any form of mental concentration/contemplation. Of course this is all pure OR, and not relevant to the article itself.
By the way, I somehow never drew the Thomas Alured Faunce <-> User:Fauncet link. I must have taken a look at the latter's recent contribution history at some stage, but somehow I completely overlooked that page. Obviously I wasn't paying enough dhyana.:)
Thanks for all your help with the article! Abecedare (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I also meant to add my extreme surprise at the lack of reliable sources on Hinduism+meditation. Lots of pop sources, and some sources from traditional and legitimate schools. I think you're right that it's linguistic. Flood again comes through with his surprisingly comprehensive works.
I think that bio should be up at AfD, but since I am so involved with him I'm not going there. He's not the first professor I've butted heads with here.... Priyanath talk 17:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)