User talk:Mohanbhan

Welcome!

Hello, Mohanbhan! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 05:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Nomination of K. Satyanarayana (academic) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article K. Satyanarayana (academic) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Satyanarayana (academic) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Iyothee Thass page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Hindu philosophy#Jainism, Buddhism, Carvaka and Ajivika part of Hinduism?

Thank you for your extensive reply; highly appreciated, and very clear and claryfying (that's not exactly correct English, but soît. I do know where to find the "special characters"). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Joshua! I enjoyed the exchange too. Glad we could appreciate each other's efforts after that little misunderstanding. :-) -Mohanbhan (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Additional ref of possible interest

I may have rounded up a bit excessively when I said 1000 years, but use of terms similar to Hinduism enormously predate the 19th century, despite claims to the contrary. I think you will enjoy Unifying Hinduism, which I think you told Joshua Jonathan you'd likely read. Whereas the UH book deals with philosophical unification, another source that, if you can obtain it, is much shorter and thus a quicker read, deals with vernacular usage: Lorenzen, David N. (October 1999). "Who Invented Hinduism?". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 41 (4): 630–659. doi:10.1017/S0010417599003084. BTW, what is listed on the journal webpage as the abstract is actually the first paragraph. And there's an epigraph that somehow didn't get swept into the supposed abstract:

"...moreover if people of Arabia or Persia would ask of the men of this country whether they are Moors or Gentoos, they ask in these words: ‘Art thou Mosalman or Indu?’" --Dr. García de Orta, 1563

Best regards --Presearch (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link but I have read David Lorenzen. His thesis is that what we know as Hinduism was constructed in opposition to foreign religions, first Islam and then Christianity. The popularization of vernacular religious texts like the Puranas helped people see a family resemblance (similar gods goddesses etc) in other Indian sects and this was the direct result of -- or a means to withstand -- foreign invasion and the imposition of a foreign religion. So everything that was not Islam came to be identified as Indu, and later -- much later -- Hindu. But the term Hinduism was only used in 19th century. And philosophical unification, regardless of how it was done or how substantial it was, does not really signify a unification of different sects---Hindu philosophy being an elite activity conducted mostly in Sanskrit. But yes, I will read UH. -Mohanbhan (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you've read Lorenzen. A good deal of your characterization in the paragraph above is accurate. He does speak of family resemblances, and suspects that the challenge posed by Islam played a key role. However, your characterization is mixed with other things undiscussed by him, at least in that cited document. He adduces evidence showing that very similar "models" (he calls it the 'standard model') of Hinduism were showing up in reports of Europeans from their earliest arrival ("Hinduism, if it was in fact constructed by the Europeans, can be traced back to the very earliest European accounts", p. 646); and Lorenzen clearly argues that words related to "Hindu" had a long precolonial history of designating religion, not just an ethno-geographic group, so the notion that "everything that was not Islam came to be identified as Indu", is not his argument in that citation; rather, Lorenzen notes that "virtually all of the more scholarly observers among the European visitors and residents in India before 1800 had identified Hinduism as a diverse but identifiable set of beliefs and practices clearly distinguished from Islam and, less clearly, from the Sikh and Parsi religions as well" (p. 638).

And speaking of family resemblance, and of timescales relative to invasion, Lorenzen observes that "From the point of view of a modern observer, one can see the family resemblance taking a recognizably Hindu shape in the early Puranas, roughly around the period 300–600 C.E.... This Hinduism wasn’t invented by anyone, European or Indian... it just grow’d" (p. 665). --Presearch (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but all these characterizations: "virtually all of the more scholarly observers among the European visitors and residents in India before 1800 had identified Hinduism as a diverse but identifiable set of beliefs and practices clearly distinguished from Islam" and "one can see the family resemblance taking a recognizably Hindu shape in the early Puranas" are still very vague since Hinduism does not -- or does not easily -- fit into the description of "religion". -Mohanbhan (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Which publication(s) are the two of you referring to? Who Invented Hinduism: Essays on Religion in History? I'd like to read them too. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry; I see that Presearch mentioned a journal-article with the same title. Thanks. Mohanbhan, have you got any other recommandations? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Mahanbhan Mohanbhan, with regard to your statement above that "Hinduism does not -- or does not easily -- fit into the description of 'religion'", the obvious question is "whose description"? If you aren't already, you should be aware that there is no uniform definition of religion that is accepted across many scholarly/scientific fields, and in many cases, there is no uniform definition within a field. Anthropologist Benson Saler, for example, in his book-length discussion of defining religion, suggests religion is at most a "family resemblance" construct definable at most by prototypes, an approach that is gaining traction in some other fields (e.g., psychology). Note that on page ix, Saler suggests that "religion is a Western folk category that contemporary Western scholars have appropriated", and that "In large measure... their scholarly efforts to define or characterize religion are efforts to refine and deepen the folk category that they began to use as children, and to foreground what they deem most salient or important about religion." Thus, to repeat, you should be aware that your claim is not transparently obvious, but begs the question: "Description of religion as defined by whom?" Best regards --Presearch (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It's Mohan not Mahan, if you please. I don't think there is any need to get into the nitty-gritties of the concept of religion. In spite of all their complexities and evolution Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism as well as Zoroastrianism and Sikhism can be defined by their central texts and central tenets. These are very important for something to be called religion. Hinduism doesn't have these and so at best is only a pretend religion. That said, I agree that Christianity as conceived by Jesus of Nazareth underwent a huge transformation under St Paul and the many denominations of Christianity that we have today bear only a "family resemblance" to the original religion. But these are divergent developments of Christianity based on different interpretations of a single text. In the case of "Hinduism" this single text does not exist. If Hinduism is to attain cohesiveness the Vedas must be projected as its central texts (like Dayanand Saraswati did) and let go of anti-Vedic factions like Carvaka, Tantric variety Shaivism, the Bhakti cults etc. And if not the Vedas some other text which is more inclusive. Hinduism as it exists is very confusing. But thanks for the links. I will go through them.

Mohanbhan, I apologize for mis-spelling your name (it was a typo, now strikeout-corrected). Yes, in your above post you have analyzed the potential for using a central sacred text as an approach for defining religion, and found that this approach doesn't work as well with Hinduism.

But what made you choose the existence of a central sacred text as a sort of "litmus test" for what counts as a religion? That's precisely the point being made by the wave of scholarship epitomized by Benson. You didn't offer a reason why you chose that particular litmus test, and you cannot appeal to it as an agreed-upon scholarly definition (at least not in most fields). To the extent that you are a scholar, you therefore run the risk of seeking to impose your own "folk-beliefs" on others -- although one way to mitigate against the biases of such an approach (if you are doing scholarship) is to explain and defend why you think that your particular definition (e.g., sacred text-centric) is relevant to the task for which you are using it. In contrast, one (of many) conceivable alternative approaches might emphasize the coherence and usefulness of a tradition for transforming and sanctifying the lives of people of diverse temperments. That approach to defining what constitutes a religion would arguably be closer to the actual values celebrated as supreme by most religious traditions. But different jobs can demand different definitional tools. The question would be: What is the job for which you believe "existence of a central sacred text" is a worthwhile definitional tool, and why is it more appropriate and useful than diverse alternatives identified in the literature (Benson and others)? Best regards -- Presearch (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read Benson and others but my conception of religion is certainly not a "folk-belief". The English word 'religion' generally applied to Abrahamic religions has a classificatory function and to perform this function adequately it looks for certain features in a system-of-beliefs to class it as religion. The three Abrahamic religions would together resemble a less complicated version of Hinduism, and yet if they are three different and distinct religions it is because the features of central text/s and central tenets are identified. Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are also classed as religion for the same reason: they have identifiable texts and tenets which clarify the meaning of these religions. Hinduism has no such texts or tenets, and so the English word religion cannot be applied to it without getting into problems. That is why many scholars prefer to call Hinduism a dharma rather than a religion. But dharma (no matter what it is taken to mean from 'duty' and 'law' to 'way of life') is a slippery and vague term which, in the final analysis, does not clarify the essence of Hinduism. Indeed if anything can be called a "folk-belief" exaggerated to the point of ludicrousness it is the belief of the people of India, and of Hindus the world over, that Hinduism is a religion. I am quite convinced about this but I will read Benson and see whether he says a plurality of diverse and mutually hostile traditions and belief systems can constitute a religion. -Mohanbhan (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua: You can read Chattopadhayaya's Lokayata if you haven't read it already. -Mohanbhan (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Apart from your mentions of it on your talkpage, I hadn't even heard of it. Fascinating! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for those very interesting links. Don't know why you removed them. Also appreciate your spirited riposte. -Mohanbhan (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Charvaka, Ajivika and help

Hello, I salute you for your edits on wikipedia.

Well I think that you are right on those two pages. Charavaka is an extinct Indian philosophy and is almost dead. So I don't find any Charavaka defending on that page. Most of them are Hindus who even claim the same for Gautam Buddha. Its very sad but I will support you.

By the way do you know how to create a template on wikipedia? Thanks Terabar (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the kind words. Carvaka is an ancient Indian materialism and the Marxists of today must defend it, but obviusly most Marxists wouldn't know about it. But they are building consensus on Hindu template page to change the header to Indian philosophy--this is an improvement. But they want to categorize Carvaka as Nastika and I don't think that is right. Yes, most of them are completely at sea about Carvaka philosophy. All that they know about Carvaka is that it is a Nastika or heterodox school of Indian philosophy which they have read in some dated surveys of Hinduism. About creating templates: I think you can take the php code of a template (by clicking on edit template) and tweak it according to your needs. -Mohanbhan (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Even Encyclopedia Britanicca defines Charavaka as an Indian Philosophy and not as a Hindu sect. [Charvaka]. All the scholars of Hinduism claim that those Indian traditions are a part of Hinduism. They want to absorb all the Indian traditions and call them under the term "Hindu". Now the sources which are being presented on Charvaka and Ajivika pages to claim that they were Hindus are from mostly Hindu Scholars. Even Jains and Buddhists are not considered as a separate religion but thought of as an Hindu identity. In the Samaññaphala Sutta the philosophies which existed at the time of Buddha are explained such as of the Ajivika Makkhali Gosala. Nigatha Nataputa (Mahavira) is also one of them. They disagreed with Buddha's dhamma so should we call them them Buddhists? But all the Hindu Scholars feel proud who even reject their scriptures(Vedas) and don't hesitate them to call them as Hindu. I don't know how can I explain this to them. Best regards. Terabar (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Masochism: Coldness and Cruelty, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Masochism and Sadism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

I have had occasion to both agree and disagree with you about content at Talk:Hindu philosophy and Talk:Cārvāka and that is likely to be the case in the future too. But as I told Sarah on my talkpage editing at these talkpages would be more pleasant and productive with less bad-blood and bad-faith amongst editors. Focus on the content and sources (and feel free to disagree about that!) but avoid speculating about other editors' ideology and motives, or employing inflammatory hyperbole as in this edit and others. Belittling other editors is not conducive to collaboration and doesn't paint the speaker in a good light, as User:Joshua Jonathan had politely pointed to you before. Hope you'll take greater care in the future. Abecedare (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: As Soham321 has pointed out your intervention was sought during the canvassing by Sarah Welch and that makes you an "involved party." And being an involved party you are naturally choosing to call my very calm and considered response to Sarah Welch's outburst "inflammatory" instead of her completely uncalled for overreaction about wiki not being a Chattopadhyaya-pedia. I am not "speculating" about Sarah Welch's motives, I am responding to her allegations about my motives, and arguing, adopting the best practices, that if she does not reflect an edit she made to Carvaka article (about the roots of Carvaka being in Rigveda) in the Rigveda article it would make her bias obvious. She is yet to respond to that challenge. Does this constitute speculating about someone's motives or intellectually demonstrating that she is acting with a bias? You are an admin and a senior editor and in this case an involved party--so please don't sermonize without adequately engaging with the content of discussion. I am not interested in speculating about anybody's motives; I am discussing, citing sources, pointing out flaws in argument, conceding when the reasons are adequate and holding my ground when they are not; in short, I am arguing and doing so in a civil way. And you cannot accuse me of "belittling" an editor because my tone was a direct response to the tone adopted by Joshua Jonathan, who made these flippant remarks.

I have no objection whatsoever to including Jainism and Hinduism in this template. Who cares if they are not "strictly" Hindu? I don't, most Hindus probably don't, and most Buddhists probably also don't. How about an RfC? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Oh, and Raju is saying that, if the Ajivikas and the Carvakas can be Hindus, Jainism and Buddhism can also be called forms of Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I told him, addressing him as "bother", that he has to cite reasons for having "no objection whatsoever." I was telling them that this was a serious matter concerning lots of people and that it was not OK to discuss it in a cavalier manner. This can hardly be called "belittling" fellow editors.

So with all due respect to you as wiki admin may I point out that you are not in a position to take an impartial view of the matter. You may reserve your chastisement to Sarah Welch who has created all this unpleasantness with her unwarranted outbursts and ad hominem attacks. -Mohanbhan (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Charvaka view of Inference

The Charvaka view of inference described in this page may be of interest to you: http://www.iep.utm.edu/indmat/#SH3a Soham321 (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Soham. -Mohanbhan (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Claire Parnet

The article Claire Parnet has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. GLG GLG (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Proust and Signs (French edition).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Proust and Signs (French edition).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Chattopadhyaya and Needham

Please see how best to include a reference to this book in the Chattopdhyaya biography: Cosmic Perspectives. It has an invited contribution from Chattopadhyaya on astronomy in ancient India, and another from Needham on astronomy in ancient and medieval China. It would be useful to investigate whether the two have ever co-authored any paper(s). Soham321 (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Chattopadhyaya had also edited a series of volumes titled 'Indian Studies:Past and Present'. Please see if you can find some information about this series so we can add it to the reference section. Soham321 (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

One other point: The 'Chattopadhyaya and Joseph Needham' section can be expanded by paraphrasing and quoting from Needham's foreword to Chattopadhyay's first volume of 'History of Science and Technology in Ancient India'. Soham321 (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I have added the chapter in Cosmic Perspectives to Bibliography section with a link to google books for now. Will add Indian Studies. Don't have access to the HST book. There are many more books that could be added to Bibliography section; I haven't added them as I am not sure whether they are by Debiprasad Chattopadhayaya or D.P. Chattopadhayaya (also Debiprasad, founder of ICPR). We should also source a few images. The Mircea Eliade page is a good model. -Mohanbhan (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. One point: The publication history of Indian Studies:Past and Present spanned a period from 1959 to 1974. Chattopadhyaya was the overall Editor for this series which was a quarterly publication. See catalogue 1 and Catalogue 2. Unfortunately the online catalogues i have seen do not explicitly state that Chattopadhyaya was editing this series. Please see if you can find evidence for the same. Soham321 (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I found this and added it. -Mohanbhan (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Lokayata

great job on creating the Lokayata article. I think we should try to have wikipedia articles for all his major books. Soham321 (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I think we should do that. -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Cover of An Introduction to the Study of Indian History.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Cover of An Introduction to the Study of Indian History.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Keith Ansell Pearson

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Keith Ansell Pearson, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/people/faculty/pearson.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Keith Ansell-Pearson

The licence for the image you have added to this article states that it is a screen capture of a BBC commentary and can only be used in an article about the documentary itself. Furthermore, non-free content can only be used "where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". As the subject is still living, it would be possible to create a free equivalent. For both reasons, I have removed the image from the article. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. I will upload another image. -Mohanbhan (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The new image also has a licence making its use invalid here. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Photo of Keith Ansell-Pearson.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Photo of Keith Ansell-Pearson.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

4RR

i think you are at 4RR now. that means you can be blocked by any Admin for, i think, 48 hours. Would advise you to self-revert promptly. Soham321 (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted but according to WP:EDITWAR reverting vandalism -- which is what I was doing since they were section blanking sourced content -- is exempted from WP:3RR. -Mohanbhan (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

you are probably right, but no need to take any risk since the plagiarism content is going to be included in the page ultimately. In fact i expect to see more articles on Rajiv's plagiarism in the next few days. Soham321 (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I reverted too. Thanks for the alert! -Mohanbhan (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Be sure about that. Fox has published an open letter, which also states that copyrights of Columbia University Press and other publishers have been violated. It would surprise me if there wouldn't be a response to that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Keith Ansell-Pearson.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Keith Ansell-Pearson.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [2], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. RichardOSmith (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - India, Pakistan, and Afganistan

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Template:Z33

An ARCA discussion involving you has been created

{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen}}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Imposition_of_an_Arbitration_Enforced_Sanction_against_me_by_Bishonen Soham321 (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't start an edit war

Don't just revert on Bhakti Movement. Engage with the talk page to be curtious. I have no problem with including that material, but it is a specific example and shouldn't be in the intro. Please go move it into a section or create a new section, but remove it from the lead as it is too long and too specific. The intro is not meant to get lost in detailed specific examples, but to paint the larger picture of the bhakti movement.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I've attempted to make the edit myself. Tell me what you think.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request archived

The India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Jim Carter 06:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Dalit Buddhist Movement

Hello User: Mohanbhan, I want to bring your attention to the above mentioned article. The last Paragraph says //Ambedkar's followers do not believe that a person's conditions at birth are the result of previous karma.//

Firstly I couldn't find the exact source of this paragraph available on Internet and I think that its a copyright violation. Secondly, this sentence is very problematic and can mislead the readers into thinking that Ambedlar's followers don't believe in theory of karma which is quite untrue. In [Devadaha Sutta ], Buddha himself debates with Jains to the extent that some results are not due to previous actions. Please if you can look into this matter then it would be very grateful. Thanks in advance.

Hello Terabar, though I know Ambedkar's Buddhism, which he called Navayana, is different in certain ways from traditional forms of Buddhism I am not sure how exactly it is different. But, from what I have read of Ambedkar, he could have said something like what you have quoted. Referring to his book The Buddha and his Dhamma would clarify your doubt. -Mohanbhan (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes but the difference is very minute but they all follow the Theravada Tradition.

Babasaheb Ambedkar said

"

I will accept and follow the teachings of Buddha. I will keep my people away from the different opinions of Hinyan and Mahayan, two religious orders. Our Bouddha Dhamma is a new Bouddha Dhamma, Navayan.

— Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Press interview on 13 October 1956 at Sham Hotel, Nagpur

"

References

It clearly says that Dr.Ambedkar accepted the teachings of Buddha. Most of the Ambedkarites follow the Theravada tradition. I find that sentence very problamatic and its partially true and partially false because all the results (Vipaka) are not due to your previous actions. According to Buddhism, there are five orders or processes (niyama) which operate in the physical and mental realms. They are:

• Utu Niyama - physical inorganic order, e.g. seasonal phenomena of winds and rains. The unerring order of seasons, characteristic seasonal changes and events, causes of winds and rains, nature of heat, etc., all belong to this group.
• Bija Niyama - order of germs and seeds (physical organic order), e.g. rice produced from rice-seed, sugary taste from sugar-cane or honey, peculiar characteristics of certain fruits, etc. The scientific theory of cells and genes and the physical similarity of twins may be ascribed to this order.
• Karma Niyama - order of act and result, e.g., desirable and undesirable acts produce corresponding good and bad results. As surely as water seeks its own level so does Karma, given opportunity, produce its inevitable result, not in the form of a reward or punishment but as an innate sequence. This sequence of deed and effect is as natural and necessary as the way of the sun and the moon.
• Dhamma Niyama - order of the norm, e.g., the natural phenomena occurring at the advent of a Bodhisattva in his last birth. Gravitation and other similar laws of nature. The natural reason for being good and so forth, may be included in this group.
• Citta Niyama - order or mind or psychic law, e.g., processes of consciousness, arising and perishing of consciousness, constituents of consciousness, power of mind, etc., including telepathy, telaesthesia, retro-cognition, premonition, clairvoyance, clairaudience, thought-reading and such other psychic phenomena which are inexplicable to modern science.

So if you are black-skinned or white skinned then it is not because of your kamma but because of the environment conditions. I think you have understood that not everything is not due to your previous kamma. So that statement is partially half truth and half false. Please look into this matter as it is driving the readers into false idea about Indian Buddhism. Terabar (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This does require a specialist's attention. I have not even read The Buddha and his Dhamma. -Mohanbhan (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Terabar, Joshua Jonathan might be able to help you with this. -Mohanbhan (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

So Joshua Jonathan, Can you please help me? Thanks in advance. Terabar (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll answer at User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Dalit Buddhist Movement. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

French Enlightenment

would you be able to recommend to me any books on the French Enlightenment? I am particularly interested in reading more about Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, and D'Holbach. Thanks.

Soham321 (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

And this for your viewing pleasure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orWp7LpnAyI Soham321 (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Soham. I haven't read much of Voltaire, only Candide. Isaiah Berlin's The Age of Enlightenment is good though it is not specific to French Enlightenment. The Portable Enlightenment Reader published by Penguin, with excerpts from various writers, gives a comprehensive overview of European Enlightenment. I have heard a lot about Alexis de Tocqueville's The Old Regime and the Revolution and Tom Paine's Rights of Man but I haven't read them. They deal specifically with French revolution and the thought that shaped it. Peter Gay is considered an authority on Enlightenment and even I am planning to read his book The Enlightenment: An Interpretation: The Rise of Modern Paganism. -Mohanbhan (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. Soham321 (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

What is Living...

Just a note to say that if you copy material from one Wikipedia article to another, as you've done with the lede to What is Living and What is Dead in Indian Philosophy (copied from Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya) you need to make explicit attribution in an edit summary, as explained in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia - a dummy edit summary stating 'copied lede from Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya; see that article's history for attribution' should do it, along with adding Template:Copied (filled in with the appropriate details) to the Chattopadhyaya article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I will keep this in mind. -Mohanbhan (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk page behavior

This was not a constructive reply. If you don't know the answer, don't feel like digging up the sources, or just don't feel like answering the question, you are under no obligation to reply. But sarcastic and supercilious responses to good and sincere questions are not an acceptable alternative. Please avoid this in the future. Abecedare (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

My first reply answered his query fully. If the Indian constitution recognizes scheduled castes only among Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists then obviously there wouldn't be any among Christians and Muslims. He may have wanted to know whether Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims are SCs or not but, honestly, for an editor with such a long experience in editing caste-related -- Dalit-related -- articles his question came across as extremely naive. -Mohanbhan (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't have a problem with your first reply (I effectively conveyed some of the same information in my own reply in a separate section, before I saw yours). But Sitush's question was a natural and perceptive one about whether "Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims are SCs" since you had not listed those. The correct answer to that is that currently the Indian constitution does not classify Dalit Christians and Muslims as SCs although there are efforts by some groups to change that (not knowing this is not even "ignorance", let alone naivety). And that, due to this the census count for SCs does not exactly match the number of dalits, although the discrepancy is likely to be minor (WP:OR).

You obviously knew all this but, perhaps due to past tiffs with Sitush, chose the snarky route instead of simply conveying the information. Such a reply may give one a momentary sense of superiority, but isn't it all a bit middle-schoolish and silly? Abecedare (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

equalitarian

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Manuel De Landa

Hello Mohanbhan. This is just a quick note to explain that if you want to move the article Manuel De Landa to Manuel DeLanda, it will be necessary to get the latter page deleted first. You can request an administrator to delete the page for you. It might help to read WP:HISTMERGE. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks FreeKnowledge, have done the needful. -Mohanbhan (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I have undone those changes because they were improperly done (that is, you used a procedure for article pages rather than redirects, and you did not properly follow the procedure at WP:AFDHOWTO anyway). For uncontroversial page moves you could just tag the redirect which is in the way for speedy deletion (category WP:G6), but this is not uncontroversial and you should see WP:RM. RichardOSmith (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this move is "controversial" as Manuel DeLanda is the spelling used in DeLanda's books 90% of the time. See this, only two of his earliest books, A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History and War in the Age of Intelligent Machines use the De Landa spelling. So I am going ahead and tagging the redirect page with WP:G6. -Mohanbhan (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It is controversial because @Lancini87: has disagreed with you about it - therefore it needs wider discussion. I have removed the speedy tag. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure why Lancini87 has disagreed with me and sorted Manuel De Landa as Manuel Landa! I am not reverting his edit. I have started a discussion on the talk page. -Mohanbhan (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but he has - that's all that's needed to make this contentious. I modified your proposal - a talk page discussion is, of course, valid, but to get wider participation I took it to WP:RM. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Voltaire and Rousseau

I have been doing a lot of editing on the WP pages of Voltaire and Rousseau. Could you please take a look at these two pages and give some feedback? Thank you. Soham321 (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Good to see you working on these pages. I am no expert on Voltaire but your edits on Voltaire's views on race and slavery are valuable additions to the article. It was not uncommon for Enlightenment thinkers to be "racist"; Kant who proposed a universal ethics held racist/white supremacist views. Given this context Voltaire seems to be remarkably progressive. I haven't read much of Rousseau (and have a text-book (mis)understanding of him as a primitivist etc) but I hope to read at least some of his principle texts like The Social Contract soon. -Mohanbhan (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I think if Voltaire was actually a "racist" it would have a minimal impact on his overall greatness given the time he was living in. But i am not sure whether William Cohen's view should be incorporated into the article (in the "Views on race and slavery" section) considering that in his book he does not give us a reference to any writing of Voltaire to substantiate his claim that Voltaire thought that "blacks did not fully share in the common humanity of whites."My understanding is that David Allen Harvey is closer to the truth when he says that Voltaire was frequently invoking racial differences as a means to fight religious orthodoxy and repudiate the biblical account of creation. Soham321 (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

With respect to Rousseau, i would recommend these books if you wish to read his writings in translation (assuming you do not know french): The Essential Rousseau and Jean Jacques Rousseau: The Basic Political Writings. Soham321 (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the leads; I will look them up. Well "racist" is a loaded word and though the same word is used to describe the Klu Klux Klan and Kant everybody knows they were not racist in the same way. Yeah, even I feel that Voltaire often invoked "the other" (the racially and religiously different, like Muhammad, for example) to fight Christian orthodoxy. -Mohanbhan (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

John Maynard Keynes

Standard practice in articles of British peers is to place their full title on the infobox heading, not their names.--The Traditionalist (talk) 10:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this seems to be the standard practice. I will revert. -Mohanbhan (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Davesh Soneji

The article Davesh Soneji has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no indicatio of meeting notability guidelines

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the speedy deletion notice and added the Bibliography section. I will further improve the article. -Mohanbhan (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Three Hundred Ramayanas

How about a Wiki-article on Three Hundred Ramayanas? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, why not, go ahead, and please do not forget to mention that Ramanujan was inspired by Advaita Vedanta. -Mohanbhan (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I f he was, I will. But I'm more interested in the question why there was such a stirr about his article; at first read, I can't find anything provocative in it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)