Talk:Lajja Ram Tomar

Akshay Bakaya

Who is Akshay Bakaya? Is he a notable expert on the subject? The article is sourced to South Asia Citizens Web, which is a newsblog -- there is no information on review and publication policy. And that seems to be the only post of Akshay Bakaya ever. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with the reference to the published version. Thanks. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You replaced it in-place with a book, it was referenced five times... did the newsblog literally copy-paste from the book such that a mere in-place replacement fixed it? I still do not find that Akshay Bakaya reviewed "the Path of Vidya Bharati"? You may want to substitute "smack", its usage is incorrect and falls under cliche, also decapitalize "Thought" and probably use said instead. Since the work is specifically on the subject, you may write it in wikipedia voice as a neutral summary without the need to attribute to the author (more so because the author is not notable). That also means you should avoid cliche such as "Hindu golden age fantasies", which, besides not being in the source, is pre-prejudised against the subjects opinion. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a minor copy edit here. Edit summary: Copyedit (minor). "display fantasies" ==> "speak". Per talk page and cliche. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"display fantasies" is not a cliche, it is not even a phrase. "fantasies of a Hindu golden age" is the phrase. If you want to remove "fantasies," which seems to be you main purpose, then you need to argue why they are not fantasies. There is no cliche involved here. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does the source have it? --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. It has a much more damning description than I have written. Why don't you go and read it? (By the way, I created a subsection here, which doesn't lose the context. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking of this passage: Tomar’s writings are rich only in the RSS’ usual, rather un-spiritual glories, despite the claims that spirituality lies at the basis of all Hindu life. In fact, the RSS, like the Arya Samaj before it, seems essentially to generate Hindu-golden-age fantasies as mirror images parasitic upon a rival’s ‘original’, in every field. The ‘Hinduism’ of the RSS is deprived of anything that could be special and worthy of universal human interest. Its ‘superiority’ is reduced to the pointless claim of temporal antecedence. The delusion is that the world will be impressed with the claim that Ancient Indian Sages propounded ‘scientific’ theories similar (indeed identical) to what is now standard in the West, only much earlier? --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Is there a point you are trying to make? Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that is as unsubstantiated accusational rant as it can get and it is a generic wining against RSS and Arya Samaj not Tomar directly. These rant may be more relevant on RSS and Arya Samaj page not on this. Is the author notable? Is he a subject expert on Tomar? --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are up to your usual tricks again. I asked you to argue that these are not "fantasies". You haven't. You have asked whether it is in the source, which it is. Don't know why you had to ask. And, now you say that the author is talking about Arya Samaj and RSS, not about Tomar, despite the fact that the passage you have quoted starts with "Tomar". I think we need a WP:third opinion. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss content -- I don't appreciate that 'trick' opinion here. Period. Can't you see the author went into a fit about RSS and Arya Samaj and you are extending those comments to Tomar? Can't you see the "In fact" where he leaves Tomar and starts his commentary on RSS? And look at all that heavily opinionated statements with no support, what is the author's standing? --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasies of Hindu golden age are directly supported by numerous quotes from Tomar's book, which you don't seem to have read. Anyway, I think we have reached a deadlock. I have asked for third opinion, and I am going to wait for somebody to get involved. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which book? I only see one small article full of hate. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

AmritasyaPutra and Kautilya3, one of you (I don't know who) requested a third opinion. I've looked over the article and your discussion and I see two major question"

Is Bakaya's article a reliable source? I found this information on the book's authors and contents—it seems to be a reputable scholarly work and can be safely mentioned in this article.
How should Bakaya's opinions be presented? Opinions like this are difficult to paraphrase. If we don't uses phrases like "fantasies of a Hindu golden age", we will not be accurately representing Bakaya's criticism of Tomar. But we cannot state his ideas as fact without losing neutrality. Therefore, I think we should quote a short passage directly from Bakaya, which will give the full flavor of his ideas while making it clear that we do not necessarily endorse them. I sugges:t the following:

In The Path of Vidya Bharati Thought, Tomar argues that Hindu knowledge often predated Western scientific advances: that Rigvedic verses calculated the speed of light, Samkhya scholars dated the universe to 2 billion years old, and the sage Bharadwaj wrote a text on aviation engineering. In a 2004 article, Akshay Bakaya criticised these ideas: "In fact, the RSS, like the Arya Samaj before it, seems essentially to generate Hindu-golden-age fantasies as mirror images parasitic upon a rival’s 'original', in every field.…The delusion is that the world will be impressed with the claim that ancient Indian sages propounded 'scientific' theories similar (indeed identical) to what is now standard in the West, only much earlier.

If we can find reliable sources factually refuting (or supporting) Tomar's claims about Hindu knowledge, those could probably be paraphrased, but Bakaya's criticisms are broader and thus best quoted directly. I am interested to hear your thoughts.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: 1. He is a teacher of Hindi, not a subject expert of this article, giving half of article to his view is undue. 2. The "In fact" sentence is a clear digression into criticism of RSS and Arya Samaj which may not be directly brought upon Tomar, does he mean to say Tomar is in delusion that the world will be impressed with the claim that ancient Indian sages propounded 'scientific' theories? I think no. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Neil P. Quinn: Thanks very much for your help. My main concern has been to state that these are fantasies. I agree that if there is some source that actually argues the case, that would be good, and I will hunt for such. (The claims are so absurd that it is unlikely that anybody would waste their time doing that. But some people do take such things seriously.) A direct quote from the source has the problem that Bakaya took a detour by mentioning RSS and Arya Samaj rather than Tomar directly. Nevertheless, your paraphrase is quite a good compromise. I am happy to go with it. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AmritasyaPutra: As for the knowledge of the author, Akshay Bakaya, we don't know a whole lot, but we depend on the editor and the publisher to do that kind of checking. If he is a Hindi scholar, he is well-equipped to read and analyse the RSS literature, most of which would be in Hindi. In this review [1], Amman Madan, a sociologist from IIT-Kanpur, calls his it a "nuanced and well-written essay." In this review [2], Jyotsna Jha calls it an "excellently well-researched analysis of the RSS ideology." I think these are quite good endorsements. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AmritasyaPutra: I also had trouble finding specific details about Bakaya's qualifications beyond "Hindi teacher", but the fact that he was selected to write for the volume and the positive reviews Kautilya3 cites reassures me. Also, the quote I picked out doesn't mention Tomar directly but from the sentence before it's clear he's the intended target ("Tomar’s writings are rich only in the RSS’ usual, rather un-spiritual glories, despite the claims that spirituality lies at the basis of all Hindu life. In fact, the RSS, like the Arya Samaj before it..."). It's not ideal that criticism takes us so much of the article, but I don't think we could make the paragraph much shorter. The solution there is probably to include more info about Tomar and not less criticism.
@Kautilya3: I also find the claims absurd and wish we could rebut them directly. But unless we can find a source that explicitly says Bharadwaj's didn't write about aviation, I fear it would be original research to say so (just as I cannot debunk a UFO article with my own common sense, no matter how correct I might be). I suppose we can take comfort in the fact that most people will understand from the context that these are highly dubious ideas.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think I or Kautilya3 here raised doubt that Bharadwaj did not write about aviation. Let us not digress. The criticism is present in the article in a neutral tone without introducing an editorial work or un-encyclopaedic tone. We have clearly digressed far beyond the dispute over the diff of my minor copy-edit above. Author says Tomar's writing is along the lines of RSS thought and then goes on to criticize RSS, shall we add all the criticism we can find about RSS onto Tomar? The author also opines that Tomar's views are given importance because he is a celibate and that commands prestige. Do we have to believe that he was the head of the institution itself for years but instead of that celibacy was the overriding influence? --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AmritasyaPutra:, I agree that the specific factual claims (aviation, speed of light, etc.) aren't the main focus here. But if a reliable source criticizes Tomar, it's not for us to decide whether the criticism is accurate or not. We have to stay neutral, include it, and let the reader decide. (Obviously, if a source doesn't criticize Tomar specifically, we can't include it—that would be original research.) So I think discussing whether Bakaya's views are fair or well-founded is also a distraction. Also, you can see the translated title listed in footnote 7 of the article.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeating me, we have to be neutral -- yes, let the reader decide -- yes. What is the context of footnote 7 in this discussion [7] Lajja Ram Tomar, Vidya Bharati chintan ki disha (The Path of Vidya Bharati Thought), 2001, Kurukshetra? Are you saying mention of this title in the footnote means he reviewed the book? --AmritasyaPutra^T 04:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AmritasyaPutra: Ah, this is the first time you are mentioning that you have a problem with the word "reviewed." When you added a "Failed Verification" tag a couple of days ago, there was nothing said at all. I can change it to "analysed." (By the way, doing reverts as a display of power doesn't get you anywhere. You know that very well by now.) Kautilya3 (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 4-5 word phrase I tagged had only one verb "reviewed", I tagged it less than 24h back not a couple of days back. No you can't make it "analysed" either. A mention in footnote like that does not warranty an inclusion in Wikipedia with words like "he analysed". The way it is written, it looks like that is the introduction to the author, is that the case? Is he known for reviewing that book? Is that his identity? Are you subsequently quoting author's remark about that book? -- No. --AmritasyaPutra^T 08:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, less than 24 hours back, but without any explanation: diff [3]. I thought you were complaining about the English translation. When I reverted it, you reverted it again, which is the start of an edit-war in my book, uncalled for while we are in the middle of a discussion. In any case, I didn't use "reviewed" in the strong sense you are interpreting. The proposed wording by User:Neil P. Quinn doesn't use the term at all. So, I am not sure why you are fighting over this. I didn't understand the bunch of questions you posed. However, the role of footnote 7 in Bakaya's article is to say "this is what I am talking about." So what he is talking about it is the important bit, not footnote 7. If not "reviewed" or "analysed", one might say he "commented" upon it. Does that meet with your approval? Kautilya3 (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have your book. Let me repeat: A mention in footnote like that does not warranty an inclusion in Wikipedia with words like "he reviewed/analysed/commented/read" because here the way it is paraphrased, it looks like that is the introduction to the author, is that the case? Is he known for reviewing/analysing/commenting/reading that book? Is that his identity? Are you subsequently quoting author's remark about that book or his resentment towards RSS? --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are talking about two issues: (i) my previous wording (ii) the distinction between Tomar and RSS in the paragraph of Bakaya you have quoted from. I think my previous wording is now defunct in the light of Neil's proposed wording. So, there is no point going back to it. The Bakaya paragraph is starting with Tomar and ending with Tomar. So, it is about Tomar. In the middle, Bakaya is saying that Tomar's writings fit into the general pattern of RSS writing. Whether Tomar is the initiator of these ideas or whether he is merely copying other RSS people's ideas, I don't know. But there is no question that Bakaya is talking about Tomar's writings in this paragraph. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did put question marks in last comment. According to Akshay Bukaya, who reviewed The Path of Vidya Bharati Thought ==> Is the subsequent line about that book? No. Is that the author's identity? No. A mere mention in the footnote does not mean he "reviewed/analysed/commented" on that book. He only referred to it in favour of his opinion at one place. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Kautilya3 asked above, what is the objection here? The precise wording can be discussed, but the fact that Bakaya (or Bukaya) is discussing Tomar is not in doubt. His reliability is not in question either, although his tone is such that attribution is required. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stop this discussion now? It's clear that Tomar has certain views on the superiority of Hindu culture; it's also clear that his views are not shared by everyone, including some Wiki-editors. That's enough, I think. Is there anything else that might be of interest to Wiki-readers? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There should be plenty more. Tomar was the head of a right-wing educational organisation that poisons children's minds, and teaches them to equate conservative Hindu dogmas with patriotism and hate Muslims and Christians. How much of this can be credited to Tomar is not yet entirely clear. But I don't like the present state of the article which makes it sound like he just wrote some nutty books that some random people criticized. I am still thinking about how to reword it. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not with the term "poisons", I guess... Seriously: I undersatnd your use of this term, but maybe you should avoid it here. There are more subtle ways to communicate your objections; this term may provoke a new round of clashes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-re-re-revert

Ad infinitum

AP, you have now reverted this content three times in the last 24 hours, and have not responded to the question I asked here. The wording therein is supported by three editors, including the neutral Neil Quinn; yet you attempt to claim that consensus is in your favor, and that there is a discussion going on? I am not going to revert you again, but I will report you to AN3 if you continue to do so. You placed a warning on my talk, so you obviously don't need one yourself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry about that, no intention to edit-war, I have restored, if I have violated 3RR I will self-revert. At the time of your comment, I had kept the version twice in past three days. "Reverted three times in 24h" is absolutely incorrect. Your edit comment when reverting me is incorrect, I gave the reason and never marked it as minor edit. Besides, can you stop reverting and discuss? Can I have answer to my questions please? My objection above is The author did not "review/analyse" the book "The Path of Vidya Bharati Thought". --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You performed four reverts; 00:21, 03:18, 23:40, 00:27. The last revert is 6 minutes outside the 24 hour period, which certainly appears to be gaming the system. Also, You have NOT responded to my question; you have presented your arguments about Vaimanika Shastra, which I am not getting into, and which is in a different section. The discussion here was about whether to use the entire quote from Bakaya or not; and despite three editors agreeing that the entire quote is a reference to Tomar, and you have stopped discussing that. Neil Quinn and JJ (whom you brought to this page) both are fine with using him as the source, and you still persist? Nobody is suggesting that Bakaya "reviewed" anything; my version of the text only says he criticized those ideas. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listen buddy, you want to fight -- suit yourself. Only two diff are revert, the other, I mentioned in edit summary also, I was moving text. Also, those are about Vaimanika Shastra not Bakaya's comment. You have grossly misrepresented things. You said you will not re-insert and that is what you do immediately, 3rd time. I don't see a way to reason with you because you are in the habit of misrepresentation. Bakaya is there I never deleted him, only questioned and that matter was settled -- don't rake up dead issues. You can find my answer to your question clearly above I have nothing to add and I will not repeat. Have a good day buddy. --AmritasyaPutra^T 16:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look up the definition of "revert;" every single one of those is. If you are not debating Bakaya, why do you persist in removing the rest of the quote? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For somebody that incessantly quotes policies at us, AmritasyaPutra seems unaware of the 3RR rules: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. The third revert claims that it was reorganizing material, but it changed Neil Quinn's text with Amritasya's own preferred version. So, it is an honest-to-goodness revert and the claim that it was a reorganization a "misrepresentation." So, if he has his wits in order, he should promptly apologize to you instead of further name-calling. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again! If you want the answer it is above and in the edit summary too! If you want to fight, I am not here. :-) The two of you calling yourself 'us' and 'we' on all pages have reverted together 5 times or perhaps more... every time before discussion. Now that is quite honorable game, ain't it? Your language is clearly a bait... I have put down the (water) glass. Stop bothering me. You 'two' can cheer up owning up this article too and driving away anyone against your line of thinking. --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt to play the victim would be a little more credible if I had not already endured so much at your hands. Kautilya and I are distinct editors; summing up our reverts makes no sense. Cut the drama out. That the reverts were reverts is incontrovertible. If you wish to have a straightforward discussion about the content, I am all ears. What I am unable to endure, is constant repetition of arguments answered above, insistence that you've replied to a question when the history shows you have not, and so forth. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, tone down your attacks and perhaps you will see your answers. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External Link

What is the justification of this revert: diff? I had removed the external link to newsblog because the referred article is already referenced 5 times and is present in reference section which has only two entries. It is also perhaps copyvio. How can a 2004 book content be pre-printed in 2009? The book is clearly not CC license but the newsblog declares it is under CC licesnse and gives no attribtution to the book at all! --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a preprint of the published article, made available by the author. Where it appears is irrelevant. It is online, and the readers can go and read it, including you! If it is a copyvio, it is the author's problem. I don't think it is anyway. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that? --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By reading the license note that is placed on the web page. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I notice that you have actually read the license note, but didn't understand it. Why don't you go and read the WP article on preprint? Kautilya3 (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me understand where does it say preprint? --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It says at the top that an edition version of this article appears in the book. That means that it is a "preprint". Kautilya3 (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lol! So, this is the unedited draft of something on a newsblog which was published 6 six years before, you want to call it preprint? --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm gets you nowhere. If the external link points to a version that was not referenced, then it adds to the article (because presumably the cited source is not available online). If the two versions are identical, then the url can be added to the reference. Either way, the link should be included. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --AmritasyaPutra^T 00:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:AmritasyaPutra, my comment was addressed at you; if you agree, then which version is it you are supporting? Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Vaimānika Shāstra

diff. Comment on Vaimānika Shāstra is coatrack -- there is no mention of Tomar or any of his writing in the reference. --AmritasyaPutra^T 08:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you get into these fits, you don't seem to read what people have said or understand what they have said. So, I am putting these quotes of User:Neil P. Quinn from earlier discussion in italics:

If we don't uses phrases like "fantasies of a Hindu golden age", we will not be accurately representing Bakaya's criticism of Tomar.
If we can find reliable sources factually refuting (or supporting) Tomar's claims about Hindu knowledge, those could probably be paraphrased.
It's not ideal that criticism takes us so much of the article, but I don't think we could make the paragraph much shorter. The solution there is probably to include more info about Tomar and not less criticism.
But unless we can find a source that explicitly says Bharadwaj's didn't write about aviation, I fear it would be original research to say so.

So, I needed to find a source that explicitly says Bharadwaj didn't write about aviation, which I did. The current paragraph is not any longer than what Neil recommended. This is what we need to do to accurately reflect Bakaya's criticism of Tomar.

By the way, WP:COATRACK says that debunking WP:FRINGE is not coatrack. If you believe that this criticism is taking up too much space in this article, then you should go and find more material about Tomar and add it. We need you to do some work for a change instead of just nitpicking other people's work. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mind your language, Period. The reference you are adding has nothing to do with Tomar or his opinion about Bharadwaj. You said you needed to find a source that explicitly says Bharadwaj didn't write about aviation, which you did. -- Where does it say Bharadwaj didn't write about aviation?
Do your debunking of Vaimānika Shāstra on Vaimānika Shāstra not here.
"A handwritten manuscript of Vedic sage Bharadwaj on aviation engineering is kept at the Baroda Royal Library." this is what links Tomar to "Bhardwaj" and is a fact confirmed in various sources including the one you are pushing here. --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is it you are questioning? Do you not know that the "handwritten manuscript of Vedic sage Bharadwaj on aviation engineering kept at the Baroda Royal Library" is called Vaimanika Shastra? Or, are you claiming that the Vedic sage Bharadwaj was alive in 1904? Kautilya3 (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As always, it is not clear what Amritasya's objection really is. Are you claiming that the entire section needs to be removed per COATRACK, or are you questioning the reference itself? The first argument obviates the second; you seem to be making both. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat the subject of discussion here: diff. Comment on Vaimānika Shāstra is coatrack -- there is no mention of Tomar or any of his writing in the reference. In this context kindly read my three bulleted response immediately above again. Van, please discuss content and mind not to comment on editor, I never said "entire section needs to be removed" and specifically gave the diff I am talking about. --AmritasyaPutra^T 04:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no mention of Tomar or any of his writings in the reference. Did anybody say otherwise? Why is that supposed to be important? It looks like you didn't understand my answer to your three bulleted points. So, here they are again, explicitly spelled out:

The reference has everything to do with Tomar's claims about Bharadwaj. Tomar claims that the manuscript in Baroda library is from sage Bharadwaj. But the reference says that text is no older than 1904. So, it is not from sage Bharadwaj.
The debunking on Vaimanika Shastra page is a separate issue that has nothing to do with what is going on here.
The fact that there is a manuscript in Baroda library is not disputed. But the idea that this manuscript was written by sage Bharadwaj is false. The idea that the text describes functioning aircraft is false.

Plainly speaking, the supposed text is a scientific hoax. Wikipedia can't mention that somebody is propagating a hoax without also pointing out that it is a hoax. That would be half-truth. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You explicitly agree that there is no mention of Tomar or any of his writings in the reference -- then it does not belong here. Period. If you still want to argue then at least provide reference where Tomar comments on Vaimānika Shāstra and then you may piggyback your commentary on Vaimānika Shāstra in this article of Tomar. --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AmritasyaPutra: You wrote down 3 bullet points and made me answer them twice, and then you complete ignore my answers? And, you make up your own policies stating them with a so-called "Period"? It looks like I should ask an administrator to come and take a look at your methods of editing, reverting and discussing. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brillinat. Four comments here:

Persoanlly I think this addition belongs to a note, not the text itself. It is a comment';
Bakaya's comment doesn't belong here at all; it needs a separate section, something like "Reception" or so (where's the bar? ;))
Tomar's ideas, as presented here, are plain nonsense, I think. No comment is needed to underscore this; anyone in his sane mind can conclude this for him/herself. The interesting question is: why does Tomar makes such statements? That's what I'd like to know. And, but this is an unanswerable question: does he really believe this?
So ancient Hindu knowledge predates western scientific knowledge; what he's actually saying here is that western scientific knowledge is far superior to anything in this regard "ancient Hindu knowledge" has to offer. Science is science; religion is religion.

Stay cool, all of you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input JJ. Kautilya3, I had said the same thing from the first comment, read the first line in this section. This is the nth time you have expressed your idea of getting me examined by an admin. I am putting a warning on your talk page. You have previously also made snide remarks on this same talk page, I am not even digging other talk pages.AmritasyaPutra^T 10:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: Thanks for joining. You say, Anyone in his sane mind can conclude this for him/herself. I wish that were true. AmritasyaPutra apparently doesn't conclude that. Why else did he quibble about the word "fantasies" [4] which was sourced from Bakaya's article? Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: Ok, I will assume that your "sane mind" comment was rhetorical, and you didn't mean it. However, you should know that unless we explicitly point out that these claims are insane, there is a very real danger that millions of people in India will assume that we are endorsing them. You might find it hard to believe, but if you hang around in these RSS-related pages, you will discovering that it is sadly true. In any case, I have no problem with the vaimanika shastra commentary being in a footnote. Thanks for finding a good solution! Kautilya3 (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at User:Joshua_Jonathan/Roots_of_Hinduism to see what it takes to impress some people. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, your own Wikibook on Hinduism? Impressive! Note, however, that the RSS is an extremist sect of Hinduism. Its founders like Savarkar and Hedgewar were in fact atheists. Even today, most RSS people know next to nothing about Hinduism. The idea that these people claim to be the flag-bearers of Hinduism and profess to speak on behalf of all Hindus is extremely offensive to us Hindus. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also put some stray comments... Savarkar and Hedgewar... their article needs to show that they were atheists. :-) --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red links

@AmritasyaPutra: You have added a red link to Akshay Bakaya stating "if his opinion is quoted then we should be able to build a wiki page on him too" [5]. I had removed it once and you reinserted it. You have added similar red links to other authors in the past too. So, I would like to ask, is it your own opinion that authors whose opinions are quoted should have their own wiki pages? Or, are you citing a wikipedia policy? If it is a policy, please tell me where it is. If it is your own opinion, then please describe your reasons and generate a consensus for it. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. You presented only half of my edit summary, it would be best you could give the diff link. 2. this is the relevant policy: WP:REDYES, if you think he will not meet WP:BIO, then mention it and remove the red link. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diff added. Neither of these policies support your statement that authors whose opinions are quoted should have their own wiki pages. Notability is the only criterion. So, I hope you will stop adding red links using this spurious argument. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, stop misrepresenting me. Read above I said: if you think he will not meet WP:BIO, then mention it and remove the red link. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference-style

Could the reference-style plese be changed into sfn? It's hopeless to find out where the sources are, when you're editing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I write text, I try to put entire {{cite...}} bits on separate lines so that they doesn't interfere with the source text. Some other editors come and undo my separation, don't know why.

As we discussed on the Talk:Vidya Bharati page, the `sfn' style has a downside from the reader's point of view, viz., that it requires 2 hops to get to a reference. At least when I read the pages using Google Chrome, I don't seem to be able to get back to where I was, by hitting the BACK button. So, I think `sfn' is good only when it is used for a small collection of sources that are referenced again and again in the page so that the readers remember which source is being talked about. Accordingly, I converted the references to the Bakaya article to sfn. I don't think it makes too much of a difference. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the other two references to sfn also, for better readability, despite the above-mentioned downside. Two sources, one "The Organiser": that's not much, is it? I've added a link to the Bakaya article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For this article, there are so few references that any format would be fine. But note that, in a larger article, using sfn for newspaper articles would be really painful. On the matter of link to the Bakaya article, putting the link to the publication is not proper, because he says an "edited version" of his online preprint is published. The two versions might in fact be identical, but we don't know. That is why we had an external link section instead of giving a link for the publication. Also, academia.edu is a bit more respectable than SACW. SACW is a communist hang-out. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]