Talk:Nirvana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Nirvana (concept))
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Jainism (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Jainism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Jainism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Google Books URLs[edit]

@Jayaguru-Shishya: please do not replace full journal cites with web sources, as the full cites are stable and verifiable, while we do not know whether the websites are maintained by anyone or have editorial supervision. You can add a second additional link, using archive field feature of the cite journal or book template, after you have verified that the paper in the journal or book and the web link are the same. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jayaguru-Shishya: Please use "lay-url=" or "archive-url=" feature, and do not delete the stable url because that is disruptive, despite your good intentions. I am also concerned that you replacing google books to unknown websites, may be linking this article to websites that may have copyright violation problems. If these websites are shut down, or copyright law enforced on them, we may face dead-url link problems in future. Please leave in the stable url, you can improve the cite by using other fields in cite templates. I welcome any alternate ideas, which allow you to implement your good intentions while addressing future-dead-url and possible copyvio concerns.

On Nirvana Upanishad, we are just saying the word Nirvana is used, and the term "Nirvana" is on all those pages of the cited source. On post-Buddha, Patrick Olivelle provides a list which includes Nirvana Upanishad, then states that it was composed after 300 CE (Asrama Upanishad). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, Ms Sarah Welch! And sorry for my late response, I've been busy as a bee lately! Anyway, I was involved in a discussion that took place earlier considering the use of Google Books,[1][2], and it escalated into an RfC. according to which there was no problem for using them. Indeed, we have our own policy, WP:BOOKLINKS, guiding the usage. Moreover, it helps the users to verify the material more easily.
The fear of future link rot, while it's well addressed, it considers each one of our web sources; not just the Google Books ones. To fight that, we have various alternatives available, such as the Wayback Machine (which you are probably already aware of) and its ability to save the sites we want. Anyway, link rot is a problem considering all of our web sources, not just the Google Books. It is not a problem considering only this source; it's a problem considering all of our sources.
When it comes to the non-Google Books sources, I don't see a WP:COPYVIO problem when the book has been published online for free distribution by the publisher. For example, Patrul Rinpoche (1998), it is released by the very organization.
Although we might not disagree perfectly on this question, please have patience with me. I am intended to revise a few more sources, and I really appreciate the work you have done in order to improve the article lately. If it wasn't for that, I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing. :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jayaguru-Shishya: You removed Google Book links, and replaced it with commercial/inappropriate links, as you did here. Please do not do so. Indeed, additional lay-url links as well as wayback/archive links are welcome. I appreciate your cooperation and effort. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, thanks for the notice. When I replaced the Google Books source with a Sikkim University source, the book was all available and displayed the quoted page. However, the site seems to be down at the moment, so I restored the original link.[3] The link was not a commercial one, though.
For most, I have replaced Google Books links with more specific Google Books links, i.e. ones that offer a direct access to the source. This is also according to WP:BOOKLINKS, where direct, page-specific links are used in the examples as well. However, the guideline doesn't talk anything about lay-url links or archive-url links (e.g. Wayback Machine). Archive-urls are used for content that has been rescued from the Internet archives when the original source is no longer available. So if you are worried about link rot with the Google Books preview mode, archive-url hardly is the solution as it should offer the stable, existing link to the source. Besides, we won't be losing the other source related information, such as author, title, publisher, date, ISBN, or even a possible quote. So in that sense, no need to be concerned.
Anyway, thanks for reporting the dead link! I've now restored the original one. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
More specific google book url links are most welcome. Thank you for your explanation and efforts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

url links and WP:Copyvio policy[edit]

@Jayaguru-Shishya: I am concerned that, despite my polite reminders, you are repeatedly deleting stable google book url links, and then substituting them with url for websites hosting books that may be violating copyright laws. You may be inadvertently violating WP:ELNEVER policy in this article (and others). Please note that wikipedia policy states, "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it." If you have evidence that ahandfulofleaves or another web hosting service is lawfully hosting a copyrighted work, you must present that evidence on this talk page. If you can't present such evidence, I ask that you revert your edits. Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, you are right. The source indeed seems like a WP:COPYVIO. I was searching for an alternative source that could provide with a direct access to the material via Google, and I must have mistaken that the source was provided by an organization directly linked to the publisher (which is the case with many Buddhism/Hinduism related material). After taking a closer look, however, it seems that the site is distributing lots of material with questionable rights. Thanks for the notification, I have now removed the questionable source.[4] Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

OR claims[edit]

@Jayaguru-Shishya: You are being strangely disruptive. WP:OR policy defines OR as "reaching or implying a conclusion not stated by the source". If the source or source's context explains that liberation = nirvana, no self = anatta, then it is not OR to rewrite or clarify this. For example, the following two statements are equivalent and accurate non-OR quotes from the WP:OR policy page,

Quote: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.
Quote2: "This [OR] includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.

It is absurd to assert that adding a clarifying "[OR]" above in Quote2 is some form of original research. The context of WP:OR policy page clearly establishes that "This" is referring to OR". You have done something similar here in this article. If you read the context of Williams source, it is abundantly clear that no self = anatta, liberation = nirvana, etc. There is no "reaching or implying new conclusion" there. There is indeed "direct support" in the source, if you bother to read the multiple pages I cite to provide the context. We cannot copy-paste entire pages as quote because of wikipedia's WP:Copyvio policy. We must summarize, explain, clarify in our own words. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, Ms Sarah Welch. I checked the source, and indeed the source does not even mention anatta. You actually added the term into a direct quotation of the source,[5] even though we should quote the source as it is, without adding any self-introduced content to the quote. I think one area where we fail to understand each other is this: this is not what you know or what I know about the meaning of Pali concepts, this is about whether the source is able to directly verify the material in our encyclopedic article. As you and I might be well-aware of the meaning of a concept like anatta, an average reader who has never heard the term is unable to make that connection. So in the end, it's all about Wikipedia:Verifiability. And the source in question does not even mention the whole term. Besides, do we really need three sources to verify for half a sentence? Especially when Collins (1990) already verifies the material. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jayaguru-Shishya: The source clearly states anatta is "not self", etc. in pages preceding page 61. The section is titled Not-Self (anatman; Pali: anatta) on page 56, and the term anatta is used many times by this source thereafter, thus it [not Self = anatta] is directly supported in Williams and Tribe. Verify anatta in the source on page 56 onwards here. Your allegation that the source "does not even mention anatta" after asserting "I checked the source" above seems like WP:TE dishonesty or incompetence from you. The words in any source or quote have meaning in the context the author uses them. And yes, claims about "unheard-by-average-reader" concepts such as anatta and nirvana are best supported with multiple sources for verifiability, because they establish the view is broadly held/mainstream view and provides the reader with additional references to learn more. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, the current reference is pertaining to page 61,[6] and you are talking about page 56 here? Before blaming me of incompetence, perhaps you could find competence to refer to the exact page that directly supports the material? According to WP:SOURCE: "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made." Additional material should be located at the Further reading section, as in the other articles.
I know you are working hard to improve the article, and I wouldn't be watching the progress so closely unless I thought you were doing a good job. One thing you might to consider, however, is that the quality of sources if far more important than the quantity of sources, i.e. one good source is more than enough. This is to say, three sources for half a sentence - the first source quoting 2 pages, the second one quoting 4 pages, and the third one quoting 1 page - seems quite WP:OVERKILL to me. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jayaguru-Shishya: I have added pages 56-61 to the source. It does directly support the content, and it is you who does not understand the WP:OR and WP:Copyvio policies of wikipedia. OR is "reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources", and we do need to rewrite in your own words. Don't allege OR if you haven't read the source. The more constructive approach is explain your tag/concern on the talk page with "I read page 61 of source Y, I see support for this and this, but I wonder where the support is for that part". Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
On multiple sources, I am surprised by your arguments. Just one source invites editors to presume it is one scholar's opinion, and it sometimes leads to "According to XYZ" type corrections. Second (and third) sources establish that the stated part is more than one scholar's opinion. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, Ms Sarah Welch. I am okay with multiple sources, as far as they directly support the material, as stated by WP:SOURCE. Indeed, I have revised the source, and the page 61 of Williams (2000) does not verify the material added. I also brought up a problem, according to which quoting three sources and seven pages for half a sentence seems quite an WP:OVERKILL. In response, you added 5 pages more,[7] making the total count of pages twelve. According to WP:SOURCE, however: "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made." The current references are not directly supporting the material.
Direct quotes are something that never should be touched; we should leave them as they are. Modifying the direct quotations on the basis of how one interprets the things to be is certainly original research.[8] It doesn't matter whether one is right or wrong, but not to modify the quotes is something we absolutely have to adhere to.
You can just quote the page that verifies the material, and if it's scattered among multiple pages, you can always use [...] for the gaps in quotations. Can we reach a compromise in this regard, what do you think? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Jayaguru-Shishya: There is no modification of direct quotations. Something inside a square bracket does not modify the quote. It simply clarifies it. A square bracket is the standard way to clarify the context of a quote, with fair use, without Copyvio. These two quotes are practically identical, with the second clarifying the context with square brackets.

Quote1: He makes no mention of discovering the True Self in the Anattalakkhana Sutta. As we have seen, the Buddha explains how liberation comes from letting-go of all craving and attachment simply through seeing that things are not Self. That is all there is to it. One cuts the force that leads to rebirth and suffering. There is no need to postulate a Self beyond all this. Indeed any postulated Self would lead to attachment, for it seems that for the Buddha a Self fitting the description could legitimately be a suitable subject of attachment. There is absolutely no suggestion that the Buddha thought there is some additional factor called the Self (or with any other name, but fitting the Self-description) beyond the five aggregates.
Quote2: He [Buddha] makes no mention of discovering the True Self in the Anattalakkhana Sutta. As we have seen, the Buddha explains how liberation [nirvana] comes from letting-go of all craving and attachment simply through seeing that things are not Self [anatta]. That is all there is to it. One cuts the force that leads to rebirth and suffering. There is no need to postulate a Self beyond all this. Indeed any postulated Self would lead to attachment, for it seems that for the Buddha a Self fitting the description could legitimately be a suitable subject of attachment. There is absolutely no suggestion that the Buddha thought there is some additional factor called the Self (or with any other name, but fitting the Self-description) beyond the five aggregates.

Are you seriously saying Williams source does not state "not Self = Anatta" on page 56 onwards? Are you seriously saying that the "not Self" in the quote on page 61 does not refer to Anatta? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, the current reference is pertaining to page 61.[9] I re-checked the source and indeed, it does not even mention anatta; you actually modified the quote and added it there by yourself.[10] Whereas you and I might be well-aware of the meaning of Pali concepts like anatta, an average reader who has never heard the term is unable to make that connection. Not just the source you insist on adding fails to verify, we already have the Collins (1990) source that verifies the material.
You said you added the Williams (2000) source for providing context. If it does not directly support the material, however, we should include it to the Further reading section instead of the body of the article. I have now moved the reference to Nirvana#Further reading,[11] cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jayaguru-Shishya: You are being dishonest again, because you allege "I re-checked the source and indeed, it does not even mention anatta". The source is Williams (2000) and it mentions anatta many times. Page 61 relies on the context set in the section that starts on page 56, with the title Not-Self (anatman; Pali: anatta), and the discussion in the section not only mentions anatta, Williams (2000) source states that anatta is "not Self". Pages 56-61 do directly support the content. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, the current reference is pertaining to page 61,[12] not page 56. If the material is verified by a different (range of) page(s), shouldn't you change the given page(s) in that case? You can also take quotations from multiple pages to support the material. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Further tagging[edit]

@Jayaguru-Shishya: If you tag something, you must explain the tag on the talk page. WP:TAGBOMB is disruptive. You can help prove that you are not being disruptive, with "failed verification" like tags, by explaining on the talk page which source you really checked, what you found to be partially supported and what was unsupported. Please see wikipedia tagging guidelines, "Adding tags without discussion of the tag on the talk page" is not helpful. Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ms Sarah Welch. Sorry, I didn't consider that necessary since the tag was placed directly after the reference, clearly separated from the other possible references provided for the same piece of text. I also defined the reason= parameter for the tag, which I also enclosed to the Edit Summary. I must say, that my Talk Page post wouldn't differ from the former two in any way: if source x does not even mention the concepts y and z, then source x didn't even mention y or z.
Well, I thought it would be actually more polite to tag the problematic content first instead of deleting it straight away, so the original editor can fix the issues. After all, there'd be nothing wrong if that is the case with the source/content. Besides, as far as I understand, the tags should not be removed until the disputes have been resolved.
Anyway, I think it'd be stupid to edit war over tags. I know you are working hard for the article, and I placed those tags to help you instead of merely removing all the content. I do think, though, that the quality of sources is more important than the quantity, and adding three sources for half a sentence is a WP:OVERKILL. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Multiple sources are good, as I explained above. Yes, you do need to explain the tag on the talk page, because I find your edit summaries misleading and repeated false allegations of "failed verification". In every case so far, the source does verify the clause it is placed after, or all of the text, at least after the sentence was broken up and restated. If you explain the tag on the talk page, include what you were able to verify and what is bothering you, we can consider proposals for rewording and collaborate together to improve the article. Right now, your WP:TAGBOMBS are misleading and unproductive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, it seems we have a different approach here. I placed those tags so we can "collaborate together to improve the article", as you put it. I did this instead of removing the material straight away, actually. What you said about "misleading and unproductive", I can understand your comment better now on the basis of what you said in the section above,[13] Talk:Nirvana#OR claims. You might not have noticed, but the Williams (2000) reference was (and still is) pertaining to page 61, whereas you quoted page 54 in order to prove me wrong. I was right, however, when I stated that the given source (Williams 2000; 61) did no verify the material. I am not obligated to read the whole book to see if the material has any support; the WP:BURDEN is on the editor adding the material.
Anyway, according to WP:SOURCE: "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made." This does not mean: "please feel to quote page 61 when you are actually referring to page 54". Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jayaguru-Shishya: The article does use sources that directly support the material presented, some on a single page, some with context over several pages. There is no OR, when we faithfully summarize the remarks and the context of a source. I feel you have been repeatedly ignoring copyright violation policies of wikipedia, and harassing with WP:TAGBOMB, rather than attempting to properly read the cited sources to cooperate and verify and together build content. You are not reading the sources, just adding tags with absurd edit summaries, such as when I add page number range for context, you mock with edit summaries about specifying several pages. Please stop this disruption in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, I can assure you that I have read the quoted sources word-to-word, otherwise I would not have added the tags in the first place. And as I said earlier in this thread: "I thought it would be actually more polite to tag the problematic content first instead of deleting it straight away, so the original editor can fix the issues." According to WP:SOURCE: "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made.". This hardly means including twelve pages to support half a sentence.[14]
If you feel that I have violated WP:COPYVIO, WP:HARASS, or WP:NPA (by my "mocking Edit Summaries"), please feel free to file a case at WP:ANI. I hope, however, that you could see that I am here to collaborate with you, nothing else. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
How does "direct support" hardly mean not summarizing or relying on multiple pages? Which wikipedia policy page states that "direct support" mean "the content should not be directly supported in multiple sentences or pages of a source, and only directly supported in a single sentence". You have corrected the Copyvio situations you created, so we are fine on that. Yes, if you delete sourced content and edit war, we certainly will be at ANI. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, there shouldn't be any WP:COPYVIO problems as long as you don't copy all of the text you are quoting. Instead, you might use the quote= parameter to insert the pieces of text that directly support the material.[15] Quoting multiple pages is alright, but you can make sure by using the aforementioned parameter that all the material is directly supported by the source, even if the sourced material was unavailable to the reader. Material that fails to verify shall be removed. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Jayaguru-Shishya: Stop lecturing and giving unsolicited advice when it is you who has repeatedly misunderstood the policies and violated (but later admitted and corrected) WP:Copyvio etc. You and I must follow community agreed guidelines, not your personal confusion, because this is not Jayaguru-pedia. I asked you, "Which wikipedia policy page states that "direct support" mean "the content should not be directly supported in multiple sentences or pages of a source, and only directly supported in a single sentence"? But you ignored my polite question. If you remove material from this article, that is directly supported and verifies on multiple pages, the content will be reinstated. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, Ms Sarah Welch! Actually, I answered your question but it you must have understood the opposite of what I was saying. Indeed, I said that: "Quoting multiple pages is alright...,"[16] That's what I've been doing even myself, for example in this edit. I also think you took a step into the right direction with this edit, where you provided quotations from various pages on the book (pp. 59-60; p. 136; pp, 58-59). This is what I meant. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Misuse or misunderstanding WP:SOURCE on Williams & Tribe (2000)?[edit]

@Jayaguru-Shishya: I have reviewed WP:SOURCE. It is about establishing the reliability of sources. It is not about page numbers. I am puzzled by your edit warring. You have again deleted page numbers 56-61 from Williams & Tribe source, pages that provide the context to the reader. Your edit summary points to WP:SOURCE. Please explain your edit, because your behavior feels like innocent misunderstanding, or possibly disruption and WP:TE. Perhaps, you can clarify by providing a quote from WP:SOURCE, or some other wikipedia policy page, that states that "multiple pages from reliable scholarly sources should not be cited or relied upon"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, Ms Sarah Welch. You must have misunderstood my point; as I have said earlier, "Quoting multiple pages is alright...,"[17] That's what I've been doing even myself, for example in this edit. What I was pertaining to, was that the quotation should directly support the material added to the article - be it one single phrase on one page, or multiple fragments on multiple pages. I also think you took a step into the right direction with this edit, where you provided quotations from various pages on the book (pp. 59-60; p. 136; pp, 58-59). This is what I meant.
Deleting page numbers 56-61? Well, as you put it, those pages were merely for providing "context". That's not, however, about directly supporting the material; that's more about WP:FURTHER reading. For that very reason I even moved the Williams (2000) source to the Further reading section.[18] I hope this helped to clarify! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jayaguru-Shishya: As you know, you have been subject to several discretionary sanctions for past disruptions. You are not being constructive in your responses regarding your edit to this article, and are (mis)using WP:SOURCE for disruption. I feel you have not explained yourself. The WP:SOURCE does not apply here, and you have failed to explain your edit summary given an opportunity. I suggest we add those pages back, because any quote has meaning only in the context it is made. Pages 56-61 provides that context, and directly supports the content and the paragraph in the article. "Further reading" section is not pertinent here, because that section is just a list of publications to help the reader learn more about the subject, per WP:FURTHER. The further reading section does not help the reader quickly locate the pages for the context for the extracted quote. We need the page numbers because that is the context of Williams & Tribe source, and because that is the context of the paragraph in this article where it appears. I give you one more chance to make a cogent explanation, as to which wikipedia policy or guideline is violated by citing pages 56-61 as context, in this[1] way? It only helps the reader, hurts nothing. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Paul Williams; Anthony Tribe (2000). Buddhist Thought. Routledge. pp. 61, context: 56–61. ISBN 978-0-415-20701-0. He makes no mention of discovering the True Self in the Anattalakkhana Sutta. As we have seen, the Buddha explains how liberation comes from letting-go of all craving and attachment simply through seeing that things are not Self anatta. That is all there is to it. One cuts the force that leads to rebirth and suffering. There is no need to postulate a Self beyond all this. Indeed any postulated Self would lead to attachment, for it seems that for the Buddha a Self fitting the description could legitimately be a suitable subject of attachment. There is absolutely no suggestion that the Buddha thought there is some additional factor called the Self (or with any other name, but fitting the Self-description) beyond the five aggregates. 
Ms Sarah Welch, while I think it's not very classy to bring up user behaviour related content to the article Talk Pages (which are indeed meant for article content-related matters), I will answer you shortly:
  1. The first link you brought up, did you see up the result in the article in question? I brought the problem myself to the administrative knowledge, and I was also backed up by other experienced editors, such as Cullen328. What we did argument for, actually became the new status quo of the article.
  2. The second link you brought up, indeed, the emotions have must got have heated up. I admitted that, however, and there was no sanctions implemented.
Indeed, notifying about discretionary sanctions, even though one hadn't done anything wrong, is a normal procedure in Wikipedia. When it comes to the Williams (2000) source, however, can you provide a quotation from each page you are quoting? If not, why do you want to include them to the reference anyway? Well, that'd solve the problem straight way. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Jayaguru-Shishya: As I explained, pages 56-61 provide the context, and help any interested reader to get to the relevant context discussion faster. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Question about the "Mittal & Thursby (2004)" and the "Oxford Dictionaries (n.d.)" sources[edit]

Greetings! Ms Sarah Welch, I'd like to ask you two questions with respect to the sources we have at the article. First, you added David Lorenzen as the author of the book,[19] but I wasn't quite able to verify that from the source. You see, neither the book nor the book info mentioned David Lorenzen.[20] Second, you added to the reference on "Oxford Dictionaries" a publication year, 2012.[21] That was neither supported by the source.

So, perhaps I did just miss something, or where did you locate those pieces of information on the sources? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jayaguru-Shishya: Unbelievable. You really are not looking at the source. But you are deleting what I add after doing a google search such as "the+hindu+world+David+Lorenzen", then alleging that "You see, neither the book nor the book info mentioned David Lorenzen"!! FWIW, David Lorenzen's name is on page vii, and at the top of page 208 of the Mittal & Thursby (2004) source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, so you are telling me that Lorenzen is the author of this book, but it's not mentioned in the author details, nor in the book cover or the first pages of the book before the introduction? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jayaguru-Shishya: See page vii last two lines, and at the top of page 208 of the Mittal & Thursby (2004). You will see David N. Lorenzen is the author of the relevant chapter and pages. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch: "Unbelievable. You really are not looking at the source."[22] Actually, I am looking at the source, but it's a Google Books source, and it isn't displaying any of the pages or allowing navigation through the pages. Perhaps you could provide the chapter in question in order to help to navigate through the book?
You know, we have this proverb in the Finnish language: "Kuin perseeseen ammuttu karhu", which'd mean in English: "Like a bear which has been shot in the ass."[23][24] Please don't be one ;-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)