User talk:Abecedare/Archive 10

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

Why are you reverting my posts?

I am provding reliable sources for all my claims such as articles Hindu Cosmology and Treta Yuga but people keep reverting my edits. Why? I am supplying many reliable sources, so why are you saying I am vandalizing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I have not called your edits vandalism; they are just largely inappropriate content, poorly sourced and disruptive. If you are actually interested in improving the article, try to find reliable sources (not random sectarian websites) on the topic and then propose specific additions on the article talk page to develop consensusr. Also use your User:Eronel189 account instead of socking. Your current approach is just a waste of your and other editors' time. Abecedare (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Are all these sources unreliable. Even a published book entitled “Heart of Hinduism” is that also unreliable? Why are you rejecting all of this when there are thousands of reliable sources that proclaim that the average Human life expectany in Satya Yuga is 100,000 years, the average human life expectancy in Treta Yuga is 10,000 years, the average human life expectancy in Dvapara Yuga is 1,000 years and the average human life expectany in the beginning of Kali-Yuga is 100 years?

  • Partisan, non-neutral, self-published, written by non-expert author, one "Shyamasundara Das"

  • same, this time by one "Raja Vidya das"

  • exact same as above

  • a Wikipedia article - Wikipedia cannot be used as a source,000+years+in+Satya+Yuga&source=bl&ots=Na_Z7ba4fL&sig=WUK0Ea_OmIAfl7267iQrEH7RAtw&hl=en&ei=iqqMSoj7NoTysQOTrIDkCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=&f=false

  • self-published book by non-neutral, non-expert partisan Stephen Knapp

  • a blog? written by one "Curtis Burns"?

  • no author even given for this self-published essay

  • similar - bloglike, self-published

  • blog-like 'article', no author given

  • same, blog 'article' - a hare krishna site? no

  • self-published blog-like personal essay site, no

  • a rather bizarre wiki, called Wiki Ganesha...

  • the Encyclopedia of Thelema and Magic? No, not a reliable source

  • a message board post on a drug (salvia divinorum) website? No

  • a blog/forum where people answer other people's questions? No

  • Google Answers? no

  • a Wikipedia article, no

Eronel189 (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are my articles being deleted?

Why are all the articles I create being deleted? I provide reliable sources for all of them but they are constantly deleted.Eronel189 (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

All of those sources above are unreliable. The last one is a Wikipedia forked article, for goodness sake. Read WP:Reliable Sources. It starts with "reliable, third-party, published sources" (emphasis in original). It continues to a section on "Scholarship" and goes on to explain "Self-published sources" and "Extremist and fringe sources". All of your sources are described in the last two I mentioned ("Self-published sources" and "Extremist and fringe sources"), none of them in the first two ("reliable, third-party, published and "Scholarship"). But you've been told all of this already, I believe. Priyanath talk 02:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well some of the sources like “Heart of Hinduism” is from a published book and my first source comes from an authoritative Vedic Encyclopedia. How are they not reliable? And if they are not reliable then what sources are reliable, because I see sources like mine cited in Wikipedia in many articles.Eronel189 (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I always here that my sources are not reliable, but who is to say what is reliable and what is not reliable. I give so many sources can you actually say all of them are not reliable? Do you actually read all of the hundreds of sources individually that I give and determine whether they are reliable or not or do you assume that by reading one or two of my sources that all of the other sources must be unreliable because the first one or two are unreliable?Eronel189 (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I commented on each above. Not a single one of them is remotely close to fulfilling WP:Reliable Sources. The fact that some of the 'sources' might be used in other articles only means they should be removed post haste. Please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policies. And stop flooding articles with a wall of sources. After the exercise above, they won't be read each time. Priyanath talk 02:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Eronel1189, firstly thanks for using your account again to ask questions here. As for sources, Priyanath has explained why each of the specific sources you listed above are not considered reliable on wikipedia. You still seem to have a doubt on how to distinguish reliable and unreliable sources, so let me give a rule of thumb that is useful when editing articles in your area of interest:
  • Generic online websites are not reliable sources,
  • Books and articles that you find in your university and/or local library are reliable sources.
Yes, there are exceptions to the above rule, but this will help avoid confusion in the vast majority of cases.
You have mentioned earlier that you are at a university and have access to local libraries. Please use those invaluable resources for constructive purposes (instead of threatening to use their computers as a weapon to edit-war), and look up academic books and journal articles on Hinduism cosmology. If you cite those sources appropriately you won't have a problem making edits-that-don't-get-reverted to these articles. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Bhagavad-Gita and Shrimad-Bhagavatam not a reliable source for Hindu articles?

Well why is it when I cite the Bhagavad-Gita or Shrimad-Bhagavatam as a source you don't call it reliable? The Bhagavad-Gita and the Shrimad-Bhagavatam are the most important, most significant and most popular Hindu Scriptures. Why is quoting from the Bhagavad-Gita or Shrimad-Bhagavatam not reliable when I am contributing to Hindu articles like Hindu Cosmology? I just don't understand how supplying sources from Bhagavad-Gita and Shrimad-Bhagavatam is considered Vandalism when I am writing on Hindu articles. Since these two books are the most popular, important and widely read books on Hindu Scripture I do not understand how it is not reliable. Please clear this up for me. Thank You.Eronel189 (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two basic issues:
  1. Bhagavata Gita, Srimad Bhagvatam are primary sources and direct quotes from them should be used sparingly and with care, only when supplemnted with secondary sources. See WP:PSTS for the relevant wikipedia guideline.
  2. The Prabhupada translations are an okay source for ISKCON's view of these texts (keeping in mind point 1 above), but are not good sources for how these texts are translated and interpreted by scholars and wider Hindu community. See this and this discussion for preferable translation of the Gita. There is no authoritative scholarly translation of Bhagvatam that I know of, but the one by Ganesh V Tagare as part of the Ancient Indian Tradition and Mythology series is an oft-cited one.
Abecedare (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Naraka (Hinduism) How can I fix it?

I am a little confused on Wikipedia's policy. First you say we need reliable sources. So far my article Hinduism (Naraka) I made sure every paragraph I wrote was sourced from the Shrimad-Bhagavatam so nobody would say I made it up or am biased. Now you are saying that because my article is based on a reliable source it is plaigarism? I don't understand. Isn't there anyway that I can keep this information and this article without deleting it? I'm not sure what to do, if I write something that isn't quite what the source says you will say it is vandalism and that the source does not say it so I am vandalizing, but if I say what the source is saying you say it is plaigarism. I am confused and I spent hours complying this article and I was wondering if somebody could just fix the article to comply with Wikipedia's standards without taking out content and without deleting it so all of the time I spent won't be in vain. Please let me know as I am very confused. If I write something that doesn't state exactly what the source says then you say I am vandalizing and when I take great efforts to make sure I am writing what the source says I am plaigarizing. Also I did not write the article word for word, I changed a few words around but I did not want to change it too much because then somebody would accuse me of vandalizing and misinterpreting the text. Do you understand what I mean? At one point I do not want to differ too much from the source because I don't want people to say that I am inserting my own opinions into the text and that I am making stuff up but on the other hand I don't want people to say I am plaigarizing the source. I tried to not plaigarize completely by changing some of the words, and at the same time not insert my own opinions and alter what the text says but for some reason it still isn't right? Is there anyway somebody could fix it so that the main content is still there but it isn't considered plaigarsism? I am just so confused. I know I didn't right the Shrimad-Bhagvatam, I am using it because I know it is a authoritative and reliable source in regards to Hindu articles, so please let me know if you can save my article and make it acceptable. Thank You very much for your cooperation and effort.Eronel189 (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

See the point above on why using the Prabhupada translation of SB as the backbone of an article is not a good idea. Secondly essentially copy-pasting text from any copyrighted work is a copyright violation and wikipedia cannot accept such contributions. Thirdly wikipedia already has an article on Naraka (not a very good one, albeit) on Naraka, which deals with the Hindu concept, and therefore your creation was a POV fork, which presented only the narrow ISKCON view on the subject.
If you are interested in contributing to the area, I would again suggest that you consult your library to find scholarly secondary sources on the topic, and then summarize and paraphrase what they say accurately and add to the Naraka page. To avoid conflicts, it may be best to propose and discuss your edits on the talk page of the article first.
I am glad you are discussing and asking questions about these issues instead of edit-warring. That's a good way to better understand wikipedia policies and norms, and edit collaboratively. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Making New Articles

Thank You for answering my questions. I really appreciate it. I am still not really sure why ISKCON must be considered Hindu, yet ISKCON views cannot be considered in Hindu articles. Seems kind of hypocritical. Another thing is that Prabhuphada's Bhagavad-Gita is the most widely read and also He states it is the only pure translation. But anyways, if Krishna Conciousness differs from Hinduism, why can't I create articles like Krishna Conscious Cosmology, or Krishna in Krishna Consciousness, or Rama in Krishna Consciousness ect. I have tried doing this in the past because even though Wikipedia considers ISKCON Hindu they do not allow ISKCON's views in Hindu articles. I find this hypocritical but I gave up trying to fight it so I made my own articles like Krishna in Krishna Conciousness, or Rama in Krishna Consciousness so I could just present the Krishna Conscious view. I cited many reliable Krishna Conscious sources on the Krishna Conscious view but my articles were deleted over and over until they banned me. I don't understand why I got banned. Isn't it fair that if other religions can have their own views on things like Cosmology, such as Biblical Cosmology, Hindu Cosmology, Buddhist Cosmology, and Jain Cosmology that Krishna Consciousness also have a page Krishna Conscious Cosmology to express its unique view if it is not allowed on Hindu Cosmology? Another thing about the Naraka (Hinduism) is that I know there is a Naraka page, but a few days ago I saw the Naraka (Buddhism) page and I liked it and from reading the Shrimad-Bhagavatam it seemed sort of familiar to me. I liked how it talked about all the different Hells one by one giving good description, so I went to see if Hinduism had something like that which talked about all the diferent Hellish planets like Buddhism. but an article did not exist so I spent a few hours to make one. If this is not okay because ISKCON has "Non-Hindu" beleifs can I make an article entitled Naraka (Krishna Consciousness) so that the beliefs of my religion can be expressed like the beliefs of all the other religions? Sorry for asking so many questions. Thank You very much for answering all of my questions and for your cooperation, time, and effort.Eronel189 (talk) 06:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not the case that ISKCON is non-Hindu or its views are not allowed in general Hinduism articles. It is a matter of giving it due weight, given its popularity and prominence in the wider Hinduism tradition, literature, and community. Given the facts that ISKCON is one of many Hindu sects/movements, is relatively new, and its followers form only a small sliver of the total Hindu population, the emphasis given to its views in wider Hinduism articles is justifiably limited. The wight it commands rises when the subject article concerns ISKCON itself, new religious movements, Krishna, or topics where its views have gained wider notice (such as Hindu views on evolution.
More details of ISCKON's views should be added to ISKCON, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, or one of the many other Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness articles. In some cases it is perfectly legitimate to create a whole new article describing ISKCON's view on a specific topic (LGBT topics and the Hare Krishna movement for one such example; I haven't read through it though), however in order to do so, one needs multiple secondary reliable sources (i.e., simply citing Prabhupada 's writings or another Bhaktivedanta publication won't suffice) that describe ISCKON's view and contrast them with the wider Hinduism viewpoint (if the two match almost exactly, there is little need for a redundant article).
The articles you created were deleted through this AFD because they lacked such reliable secondary sources to show that the ISKCON view were both notable by themselves, and distinct enough from mainstream Hinduism view to deserve a separate wikipedia article without being a content fork. Also the fact that some of the article contained copyright violation, necessitated their deletion. As I commented at the AFD, some of the topics (such as ISKCON's concept of Krishna) could perhaps be written and justified, but again one would need to gather and use good secondary sources to write such an article.
To summarize my advice: Consult your library for high quality secondary sources, and then paraphrase them appropriately, giving them due weight and you will seldom run into problems on wikipedia! Abecedare (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

About Krishna centered articles

Hi, thank you for answering all of my questions. I think am I understanding Wikipedia better now. I was just wondering if there was something you could do to make my Naraka (Hinduism) article acceptable to Wikipedia and other articles I had created in the past like Krishna in Krishna Consciousness, Rama in Krishna Consciousness, and Jesus in Krishna Consciousness. I understand that Wikipedia does not want multiple articles but the Krishna Conscious view of Krishna, Rama, Jesus are all much different from the average Hindu view. For example if you can have a Jesus in Islam article, why can't you have a Jesus in Krishna Consciousness article? If Islamic sources are good enough for a Jesus in Islam article shouldn't Krishna Conscious sources be good enough for a Jesus in Krishna Consciousness article. I mean I know all of these beleifs are in some form present in the Jesus article, but why should Islam get a whole page on its view of Jesus, but Krishna Consciousness not get a page of its view of Jesus? Shouldn't they both get equal reprentation on their own page? Also if Jesus in Islam cites Islamic sources, shouldn't it be enough that an article like Jesus in Krishna Consciousness cite Krishna Conscious sources? That sounds fair to me for everyone to have its view. For example although the Naraka page as Hindu and Buddhist beleifs, Buddhism has an entire page dedicated to descriptions of each and every Hell, shouldn't Hinduism or Krishna Consciousness also gets its own page? Another thing is that many articles have no sources but still stay on Wikipedia for many years without anyone saying anything and if I try to delete these pages I get blocked even though there is no source or external link. This seems sort of hypocritical to me. Why can a page that has no sources or external links be allowed on Wikipedia but when I source an article it is not allowed. Another thing is many articles like Naraka (Buddhism) has only one source and that source cannot even be viewed. All of its external links are actually from Shrimad-Bhagvatam and the only one link that's not does not even talk about Cold and Hot Narakas or time spent in the Naraka or much of the information that is in there. Why is this? Please let me know. Why are so many articles without proper or any sources allowed to be on Wikipedia and I get banned when I delete them but if I make an article even with sources, they get erased? One last point I would like to make is that although Shrilla Prabhuphada established ISKCON in the West in 1966, the Krishna Conscious beleifs are not considered New. They are only considered New outside of India. Krishna Consciousness comes from Krishna Himself. Krishna appeared 5,236 years ago, and appears every 8.64 billion years ( a day of Brahma). Krishna originally instructed Brahma with Krishna Consciousness 311 trillion, 40 billion years ago, and then Brahma immediately gave that knowledge to man. Then there is a period of 311 trillion, 40 billion years after Brahma dies and then Krishna instructs the new Brahma with Krishna Consciousness and the cycle goes on. So you see Krishna Consciousness is not new. It is only new in the west. From this we can conclude that Krishna gives Krishna Consciousness to human society every 622 trillion, 80 billion years! And he also personally incarnates every 8.64 billion years to restablish Krishna Consciousness and incarnates as Vyasa every Dvapara Yuga (4.32 million) years to write down the Vedas to propogate Krishna Consciousness, so actually although its new outside of India the Religion is over 622 trillion, 80 billion years with even a conservative estimate, but actually eternal. Thank You again for answering my questions and for your time, dedication, cooperation and effort. I feel like I am understanding a lot more than I did before. Thanks once again and please let me know if you can modify my articles to make them acceptable to Wikipedia such as Naraka (Hinduism), Krishna in Krishna Consciousness, Jesus in Krishna Consciousness, Rama in Krishna Consciousness etc. Thank You Eronel189 (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

To address some of the points:
  • The Naraka page covers the Hindu concept, so there is no justification right now for a redundant Naraka (Hinduism) page. As I said before you are free to expand the Naraka page as long as you base your edits on secondary reliable sources. If and when the Hinduism section is well sourced and becomes too long, a separate Naraka (Hinduism) can be split off. See WP:Split for how this works.
  • The Jesus in Islam cites books published by Brill Academic Publishers, State University of New York Press, Oxford University Press, Harvard University Press, Blackwell Publishing, Routledge etc. If you can find sources on Jesus in Krishna Consciousness (or any other of your proposed topics) by comparable publsihers, you won't have any problems creating an article.
  • ISKCON's beliefs are rooted in interpretation of the Upanishads, the Gita, and Bhagavatam and other Puranic texts that were composed roughly in the 5th c BCE- 16th c CE period. ISKCON does believe that these texts are much older and these beliefs are even worth mentioning in relevant articles, but stating these beliefs as historical facts or arguing that movement itself is as old is simply fringe, and repeatedly bringing this up hurts your credibility.
  • Yes, there are many articles on wikipedia that lack sources or are poorly sourced. You are welcome to raise issues regarding their sourcing and content on the respective article talk page. However the existence of such poor articles cannot be used as a justification for using unreliable sources. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for more details.
Abecedare (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Some General Questions

Hi, Thank you so much for answering my questions. Yeah I noticed your comment but I thought that it was only Vandalism if you edit an actual article. Since I was just posting something on a discussion page I thought that was okay. Anyways sorry for the mistake. Which leads me to wonder, how do you know every edit I make? Did you just happen to be on the talk page of the Rama article that time? Just curious? I had a few questions about some of the things we discussed, just so that I could be completely clear. Okay first

1) Is there any difference between the information I posted on the Naraka (Hinduism) page and what is commonly beleived in Hinduism? What I mean by this is in what ways is what I posted divergent from common Hindu beleifs. My family is Hindu and they beleive in Yama and Yamaduttas too. This is why I was wondering how is what I posted only a Narrow ISKCON view of Narakas or Hell? I thought that everything I posted for the for the Naraka (Hinduism) article were general beleifs all Hindus had about Hell. I thought all Hindus beleived in Yama and Yamaduttas so that's why I decided to write the article because I thought it was a general beleif shared by all Hindus regardless of Sects and affiliations. I thought this because it does not even mention a God ie. Krishna, Vishnu etc. Since Krishna's name isn't used or even hinted at in the article and in fact no name is really used except Yama I thought the content I supplied in the article is extremely neutral and unbiased because it just mentioned general views Hindus had about Hell. For this reason I thought the article was a neutral, unbiased view beleived by all HIndus. If this is not the case, can you tell me what I wrote that some Hindus would not agree with. I would really appreciate it if you could let me know. Thank You. By the way just as a side note I know the articles have to be well-rounded and neutral but in the Kali-Yuga article is David Frawley's interpretation of a short Kali Yuga which greatly diverges from the commonly accepted 432,000 years really necessary? I mean most Hindus believe in the traditional 432,000 years for Kali-Yuga and many Hindus like myself find the greatly shorter Kali-Yuga very blasphemous to Hindu beleifs. I mean David Frawley actually even believes that Muhammad was Kalki. I mean what nonsense. All Hindus beleive Kalki will come on a white horse with sword in hand and will killl all the demons to usher in Satya Yuga. All Hindus beleive this and if Muhammad was Kali, then we should be in Satya-Yuga. But I don't see people living 100,000 years. Muhammad is not an avatar of Vishnu. What I am trying to say is most Hindus view David Frawley's interpretation as blasphemous. Most Hindus beleive in the traditional 432,000 year time period for Kali Yuga. Another thing is that all the Puranas give the 432,000 year figure for Kali-Yuga and David Frawley's interpretation has no scripture basis. His only argument is that 432,000 years is so long and that it would be very said if Kali-Yuga was so long, so he decided to make it much shorter. This is extremely blasphemous and I think it should be removed. All Hindus accept the 432,000 year span for Kali-Yuga. This timespan is neutral, and non-sectarian because all Hindus regardless of sect or affiliation accept it. David Frawley really is no position to be an expert on Hinduism or time. He is just a Christian to Hindu convert and he doesn't really have anything would make him qualified to have notable views on Hinduism. Just wanted to point that out. I just thought that removing that and keeping with the well known, commonly accepted and neutral date of 432,000 years would be best since David Frawley is controversial and many see him as blasphemous and an attack on Hinduism by trying to dramatically shorten Vedic times. In other words just because the Bible may believe the world is 6,000 years old, doesn't mean David Frawley can become a Hindu and make the Hindu Timescales equal 6,000 years too. If you know what I mean.

2) My second question was I wondering exactly what publishers I must get books from in order to write an article such as Krishna Conscious Cosmology. I guess from talking to I understand that books from Bhaktivedanta Book Trust does not cut it but what publishers are reliable and which are not? For example I had a book called the "Heart of Hinduism" and you said it was a self-published non-expert author Stephen Knapp, so it did not count. Well if I am going to find a book how do I know if it counts or not? Another question is what do you mean when you say the book "Heart of Hinduism" by Stephen Knapp is non-neutral, self-published, and non-expert? What does all that mean? What do you mean by self-published. And how do you determine what is self-published and what is not? Aren't all books self-published since they are published by some person? How do you no if a person is an expert or a "non-expert"? How can I determine this? I was just wondering if you could give me some clarification on all of this because it is kind of confusing that some books are accepted by some are not because they are "self-published" and 'non-expert". But what does this mean and how can you tell which book is and which book is not self published and non-expert and vice versa? I want to know because when I create articles like Krishna Conscious Cosmology and others I need to know and be able to tell what books are acceptable and which ones are not. Like "The Heart of Hinduism" is somehow not acceptable because it is "self-published" and "non-expert" but what does that mean and how can you tell which book is self published and non-expert and which book is not? Please let me know and help me out because I am really confused. Another thing is a lot of articles like Naraka (Buddhism) only has one source and that source cannot even be viewed. It is just a bibliography with no link. Does that mean I could just cite something like Shrimad-Bhagavatam, or Vayu Purana, or Shiva purana, or Agni Purana without even giving a viewable source? A lot of articles are like this. They give one source and that source just explains what book the information is from but you cannot view the source because it is just a bibliography of the book. When I say that it means they have one source but there is no link to the source. Is having one source which claims that it is from a book but no link to the actual source acceptable? I mean can I just write some Purana as a source and provide no link and is that acceptable? I just don't understand how a source with no link can even be verified without picking up some obscure book that is cited but not linked. Do you understand what I mean. If not go to Naraka (Buddhism) and look under references and you will see what I am talking about it. Please let me know if this is acceptable just saying that all the information in the article is from one book and not even giving a link to that book. Please let me know if that is okay to do when writing articles. If I am not making much sense to you check out the article Naraka (Buddhism) and then you will see what I mean because sometimes it is hard for me to explain things. Please let me know as this has been a question that I never quite understood. Thank You

3) Another thing arises in my mind, since on the Naraka page both Hindu and Buddhist views are mentioned you said there is no reason to have a Naraka (Hinduism) page but if this is true then should I redirect the Naraka (Buddhism) page? Both Hindu and Buddhist views are given on the Naraka page but in addition to this Buddhism gets it's own in depth page. If Hinduism cannot get its own page should I redirect Naraka (Buddhism) to Naraka just that we keep things fair and balanced? I mean the Naraka page talks about both Hindu and Buddhist views but it is not really fair that Buddhism gets its own in depth page talking about all the different Hells in detail but Hinduism does not get to talk about all the Hells in detail. Are you getting what I am saying. I'm trying to be as clear as possible but its sometimes hard. Basically to sum it up If Buddhism gets its own page shouldn't Hinduism also be entitled to do the same and if Hinduism cannot get its own Naraka page and has to just have a general can we then also conclude that we should just redirect Naraka (Buddhism) to Naraka since the Naraka page also talks about Buddhists beleifs so there is no reason to have a separate Naraka page for Buddhism? Do you see what I mean if Buddhism has its own page than Hinduism should too otherwise Buddhism should not have its own page and anyway like I mentioned earlier there is only one source to the Naraka (Buddhism) article and even that source is not viewable. I mean what's stopping anyone from quoting some book and saying that everything from the article is based on the book. Nobody can verify this claim unless they go to the librarary and read it or the bookstore and buy. Since most people won't do this the source is just taken as true without questioning because no link is given so nobody can argue with it. Shouldn't there at least be links that can be provided to verify the material? Please let me know Thank You.

Thank you very much for all answering all my questions, and for your time, cooperation and effort and yeah I am sorry I posted the links on the Rama talk page, I though you just didn't want me posting stuff in articles. I thought discussion pages were okay. Sorry my mistake. Thank You once again and please let me know.Eronel189 (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

To address your three questions:
  1. It would be best to discuss specific issues about Naraka, Naraka (Buddhism) etc on the specfic articles' talk pages. I agree with you that David Frawley is not a high quality source and his views should be cited only with attribution.
  2. You will get to know the reputation of publishers and authors as you read more academic papers and books about a topic and see what works they cite. This, along with book reviews, is the best indicator of their reputation for accuracy. For starters: university presses are reputable, as are other publishers academic publishers like Brill, Routledge, Taylor and Francis etc. Among Indian publishers, titles by Sahitya Akademi are good sources, and Motilal Banarsidass publishes a lot of good titles in the area, although a few of them can be fringey.
  3. Wikipedia is not a battlefield between religions or a place to argue that "Buddhism, Islam ... have their article so Hinduism, Sikhism ... should have one too". Each contribution and article needs to stand on its own, and as I explained above, existence of poor pages and not a justification for adding to the junk. I have also explained specific reasons, particularly copyright violation, that led to the deletion of Naraka (Hinduism).
Again, it is not fruitful to look for a biases or conspiracies against your edits or beliefs. Your time will be best spent scouring your university library shelves and journal databases, reading on topics that interest you, and then editing corresponding wikipedia pages - you'll end up both educating yourself and improving wikipedia content. Abecedare (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For making me smile really wide! DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Glad the mock-serious analysis was read in the intended spirit. Abecedare (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Great work!

Looking at your discussion with User:Eronel189 above, I'm amazed by your patience and persistent helpfulness... thanks for setting such a fine example! Shreevatsa (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this should be a barnstar :-)

Barnstar-abc.png The Helping Hand Barnstar
For being extraordinarily helpful and patient with new users! Shreevatsa (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.
Unfortunately, I am not sure if the discussion was actually helpful to the user/wikipedia itself, given that the user went ahead and added the copyvio content from a sectarian translation of a primary source without any context to Naraka. So perhaps you are being too kind judging me on effort rather than results.
On the plus side: excellent content contributions by "non-regulars" like User:Opfallon, User:Lotus in the hills etc are a great anti-dote for the cynicism or ennui towards new users, that the less fruitful interaction might breed. I hope that I am able to maintain the balance, and trust yawl to nudge me when I fail. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Shreevatsa is right. Editors that start out with a troublesome reputation sometimes turn out ok. My own early learning experience with two especially rude/crude long-time editors almost drove me away from WP (their intent, I think). Since you are also reverting and warning, you have the best approach—one that I could surely learn from. Priyanath talk 17:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, you know the most-quoted line from the Gita: karmaṇyevādhikāraste mā phaleśu kadācana :-) There's no way to be sure what the results will be, but your efforts seem to be the best that can be done (or better!). I'm sure such an approach will be sufficiently fruitful, sooner or later. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Game. Set. Match. :-) Abecedare (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


I've never created a category before, so wanted your feedback before I do. I'm thinking of creating a master category for R. K. Narayan similar to Category:William Faulkner. Malgudi and the soon to be created List of characters and places in Malgudi will not belong to any current RKN cats, and it might be good to roll-up the novel and short story cats into this. What say you? cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvinHobbes 05:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Category:R.K. Narayan seems justified to me, since there are likely to be a few dozen eligible articles for it (or its sub-cats). Category:Novels by R. K. Narayan and Category:Short stories by R. K. Narayan can be sub-cats. Not sure where Category:Books by R. K. Narayan will fit in, though. Is it a sub-cat of Category:R.K. Narayan and mother of novels and short-stories ? Abecedare (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Books needs to be renamed to Non-fiction as that was the intended purpose of the creator based on the current item; it currently has only one entry and another that should go in there; and potential for another eight, so it'll be a 10 item cat. So structure I'm thinking of - Category:R.K. Narayan as the master cat which includes: Category:Novels by R. K. Narayan, Category:Short stories by R. K. Narayan and renamed Category:Books by R. K. Narayan as sub-cats and these articles directly - R. K. Narayan, Malgudi, Malgudi Days, Guide (film) and List of characters and places in Malgudi. cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvinHobbes 22:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. However I think the Malgudi Days, Under the Banyan Tree etc. should be categorized under Category:Short story collections by R. K. Narayan. The category Category:Short stories by R. K. Narayan should be used only for articles on individual stories (if there are any).
Compare with: Dubliners is classed under Category:Short story collections by James Joyce, while the short stories themselves are listed under Category:Short stories by James Joyce. Ditto for Category:Works by Franz Kafka. Abecedare (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Would agree with you on Malgudi Days except that the article is actually about the TV series and not the book (and they aren't the same, the stories are different in the two). Under the Banyan Tree etc, yes. Gods, Demons and Others would be an exception where it goes under both the short story collections cat and the non-fiction cat (I take it we classify mythology as non-fiction?). -SpacemanSpiffCalvinHobbes 23:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, not sure about the correct classification for mythology. Perhaps Dewey system can serve as aguide, but not really worth sweating over. The Malgudi Days article is confusing: the lede is about the book [1], while the rest of it is about the TV series. Since both subjects are notable, I think the page needs to be split. Abecedare (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

<undent>Yeah, the Malgudi days split is on my to-dos along with articles/stubs for the other books and collections; the current biblio listing on the article is correct for Novels/Non-fiction/Mythology, but I need to find some authority on the collections. It should only be 10, but I haven't found a good source for what the 10 are (owing to republishing, co-opting etc). I'll take a basic glance at Dewey and anything else that might be on here in terms of categories. cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvinHobbes 03:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Creating a mythology cat. may be the best way to avoid the fiction/non-fiction question. That cat. can then contains Narayan's retelling of Ramayana, Mahabharata and Gods, Demons and Others. Untangling Narayan's "original" short-story collections would be good; not sure if the later repackaged anthologies even deserve an article of their own - although we can justify one if they have been independently reviewed. Abecedare (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I've created Category:R. K. Narayan, I've left the books cat as is for now since I had some confusing info on the category naming area, I'll change once I find a link to a proper naming structure and also split of mythology at that time. Also completed stubs for the non-fiction, now I need to go clean up the ones that existed before. cheers. 20:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Nice work! Abecedare (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A question

The bickering about photos on Talk:India's reminded me just how much the "History" section annoys me. I had a chat with Fowler about it some months ago. My comments were in the context of this particular debate, but I think the general points remain valid. I think it'd be worthwhile trying to fix the problems with that section - is it something that you might be interested in working on? -- Arvind (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am in two minds on this. On one hand, the History section is a bit list-y and disjointed, and resembles a "greatest hits" mix-tape. On the other hand, given the direction of all the previous discussions on the topic, I am very skeptical that it can be significantly improved through a writing-by-committee process in which parochial concerns abound. So is the section as good as it gets ? I hope not, but fear so.
That said, if you are brave enough to undertake this venture, I'll be happy to chime in with my comments (my presence on wikipedia may be off-and-on over the next 2 months). Is User:Fowler&fowler active again ? His input will be invaluable. Abecedare (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, well, I'm sort of used to that type of issue from Tamil-related articles, where you have to on the one hand hold off the guys who think the article should say Chinese was a Tamil dialect until 50,000 BC and on the other hand hold off those who think anything that even hints at antiquity or exceptionalism is a nationalist fantasy. I'll ask F&F about his availability - I think he's a bit busy at present, but there's no rush to do this right now. I've been planning to contact Fowler anyway about collaborating to work up Mughal Empire, which is an utter disgrace in its present form. That bit of our history deserves better treatment. -- Arvind (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your posting at AN/I

Abecedare, I saw your posting at AN/I in relation to the speed of light article. Brews ohare is not pushing any fringe theories. He is merely trying to highlight the significance of the new definition of the metre so that the wider readership do not get confused. Secondly, Brews is not continuing on from where I left off, as your comments have implied. Brews has been there for a long time. I only came in for a short time to help him out. You can check his talk page. I came to him to ask him what the argument was all about. I made the effort of investigating, and it took me a while to figure it out. I hadn't previously been aware that the metre had been re-defined in 1983. Following my investigation, I realized that Brews was absolutely correct.

It really would be helpful if you yourself might conduct a similar investigation before coming to an AN/I thread about a controversial physics topic such as this. You really do now need to return to AN/I and correct your statement. It is the honourable thing to do. David Tombe (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my wording at ANI was a bit sloppy inasmuch it leaves the impression that you originated the discussion, while what I intended to convey was that Brew has continued the argument even after your page ban. As for fringiness: sorry, but I have no interest in re-debating the issue on my talk page, so we'll just have to disagree. Abecedare (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that what you need to do is re-debate it at AN/I and explain to everybody why you think that Brews is pushing a fringe viewpoint. In actual fact the conflict is about Brews's desire to clarify a particular issue whereas his opposition want to leave the matter open to question. I think that it would be the honourable thing to do to go back to AN/I and correct your comments. David Tombe (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Suta - Ugrasravas

On a lighter note, I have that unfinished business at Talk:Bhagavata Purana#Question about Suta regarding the merging/renaming of Suta Goswami and Ugrasrava Sauti. I've found several references online, which will help, but it seems the most authoritative and comprehensive might be one that you mentioned, The Puranas by Rocher. This source[2] says "See Rocher, The Puranas pp. 53-9 for a discussion of Suta in the Puranas." Do you have the book? It's not online that I can find. Thanks, Priyanath talk 19:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I couldn't lay my hands on that book. While my library lists it in its catalog, and I was able to locate all the other volumes of the History of Indian literature series, Rocher's title was physically missing! On the positive side: during that same trip to the library I had borrowed Dasgupta's A history of Indian philosophy (vol. 4, which covers BP in its first chapter) and a couple of volumes of Tagare's translation of Bhagavatam. Yesterday I seeded the philosophy section; hope to expand it in the coming weeks.
FWIW, Tagare's translation calls the sage who originally narrated the BP to Parīkṣit, Śuka, and mentions that he is the son of Vyasa; the narrator to Śaunaka is referred to as simply Sūta . Abecedare (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I think I can help:
  • The son of Vyasa is simply Śuka. (ISKCON: "Sukadeva Goswami", unrelated to "Suta Goswami", both "deva" and "Goswami" being honorific suffixes.) Śuka is unrelated to any Suta/Sauti.
  • "Sūta" is a class/community of people (roughly, bards) "who lived in the courts of kings and recited or sang their songs at great feasts in order to proclaim the glory of the princes. [...]" These sūtas are described as forming a "special caste," and it is suggested that "epic poetry probably originated in the circle of such bards" etc. (If you can access this paper, see page 5 in it, else I can email it, I guess.)
  • "Sauti" probably just means "son of a Sūta", just as Kaunteya means "son of Kunti", Vāsudeva means "son of Vasudeva", etc.
  • "According to tradition, although the Mahabharata was composed be sage Vyasa, it was transmitted through the sūta Lomaharṣaṇa and in its final recension is narrated by his son, Sauti." Or, "The introduction of the great epic informs us that Vyasa imparted his poem first to his pupil Vaiśampāyana, who in his turn recited the whole of it at the time of the great snake-sacrifice of king Janamejaya. It was then heard by the Sūta Ugraśravas who, being entreated by the Rishis assembled at the sacrifice of Śaunaka in the Nimisha forest, narrated to them the whole poem as he learnt it on that occasion". Either way, the father (sūta) is Lomaharṣaṇa and the son (Sauti, also a sūta) is Ugraśravas. And the narrator of the final form is the latter.
  • Sūta, besides meaning the class of bards, also means a charioteer, so in the Mahabharata the term is variously applied to Ugraśravas, Lomaharṣaṇa (bards), Sañjaya and Karna (charioteers, but Sañjaya also played a bard-like role during the war, confusingly!)
  • For what it's worth, "Ugraśravas" means "he of the awesome voice" and Lomaharṣaṇa means "he of the hair-raising tales" :-)
Hope all this clarifies more than it confuses, Shreevatsa (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - those are along the lines I was thinking. The overlap between all of them (the various "suta"s) makes me think one article titled "Suta" would be best. This source is interesting,[3] describing an entire class of "Suta literature". Is it a reliable source? And this reliable source,[4] which seems to lean heavily on Rocher, says that "Suta, capitalized, denotes Ugrasravas, the son of Roharmasana,...while suta denotes the title of "bard", or Puranic reciter." And this[5] confirms that the same Suta was the interlocutor for the Mahabharata and the Bhagavatam. I've also seen a few sources that defined "suta" as a half-caste illegitimate offspring of kshatriyas that were often bards. So, yes it is getting more clear. And then the unrelated (except for telling the same story, this time to Parikshit) "Śuka" for the other article title makes the most sense. Priyanath talk 22:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes I think we have a good understanding of the interlinks between suta/Suta/Ugrasravas/Lomaharsana. Now we should ensure that the fruits of the labour are reflected in wikipedia articles on Suta, Ugrasrava Sauti and Lomaharsana, so that all this research effort is not lost ! Also, Suta Goswami needs to be merged into Ugrasrava Sauti. Any volunteers ? Abecedare (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I did the merge; there wasn't much that was crucial in Suta Goswami. I think the Suta/suta capitalization note was just about the convention used for convenience in that book, as Indian languages don't have (upper/lower)case. About whether the source about "Suta literature" is reliable, it's true that there's a class of "Suta literature" (which we can mention in the (already-existing!) Suta article), but some of the details might be wrong (Arvind Sharma's paper says it's disputed whether sūtas were both bards and charioteers, or it was simply a confusion because the same name was used for two occupations.) Shreevatsa (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Interestingly, I had looked up the paper by Arvind Sharma in relation to some discussion on Ramayana or Mahabharata talk page regarding (IIRC) Anustabha metre. I browsed through it then and found it very interesting ... but never ended up making any related article improvements. Glad that Priyanath and you ran with the ball this time! Abecedare (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
You beat me to it Shreevatsa—I've been disambiguating Suka to the newly titled and rewritten Śuka. I'll also add to the Suta article as I can, but do correct me when I get things wrong. I'm still not entirely clear on what consensus is regarding the various sutas and their meanings. Priyanath talk 23:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sadhana (weekly)

Your creation of the article when Yadunath Thatte was being A-7ed is fortuitous. Shreevatsa appeared to unearth that Shankar Dattatraya Javdekar, now at AfD was also an editor. cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvinHobbes 21:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, I love such coincidences. For example, Priyanath and I have been discussing R. K. Narayan with you, and Suta with Sreevatsa (see two of the sections above). Seemingly unlinked topics, but then it turns out that a source Priyanath added to Ugrasrava Sauti, references Narayan's Gods, Demons and others! Finding such serendipitous links is one of the charms of editing wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


Hi, not entirely sure if you'd be interested, but I created this article a few days ago: Kirātārjunīya. (I felt it's ok to use IAST as it's about Sanskrit literature.) I'm afraid it's not very well-written, and possibly focuses too much on the gymnastics, but if you're bored and interested do take a look and fix any glaring defects or comment etc. :-) I've nominated it for a DYK. Shreevatsa (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

A gem of an article! I greatly enjoyed reading it and thought that the explication of the linguistic gymnastics was particularly good. I was left hungering for more details, so I do hope you can further expand on the article.
By the way, we definitely need articles, categories, templates etc on mahakavyas (a redirect). Currently the Indian epic poetry article says that the term is synonymous with Itihasa, which afaik is not true ... Abecedare (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Even Britannica has an article on (Sanskrit) mahakavya and discusses Bengali mahakavya] separately. I found some brief discussion in our article on Sanskrit literature, but really we should do better. Abecedare (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, glad you liked it! Your edits have made a lot of improvements already... sorry about the accidental click of the rollback button. :-) Hope it didn't deter further edits. What do you think should/could be expanded? Actually, I'm not an expert on this topic either; I was just reading from sources... But it would definitely be great to improve our articles on Sanskrit literature. (Anything to help correct the myth that there's anything "mysterious" or "mystical" about it. :p) One good thing is that a lot of the European interest in Sanskrit was from the 19th century, so in principle we can actually use a lot of those public-domain books directly and just mention it. In practice... I don't know. Shreevatsa (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I haven't read any sources on the subject, so don't know what can be added - its more of a wish than a informed critique. By the way, are any of the (partial) English translation in public domain ? If so it can be added to wikisource and linked from the article. Abecedare (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, do you know if this image is relevant to the article ? It comes from an 1820, "Arjuna and Celestials, Folio from a Kirata-Arjuniya", but I don't know if the episode is described in Bharavi's poem. Abecedare (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The wish is informative too. :-) I'll try to add a canto-by-canto description, or some mention of the moral and other themes/discussions. I couldn't find any of the English translations at all, actually (they're all from India, and not widely published)... I guess translations are few and rare because it's quite a long poem, difficult even by Sanskrit standards, and the genre is not much appreciated today. The image is definitely relevant! How did you find it? Is it available without permission issues? The episode I think is the celestials come to distract Arjuna, which is described in the poem (and not in the Mahabharata). Thanks, Shreevatsa (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Found the image by searching for (I think) Kirata on the LACMA webiste, which I have used before to find Hindu mythology related images. The image is in public domain and can be uploaded on commons with the {{PD Art}} tag (see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag and Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. for more details). Also found this beautiful image (using google images), but am not sure if PD-art strictly applies in this case since the mural may have not been 2D - but we can request the flickr user to allow us to use it in the article by releasing it under a free license. Abecedare (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


Could you please let me know how to write on discussion page. I hope it is by editing discussion page. and also how to ask question and where to ask question. I have created a new article and i want to start discussion on discussion page of that article. But i don't know how to post message and questions. please reply to me on my talk page. Premchanda. Premchanda (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Mumbai FAC

Nice joke, Abecedare . I am not at all disheartened. This is not the first FAC which has failed. Several FACs and GANs which I have nominated have failed. I was out of town on a 5-day break with no Internet access. Anyway, regarding the article, the article needs some work before it could be promoted. I have several questions for you, before renominating the article again at FAC. Thanks, KensplanetTC 07:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have completely rewritten the Politics section as per your comments. I have mentioned about national elections, state elections, and municipal corporation elections. This is just a skeleton, requires a lot of copyedits and prose improvements. Is it comprehensive enough now? KensplanetTC 08:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Glad, to see you back at Mumbai! I am a bit tied up IRL over the next few days, but I'll definitely add my comments about the Politics section, and also try to help as an editor, by the end of the week. A quick general comment (w/o having checked your recent edits): I don't think comprehensiveness is a issue with most of the sections on the Mumbai page; rather, what is needed is greater discrimination and improved flow i.e., better organization and linking of ideas within paragraphs and sections, so that the each sentence doesn't read as an independent factoid. Will try to make this clearer on the article talk page when I re-review the article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

R. K. Narayan

I'm pretty much done as far as content goes. There are some issues that need to be fixed, copy editing etc, but I'd rather get feedback on any additional content requirements or reduction before I go ahead with that. Provide some feedback on the article talk page? -SpacemanSpiffCalvinHobbes 21:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not, I've been asked to give more detail on the critical reception of his works and his successes. It's always more difficult to write about someone you like than about someone you're indifferent towards! -SpacemanSpiffCalvinHobbes 22:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Wow! I had not taken a look at the page in some time, and you have done a great job expanding, sourcing, and organizing it. Instead of nominating it directly for FAC though, it would be a good idea to take it through the GA and/or Peer-review process so that the kinks can be hammered out. I agree that for an author who has been widely written about the critical reception section needs to be expanded. Also it is not a good practice IMO to have a section labeled "Criticism" that separates out the negative reviews. Such opinions belong in the Critical review section itself, where they should be given due weight and context. I'll make a few quick edits to fix some MOS issues I spotted - and will review the article in greater detail this weekend. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, on the Critcism vs Critical reception titling, I've been going back and forth, I looked at a few FA lit bios and there doesn't seem to be a consistent way this is done, but I think I'll retitle (again) as Critical reception and expand it. I'm going to do it on my sandbox now, since I don't want to experiment on the article itself. As for the CITESHORT issues, I copied over the format from an FA in the literature section, but that was one of its kind and I liked it. I wasn't planning on taking to FA directly, but go through peer review, didn't think going through GA was necessary if that was done (or should I?). Right now, I think I've probably spent too much time researching and structuring the article that I'm blind to the content deficiencies and undue inclusions, so I figured a round of feedback with the end goal might be in order. Hopefully when you get to look at the article in detail by the end of the week, I'll be able to add in a better section for critical reception. cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvinHobbes 18:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits of Page India


I do not understand clearly your complaint about India. Are you telling me that, when I say in the legend of the map: "this map includes a territory under Chinese administration as a part of Aksai Chin", it's not the truth? Also, if you disagree with the edit made at India, discuss the issue on that article's talk page, instead of taking a tit-for-tat route. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

虞海 (talk · contribs) reported to ANI for bizarre and pointy editing. Abecedare (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Lakshmi Narayan Singh

You can find the article for your review here. Lexicon (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, you do that. I can tell you from my research that not a single reference mentions a "Lakshmi Narayan Singh". The linked articles that are actually about individuals appear to be to those claimed as being his father-in-law Satyendra Narayan Sinha and grandfather-in-law Anugrah Narayan Sinha. Even the link in the infobox that supposedly sources the biographical information contained therein is to an obituary for Satyendra Narayan Sinha which makes no mention whatsoever of a Lakshmi Narayan Singh. Lexicon (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I reached the exact same conclusion and just left a message on your talk page about it. Great work spotting this! Abecedare (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't too hard to spot: I heard the mention in the song "Singh, Lakshmi Singh" about there being no Wikipedia article on the subject (Lakshmi Singh of NPR), and figured I'd take a look and see if an article was subsequently created by someone else who heard the song. I noticed that the article was created about a month after the song appeared on the internet, which seemed fishy to me, and then I checked out the links and found that they didn't support the existence of a Lakshmi Narayan Singh. I wonder, though, if the real Lakshmi Singh is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Lexicon (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of sources on the real Lakshmi Singh (NPR itself, SAJA interview), but those may not be sufficient to meet the notability bar. If we can find a few more, we can fulfill Parry Gripp's wishes." :-)
PS: Ironically, before your note at WT:INB, I knew who Lakshmi Singh was, but hadn't heard of Parry Gripp. Abecedare (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Union of India

I left you a message at the talk page of government of india. -- (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look and respond there. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Iyengar move

Oh okay! No probs! :-). Maybe Iyengar is the most popularly used English transliteration of the term, but I would not call it the most precise one.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 02:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh I agree! Given that English spellings are non-phonetical we cannot even spell all English language words "precisely" in Latin script. Add to that the fact that English lacks some of the sounds in Indic languages, precision is an unachievable goal, and English spelling of English/non-English words is often a matter of convention alone. That is the reason, we should aim to add IPA and/or IAST/ISO 15919 information in the lede so that a interested reader can work out the pronounciation without having to decipher Indic scripts. I have added the IAST transliteration to the Iyengar article, but am not confident of the IPA spelling. Can you look it over and recheck ? I'll also ask User:Vadakkan to take a look.
PS: Iyengār would correspond to இயங்கார் instead of அய்யங்கார்; that is the reason I reverted the move in a hurry. :-) Abecedare (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
This isn't going to be easy. The word is written slightly differently in Kannada-Telugu and Tamil. In the first two, it's written ayyaṁgār, but the Tamil spelling in the article transliterates to ayyaṅkār. And, to complicate things even further, the word can also be written as ஐயங்கார் aiyaṅkār in Tamil (and this spelling is actually slightly more common than the one in the article). The first line will become eye-splittingly complex if we bung all this information there - perhaps a little box showing how the word is written in the various South Indian scripts, and giving transliterations, is a better solution? -- Arvind (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the information! I had heard the other variations, but didn't know about ayyaṅkār; is that a legitimate variant, or a mistake in our article ?
That aside, I agree that all this detail is unnecessary and distracting in the lede sentence, and we should include it either in a box on the lines of {{Buddhist_term}}, or add a section on etymology and pronunciation of Iyengar. Would you like to take the lead in writing up the section/box ? (With my kindergarten level of knowledge of Tamil script, I am sure to introduce more error than is typical even for wikipedia.) Abecedare (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
No, the article's spelling is right. The Tamil script doesn't distinguish between voiced and unvoiced stops, so the transliteration will always be k and never g. I've taken a crack at the table using {{DisplayTranslations}}- how does it look? -- Arvind (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Translations of
Kannada ಅಯ್ಯಂಗಾರ್
Telugu అయ్యంగార్
Tamil ஐயங்கார்
(Butting in, sorry.) Though the English transliterations (ISO 15919?) are technically correct, I think they're confusing, informative only to those who already something about the respective scripts, and best avoided. They are letter-by-letter transliterations that correspond to the way the words are written but don't correspond to the way the words are read. Thus although it's written with the anusvara as "ayyaṁgār" (or in Tamil as "ayyaṅkār"), it's always read as ayyaṅgār, right? I think including the pronunciation should be enough. (Do the two Tamil transliterations have different pronunciation?) Shreevatsa (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Arvind, thanks for the translation table; I have added it to the Iyengar page.
Shreevatsa, I don't know if the term is pronounced as ayyaṅgār or ayyaṅkār in Tamil; I have always heard it as ayyaṅgār (and often ayyaṅgar), but that may be just a matter of hearing what one expects. Perhaps Arvind has a better explanation; I'll ping him on his talk page since he may not be watching this (slow) discussion. Cheer. Abecedare (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Depending on the dialect, it'd be either ŋg or ŋŋ. The overwhelming majority of dialects would use the former, but the latter also exists. I don't think there are any dialects where it'd be pronounced as ŋk.
Responding to Shreevatsa, I'm generally in favour of including transliterations simply because it avoids the ambiguity of recording "the pronunciation," and because it can be useful to people who can't read a particular script. For example, I can only read a handful of Indic scripts, so having IAST / ISO 15919 transliterations helps enormously with the others. I'm aware that opinions are divided among the Indian wikipedian community, so this isn't something I'm going to insist on, but it does seem to be becoming a standard across Wikipedia. -- Arvind (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Some random related comments:
  • I too think it is a good idea to provide transliterations of non-English terms once in the article, since they are useful to at least some readers (like me), and other can safely ignore them. I think the only dispute in this regard is when to use an IAST or ISO 15919 spelling exclusively in an article, or use it in an article title.
  • Ideally we would provide pronunciation guides in IPA for all non-English subjects, since a reader is more likely to be interested in learning how to say the term, than in spelling it out in an Indic script. However this is not easy to do due to (1) the large variation in pronunciations especially for words (like Iyengar) that have been adopted in several Indian languages, (2) lack of authoritative dictionaries laying out the common pronunciation(s) in individual Indic languages. The only saving grace is that Indic scripts are largely phonetic, so an interested reader can usually get an idea about the pronunciation from the transliteration.
Abecedare (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
As I've said elsewhere I favour using IAST / ISO 15919 in article titles, except where there is a standard Anglicisation which is very well known (for example, Mahabharata). A category like Category:Sangam literature should explain why - can you imagine the absolute mess those article titles would've been if we'd not been using diacritics? I agree with you about the pronunciation. -- Arvind (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
You've both convinced me; I withdraw my earlier comment. I realised that the set of people "who already know something about the respective scripts" includes almost everyone who knows at least one Indian script, and is likely to have a large intersection with the possible readers of the article. :) Shreevatsa (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


Feel like giving it a shot? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Concur, I'd love to co-nom you. cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvinHobbes 16:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
May as well take the plunge; was tempted to postpone again based on real life schedule, but that's unlikely to change anytime soon. If possible, can we start the process on Friday ? It will be easier to respond to !voters queries over the weekend. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Great! I'll have something up tomorrow. Start prepping the answers to q 1 ,2 3, and Spacemanspiff, start thinking about your co-nom. You worked more closely with Abecedare than I have so don't forget diffs etc. Noms/co-noms from senior wikipedians are welcome! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Will work on it, let me know once you create the page. As far as "senior" - I've been on WP for about four months now, so, not exactly. -SpacemanSpiffCalvinHobbes 00:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Great, good luck to you! Shreevatsa (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's great to see this - long overdue. Anything I can do that would help, please let me know. Priyanath talk 15:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Here you go. [6]. Don't forget to answer the questions and transclude when you're ready (and after SpacemanSpiff has added a co-nom!). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Added co-nom. cheers -SpacemanSpiffCalvinHobbes 19:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Psst, I'm guessing you're a he, seems that way from your writing; don't want to use a generic pronoun, but not an incorrect one either! cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvinHobbes 19:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks RP and SS for the glowing noms: you turned my cheeks red. :-)
SS, yes he is fine; I too have a slight aversion to they although I use it sometimes on wikipedia - frankly I would prefer being referred to as "she" rather than a "they", though usually I don't even notice.
I have added my answers to the mix; can you review them and let me know I missed something, or if it needs more diffs,links etc. ? Abecedare (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion: SpacemanSpiff, you can link to the archived thread, instead of diffs in your co. nom.; as in copyright, categories, and conversation with Eronel189. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvinHobbes 21:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Abecedare, you have a few grammar/typos in your answers that you might want to fix: Answer 1 - "I have been had the India project noticeboard..."; Answer 2 - "editing at wikipedia is driven my serendipity", and a few other similar things if you want me to nitpick. Great answers and great nominating statements! Priyanath talk 22:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Please do nitpick! I have corrected the errors you pointed out, but may still have overlooked others. Any feedback is appreciated. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
When do you plan to transclude it? I should perhaps add a few diffs but can't do so till tomorrow. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I am in no rush; in fact if I hadn't been shamed by your and SpacemanSpiff's promptness, I would have kept procrastinating on the answers. If my answers look ok to you, you can add the diffs whenever you have the time and transclude it (that's allowed, right ?). Is there anything else I need to do, except wait for the dawn ? Abecedare (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
You're done! Just sit back and wait for the games to begin - hope you have a thick skin :-). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A few more nitpicks: 2. "am generalist at heart", add 'a'; "the Alice Stewart Trillin has been preserved..." (add 'article); "ones", add possessive apostrophe. Priyanath talk 23:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This diff might also help in explaining your statement on the article. -SpacemanSpiffCalvinHobbes 23:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again, Priyanath and SS. I looked past all those errors in previous readings! I guess collaborative wikiediting has made me lazy. I have added the diff link too - it will save the curious some effort. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I'll leave it like it is. I think the noms and the answers read well and no sense in adding unnecessary detail or verbiage. Let me know if you're ready and I'll transclude it for you (here's hoping I don't mess it up!). I was hoping YellowMonkey would chime in with a nom (sorry spacemanspiff - that was the experienced user I was referring to!) but hopefully you'll get a strong support statement from him. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so much for my vanity :) cheers -SpacemanSpiffCalvinHobbes 17:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please go ahead. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Transcluded. Good luck! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am online for the next few hours, so the timing works out well for me. Abecedare (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I know it's not over yet, but congrats! No opposes (disregarding that troll)! I just forgot what I was about to say... Abce2|This isnot a test 13:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the user is trolling; just lashing out (and I can even imagine the wording of templates coming across as aggressive for new users who are not as familiar with them as us wikiaddicts). Anyway, I don't mind the situation being reviewed at the RFA, since this is a typical scenario, and my response in this instance is what I expect it to be even if I am promoted to an admin. So if anyone thinks it was over-the-top, now is the time to speak. :-) Abecedare (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I just realized that you were referring to this oppose, rather than the new one. Ah, the vagaries of asynchronous communications ... Abecedare (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)