Talk:Ananda Sutram

Problems
Please stop edit-warring to introduce unsourced and non-notable content. bobrayner (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please as I've just said don't redirect the article without discussing. If you want to delete it this is not the system in WP. Don't redirect again please! Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion. You still haven't provided any sources for the content that you're adding and you still haven't shown that it's notable and you've not even hinted at any reason why you might be exempt from the usual wikipedia policies. This is supposed to be an encyclopædia, not just a collection of text that you like. bobrayner (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead of discussing on the talkpage, Cornelius383 just reverted anyway, saying "Please discuss in the talk page the changes". It is difficult to understand how edits like that happen without either tendentious editing or a complete lack of competence. Still, the page now has an "under construction" tag added to it - is that a substitute for sources? bobrayner (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If somebody is working on an article you can't redirect.--Cornelius383 (talk) 07:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The only "work" you've done is to restore dubious, unsourced content. That is a bad thing. I removed dubious, unsourced content; that is a good thing. bobrayner (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I came upon this article as a result of a posting on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard regarding other articles that are connected with this topic. I notice that there is conflict about whether or not the text of this work should be included here, e.g. ([]). It seems reasonable to me to delete the source text from the article for two reasons: 1. The current arrangement of the article is not encyclopedic in nature, and 2. The current version of the text does not use a standard transliteration method for Sanskrit and contains what appear to be errors. 1. I am unsure of Wikipedia policy on inclusion of source texts, but normally would not expect to find the full text of a work included in the page describing it. A more common approach for an encyclopedia article would be to write about the work, including citations to WP:RS that discuss the significance and background of the work. A format example is the Narada Bhakti Sutra, which treats that well-known text in an encyclopedic style. I would prefer to see an approach like that used rather than simply presenting the text without analysis. 2. The text is written in Sanskrit, but the transliteration method used is nonstandard and contains what appear to be errors. There are standard methods for transliteration of Sanskrit, but this article does not use a method that I recognize. If a specific method is being used, it would be helpful to identify it. The talk page for the main article on Sarkar refers to a "Roman Samskrta transliteration system" devised by him, so perhaps that is what is being used. Can you please provide a link where I can learn more about that system? I did not find a similar system among those listed at Devanagari transliteration. While the use of diacritical marks is nonstandard, it would be generally understandable to someone who knows the language with some mental transpositions. Many of the articles on Wikipedia that present Sanskrit use the International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration, which is an academic standard. This is not mandatory for Wikipedia, but since this text purports to present a specific text in detail, it would be helpful if it were shown in a more standard way and errors need to be corrected. One example of non-standard transliteration is in 4-4, shown in the article as "Dvitiiyá sakale prathamodgame Bhaeravii Bhaeraváshritá". The dipthong "ae" does not exist in Sanskrit. The dipthong "ai" (ऐ) is intended here, so the correct transliteration would be "Bhairavī Bhairavāshritā". Another example of an apparent error is in 2-15, "Puruśah akartá phalasákśiibhútah bhávakendrasthitah guńayantrákashca: Puruśa does no action…" where the correct transliteration (using IAST) would be Puruṣaḥ akartā etc. The present line confuses the cerebral ṣ (ष्) as shown in Puruṣaḥ with the palatal ś (श्), which herein is transliterated as "sh" (as at the end of that line, with "shca" to represent what must be श्च in the source). These unusual features suggest that the entire work should be closely proofread by someone who knows Sanskrit since it is unreliable in its present form. Buddhipriya (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)