User talk:Abecedare/Archive 7

RfA thanks
Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 23:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello, thanks a lot, pls do so when you get time. Also I you had given some very valuable comments before regarding improving the article. Pls share them if you have any. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Fascism article
I wonder if you could look at Fascism. The introductory sentence of this section is not supported by the footnotes, and much of the section is devoted to "left-wing fascism", which is not described elsewhere in the article. There has been discussion, but it has not been resolved. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * TFD, Unfortunately I am not the right person to address this. While, I have a general lay person's knowledge of what fascism is and do find the emphasis on "left-wing fascism" odd, I do not have the required breadth of knowledge in political science to be able to categorically say if the coverage is undue, or point you towards the authoritative sources in the field. I expect that editors at WP:PLT or WP:SOCIO will be able to provide better input. Abecedare (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought you might be able to help, but many thanks for the advice. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know
I am trying to keep myself away from te articles I used to edit. Don't know why... loss of interest perhaps. But things may change. -- KnowledgeHegemony talk 12:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Bhagavad Gita
Thanks for the fixes at Bhagavad Gita. In fact I just realized my mistake, "Nikhilananda says that according to Shankaracharya and other teachers" has been written (by me) as "Nikhilananda says...". I will fix it up by looking into the book. Thanks a lot. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Nikhilannda issue was pretty minor and easily corrected by changing a word or two. The good part was that the statements in the section were all referenced properly, so it was pretty easy to refer to the sources directly and edit and expand the content. Viva la verifiability! Abecedare (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Repairing Reference Footnotes for Dharavi
Hi Abecedare: I've been trying to repair references in several articles where someone hasn't properly added the footnotes. Only the URL shows up, not the name of the reference work or its publisher. There are several needed repairs in the first part of the Dharavi article, for example, but I can't figure out how to work on the first part of the entry. The first edit section appears at "Geography." We're left with these types of references (which look unprofessional): ^ http://realtravel.com/karachi-reviews-a5241058.html ^ http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20071006.htm ^ http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501060619/slum.html ^ a b c [1] My question: Is there a way to edit the very top of this entry or is that something only an administrator is permitted to do? Thanks! --Amsterdam360 (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Amsterdam360, here is how the references to website, newspapers etc can be formatted.
 * Method 1:
 * Wikicode: http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501060619/slum.html
 * Appears as: http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501060619/slum.html
 * Comments: Looks bad.


 * Method 2
 * Wikicode:
 * Appears as:
 * Comment: Looks bad.


 * Method 3
 * Wikicode: Life in Dharavi
 * Appears as: Life in Dharavi
 * Comment: Looks fine, but doesn't provide reader enough information.


 * Method 4
 * Wikicode: Life in Dharavi, Time (magazine), June 12, 2006.
 * Appears as: Life in Dharavi, Time (magazine), June 12, 2006.
 * Comment: Better, but not all available fields are filled.


 * Method 5
 * Wikicode:
 * Appears as:
 * Comment: Best method, but takes more work. The citation template ensures that wikipedia MOS is followed.

The commonly used citation templates are, , and  and you can see the whole list at Category:Citation_templates. You may also find WP:CHEAT useful.

Even more important than citation style is the quality of source being used (see WP:RS). For example in the above list, the realtravel.com website is just a generaic travel website with no known reputation for fact-checking - therefore it is not acceptable as a reliable source (even though such sources are widely used on wikipedia). Dawn is a respectable mainstream newspaper and therefore is considered a reliable source in general; however the article being cited is an opinion piece (rather than a news article) and such commentary should in general be cited only for the opinion of their authors and not for facts. Furthermore the article does not even mention Mahim and Sion, so it cannot, in any case, be used to support the sentence, " Sandwiched between Mahim in the west and Sion in the east, is Dharavi."

The Time article, on the other hand is perfectly fine as a source. Note though that it says, "Dharavi has a population of between 600,000 and a million", so the sentence in the article ("Dharavi has a population of more than 600,000 people according to the Time Magazine."), though technically correct, can be made more accurate. Also, we need a source for the first part of that sentence ("Spread over an area of 175 hectares"), since the Time article does not say that.

I realize that this may be more information than you asked for. Use whatver you find useful, and feel free to ask if you have any questions or comments. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I have been using method 5 - takes more work, but it's more professional. I don't have the right,however, to remove references (like those you've mentioned above)? I can just make the format better? Please confirm. --Amsterdam360 (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * using templates is worth the extra work, in my opinion. A couple of additional points:
 * Since you are using the citation templates, it would be useful to enable WP:REFTOOLS; you can do so by clicking on Special:Preferences -> My gadgets and checking the box besides refTools.
 * Of course, you have the right to remove bad/inapplicable references! In fact, you are encouraged to be bold in making edits that you believe will improve any wikipedia article. See WP:BRD for more information on a useful editing strategy.
 * Let me know if you have any other questions. Abecedare (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You should also start using edit summaries. That way anyone reviewing your edits has a better idea of your intentions and actions. So for example, leaving a three-four word edit summary while removing references (say, "removing poor reference") will help ensure that your edit is not mistaken for vandalism. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks, greatly, for your help! Looks like our discussion has been useful for other editors, too. And ... I'm watching this page, per your other message. Cheers Back! --Amsterdam360 (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips on Repairing Reference Footnotes
Hi. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. I stumbled onto your talk page - as one does somehow - and found that your section above was very helpful. In fact I've taken the liberty of adding the line below onto my own page. User_talk:Abecedare  - great tips on making good Wiki references. So thx again. Trafford09 (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I am glad you found the above posting useful! Abecedare (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Art of Living Foundation
Abecedare, Thank you for your message reproduced below:

Rodolfou, You are welcome to add criticism at the AOL poage, but you'll need better sources than blogs and webistes like Yunus news, Answering AOL and Guruphiliac blog. Guidestar is fine as a source, as long it is used to make factual and verifiable claims about the income and expenditure of AOL, and not to draw editorial conclusions (let the reader do that!). Please see wikipedia policies WP:RS and WP:NOR for more information. Abecedare (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

1 - Regarding acceptable sources under wikipedia policy WP:RS and WP:NOR:

1.1 - Yunus news is a third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and in particular the article abides by WP:RS.
 * About Yunus e-journal / single article provider states that the editorial policy is centred on “balance and quality as it goal” and East-West inter-knowledge
 * Jonas Slattas, the editor of Yunus news and author of, has a CV that qualifies him as an expert in the area.
 * The above article was subjected to fierce scrutiny that was kept for the record by Slatas at the answeringaol blog and vividly demonstrates Slatas expert status.
 * its core conclusions are confirmed by alternative reputable sources such as

1.2 – The ex AOL-teacher 'resignation' letter indeed falls within WP:RS to be used “only in limited circumstances, with caution. I consider the criticism of someone who was a teacher in the organization to the organization so relevant and useful that it justifies its inclusion in the article with caution. Regarding WP:NOR and WP:NOR and WP:NOR the principles apply equally to all the AOL websites sited; in my evaluation both the AOL own-site sources and the former teacher letter do not violate WP:NOR and should not be deleted; if they do violate WP:NOR they should both be deleted to provide balanced treatment.

1.3- Regarding factual information versus editorial conclusions of the source you do accept I propose the following text and accept suggestions for its placement:
 * According to the tax return filed by the American chapter, AOL Foundation had total revenues of $3.2 M (2.4M from course fees and 0.6M from public support) and expenditure of $1.9M (mainly in salaries, occupancy expenses and travel) in 2004. Net assets at the beginning of 2005 amounted to $3.8M.

2. I am also welcoming your opinion on these two possible additional sources amd relevant quotes:

While critics also label him "guru to the rich and famous," Shankar defends the right of the wealthy to inner peace

also available at the authors blog. I do believe that breathing techniques are very common. They are also very effective — otherwise they would not be so commonly endorsed by various schools of thought. Vipassna is also a breathing technique that claims its lineage to the Buddha himself. What SSRS has done is what a few dozen Indian gurus have done and will no doubt continue to do–packaging of what already exists. In the US, that simple core wrapped in a few hours of homilies sells for $250 (with a concession for students.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodolfou (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for raising these issues for discussion! Here is my view of the sources:
 * Yunus news does not satisfy the WP:RS requirements, and as far as I can tell is a one man operation of Jonas Slattas. Note that a website's reliability is determined not by what it calls or claims about itself ("ejournal", "independent religious journalism") but by the reputation of its publishers, contributors, and editorial practices. So for example a journal published by an academic society or publishers like Elseiver, Routledge etc is usually considered reliable on wikipedia; but a website like Yunusnews - with no physical address or phone numbers; a gmail email address; no named publishers and/or editors listed on About us or Contact us pages - is not. Of course, you and I, as individuals, are free to trust the articles on the website, but we cannot use it as a source on wikipedia.
 * Jonas Slattas Slaats is not an expert on AOL or NRM as far as wikipedia is concerned. We usually consider someone an expert if (1) he/she holds an academic or high-ranking rank in the field and has published widely cited, peer-reviewed, scholarly articles/books on the subject, and/or (2) if the person is widely quoted as an expert on the subject by other scholars, or mainstream media, and/or (3) has won prestigious awards for their work in the field. Slattas Slaats doesn't come close.
 * The resignation letter is completely unacceptable. All we have is a blog posting, which claims to be a resignation letter from AOL from an unnamed ex-teacher of AOL. How can any of this be verified ? Even if we knew the letter to be genuine, it would be a SPS, and as such usable on the wikipedia article of its writer (if he/she was Notable enough to have an article), and not on AOLF page. Note that it is okay to use AOL sources on the AOL article under the SPS exception; but that is far from ideal and the over-reliance of the article on such sources is something that should be remedied, if possible.
 * The guidestar source and text you propose is perfectly fine. If more recent data is avaliable that should be useful to add too. (In my original post NOR applied to only the text accompanying the guidestar reference; I had only WP:RS issues with the other sources.)
 * The Taipei Times article is perfectly fine as a source and can be used to add content to AOLF, including the semi-critical quote from Renuka Narayanan.
 * The Indiaon article is not acceptable as a RS, since the website is just a community forum with no reputation for fact-checking or editorial control. By the way, I am a semi-regular reader/fan of Atanu Dey's India development blog, and had seen this article when it was originally posted there. But that still does not make it acceptable as a source on wikipedia.
 * I realize that you may not agree with all of my analysis and conclusions. In that case you can re-ask your question at the RS noticeboard to get other opinions (If you decide to do so, I would advice that you ask about 1 source at a time, since editors there do not have the time or inclination to wade through lengthy posts.) Regards. Abecedare (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone brought this discussion to my attention. As the editor of Yunus News, I of course gladly give some comments

1. First of all: For people who are so into 'accuracy', just a quick remark. My surname is 'Slaats' and not 'Slattas'. 2. I could make a long stream of comments on the lack of solidity regarding the arguments as to what makes a source or person 'reliable', but since the once proposed by Abecedare are coming from the wikipedia WP-RS guidelines, i'll gladly agree with them within the medium of Wikipedia. So I also readily agree with Abecedare on lots of points. Although it wasn't meant to be initially, Yunus News turned out to be a one-man enterprise. So I must agree that Yunus News probably as a site does not attain the WP-RS standards, when applied strictly. Wiki-rules are wiki-rules. 4. To say that I am not an expert on the subject is quite another thing. I do feel that my CV indeed points out that I in fact am an expert on the matter and that my reactions and openness on my subsequent Answeringaol-blog amply support this. Therefore I agree with Rodolfou here and thank him for bringing up the points under his (or her) 1.1. (although strictly speaking I probably again do not meet the criteria of some wikipedia guidelines, but the criteria put forward by Abecedare do not seem to be criteria for expertise. They are criteria to determine 'academic authority', and are certainly not the same) 5. The resignation letter might also not pass the Wiki-rules, but if you would like to have it pass them, then just go to Guruphiliac, contact Jody, the editor, and ask him whether he can bring you in contact with the author of the letter.

Now, to finish - and here I actually would like to make my biggest point - even if you would not use my article as some sort of example of criticism, then please go through my answers on various AOL-claims. I quote enough sources there and I use more then enough factual and logical arguments so that one or two at least should be able to be put. You don't need my article itself for proving criticism, you need the arguments and references I give in the article to show critiques on AOL. So all in all I do not see why my article itself should become the topic of a discussion. The referenced arguments (like for example the pseudo-scientific claims or the controversy around Maharishi, etc.) should be put on the Wikipedia AOL-page, not the fact that Yunus News criticizes it. Should you wonder why I do not put those things on the Wikipedia AOL-page myself, then my reply would be that I do not feel the need to start a whole Wikipedia-debate. I think I would tire soon of the 'editing-war' that goes on on that page. I've done my part on the discussion, and like I said, you find it on my blog. If anybody can use the facts I offer there, then let him or her feel free to use them appropriatly. But please, there's no need to drag me or my writings in to it. The facts and arguments I offer, are worth enough in themselves.

In any case, thanks for this nice, civil and actually interesting discussion. And thanks for inviting me to join.


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.74.97 (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Jonas Slaats, Thank you for your polite and thoughtful message. I am going to be occupied today with real-life work, but will post my reply to your specific comments within a day. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Jonas,
 * Thanks again for your comment here, as well as the thoughtful discussion in your article and blog (I have read the article and parts of the blog). TO address your points listed above:
 * Expertise: We usually consider scholars who have published widely in peer-reviewed academic journals to have met the expert standard, since their work has been reviewed by other experts in the field, and therefore even self-published writings of such persons are considered credible, unless they are making a very controversial claim. You are right though,  that academic expertise is not the only type recognized on wikiepdia. Our basic guiding principle in this regard is to look at what independent, external sources say about the source or person. So for example, Roger Ebert's writings on films can be considered a reliable source (for opinion) in general even when he writes in his blog; ditto for David Pogue and technology; Richard Dawkins and evolution, evolution-creationism controversy etc. This is because these persons have been quoted extensively by (mainstream and/or scholarly) sources, which regard them as notable voices in the respective fields. Unfortunately, I did not find similar references to your writings; of course, that does not at all imply that you are not an expert or that your work is untrustworthy (that would be Denying the antecedent!); but it does mean that we are unable to quote your articles directly on wikipedia.
 * Resignation letter: Even if got in touch with the author of the letter and was personally convinced that the letter was genuine - that would not help in using it as a source on wikipedia. In order to do so, we would require it to be verifiable, i.e., any reader of wikipedia article should check for himself that the information comes from a reliable source. Digression: Imagine, for a moment, that wikipedia did not have this rule. Then a wikipedia editor could say on the AOL article, "Slaats wrote a critical article on SSRS, but on being contacted by a representative of the AOL organization, he learned the errors of his ways and apologized profusely", citing an email he claims to have received from you and which he posts on his blog! I am sure you can imagine even more pernicious abuse. Again, I want to emphasize that I don't personally doubt the genuineness of the AOL letter, but we need to follow wikipedia content policies so that the article content is not subject to whims and personal beliefs of anonymous editors, like myself.
 * Biggest point: You are absolutely right that even though we cannot use your article and blog as a source itself, we can use the sources that they cite. In fact we already use some of the same sources on the Art of Living Foundation and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar articles, including the Salkin biography, which talks about Shankar adopting the honorifics Sri Sri and his connection with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. It would be really helpful if you could point out some other (non-blog) published sources that we may have either missed or that may have been incorrectly removed from these article (like the guidestar tax filing). If you wish, you can add such sources to the articles themselves, or alternately suggest their addition on the respective talk page, Talk:Art of Living Foundation and Talk:Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. It would also be helpful if you created a wikipedia coount since that will make communications much easier.
 * I look forward to reading your blog in toto. Let me know if you have any further suggestions, comments or questions. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox maps
Hi! You reverted my edit on the India article which used a map of India without its claimed territories. It was suggested on the People's Republic of China article that I should not use a map which shows claimed territories in its infobox. I argued that to be neutral, we should show the controlled territories in dark green and the claimed territories in light green simply to present greater information and more inclusive of the various points of view. Why is it that the infobox on the China article may not depict claimed territories but the infobox for the India article may? (Talk:People's_Republic_of_China) --Shibo77 (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As you no doubt appreciate, wikipedia is edited by a team of volunteers, often without wide coordination, and articles (especially handled by different projects) are not always consistent. If I am understanding you correctly, your own viewpoint matches the current consensus on the India page that we show both the controlled and claimed territories, but differentiate with them on the map. Is that right ? If so, your point may be better discussed at PRC/Taiwan pages, or at WP:Countries if you wish to establish a wikipedia-wide consensus. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Lok Biradari Prakalp
Comment added Also since I have seen what you are talking above, It is illegal to display the Map of India in any other way except the Survey of India, Map. PoK and territory ceded to China is territory lost as a result of aggression, it is not a hypothetical "claimed territory", please be careful. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

New comment added Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Slcok
Sure. Can you keep an eye on User:Adil your. He's disrupting massively. An admin who doesn't know anything unblocked him recently.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Review Request
Hello, Can you pls review the article Sarada Devi and share your comments? This has undergone lot of changes and I am the only major contributor. So I want others to review it. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I look forward to reading the article this weekend. I don't know anything about the subject, so I doubt that I'll be able to comment on the comprehensiveness and sourcing quality, but I'll add my comments on the style and grammar if I spot any issues. Abecedare (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Update
response70.112.4.25 (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Francis Lucille
Hi,

Thank you for the feedback,Appreciate your valuable comments. I see that you are using the comparison of number of books found in library. Very logical and true. but in my opinion ,spirituality is very different from other fields. For example --There are less number of Ferrari's on road ,that does not make it less notable.

Please compare the article with any of the existing topics under similar category -- Spiritual teachers | Advaitin philosophers | New Thought writers | New Thought movement | Vedanta. There are not as many Readers/viewers[compared to viewership of romantic novel orviewership of baseball game] for this subject and hence you will not find big publishers.

If the article is deleted ,I am afraid that new users will not be able to enter and modify the existing article.

Just wanted your suggestion on ,how to improve the article.Amarhindustani (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Amarhindustani (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Amar, I appreciate your attempt to improve the article but, as I stated at the AFD, I don't think the subject meets wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographical articles. It would be best to keep the discussion on the topic at one place on the AFD board for all to read, but here are some pointers:
 * The existence of equally (non)-notable article on wikipedia is not considered a good argument at AFDs. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
 * You are right that books on spirituality are not hot-sellers like say ones by J.K. Rowling, but as you can check on worldcat, books authored by/on Radhakrsihnan, Sri Aurobindo, J Krishnamurti, Ramana Maharishi are collected by 1000's of libraries; and even (relatively) lesser well known Advaita authors like David Godman, Balsekar, Swami Krishnananda etc have 100s of books in libraries. A total of one English book in worldcat libraries shows that Francis Lucille writings are significantly less notable; that, of course, doesn't make them any less truer or worthwhile for his followers.
 * Be careful that you don't fall afoul of on/off-wiki WP:CANVASSING. Instead of posting messages on multiple user talk pages informing them of this AFD, in the future it may be better to post a single message on the talk page of the concerned wikiproject (WT:HNB in this case).
 * Abecedare (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

See also links
Within the article the template has science links that one needs to navigate, including the mathematics and astronomy link. The other links were laid out so that those interested in history of science in general may find other regional articles to enjoy. Vedic science is more of an invented modern concept and is, in my opinion, best left out since it compromises not only the integrity of a science article but may also affect its stability to some extent. Wishing you the best,  JSR   0562 
 * Replied here to keep discussion in one place. Abecedare (talk) 06:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

 JSR   0562  06:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Re : Hinduism and Science
Its hard to see how this article will survive! Sites like http://www.astromatrimony.com/ are being used and seems like full of OR. --Nvineeth (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes the current article is poorly sourced and poorly written POV OR; all other sources except the Pingree book are junk too. I can't believe this is written by university students as is being claimed. User:Vote Cthulhu is either a well-meaning but tendentious editor (see his talk page to see how many editors have tried to help him) or a brilliant troll! Abecedare (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverts?
I've asked for clarification at my talk page. If I was mistaken, I'd like to learn what to do differently next time. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC withdrawn
As one particular user complained that I was manipulating things in the RFC, I am withdrawing it. You may continue the RFC on your own interest but I have nothing to do wih it any more.- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 03:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to read through the SPI report but could make neither heads nor tails of it. Seems like a classic fishing/trolling expedition to me, which I would recommend you to simply ignore. Experienced admins and checkusers are not going to be fooled into thinking that Docku, you and the others are all socks.
 * I think keeping the Nadar RFC open/closed is not a big deal at the moment, since the main disruptive editor on the page is now blocked, and a number of editors (you, Docku, RegentsPark, the IP and I) are now involved in constructive discussion to improve the article. I will soon have the Rajayyan and Hardgrave books, and will post further on the article talk page once I have looked through them. It would be really useful if you continued to participate in the discussion and editing on the page, since you obviously are knowledgeable on the subject and can help in evaluating and interpreting sources. Of course, do take a break from editing the article, if it is causing you undue stress (after all this is supposed to be a voluntary hobby for all of us!), but I look forward to your return. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Vyadha Gita
Since you are very active on the Gita article, probably you will have suggestions on this new article. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added my comments and suggestions to the article talk-page. Due to real-life work I am mainly wikignoming nowadays, but I'll see if I can contribute to the article and help implement some of my suggestions. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a ton, every time I ask you / redtiger to review, I learn something very valuable about editing articles. Thanks for your time. --Nvineeth (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

reliable sources at rajneeshee assination plot.
hello abecedare... your comment here was totally on the mark.. it is not the book I care about but this comment said by taylor at a press conferance which is reported in the book .. I have found the quote in another book as well ...both books have been disputed by the other editor on the page.I actually don't care about the books .. it is the comments reported from the press conference that I want to include...

Broader question: I just looked at the article talkpage, and it appears the point of contention seems to be what Charles Turner said at a press conference after an event (1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack, I assume). Since the comments were made at a press conference, aren't there contemporaneous media accounts about what was or wasn't said ? Why are we having to look at POV sources for this information ? Has anyone searched Lexis-Nexis ?Abecedare (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

here is the detail of the reported press conference...I have written to the statesmen-journal requesting clarification about the quoted comments .. do you have any ideas as to how I can go forward to get these comments at the press conference acceptable to wiki? you mentioned lexis nexis ..what is this?

here is all the imformation I have ..

On july 23rd, 1986, the Statesman-Journal covered a press conference convened that week in Portland By Oregon attorney general, david Frohnmayer, and the US attorney, Charles Turner.

Asked by a reporter if, in convicting Sheela and Not osho, Turner had "let the big fish get away". Turner said the "government did not have sufficient evidence to convict Rajneesh". " We felt that if he left the country, the movement would be disbanded,´" Sending him to prison would have simply served to cause him to be a martyr" To a reporter from The Dalle Weekly Reminder, as reported in that paper of july 24th, 1986. Turner said; " If the Bagwan had been kept in jail, the sentence " would have had a unifying effect on his followers". By leaving he caused the destruction of the commune, which is what we were after".

any help on the way forward would be appreciated. regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Thanks
Thanks for the barnstar. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Samar Chatterjee
Saw that you added back the image -- I removed it previously because it is up for deletion because it's free use rationale is unclear and it is probably a copyvio. – ukexpat (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I just saw in the article history that the new user Sushila69 had been try to add the image and was clearly unfamiliar with wiki-formatting and so decided to help. Why do you think it is a copyvio ? If I had to guess I would say that it is a family photograph, and Sushila is related to the subject - so it is possible that she has permission to the photographer's permission to upload this image. lets just ask her on her user page. Sometimes all the procedures and jargon we use here can be overwhelming for a new user, who often don't use the "right" terminology, templates etc. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The image info page says "Source: Sushila Maru Photo Collection Source agrees to release Photo under the GFDL." - but what evidence do we have the it has actually been released under the GFDL? The copyright owner needs to follow the process set out at WP:IOWN to release this properly. – ukexpat (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The user said on her talkpage that she sent out the permission letter as required, and I have asked her for clarification. I am assuming good faith here since I don't see any specific reason for undue suspicion. Do you ? Abecedare (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, but with copyright issues you cannot be too careful. – ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree! The user has affirmed that she holds the copyright to the image, and released it under the CC-BY-SA license; I find the claim plausible, and think the copyright issues should be settled for now.
 * In my judgement this is a well-meaning editor (though with a probable COI), and not an idle POV pusher, edit-warrior, or vandal. So if she can help us create an encyclopedic article and provide freely-licensed photograph of a subject who satisfies WP:BIO, that would be great. Of course, if despite her and our best efforts we cannot establish that Samar Chatterjee satisfies the notability guidelines, then we can delete the article - but since the subject is not obviously non-notable, we should give it a try. I see from your (and Cameron Scott's) efforts to wikify and copyedit the article, that you are thinking along the same lines. Lets see how it pans out. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit War
I hope you will be leaving the same message on User talk:Adam.J.W.C. since he has continued to edit war on that page. Nikkul (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment
On the topic of Romila Thapar, I have seen very little constructive criticism coming in from editors who were already present. If you scroll up from the latest section on the talk page, most of my questions were left hanging there. Editors who had reverted my edits did not care to explain why, for example, Praful Bidwai is more notable/correct than Arun Shourie? Why criticisms cannot be placed on Thapar's bio? Why does the article/editors don't accept any changes to the body? And so on.

Also, in the present context of the "marxist" tag, I have not received any logical explanations as to why the references I have given are not valid. See you on the talk page. Nshuks7 (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm, just for clarification, if you have reverted thrice — once for MrinaliniB and twice for me — doesn't that mean you are already over your 3 reverts/day limit too? I guess such technicalities should matter. Secondly, by WP:3RR definition, I am editing and you are reverting. Thirdly, shouldn't WP:WikiBullying apply here? Nshuks7 (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But you did participate in Talk:Romila Thapar when it was reverted. Why did you leave off? Nshuks7 (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:3RR does not say that you are editing and I am reverting. It says, "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." and both of us have reverted by that definition.
 * But no, I have not run afoul of 3RR: see the BLP exemption to understand why. You have not contravened 3rr either, yet.
 * Of course, if interested, you can get a second opinion on the above points. Abecedare (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion on your talk page: I haven't learned how to archive stuff yet. Anyway, the BLP rule says libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced material. I take it you think the material is "poorly sourced"? That brings us back to why? Can you answer this on the Talk:Romila Thapar? Nshuks7 (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Anyway, I will sleep now. Am posting a new article tomorrow. Have to save energy to fight off the initial speedy deletion editors :) See you on RT talk. Nshuks7 (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin
In the waning days when Indian and Indian topic-interested wikipedians increasingly spending very little time here (understandably so), I would request and recommend you consider running for adminship. We are in need of some fair-minded and cool-headed people and you appear to be one. -- Docku:  What's up?  17:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha, I was just coming here to say the same thing, but Docku beat me to it. An active, fair, civil, smart, India-savvy admin would be appreciated by many. You would have no problem passing RfA, even with the support of miscreants like myself :-) Priyanath talk 17:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the confidence (and boost to my ego :) ), Docku and Priyanath. Unfortunately, the next 2-3 months are too busy for me to go through an RFA and take the additional responsibilities.
 * That said, I agree with you that we need more admins who are knowledgeable about India and Hinduism issues, to deal with vandals and POV pushers, page protections, and help in enforcing consensus. Currently there are just too few such admins (YM, Regents Park, Nishkid etc) and that causes productive editors to waste undue time and energy either tolerating disruptions, or explaining it from scratch at ANI etc. Perhaps we should post at INB/HNB, asking for suggestions on how to improve the situation. Abecedare (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (I see that that wasn't a novel idea!) You might want to consider running anyway even if you're going to be busy down the road. (Though an RfA can be a distraction if you don't want wikipedia to intrude on real life for a bit.) --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Et tu, RP !
 * Ok, if I manage to meet my real-life work goals over the next two months, I'll request a nomination in June. Of course, in order to meet those goals, I should spend less time on wikipedia ... sigh, what a conundrum :) Abecedare (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! From what I've seen, you've been filling Nichalp's role without the bits. Meanwhile, I took a look at the edit counts of Priyanath and Docku and, except for a recent drop in edits, they both look in good shape. Then we can work on Fowler&fowler, that'll put the fear of god in all the POV pushers out there! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, comparing me to Nichalp is simply unfair! And once F&f is an admin, we all can retire in peace. :-)
 * While we are throwing names out there: User:Redtigerxyz is a no brainer. Abecedare (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And Ravichander8x. What about Tinucherian? He would be a shoo-in, I suspect. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes; and User:JSR, another great content creator, sooner or later.
 * Candidates, candidates everywhere, but still not an admin to ping... excepting you, of course :) Abecedare (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks RP for your vote of confidence. I dont envision myself in a position of an administrator for a variety of reasons. I enjoy being just an editor. I like the other candidates though. may be, we should move this conversation to Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. -- Docku:  What's up?  03:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I know I suggested moving this discussion to the noticeboards earlier, but on second thought it may be better not to. Else, there is a chance, that if and when a WPINDIA member is nominated, someone will charge that other project members were canvassed for their votes. Don't know if such argument will carry any weight, but better to avoid it in the first place. Abecedare (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * agree. thanks for reverting. -- Docku:  What's up?  03:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just remembered how an editor had made a (IMO bad faith) issue of WPINDIA having too many FAs! So this would be opening a can of works, and inviting other such arguments. Abecedare (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Romila Thapar
I thought it was Bharatveer, but it appears that isn't so. The following are ✅ as one user: Block as you wish. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, this whole time I thought you already were an admin! Dipendra2007 blocked 1 week, rest indefinitely. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Adam and Nikkul
Judging by the nonsense on Poverty in India in January 2009, I think this dispute is probably caused by animosity caused by people taking things like Monkeygate and Matthew Hayden's comment on India being a "third-world country" too seriously.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at how they crossed paths on PiI in Jan 09. Each time these things happen, all these chatrooms get filled up with people saying nonsense that "India is more developed than Australia" or some "Indians have less education than Australians" and other nonsense from both sides. Apart from that Adam doesn't appear to ever edit Indian pages.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have often seen the two editors edit-warring on articles on my watchlist (almost always over images; the latest dispute was on whether or not to use the upright tag on 2 images on the Mumbai page - talk about lame!) ... but didn't know the origins of the animosity.
 * If only we could somehow deploy all the hot-air generated by these silly and endless debates ...
 * PS: As for India vs Australia: this and this leaves no room for debate. Abecedare (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not kidding, each time a controversy breaks out, some rich middle class Indians who obviously don't see beyond their servants to the slums claim that India is more developed than Australia, and a lot of Australians claim that Indian education system is easier, which it isn't. Most Australian uni students can't spell without a machine spellchecker. YAM is for bureaucratic paperwork.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Claims of victimhood
You claimed I was unfairly playing the victim. If you read something like this, and then compare and see that many of the opposes are actual members at Wikipedia Review, I think your claims fall flat. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * AFAIK you and I have not edited any common articles, so my opinion of you has mainly formed from seeing you at the admin boards and at a few FAC discussions that I have read; I realize that those venues are drama-magnets and I may be getting somewhat of a skewed perspective. On the other hand, I have no past or current dispute with you, and am not a member (or even a follower) of wikipedia-review, IRC etc. So my opinion is perhaps as neutral-as-as-it-gets-on-wikipedia. Take the following for what it's worth to you:
 * You are perhaps right that some of the opposes at your RFA reflect personal antagonism of some editors towards you. But the fact that you use those instances to,
 * dismiss all critiques of your interaction with other editors;
 * assume that the opposition to your RFA is a reflection of others' hostility, rather than a reaction to your conduct;
 * pretend, or truly believe, yourself to be the wronged party here (while I would judge you to be intelligent enough to have foreseen the result of your RFA before you nominated yourself)
 * is the reason I believe that you are unable to handle criticism, tend to play the victim, and blame the critics instead. You are free to introspect over your RFA and see if there are aspects of your on-wiki behavior that you can improve; or you can use it to reinforce your belief about the "types of people" you have to deal with here. I hope you pick the former option. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't dismissed all critique. Anything that seems legitimate, vague, or the rest, I have talked to directly. Many people on both sides are members of IRC and have contacted me already. My comments to Malleus, for example, were talking mostly about WR or those like Folantin: all people who have been antagonizing me or causing problems around me for a very long time. If you think I can't handle criticism, fine. However, others are capable of seeing just how problematic many of the opposes are, especially when there are random vandals, SPA accounts, and the rest along with message board oppose campaigns and email oppose campaigns. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't dismissed all critique. Great! That's exactly what I'd hoped for while providing my feedback (or I wouldn't have bothered adding my !vote at the RFA, since I knew that it wouldn't actually affect the final result). Happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Was there a reason for this? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Dharmic traditions
A third time to nail home the sapiential salience: Dharmic Traditions such as Sanatana Dharma, Jaina Dharma, Buddhadharma and Sikha Dharma, for example are traditions of Dharma. Often glossed Indian religions by Western discourse, where the term 'religions' is understood as an acculturation and culturally colonizing attribution following post-colonial discourse. In addition, to categorize Buddhadharma a 'religion' is culturally insensitive and incorrect given it is at core non-Deistic and non-Theistic. There is a need for meta-analysis on core assumptions. There is, and has been, and continues to be; an agenda in the -isms and the obscuration of the relationship of the manifold traditions of Dharma.

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on article talk page. Abecedare (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Philip Almond (The British Discovery of Buddhism, 1988: p.13):
 * Buddhism, by 1860, had come to exist, not in the Orient but in the Oriental libraries and institutes of the West, in its texts and manuscripts, at desks of the Western savants who interpreted it. It had become a textual object, defined, classified, and interpreted through its own textuality.... By the middle of the century, the Buddhism that existed "out there" was beginning to be judged by a West that alone knew what Buddhism was, is, and ought to be.


 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 09:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 09:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

4 years plus
Thanks and Regards to you --Bhadani (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Aryabhata edits
Yes, it seems the new user is making too many copyvio and test edits, but please do go easy on him. Newcomers can be slow to learn, but still ultimately useful. Shreevatsa (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I cleaned up his algebra addition (copied from History of elementary algebra, and hence not a copyvio), since that was new information, not covered in the article. Also, see my messages on his talk page, starting from welcome, to encouragement + explanation of copyright, to template + request to use talk page etc. Hope he realizes that he is currently going along the wrong path and sticks around to help improve the article. Abecedare (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I really don't know what's the best thing to do. Anyway, the net effect so far is a small addition about Algebra, which can only be a good thing. :-) Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-OR
Hey. Most of the articles I work on are highly sensitive articles where people bring lots or sources that they usually synthesis. For instance, someone brought an article from The Economist, a reliable source overall. The article said a specific country could be considered an economic superpower, and used that source to say that country was a potential superpower. Though an economic superpower and an emerging/potential superpower are two completely different things. As a country doesn't need to be a economic superpower to be considered a potenial superpower, and vice versa. Also, I just use non-Or as SYN technically falls under WP:OR. Deavenger (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Undo this
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.21.172 (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear IP, I have reverted the undiscussed change to the article lead that I disagreed with, but the other two edits seemed fine. By the way, you may get a quicker response if you post on the article talk page; and of course, you can make the edits yourself once you get an account. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Why was this link removed from Sanskrit?
I put a link to a collection of Sanskrit short stories on Sanskrit. You removed it and gave the reason only as "undue/spam". I disagree.

The link is for one of the most important collections of Modern Sanskrit on the Internet. Hence, it is not undue. On the contrary. The amount of Modern Sanskrit available on the Internet is not large, which means that a collection such as this is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Including a link to such a site is comparable to the several links on New Latin which take the reader to modern Latin compositions.

I have no connection with this site nor with its authors, and I included the link on a relevant page. Hence, it's not spam.

Where would be a better place for this link? Under Further Reading, which includes sections for Introductions, Grammars, Dictionaries. Perhaps one more section should be added Readers. Would you suggest placing this link on the Sanskrit Grammar page instead? Inter lingua 00:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Interlingua, I removed the link (Sanskrit short stories by Kedar Nephade) from Sanskrit and Sanskrit literature since it did not comply with wikipedia guidelines on wikipedia guidelines on external links and was borderline spam promoting the unpublished stories of an author. Of course, if you think the writings of Kedar Naphade are amongst the most important in Modern Sanskrit, and have reliable sources that say so, we can start an article Kedar Naphade and include the link there. Abecedare (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. However, I do believe that this link does comply with external links, a policy that I, too, am familiar with. I think that perhaps the best place for it on this article would be under Primers. The material by Naphade is comparable to that of Chitrapur Math, which is--correctly and usefully--listed under Primer.
 * I do not think "the writings of Kedar Naphade are amongst the most important in Modern Sanskrit" and did not say that in my comment on your page. I wrote, and meant, that this is "one of most important collections of Modern Sanskrit on the Internet". The article on Sanskrit includes, as it should, materials useful for learners of the language: dictionaries, grammars, primers. The link I added led to a site with several dozen pages of Modern Sanskrit that make a useful bridge between grammars and more advanced readers. As such, I feel that it is as relevant to this article as other such links currently on the page. I am assuming, in good faith, that you have studied Sanskrit and are also aware of pedagogy. You will then know that for language learners, this gap between an introductory grammar and the easiest original documents is own that often stymies development of language skills. For that reason, having a section on, say, primers makes encyclopedic sense. As a language instructor and also as someone who's studied Sanskrit, I've been aware of the lack of such pedagogic bridges for this language and felt, and continue to feel, that this link meet the criteria of being accessible, proper, and functional. External_links. Inter lingua 16:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO some other links at Sanskrit also do not comply with the wikipedia guidelines, but I haven't removed them (nor do I plan to do so now, since it will appear very POINTy) because this is not a high-priority for me. Since you an I disagree on the application of WP:EL, with regards to this link, why don't we continue this discussion on article talk-page where others can chime in. Abecedare (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion: I see that Sanskrit already links to another page (A Practical Sanskrit Introductory by Charles Wikner) hosted by http://sanskritdocuments.org/, which also hosts the stories by Naphade. How about linking to the the mothership Sanskitdocuments.org itself instead of its subpage(s) ? That way readers can navigate to the learning resource that is of their interest and level of knowledge. Let me know what you think. Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Helping in reference documentaion
Hi - thanks for helping me. Do you know any good, knowledgable editors who can help out on how to properly source and document government filings and certificates? I am with a winery and sometimes I want to edit our page to make corrections from anywhere from types of grapevines that we plant to our size. I'd like to be able to use an outside source as the reference, which are government census, certifications, filings, general bureaucracy that isn't online, but can be obtained. Know anyone who can lead me on how to reference those things? Thanks! Mowineguy (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Mowineguy, I am not sure if your question refers to how to cite government documents, or when such citations are appropriate. So I'll briefly address both issues.
 * The how: See WP:CITE and WP:CITET for some pointers and examples for the most commonly used source-types. The document(s) you wish to use may not fit any of those examples exactly; but the general principle is to provide the reader as much information as you can that will help him locate the document, and the relevant text within it. The exact style of referencing (i.e., sequence of fields, punctuation, formatting etc) is not critical, especially for an article at its beginning stages.
 * The when: Wikipedia policy of verifiability requires that the source being cited be publicly accessible (so, for example, "personal correspondence" is never usable on wikipedia, even though some academic journals allow such references); this does not mean that it needs to be online, but if the source is accessible only to a privileged class (like, employees of a certain government agency), or requires FOIA request to gain access, it is unlikely to be acceptable on wikipedia. Of course these are extreme examples, and milder hindrances to access the source will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Besides verifiability (which is only the minimal inclusion standard), we also need to consider whether the fact being cited to the source is due and if the use of primary sources is appropriate; these issues are best discussed on the concerned article's talk page since one needs to account for the article subject, stage of development, proposed content, and the source.
 * Hope that helps! Abecedare (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Mount Meru
Thanks. I see another editor has joined in. Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of help. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks a lot; But I still have a long way to go! --Nvineeth (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nehru
Yes, I agree that Hornplease's version is better. How do we replace the current version by it? Just do it in one fell swoop? Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  23:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Critique
Btw, would you like to offer a broad critique of History of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), which I've been ignoring lately. You can do so on the article talk page. A paragraph or two. Not the details, but the big picture. I'm hoping it will push me to get my ass in gear and attend to the article, add the footnotes etc. (I mean I haven't even copyedited it in a long time. Shameful.)  And, if you don't mind, I might copy this post on the talk pages of a few other people. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  23:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, FWIW I'll be happy to give a lay-reader's review of the article and comment on coverage, clarity and readability. But since I have no specialized knowledge of the area, I won't be able to check if it is factual accuracy and faithful represents the best sources on the topic - hopefully some other reviewer will address those issues. Will post my comments by the end of the week. Abecedare (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Btw, it may be a good idea to initiate a formal peer review; that way it may attract a few more eyes. Abecedare (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Your eyes and expertise
Hi Abecedare, I'm rewriting Bhakti (old version) into a more encyclopedic and less sectarian article (at least that's what I hope I'm doing!). If you have any thoughts or sources, or could keep an eye on it, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Priyanath talk 04:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work, Priyanath! It's great to see such a central article receive the attention it deserves and improve dramatically in 3-4 days. I have watchlisted it now and will be happy to add my 2c as and when something strikes me.
 * Another important article that is in real poor state is Puja (Hinduism) (see my note at on the talk page). If, while reading sources on bhakti, you come across relevant material on puja, can you add it there ? Abecedare (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: Should bhakti be capitalized/italicized ? See MOS on foreign terms. What do the sources you cite do (especially the English language University presses, since they are very particular about such style issues) ? Abecedare (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like most of them italicize. Would that mean in every instance then? Priyanath talk 05:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, if we italicize we have to do it at every instance.
 * I just checked OED and it does have an entry for bhakti, so we could argue that it has entered the English language as a loanword; on the other hand, all the quotations in OED italicize the word. So it's a close call. Since, as you say, the sources on the subject also italicize it, it may best to follow that practice.
 * Btw, I don't think there is any need or justification for capitalizing bhakti. Do any of the sources do that ? Abecedare (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, just italics, which the vast majority do. I'll go with italics, then. And yes, it's quite amazing to see an important article like Puja without a single reference. I'll keep my eyes open, and will also look for some references, later in the week I hope. Priyanath talk 05:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was surprised to see it yesterday while reverting some vandalism. It's not only that the article is unreferenced, but also that it is unduly dogmatic on how a puja is performed: consider sentences like, "The 5 things on the Puja tray are ...", "Most Pujas however, use a clay pot filled with Ganga water and topped with a germinating or dry coconut placed on mango leaves", "As mentioned earlier, the presence of an ammonite is mandatory." Really ?! Abecedare (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's just one problem with original research and original writing. In that person's family and tradition, that's probably entirely accurate. Priyanath talk 05:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm bowing out for the nonce, as I'm already in a revert war with Wikidas at Bhakti, sigh.... Priyanath talk 05:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I too saw the scuffle on my watchlist and just posted a message on the article talk page. Hopefully this can be resolved through calm discussion. As usual, no emergencies on wikipedia. :) Abecedare (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.... Priyanath talk 15:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually prefer calm discussion and if you have difficulty with my edits or sources, just say so, no need to revert, I will modify them myself. Wikidās ॐ 06:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

FAR on Mumbai
nominated Mumbai for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For letting me know. Mitsube (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Puja
I took a stab at rewriting the article based on the best references I could find. Since my family was not big on puja growing up :-), I may have given undue weight to one thing or another. I also was perhaps overly aggressive in deleting the essayish and unreferenced bits, so I encourage you to clean up after me. Priyanath talk 19:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice improvement! The article needs further expansion, and possibly even some trimming in areas, but now at least we have a more solid foundation.
 * By the way, I am not really happy with the first sentence, which calls Puja "a religious ritual performed by Hindus as an offering", since (a) puja is not any specific ritual (just as "prayer", is not a ritual), (2) a puja may involve making offerings to the deity, but it is not an offering itself (unless one uses a very broad definition of offering). But I am not sure if I can word it any better, and am wary of introducing my own, perhaps biased/narrow, OR. Will make changes and additions if I find anything useful. In the meantime, at least the reader gets a better picture than before.
 * Aside: I noticed that you added The Blackwell companion to Hinduism as a refernce. I am a big fan of that book since I read (parts of it) 4-5 years back. I heartily recommend that book, for providing a good overview of the breadth of both Hinduism (which goes far beyond the Sanskritized/homogenized Vedic view that many college-educated urban Indians are exposed to), and contemporary scholarship on the subject (which is not restricted to psychoanalytical study of Hindu deities and gurus, or AIT - as discussion on wikipedia often indicates). Worth reading and a good reference for wikipedia. Sale pitch ends. :) Abecedare (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, please edit it. I wouldn't have tackled it except that it was bad enough that even I could improve it. That first sentence also threw me, but I decided to go for broke in using only the sources. It actually reminded me of the minor dustup with our old friend, who I trusted regarding scholarly understanding and sources - where we disagreed about what the best sources said, vs. what was so widely used by so many people, "Remover of Obstacles". Puja is another instance of something that is so common, but the scholars (that I could find) highfalutin explanation apparently doesn't jibe with common understanding. But since I don't have much common understanding in this case, I didn't feel as confident. Priyanath talk 03:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How are you?
Hey, how are you? It's been long time!--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Resumed editing a few months back with one article, then 2, then ... :)
 * Glad to see you are around, especially given how many senior WPINDIA editors have recently retired or become inactive. What have you been up to ? Regards. Abecedare (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good that you have resumed editing. I have not. It's only this Mumbai FAR (and of course some free time) that prompted me to do some edits. There has been several more India-related FARs lately, but could not do any help. But yeh hai Mumbai, meri jaan!
 * I have been really really busy in real life in the past one year or so, hardly finding any time for WP, although I kept visiting several articles (and some discussion pages). Yes, it is unfortunate to see so many Indian wikipedians retiring/inactive. I wish Nichalp sees the FAR and breaks his inactive status :) Looking forward to your RFA, hope it would be soon. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A question
Do you have an opinion on which English Bhagavad Gita translations would meet the highest standards as a reliable source and especially for quoting stanzas in articles? There are so many, with different qualities of poetry, clarity, and accuracy, rarely all three. The one that is most commonly used on Wikipedia (Bhagavad Gita As It Is) didn't get a very high review in the one scholarly comparison I read, in a JSTOR journal article by Larson. I don't currently have access to JSTOR, or I would look again. Thanks, Priyanath talk 23:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, you do ask tough questions! Here is my opinion:
 * The "translations" by Swami Prabhupada, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Aurobindo etc should be used only to present the persons' (and their followers) line of thought. This is useful both on pages dealing with ISKCON, TM etc, as well as worth mentioning (in short) in general articles on BG and its phiolosophy - since these persons views on the subject have been notable and influential in society and 20th c. Hinduism.
 * Translations/commentary by Gandhi, Tilak etc are usable to source the authors' views in articles directly related with them and their philosophy, but should not be included in general articles on BG, Karma etc, since their views on BG are not that notable.
 * For general use scholarly translations like J. A. B. van Buitenen's (a more academic/philologically exact approach) or Radhakrishnan's (a more freewheeling, but perfectly honest translation and commentary; + no one can accuse him of being anti-Indian/Hindu :) ) should be preferred. However these names are just from the top of my head, and my knowledge of the field is not broad or deep enough to claim that these are the "best" or "latest" works in the area (you know who would have been the right person to ak this question, right ?! :.
 * Now that you have piqued my curiosity I'll try and search the literature for better examples, and share the results with you (I can email you any interesting papers I find). I haven't seen the Larson paper yet, but it looks very interesting, though a bit old; I'll look it up later tonight. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I save the tough questions for you. Now you have my curiosity piqued about who would have been the right person to ask! I agree with your views about different specific "translations", as you say. My own opinion is that an exact literal translation of a philosophical, spiritual, and poetic work falls far short, with the other end of the spectrum being someone with realization and poetic sense but not the translating understanding. Maybe Radhakrishnan has enough of both? Anyway, it's an interesting question, and also relevant here. Thanks again, Priyanath talk 05:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As my head was hitting the pillow, I realized who is the right person to ask—was I ever slow on the uptake! You may be interested in what I found in Gale's encyclopedia of religion about the different translations. Surely it's the point of view of the author of that article, but interesting since they address it directly, and it does confirm much of what you said:


 * "Gerald J. Larson has thoughtfully surveyed the stylistic and interpretive trends as exemplified by many of these translations in “The Song Celestial: Two Centuries of the Bhagavad Gıta in English,” Philosophy East and West 31 (October 1981): 513–541. Of the readily available translations, Franklin Edgerton’s (1925; reprint, Oxford, 1944) is the most literal, so literal in its attempt to preserve the Sanskrit syntax, in fact, that, for the sake of balance, it was originally published together with Sir Edwin Arnold’s transformation of the text into Victorian poesy (Cambridge, Mass., 1944). Though Edgerton’s always reliable translation is difficult to read, his lengthy commentary is masterful scholarship. The interpretive notes that accompany the translation by W. Douglas P. Hill (London, 1927) remain an important contribution to the literature. Étienne Lamotte’s Notes sur laBhagavadgıta (Paris, 1929) is a fine example of rigorous exegesis and reflection."


 * "R. C. Zaehner’s lucid translation (Oxford, 1969) is a pleasure to read and his analyses are as judicious as they are sensitive; Zaehner introduces the insights of Sankara and Ramanuja where they are appropriate and he admits his penchant for the theistic interpretation of the latter. For a more detailed understanding of Ramanuja’s understanding of the text, see J. A. B. van Buitenen’s Ramanuja on the Bhagavadgıta (The Hague, 1953). Van Buitenen’s own translation, The Bhagavadgıta in the Mahabharata (Chicago, 1981), is heroic scholarship, translation at its best, and his introductory essay is no less insightful. The very important exegesis of Sankara has been translated into English by Alladi Mahadeva Sastri: The Bhagavad-Gita with the Commentary of Srî Sankarachâryâ, 5th ed. (Madras, 1961). And the interesting commentary of Abhinavagupta, the Gıtarthasan˙graha, has been well translated into English and perceptively introduced by Arvind Sharma (Leiden, 1983)."


 * "For significant examples of modern Indian interpretations of the text, see The Gospel of Selfless Action, or the Gita According to Gandhi, edited and translated by Mahadev Desai (Ahmadabad, 1948); Srimad Bhagavadgıta Rahasya, edited by B. G. Tilak (Poona, 1936); and Aurobindo Ghose’s Essays on the Gita (Calcutta, 1926)."
 * Feel free to delete as a copyvio if that's too long of an excerpt, and just tell them you don't know me. Priyanath talk 00:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just got hold of the Larson article itself, and will email it to you in a few minutes. Have only browsed through it, but was glad to see that it had essentially a positive review of both the Buitenen and Radhakrishnan translations; as you note above, it also praises the Zaehner translation, which I didn't know about. I haven't located any reviews more recent than Larson's, but my search hasn't been thorough. Let me know if you find any useful reference. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: I think you must have guessed by now that the user I was referring to is our old friend User:Buddhipriya. Abecedare (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL, he came to mind, but I thought you were suggesting I ask Bhagavan Himself :-). As it is, both B. and b. are equally elusive.... Much thanks for the article. At first glance, it's even more comprehensive than my memory was telling me, in the way that it looks at those aspects I was mentioning above (poetry, clarity, accuracy, and even more). And it's much spicier in certain cases, as it were, or is. Regards, Priyanath talk 03:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And here's a book, Modern Indian Interpreters of the Bhagavadgita, by Robert Neil Minor, that has a chapter/essay on several different Gita interpreters. See the table of contents. It's not so recent, 1986. Priyanath talk 18:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)