User talk:Mayasutra/Archive 2

Kshatriya
I refer to RajKris's points on Kshatriya Talk page. The contention is about the intro.

The previous intro (by me) was like this: "Kshatriya, from (holder of) Kshatra (rule or authority), is one of the four varnas (social orders). The Sanskrit term Kshatriya belonged to the Aryan society wherein members organized themselves into 3 classes, viz., Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya. However, the term Kshatriya is used to indicate second of the four great Hindu castes.  Traditionally, Kshatriya constitute the ruling and military elite, as outlined by the dharmashastras such as the Laws of Manu. They were in charge of the protection of the society by fighting in wartime and governing in peacetime."

RajKrish changed the intro to the current one below: "Kshatriya, from (holder of) Kshatra (rule or authority), is one of the four varnas (social orders) of the Hindu society . The Sanskrit term Kshatriya belonged to the Vedic society wherein members organized themselves into 3 classes, viz., Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya. . Traditionally, Kshatriya constitute the ruling and military elite. They were in charge of the protection of the society by fighting in wartime and governing in peacetime."

Here the contention is based on 2 terms elaborated under ISSUES section: 1) The usage of "Hindu Society" 2) The usage of "Indo-Aryan".

ISSUES Issue 1 (universal usage of 'Kshatriya') According to RajKris, anyone who is a ruler / chieftain is a kshatriya. Please refer to the ritual status of kshatriyas outlined in dharmasutras, which was explained to Rajkris earlier on my talk page. The term Kshatriya originates in Sanskrit literature and belongs to Indo-Aryans or Aryans (as they claimed themselves to be). The self-appellation "arya" or "aryan" was used all thru the vedas. For example, in Samaveda 1.5.3 Agni was born to "give the Arya strength", in Rig 1.103.3 Indra is asked to "cast thy dart knowing at the Dasyu and increase the Arya's might and glory", in Rig 6.18.3 Indra tamed the Dasyus and singly subdued them for the Arya, in Rig 1.77.3, Agni is praised by "pious Aryan tribes", and so on. The dharmashastras also use the word aryan for themselves. For example: in Manusmriti 4.175 the brahmana must delight in conduct "worthy of an Aryan". According to dharmashastras, each varna had to follow certain rituals, based on religious principles, which were abiding and unchangeable. One such ritual is Upanayanam (a must to be considered a twice-born Kshatriya). According to Apasthamba dharmashastra, a Kshatriya is to be initiated in summer at age 11, as opposed to a Brahmana boy in spring at age 8, and Vaishya in autumn at age 12. From link provided for Apastamba dharmashastra, you can read about items associated with a kshatriya (type of girdle, staff, etc), and various rituals a Kshatriya had to perform (some of which signify his occupation and need for strength). In Manusmriti's namadeya (naming ceremony), a Kshatriya's first name must denote power and a Shudra's name something contemptible (Manusmriti 2.31). Manusmriti also gives upanayanam for a Kshatriya at age 11 (manusmriti 2.36). From this link you can read various rituals a Kshatriya had to perform. Everything was decided as per dharmashastras (life, marriage, inheritance, occupation, etc). According to Vashista a Brahmana can have 3 wives, a Kshatriya 2 wives whilst Vaishyas and Shudras can have 1 wife. Read marriage rites, inheritance laws of Kshatriyas according to Vashista dharmashastra Also read laws, rituals, customs, which a Kshatriya had to follow in Baudhayana dharmashastra.

The Aryan or Indo-Aryan were a specific linguistic group with their own culture / religion. Varna terms and dharmasutras belong to that culture. If Rajkris assumes the dharmasutras are universal and the term kshatriya can be applied to any ruler /chieftain of any culture or religion, he needs to provide proof for the same. It is apparent, RajKris does not get it. Now on the Kshatriya Talk page, he repeats the old argument, albeit in a different way, and says "Kshatriya def is linked to Dharmashastra(written by Brahmins) is pov". So he needs to prove (1) the term Kshatriya was used in dravidian and other linguistic groups; and (2) that people of dravidian and austro-asiatic linguistic groups followed the same culture / religion / rituals as Indo-Aryans.


 * In Kshatriya talk page, I have provided refs regarding what is Kshatriya (that is a social class to which all Hindu rulers belongs to). Can you please refs which state that kshatriya was first mentioned in Dharmashastra and only such books can be used to define what is Kshatriya. Fyi, Varna is just 'an ideal moral archetypes' written by Brahmins in order to define & control the Hindu society. Reality was different. I will provide a list of refs regarding this asap.Rajkris (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * See Kshatriya talk page (Kshatriya List topic).Rajkris (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Issue 2 (Changing 'Aryan' to 'Vedic')  In this sentence, please go thru references I gave. All references use the term "Indo-Aryan". Hence it would be right to use the term "Indo-Aryan" or "Aryan" Society: "The Sanskrit term Kshatriya belonged to the Aryan society wherein members organized themselves into 3 classes, viz., Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya."

As the Kshatriya article explains, the term 'Kshatriya' was not used in the vedic period. Instead the term 'Rajanya' was used. The term Kshatriya was used during the period when the brahmanas (sacrificial texts) were composed (with competition between rajanya and kshatriya); after which Kshatriya completely replaced Rajanya, and finally became a fixed feature in the dharmashastras. Hence it is wrong to change 'Aryan' to 'Vedic' as Rajkris has done; as it implies in vedic period itself society was already organized into 3 varnas. Please revert the sentence back to 'Aryan' or 'Indo-Aryan'.


 * The word Vedic may not be appropriate but the word Aryan neither because its meaning is a bone of contention & misunderstanding (see Britannica: . We must not use in order to avoid confusion among readers. I am in favor of removing this text & explain it in the core of the article.Rajkris (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Issue 3 (On "Hindu Society"): Please refer to the etymology of hinduism with note 12 which says "..the term 'Hindu' was used in Sanskrit and Bengali hagiographic texts in contrast to 'Yavana' or Muslim as early as the sixteenth century" Evidently, the term 'Hindu' is a recent one. Several communities claimed to be Kshatriya in the colonial period. They contested such claims in court; to which effect, several books and caste puranas were written. They did so despite the fact that they did not follow the religion of Smartism / Smritis (dharmashastras). Instead Brahmins and British both imposed Dharmashastra laws on all Indians thru the Anglo-Hindu law. In order to avoid being dubbed Shudras, Indians of different faiths, religions and cultures, claimed to be Kshatriyas or Vaishyas.

Colonial period politics is a contentious controversial issue. Even today, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have their own faith systems or religions, yet are classified as 'Hindus'. Smartas make an erroneous claim that they see "universal oneness in all gods". A Smarta worships only his Shanmata deities. A Smarta does not worship Singa bonga, a tribal god. Nor does his religion (Smartism) provide ritualism or ritual procedures for worship of Singa Bonga. Also read (in note 12) Gavin Flood's explanation ""The '-ism' was added to Hindu in around 1830 to denote the culture and religion of the high-caste Brahmans"."

The term 'Hindu' is a controversial contentious one. Therefore it is not correct to use the term "Hindu Society" as Rajkris has done.


 * As I stated earlier in Kshatriya Talk Page, other academical sources use the term Hindu when then talk about Kshatriya. What you are trying to do here is rewrite the definition of Kshatriya based on your POV that is: Hinduism should be defined based on Brahmanical pov. Fyi, 'Dravidian' word was first used by an English scholar during Colonial Era. If we were to follow your pov regarding the~usage of Hindu then we should apply the same rule to Dravidian... Anyhow, it is not you who decide such a thing but academical sources.Rajkris (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Issue 4 (On oxford dictionary reference): I provided the complete entry for this citation which stated, ""a member of the second of the four great Hindu castes, the military caste. The traditional function of the Kshatriyas is to protect society by fighting in wartime and governing in peacetime.Origin: late 18th century: from Sanskrit kṣatriya, from kṣhatra 'rule, authority'"

Oxford dictionary says origin of the word Kshatriya is late 18th century. Plus, historically caste and varna are two different units of social organization (caste predates varna); yet from brahmanical pov they are one and the same (in their culture and literature such a differentiation does not exist. To them, varna is by birth, so is (the right to) an occupation (caste)). So the claim of Oxford dictionary that varnas are castes is not on the mark either. Anyways, if this reference is to be retained, I suggest the 18th century point must be mentioned in the article. --Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Carvaka
There is a RFC at the talk page of Carvaka, you might be interested in it. --Rahul (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on India - October 2014
You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at India. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments, WP:CIVIL policy of wikipedia
@Mayasutra: This] is inappropriate behavior on wikipedia. Calling someone "childish" and making snarky personal attacks on article talk pages is not constructive. Please review WP:TPNO as well as WP:CIVIL, and respect community agreed guidelines on civility and proper use of article talk pages. Repeat of such behavior may invite an administrative review of your editing privileges. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Please follow what you preach. You cannot extrapolate as you wish. I could do the same for your insulting remarks on claiming to threaten. Take care of your behavior and stick to the topic. It is obvious you are getting personal because you know Gonda is wrong in claiming mA in Sanskrit is mother and linking the root ma to maya without basis.--Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

April 2016
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Maya (illusion). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. RexxS (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If that be the case, kindly ask Ms.Sarah Welch not to get personal; for ex: with claims on threatening, which is plain childish, silly, and serves no purpose. Thanks. --Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra
 * I see that you have now directly accused her of POV-pushing. That is unacceptable and I'll ask you to remove that personal attack immediately. --RexxS (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that you have now directly accused her of POV-pushing. That is unacceptable and I'll ask you to remove that personal attack immediately. --RexxS (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It is obvious you have drawn lines and function on those without seeing reason. You should have asked Sarah Welch to take back claims on threatening; as mentioned above. Have explained to SpacemanSpiff. Let the admin take a call. BTW, am glad am not active on wiki or contributing to Wiki Project Med Foundation. If such is the way reasoning functions here, its not worth it. Thanks. --Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

For the record
Copy-pasting the admin issue here for my record (Bishonen has many archives; and am not sure I can find this one when I want to).

Civility and forum-y discussion on article talk page
@Bishonen: We have a dormant account @Mayasutra that has reappeared, currently focussed only on Talk:Maya (illusion), lecturing that Jan Gonda - a celebrated Dutch Sanskrit professor is wrong and multiple WP:RS be damned, demanding that scholarly sources be deleted, article be changed and Mayasutra's OR be the basis of the article. The article's talk page is a wall of post (@Mayasutra is cut and pasting from websites it seems), much of it is all mostly WP:FORUM-y, with @Mayasutra asking me to ignore the sources and "explain your viewpoint". Both @Kautilya3 and I have tried to politely repeatedly remind @Mayasutra that we stick with WP:RS in wikipedia, and OR is unacceptable. But to no avail. There is a @kashmiri user too, not too active, who is egging @Mayasutra along. The discussion has shifted into incivility, calling me childish, and repeatedly. Is it okay to strikeout or delete such "childish" etc wording? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Latest and third instance, this time with "childish silly". I have already requested @Mayasutra to desist. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And now a direct accusation of "POV pushing" by Mayasutra. How much should Sarah be expected to put up with? --RexxS (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Sarah. I'm just so profoundly ignorant of these matters that I hesitate to intervene. I know has been a little on again/off again recently, but right now he's editing like an angel, HINT HINT. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Sorry, Sarah. I'm just so profoundly ignorant of these matters that I hesitate to intervene. I know has been a little on again/off again recently, but right now he's editing like an angel, HINT HINT. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC).


 * @Bish: Thank you. @SpacemanSpiff: Posting the links here, because the summary is above: . More on . Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Bish, Thank you for making me read that long talk page, I could've spent that time working on the CSD backlog! That said,, if there are problems regarding the validity of sources (I'm not making any judgment on whether there really is a problem here), I'd suggest taking it to WP:RSN and solving the issue once and for all. Also, getting the opinion of a subject matter expert like would be beneficial, although he has been avoiding Indic/Sanskrit articles for a few years now. As for the behavior, I think RexxS' warning is sufficient for now but I don't have any objections should another admin feel differently and think that tool usage is necessary here. I will leave a note on the talk page shortly. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @SpacemanSpiff, After discussing with Kautilya, had included content in the etymology section (without removing Sarah Welch's content) --- can you point out what is wrong in the content I added? However, Sarah Welch reverts it without common consensus as mentioned earlier. As admin, please, you have to take a call here. Please do. Otherwise this is not moving ahead coz Sarah Welch refuses to respond to requests for common consensus. --Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Bishonen: Kindly note the actual issue -- Ms.Sarah Welch consistently refuses to reply to issues raised (see here, here and here), assumes, sermonizes (obviously gets personal). Nobody asked her to ignore sources (does she imagine things?). If this behavior is not childish, what should it be called -- see here and here. In addition, Sarah Welch refuses to seek common consensus, and is hence doing POV pushing. Sarah Welch had ample time to respond to the 2 points, come to common consensus; but did not do so. Now, she reverts the etymology section without common consensus. What do you suggest about the common consensus? --Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra


 * @SpacemanSpiff: That section has 15 sources (14 cites, but one cite has two sources). Everything is sourced to WP:RS, many with embedded quotes. I am fine with RSN/DSN/etc process, because it is a due process. But @Mayasutra needs to stop calling names, casting aspersions and such forum-y lectures, with "Just because you have a reference (gonda) does not mean your reference (gonda) is correct." The (gonda) there is, of course, Jan Gonda. I have added two recent WP:RS, with embedded quotes, both by respected professors, one known for Hinduism scholarship and other for Buddhism scholarship, saying the same thing as Gonda.
 * Now imagine what will happen if we let @Mayasutra-types come along, fighting RS with their OR in every article, casting aspersions without evidence (such as POV-pushing, as @RexxS notes above). Top that with @Mayasutra finding it incredible that wikipedia is relying on WP:RS, rather than checking if the scholar is right, see @Kautilya3 notes here. I think this is beyond RSN, it is a Village Pump or behavioral issue. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @Sarah Welch, haven't we moved on, from the time of disusing Gonda's reference, to the current time of keeping Gonda's reference but also representing alternate meanings for ma and maya? You say "Now imagine"?? Why do you imagine things??? Is something truly wrong with you? Its not the first time you choose to assume. Yep, it is a behavioral issue, because you refuse to reason, agree to work on common consensus, and move on. Let SpacemanSpiff take a call on common consensus first; and explain what was wrong in the content I added to the etymology section without removing yours. Just bcoz you have RexxS to add to insults on your behalf; does not mean you can revert without common consensus. --Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra


 * BTW, let the poor village pump be. The reference (Radhakrishnan) you use in the article (thru Donald Braue's work on Maya of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan) grew up around the village pump; and I know it for sure from a reliable personal source. Learn to be civil before you sermonize others. There is no need for anyone to get personal unless you do so first.--Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

, I don't see any consensus anywhere for what you've added. 's statement is in the abstract suggesting that reliable sources should be included, you've extrapolated that to support your content addition and don't like being challenged on it. Repeating the same thing in multiple locations doesn't make something fact either. This is not about whether the sources themselves are valid or not, that is what consensus and evaluation is for. And then you cast aspersions again. If you don't like collaborating constructively on here, you don't have to, but if you do contribute here then make sure you don't indulge in attacks and casting aspersions or your ability to contribute will be revoked. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. 's edit was more in the nature of a rewrite than adding a few extra sources/comments. I was just checking to see what changes he made when I got pinged here. I am not surprised that reverted the edit. As per WP:BRD, a (further) discussion is needed to discuss the merits/demerits of the edit. @Mayasutra, this is normal procedure. You should not take offence for it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @Kautilya, you said "If you have other sources that give better explanations, please feel free to add them". That's what I did. Now, you say this. Great. Am not surprised really. Please feel free to elaborate on the merits/demerits of the edit. Nope, am not taking offence. However, I wish that you had refrained from name-calling like village pump; which apparently emboldened Sarah Welch to go on an offensive. Addition -- I did as had told you -- mentioned each author's view separately. Added alternate meanings of ma from MW and sources that attest to it (Zimmer and Singh). Did not do more than that. As for your query, the iranian asuras did not escape the magical turn. MW concerns lexicographers (including modern ones; which is why such confusion occurs over root sound). Anyways, am done with this I guess. @SpacemanSpiff, am not active on wiki. Would not bother me for having editing rights revoked. However, if you ask me to follow rules of behavior, you must do so with Sarah Welch too. The lady got personal first, went on an offensive. The main reason is there is no willingness on her part to come to common consensus. RexxS comes along and piles on offensives. Surely, he can say the same thing in a much different way. He does not. So, it seems rules for admin is different from other editors. Neither is Sarah Welch willing to reason out normally. The above stances of her assumptions are example enough. Such being the case, it is left to Kautilya and yourself, to decide what stays in the etymology section and what goes. I do not blame Kashmiri for saying he is tired. Me too, not finding this worth it. Have nothing to gain or lose. Might as well put my efforts into building a forum with much better info than you find here. So, leave this to you guys to decide what you want in the etymology. Thank you.--Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Need to calm down
Hi Mayasutra, It seems that you are quite upset, and you probably need to take short break from this to calm down and take it easy. On the issue of making personal comments on others:
 * It should never be done on article talk pages, even though I would admit that I let a word a slip here or there. If you do so, you can always go back and strike off the comments for having done it in the heat of the moment.
 * You can complain to editors on their talk pages, on the talk pages of admins or on forums like WP:ANI, but you should do so only with evidence, and be polite at all times.

Ms Sarah Welch is an extremely talented Wikipedian, both in terms of her scholarship and her ability to write beautifully. She has numerous barnstars and GA articles to her credit. If you step back a little, you will learn to appreciate her editing as well as to enjoy it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I shall use the language of RexxS which he did here and here. Ms Sarah Welch could well be a 'noble prize' winner. I cud not 'care a rat's ass' for those who behave like this. I suggest you refrain from assuming things about having to calm down. From the way Sarah Welch goes on offensives here, it is apparent who you need to lecture to (in Sarah Welch's language). What a great tactic, first make snarky personal attacks, then keep edging them on; so that when they retaliate she can use that for her POV pushing (which she wants without common consensus; as is clear). Anyways, I already left a note for you saying am done. So, you can now relax. Thank you. BTW, now I understand what some people have been saying about western historians; although so far had dismissed them for being rightwing. If, for such a trivial thing, pressure tactics are used by Sarah Welch and RexxS, I can understand what others deal with, having had it much harder in academic circles. Best wishes.--Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Final warning
If you don't know what's an attack and what's a statement then you shouldn't be editing here. If this behavior continues then you will be blocked. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  11:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I will be glad for an example of what's an attack and what's a statement. Because if truly I have got that wrong, I will be the first person to apologize. So, can you show me where have I been wrong? --Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra
 * What Kautilya3 struck out is an attack, what you struck out are just simple statements. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  11:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have been mentioning common consensus from several posts above the ones Kautilya struck out. So, why is Kautilya keen on the new ones mentioning that. Where have I attacked anyone by asking for common consensus and by mentioning Ms.Sarah Welch is not coming around to it. That is precisely the point I raised in Bishonen's page. Why there is no explanation for that there? What I stuck out are plainly attacks by Ms.Sarah Welch using aggressive language asking me to quit, quit, quit. Are words like "rat's ass" acceptable in wiki talk? Again, whenever have been wrong, have been the first person to come around and apologize. Ask Sitush. Here, the attacks came from Ms.Sarah Welch who first got personal without the need to do so.--Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra


 * I don't see Ms Sarah Welch asking you to quit editing. She was only asking you to quite making arguments based on WP:OR, as per policy. The "rat's ass" remark was a heated remark, I admit, but it wasn't directed at an editor. It is just an American expression to say "I don't care about XYZ." Your remarks that I have been striking are not especially bad, but your tendency to persist in making them is. I think you should listen to SpacemanSpiff and stop doing it. You might also take my advice to take some time off to cool off. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * That's a very unfortunate suggestion Kautilya. Because when SpacemanSpiff reverted the edits, I did not touch them. Funny the way you too tend to sermonize. What is this about Sarah Welch -- See this content by the lady? Does it focus on the content (the excuse you use for striking off)? Did I say she asked me to quit editing? Please, again, you have not been reading well. Truly, my appreciation for Kashmiri has increased; after seeing what kind of tactics are used here. Surely, you have no right to strike out my appreciation for Kashmiri. In any case, if you want to take on the striking out route, you need to explain why there is no explanation on the common consensus issue? What was wrong in my comments on common consensus that required striking off? Shouldn't I be calling you a village pump for not keeping your word in letting me add sources (and content)? For not asking Sarah Welch why she is not coming around to consensus before reverting? Shoudn't I be calling Sarah Welch a village pump or worse for imagining things? There is no wish to continue here. But I certaintly want it known how admin function here. --Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Re: your personal attacks and forum-y use of article talk page again
@Mayasutra: No incivility in wikipedia, please, with comments such as "You see Ms.Welch, you have a peculiar problem...." as you did here. You have been warned by @, @, @ and others, in April 2016, for a similar behavior on Talk:Maya (illusion). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Stop preaching. Take care of your civility first. Just reply to the post made to you in the talk page of Kapila.--Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Note on reliability of publications/sources
This is to address 2 things (1) issues on Sarah Welch's claims wiki guidelines on Kapila article; and (2) issues Kashmiri raised on this platform. I had to say the below:

Frequently asking others to accept whatever respected publishing houses print will not do in certain cases. Some amount of discernment is needed. Where I live, am associated with a printing press. Its amazing to see the work so called reputed publishers send for printing. If 10 people say the same thing in 10 diff books, the 11th book will not need a reference. It will be passable/acceptable for peer review. Which is apparently why Haldane and Dronamraju do not require to state their source.

Secondly, in today's world if you have 20 books, you can write of your own, bringing around syncretism from their work while offering your view. Your original research will pass peer review. Which is what Gonda and Pintchman's work does. Their views are WP:Primary while that of Haldane and Dronamraju are neither primary, secondary nor tertiary.

Hence, kindly review these 2 source: (1) JBS Haldane is author, and Dronamraju is editor. The Glossary section of the book makes a statement -- "Kapila a vedic sage, author of basic principles of the Samkhya system of Indian Philosophy" -- this in a book of semi-biographical essays by Haldane on what he requires from life (the book states no source). It is neither a journal in history nor a book on the subject matter (history). Just bcoz Oxford Uni Press publishes it, how does it become valid? As a secondary or tertiary source? (2) Same holds true for the Guida Myrl Jackson-Laufer.

Thirdly, if an author has 20 books and another has 30 books; the latter may state things differently. Is it not necessary to discern among them for reliability of sources? Just bcoz wiki has no WP:Primary does it mean the author's work cannot be acceptable for an article?

'''Its appalling Sarah Welch does not admit WP:Primary for Kashmiri but questions the WP:PRIMARY for Chaturvedi's work. Is this not deliberate?'''

I would like wiki administrators to take up this issue in their next conference: Example: If an idol follows the Brahma-yamala-tantra, it has to have certain detailing. It cannot belong to any other tantra school, unless the other school also has a similar literary tradition on the image-making and veneration procedures of the said deity. The styling of the image can differ in two different yamala-tantra schools with different literary traditions; though they worship the same deity. A temple complex can be built in either Pallava, Pandya, Chola, or Vijayanagar styles (each with distinct architectural styles). There are not many researchers who studied their unique variations / contributions; be it the adisthana styles, wall building styles, kostas, toranas, vimanas, shikharas, pillars, capitals, kapotas, mandapas, and gopuras. Only a few have carried out original research in this field; that too comparing architectural styling with inscriptions and literary traditions. For ex: A.K.Coomaraswamy and V.S.Agarawala produced the biggest treasure of literature on Yaksha imagery / statutary known in Indian history so far. Such being the case should not WP:Primary of such scholars be admissible? Why is Sarah Welch questioning WP:DUE of Chaturvedi's work? More so, when she admits WP:PRIMARY of Pintchman.
 * Can Wiki offer guidelines on books with original research for certain subject matters?


 * If an author like Max Muller neither states "Kapila is not a Vedic scholar", nor states "Kapila is a Vedic scholar" -- does it mean Sarah Welch can construe and claim as she wants? Max Muller opines Hiranyagarbha Kapila of the vedas was distinct, and was later used to link to Kapila of Sankhya, to assign the authorship of Sankya system to Hiranyagarbha. Which of-course means he did not think Kapila of Sankhya was a vedic sage. Does he have to state it as such? What is wrong in Sarah Welch's attitude? Is it wrong to state Max Muller's view in the article? Do note: nearly everything about Max Muller will be WP:Primary because he was one of the pioneers who did extensive research. So, is Max Muller source admissible?

So, can wiki offer guidelines on which books are acceptable? Can Sarah Welch use WP:Primary sources herself; but disallow WP:Primary sources for other editors?

BTW, Sarah Welch, in your latest post it is ridiculous to repeat the point on 'vedic sage' (takes density of a certain kind to continue doing that). Am saying both views should be admitted, those who say vedic sage and those who date him to 7th century BC in a neutral way; not in the way you have done, introducing an additional statement claiming "This places him in the late Vedic period (1500 BCE to 500 BCE), and he has been called a Vedic sage" - which is deliberately additional to be ambiguous/misleading (weasel words) amounting to pov-pushing. Sarah Welch, what you are doing is WP:ASSERT violating Wiki policy of Neutrality. Can you show any statement in this which is not neutral?

--Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

August 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Adding: You have been warned enough about personal attacks, you must know that attacks such as "your statement is intentionally ambiguous or misleading," (my italics) or "Lady, there is a certain inability in you??" as here are totally unacceptable. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC).


 * Is the additional statement by Sarah Welch not intentionally ambiguous (in other words using weasel words) and misleading? How would you rate Sarah Welch constantly repeating the same thing; such that there indeed seems to a certain inability in following what is expected of her; wrt to use of sources to make claims which the source does not state as explained here as also the introduction of the additional statement (also explained in the same link)? How would you rate the use of stfu on a noticeboard, as this? No blocking required for RexxS for that? Does that mean some are better placed in wiki than the rest? How about intentionally deleting the statement on the metamorphosis of the asura Kapila associated with the transformation of the Samkhya from atheist to idealist; and the transformation of female Kapila to male Kapila, both of which are supported by the Vaikunta inscription description of Chaturvedi source taking the Kaśmirāgama Pån᷈charatra philosophy, iconography, and other works into account?


 * BTW, Bishonen, this is our heritage; that of the natives. That Kapila is rooted in antiquity with Asuri (of the brahmana tradition) 'converting' to Sankhya simply means atheism was an offshoot of the vedic people; though Kapila was probably not a vedic period sage. Unfortunately English language uses 3 major words - theism, atheism, agnostic - for epistemological representation of orientation towards divinities. People of the subcontinent were far more complex than that. While Sankya is comparable to agnosticism; it is not agnosticism. I have read the Sankyakarika innumerable times. But have never made major contributions to the Sankya article despite there being sufficient works on similar lines in print from reputed Indian scholars (bcoz i know what to expect here). Also, the transformation of the female Kapila into male Kapila is nothing different from the yamala tradition; a tradition which incidentally is also Sankhya-like in the purusha-prakriti union with gradual transformation. The yamalas are well-preserved in the agama tradition something which the western mind does not take into consideration while interpreting everything 'vedic'. Perhaps bcoz they dispel certain notions of a certain western mind which looks down upon such practices and are hence not well received in certain parts of the western academia as mainstream ??? Well, whatever it may be. Also, everything cannot be perfect in any tradition (most of us accept as is, some of us learn to do so).


 * What am trying to say, is that deliberately deleting statements, disrupting my edits, such that I cannot continue to proceed with a sentence or two to represent a concept of Kapila, is something I cannot appreciate. Nor do I appreciate claiming things for POV-pushing (as explained above). It is nicer to have an honest representation of both sides (those who claim vedic sage and those who date him to 7th century BC) without being conclusive ourselves. I would appreciate if am guided on how much inline text in notes is permissible, or have someone working together to delete larger content to make into concise few sentences, to improve article. My mistake was to put all the text into one citation and use it as a reference for multiple sentences. I should have just used multiple citations instead (with trimmed inline text in notes). Obviously, the lady just does not permit me to work an additional day. The very day I started working on the article, she had to come on board to edit as well; thus leading to the issues. Seriously, I believe there is something not OK about the way she works. The ruse of claiming WP:Primary, assuming it is small cause, asking totally irrelevant things (like was Kapila disciple of female teachers), deliberately making it tenuous, deliberately repeating herself, is plain ?????(what to say). This despite the fact that whenever she makes an edit which is useful, I have clicked on thanks. So, seriously, I have no idea what to make of this. I will have to agree with Kashmiri on the fun of reverting.


 * Anyways, after the 48 hour period, I would like you to moderate the talk page and let me know if suggested changes are acceptable. Thanks --Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra
 * I'm afraid I'm not the right person to do that; I'm pretty ignorant of the subject, and thus of the subtleties of sourcing. I do recognise a personal attack when I see one, though. You would really do yourself a favour by studying the policy No personal attacks, and learning to avoid them. I can't believe you have done so, especially since you suggest "stfu" is a personal attack. What's personal about it? Nothing. As far as moderating the talkpage, it's unfortunate that the admins knowledgable about Indian subjects tend to be either on on lengthy breaks, or "highly irregular" in their editing, such as SpacemanSpiff. I suggest you appeal to User:RegentsPark. He's being fairly active. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC).


 * Thanks Bishonen, appreciate this. As for stfu, sorry you find nothing in it, for a personal attack. Am taken aback you consider these phrases are personal attacks -- (i) "intentionally ambiguous/misleading" and (ii) "Lady, there is a certain inability in you??". Glad you say you cannot believe I said those two phrases. Sincerely request you to go thru Kapila talk page thoroughly and see to what extent Sarah Welch has been deliberately repetitive, asking/stating irrelevant things, deliberately misconstruing things (even claiming I used hate language/attack against the Asians particularly the Indians!!); just to make it contrived and difficult to move on. Her latest response too is classical. See this response -- why does she do this (?) when I always made it clear both views should be admitted, those who say vedic sage and those who date him to 7th century BC in a neutral way. Besides statements which already say that in a neutral tone; why does Sarah Welch introduce an additional statement claiming, "This places him in the late Vedic period (1500 BCE to 500 BCE), and he has been called a Vedic sage" -- that is deliberately additional to be ambiguous/misleading (weasel words) and certainly WP:ASSERT. How does it place him for sure in the vedic period when there are authors who date him to 7th century BC? Why those senseless comments on Max Muller's representation? Why does she use WP:PRIMARY sources but does not let others do the same? Where is the need to put publishers like Oxford Uni Press on high pedestal and put down Indian publications (as this one)? At the very start; just for questioning Dronamraju and Haldane (as acceptable sources); she started the usual rant of not having "forum-y discussion or picking a side based on @Mayasutra's "wisdom, prejudice, opinion, original research, interpretation, reasoning". Please see WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:TPNO"  a carryover from the Maya (Illusion) article. Sorry Bishonen; but I think this is deliberate. Ironically it happens to be so despite the fact that I kept clicking on thanks for her edits with sources and contributions. Wiki is doing no justice either. Anyone can look up google books and write things here. If the book is from oxford uni press, it becomes acceptable. You can have junior highs doing that. Its takes a discerning mind to put things in the right neutral perspective. Can't help mentioning here that losing Kashmiri's expertise in this subject matter (sanskrit/religion) is wiki's loss; just bcoz some editors are using wiki policies as they wish; with bullying thrown in, with words like stfu. Please, hope good sense prevails and all versions of Maya and Kapila get their due representation; though some may not be accurate.--Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra


 * I don't know much about the subject either but, after reading the suggestions made by Mayasutra, am willing to moderate the discussion in terms of fealty to sources. --regentspark (comment) 13:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks RegentsPark. Appreciate your initiative. Thank you. Please go through these suggested changes -- whatever you approve will put into the article. --Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra
 * Hi Mayasutra. I'll need to wait for Ms Sarah Welch, or others, to respond to your suggestions first. --regentspark (comment) 16:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks RegentsPark. I would like to have Kashmiri's guidance, since want to create pages for Asuri, Panchashika, lesser known names in sankhya like Jaigisavya, Vodha / Vodhu, Varshaganya, Devala, Sanaka, Sananda, Sanatana, expand on existing article for Janaka (for samkhya role as in the conversation sulabha-janaka-samvada), and either create separate articles or put other teachers/early pupils of Sankhya like Bhrgu, Prahlada, Bali, Gautama, Garga, Narada,Shukra, Kashyapa, etc in one article. Also to expand on Kapila article, need Kashmiri's guidance for 2 reasons. One it is often thot the Buddha was the first to oppose sacrifices and create a new religion. Apparently, Kapila did that a little before him but is very less known. So, need to bring out as much info as possible on this personage. Secondly, it is often thot (in popular belief) that Pancharatra has popular origin while Vaikhanasa has vedic origin. But Pancharatra also may have vedic origin as its early teachers were so (but deserted the religion of sacrifices moving into a philosophy school). The Vaikhanasa on the other hand dissuade the path of renunciation of Kapila in Baudhayana Dharmasutra but reconcile with Vaikhanasaaagama instituting Kapila's imagery as embodiment of the vedas himself. So it may seem both, pancharatra and vaikhanasa have vedic origin but the point of divergence was Kapila (meaning, it was just ideological difference which is possibly why Ramanuja approved of both Pancharatra and Vaikhanasa). I would like to have Kashmiri's guidance in this; on the transformation process, sources, and on the wording. Other too, with subject knowledge on this, please help. After we write out on the talk page and seek common approval / consensus / changes from all involved, will put on main article; or will leave it to Kashmiri and others, to put on main article; in the right/neutral way as it should be. Thanks. --Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra