User talk:Rudrasharman

Hi
Hi havent seen you for a long time, you must come back, your old hardwork has produced very good results! 59.92.193.166 (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Max Müller
Don't underestimate the "blog comments" how mind opening they are the moment you notice how history can be deliberately hampered to favour on party point of view. And in the case of Max Muller, I doubt his work holds no bias and it is good to let know the lame readers how the famous Max Muller who translated many Sanskrit texts into English and German was paid to mis-translate and to add information that would be deceptive.Davedawit (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * User:rudrasharman, Your following comment "He's parroting some blog-warrior, as usual. Though it could be of momentary interest to see which spit-flecked raving bozo it is this time." is a personal attack not in agreement with WP primciples. Please avoid personal attacks.-Bharatveer (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A Chandas disambiguation page
Can you help with the Sanskrit metre article talk page situation? I have created a Chandas disambiguation page, but I don't think it is correctly done. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply on my talk page about Sanskrit metre and for the longer remarks on the Sanskrit metre article's talk page. From those remarks, I see that the article is a complete mess, and the only remedy would be to start over. However, I know nothing about the subject beyond what I read on Wikipedia.  What you could do for me is to look at the Chandas page and see if the first line is correct, or should be changed. The second line, about Chandas (typeface) is how I came into the situation as part of an effort to improve typography articles. You could take a look at that as well, but I think it is substantially correct as written. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The disambiguation page is fine, although I appreciate your point about its stylistic suboptimality. chandas actually has a cluster of related meanings, derived from a root meaning, roughly, "(making a) pleasing rhythm".  Thus, it has been used to refer to
 * Vedic verses themselves (i.e. as a synonym for "verse")
 * Vedic metres (numbering 3 or 7 or 8, depending on source)
 * The language of Vedic poetry, esp. Rgvedic. Panini used chandasi (a locative form of the word) in this technical sense to indicate Vedic usage and language, in contrast to Classical.
 * The study of metre as a Vedanga
 * In all, I'd say the last one (as you have it on the dab page) is best because it is a formal definition of sorts, whereas the others are ostensive in nature. rudra (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Astrology
Rudra, I find your point that Vedanga Jyotisha is astronomy, not astrology, difficult to accept. For the purposes of antiquity (in Mesopotamia as well as in India), there is simply no difference between the two by conception. If you use astronomy to identify "auspicious days for sacrifice", that's astrology by any other name. I realize that Vedanga Jyotisha has very little to do with Greek-derived astrology of the Mauryan period and classical India, but then Babylonian astrology, especially of the Old Babylonian period, has very little to do with Roman era -- let alone modern -- astrology and it's still astrology.

I am also uncomfortable with the claim that there was "no astrology" in the Vedic period. I would like to know who made such a sweeping statement. I agree that astrology is of comaratively little concern in Vedic texts, but that might as soon just be due to the nature and scope of the texts we have. --dab (𒁳) 14:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The basic point is that ever since the Mesoptamian/Greek synthesis, astrology (and jyotisha) has come to mean horoscopy (i.e. as the principal sense). The older astrology was much more calendar-oriented in nature. The big difference is planets.  The VJ doesn't have them, so their "influence" (a HUGE deal in modern astrology) didn't even exist.  (So "no astrology in Vedic times" = "no astrology in the usual modern sense  in vedic times".)  I just don't like the idea of encouraging anachronistic expectations of what jyotisha really meant, and involved, in Vedic times.  rudra (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, btw, Pingree 1981 treats the VJ in the chapter on astronomy. Quote (p.9): "The literature on astronomy in Sanskrit is headed by the Jyotiṣavedāńga". (On p.8, he notes that horoscopy didn't interest the  astronomers until the 2nd CE or so.) rudra (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I realize that this is what you intend to say, but it isn't what you are saying. If you mean to say "no horoscopy", you should say "no horoscopy", not "no astrology". The point that needs to be made is that for all dates prior to AD 1500 or so, astrology=astronomy.

I also appreciate your best intention of counterpunching against the Indian gremlins. Only, you may be counterpunching too much in this case. I suggest we make this about horoscopy specifically instead of the artificial "astrology" question. --dab (𒁳) 15:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, but the average reader of WP, unless specifically clued in otherwise, is still going to read "astrology" and understand "horoscopy". Consequently, to tell him "the VJ is a text of astrology" and expect him to grasp that some archaic sense of astrology (= astronomy) is meant, simply doesn't cut the mustard, IMHO.  It is more accurate, historically and semantically -- and easier on the average Joe's brain cells -- to tell him "the VJ is a text of astronomy" (= astrology "back then, if you're interested enough to find out").  If this leads him to think that the vedics had telescopes, I give up. rudra (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sanskrit metre
I un-redirected the talk page. Hope you don't mind. -- Aryaman (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Avatar
Hi Rudra, if you have a moment to look at the Avatar article it would be helpful, particularly the Etymology and meaning section. It's been improved quite a bit, but could use a more authoritative view. Good to see you back here (at least from a respectable distance so far :-) ) Priyanath talk 19:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Gayatri Mantra
Hi Rudra, Just wanted to express a teeny concern about what I perceive as WP:OWN concerns for recent edits on this. Can you clarify the "aghihotra rite" reference you used for a deletion, as well as your reinsertion of the "word by word translation" of Griffith attributed to M-W (presumably the dictionary?) - it may be true but is somewhat O/Rish. Thanks for the other guidance, particularly the Jan Gonda ref. Annette46 (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please ignore the agnihotra comment, it isn't really relevant and shouldn't have been there. As for the word-by-word translation, I think dab's reason is well taken. The basic problem (on which Gonda, btw, expands quite a bit) is that "interpretations" of the GM are legion. In such a situation it becomes necessary to include a literal translation, for the benefit of the reader who in general will not be interested in the details of the sectarian disputes and whatnot underlying the differing interpretations. There is nothing OR-ish about literal renderings that can be verified from a well-established dictionary. rudra (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledgment

 * Thanks very much. I appreciate it. rudra (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

RD
In case you can shed some light on this. 220.227.207.32 (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably not, sorry! I freely admit my ignorance when it comes to Art. All I know is that these are sculpture motifs seen in temples.  I'd love to find a good online resource myself! rudra (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia
Why are you editing Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia to mislead people into thinking that R1a1 in India is indicative of the false Aryan Invasion Theory while ignoring the consensus on Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) (that all the evidence points to a South Asian origin)? I'm starting to think your intention may be less than good faith. GSMR (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your sequence of 31 consecutive edits (so far) on the Talk page was fascinating. rudra (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not as much as your attempt to push forward the long-debunked Aryan Invasion Theory. Each of the sources I added are used on the article Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) to state the exact same thing I added there. GSMR (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell me that you're a "science student" (with, naturally, little grasp of statistics and none at all of either the forensic sciences or the humanities) and the picture will be complete. rudra (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WQA
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GSMR (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Varshney
Since you appear to be a skilled editor, may I suggest you look at Varshney? I think that it should be split, creating a separate article on Shri Akrur Ji Maharaj, but I do not know enough about reliable sources on India or Hinduism to do this. - Fayenatic (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia
I have made some recent edits on this page. I find the article (as you said on its Talk) to be a complete cock-up and look forward to observing how you deal with my edits (ie. if they are still in place by the time you read this). Annette46 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why I'm supposed to "deal" with your edits. Who sent for me, and who sent for you?  I get the impression that you're challenging me in some way.  If so, then the desire for confrontation would be yours alone: I have no interest. rudra (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wendy Doniger
Yes, I agree that Doniger is not a politician but I believe that this is not handled in a fair way. Contrast this with an article on the controversial Catholic theologian, Mary Daly; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Daly#Controversy_and_criticism Can Goethan and you write something like that? I will reintroduce my introduction, and you can rewrite it in a similar style like the Mary Daly article? Raj2004 (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but WP:OTHERCRAP is not a valid argument. Right now, there is a RfC on BLPs: the issue of "criticism" sections at all will  be resolved, hopefully.  I'd suggest waiting for the outcome before pressing any case you think you can make. rudra (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not crap when there are references to NY Times, an academic journal and a book. It is you who are biased; you are just as bad as the right wing Hindu nationalists Raj2004 (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

ahem, "references to NY Times, an academic journal and a book"?
 * the "academic journal" by an incredible coincidence is, of course, the very person for whom peer review has been waived at JEIS out of a "sense of fair play". This is already given attention far beyond its due at the Out of India article. Kazanas is also described as "a Greek Indologist" when he is no such thing. He is a Greek Yoga teacher who has allegedly once given basic tutorship in Sanskrit courses.
 * "At a public lecture in London, she once had an egg thrown at her" (Globe and Mail). How very condemning deconstuction of her academic work. This sheds an entirely new light on her opus. NOT.
 * "a book": A place at the multicultural table: the development of an American Hinduism: " in response to pressure from conservative Hindu political activists, Microsoft excised an article she wrote for the Encarta encyclopedia". This may in fact be worth mentioning, but I suppose it would belong under Hinduism in the United States, illustrating how US Hinduism is suverted by conservative fundamentalists.
 * "Pankaj Mishra, a columnist for the New York Times, writes that her chapter on the Mahabharata is particularly insightful, highlights the tragic aspects of the epic and unravels a cliche that Hindus are pacifist" -- ok as such but why should are academic bio articles include random quotes from newspaper columnists? If the book under discussion meets WP:BK, it may be arguable to quote that in the book's article.

the problem here is that criticism of Doniger's work is represented as centered around the attacks by Hindu fundamentalists. This is WP:UNDUE. Hindu fundamentalism in the US is certainly a topic worth discussing. If Raj2004 is interested in that, I invite him to create a section at Hinduism in the United States, and perhaps have a section redirect Hindu fundamentalism in the United States to that section. Detach it from Doniger and address the actual issue, the growth of a subculture of the Hindu religious right in the US. Doniger will be just one item mentioned in such a discussion. --dab (𒁳) 17:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the article is that both sides "know" what they want the article to say, and are going about searching for quotes they can use to nominally satisfy verifiability. This is a recipe for bad organization and content; imagine if every biography article was based on the formula:
 * "5 most hagiographic statements on the subject" + "5 most inflammatory denunciations of the subject" = NPOV

(unfortunately, on wikipedia this doesn't take much imagination!). What's lost in such quote-mining is the sober middle, where scholarly and fair-minded criticism of WD's approach and interpretation probably lie. Till someone, both neutral and interested enough in the subject, makes the effort to summarize that middle, the problems with the article are sure to persist. (Of course, there is also the problem that "published" sources may not reflect commonly held opinion of WD, even among scholars, but that's a issue we cannot correct on wikipedia). C'est la vie. Abecedare (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Abecedare's points are well-taken. I think that was went wrong in the Doniger article. I wish I was more of an expert on Doniger to make a true scholarly and fair minded criticism. Raj2004 (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I found your comments on the egg incident as being blown out of proportions very compelling, and when I checked it up, was surprised to find it in this book (review)! Good observation. --TheMandarin (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Karma in Hinduism
Thanks for your edit. I did not write that but someone else. Raj2004 (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You should try to be a little less defensive. That said, your replacement has led me to seriously reconsider Yuvraj Krishan's scholarship.  The chapter of that excerpt is appalling, shockingly bad, made all the worse by citing Keith and Oldenberg without any indication of having actually read them. The fact that Krishan does not discuss the extensive literature on the subject disqualifies his sound-bite as a summary of the academic consensus (which happens to  be the opposite view, btw).  It's cherry picking, just like the nonsense I deleted. rudra (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed commentary. I agree that is his view and that's why I stated that he said it. I think that the transmigration theory was not well-developed in the Vedas, contrary to what he said. Raj2004 (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But what makes him such a superstar expert that you invoke him, by name no less, in the lede?  In short, you are cherry-picking, just like him.  WP:UNDUE, at the very least.  And if you're still having trouble grasping the point, consider this: Suppose we replaced the quoting of Krishan with something like this: "According to Keith there is no evidence of transmigration in the Rgveda".  Would you suddenly find yourself objecting?  Do you see why it's wrong to have any statement of this kind in the lede?  Why are you trying to make exceptions for POV-pushing that you approve of? rudra (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand and not pushing a point of view. Well, should we remove Krishnan's name entirely and leave it to this statement, that there is no evidence of transmigration in the Rg Veda, if this is the overall scholarly consensus? Please remove if you think Krishnan is totally wrong. I am not an expert in this field. Raj2004 (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

By now, after full five years of watchlisting various Hindu topics, I must resignedly say that there is no "shockingly bad scholarship" in the context of India any more, for me. I don't know what is wrong with the country, but 'reams and reams of undiluted rubbish' appears to be the standard gauge for any text, somehow the written word appears to have a prestige attached to it just because it is written, no further sort of quality control is even conceivable. All we can do is keep waiting for the "shockingly good" that may or may not turn up occasionally. --dab (𒁳) 17:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Rudra, replying to your message on my talk page: In short, I think your input to the article will be both valuable and valued, and this is an article where collaboration is useful and possible. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * About the content issue: As I see it, the issue is pretty simple to handle by minor tweaking of language. In the lede the article can reflect the consensus view in some deliberately broad language, i.e., there is no discussion/elucidation (as opposed to "mention") of transmigration of souls in Vedic texts, while the body can add the caveat that some (like Krishnan), interpret a few verses of RV to be hinting at the concept. Of course, the exact language can be discussed further, but this shouldn't be a sticking point.
 * About ownership issues: as Raj2004 and I briefly discussed here, he has almost single-handedly been working on the article, but that is not necessarily by choice; rather it's a reflection of how few editors are involved in developing core Hinduism articles (most, including me frequently, are often distracted by silly POV battles at some topics of relatively minor interest). In any case, while Raj and I have differed on some sourcing issues, I haven't found him to be one of the POV pushers, and source based discussion with Raj (in contrast to the doctrinaire editors) are fruitful.

Poor scholarship in Indian references
I agree with your points and Dab's points. In fact, I find that Professor Pandey in his book, Encylopedia of Indian Philosophy appeared to take excerpts from the Wikipedia article and pasted it in his book; I was checking Google Books and note that whole excerpts from my wikipedia article on Karma in Hinduism were published in Vraj Kumar Pandey 's Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophy, pg. 33 See, http://books.google.com/books?cd=1&q=swami+sivananda+karma+vraj+kumar+pandey&btnG=Search+Books Did Professor Pandey acknowledge in a footnote in his book, Wikipedia? S

I changed one of the references to Thirugnana Sambanthar in the current article, since the referenced 2004 web link was dead, and Mr. Pandey seemed to have copied my article anyway. Indeed, the earliest versions of the article with reference to Swami Sivananda, with reference to karma was made in 2004 way prior to the 2007 publication of Professor Pandey: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karma_in_Hinduism&oldid=8711064 I hope that he referenced Wikipedia or otherwise this may be a case for plagiarism. The Google snippet was a limited preview so I don't know whether he referenced wikipedia.

But the surprising thing is that the publisher is Motilal Banarsidass, which I think is a well-respected publisher.

Raj2004 (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Correction. The publisher is Anmol Publications, not Motilal Banarsidass. I am not sure if Pandey is a professor. Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ownership
Rudra, please feel free to criticize. I welcome your input, as I am not an expert in the field. As Abecedere said, I am not a POV pusher, although we may disagree on sourcing issues, which I have now begun to understand better, after discussion with him, you and Dab. I hope that you did not misunderstand my comments. Raj2004 (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Influence of Planets
I agree with your edits relating Shani but many Hindus believe that planets are tied with past karma. What do you think? Raj2004 (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * i agree wih dab:) rudra (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You guys are correct. I am trying to find a serious academic resource, but unfortunately, in this realm, I have not yet found a serious academic source. Raj2004 (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I found one academic text. Please take a look at these edits. Thanks for your time. Raj2004 (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to cmt here, but found it irresistible. I think the plantes are having a bad influence on Raj2004 and Shani has cast his spell on Raj2004 ... which is preventing him from getting several "serious academic resource" and causing all these problems. LOL, feel free to revert this comment . --TheMandarin (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Raj2004 has convinced me that I need to stay as far away as possible from Karma in Hinduism for the sake of my blood pressure and sanity. rudra (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The planets are not affecting me. But some Hindus do believe that ups and downs in life are linked to planetary influences, which they believe are tied to past karma. You can criticize the academic source, that's okay, but nothing is wrong with me. Thank you. Raj2004 (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

EasyRead Large Bold edition
I am struck with "EasyRead Large Bold" edition of the book, Race, Nation, & Empire in American History by James T. Campbell which gives a fairly balanced and scholarly treatment, if you have can lay hands on the original edition, fix the page nos., Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the author is Prema Kurien, who has published a couple of papers before this, covering roughly the same ground, as well as having recently published a book of her own. (Try searching for "tipping point": that should take you to the critical section.)  But wikilawyers will gobble this up.  They will insist on multiple confirmations ("one isolated scholar isn't enough" - WP:RS rules are so convoluted, it's all a matter of convincing the gallery, really, we only play at objectivity on WP.) rudra (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I just saw your edits on Rajiv Malhotra. To clarify, Campbell is not an author of Race, Nation & Empire, he is one of the editors.  The book is a collection of essays.  Right now I'm wondering about the extent of overlap between Kurien's essay in this book and the material in her own book.  (Retreading one's material is an all too common nasty habit among modern academics.) rudra (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for this goof up, I will fix it up later. I think multiple confirmation can be achieved, for ex : or for instance this one (ironically found on WD's talk page) and possibly this one ( only saw tantalizing snippets ), this also. Sort of looks fine now, taking a break from editing this article... --TheMandarin (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sivalinga as phallus
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Sivalinga as phallus. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Sivalinga as phallus. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

REGARDING SARASWATI RIVER
hi mr rudra,i want to ask you that why you are deleting my reference in mahabharata in post vedic section of sarasvati river article,i have given true reference for them 1.Accoring to sabha parva of mahabharata(2.29.8) it is mentioned that "nakul conquered the sudra and abhir who lived at the bank of saraswati near sindhu(indus). 2.it is mentioned that "king matinar performed yagya(sacrifice)in Fire altars at the bank of saraswati river (Mhb 1.90.26). At Kalibangan which is along the dried up channel of Ghaggar-Hakra River,fire Vedi (altar)s have been discovered, similar to those found at Lothal which could have served no other purpose than a ritualistic one. (compare also with Yajurveda 34.11, D.S. Chauhan in Radhakrishna, B.P. and Merh, S.S. (editors): Vedic Saraswati, 1999, p.35-44) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.178.38 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

BIMARU
Thanks,i searched and found that article ,missed to changed dubious claims.thanks for doing that. Alokprasad (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

R1a page
For more or less technical reasons, I am on a Wikibreak for the next month or so. Until I can get my online resource archives back online I am reluctant to edit the article.PB666 yap 21:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

8,800 verses claim in "jaya"
there in nothing mention in mahabharata regarding this,the source that have you given does not tell about this.As i see in Kisari Mohan Ganguli version on scared texts "Vyasa executed the compilation of the Bharata, exclusive of the episodes originally in twenty-four thousand verses; and so much only is called by the learned as the Bharata. Afterwards, he composed an epitome in one hundred and fifty verses, consisting of the introduction with the chapter of contents. This he first taught to his son Suka; and afterwards he gave it to others of his disciples who were possessed of the same qualifications. After that he executed another compilation, consisting of six hundred thousand verses. Of those, thirty hundred thousand are known in the world of the Devas; fifteen hundred thousand in the world of the Pitris: fourteen hundred thousand among the Gandharvas, and one hundred thousand in the regions of mankind. Narada recited them to the Devas, Devala to the Pitris, and Suka published them to the Gandharvas, Yakshas, and Rakshasas: and in this world they were recited by Vaisampayana, one of the disciples of Vyasa, a man of just principles and the first among all those acquainted with the Vedas. Know that I, Sauti, have also repeated one hundred thousand verses".[1]there is no mentioning about jaya having 8800 verses in it. Now as u mention Mahabharata (shlokas 81, 101-102),then it is not present in Critical Edition of the Mahabharata by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune,most authentic version of mahabharata.However in gita press gorakhpur version A verse like this has been given,but its transalation given by you is wrong.Vyas actually said that there are 8800 secret verses out of 100,000 in mahabharata,which actual meaning is only known to him,sukha and sanjy.

can there is no answer to my question then what is the advantage of this discussion,i asked about jaya 8800 verse claim but no body answered,this shows a poor response activity from wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.35.192 (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

i watched the source that is mentioned now,in this source old version of mahabharata is used,there is no verse present in mahabharata that talk about 8800 verses claim in it,u can simply check it in any famous version like-Critical Edition of Mahabharata by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute[4]and SP Gupta and KS Ramachandran are not a very reknowned scholar the source which he have cited is also critical edition of bhandarkar institute,but i have 100 percent sure that no such claim has been done in Critical Edition of Mahabharata[5]. so i request you to remove this claim,or give me that verse claiming 8800 verse claim in any edition of mahabharata present now,i have already searched critical edition,ganguly edition,and also in wikipedia sanskrit text source.i am sure this verse is not present in any edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.54.72 (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please review Wikipedia policy on sources and the full Verifiability policy, especially the distinction between verifiability and truth. What the Mahabharata itself has is irrelevant, except when we quote directly from it.  This is because the Mahabharata is a primary source.  On Wikipedia, we  rely on what secondary and tertiary sources say about the Mahabharata.  The text in the Wikipedia article (apparently with a citation of ślokas in the MB) was an edit accident, a relic of an older version that was based on nonsense in one of Subhash Kak's books.  If you have a source which discusses the issue, please bring it up on the talk page. Meanwhile, you are wasting everyone's time, including your own, by focusing on what is or is not to be found in the Mahabharata.  Because, to repeat, that is not the point.  The point is what various experts have written about the MB, as that is what we base Wikipedia articles on. rudra (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thnks for your response,if u want secondry source then u can read a book "THE MAHABHARATA A CRITICISM" by C. V. VAIDYA, M.A., LL.B,--115.240.73.170 (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rudrasharman. In line with the parallel discussion going on on my talk page at User talk:Mitsube, can you give us the quote from the secondary source and let that be the end of it? Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Mitsube (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want a source that contadicts 8800 verse claim,then u can read J. L. Brockington book on sanskrit epic already given by Abecedare. --115.240.86.179 (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In newworld encyclopedia this caim has not been done however 24000 verses as a core portion is accepted.THey have also removed this 8800 verse claim.see ,i think if you want to keep this claim behalf of some secondry article,then you should represent it as "At least three redactions of the text are recognized by some scholars",instead of "At least three redactions of the text are recognized".so that everybody may understand it is a scholar opinion,not a true fact in mahabharata itself.it will resolve the whole discussion.because it is represented with the facts that are saying about claims present in mahabharata.And finally i will respect your decision.--115.240.69.242 (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What the New World Encyclopedia people (Unification Church of Rev. Moon) do with Wikipedia content is their own business. Please discuss this and other related matters on the Talk:Mahabharata page - spreading discussion over various talk pages is not useful.  Thank you. rudra (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

O.K. i was not aware of new encylopedia,i think it was by learned scholars from wikipedia,i will try to search some reliable articles regarding 8800 verse claim.i have created a user account on wikipedia on suggesion of Abecedare due to communication problem due to different ip adresses,because i work on a shared network.Thank you for your polite responce--Mayurasia (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi,rudra! i finally got source which contradicts 8800 verse claim,see Jhon Brockington contradicts it in his article,in this book whole topic is disscused that how some scholars misinterpeted 8800 verse as a sepereate 8800 verse version as "jaya".I think it is enough for now,because this source cleary shows 8800 verses as a misinterpetation by some poor indian scholars.I hope now it will not a problem to delete this misinterpeted information.Thank you--Mayurasia 11:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeated removal of significant views:discrimination against Women and Shudra in Manusmṛti
Afoul of neutral POV,- Disagree

[As per NPOV policy content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.]

Manusmriti’s most controversial part is discrimination against Women and Shudra, is a significant view (references given on main article).It is been burnt and condemned by different historians and social reformers all over Indai, It is considered source of gender and caste oppression in India which still exist.[1][2][3] [4] References published by reliable sources(including preview of online books by famous authors/historians) Section created under controversies and criticism, which indicates good faith in putting this most important controversial part.

NOT including this section or significant view as a part of controversy & repeated deletion of this section/view indicates bias towards showing good an Ad like page, which violates NPOV.

No original research policy not followed: Disagree

It is not an original research. Criticism mentioned can be find out in almost all books written on Manusmariti/Ancient Indian Society, womens, (some references given on main article).

No reliable sourcing:Disagree

References of online Books by famous authors/historians given,books can be read online.

Inappropriate use of primary sources:Disagrree

Only 1 primary source(website) has been mentioned, Other references are published books from famous authors/historians references available on main page.

In the same article if you go back and check some edits about (14:58, 21 December 2005) under section Criticism of Manu Smriti, you will find the same points, now deleted by you, already there. Some people (they are not wikipedians) want to write an Advertisement page on Manusmriti (like a series on Hinduism already mentioned), hiding most controversial parts/views.

Wiki reader shall be given an opportunity to know all about Manusmriti including controversial views Such type of excuses for deletion of content produce biased Ad page not a wiki page. --Jugal (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

a minor Frawley here
N. Gopalakrishnan--117.204.91.80 (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your revert
Hi friend. I was a bit surprised by you revert and comments here that the claims are cheap. I think you are refering to mention of Tirthankaras in Vedas. I have referenced it well, and while I dont expect every one to agree with it, but calling it cheap is not right. I would have thought that calling historical dates as traditional dates sounds cheap. Anyway I am not interested in reverting as I don't want to indulge in nationalist edit wars with anyone. Except that I will revert the traditional dates to historical dates. Thanks--Anish (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:REDFLAG. The scholarly consensus does not agree with your claims.  The mere fact that you found a book or two claiming things like "Rishabhadeva in the Rgveda" is not good enough. rudra (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Great. I admit that there are not many references on "Rishabhadeva in the Rgveda". So I decided to let the matters be. I also wanted to see whether you are really interested in "scholarly consensus" or were just one of those POV pushers. By reverting my edit on "historical dating" to "traditional" one (inspited of the fact that scholars agree on the historical dating of Mahavira, Buddha and Parsva) you have proved that you now want to push your own POV. Thanks for the confirmation.--Anish (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, scholars do not all agree completely on dating. However, there is consensus is in two major areas, that Mahavira was an older contemporary of Gautama Buddha, i.e. inferring the historicity of M from that of GB; and that Parsva is very likely to be historical rather than legendary, i.e. giving credence to the Jain tradition that M was a reformer rather than innovator and an adherent of P.  However, the traditional "dating" of P as "250 years" before M is exactly that: traditional, without a shred of historical evidence.  That is why we record Parsva's "date" as traditional rather than  historical.  250 years, in fact, seems to be a popular number in traditional legends, "safely" in the past. So it is with GB being about 250 years or so before the first council, and Zoroaster being about 250 years before Alexander, and so on.  And even if we accepted the 250 years legend, the current trend in scholarship dating GB to the early 4th BCE would put Parsva in the 7th BCE rather than the 9th (when, as a matter of fact, Benaras, where he was allegedly born, did not even exist).  So please give your antiquity frenzy a rest, thank you. rudra (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's quite an interesting research about 250 years that you seems to have done.--Anish (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. The section needs expanding, but we have to be careful about historical claims as opposed to those based on tradition, as well as about vague claims of "influence" which I'd rather leave out altogether (as it's hard to say what "influence" really means in factual terms). rudra (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

RS

 * I know you feel frustrated, but I think I need to let you know that the discussion is getting rather too close into WP:NPA territory. I see you know to avoid using the term "you", which is very good, but it is not necessary to answer every objection  (I've left a similar but considerably stronger comment elsewhere)   DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, of course. This is why I'm on Wikipedia. To be told my mental state, to be scolded for arguing and, as consolation, to be patted on the head. I really must come back for more lessons on how to be a good Wikipedian. rudra (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Experts are scum, rudra. You know that. Bad expert. --dab (𒁳) 15:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Me? C'mon, no! Actually, here is me being quoted (from here) on experts (note the distinction, lost of course, between "own judgment" and "own understanding", but I digress).  Anyway, if it isn't bullshit somewhere, it's condescension elsewhere: ultimately, WP is a lose-lose proposition. rudra (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * you know this isn't true, or you wouldn't bother. Unless, as has been suggested to me on various occasions by people obsessively fighting for inclusion of their petty nationalism, You Have No Life.
 * Wikipedia is actually a lose-win proposition, the editors lose and the project wins, in the long run. Thus, the only editors who end up winning are those who make the project aims their own. This is as it should be. --dab (𒁳) 08:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why I bother is still a mystery to me. But there's no question that editors lose. The issue is whether the project wins (or even can win).  I see no evidence of this.  In fact, the basis of the belief - that, essentially, WP is by and for generalists - is belied all over the project.  Subject matter specialists prevail simply because generalists are not motivated enough to be the anal retentive party-pooping wet blankets needed to enforce policy when and where a content coterie has decided otherwise.  In short, local consensus trumps global consensus, and encyclopedicity policies are paper tigers.  rudra (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Wendy Doniger
Was there ever any conclusion regarding the use of the Witzel listserv postings about Doniger's translations? I posted a link to a PDF by Witzel on the talk page where he makes a comment about her that you may find interesting. Buddhipriya (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Witzel PDF is excerpted from Enrica Garzilli (ed) Translating, Translations, Translators: From India to the West, Cambridge (Harvard OS, Opra Minora) 1996, p. 163-176. Reviewed here. rudra (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Doniger article is monitored by a die-hard fan of hers, who is well-known for stubborn POV-pushing. That's why everythng remains inconclusive. :-) rudra (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As usual you have made everything clear. The Garzilli book sounds interesting. Buddhipriya (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

These should work as formal citations, I guess. rudra (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(Apropos Nussbaum, this makes for interesting reading. This is the article, btw, that on the Talk:Wendy Doniger page I claimed someone almost surely did not read despite referencing it.) rudra (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Rudra on this point: "The Doniger article is monitored by a die-hard fan of hers, who is well-known for stubborn POV-pushing. That's why everythng remains inconclusive." That fan seems to equate any criticism of Doniger as Hinduvta, even where there may be legitimate criticism." But unless Rudra has found some, I have not found academic criticism of her. Raj2004 (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Rudra, thanks for sharing the link about Nussbaum. Although I have read Clash I have not followed any of the politics surrounding her. Buddhipriya (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The more I read about her, the more appalled I get. Whatever happened to old-fashioned scholarship (esp in American academia, and even more esp. in the humanities)?  rudra (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Old-fashioned scholarship never really made it to America (I live here). The very best American academics produce little that isn't pretentious and the main goal is appearing as "informed" as possible because American departments have traditionally not been "in the conversation". People busy trying to look knowledgable rarely have the capacity to produce scholarship. I have never seen or heard of anything of Doniger's that is remarkable. DinDraithou (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The "politics surrounding her" do bear looking into, I think. On p.3 of Invading the Sacred (Ch. 1, "Why this book is important"), there is a quote of Nussbaum.  The footnote points to this, where, as in the book, Nussbaum is quoted as saying, "Thinking about India is instructive to Americans, who in an age of terrorism can easily over-simplify pictures of the forces that threaten democracy,[...] In India, the threat to democratic ideals comes not from a Muslim threat, but from Hindu groups."  She said this in 2005.  Maybe she thinks it was Hindus who launched the 2001 attack on the Indian parliament?  This is just plain and simple obscene.  She is some piece of work. rudra (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your edits
Goethan removed your statement that her translation of the Rig Veda was hardly reviewed at all. Please see, []. I am not sure how you prove a negative, as you correctly pointed out!

Raj2004 (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He needs to salvage his pride, hence the pointy edits. We've seen worse trolling in this article. rudra (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello...
Hello there... I was a little busy so I could not reply in time... I clarified some of my points regarding Sharma et al in my talkpage and some points concerning both Sahoo et al and Sharma et al in the discussion forum. --Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Doniger
Rudra, thanks for the detailed critique on HAF's criticisms. They said they had more extensive criticisms in the letter, but only provided on the website a limited view of what they had criticized. Much appreciated. Raj2004 (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't realize until later that you had posted a link. (Looking at that list, it looks like they got 10.85.13 wrong: the killing of cattle is explicit in aghāsu hanyante gāvaḥ.) They should publish their full list. rudra (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you misinterpeted what I meant when I stated in Dab's talk page. I don't want to prove that she is a poor Sanskritist, just wanted to support you stating that Doniger has been questioned as a poor Sanskrit scholar to counter Geothan's assertion that she is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Raj2004 (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk page protection
I have protected you talk page for a few hours to keep some trolls away. Hope it's ok with you. Abecedare (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Though, I suppose I could have added the love letters to my atithi āpyāyana section. :-) rudra (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Once more. Figured you wouldn't have objection based on the above.&mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks again:-) Though as a rule I don't let such things bother me. rudra (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Dandekar article
On a completely different note: Do you have access to RN Dandekar's article Vishnu in the Vedas ? It has been published in his Vedic Mythological Tracts (and possibly other collections), but my library doesn't have a copy. Would like to take a look at it before I attempt reorganizing in In the Vedas section of Vishnu. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the book is at the NYPL, but the best I could do is xerox the pages. Let me see about other sources.  rudra (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't bother with xeroxing. I can always get the book on inter library loan (a painful process once one gets used to instantaneous electronic access ;-) ) Abecedare (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of xeroxing and then giving the scanner function of my all-in-one printer a workout :-). Meanwhile, I'm having trouble tracing other sources.  Do you know of any offhand? rudra (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * More sources where the Dandekar article has been published, or more sources for the Vishnu article ? Abecedare (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant the Dandekar article. rudra (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Snippets on Google books suggest that the article has been published in various other collections:, ... and also in Kane Comm. Vol. ?, pp. 95-111 (haven't heard of this journal). The article begins,   ... a search using parts of that quote yields a few more hits, eg, . Abecedare (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way: Kane Comm. = A Volume of studies in Indology: presented to Prof. P. V. Kane (1941). May well be where the article was originally published. Abecedare (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Kane Comm sounds like "(P.V.) Kane Commemoration Volume", and pp.95-111 suggests it's the same as the ref you've already found. (add: NYPL has this one too.) I guess someone could do us all a huge favor by making a PDF of this ;-) rudra (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Found it in my library too! Should get it next week. Sorry for the whole bother... but it proved to be useful. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! And, as usual, I am in awe of your research skills. :-) rudra (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Abecedare (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Iravan
Please see talk page for this article and comment on best citation form for this name. Like Hanumat, the root form is Irāvat and the nominative is Irāvān. Most academic sources I've checked index it using the root form, but I'm still looking for more examples. Also, how do you feel about transliteration in article titles in particular? Buddhipriya (talk) 07:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll defer to the discussion you and Abecedare had a while back, to which I have nothing to add:-) rudra (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments on Iravan. Would like to hear more suggestions for improvement, I am planning a FAC soon. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 11:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

WD edit
This text is even worse than the rest of the article - misattributing quotes, making gross generalizations, and quote-mining Ashok Malik's column (which is a critique of the online petition against WD) to make it appear that he is being critical of WD. Did you intend to retain it in the article, or should I remove it remove it till it's revised appropriately ? Abecedare (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't bother to check it, I simply removed it from the lede where it clearly didn't belong even if it did hold water. I put it in the Reception section on the theory that there may be something in it, but if it's as you say, by all means nuke it. rudra (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Double sorry, I didn't realize that you got to that edit before I did. My edit was supposed to be a move, but it wound up looking like a resurrection.  I've self-reverted. rudra (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I guessed that we had an edit-conflict, and it was not a deliberate revert. I was only wondering if you thought a move would be better than deletion. Aside: the whole history of the article being a magnet for Hindutva trolls, makes it so much more difficult to make it encyclopedic. Abecedare (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Doniger again
Hi, Rudra I added a book review critique. Please take a look. Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Goethan's removals
Goethan has removed this entire paragraph I wrote:

"However, her book, The Hindus: an alternative history is not without critics. Piali Roy, writing in the Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper, although stating that The Hindus is "quite a compilation, diverse and self-referential," and does a good job of tracking the influence of Buddhism and Jainism on the Vedic era, also states that Doniger admits herself that she is "not a historian." [18] For example, she slanted in her view towards northern India and emphasizes the South only with the bhakti movement, or new schools of thought in the 10th century. [19] Also her choice of historical figures is idiosyncratic; she highlights saints such as Kabir and Mirabai but ignores Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism who is just as pivotal. [20] Although Doniger should be commended for including Dalit voices and showing the variety of Hindu experiences, her attempts at inclusiveness is marred by a sloppy misreading of secondary sources and some overstretches of analysis. [21] For example, her suggestion that “the Vedic reverence for violence flowered in the slaughters that followed Partition,” near the end of the book, is such an exaggeration." This appears to be well-referenced What do you think? Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is a case of recentism. Close to 200 words on one book, when she has some 30 odd to her name?  Book reviews in the general press are good for nothing but quote farms.  Much better are summations and surveys, like essays in TLS, LRB or NYRB, where ranges of books are evaluated together; but these are very rare. rudra (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Great points, Rudra I knew that you would be fair. Yes, a lot for one book of hers. Ok, I agree to Goethan's removal then. The problem with Goethan is if you disagree with him, you're Hinduvta or from the fringe. Raj2004 (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, also, to my knowledge, I am very surprised that no academic scholar with the exception of Witzel has seriously questioned her scholarship. So we are left with criticism of Doniger from the fringe, which is innately suspect. Raj2004 (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Buddhipriya raised an important point that more than one area is involved in terms of content. For her Sanskrit, except for the ridiculous Culianu puff job, the reception has been negative.  For her Hindu mythology stuff, the reception has been "favorable", the only problem being that the evaluations have been more literary than source-critical (i.e. more concerned with the stories she has to tell than whether she got the details right) but this is typical for the yak-intensive nature of the field.  The social impact (i.e. the Hinduism studies controversy) belongs in  separate article - Doniger is not the only player here -  with only a passing mention in the BLP, I think. rudra (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Negative on Sanskrit: Witzel thrice, Bodewitz, Houben (EJVS, mentioned in the thread on WP:RSN), and Invading the Sacred has another reference (see this thread) which will need to be verified but is quite scathing. rudra (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You and Buddhipriya are absolutely right. Thanks for referring me to these links. A professor of literature can't evaluate a professor of religion nor can a professor of physics evaluate a professor of biology. That's the problem Goethan does not understand. And finding well-referenced sources (i.e., by people who know what they are talking about, instead of the kooks) seems to be difficult in this field. Raj2004 (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I just posted a suggestion at the article talkpage highlighting the post by Buddhipriya that Rudra referenced above. I share Rudra's views on the reviews WD has received in different circles, except that I think her role as a lightning rod among Hindu activists is worth mentioning in her bio, although extended discussion of the larger phenomenon is rightly detailed elsewhere. Abecedare (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

WD essay
Thanks for directing me to the WD essay. I found it quite revealing (personally, not necessarily in terms that can be cited on wikipedia). Two specific notes: "'James Redfield once remarked, accurately if ungenerously, that I had Loeb Greek: I was only confident of the Greek if English was there on the opposite page. Dr Jonson may have also damned me, ..., with the accusation that I got Greek from the meaning and not the meaning from the Greek.'" "'I had always chosen topics that moved me, and I had always informed my philology with my tastes and opinions; indeed, this was one of the factors that Sankritsist had held against me.'" Abecedare (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Witzel's remarks about retranslations and comment that, "... Wendy Doniger prefers ... a "hip" translation such as "he had sex." We simply can translate "he has come together" -- just as the Sanskrit says ..." seems to be directly analogous to these two critiques of her Greek.
 * That is the single best summary I have seen of the subject, and shows admirable self-awareness. This approach unsurprisingly drives Witzel nuts, but at least she is straightforward enough to say that that she is "interested primarily in the stories", and (IMO) comparative patterns, and themes guided by her understanding of human psychology, sex and gender studies, and anthropology (on the lines of Claude Levi-Strauss or Joseph Campbell).


 * Yes, she's aware that she isn't a "real Sanskritist" (her italics). But admissions like that put the philological value of her translations in serious doubt, to say the least.  Yes, she's a marvelous story-teller, but does that make her a good translator/Sanskitist?    This kind of thing happens again and again with her stuff.  Consider the example I ran across a while back and wrote up.  The audience reading those books on Freudian bafflegab will typically not know even a syllable of Sanskrit.  What has Doniger told them about the Brhaddevata?  (Actually, her audience may not care, or may actually be happy to have such "proofs" of their theories, enough to write gushing reviews even.)  When there are so many examples of such cavalier disregard (to use Witzel's phrase) for source-critical accuracy, to call her a Sanskritist is a disgrace.
 * The point is that all of this is known to anyone who knows anything about the field, and about Doniger's work. Writing this up neutrally in the BLP is not that difficult either.  Our problem is an ignorant editor who thinks the way to "defend" Doniger against attacks is to distort her BLP into "refuting" those attacks, i.e. not to write a BLP but a pre-emptively troll-proofed hagiography.  I really think we should just ignore him from now on in. rudra (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Putting the question of labels (on which we differ) aside... as I see it WD's translations being interpretive is just a descriptive fact, and not even really a criticism, given that she doesn't aim for philological exactitude. Whatever we may may think of them (I'll keep my opinions off-wiki), her writings and translations are in the well-accepted 20th c academic tradition of feminist, Marxist, Freudian, LGBT etc readings of classical works. We, or others, are free or like to question such translations, but to deny their nature is not justifiable.
 * Coming to the wikipedia article: Your last suggestion would work if that was the only problem with the article. However, if you look at the article history, there have been attempts from the "other side" to turn it into a hit-piece rather than an honest description of WD's work, methods and standing (ironically, many of her non-scholarly critics are themselves guilty of selective and POV driven translations, quotations, and, analysis). Since the article currently has the attention of some informed, neutral editors, it may be best to just bite the bullet, spend some time, and write up a comprehensive and balanced reception section - instead of having to deal with this every few weeks.
 * By the way, have you seen any reviews for her Greek translations, or comparative mythology work ? The latter seems to form the bulk of her writings since the 80s. I'll try and survey the literature later this week (to be frank, I am not really interested in the subject, but since I am anyways spending time on the issue, may as well see some lasting results for the effort). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You hit the nail on the head there. Principally, she is not a translator: she is an interpreter. A proper description of her work would bring this out clearly, and really need not be controversial.  The problems arise from trying to portray her as a source-critical scholar, which she, even by her own admission, is not.  (The whole business of "Sanskritist" in the lede was an example of the distortion: she is first and foremost a mythologist, and that's the fact that shouldn't be lost in all the labeling.)
 * I know very little about the Greek translations. My understanding is that she was the junior partner (Grene being a Greek specialist), so maybe it's no loss if we can't find anything.
 * I agree that we should bite the bullet. And perhaps more.  It may actually be best to integrate "Reception"  with a high-level survey of her work.  That would allow a structuring into different categories, subjects, etc. rudra (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with your suggestion to expand reception into a higer-level survey, which simultaneously describes her approach, and others critiques. The WD essay has some details of who influenced her work in different fields, and that is something the article should contain. Best to start compiling the relevant sources (possibly in userspace) - we have a lot of leads, but they are scattered all over the place. I'll take a few days to catch up with the literature and then take a stab (sorry for the mixed metaphors) at it on the article talk page. Abecedare (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest that we insist on a cease fire in article space while Abecedare's strategy of wordsmithing a consensus statement can be carried out on the talk page. We also must insist on civility, using our own words as the model.  I think the "bite the bullet" moment is upon us to pick a very short section of the article that can be accomplished fairly quickly as a proof that the method can work and to build a sense of positive momentum rather than negativity. Speaking of storytelling, I have updated the "thought for the day" at the top of my user page with a story of the birds and the net from the Pancatantra.  That story sums up how I wish we could proceed.  Buddhipriya (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can vividly recall the illustrations I have seen accompanying that story. ;-) Abecedare (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also this. Abecedare (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You might find it easier to expand Ek Chidiya, no excess discussions required :) &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I liked this in the comments: "video﻿ ek, comments anek". :-) rudra (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Apropos the (comparative) mythology, I've been drawing a blank, except for one lead that is actually quite a pain to investigate: Sunthar Visuvalingam's site, e.g. this section. There's probably useful stuff in there, but buried under tons of irrelevant material. rudra (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Kelly find appears to on the topic (haven't yet to read it through). Will search a bit more over the next day.
 * Aside: Banerjee writes cogently, but she hurt her credibility with me, when she blurbed Malhotra as a, "renowned intellectual on Hinduism and traditional Indian culture; prolific author of scholarly studies on academic Hinduism programs at leading US universities; ...". Same puffery and mutual back-scratching they accuse "Wendy's children" of. Hardly any intellectually honest voices in this whole milieu. Abecedare (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

RSN
Hi Rudra, saw your question at the RSN, just wanted to point out a couple of things: For the witzel episode, there is a article available in outlook which discusses it and more reliable(?) than "Chapati mystery". Also another related article. --TheMandarin (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tracking them down, I'm aware of those :-) Here, I'm only interested in the admissibility of the chapatimystery posts.  To the world at large, e.g., Doniger has defended herself (at least partially); the point is: are we allowed to recognize this on WP? rudra (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Elpehanta Caves svg
Carmel Berkson is more notable. Don Handelman, David Dean Shulman does a mistake while copying the image from Berkson. Don Handelman, David Dean Shulman say that "First published in Carmel Berkson...." I have been to Elephanta, will check. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 10:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! rudra (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Berkson map is right, also tallies with File:Elephanta-Lageplan.pdf. On another note, I request you to go through Iravan and suggest improvements for a FA. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 10:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Malhotra
Thanks for pointing out. Since Malhotra posted his comments on Witzel on a weblog, I was not sure if his comments were accurate.

Raj2004 (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Goethan
Rudra, I feel sorry that you and Goethan are shouting at each other? Is there any way Dab or Abcedere can mediate this dispute?

Raj2004 (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute. Goethean is a long term problem editor.  He is finally losing it altogether and turning into a troll.  There is something about the Hindu/Hinduism/Hindutva complex that disturbs him very deeply.  He needs help. rudra (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he seems to take even mild criticism very harshly and seems paranoid. He is even accusing Buddhipriya of taking your side: [] Buddipriya is a fair-minded editor like Abcedere so I am surprised at his accusation. Raj2004 (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A very big sorry rudrasharman,i have looked original face of goethean,i consider him a innocent person and thought you all are disturbing and forcing him,but as he gave me sockpuppetry award due to reason that i started supporting u guys,i shocked then.he as been also harrashed by many admins as i see.do we have no solution of him--Vedvyasa (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Destructive behavior is counterproductive. The best plan usually is to take a break and cool down.  rudra (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Vedvyasa, are you the great grandson of Okhil Chandra Sen?17:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.80.11 (talk)

HAF and Doniger's reply
Aseem Shukla, board member of Hindu American Foundation, published a critique on Doniger in the Washington Post and Doniger replied; see, http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/aseem_shukla/2010/03/whose_history_is_it_anyways.html

Raj2004 (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I also posted this in the Talk section of Wendy Doniger so everyone can freely view and comment.

Raj2004 (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Goethean in Washington Blog
Goethean is so obsessed with Doniger that he/she even wrote a comment on Shukla's blog.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/aseem_shukla/2010/03/whose_history_is_it_anyways.html

Raj2004 (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Listserv and Witzel
Goethean and Shii are commentating on the list serv reference at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wendy_Doniger#Remaining_NPOV_issues

Raj2004 (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Corn in Rig Veda
The Hinduism article cites this from the Rig Veda: "I am a bard, my father is a physician, my mother's job is to grind the corn." (Rig Veda 9.112.3) Corn is a New World crop that was not known in India in the Vedic times, so it appears to be a mistranslation. Do you know the correct translation?

Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conflicting_Wikipedia_philosophies

Cc Adi 8.38: ‘Chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala, he immediately becomes a great devotee. Cc Adi 8.40: Vrindavana-dasa-pade koti namaskara aiche grantha kari’ tenho tarila samsara I offer millions of obeisances unto the lotus feet of Vrindavana dasa Thakura. No one else could write such a wonderful book for the deliverance of all fallen souls.

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Antya 3.255 e-vanyāya ye nā bhāse, sei jīva chāra koṭi-kalpe kabhu tāra nāhika nistāra SYNONYMS e-vanyāya — in this inundation; ye — anyone who; nā bhāse — does not float; sei — that; jīva — living entity; chāra — most condemned; koṭi-kalpe — in millions of kalpas; kabhu — at any time; tāra — his; nāhika — there is not; nistāra — deliverance. TRANSLATION "Anyone who does not float in this inundation is most condemned. Such a person cannot be delivered for millions of kalpas. PURPORT The kalpa is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā (8.17): sahasra-yuga-paryantam ahar yad brahmaṇo viduḥ. One day of Brahmā is called a kalpa. A yuga, or mahā-yuga, consists of 4,320,000 years, and one thousand such mahā-yugas constitute one kalpa. The author of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta says that if one does not take advantage of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he cannot be delivered for millions of such kalpas.

The Vaikuntha planets begin 26,200,000 yojanas (209,600,000 miles) above Satyaloka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.125.35 (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Gita Talk
If you have some time, you can have a look here. Is it a conclusion of any consensus that a Hare Krishna person(!) can not edit Gita article? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 05:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Systems' Approach (astrology) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Systems' Approach (astrology) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Systems' Approach (astrology) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of V. Raghavan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article V. Raghavan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/V. Raghavan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dexxtrall (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)