User talk:Rudrasharman/Archive 1

ŚBM vs ŚB
fair enough, I'll put it back, sorry. dab (𒁳) 09:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Vedic texts
Rudrasharman, as a Hindu Sanskritist from India, I have noticed with admiration your skill in modern linguistics, and your ability to mention 'vajree' in the mantra and quote from Vedic grammar and show that the sutra used a compound word. I respect you. Rudra, my friend, if you chose to share the scholarly disposition of American scholars like Mark Twain, Christopher Isherwood, Arthur W. Ryder, and Robert P. Goldman, you might help understand the obscured texts of the Vedas. Even for Indian scholars, including me, the Vedas have been a hard nut to crack.Kanchanamala 00:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

more explations on IAT referene issue
This is to provide more explanations. I generally keep my post to small size, but it seems it might be better to explain from scratch.

One group of scholars in Bryant’s “Indigenous Aryanism” is arguing for PIE homeland in Indian subcontinent and migration out of India, this group is Out of India (OIT). The scholars arguing this position are Talageri, SS Mishra, K Elst, N Kazanas et. all. This group believes in linguistic and to some extent argues on linguistic grounds in addition to other arguments.

Another group of scholars argue that there is no link with PIE or Sanskrit is PIE and they argue Indo-Aryan speakers or Vedic have always been indigenous to Indian subcontinent. The commonly used name for this group is Proto Vedic Continuity (PVC). The scholars in this group are NS Rajaram, D Frawley, S. Kalyanaraman, S Knapp to name few. This group calls linguistic a pseudo-science and mostly argues based on other material (vedic, mathematic, astrology etc). If IAT is same as this group then why are we creating a new name? PVC is coined by these scholars (here []) to call their theory and we should use same name.

These are two big groups that are arguing against Aryan migration/invasion. If we want to create another group of IAT, we should be able to name few scholars who have argued this position. If we can not identify any scholars who have argued along these lines then this is original research and should not be on WP. It might look like a convenient argument, but it you think this through; you will find that on linguistic grounds it can not work. Mainstream schloarship can not argue for earlier presence in Indian subcontinent of Indo-Aryan speakers. If you want to know why, please let me know.

It should also clarify if these scholars believe in linguistic or not. If they believe in linguistic how is this group different from OIT. If they do not believe in linguistic how is this group different from PVC.

This discussion has been going on since December middle (here []) and other editors have objected to split of this IAT. Please also see discussion at []. I see this as unnecessary split/forking and original research.Sbhushan 14:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Coined by scholars? You slay me.  rudra 12:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * coined by these scholars, no less :) still, we should mention the term on indigenous Aryans, since it is of course part of the same propaganda machine. I can understand that people who grew up hearing nothing but this are surprised when they come to Wikipedia and see how things really stand; what defeats me is that they keep trying to salvage their childhood wisdom of propaganda even after they have seen that reality is different. All information they need for a rational reassessment of their preconceptions is right here on Wikipedia, but your typical propaganda victim doesn't want that, they want to "make" true what they already "know" to be true. It would be charming if it wasn't so sad. dab (𒁳) 13:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It could actually be worse than that: propaganda absorbed not in childhood but in adulthood. I can't help noting that many of these enthusiastic myth-pushers have a "science" background.  The stereotype is an IIT graduate, now either in grad school in the West or into the work force in some more or less "tech" field.  Their last encounter with "humanities" subjects like history, in an academic environment, was when they were about 13-14 years old, at which time they took up the "science stream" in high school.  And, of course, their academic exposure to forensic sciences like archeology, philology and linguistics is zero.  They simply don't have the background in methodology needed to grasp the various materials in proper context, yet they proceed with gay abandon to cherry-pick quotes  of academic/expert opinion, as if they were established facts, and gather them into incoherent screeds.  (I love how they triumphantly trot out "many evidences" - the plural being a signature meme of this pathetic genre of pseudo-pānditya.) Not to mention applying the term "scholar" to Rajaram, Frawley, Kalyanaraman or Knapp.  It's all of a piece, and profoundly depressing.  rudra 01:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Lest I be misunderstood: when I said that they don't have the requisite background, I didn't mean that they couldn't acquire it, just that they all too clearly haven't, yet.  Whether they ever will is an open issue.  rudra 01:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * yes, I was saddened to find that some of Wikipedia's major "Aryan trolls" work as physicists at an American university. They are typically in their twenties, mostly "American-Born Confused Desi", with a capital C in "Confused". While we could excuse teenage zeal, people with an education in scientific method (at least of the engineering variety) cannot claim such innocence. They do know better, and I put much of their aggression down to secretly knowing that they are pushing bullshit. At what point does patriotism induce you to switch off your brain, I could never understand. Subhash Kak is something like the archetype of this sort of affliction. The phenomenon is closely related to crankery in general: obviously intelligent people unable to use their intelligence to review their basic axioms, using all their ingenuity for building a ludicrous edifice based on flawed principles. They cannot be helped, I suppose, but we need better ways to effectively protect Wikipedia from them. dab (𒁳) 11:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A welcome from Noble Eagle
Hi,, Welcome  to Wikipedia! Hello, bonjour, namaste, konichiwa, shalom, hola, salve, sala'am, bonjourno, and hi! I'm Noble Eagle. Seeing as you are a new user on wikipedia and/or do not have any messages on your talk page and/or are making good contributions through your IP Address, I just thought I'd pop in and give you a handful of links that should help you be a better Wikipedian.

Though we all make small insignificant mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not, but if you want it in a nutshell, it's an encyclopaedia that counts on facts. It is the wish of most of us Wikipedians that Wikipedia become the greatest source of factual information on the internet, you can be part of that. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you. Here are a few links to get you started:


 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments. You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary
 * And remember:


 * Be Bold!,
 * New Users Don't Bite, and please don't bite them,
 * Learn from your mistakes,
 * Be nice and show etiquette, and
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!.


 * If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
 * If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.


 * P.S. I'm happy to help new users. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)
 * P.P.S. Remember, if you know any facts, just add it! Don't hesitate!
 * P.P.P.S. Don't forget to customize your userpage, check out all the different Userboxes.


 * Oh um...sorry about that...I didn't realise because I hadn't seen you much before.  — N o b l e e a g l e   [TALK]  [C] 02:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nirukta
Namaste. I have made a few edits to the Nirukta article and have been advised that you may be a good person to ask to go over it. If you can assist in improving it in any way please feel free to correct it as needed. Buddhipriya 08:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for formal mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Indigenous Aryans, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.Sbhushan 14:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 20:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

arbitration
Why don't you provide what evidence you can at Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Evidence? CiteCop 04:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism origin
Can you weigh in on this discussion (and its precursor) ? The question is basically, whether "Hinduism originated on the Indian subcontinent" is correct, or whether there is support for saying that it originated in the Arctics. I'll also ask Dab for his opinion. Thanks. Abecedare 22:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Rv
Did you bother reading Talk page on Hidutva Propaganda? If you revert again without replying on talk page I will take it as Vandalism and revert it. As you should know, 3RR can be violated in case of reverting Vandalism. Bad english can be corrected. Reverting well formatted article without reasoning is Vandalism. Again, I have no intention to edit war so please dont revert me.--Scheibenzahl 19:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"piecemeal edits have a better chance than an omnibus whopper, because no one is here to clean up after you" Please assume AGF and no, I am going nowhere.--Scheibenzahl 19:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please learn that sweeping changes in a single edit are a very bad idea. It is much more constructive and cooperative to make a series of smaller changes, so that each change can be grasped in its entirety by others.  You are forcing an "all or none" response with your approach, so you should think twice before threatening 3RR consequences.  rudra 19:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And, in my experience, those quick to whip out the AGF defence doth protest too much. rudra 20:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Care to show me where does it say that one must change in "bits and pieces"? I removed no quoted article. And PLEASE care to show me where did I change massively? Did you even read the changes I made? I added citation templates to unquoted sentences, and removed blatant POV words, replaced (Witzel 2006:399) said cquote bla bla with bla bla ref name=witzel06, went through almost all the articles and quotations, and you reverted me for OMG not ALL hindutva are pseudosomething!!111!! and Bad english in the first paragraph? Are you in Amsterdam? With your thoughtless summary and not a slight interest in article's talk page, you should thank yourself for \me assuming good faith, which is now impossible for me. You deserved a NPA warning while I called you for discussion. And I have least interest in your experiences, because my experience is that those who generalize too much are the least reasonable people. Thanks for having this fruitful talk, now I know you are not interested in creating good articles, or appreciating hard work. Please stay away from my talk page in future. I will do the same. Thanks for understanding.--Scheibenzahl 21:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh. As you wish.  Too bad I can't plonk you.  rudra 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to know what part in my edit is "counterweasling". Thanks.--Scheibenzahl 19:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Statements like this: "Scholarship associated with Hindutva movement or in agreement to Hindutva claims are generally associated with Hidutva propaganda." Never mind the bad English, this completely misrepresents the thrust of the paragraph you're replacing.  The subject is propaganda, not scholarship.  The possibility (not to mention existence) of genuine scholarship is not precluded by the paragraph you've removed, but is in your replacement.  IOW, you have characterised the response to propaganda unfairly, suggesting that all Hindutva literature of any kind is dismissed summarily.  It could be, but the article has not claimed that until you came along with your changes.  rudra 20:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, when I edited the article, it was Scholarship. If you don't know, the article was moved there, and then moved back. It is not my fault and definitely not a reason to revert. Please see the rules for reverting. It says that one should not revert blindly or for meager reasons because it accuses the previous editor of bad faith. So please do NOT revert. I looked into the article for bad english and I am editing it right now. Please re-revert, otherwise it will look like I am violating 3RR which is clearly not my intention. I will address you issues more clearly, so edit the article. Once again, bad english can be corrected.
 * Please don't scrounge for excuses. I said thrust of the paragraph.  rudra 20:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have an entry on Talk page of the article. Please reply there.--Scheibenzahl 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

On a second thought, I will keep your favourite edition. One should decide first whether the article is Propaganda, pseudosciene, or what?--Scheibenzahl 20:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

the article cites tenured professors of Indology for the content side (Parpola couldn't be much clearer), and major academic publications (Routledge, Rutgers) on the socio-political side. It is only fair to ask that any assessment of the opinions of the scholars cited come from similarly notable sources. dab (𒁳) 09:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hindutva Propaganda AfD
Hi. Would you care to comment on this timeline? Or should I have used a sock to ask this question, as someone imagines would be my wont? rudra 18:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just passed by that street and I do not feel like commenting as the debate has become emotionally over-charged. --Bhadani (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it fair to assume that you have taken to incivility and insulting behavior towards other editors, given your sarcasm and insulting insinuations about the integrity of others, including Bhadaniji and me? Should I use civil here as a friendly warning? You may dwell within your conspiracy theories as far as you like. Yes, this AfD has attracted the wrong kind of attention. But you'd be wiser to let it run its course b'coz some decent editors (like me) are interested in the "debate," no matter how farcical it may seem to you. Rama's arrow  20:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Rama's arrow, I am prepared to admit that I have come to expect the worst of "pro-Hindutva" editors, and that sometimes I fail to assume good faith. This has a history. It is not a prejudice, but a result of one of the worst trolling campaigns on Wikipedia. I would therefore expect you to admit in return that there has been much bad faith editing on behalf of the "Hindutva" pov, and that it is time for good faith editors of similar persuasions to ostensibly distance themselves from the trolls in order to maintain credibility, in the interest of getting their viewpoint represented in fairness. As it is, I have become so suspicious of any "pro-Hindutva" pov pushing that it is well possible that in some cases, I end up overly sympathetic with the anti-Hindutva side. This is exclusively a result of the despicable behaviour of pro-Hindutva editors on Wikipedia, since I have had no prior exposure to the topic at all. If you want to redeem the validity of your approach, you need to distance youself from the trolls, not attack rudra because he has become sarcastic over the blatant bad faith so prevalent in many other editors. Avoiding to assume guilt by association would be the right thing to do, no doubt, but any good faith pro-Hindutva editors that may be left have been clearly disadvantaged by the dishonesty of the fools in their camp, and will make an extra effort to be perceived as constructive. On Wikipedia as in real life, trolling always harms your own cause. dab (𒁳) 15:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, this will not do. You're putting RA on the spot, exactly where he does not want to be.  rudra 23:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dab, Rudra was sarcastic and rude to me and Bhadani - there is no justification for this. I have no other beef with him. Rudra may believe his conspiracy theories but my complaint is with his desire to insult others who wanted to have that debate. If he honestly wished to discuss anything with me, he never tried. And you, Rudra, I am in absolutely no mood to accept any slights to my integrity from you. You are obligated by WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA to comment on content, not contributor and you are requested to adhere to that standard. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  20:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * true. if every editor around here adhered to such standards, there would have been no AfD, no revert-wars, no sock-orgies, no vandalism. I am not saying you are to blame for any of this, I am saying, if you want to remind people to respect policy, you would do well to begin with the trolling brigade who is responsible for this fiasco. Rudra is an excellent editor with valuable background knowledge, and it is a shame that he or anyone should have to put up with the sort of nonsense we are getting from the HinduCivilization people. To brush all this blatant disruption aside with "conspiracy theory" is disingenious. We all know the score, and we have different ways of reacting. Sarcasm isn't the worst of these. If you were hit by some undeserved irony, it was maybe because you were standing too close to the tag-team it was intended for. dab (𒁳) 20:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have my own opinions and judgments - I am sorry if you feel I was close to a "tag-team" but I said/did what I thought. Rudra may be a good contributor as you say, but I already told you that I have no beef with him save on this case of rudeness. For that, Rudra got what he deserved from me. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  20:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I note your hypersensitivity. But, I'm sorry, your righteous indignation doesn't impress me at all.   In my book, words run a very poor second to deeds. And, respect has to be earned. rudra 00:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, RA: If I saw you in the trenches more, reverting the socks and the BS, I would be more impressed with your principles, as opposed to with an occasional statement that you deplore all the trolling, but basically you stand by as Rudra and I and others are continually abused, trolled and libelled, but God forbid someone make a sarcastic comment in your direction. If I see you policing the socks and trolls on the Hindutva side, I may have more sympathy if you have a complaint of your own. As it is, you are smugly observing us toiling in the mud, and are utterly scandalized as soon as a droplet spills onto your clean shirt. dab (𒁳) 09:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hindutva Revert and my reasoning
Dear Rudra, it’s true you mentioned that article “Hindutva” is all about “Hindutva”, then why should it include the definition about HINDU and his Patriotism? Just wanted to let you know that Hindu is a religion and Hindutva is an idealogy and the statement "Hindus are those who consider India (Bharat) to be their fatherland (pitribhumi) as well as their holyland (punyabhumi) (definition as proposed by Savarkar)” represent that other religions of India does consider India as their mother land and sacred!. Either delete this statement or also include patriotism of others religions too. With Love John Paul 05:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to have an incorrect impression of Wikipedia in general, and this article in particular. This is about verifiable information, not about "truth".  Is it a verifiable fact that the patriotism of "non-Hindus" is  a central concept of Hindutva?  No?  That's why the truth value of your edit doesn't matter here.  rudra 12:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Great Rudra, How do you benchmark and seal the patriotism of Hindu? Majority of American poplution is Christains, what if they start "AMERICATVA" idealogy and question the patriotism of "Indian origin USA Citizens", hence you can't compare a single society or religion with entire nation to perceive other's in negative side. You know the contents I am contriubuting to this article are very much verifiable, its seem to me that you don't want any one on earth to change this articles. Please respect other editors and thier contribution to make reader feel that contents of article are not biased. with love John Paul 06:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Page protectionism and Ganging up
It seems controversy follows you, dab, and others (that your are in cahoots with) seeing as you all are supporting each other in various ways that compromise your neutrality with baseless claims, and twisting facts. It's a Theory first of all, and has not been proven. If you look in the dictionary for the terms "theory" and "hypothesis", a theory is a hypothesis in other words. There are countless sources on Google if you put in any/all of the words Hypothesis + Aryan + invasion + theory/or migration or AIT. Your acting as page-protectors, and are out of steam unless you can site appropriate sources.

Cosmos416 03:56, 06 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Cosmos416. Dab and Rudra ganged up with each other on Dec 2007 when I was trying to point out a reliability of a reference (a self-published article of Witzel) in Indus Valley Civilisation Historical context and my concern was totally dismissed. vcpk (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * one link, WP:UNDUE. dab (𒁳) 14:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Himalayan Academy material
Namaste Rudrasharman!

I am Natha, a member of Himalayan Academy Publications. I saw you are helping Anantashakti with proper Wikipedia policies. Thank you, it's hard to learn them all without help. I'd like to share with you some information I explained to Buddhipriya:

I am an individual who is mostly making proper donations of Hindu Art to Wikimedia through my user account. Anantashakti, out her love for Hinduism, has decided to contribute material from Hinduism Today Magazine to Wikipedia; but actually any content from that magazine of from the publications here can be uploaded, and I'll be happy to notify Wikimedia of the copyright grants. It's a very big resource, made by Hindus, endorsed by swamis and sadhus and followers of the religion worldwide (opinions). It is valuable as a view from the inside, to be compared and complemented by the academic view.

There is a strong line diving editorial policies that apply to our books by Subramuniyaswami and that of Hinduism Today. While the books are specific about the opinions of Saiva Siddhanta Hinduism, the magazine has been working for years to present Hinduism in a broad, objective non-sectarian view that may contribute more to Wikipedia's NPV standards.

As for the "decorative" aspect of the images, we agree: Wikipedia is not here to be decorated. Those images, however, are what Hindus of the world are producing nowadays in their devotional art, hence they are relevant. They are also used in Hindu books, Hinduism Today magazine and by scholarly authors such as Dr. David_Frawley. They are a valid portrait of Hindu imagery.

We hope it helps. Thank you so much. Natha 20:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I found it interesting to see a quotation from the Himalayan Academy coming up to source the discussion about sacred dance.  I came upon the sacred dance addition of content while doing a series of reverts on unsourced changes by User:Mahayogini who had been making quite a lot of edits, and her promotional page is now in RfD []. You may want to take a look at her edit trail.  The dance edit was made as part of a general promotional round, as far as I can see. I generally follow a one-revert rule, or sometimes two at most, and so if you can place a few of her pages on your watch list you may see further problems with sourcing. FYI, I just checked Apte and MW and they do not support the inclusion of dance under Gandharvaveda, instead connecting it just to music on first glance, connected to the root idea of the Celestial Musicians.  I will try to check citations later, but the root scripture for dance is natyashastra from the root naṭ-, with naṭyam being the key term. Dance and music certainly do go together, but the citation problem is that we still do not have a WP:RS for inclusion of dance, though in popular usage it may go together.  This is the general fringe definitional issue we discussed earlier. I will try again to cite these things another day, but I have had a number of exchanges with the editor who is raising these points, and I have not yet found the right approach to work with him.  I mention this in hopes that you will provide some moderating influence. Buddhipriya 05:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, an interesting muddle. Re: gandharvaveda, AFAIK, there is no specific text by that name.  So it's a free-for-all as to what's in it:-)  And "music and the arts" is too vague, as that could allow 64 such arts!  But, I agree, "traditional" understandings are strong here, so on balance I'd allow "dance" in the interest of avoiding protracted contention.  rudra 05:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your approach is right, but forgetting this particular situation, what would you do with a web reference to a page of content from the Himalayan Academy that cites no reliable sources? Where this is going is, would we consider the Himalaysn Academy (or Hinduism Today magazine) a reliable source? See this statement that it would be reliable source inherently.  I am not asking this to undermine the dance issue, which we can cite some other way if need be.  I'm trying to understand how you would look at a web page citation using this one as a sample.  Buddhipriya 06:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it hinges on what the reference is supporting in each case. I'd treat Hinduism Today as I would any other (focus group) magazine: not a reliable source for definitions or subjects outside its own control.  (That is, we can source them for claims about themselves, but not for claims regarding anything else.)  As such, I don't think 15,000 hits the notability cutoff, so if HT is used as the only source of "further information" on someone, I'd suspect a puffjob.  rudra 06:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A fair amount of caution always helps. We from Hinduism Today are very aware of the (obviously) Hindu-oriented points of view of our publication, and offer our content not as necessarily the encyclopedic perspective - though it will be perfecly accutate more often than not - but mostly as a view from Hindus. Take the case of L'Osservatore Romano, for example: it is a reliable source for opinions of the Catholic Church (it is factual that the Church endorses what is published there) but a biased source otherwise. It is within these terms that we are open to donate any material of what we have researched in interviews, travels, articles and researches over many years. User: Anantashakti will work on any material to make it encyclopedic, while keeping the valuable research that the Hinduism Today and Himalayan Academy staff made. Natha 19:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Argumentative Indian
FYI I have given a final warning for the blanking that has been going on on that page. Would you please take a look this user and see if there are further violations? Not very many editors have been watching this page. 

Also, I cannot find a Wiki article for the new book The Clash Within by Martha Nussbaum. ISBN 0-674-02482-6. It covers a number of the issues that come up often in some of the disputes. I am surprised that I have not yet seen it being used as a WP:RS. Buddhipriya 07:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what's going on here. The passage "Although nicely written, and with many points of interest, there is a thinness [in the book] and superficiality about the whole that displeases" (last sentence of paragraph 4) occurs before "Sen's history is weak. He chooses his examples to suit his present purpose without apparent awareness of their historical context" (first two sentences of paragraph 6) in the review.  Either the three passages should be rearranged, or the middle passage should be removed.  As it stands, it is a misquotation. rudra 11:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * not to mention the blatant cherry picking, such as carefully leaving out Johnson's matter-of-fact recognition of the merits of fighting the evils of "Indian chauvinism" (of which we get our fair share on Wikipedia). The historical criticism is certainly fair, but it is better to summarize the gist of critic in two sentences than to present two paragraphs of verbatim quotation carefully hand-picked to only reflect one side of a two-sided argument. dab (𒁳) 13:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand what the debate is about either. I got involved only when an anonymous IP user began disrupting what appeared to be a sourced reference.  The review is online, so perhaps choosing another example of a historical error would do the same job.  Why don't you both see if you can find a quote that you like?  I just bought a copy of The Argumentative Indian since it was mentioned in the article but I have not read it yet. By the way, the Himilayan Academy is beginning to be used as a source on Ganesha and I have posted an objection to it as a WP:RS on the talk page for that article, citing the Lemurian Scrolls example.  I also am seeing the pictures coming up on pages like Reincarnation.  I mention this just to keep a general awareness of this issue.  Nussbaum tackles the pseudoscience issue directly in her new book, e.g., an appraisal of B. B. Lal on p. 221.  I am surprised that The Clash Within is not coming up in citations for articles, but perhaps it is too new. Buddhipriya 19:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sarasvati river
I have answered you at Aksi great's talk page. WIN 06:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

David Frawley
Do you feel that the article on David Frawley needs work? Buddhipriya 03:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. Practically all of it is unsourced, for starters.  And it reads like a fan page.  rudra 04:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I just made a minor edit there. The difficulty I am having is in finding discussions about him in books I have on hand that meet tests for WP:RS. Buddhipriya 05:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The best, though not necessarily reliable, source around could be stuff on the site of his Vedic Astrology Institute or whatever it's called. If so, the article could use  "External Links" as a stop gap.  rudra 05:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I am a bibliophile I have put out a call for hard academic sources on the talk page for the article. Perhaps someone will help me find some.  I do not have much experience with citing web sources on Wikipedia, and often revert web references that do not meet tests for WP:EL, but it does seem that his own web site would be fair games for his own claims about himself.  Is that your understanding of the link guidelines as well? Buddhipriya 06:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Generally yes, but I keep the salt handy anyway :-) rudra 06:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Formation of a compound
Regarding the compound ' some confusion arose in the article Pranayama about etymology, apparently due to lack of clarity on how to deal with the long ā on '. It was parsed (I think spuriously) as + āyāma, but to me it looks like sandhi in which the masculine plural form prāṇāḥ ("the vital airs") meets with the following yāma (cessation, restraint), and the sandhi rule is: -āḥ + y = -ā in the formation of a tatpuruṣa compound (used definitionally in compound as a nominative singular term). We know from Apte that when considered as "the vital airs" prāṇa is generally made plural, and MW confirms the plural usage. Do you agree with my opinion on the compound, or do you see some other way to parse it? Buddhipriya 08:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, plurals are not retained in tatpurushas. Also, the action noun yāma (== cessation) sounds Vedic: I think it's āyāma in Classical Sanskrit; whence a straightforward prāṇa + āyāma would seem to be the correct parsing.  rudra 19:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with āyāma (m., tension, length, extension, length) is that it has not much to do with the usual translation of which is "breath control" suggesting that the second word in the compound is yāma (cessation, restraint).  The compound is not Vedic, as it appears in Pantanjali and widely in tantrika literature. Buddhipriya 19:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to suggest that the compound was Vedic, only that the word yāma by itself had a Vedic feel to it. BTW, Macdonell gives prāṇa + āyāma (p.185, main entry prāṇāghāta) and defines it as "m. suspension of breath (sts. pl.)".  rudra 19:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent, I see it in Macdonell p. 185. I cannot find the abbreviation sts. pl. in his abbreviations table.  What does it mean? Buddhipriya 20:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it means "stems plural", which goes with the usual circumstance that plural forms are suppressed in the prior member of a tatpurusha. rudra 20:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have received back via non-Wikipedia sources an answer from a pandit that the derivation prāṇa + āyāma (expansion) is his understanding as well, so that seems confirmed. I asked him about the alternative of prāṇa + yāma and he simply chuckled and said that was a common misunderstanding.  How do we go about documenting a common misunderstanding that is not clearly discussed in a WP:RS that I can cite? Buddhipriya 21:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Rudrasharmanji, Is any historicol works of R.C. Majmudar available online ? Or is there any other source for getting details of islamic moments pre '47....Thanks Jon Ascton


 * I'm not aware of any of Majumdar's work being online (I assume you Googled?).
 * I'm not sure what "islamic moments pre '47" means. "Movements", perhaps?  And were you looking for Majumdar's writings on such a subject?  The HCIP volumes have plenty of material, though they don't specifically focus on islamic movements per se.  Could you be a bit more specific about what you're looking for?
 * rudra 05:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)