User talk:Shivasundar

Madhava–Leibniz and Madhava–Gregory
Hi Shivasundar, and welcome to Wikipedia.

I just reverted your changes at Gregory's series and Leibniz formula for π; this topic in the past has been moderately controversial, and the current version should stick around unless there is a clear consensus for changing it.

While I personally would recommend using names along the lines of Madhava–Gregory series or Madhava–Leibniz formula in new work, e.g. in research papers or textbooks, the established consensus among Wikipedia editors is to use the most common names from recently published academic literature, while clearly describing common alternatives and explaining the reason for the names, which the article currently does.

For better or worse, the most common names are still Gregory/Leibniz. Unless that changes (which certainly seems plausible over the next decade or two), or unless you can convince most of the editors of these pages, it's not helpful to try to force through such a change by editing it in without discussion. –jacobolus (t) 06:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for identifying yourself. Saw your "woke white activism" of a revert [wondering if something "triggered" you [oooh somebody changed a White guy's name somewhere! OOH!!] Blatant RACISM AND Eurocentrism is not to be minimized as a "sentiment" [your "revert comment" I am willing to publish]. "Majority of editors" is a weak argument. "Next 2 decades" betrays only a LOT MORE RACISM! Be more real #Woke. It is 2024. Shivasundar (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, this type of comment is not doing you favors. Wikipedia runs on consensus and dialog, not personal crusades or edit wars, and civility is a cornerstone of successful collaboration at scale. You may want to take a look at the essay Verifiability, not truth and the essay section "Righting great wrongs". If you are aggressively hostile or insulting, you are likely to be quickly blocked from participating, which is unlikely to accomplish your goals. All the best. –jacobolus (t) 07:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am looking to report YOU, actually. We can make this either easy; or hard. Your talk page BETRAYS a lot of "revert wars" and silly things in general. The edits on the page I made were after carefully reviewing talk pages of both articles. It betrays a lack of understanding on your part. I have read Crest of the Peacock [the book]. Have you? I have enough understanding of Math (and the formula) as well. I am not being disrespectful or insincere. YOU ARE! AND RACIST!! Shivasundar (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure to whom you intend to "report me", but you are, like any other editor, welcome to follow Wikipedia's processes while respecting Wikipedia norms, one of the most important of which is to be civil to other editors.
 * In any event, if you have a content dispute, the first place to take it is to the specific article's talk page. If you can't resolve the dispute there, the next place to try is a WikiProject, e.g. WikiProject Mathematics or WikiProject History. If that doesn't resolve the dispute, then take a look at Dispute resolution for some other ideas.
 * More productively: If you would like to see more appreciation of Madhava's followers' contributions to these topics, the best thing you can do is to write clear explanatory prose, backed by reliable sources, and add it to these articles and/or to the articles Madhava series, Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics, etc., discussing any content disputes which arise therefrom on the article talk pages.
 * All the best. –jacobolus (t) 07:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In case you DID NOT see, I HAD put in a comment on the talk page of Leibniz Formula for Pi YEARS ago (as have MANY others - on Madhava's contributions.) AGAIN, deliberate disinformation - sorta like Musk, your 'White Knight in shining armour' (another white guy who has bought a "bully pulpit" to push "his agenda"). Shivasundar (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen that. I now see your comment at . Making an incoherent SHOUTING reply in 2022 to a discussion that died in 2009, on an already low-traffic talk page, is generally not an effective action. It's not surprising that it didn't get any responses. If you want to raise this question more seriously, you should start a new discussion topic, make sure the wording is clear and to the point and phrased politely, without any SHOUTED ACCUSATIONS etc., and than you can see what other editors say in response. If there aren't enough responses there, you can try a different venue.
 * Personally though, I'd recommend trying to make productive content contributions rather than trying to pick fights about article titles, especially if you haven't quite yet figured out how things work around here. –jacobolus (t) 07:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Block letters I use for emphasis - not shouting. Some platforms (like twitter) don't allow underscores or stars for italics or bold. And who has the time? Hmmmmmpfffffff. Was this the f*ing issue all along? Shivasundar (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * " you should start a new discussion topic, make sure the wording is clear and to the point and phrased politely, without any ........ and than you can see what other editors say in response. If there aren't enough responses there, you can try a different venue."
 * Sounds a LOT like the Indian Freedom struggle, no? :-) Shivasundar (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know too much about the Indian freedom struggle, but many aspects of human interaction and collaboration take some amount of patience and care. Wikipedia should generally not be regarded as a struggle, even if it sometimes feels that way. –jacobolus (t) 08:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the non-answer to "do you guys agree with me on my edit which was reverted" (if that does not yell racism by the Wiki editors) I donno what else does! Shivasundar (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would recommend against calling people racist in most contexts, as generally a counterproductive strategy. I would specifically recommend against calling Wikipedians any kind of direct insult, here on Wikipedia. Please again read Civility. –jacobolus (t) 08:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And I suggest you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_bias_on_Wikipedia. I am simply defending a worldview that is outdated, racist, wholly wrong and needs URGENT changing (was yelling there since I am not sure "consensus" is a smart way Wiki goes about changes. For everything else, we have robots, it seems like.) Also, learned Jimmy Wales edited his own biography on Wikipedia. This will be my last comment on the issue; I trust we see each other, and that you are only defending policy (and therefore not racist yourself). You take care now, it's not like you are different from the WASP-world we live in - which is dictated by the West. "In 2 decades", some things may change... you never know... I will let you have the last word, and forgive your ignorance; my brother from another mother! Shivasundar (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The only way a collaborative project such as Wikipedia can function at scale is if it operates on good-faith conversations and consensus-building. If it is explicitly treated as a fight, it devolves into chaos and effectively fails as a project. If you want to learn more, take a look at Five pillars and the pages it links to, notably What Wikipedia is not.
 * One of the core consensus positions of Wikipedia editors (this is not anything forced by Jimmy Wales or any other specific person) is that article content must be based on the content of reliable sources, rather than the whims of particular editors. For an encyclopedia consisting of solicited articles from recognized experts, this kind of requirement would be unnecessary. However, Wikipedia is instead written by volunteer pseudonymous strangers.
 * Wikipedia's policies do lead to biases, but their intentions are not racist; those biases largely reflect existing societal biases in what topics have been written about in published sources, who the writers of those publications were, etc. The only effective way to push back against them is to go either (1) write and publish better material externally, e.g. by becoming a professional scholar, or (2) do your best to work on Wikipedia within the confines of its existing structure and norms. Calling Wikipedians "racist", either individually or collectively, does not accomplish anything. –jacobolus (t) 15:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia's policies do lead to biases, but their intentions are not racist;" Let's agree to disagree there. Your reverts being a MAJOR problem. I did not say anything that was ALREADY not said (scientific priority and a SIMPLE formula of some non-root page cannot be ACCEPTED by you - THAT is racism.) The oppressor does not get to define it - the oppressed does!
 * Your very NEXT line, ironically, says "...those biases largely reflect existing societal biases...". EXACTLY: so WHY can't I (WE) challenge them?! All I said in the first line (NOT the title, which I COULD have done) was "more widely known due to Eurocentric bias". This was implied clearly in the family of 3 articles already. THAT'S ALL: YOU got triggered man, simple... (And this guy David "Eppstein" - hate that word nowadays). As a part-time tutor I now understand why MOST teachers in middle and high school tell their kids "don't read Wikipedia" (most of the cohort who read this article probably; and came across it in Google searches now: NOT Madhava BUT Leibniz. The darned formula is a SPECIAL CASE - so Madhava-Leibniz is charity actually!): I am WITH them now... I agree, even though I get a LOT of my knowledge from it nowadays. We need a diversity of editors, and people like you should simply step aside if you are not willing to change imperialistic opinions. Shivasundar (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You should now stop with the insults. If you try to make the same edit as before without first achieving consensus on the talk page, it will be swiftly reverted. If you persist, especially if you continue to insult other editors, you will likely be blocked from editing. I gave my advice already about what you could try if you want to have a positive impact in line with your apparent goals. I'm now through with this conversation though. All the best. –jacobolus (t) 00:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Mediawiki software uses two straight apostrophes for emphasis,  which renders like this. Three of them for bold, like so. There may also be clickable buttons somewhere nearby for bold, italic, etc., depending on your preference settings. –jacobolus (t) 08:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So - did you agree with me or not? Am I gonna revert after a day or not? Shivasundar (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think you should try to re-apply your specific change to these two articles unless you can first achieve consensus on the talk page, which seems unlikely at this date. –jacobolus (t) 08:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Leibniz formula for π shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Additionally, you need to stop making personal attacks and address the content issue, not your perception of other editors.

—David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, Wikipedia is headquartered in a Western country is it not?! Most of the editors (simply judging by names, as YOU BOTH have judged me for sure) are likely White Caucasian are they not? Why get "triggered" for simply stating a fact? I will REFRAIN from another revert. But PLEASE address "in 1 or 2 decades" or "most of the editors" nonsensical arguments - that clearly BETRAY Eurcentrism, and hence, BY DEFINITION, racism!! Or better yet, MOVE the article to new names (main titles) and keep the white people as the alternate names - indicating scientific priority!
 * [I may demand my money back - I have contributed a few times you KNOW!] Shivasundar (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nobody is "triggered", and nobody is judging you for anything except being aggressive and insulting. Even newcomers to Wikipedia are expected to treat other editors with basic respect.
 * I think it's admirable that you are trying to promote better recognition of the contributions of Madhava of Sangamagrama and the Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics; I fully support that general project, and I wish you well. However, tendentious Wikipedia editing is not a good mechanism for accomplishing that, nor is insulting people who might ideologically agree with you. –jacobolus (t) 07:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I will wait for David to reply, bro. BUT, don't YA THINK it's time for non-whites to BE MORE AGGRESSIVE. I mean, after the Guardian UK has ACCEPTED the British STOLE USD 45 TRILLION from us AND caused 10 famines in 100 years (happy to share the yt link if you needed it!)
 * Did you both JUST grow up a little?! Hope I made you (both) more woke. Of course, one cannot "wake up somebody who pretends to sleep"... so, yeah, never know. Shivasundar (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There might be appropriate venues where you could try to be "more aggressive". For example, I would be supportive of the Indian state extracting whatever concessions it can from the UK, e.g. in lawsuits, trade negotiations, intellectual property disputes, and so on.
 * Waging personal battle against random Wikipedians is not a good outlet for aggression. Here, it will just get you quickly blocked. –jacobolus (t) 07:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you still don't get it, do you? It is about Indian Mathematics. It is about zero, the decimal system. It is about algebra (borrowed in a raid by Al Khwarizmi). It is about Sine and Cosine (Jya and Kojya - please read the book Crest of the Peacock - think you can borrow it on archive.org). It is about Pi. If you are a real lover of math (even IF SAY I agree you are not racist; one can never be completely sure can one?), a real believer of justice, and history. Of scientific priority. I am saying this because I saw your edit history too; many math pages. Last try - otherwise, it's fine. At least India will soon be the 3rd largest economy. We luckily don't need America as well (I am not physically in India now, FYI - some Jew managers also CAN be racist you know...) Shivasundar (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem motivated to work on this. I would recommend you start by finding and reading some reliable sources, i.e. published journal articles or books, from the most reputable scholars you can find (Kim Plofker 2009, Mathematics in India might be a good starting point). Then find the relevant article to a particular topic, and try to add clear summary of the material from those sources, with clear citations backing up each claim.
 * For example, you could add to the currently somewhat inconsistent and incomplete article Indian mathematics, or you could try to integrate relevant material into History of trigonometry or the currently terrible article History of arithmetic.
 * Or if you are interested in the more specific topic of the arctangent series, you could try to add a "History" section to Leibniz formula for π or expand the History section of Gregory's series, giving a relatively brief summary of the contributions of Madhava and his followers, with a link back to Madhava series for a more complete discussion, ideally alongside some discussion of the work of Gregory, Leibniz, Newton, and Taylor, to put those various contributions into comparative context. –jacobolus (t) 08:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ICYMI, Crest of the Peacock is a reliable source; recommended in several Wiki articles. Thx for the other recommendations (generally monographs are too thin for a proper history book though. Also, for Indian Math History (anything India really) trusting a Western author is something I would not exactly consider a badge of reliability.) I prefer the term 'reputable source' - I check out authors too; so I read their scholarship; I do due diligence on how the writing is (if it has a specific Eurocentric slant or not, for example - in the books. In the way the author approaches the topic, in interviews if I can find them...). I do this for everyday news (that bothers me) as well. Cheers. Shivasundar (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You can cite The Crest of the Peacock from within Wikipedia articles, as a book published by a reputable press, but you should treat what you read there with some skepticism: George Gheverghese Joseph is a decent writer but not a subject expert, so the content is only as good or bad as his sources were, and some of them weren't great; he also comes to the book with a definite political goal, rather than trying to write the most accurate and neutral scholarly history. It's usually better to find sources written by specific experts about each particular region or topic who have a history of publishing peer-reviewed work in the field.
 * I'm sure there are plenty of great sources about Indian mathematics written by ethnic Indians in Indian languages. However, I can't read those, so I am not able to recommend you a good one.
 * Note that reliable source is a Wikipedia jargon term, and the meaning here is not quite the same as the plain English meaning of the phrase. See Reliable sources –jacobolus (t) 15:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So, you found the wiki. I don't like words like expert, consultant, etc. Very controversial. "Reputable press": so of course Princeton, Harvard or Oxford are reputable publishers? NOT one of my parameters. Let me guess: guy doesn't "have a Ph D" - is that why you don't think he "is an expert"? By THAT logic none of the following should be CEOs, since none have an MBA: Elon, Gates, and most of the other fortune 500 White CEOs (compare with the following list: Ajay Banga, Indra Nooyi, Sundar Pichai, and most other Indian-origin CEOs). See THAT racism in your thinking/the world's thinking? I mean, ever wondered about it?! I have the original book and quotation, first off Ethnic "Indian" (no such language) translators for works are few and far between. We all wish there were at least 3 for all works. He certainly is an expert in "Non-European mathematics" - if not the History of Math. So, if a white guy chooses a subject it's "activism", or (just simply if somebody comes after them) "a research area"; but a brown guy chooses it "it's political agenda"?! See all the imperialisitic thinking - it's STILL the White thinking that really, really is problematic with me. Hope you are getting educated here. Give him a break. I also understand "diversity of sources". If it's there, I will put it - making sure the Sanskrit I know and can find agrees with culturally tolerable views on India and her history (ancient AND now). MY last attempt at activism with you..., I see it as practice for the other editors whom I have to deal with now. Shivasundar (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Joseph's problem is not a lack of credentials or skin color. He just doesn't have the requisite language knowledge to read primary sources and hasn't spent the requisite time studying the subject to know what the scholarly consensus is, and he isn't careful enough about which secondary sources to base his book on, and there is unfortunately a lot of nonsense written about mathematical topics, especially more politicized ones. As a result he ends up making claims which are considered mistaken or even incoherent by experts in the field. –jacobolus (t) 00:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As I already said: I don't know a single scholar in the world who can read Arabic, Egyptian heiroglyph, and Sanskrit. Do tell me if you find one. I always check refs, of course. There is nothing controversial about Dr. Joseph (it appears he might have a Ph D, acc. to a newspaper clipping at least): the plagiarism allegation was proved against his collaborator Dr. Alameida. If you find any more "dirt" on him, let me know. But NOT quoting what I have found seems like a convenient excuse to NOT challenge the worldview that "Hey guess what! The world began in the 16th century after a period of darkness!" How convenient - woww, amazing, again - thx for all the training - NOW I know all the familiar arguments of the "WASP-consensus". [Impossibly high standards!] (The few pages of Indian mathematics) agrees with whatever I read - in Sanskrit from other sources as well; but I will go through the list of references carefully AGAIN as well. Shivasundar (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * is the most recent review I can find of one of Joseph's books, by mathematician S. G. Dani of IIT Bombay: "Notwithstanding the satisfaction with the overall approach and various features mentioned above, the reviewer is dismayed over some aspects of the contents. At a micro level one finds a lack of urge to grasp and convey the real mathematical significance of the developments, and a propensity to simply put together information; one senses a certain casualness in dealing with finer details. Also, historical aspects internal to the systems are not paid much attention to. These points come through in an acute fashion in the following examples. [... examples snipped ...] The above examples also indicate that the author has not always accessed the original sources he is referring to, or even standard redactions available, and rather relied on dubious secondary or tertiary sources for information." Reviewers of Joseph's earlier books had similar (sometimes sharper) criticism. ––jacobolus (t) 04:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This is not a review of the book we are talking about though. And, from the comments, it is clear S G Dani talks in the review of "general propensity", "urge to grasp", "simply to put together" (!!) Sour grapes, in my opinion. I think I understand now what you were saying earlier (example might have helped): he has quoted "secondary sources" (apparently) in an unrelated different work - NOT a crime in my opinion (not always is a key phrase there too). As I already said, translators for certain primary sources are hard to find. There is a lot of jealousy in the Indian scholarly community, is what comes across to me in this paragraph itself :-) (I did read the other newspaper clippings from the wiki page on Crest as well - and it came across there as well - as if people don't like a scholar who has worked overseas...). Shivasundar (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)