User talk:Abecedare/Archive 2

Dear Abecedare,

OK, thanks for your note. I do think that, on a subject as vast as Hinduism, there is room for a "further reading" section. Please note that some of the references given in the "References" section are extremely oriented: Frawley for instance, who is nothing else than a charlatan. Also, please consider the problematic first sentence of this article. Orthodox Hinduism states the "Northern" origin of the anciant Rishis. That may be symbolic, of course, but at least this should be mentionned. All the stuff about NAIT is rooted into political considerations that were foreign to Hindus during millenaries.

Regards,

TwoHorned 20:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert on the Aryan theories, but as far as I understand, irrespective of where Aryans came from or originated, it is currently widely accepted in academia that Hinduism in its current form developed in the Indian subcontinent (note: not necessarily India) sometime around 2500-1000 BCE. Some readings of Vedas are interpreted to indicate that the people who authored them came from colder climes. But then again, according to orthodox Hindu beliefs Veda's themselvesare apaurusheya (not of human origin) and timeless. However, the intro. sentence is not meant to indicate the religious view of the origins but rather the mainstream academic views. Of course, my understanding of the acdemic consensus may be incorrect, or possibly I am misunderstanding your question itself. To clarify, are you saying that Hinduism (note : not Aryans) originated in the Arctic region ? If so, perhaps we can invite inputs from some editors more knowledgeable than mein this area and correct the first sentence if required.

I accept that not all references in the article are as high quality as one would wish, especially since the article is on a topic that has been a subject of so much study and scholarship; for example, here is an incomplete bibliography of just primary texts on the subject. However, on wikipedia we have to depend upon lay/volunteer editors to access, read, and add sources and that is always a work in progress. In fact, the large size of the corpus of primary and secondary sources on Hinduism, is one reason I am (moderately) opposed to adding a further reading section to the article. IMO it may be better to include primary sources in Bibliography of Hindu scriptures and perhaps create another list for secondary sources, if needed. However, these are half-baked ideas yet ... Abecedare 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Abecedare,

Academic texts can be mentionned, of course, but why not stand also on texts written by Hindu Saints ? Second, the question of chronology in Hinduism is not solvable. May I recommend you to read the first chapters of Guénon's Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines on this subject ? The "oral" transmission anterior to Vyasa is completely undetermined in length. And, yes, you're right Vedic text themselves are apurusheya : why not mention that ? Also, quite an interesting point: didn't Tilak himself write a book called "The Artic home in the Vedas" despite all the known relations between Tilak and Savarkar w.r.t. NAIT ? TwoHorned 21:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now I see your point. The POV of Hindu saints and religious figures is mentioned in the correct context when discussing of Hinduism's theology, beliefs, denominations, practices etc. Their view of how the religion views itself and its teachings is clearly relevant. However the dating and history of a religion is an academic topic and hence needs scholarly citation; and Vedas being considered apaurusheya belongs in the Veda section and not in the history section. I know that Arctic origin of vedas has been proposed, but AFAIK it is not widely accepted. I may be wrong on this though, so I'll ask other editors who have worked on the Aryan theory article to chime in. Abecedare 22:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

I have avoided getting into the discussion about Aryan theories, but I did look up what J. P. Mallory had to say about the Arctic theories in his mainstream book In Search of the Indo-Europeans (Thames & Hudson: 1989, ISBN 0-500-27616-1). The Arctic claim is so unusual that Mallory begins his chapter on "The Indo-European Homeland Problem" with these sentences:

"We begin our search for the homeland of the Indo-Europeans with the deceptively optimistic claim that it has already been located. For who would look further north than Lokomanya Tilak and Georg Biedenkapp who traced the earliest Aryans to the North Pole? Or who would venture a homeland further south than North Africa, further west than the Atlantic or further east than the shores of the Pacific, all of which have seriously been proposed as 'cradles' of the Indo-Europeans? This quest for the origins of the Indo-Europeans has all the fascination of an electric light in the open air on a summer night: it tends to attract every species of scholar or would-be savant who can take pen in hand. It also shows a remarkable ability to mesmerize even scholars of outstanding ability to wander far beyond the realm of reasonable speculation to provide yet another example of academic lunacy." (Mallory 1989, p. 143)

The reference to Tilak's monograph takes place in a paragraph where Mallory mentions various major camps among the theories, saying "Some scholars struggled to maintain a middle course, others provided comic relief.... Cokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak provided the world with an entire monograph marshalling all the available mythological evidence to prove that the Aryan homeland was the North Pole.[note 38] This incredible theory gained at least one supporter when George Biedenkapp, flushed with enthusiasm for Tilak's hypothesis, produced his own book summarizing the Indian savant's work in German and added further evidence of his own. The Icelandic linguist Alexander Johannesson conconcted another bizarre theory that related Indo-European roots to bird calls (Proto-Indo-European *ker- was imitative of a raven), grunts, and loud natural sounds which, according to him, could best be heard on the shores of the Baltic Sea." (p.269)

[note 38]"Tilak's 'polar theory' for Aryan origins was not a bizarre quirk of a single individual but rather the culmination of an extremely long tradition of analysis of Indo-Aryan myth, for example, poems that indicate a home in the north where a day and a night lasted six months each, the Pole star rises to the zenith, and so on. A modern review of this 'northern cycle' of myths can be found in Bongard-Levin (1980) who argues that Indo-Aryan, Iranian and Scythian traditions (and by cultural contact also Greeks) all shared a common mythology of a northern mountainous land which, he argues, could only have been acquired in their prior common home on the Pontic-Caspian steppe." (p. 277, note 38)

Buddhipriya 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Thank you for inviting me to this discussion, but I have little to contribute, mainly because I have yet to find a satisfying scholarly treatment of the origins of Hinduism. I could write extensively on my personal take of the issue, but that isn't what these talk pages are for. I'll just note that (a) not having read Bongard-Levin's book, I'm not aware of any "extremely long tradition of analysis of Indo-Aryan myth" pointing to Arctic origins; (b) I have no idea what "oral transmission anterior to Vyasa" could mean in relation to issues of fact (as opposed to Puranic myths and mystical fantasies erected thereon); and (c) there is no evidence (textual, archaeological, etc.) to trace the Hinduism of pujas, temples and idols any further back than about the start of the Common Era. An overwhelming majority of Hindus don't know a word of the Vedas. If anyone is reading scripture on the bus back home from work, it's probably the Gita. And so on. Far too much ink, liquid and electronic, is spent on "high philosophy" and hoarily ancient origins (the hoarier the "better") as if these could illuminate popular Hinduism in the rank and file. IMHO. Sorry, I wound up ranting anyway. rudra 04:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it was clear that the quotation which included the reference to Bongard-Levin was from the extended citation I gave to J. P. Mallory. I have not read Bongard-Levin either. The purpose of providing the quotes from Mallory was to establish that Mallory discusses the Arctic theory within a few words of phrases like "academic lunacy", "comic relief", and "bizarre". Buddhipriya 05:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As rudra points out, it is just a matter of separating historical studies from mythology and from mysticist authors. "Hinduism" is an umbrella term, by definition applicable to all religious traditions, however disparate, that originate in India. It "originates" with the onset of sources, viz. the Vedas, although what we know as "typical" Hinduism today originates in the early centuries CE. We can very well discuss Puranic mythology, as mythology, and we can discuss the various tenets of mysticist authors of the various Hindu reform movements (Tilak, Aurobindo and what not), as 19th century "romanticist" (Viking revival style) currents. Just don't conflate things. dab (𒁳) 08:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input Buddhipriya, Rudra and dab. Your thoughts mirror my opinions on the topic. Abecedare 08:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have copied the above comments to the Hinduism Talk page since TwoHorned chose to continue the discussion there. Abecedare 18:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct that you have never questioned my motivation. I should never question yours either. Maybe I have misspoken. [I shall remove that comment right now.] All I want to say is that if we together can improve the article, let us do so. Let neither of us try to defend what is there. It will be there anyway, unless it is suitably emended. Okay? Thanks.Kanchanamala 02:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I stumbled upon this article. But you are absolutely correct. There is one statement in that article ["fifth veda"] to which the reference from Guru Nanak Dev's "Japuji Sahib" can be added as a citation. It will add some weight to the article. Please take a look at it. Thanks.Kanchanamala 22:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The day after all of those Maleabroad socks were expelled we now have User:Algorithm0 perhaps testing the waters? Compare User:Algorithm1. Just a heads up that this looks suspicious to me. Buddhipriya 22:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is certainly him. I didn't spot any obvious vandalism yet on a cursory glance, but will keep my eye open. Perhaps one of us should form a subpage where we can consolidate reports of Maleabroad sightings and the various sock's block status. Any volunteers ? :-) Abecedare

He has already begun with some POV pushing along his usual lines, so I did a couple of reversions. I would certainly help as part of the crew trying to keep track of him. Is the talk page for User:Maleabroad a possible place for sightings, or is there some standard way of doing this? Buddhipriya 23:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit-summary with reference to "neo-buddhist" was a give-away. Let me take a stab at forming a subpage for tracking his socks - I'll invite your input once I have an intial set-up Abecedare 23:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. He is also rambling on about Prahlada and the Bhagavatam, as before. Buddhipriya 23:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this and let me know if you have any changes to suggest (or just edit it yourself !). I'll leave a message with Aldux to make sure that this does not violate any wikipedia guidelines or spirit, before I advertise it to interested editors. Abecedare 00:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the division of tables by sock number less helpful than a division by activity status, e.g., Blocked versus Active. I would also simplify the structure by not using a table, since if the socks were in divisions of the page you could quickly jump to the one you wanted to edit. I noticed this issue when I tried to find the sock I wanted to put evidence up for. You have invited me to edit, so I will make a partial change to the page that you can revert if you don't like it. Buddhipriya 01:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. Please go ahead. The primary focus should be easy upkeep, since we don't want to be wasting undue time editing this page. Maleabroad's socks waste enough of our time already :-) Abecedare 01:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, don't bother listing evidence for socks already blocked or checkusered, since the issue is already resolved in those cases. Abecedare 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you can live with the general format I am putting up, I will continue to move the historical material for reference. I think from an evidence point of view the unit of analysis should be the individual edit, which must demonstrate some linkage to a conceptual theme or external web site. The edits (and sometimes the edit summaries) are the smoking guns. Buddhipriya 01:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with the format you propose. I agree the evidence about past socks is potentially useful, its just a matter of the effort you are ready to put into this endeavor. :-) Abecedare 01:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My big concern is that i hate the tables because if I make one formatting error I can throw the whole table off. It took me several hours to clean up the table in Shakha somewhere that made the Wikipedia page editor not work correctly. Buddhipriya 01:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Editing tables on wikipedia is no pleasant task. Again the point of the page should be easy access to and editing of salient information, without it becoming a time-sink for any editors involved. Abecedare 01:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am finished with my structural changes. Please change anything you wish. Thanks for doing this. The other day I wished something like this existed. Buddhipriya 02:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<deindent> I made some minor tweaks for reasons explained in the edit summaries. Of course there are many other socks of Maleabroad, both blocked and unblocked, that can be added to the list ... but that task is not urgent at all since the aim is to stop currently active vandalism. Once I hear back from Aldux about the appropriateness of this effort, we can inform other interested users such as Orpheus, GourangUK etc. Hopefully the time we invested today, will save us some time in the future. Thanks for all your help! Abecedare 02:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, there is absolutely no problem: we're speaking of a banned troll, not a legitimate user. BTW, I've detected a potential sock, but I'm far from certain in this case; it's Padn (talk · contribs). Would you mind asking a checkuser for him?--Aldux 17:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input! By the way, I don't think Padn (talk · contribs) is a sock of maleabroad, since the pages/content he adds seems to be distinct and also his edits are made between 10pm and 6am Calgary time, which is very different from when Maleabroad and his socks work (usually noon to 7pm Calgary time). Abecedare 19:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure Ms. Daniels does not control that account. I think this because of the timing. That edit was made at about the time she showed the edit on TV. But the show wasn't live... So she must be this anon, and that user a fan. That is why I blocked. Prodego ^talk 02:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are right, that is her. Looking at the text she showed actually proves it. Closely watch the video, and you will see that the article text matches the state it was at when the account edited, not the IP. So since I just proved you right :), I guess I should unblock her. Prodego ^talk 02:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved a refactored summary of the conversation we had to the following location trying to get more input. I hope you will comment on it there. Talk:IAST#More_on_use_of_IAST. I also noticed that the category for "Articles containing IAST" just disappeared and I am wondering if Template:IAST will be next, as there is ongoing confusion about the difference between the role of the IAST tag to specify a romanization method and the role of the Unicode tag to specify an implementation method for IAST glyphs. I would like to expand the text on the Template:IAST to discuss these issues but I do not have any clear idea on how Template pages are supposed to be maintained. Is this something you can help me with? I have set up a work page at User:Buddhipriya/IASTUsage to consolidate notes from various places. Buddhipriya 20:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the deletion of Category:Articles containing IAST too and saw that it was discussed at this CFD. The reason for deletions was that the category is useful only to editors for article maintenance, and not useful to readers for navigation. In hindsight that seems a valid reason to me, especially since the maintenance purpose can be equally well (better?) served by checking what pages link to Template:IAST. I don't think there is any risk of that template being deleted though, since it obviously serves a useful purpose and more than 1000 pages use it. You can place that page on your watchlist so that you will know if someone does nominate it for deletion (see WP:TFD).

I'll look at the IAST discussion and add to it if I have any other point to make (though I have a somewhat busy schedule the next couple of days). By the way, I don't think the discussion should be at the Talk:IAST page since that page is supposed to deal with the specific article and not the issue of IAST usage on wikipedia. Perhaps the discussion can be moved to the talk pages for Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Dharmic) or Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic) with notes at WT:HNB and WT:INB. However those convention pages have been dormant for a long time, and possibly we may be the only editors interested in the issue :-) Abecedare 20:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate any input you give. I know this is not a burning issue for many people. I will add the pages to my watch list. I tend to agree that the deletion of Category:Articles containing IAST makes some sense. Buddhipriya 20:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just saw your msg on my talk page : have been out of internet contact (yeah, that happens more often than one thinks it is possible :)) for a few days. I'll pitch in with whatever I can after reading the discussions on the article talk page. Thanks! - Sdsouza 15:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, did some work on the page. Could you please check it out? Am afraid the sections don't look prettier, but am hoping to keep returning. Also will read up the docs listed in refs, and see if i can do some of the citation stuff. Cheers, Sdsouza 01:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get that deleted? It just attracts vandalism at India and I don't consider it particularly useful at the Pilgrimage page. The Behnam 03:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess they could just re-upload it, so maybe there is no point in deletion. The Behnam 03:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did put a a copyvio tag on the image page; hopefully it would be speedy deleted soon (and then re-upped again of course). By the way, I assume that 'they' are just socks of a single user Maleabroad. There is a new page for the " Maleabroad Sock Fan Club" to report sightings of the latest avatar - hopefully it will make it easier for us to accumulate evidence, revert his vandalism, and get the accounts blocked sooner. Hope you'll watchlist the page. Thanks. Abecedare 04:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this means he's finally made it in the big leagues, then. Good idea to keep a page to coordinate this - I'll do my bit to keep it up to date. Haven't had much time lately due to the non-electronic world but I'll keep my eyes peeled.

Orpheus 05:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me out at Talk:Devadasi? I don't know much about it but two users keep fighting about some caste issue across several pages. If you know stuff about it I'd appreciate some help at resolving that dispute. The Behnam 04:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I am not too knowledgeable about the issue. I guess, I would be able to help against vandalism and NPOV phrasing, but not really mediate between a genuine content dispute. I'll watchlist the page and hopefully be of some use. :-) Abecedare 04:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know who would probably be knowledgable? The Behnam 04:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, since it is more of a sociological issue than a purely religious or national one. Have you asked FnF ? Abecedare 04:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. He said he didn't know anything about that. I'm not sure who to ask; it seems like the better editors at India don't know much about this issue. User:Lemongoat was helpful before, but he hasn't been on for awhile, and those two users keep fighting. I'll keep asking around. Thanks anyway. The Behnam 04:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned that it may be worth posting on WT:HNB and WT:INB. Abecedare 04:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you. The Behnam 05:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and help as much as I can. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aksi. If you see this thread and this one uncovered by User:Orpheus you'll note that Maleabroad ("brown hindu") is recruiting meatpuppets and his intent is clearly malicious. Can you please block the sock accounts that have already been detected and also comment on the rangeblock suggestion above. I have moved the tracking page to User:Abecedare/Maleabroad. Thanks. Abecedare 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those links don't seem to be working for me. I'll go through the confirmed accounts and block them. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess your web-filter is better than mine! :-) The site was recently sued by Rahul Gandhi for libel and therefore may be on some ISPs block list, especially in India. Abecedare 18:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Resetting indent) Hi. I have blocked all these users as they have been confirmed as Maleabroad socks.

• Bandwidthx (talk · contribs)
• Goalsradar (talk · contribs)
• ChangeDetection (talk · contribs)
• FlamesBlaze (talk · contribs)
• DetectionBOT (talk · contribs)
• TitleBOT (talk · contribs)
• Phenology (talk · contribs)
• Atomsx (talk · contribs)
• Hindu in Canada (talk · contribs)
• SystemsAnalystx (talk · contribs)
• Cryptographer (talk · contribs)
• Rapidsound (talk · contribs)

Do inform me if any other accounts pop up. Let's wait for some more days before we set a range block over the entire college IP. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will update the sock tracking page accordingly. Will let you know if when new socks appear. Abecedare 18:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll confirm on-wiki that I ran the checkuser and determined these were all socks based on the IP evidence. Dmcdevit·t 18:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again - see Hindu (Culture). Shall I just redirect the page to Hindu? Ys, Gouranga(UK) 19:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Culture of India may be better, since Hindu culture redirects thare ... Abecedare 19:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... or if you add {{db-banned}} tag on the page, it will be deleted under CSD G5Abecedare 19:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected Hindu (Culture) to prevent re-creation. Cheers Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps maleabroad has a point there, rather than directing to culture of India, it may as well redir to Hinduism as Hinduism is not exclusively Indian and Indian culture is not exclusively Hindu.Bakaman 03:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a article on Hindu culture can and perhaps should be created. However note that Maleabroad wasn't doing that, he simply took disputed content from an older version of the Hindu article and created a POV fork, i.e., he did not start with the subject "Hindu Culture" and write an encyclopedic article on it - rather he started with POV content and just placed it under an arbitrary title which he suspected people would be hesitant to delete (see the AFD nomination). Of course, if you or any other well-meaning editor starts a genuine article on Hindu culture I'll support the effort. Abecedare 03:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Range_blocks says:

"These are sometimes used when a problem user responds to several IP blocks by changing IP address. They will affect at least some legitimate users, so should only be used when the disruptive behavior is frequent and severe enough to make other methods ineffective. Use careful judgment and make them as brief as possible. When making a range block, an administrator should note the range in the block reason. If you do not do so, and a block is appealed, it is impossible to tell what the blocked IP is."

I understand that Wikipedia policy dislikes use of range blocks for universities, but isn't Maleabroad a perfect test case for that policy? There must have been other instances similar to this.

I think it is at least reading up on this procedure. It can't be that uncommon to block a school or there would be no need for Template:Schoolblock, which includes clearly-defined appeal procedures for users who may contact Wikipedia directly if the block creates problems for them.

Buddhipriya 03:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Till date I have been doubtful that they would rangeblock U of Calgary which will likely have access to 1000s of IP addresses, but this may be worth exploring and getting some informed opinion. I assume it should be possible to block the IPs 136.159.32.* In the meantime, I have asked for admin Aksi great's help since he has great experience fighting with socks; ideally any new sock of Maleabroad should get blocked as soon as it is detected rather than just us following him around and cleaning up after him.

PS: I noticed yu asked for a refernce on the Hinduism talk page. All the best! :-) Abecedare 04:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently found a forum post by our mutual friend which I've added to the fan club page. It's quite illuminating, as are the rest of his posts on that board. Have a look and let me know what you think. Orpheus 07:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despicable. Till now I was giving him the benefit of doubt assuming that he was just a misguided teenager with no real life; but he is clearly just a malicious vandal. Perhaps all the pc*.geog.lab.acs.ucalgary.ca accounts in the Computer Lab Facilities, Department of Geography at U. Calgary should be range blocked and (if it doesn't violate any wikipedia policies) an email sent to the sys admin. explaining why such action was taken. Abecedare 07:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Maleabroad is a problem. He is woefully casteist and trollish in behavior.Bakaman 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Abuse_reports includes a specific process for contacting the provider of an IP address in order to report abuse from that range. There is a set of investigators listed on that page who would be willing to contact the University and handle the complaint. I do not see why we must simply be victimized. There are procedures in place for this sort of thing and we should not hesitate to use them. Buddhipriya 16:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just discovered Wikipedia:Long term abuse which also has various examples of repeated abuse from IP ranges. The page says "Note that shared IP addresses (EG. Schools, libraries, prisons, legislatures, etc.) engaging in egregious vandalisms should be reported on this page as they specialize in dealing with such IPs." Some of the examples listed there may be worth looking at in terms of response options. Buddhipriya 21:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) Hi, I've been asked to share an approach that I tried out last fall. I was dealing with a school district in the United States, not a university in Canada, but maybe the same basic strategy would yield results. Basically while I was vandal fighting I noticed that a particular school IP had been blocked 11 times during the past calendar year, and the blocks other sysops had imposed had been as long as a month. So I wondered whether the school was aware of the problem. Very simple solution: I clicked the IP info link at the IP talk page, from there I went through a WHOIS option until I got an e-mail address for the tech office. Then I wrote a polite message, hoping I had contacted the right person, identifying myself as a Wikipedia administrator, and summarizing the problem. The IT department got back to me promptly and we followed up with a telephone conference the next day. It turned out that the entire school district was routed through the same IP address.

I assured them that students and teachers could still read Wikipedia and that people who already had accounts were still able to edit our site, then explained the situation in greater detail and sent a few links to verify what I was talking about. The problems had probably come from a single group of students (kids who vandalize often write each others' first names as jokes). The district rep was very polite and cooperative and loved my suggestion: assign those children to improve a Wikipedia article under a teacher's supervision - perhaps about local history (this happened to be Plymouth, Massachusetts).

I hope some kind of similar win-win approach could help your dilemma. Durova^Charge! 00:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that as a university, the IT department may be reluctant to assign constructive exercises to students. However, I'm sure that the University of Calgary has a policy against using their resources for religious and racial vilification, and it may be worth bringing this individual to their attention. If he's using university computers to post his nonsense, both on Wikipedia and other forums, then they should at least be aware of it. Orpheus 05:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look at the book noted here.Bakaman 02:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Baka, for the reference. I have placed an order for it from the library - it is just 100 odd pages long, so should be a pretty quick read. Abecedare 22:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I dont have access to many books, so google books and the internet are the only places I can dig up references.Bakaman 23:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion on this, it's a phenomenon ripping Wikipedia apart from the seams, with fanatical supporters of Swami Vivekananda and his RSS revising history to make people believe lies. Think of all the children that enter Wikipedia and see this revisionist history and will need deprogramming in the future. I commend our maintsream admins. I support the neutrality and common non-OR sense of our admins. By the way, did you know that Swami Vivekananda himself used to write propaganda and publish it in Voice of India. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.139.138 (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please see Goodwin's Law. Abecedare 22:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you found it useful! I too found it contained well-balanced article outlining the diverse aspects surrounding the topic. Though not a primer on Hinduism, nor a substitute for studying primary or in-depth scholarly articles, I found its level of treatment of the topics matched my own level of knowledge and interest. Hopefully after reading it, you'll be able to contribute even more to wikipedia - although that is hard to imagine. :-) Abecedare 23:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In homage to you I just added a footnote regarding tantric dates to something in the Blackwell Companion and noticed that I seem to have a different edition. I cited it as: Flood, Gavin, "The Śaiva Traditions" in: Flood (2005; paperback edition of Flood 2003). [1] I do not know if my 2005 paperback differs from the 2003 edition, so technically perhaps we should cite both editions in the References. Do you agree, or is there a better way? Buddhipriya 02:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and the information you added on Tantra is on page 208 of my 2003 hardcover edition too. From what I gathered from amazon and the Blackwell Publishing site, there is only one edition of the book, and the 2005 version is just a reprint - if that is the case, I don't think we need to cite both books in the references of the same article. Of course, if that turns out not to be the case, we will have to cite the relevant edition, at least in the Notes section. I think the style you used in the edit you linked above is the appropriate one. Abecedare 04:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. One reason why I have not sought to actually edit the articles on Hindu and Hinduism is, since you took upon yourself to improve the articles, I thought it would be better to team up with you and assist you. You do the combat, and I'll drive the humvee.

2. I have taken interest in the two articles because I am a Hindu, and I would like the articles to represent the Hindus and their traditions accurately. I am in a position to make suggestions in that regard. Whether any suggestion can be included in the article would be your lookout, and I would respect your decision, because you seem to know the Wikipedia conventions pretty well.

3. I have little need to rely on any dictionary or translation only because, I can read and write in Devanagari, and I have native fluency in Sanskrit. If I were a contemporary of the pioneers who compiled the Sanskrit-English dictionaries [which are still being widely consulted by scholars], I would have shared my knowledge with them, especially with the European scholars who depended upon the native pundits.

4. As for citations, I don't have to agree with them. I am keenly aware that Wikipedia editors rely on citations, but I don't have to. In the interest of accurate representation of the Hindus and their traditions, I deem it proper to voice my concerns. If other editors can do nothing about my concerns because of the Wikipedia constraints, I fully understand it. I don't get upset with them, and I wish and hope that they don't get upset with me.

5. Are we still a team?

Thanks.Kanchanamala 02:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Thanks for the praise on PINQ! What was that about publishing limericks? -- Longhairandabeard 06:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your limerick would form an interesting addition to the Yellapragada Subbarao page itself, just as clerihews are used in the the articles on St Paul's Cathedral, Howard Moss, Humphry Davy and Xanthippe. So if you could get your limerick published in some external source (say newspaper or magazine), I think it would be fair game to include it in the article without violating WP:OR. A long shot perhaps, but may be worth a thought ! Abecedare 06:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I could send it to the website admins of ysubbarow.com, if they like it and publish it... That would be really cool, my creation referenced on Wikipedia.. :-D Definitely worth a try. -- Longhairandabeard 08:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a good idea! Please let me know how it works out. By the way, I hope you realize that by "publishing" the limerick on wikipedia you have released it under GFDL, so don't expect royalty checks to be padding your retirement account :-) Abecedare 14:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the elaborations, as they really helped. I guess my laziness superseded my judgment and as a result, I used the length of the discussion as a pretense of whether or not the debate was still a "hot-topic." Also, per my subconscious selective reading, I saw alphachimp's comment but not yours, figures doesn't it :P . I'm glad that the argument was resolved far before my mistaken (i.e. ignorant and biased) post on Jimbo Wales' talk page, and I apologize for any confusion / instigation I may have caused. Again, if you missed the other 3 or so times that I've mentioned it, I'm sorry :-)  ~Steptrip 22:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So no hard feelings, right?  ~ Steptrip 00:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :-)  ~ Steptrip 00:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tobias Conradi ShivaIdol 11:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent rewrite. Can you keep going with other sections? I know we have an outside copyeditor on the way, but you know the material. I feel strongly that the reference to dharma in the lead should go, as I have explained on the talk page for the article. It is a keyword. Also Subramuniya's book claiming that "Lemurian scrolls" support his belief that human origins can be traced to space travel to Earth from the Pleiades millions of years ago limits his credibility as a WP:RS. See: [2]. I therefore object to the use of Subramuniyaswami as a WP:RS for any statement of fact regarding Ganesha, but I consider him an interesting source to represent a particular devotional opinion. I would prefere to see statements by him prefaced by the fact they are coming from him, and I feel they should not go in the lead. Buddhipriya 03:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the book online and haven't yet figured out where the quoted Sloka's originate. If they are simply the authors compositions, maybe we can remove the mention from the lead and include it is the worship section, along with other examples from other devotional texts. In either case, the citation of the book should be corrected with Publisher and ISBM info that is available here.

I'll try to be of help in the other sections too, but this week is busy for me, so my editing may be intermittent. I am glad that User:Galena11 will also be taking a look - he/she had helped with the Nathu La article, which I too had worked a bit on, and that went on to be a featured article ... so may be it is an omen :-) Abecedare 04:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least deal with the dharma issue, even if only to move it to talk for further discussion? I do not want to revert the editor who added it again, as I do not wish to participate in an edit war. I would like to get an independent editor such as yourself involved. Please note the comment on the talk page for Ganesha regarding the use of Ganesha by nationalists. So far the article has not been touched by that conflict and I do not want it to start now. Buddhipriya 04:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about the specific morphing of Ganesha that you mentioned on the talk page, but am not really surprised. That said, we should be careful in not going down the path of judging authors by their apparent aims or affiliations, since that will only lead to endless debate and formation of entrenched "us vs them" camps. Instead, we should judge solely on the basis of scholarship of a source, using WP:RS as our guide.

The "Lemurian scrolls" book doesn't inspire confidence in the scholastic qualifications of Subramanya, but he still may be a valid religious voice to cite. I draw this distinction, because it is almost inevitable that some statements made by the Popes, Imams and Shankaracharayas will be looked askance in the academic community, but the former may still be cite-worthy sources on wikipedia, depending upon their sway in shaping the religious beliefs of the respective community. I'll try to dig deeper into the sourcing used in the Subramanya's book and the author's biography and add my opinion to the discussion - it may take me a couple of days though. Thankfully, there are no emergencies on wikipedia :-) Abecedare 04:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the following discussion which Rudra and I had with someone representing the Himalayan Academy of interest: User_talk:Rudrasharman#Himalayan_Academy_material. I also had a conversation regarding the many images that are being uploaded from that source, which have drawn fire as potential linkspam: User_talk:Buddhipriya#Himalayan_Academy_material We currently use one of their images on the Ganesha page. Buddhipriya 07:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be quite a few editors from that organization on wikipedia recently. See Talk:Hinduism_and_creationism#Using newspapers in India as sources. Abecedare 07:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This [3] is an example of the editing process used by the editor we have been dealing with. If you check his talk page you will see that I have had several interactions with him about reference methods. It is reaching a point where I am wondering if some other editors need to get involved with giving feedback regarding this. Personally I have given up tracking him because he does not communicate much so it is difficult to get a dialog going. Buddhipriya 07:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<reset indent>
I'll surprise you on this one - I would consider that edit to be in the top 10% of all edits made on wikiepedia! That is not to say, that it cannot be improved in terms of language, inline referencing and conformation with wikipedia guidelines and style book, but on the positive side Redtigerxyz does cite a Marathi book reference (and note that while his references on Ganesha page were found to be inappropriate for the article, he did not misrepresent the source, unlike what we saw at The Argumentative Indian) and lays a foundation for interested editors to come in and build upon. He also (unlike Maleabroad and his socks) seems to be editing in good faith and while his sources may be different from the ones you or I prefer, he doesn't seem to be pushing an ideologicalPOV. It is true that throwing in such rough-hewn material on a already Good or Featured article would be inadvisable, it can be the first step in improving stubs.
My larger point is this: Wikipedia has more than 1.7M articles, two-thirds of which are less than 2KB [4] and less than 0.08% are FA level - so if one goes looking for crap, it is frustratingly easy to find it! Also, some hold the view that the labor on wikipedia is divided among content providers and content formatters and maybe Redtigerxyz is just among the former [5]. Either way, in my experience it is more rewarding to pick a few articles that interest you, try to improve them without really getting emotionally tied to the results why do I get the feeling that I have read that philosophy somewhere before :-) or overwhelmed by all the articles that need improvement, or all the drama that is ever present (watchlist ArbCom, ANI or Jimbo's talk page to see what I am talking about). I too occasionally have to remind myself that this is supposed to be fun, and that even if all my wikipedia edits go down the drain there is always real life as back-up :-) Abecedare 08:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your perspective on this. I agree that the editor seems well-intentioned. And thank you for reminding me to repeat the mantra "Wikipedia is fun!". Buddhipriya 04:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the problems with the criticism section in the argumentative Indian. I read the critical review and added excerpts that summarized the legitimate criticism of the work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.114.144 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for responding, but I am afraid that you are still inserting your personal POV into the article through the first sentence of these edits , which is bad in itself (see WP:NPOV) but doubly so when you wrongly ascribe your views to a external source. In the review , [6], Johnson is basically saying that Sen repeats (what in Johnson's opinion is) a historical cliche in painting Akbar white and Aurangzeb black ... while Johnson's considers them both to have shades of gray. As such your addition to the article, "The book stands exposed as an attempt to camouflage the roles of some of the more oppressive Muslim Emperors in India (such as Aurangzeb) in an attempt to whitewash the Persecution of Hindus in India.", is diametrically oposite to the source you cite. I assume good faith and hope that this is just a matter of misreading on your part and does not reflect malicious intent. I also recommend that you register an account on wikipedia, which will facilitate communication with other editors. Thanks. Abecedare 00:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your intimation. I directly quoted from the review. I did not misrepresent anything. The review states (and I quote):

"There is a more serious distortion of Mughal history. The Mughal emperor Akbar, who ruled from 1556 to 1605, is always compared to Aurangzeb, who ruled from 1658 to 1707. There has long been a 1066 and All That view of these rulers, and it is one to which Sen repeatedly subscribes. Akbar was a good thing because he was nice to Hindus, was non-discriminatory in his policies towards his many and varied subjects, took little account of religion in public affairs, and consequently ran a successful state.

By contrast, Aurangzeb seized power illegitimately, espoused religious causes, was a fundamentalist Islamic bigot and implemented policies that discriminated against his non-Muslim subjects, which was all a bad thing and caused the downfall of the Mughal Empire. But this is a grossly over-simplified account of Akbar, whose reign saw some pretty bloody politics and whose position on religion seems not too far removed from that of contemporary European princes with their resort to axe and fire. And it misreads the whole of the second half of the 17th century. Of course Aurangzeb was keen on Islam (or on a particular strain of it), and his piety spilled out into public policy. Of course he was cruel to his subjects, among them Hindus. But under Aurangzeb the Mughal Empire reached its greatest extent and successfully incorporated military, political and social elites of all religions into its structure. By the time of his death, the Mughals had created an extraordinarily sophisticated political and economic regime commanding consent despite its intolerances and its religious enthusiasm."

Clearly, he criticizes Sen for equating Akbar with Aurangzeb. May I ask what your agenda is in trying to hide this? 70.113.114.144 01:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding argumentative Indians, I thought you might enjoy a Gita "thought for the day" that I just posted on my user page: User:Buddhipriya#Words_to_live_by. Buddhipriya 04:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I have given a final warning for the blanking that has been going on on that page. [7] Would you please take a look and see if there are further violations? Not very many editors have been watching this page. Is there some way to simply get more editors who do not have any POV to put that page on their watch lists? I feel that for many of the pages that have conflict, one step would be to simply request neutral editors to begin watching simply for enforcement of Wiki policies. Buddhipriya 08:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had the page watchlisted but was busy and wasn't paying much attention; it seems a edit-war brewed in the meantime. The current version seems to be "accurate" but suffers from giving undue weight to the Johnson review, which is just one of many reviews of the book. Also it would be preferable to paraphrase Johnson accurately rather than quote it so extensively. I think piecemeal editing of the page is sure to restart another round of edit-warring, so I think it would be better to write a more encyclopedic criticism/review in toto and then invite comments. I'll try to do that, but it may be later in the week before I get down to it.

By the way, I have seen some experienced editors take umbrage at getting "template warnings" since they read it as being treated as newbies - so even though that reaction may be thought irrational, it is often more productive to drop them a "handwritten" request for explanation instead. This is just my personal experience, not a wikipedia policy and of course each instance needs to be judged on its own. Cheers. Abecedare 14:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips, and I agree with your strategy on the rewrite of the Johnson review. Buddhipriya 20:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got hold of the book and read a couple of essays. It is very well cited and should provide useful material to use on several Hinduism/India related pages. I will work on The Argumentative Indian eventally, perhaps I have read the book myself and have a better perspective. Cheers. Abecedare 03:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abecedare, I've added the Kuru family tree to the Mahabharata page. Thank you for the help and inspiration to keep working on it. Since you seem to have a much greater grasp of overall policy and naming than I: do you think it should go on other article pages? Its own article page? Should we transmigrate the talk page from the sandbox to somewhere so other editors can see why and how we done did what we done did? Thanks, ॐ Priyanath talk 18:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Priyanath, Looks good to me. In addition, perhaps we can create a page (say) Characters in Mahabharata that includes both the Kuru family tree and that of Krishna (Kamsa, Vasudeva, Devaki, Balarama etc). I am thinking of some sort of a graphical analog of the Characters in Mahabharata template. Perhaps we can invite opinions from DaGizza, Buddhipriya etc before creating the page. Regards. Abecedare 02:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar - that's been a fun project. I'll get back to you on these other questions when I have more time. Krishna's family tree would be a good one to do. It might also be interesting to have all the characters colored ('good guys' and 'bad guys', oops that would be POV....)... ॐ Priyanath talk 15:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have identified the article on Shiva as one that I would like to help improve. In doing some edits there I noticed a possible fork growing at History of Shaivism. Would you please place both of those articles on your watch list and assist in figuring out what should go where? Would you agree that the Shiva article is complex in structure and probably needs to be reworked using the same sort of main article methods as we have used on Ganesha? I need help in thinking these things through and not many editors are active on Shiva. Buddhipriya 22:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have watchlisted the two pages, and will read them later to understand how they are intended to be organized. Will add my comments at that point, but may be a bit tardy on wikipedia this week due to 'real life' work. Abecedare 03:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you also add Bhagavad Gita to your watchlist? There are some POV issues that need to be watched there. Buddhipriya 16:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I any sock-puppeteerer. Furthermore, I have no idea why everyone thinks that I am either user Johnsmitcba or Nikkul. Please lengthen your comment on my talk page and please include specific reasons why everyone picks on me as a sock-puppeteerer. Yes, I did blank my talk page once, but at that time I was a fledgling on Wikipedia. Also, when Fowler&fowler pointed out my mistake, I immediately asked for my decision to be reversed, for I did not know how to do so at that time. Yes, I also archived the India talk page but only because it was getting extremely lengthy. If you want, you can revert my decision. (By the way, I still had some unanswered comments there.) Please, on my talk page, point out what you mean by "suspiciously similar editing patters," as arguing those would be the only way for me to prove my innocence. Thank you. Universe=atom 18:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Abecedare! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 16:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing has resumed on Vedas and I am trying to deal with it is tiresome. Can you please take a look and help determine how best to deal with the edits? Buddhipriya 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Howd u find the higher resolution pic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nikkul (talk • contribs) 02:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It looks like I got it from New Scientist. Nature also has an article about it (summary). Science also confirms it [8]. The recent re-review of Taleyarkhan (which is the subject of your NYT link) comes after the content I added occurred. NYT also has no mention of Forringer in that article, or in its timeline. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-13 06:25Z

Hello Abecedare, would you mind taking a look at the Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu article? I can't help but feel that one particular user is pushing a certain POV on the page by deleting material. The article Buddhism and Hinduism also, to me, reads like well-written Buddhist propaganda. Am I wrong, or is something amiss? Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 10:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I will look them over and add mu comments (if I have anything to contribute). Abecedare 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Did you know that the article History of India is a candidate for Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive (shortened to WP:ACID)? If you want it to be the article for the week (and perhaps get it to Featured Article status), perhaps you would want to go the page and vote. Thank you. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 15:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abecedare, I finally have some time to start doing a major revision of the page, which I had originally planned to do much earlier (after the RfC in March). I hope you'll have some time to help with the revision, or at least to give feedback and criticism. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. At a minimum, I should be able to provide feedback and look up specific references if required. Abecedare 01:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asked permission from Premshree to use the images. Let him reply and then keep/delete. Chanakyathegreat 04:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah thats good, and the citation is not necessary. i just read this [9], so i though id put the tag up. IP198 20:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small note about SameerKhan's comment quoted above, that was *before* user:shmitra found out that the original transcripts have no mention of "hindi version". Like Sameer, I was also misled about this because of the website reference, which the original transcripts disagree with. --Ragib 15:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another small note about the original transcripts is that Arvind had brought it up even before shmitra and somehow his(and my) voice got drowned in the cacophony. By the time shmitra 'rediscovered' it, most of the dust had settled down and people took note of it... and Ragib, sameer and others changed their stances, and rightly so. Sarvagnya 19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

I have only skimmed through this long debate, so I apologize if I am misunderstanding the issue, but it seems to me that the basic problem is that two "apparently reliable" sources are contradicting each other:

• This GOI site says, "The song Jana-gana-mana, composed originally in Bengali by Rabindranath Tagore, was adopted in its Hindi version by the Constituent Assembly as the National Anthem of India on 24 January 1950." (emphasis added), while
• The available transcript of the Constituent Assembly does not contain a mention of the "Hindi version".

Now it is certainly possible (or even likely depending upon ones POV) that, as KnowledgeHegemony says, the Hindi version was stipulated to be the official anthem in some prior discussion of the Constituent Assembly (or one of its committees) and therefore is not explicitly mentioned on Jan. 24 1950. Alternatively, maybe a later act of the Indian parliament designated the Hindi version to be the "official" version. If that is the case, we need to provide a suitable reference that attests that to be true, since no amount of debate on wikipedia can turn "plausibility" into "verified".
One other point: I saw that there is much debate on the articles talk page about accent, languages, pronunciation etc. While I found them to be personally enlightening, (with all dues respect) they are irrelevant. If the Constituent assembly/ Indian parliament says, in all its wisdom (or lack thereof :-) ) that the "Hindi version of Jana Gana Mana" is the national anthem then it is so, even if all scholars unanimously contend that the language of a poem cannot be changed by decree.
So IMO what we need is evidentiary support for/against the Hindi version being the official one, rather than academic debates. Are there any off-line reliable sources on the topic ? If someone has a reference, I can try to look it up.
A possible resolution for now would be to retain the current Bangla version and its transliteration, while adding a sentence to the effect,

Some Government of India publications state that the Hindi version of the first stanza of the Bangla poem "Jana Gana Mana", was adopted as India's national anthem by the Constituent Assembly of India.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://india.gov.in/knowindia/national_anthem.php |title=National Anthem |accessdate=2007-05-18 |work= National Portal of India| publisher = NIC, [[Government of India ]]}}</ref>

Abecedare 20:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to clarify my stance a bit once more. IF the Govt of India makes or made any decision or resolution asserting that it has adopted the "Hindi version" (whatever that is) of JGM as the national anthem, I have no problem with that. I had accepted this previously when I was told so (per the website) before User:Shmitra demonstrated that there is no mention of it in the transcripts of adoption. Government decisions, resolutions are almost always published and public information. Transcripts for all decisions exist. I just want to see *that* instead of just reiterating a Govt website that contradicts actual transcripts. So, if there was a decision, you will never have problems finding it. But I don't and won't believe this without a reference to the actual decision/resolution. The Bengali version is a constant factor here, as that is the original form of the song as written by Tagore. That is not subject to any disagreements here :) --Ragib 21:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in joining a team effort to bring the Tantra article to featured article status.

If so, please see Talk:Tantra#Team Tantra

TheRingess (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but with two caveats:

• I know very little about the topic so perhaps the only useful role I can play is as a copyeditor + new set of eyes providing a naive reader's POV.
• Due to real life commitments, my activity on wikipedia is likely to be intermittent in the immediate future.

... but I'll try to be as useful as I can. Regards. Abecedare 19:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No matter wether the sites are commercial or tourism website, the statements i have qouted in the article are not violating WP:NPOV and they are not controversial. Justify your comments. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 09:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, now take a look at the article and kindly justify each and every comments added by you. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 11:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on the FAC page, the issue is verifiability and reliable sources, not WP:NPOV. Abecedare 15:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Himachal pradesh fac- i am just spitting out my frustration this is my first FAC and i have completely (A-Z) re-wrote this article. now what do you people (not you) want from me. To act as a machine. somewhere or the other you will find errors. umhhh. do me a favour check out the history (of Jan, Feb, march and then May 19th onwards) you will get the answer. i am not saying check each and every day's history but randomly you pick it up (in increasing order). you guys (not you) are humilating me when you comment on spell errors and full stops. can't you people improve it yourself. you people (not you) are good in commenting and opposing. Most of the wikipedians behave as they are unaware of the topic and they can't edit that page, but don't they even know about grammatic mistakes and spell errors. i am sorry for writing this message. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 15:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration, and as I have said on the FAC page, your work on the Himachal Pradesh article has not gone unnoticed and is appreciated.

Note though that FAC is a forum for reviewers to go over the article with a fine-tooth comb and point out any problems they spot, since the aim is to select articles that are wikipedia's finest. This, of course, is not always a very pleasant experience for editors who have spent hours of toil and effort on an article only to see uninvolved, self-styled critics make (what seem like) disparaging remarks about the product. But in such situation one should keep in mind that, (1) in being nitpicky, the reviewers are just doing their job diligently, (2) all the comments are on the article and not its editors.

As for the Himachal Pradesh page... in its current state, I don't think it has much chance of being declared an FA article. Since so many oppose votes have piled up the regular FA reviewers (Tony, SandyGeorgia etc) have not even bothered to chime in ( ... and if you thought the current crop of reviewers were tough, see what a full-fledged FAC debate looks like at the FAC review of Michael Jordan).

In my experience, the way to avoid (or rather minimize) the FAC strain is to make sure that the article goes through a thorough copyediting and peer review process before it is nominated for FA, and that it is at least qualifies as a WP:GA. That way, all the citation, grammar, punctuation, MOS issues have already been dealt with in a more cooperative environment before the article is faces the blazing glare at an FAC. See a more thorough discussion here.

I hope you won't let this experience weigh you down. I look forward to seeing an improved version of the Himachal Pradesh article become FA in the upcoming months ! Abecedare 16:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention in the previous post ... by tacit convention (not universally followed), FA reviewers often refrain from editing aa FAC article themselves while it is under review; perhaps in order to maintain objectivity. So please don't interpret their behavior as disrespectful or as high-handed commands for you to make the changes on their bidding. Again, I urge you to keep in mind that all the comments are directed at the article and not at you personally. Regards. Abecedare 16:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I was frustrated due to personal reasons also and i spitted out my frustration here on your talk page. pls don't mind. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 03:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It is easy to see you are putting in much effort to improve the article and are personally invested in it (sometimes that is a motivation, at other times a burden!) Even though I cannot support the article for FA in its current state, I whole-heartedly commend your efforts to move it in that direction. Cheers. Abecedare 08:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I rarely edit political articles, I recently added some sourced material to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh that immediately resulted in reversion and softening by a WP:SPA that may be a sock of some sort. I have not dealt much with this type of reversion issue. When Orpheus reverted the reversion, he was of course reverted. Can you take a look and give advice on how to deal with this type of situation by aggressive single-purpose accounts? As a member of the Harmonious Editing Club I try to avoid reversions, so this creates a difficult situation in dealing with the aggressive socks. Buddhipriya 03:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted my views on the Arb Com case and have referenced your posting. I would value any feedback you have on what I have said. I do not feel sure that my rambling essay is "evidence" so I put it on the talk page, which may or may not have been appropriate: [10] Buddhipriya 08:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first experience at ArbCom too, and I am only very tangentially involved since I rarely , if ever, edit Hindutva politics related articles. As far as I see the Evidence page is mainly used to state "facts" backed up by links/diffs. I am not certain whether your edit, which provides useful background information, belongs on the talk page or the evidence page. Perhaps the person to ask would be the clerk handling the case, i.e. User:Newyorkbrad - he is a very experienced editor/admin and should be able to guide you in the matter.

I would say that this will be a useful learning experience for both of us into the Dispute Resolution processes of wikipedia ... but in all honesty I would rather hope that these ideology issues were not so pervasive on wikipedia, and we could spend a greater fraction of our time on actual content creation. I also wish that horses could fly :-) Abecedare 08:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the churning of the original ocean, the devas and the demons had to cooperate to get the job done. So nothing is impossible, and the best case would be to find a way to collaborate with some rational representative of the group to seriously work on content issues. It should be noted that the demons got rather a shoddy deal in the bargain, and were ultimately cheated out of the amrita by the devas after the collaboration finished. So much for that example... :) Buddhipriya 08:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]