User talk:Buddhipriya/Archives/2010/March

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Where have you been? About Wendy Doniger, the article is off my watchlist. Not one of my greatest interests. I am out of touch with the current status of the Wendy article. Can you provide some ref where (what text) Invading the Sacred was referenced or my support/opp to it. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was hoping that you could tell me what text from Invading the Sacred had been deleted. I can't find the diff. I only recently returned from Wikibreak and noticed that you had objected to some removal, so I was looking into it. Best regards, and hope to work together with you again on some page or other. Buddhipriya (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I found the diff for the remarks you made about the subject, back in October of 2009: [1] Buddhipriya (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no defense of your edit here. You remove content sourced to academic journals and replace it with attacks sourced to opinion-editorial pieces, which you know are unreliable. What you did is wrong. — goethean ॐ 03:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted to fall back to the last version as it had been left by Rudra prior to your long series of edits. Please make use of the talk pages on the article to try to build more support for individual edits rather than making many changes at once. In the long run that will have the best chance of making sustained gains in the article. Buddhipriya (talk) 05:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Despite your warning, User:Gantlet reverted the Kochi page using another sock Bubluonline. See here : [2] . Gantlet also have anouther sock User:Trock95, which was banned earlier. He also uses anonymous IPs to revert the pages. --Dewatchdog (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for saying hello. I came to the article only because it was announced as having an edit war in progress. I am not an administrator. If you suspect that socks are involved I suggest that you bring the matter to the attention of an administrator. I personally follow a one-revert policy on these things, and having fired my single shot in the battle, I am now finished with the skirmish. Buddhipriya (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Mayurasia (talk · contribs) is a known POV pusher (see [3], [4]), and sockmaster known to edit and edit-war under various IDs including Mkbdtu (talk · contribs), Rudasharman (talk · contribs), Abecedere (talk · contribs), Rudrasharmann (talk · contribs) and various IPs (see partial list).
A couple of weeks back (before I was aware of this), I had a lengthy good-faith discussion with him on the topic of the Jaya redaction, before discovering that he was either simply citing back references Rudra and I had looked up, or worse, making up references without even knowing that the work he was citing was a collection of articles!
In short, while it is always possible that the user may have a legitimate point once in a while, don't take what he says at face value or waste too much time trying to confirm or refute it (I'm once bitten, twice shy). In fact, it's perfectly ok to simply revert posts by his socks without comments. If he really wishes to continue editing here, he can post an unblock request on one of his accounts and perhaps be unlocked with editing restrictions. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the backgound. I obviously have been out of the loop. Buddhipriya (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to keep track of all the sockmasters and their numerous avatars. This one I remember, because of the considerable good faith and time I wasted in discussion with him. After the Mayurasia sock was blocked he created the User:Abecedere account and copied my talk and user pages as his (those edits have been deleted, so you won't see them). He did the same with rudra; so you can expect some doppelganger accounts being created soon. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That said, it seems that some good has come out of the Jaya investigation (at least I am learning something as a result of it). It is an ill wind that blows no good. Buddhipriya (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

My main moto was to discuss this 8800 verses claim,i made my last account on request of abcedare otherwise i was discussing from my ip,and an article DATE OF MAHABHARATA EPIC was introduced by one of my friend mkbdtu,i simply discuss the topic.mkbdtu is a student of my college.our college has shared network of internet.Now i m not interested in wikipedia.i have got frustrated from wikipedia and mkbdtu.because if i make any new account then it will also be blocked after some days due to sock account of mkbdtu. thnks for responsing me due to your eager to know new interests,offcourse u r a good learner. i know abecedare will think that i m saying lie,so for his happiness,i will not share any of my idea regaring any article.offcourse i m a bad man or master socker,i should leave far away from wikipedia as she suggested me.--mayurasia--115.240.42.158 (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I am not an administrator and do not understand the ins and outs of shared IP addresses well enough to comment. I am sure that with some effort and good faith you can work with an admin to try to clear things up. I would encourage you to use a Wikipedia account with a username rather than an IP address if you wish to build a more clear identity, since ip addresses can be shared and may be confusing to others. The content issue of the 8,800 verses is quite interesting and did lead to a productive exchange on the talk page for the article, which was a positive result. Best regards. Buddhipriya (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

it seemed very nice to me that u think positively,but i think my impression has got damaged on abcedare,rudra.so it better for a person like me to leave wikipedia.thank u for giving me courage.i will surely discuss jaya article if u want —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.42.158 (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to discuss content issues on the talk pages of the articles involved rather than here, but thank you for your offer of dialog. If you have not got off on the right foot with some administrators so far, you can always seek a third opinion by involving another administrator who can give a neutral view. You can examine a full list of administrators if you wish to seek a third opinion. Buddhipriya (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Buddhipriya. You have new messages at Abecedare's talk page.
Message added 07:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Hi, Buddhipriya I added a book review critique. Please take a look. Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Goethan has removed this entire paragraph I wrote:

"However, her book, The Hindus: an alternative history is not without critics. Piali Roy, writing in the Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper, although stating that The Hindus is "quite a compilation, diverse and self-referential," and does a good job of tracking the influence of Buddhism and Jainism on the Vedic era, also states that Doniger admits herself that she is "not a historian." [18] For example, she slanted in her view towards northern India and emphasizes the South only with the bhakti movement, or new schools of thought in the 10th century. [19] Also her choice of historical figures is idiosyncratic; she highlights saints such as Kabir and Mirabai but ignores Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism who is just as pivotal. [20] Although Doniger should be commended for including Dalit voices and showing the variety of Hindu experiences, her attempts at inclusiveness is marred by a sloppy misreading of secondary sources and some overstretches of analysis. [21] For example, her suggestion that “the Vedic reverence for violence flowered in the slaughters that followed Partition,” near the end of the book, is such an exaggeration." This appears to be well-referenced What do you think? Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied elsewhere and on talk page for the article. Buddhipriya (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

this edit is a violation of

I'm sorry you don't agree. Please discuss the matter on the talk page for the article. The Indology list that we are discussing is a well-known medium for professional communication. I understand that you do not support its use. Please try to get consensus for your position on the talk page. Buddhipriya (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be unfamiliar with the content of your own edit. It is a purported email from Doniger displayed on a weblog, and has nothing to do with an Indology listserv. — goethean ॐ 00:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Besides the "content sourced to a weblog" is (a link to) Doniger defending herself. People who don't like Witzel's critique should be thrilled. Sheesh. rudra (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Rudra, I am not sure if the "you" in your remark above refers to me or to the other editor. To be clear, the intent of my edit was to preserve both the Witzel Indology list post and the response by WD in the same reference in order to provide balance, including two sources on the same topic, neither from an academic press. The version as you have recently edited it [5] preserves that, which I think is fair. Buddhipriya (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just tagging onto your first response in this thread. I've also changed the word "response" to "rejoinder" in an attempt to clarify the nature of the link. rudra (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Links that I found

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)
• Wikipedia:Indic transliteration scheme
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (India-related articles) (inactive) --Redtigerxyz ^Talk
  18:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! For a list of links related to this, showing all the language samples I've found so far, check my userpage. Buddhipriya (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Raj2004 (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Buddhipriya (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Raj2004 (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The positive approach suggested by Abecedare is gaining some traction with a majority of the editors, except for Goethan. see [[6]] Raj2004 (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that consensus is forming around a positive approach. Rather that focusing on editors who may not yet agree, first I think it's important to show existence of clear agreement on methods by those who do agree. Once that consensus is shown clearly, editors who do not agree with the majority can still be positive contributors as part of a loyal opposition. The key is to have dialog that leads to constant improvement in quality by demanding proof for every assertion. I appreciate the positive efforts you are making to try to ensure that all views are considered, and thanks for saying hello. Buddhipriya (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. We have worked on Hinduism-related articles in the past and I have enjoyed working with you. Raj2004 (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Goethan is accusing you of taking our side. See his nonsense at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wendy_Doniger#Please_be_aware_of_WP:3RR Raj2004 (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess that you prefer not to reply to this nonsense. Raj2004 (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not feel that a reply was needed, but thank you for your followup. Buddhipriya (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)