Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:45, 12 August 2016

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Archives

/Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Re: your personal attacks and forum-y use of article talk page again

@Mayasutra: No incivility in wikipedia, please, with comments such as "You see Ms.Welch, you have a peculiar problem...." as you did here. You have been warned by @SpacemanSpiff, @RexxS, @Bishonen and others, in April 2016, for a similar behavior on Talk:Maya (illusion). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Stop preaching. Take care of your civility first. Just reply to the post made to you in the talk page of Kapila.--Mayasutra (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

August 2016

• Adding: You have been warned enough about personal attacks, you must know that attacks such as "your statement is intentionally ambiguous or misleading," (my italics) or "Lady, there is a certain inability in you??" as here are totally unacceptable. Bishonen | talk 11:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC).

Is the additional statement by Sarah Welch not intentionally ambiguous (in other words using weasel words) and misleading? How would you rate Sarah Welch constantly repeating the same thing; such that there indeed seems to a certain inability in following what is expected of her; wrt to use of sources to make claims which the source does not state as explained here as also the introduction of the additional statement (also explained in the same link)? How would you rate the use of stfu on a noticeboard, as this? No blocking required for RexxS for that? Does that mean some are better placed in wiki than the rest? How about intentionally deleting the statement on the metamorphosis of the asura Kapila associated with the transformation of the Samkhya from atheist to idealist; and the transformation of female Kapila to male Kapila, both of which are supported by the Vaikunta inscription description of Chaturvedi source taking the Kaśmirāgama Pån᷈charatra philosophy, iconography, and other works into account?

BTW, Bishonen, this is our heritage; that of the natives. That Kapila is rooted in antiquity with Asuri (of the brahmana tradition) 'converting' to Sankhya simply means atheism was an offshoot of the vedic people; though Kapila was probably not a vedic period sage. Unfortunately English language uses 3 major words - theism, atheism, agnostic - for epistemological representation of orientation towards divinities. People of the subcontinent were far more complex than that. While Sankya is comparable to agnosticism; it is not agnosticism. I have read the Sankyakarika innumerable times. But have never made major contributions to the Sankya article despite there being sufficient works on similar lines in print from reputed Indian scholars (bcoz i know what to expect here). Also, the transformation of the female Kapila into male Kapila is nothing different from the yamala tradition; a tradition which incidentally is also Sankhya-like in the purusha-prakriti union with gradual transformation. The yamalas are well-preserved in the agama tradition something which the western mind does not take into consideration while interpreting everything 'vedic'. Perhaps bcoz they dispel certain notions of a certain western mind which looks down upon such practices and are hence not well received in certain parts of the western academia as mainstream ??? Well, whatever it may be. Also, everything cannot be perfect in any tradition (most of us accept as is, some of us learn to do so).

What am trying to say, is that deliberately deleting statements, disrupting my edits, such that I cannot continue to proceed with a sentence or two to represent a concept of Kapila, is something I cannot appreciate. Nor do I appreciate claiming things for POV-pushing (as explained above). It is nicer to have an honest representation of both sides (those who claim vedic sage and those who date him to 7th century BC) without being conclusive ourselves. I would appreciate if am guided on how much inline text in notes is permissible, or have someone working together to delete larger content to make into concise few sentences, to improve article. My mistake was to put all the text into one citation and use it as a reference for multiple sentences. I should have just used multiple citations instead (with trimmed inline text in notes). Obviously, the lady just does not permit me to work an additional day. The very day I started working on the article, she had to come on board to edit as well; thus leading to the issues. Seriously, I believe there is something not OK about the way she works. The ruse of claiming WP:Primary, assuming it is small cause, asking totally irrelevant things (like was Kapila disciple of female teachers), deliberately making it tenuous, deliberately repeating herself, is plain ?????(what to say). This despite the fact that whenever she makes an edit which is useful, I have clicked on thanks. So, seriously, I have no idea what to make of this. I will have to agree with Kashmiri on the fun of reverting.

Anyways, after the 48 hour period, I would like you to moderate the talk page and let me know if suggested changes are acceptable. Thanks --Mayasutra (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

I'm afraid I'm not the right person to do that; I'm pretty ignorant of the subject, and thus of the subtleties of sourcing. I do recognise a personal attack when I see one, though. You would really do yourself a favour by studying the policy No personal attacks, and learning to avoid them. I can't believe you have done so, especially since you suggest "stfu" is a personal attack. What's personal about it? Nothing. As far as moderating the talkpage, it's unfortunate that the admins knowledgable about Indian subjects tend to be either on on lengthy breaks, or "highly irregular" in their editing, such as SpacemanSpiff. I suggest you appeal to User:RegentsPark. He's being fairly active. Bishonen | talk 09:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC).

I don't know much about the subject either but, after reading the suggestions made by Mayasutra, am willing to moderate the discussion in terms of fealty to sources. --regentspark (comment) 13:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Note on reliability of publications/sources

This is to address 2 things (1) issues on Sarah Welch's claims wiki guidelines on Kapila article; and (2) issues Kashmiri raised on this platform. I had to say the below:

Frequently asking others to accept whatever respected publishing houses print will not do in certain cases. Some amount of discernment is needed. Where I live, am associated with a printing press. Its amazing to see the work so called reputed publishers send for printing. If 10 people say the same thing in 10 diff books, the 11th book will not need a reference. It will be passable/acceptable for peer review. Which is apparently why Haldane and Dronamraju do not require to state their source.

Secondly, in today's world if you have 20 books, you can write of your own, bringing around syncretism from their work while offering your view. Your original research will pass peer review. Which is what Gonda and Pintchman's work does. Their views are WP:Primary while that of Haldane and Dronamraju are neither primary, secondary nor tertiary.

Hence, kindly review these 2 source: (1) JBS Haldane is author, and Dronamraju is editor. The Glossary section of the book makes a statement -- "Kapila a vedic sage, author of basic principles of the Samkhya system of Indian Philosophy" -- this in a book of semi-biographical essays by Haldane on what he requires from life (the book states no source). It is neither a journal in history nor a book on the subject matter (history). Just bcoz Oxford Uni Press publishes it, how does it become valid? As a secondary or tertiary source? (2) Same holds true for the Guida Myrl Jackson-Laufer.

Thirdly, if an author has 20 books and another has 30 books; the latter may state things differently. Is it not necessary to discern among them for reliability of sources? Just bcoz wiki has no WP:Primary does it mean the author's work cannot be acceptable for an article?

Its appalling Sarah Welch does not admit WP:Primary for Kashmiri but questions the WP:PRIMARY for Chaturvedi's work. Is this not deliberate?

I would like wiki administrators to take up this issue in their next conference:

• Can Wiki offer guidelines on books with original research for certain subject matters?

Example: If an idol follows the Brahma-yamala-tantra, it has to have certain detailing. It cannot belong to any other tantra school, unless the other school also has a similar literary tradition on the image-making and veneration procedures of the said deity. The styling of the image can differ in two different yamala-tantra schools with different literary traditions; though they worship the same deity. A temple complex can be built in either Pallava, Pandya, Chola, or Vijayanagar styles (each with distinct architectural styles). There are not many researchers who studied their unique variations / contributions; be it the adisthana styles, wall building styles, kostas, toranas, vimanas, shikharas, pillars, capitals, kapotas, mandapas, and gopuras. Only a few have carried out original research in this field; that too comparing architectural styling with inscriptions and literary traditions. For ex: A.K.Coomaraswamy and V.S.Agarawala produced the biggest treasure of literature on Yaksha imagery / statutary known in Indian history so far. Such being the case should not WP:Primary of such scholars be admissible? Why is Sarah Welch questioning WP:DUE of Chaturvedi's work? More so, when she admits WP:PRIMARY of Pintchman.

• If an author like Max Muller neither states "Kapila is not a Vedic scholar", nor states "Kapila is a Vedic scholar" -- does it mean Sarah Welch can construe and claim as she wants? Max Muller opines Hiranyagarbha Kapila of the vedas was distinct, and was later used to link to Kapila of Sankhya, to assign the authorship of Sankya system to Hiranyagarbha. Which of-course means he did not think Kapila of Sankhya was a vedic sage. Does he have to state it as such? What is wrong in Sarah Welch's attitude? Is it wrong to state Max Muller's view in the article? Do note: nearly everything about Max Muller will be WP:Primary because he was one of the pioneers who did extensive research. So, is Max Muller source admissible?

So, can wiki offer guidelines on which books are acceptable? Can Sarah Welch use WP:Primary sources herself; but disallow WP:Primary sources for other editors?

BTW, Sarah Welch, in your latest post it is ridiculous to repeat the point on 'vedic sage' (takes density of a certain kind to continue doing that). Am saying both views should be admitted, those who say vedic sage and those who date him to 7th century BC in a neutral way; not in the way you have done, introducing an additional statement claiming "This places him in the late Vedic period (1500 BCE to 500 BCE), and he has been called a Vedic sage" - which is deliberately additional to be ambiguous/misleading (weasel words) amounting to pov-pushing. Sarah Welch, what you are doing is WP:ASSERT violating Wiki policy of Neutrality. Can you show any statement in this which is not neutral?

--Mayasutra (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra