Talk:Adi Shankara/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.

Contents

Bad faith edits

When a User reverts all my edits with no explanation but a childishly untrue claim in the edit summary that my own edit summary was inaccurate, I don't feel the need to explain my consequent revert, and I shan't in future. If anyone wants to explain what they think is wrong with my attempts to improve the article, then I'll be happy to discuss the issue. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Your well aware of my objections to your watchdogging this page, we've already discussed this here. its seems I'm not alone in my concerns... funny, that... Sam Spade 03:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

You mean that you reverted my edits because you object to my having this page on my Watchlist and trying to improve it and protect it from poor edits? Well at least you're honest about your bad-faith editing, but that doesn't really make it any better. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I object to your reverts, and the reasoning for them, yes. Sam Spade 00:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

+++++++++ May 3rd 21:00 CDT I notice that user Mel Etitis had reverted some of the edits as unexplained. The reasons for the edits are commented inline - meaning they are in the article itself. Maybe Mel would like to clarify what needs to be explained here, and I'll do so.

Thanks - M +++++++++

RfC

As SS insists on reverting my edits but refuses to explain (the nearest he gets is calling them "bizarre" in his edit summary) I've asked for comments. Fresh eyes on the article would be appreciated. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we're getting a little too quick on the revert trigger on the part of both parties here. Maybe both Mel and Sam could agree to try observing a variation on the one-revert rule for a little while; let the article sit as it is right now, and commit only non-revert edits for a while. If one of you makes an edit that the other disagrees with that you would ordinarily revert, discuss it on the talk page. Most of the edits at issue in the series of reverts I look at and think "some of these are good changes, some are debatable, and some should probably be undone". Reverts of an entire submission is too coarse a tool for dealing with these situations, particular the debatable changes. The real problem here is that edits by third parties are at risk of being inadvertantly wiped out during reverts and counterreverts (this seems to have happened in the latest edit by User:Imc). Sound sensible? --Clay Collier 05:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, that is my thought entirely. This all started because I saw this revert by Mel. As you can see from User_talk:Sam_Spade#Adi_Shankara, that has been my concern all along. Also, if you notice, I have been observing the 1 rr, making no more than 1 revert every 24hrs, and I have done my best to merge in any actual improvements. Sam Spade 14:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you both please summarise the stylistic or other differences between you two here? It looks like an extremely trivial dispute. --Ravikiran 17:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It is. Basically I object to Mel having reverted a generally good edit, I reverted his revert, he reverted me back, and here we are. Sam Spade 22:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I made a series of edits that I thought improved the article. SS reverted them, calling them bizarre. Since then he's refused to explain what it is about them that is bizarre, or to which he objects. I am still completely in the dark as to his reasons for revrting. Some of my edits reverted earlier edits by an anon, which I take to have replaced good style with slightly worse style. For example:
"From a young age, Shankara was attracted to asceticism and to the life of a renunciate. His mother Aryamba was however entirely against his becoming a Sannyasi, and consistently refused him her formal permission, which was required before he could take Sannyasam. Once when Shankara was bathing in the river, a crocodile gripped him by the leg and began rapidly to drag him into the water."
was changed to:
"From a young age, Shankara was attracted to asceticism and to the life of a renunciate. However, his mother, Aryamba, was entirely against his becoming a Sannyasi, and consistently refused him her formal permission, which was required before he could take Sannyasam. Once when Shankara was bathing in the river, a crocodile gripped him by the leg and began to rapidly drag him into the water."
Why SS thinks that the former is so much better as to warrant regular reverting I don't know. I don't hold that so-called split infinitives are grammatically wrong and must be avoided, but I can see no reason to insist on including one when the original text avoided it.
The changes which I reverted also included unnecessary division of the article into smaller sections, a lot of duplicated internal links, some PoV language (e.g., I replaced "his greatest lesson" with "his main lesson"), and the addition of a section which mentions what one writer (out of very many) has said about Shankara's dates — an addition which I think is somewhat PoV, as it raises one opinion above others. I also removed a duplication in the bibliography ("The commentary on the Bhagavad Gita" appears both as book that he certainly wrote and as one that he probably wrote, but on which there's no scholarly agreement, and I organised the external links section so that links to the same sites were grouped together.
Why is SS reverting all these and a host of other edits? I don't know; he refuses to say. The nearest he's come is to say that he opposes my watching over this article — something that Wikipedia editors do all the time (including, of course, SS himself). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I would describe that as a complete mischaracterisation, and advise any interested parties to review my statements, the links I provide, and the articles edit history. Sam Spade 01:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

There will be a user conduct RfC is false edit summaries like this continue to be used. Sam Spade 16:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Attempt to resolve dispute

I wonder if the two of you couldn't try to go through the items in dispute one by one and find agreement on at least some of them? For example, the first item is "Hindu scriptures" v. "Hindu scriptures"[1]. Now, I don't have a strong opinion about this, but it seems to me that since Hinduism is hyperlinked a few lines above, and that links in turn to Hindu, that might suffice. But then, that is just my opinion.
The next item is Namboothiri v. Namboodiri. The latter redirects to the former. So, I don't understand why this is in dispute. It should be Namboothiri. The discussion of the spelling of this name should be moved to the Namboothiri talk page so that the editors of that article can participate.
The third item is is v. are. Since the subject of the sentence, "traditional source", is singular, "is" is the correct word.
Now, I notice that I've sided with Mel on the first two items, and Sam on the third, but I would caution both of you against drawing any conclusions from this. That is just how it happened to come out. The important thing is that if you can come to an agreement on any or all of these items, maybe some of the other items can be resolved as well. Even if you can't resolve all the items, finding agreement on some would be a big help if you do have seek arbitration to resolve the balance. Thank you both for trying to improve Wikipedea and best wishes. -Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments. So that you know, Hinduism does not link to Hindu. Namboothiri I have no problem with, but he reverted a large number of wikilinks as well. My primary problem is his usage of a revert in these cases, which was clearly inappropriate and problematic. Sam Spade 23:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I appreciate very much your agreement with my opinion on the Namboothiri matter. I will proceed to make the change. I'd like to ask that Mel not revert the article to his version as long as progress in resolving the disputed items is occurring. I know that will be disagreeable to him because it is mostly Sam's version at this point, but I would be grateful for Mel's help in this regard. Now, the matter of whether Hinduism links to Hindu can be resolved, I think. The link that I found is just above the table of Contents of Hinduism: "See Hindu for more about a Hindu and different communities of Hindus." Now, I think that is bad style because it is easy to overlook. I had to search for it. I think it would be better if a place for Hindu could be found in the first two or three sentences. The wording of the sentence containing the link is bad too, because it is reminiscent of the See also section at the ends of article and breaks up the flow of the writing. But, perhaps we can agree to work with the other editors of Hinduism to improve the wording and to give Hindu more prominence. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, i misunderstood you at first. I thought you thought Hindu redirected to hinduism (which it once did, but no longer does). Now I see you were refering to the fact that the article Hinduism contains within it a link to Hindu. That is indeed the case, but I feel this article (Adi Shankara) ought to link to hindu as well, and indeed generally should link to a wide variety of relevant articles. I sincerely appreciate your mediations here, Walter Siegmund. Sam Spade 03:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I'm sorry that I wasn't clear in my previous comment. For the record, it seems to me that a reader of this article is probably already fairly knowledgeable about Hinduism and Hindus since a beginner would be unlikely to start here. On the other hand, at least one link is appropriate, just to be safe. It seems to me that Hinduism is the more relevant of the two. From Hinduism, the reader can reach Hindu, albeit with the misgivings I expressed previously. I am sure that you know of the discussions occur among editors on the extent of links. Many share your view that the links should be more extensive than less. I would summarize as follows: More links are better because who can know what link might be helpful to a future reader v. too many links make it hard for the reader to find the one that is useful or necessary, and detract from the appearance of the article. I think we should give Mel an opportunity to comment. I'm pleased that you think I've been helpful, Sam. Thank you. -Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of links

First, for the record, I made the change of Namboodiri to Namboothiri before my edit above at 04:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC). Second, I want to thank Mel for not reverting the current content.
Since the subject of links has been broached, I wonder if it wouldn't be good to try to resolve that category next, rather than item by item. A cross-wiki link to Wiktionary may be better for some of the links, but for now, I'd like to focus on only the issue of whether the word should be linked or not. Here are my thoughts.
What should not be linked
Plain English words:
The time, space, causation, change and eternity articles do include sections on philosophy, but it is embarrassing that the only comment on Asian thought on these matters I found was one sentence in Causality. Consequently, a reader of this article would find little of help in those. Moreover, this article does not discuss the philosophy of time, space, causation, change or eternity in any significant detail. But, I would support linking to those articles once they include significant Asian philosophical content. But, even then, the link should be to the philosophy section, not to the top of the article. I didn't find anything on philosophy or religion in universe or mortality.
What should be linked
Major connections with the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully:
Technical terms should be linked unless they are fully defined in the article:
  • shlokas
  • atman But only the first occurrence and it should be spelled consistently in this article (and hopefully with the referenced article as well).
  • sacerdotalism
Discussed earlier, see entry at 04:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC) above.
Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

We don't agree philosophically regarding wikilinks, I feel more is better, and that any concivably useful link should occur at least once per section. However, you have been communicative and reasonable regarding your preference, so I am willing to accept your preference for this page, as long as Mel does not resume reversions of edits which improve the article. Sam Spade 23:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sam, thank you for your spirit of cooperation and your interest in resolving disagreements through discussion. I think I summarized your position on links (and that of those who disagree with you) in my comment of 04:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC), but correct me if I'm wrong. We are fortunate, however, that the Style Guide section on links can help us resolve our differences. That is why I linked to sections of the Style Guide in my list of the links in dispute above. I thought that you and Mel might be able to discuss whether the link in question was in the correct sublist, rather than rehashing philosophical positions on links. The latter is not relevant to this discussion, in my view, and is unlikely to lead to agreement, in any case.
Subsequent to your acceptance of the link changes that I suggested, I was disappointed to see that Mel reverted the article that you and I were working on to his version and requested that it be blocked. Further effort on my part, in the absence of participation by Mel, seems fruitless to me. Best wishes to you both. -Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Your attempt to mediate has been noted and appreciated. Thank you very much. Sam Spade 00:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Article protected

The article has been protected per the request at WP:RFP. And please don't accuse me of taking sides, Mel did not contact me and I'd have protected the wrong version either way. Once you've resolved your differences of opinion, it can be unprotected. FeloniousMonk 01:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL! What a joke, as soon as reasonable people start agreeing on what edits to make, a good friend of Mel (who has refused to participate in discussion) locks the page... shortly after Mel reverts! What a coincidence! Sam Spade 20:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

My position

I had explained to SS why I'd made the edits that I had, and he refused to discuss the issue, merely making general comments about me and the edits (mainly in edit summaries). I eventually (two days ago) asked for the page to be protected. I'm currently struggling with a particularly heavy teaching load, so I'm a couple of days behind checking on my Watchlist (I'm now at 02:06 on 8 x 05, if anyone's interested), and I missed the current discussion. I'm pleased that the intervention of a third party, Walter Siegmund, has finally brought SS to the discussion, but I'd asked for page protection before most of that discussion had taken place.

I agree with almost everything that Walter Siegmund said, and even where I don't I appreciate his calm and serious approach. I hope that he'll return to the Talk page. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to resolve this dispute

Sam Spade and Mel Etitis, thank you both for your kind words about my efforts. I've been thinking about how best to proceed given that Mel Etitis has little time to devote to this discussion at present and that it is in all of our interests to unblock the article promptly so that we and others can resume our efforts to improve it. Since you both have expressed confidence in my efforts and little inclination to examine my comments one by one, I wonder if a solution along the follow lines might be acceptable?

  • I will undertake to edit the disputed items consistent with my suggestions above. These have been accepted by Sam Spade and mostly agreed to by Mel Etitis.
  • I will edit the items not yet discussed in a manner that seems best to me. I will give prompt consideration and response to queries posted here regarding all edits.
  • Both parties will agree to not make any further change(s) to the disputed items without proposing the change(s) here for comment one week prior to making the change(s). Each agrees to make the change(s) only if a clear consensus, or no dissent, occurs.
  • In the future, both parties agree to avoid criticizing one another or their actions in general terms. A well-reasoned comment on a specific edit is appropriate, however, and will be accepted as such by the recipient.
  • Both parties agree not to revert the other in the future on this or any other article. But, if you edit anonymously, please don't complain if you are reverted by the other.
  • Neither party is restrained by this agreement from reverting edits by third parties to this or other articles, as he sees fit, and in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia.
  • Both parties agree that this is the full and final settlement of this dispute and agree not to rehash it henceforth.
  • Once both parties have accepted these terms (or as modified by subsequent discussion), Mel Etitis will request the block on the article be removed so that the other items can be accomplished.
  • For the record, this is the difference page for the disputed items.

Thank you for your consideration of my proposal. -Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree to that, unless the agreement not to revert applies to pages other than this one, and w the stipulation that Mel (and I) not revert non-vandalism edits to this page w/o prior consensus. Sam Spade 21:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade, I'm sorry. I can't agree to your stipulation to allow reversions of each other's work under any circumstance and I've modified the language above to make this clear. I fear that to do otherwise opens the door to a transfer of this dispute to another article or a resumption of the dispute on this article. I think that the history of this dispute demonstrates that reversion is not going to resolve a dispute between you and Mel Etitis. You are not giving up a useful tool by agreeing to this provision. You are gaining an end to the vexation that his reversions have caused you. I would be very grateful if you would be kind enough to reconsider your objection to this provision. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing in Walter Siegmund's proposal to which I could reasonably object, and I agree to all parts, and thank him for the time and thought that he's put in to this. I'd rather not tie my hands with regard to edits by anyone else, though. (For example, the insistence of certain religious groups to impose their non-standard views concerning Shankara's dates don't count as vandalism, but needs to be dealt with.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis, thank you for your prompt reply, especially in light of your busy schedule. Nothing in my proposal should be construed as restraining either of the parties from reverting edits by third parties as he sees fit and in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia. I've added language to this effect above. Thank you for pointing out the need to explicitly address this point. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

In that case I cannot agree, this entire problem is the result of a revert Mel made of an anon edit. I don't have major edits to be making to this article, but others do. Mel cannot be allowed to stand in their way. Sam Spade 00:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for giving serious consideration to my proposal. I have found that fighting other people's battles is rarely rewarded or appreciated. But that is your decision. Perhaps you can understand my disinclination to put effort into resolving a dispute that seems certain to erupt again. Best wishes. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Sam Spade, you deserve a more complete response than I've given. I am sorry. I don't think your proposal that you and Mel Etitis not revert non-vandalism edits to the article without prior consensus is workable. What is and is not vandalism is a matter of judgement. I think before long you would disagree and fall back into conflict. The POV date dispute, is not Vandalism, in my opinion. If that is correct, under your proposal, a consensus would have to be obtained before each such edit could be reverted. Surely, the ensuing delay would only encourage the POV advocates. I suppose that an exception could be made for that category, but that makes deciding when to seek consensus before reverting more complex and thereby open to criticism. -Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't like seeing Mel revert good edits. That is the root of our conflict here. I am agreeable w things that make that stop happening. Sam Spade 03:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


Seems like there is no resolution right now.... a couple of possible solutions, more then one could be used:

1)Sam and Mel both agree to neither one do anything to this article without both of them agreeing to the change beforehand, maybe on one of the talk pages? If they can't find consensus on an issue, it doesn't happen. And, they go one proposal at a time.

2)Both agree to no mass reverts EVER on this page again

3)Both agree that for each change, they make actual edit comments EXPLAINING why they are doing it.

4)Both agree to only a one edit per day on this page

and lastly if that isn't possible, or doesn't work, how about if neither Sam Spade nor Mel Etitis touch this article for say.... 4 months?

Just some ideas. Sethie 01:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


Just some ideas.

Outside comments on this dispute

I don't understand. I can't find any differences of opinion, only some relatively dubious grammatical 'correction'. Is there really any difference in substance between the two supposedly alternative articles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.104 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 13 November 2005 .

Editing disputes often seem to be about rather minor matters when viewed by others. However, it is important to know that the editors of an article often care a great deal about the subject and the content of the article, e.g., Chimera and Circumcision. I found the following differences (parties correct me as necessary):
  • grammar, especially the use of split infinitives.
  • spelling/upper & lower case (always a problem when transliterating between two languages).
  • extent of word-linking.
  • the number of sections.
  • one item in the biography list.
  • wording described as somewhat POV.
  • inclusion of a reference described as somewhat POV.
I think that the progress made above suggests that it is possible to resolve these matters. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be at the root of this dispute. Sam Spade states, "... this entire problem is the result of a revert Mel made of an anon edit. I don't have major edits to be making to this article, but others do. Mel cannot be allowed to stand in their way." Also, "I don't like seeing Mel revert good edits. That is the root of our conflict here. I am agreeable w things that make that stop happening." [Talk:Adi_Shankara#Proposal_to_resolve_this_dispute]
When I thought this dispute was about content, I resisted commenting on its history. (Rehashing the past is not a good way to move forward.) At this point, however, a short comment may be in order. I think AGF might have helped. Suppose Sam Spade had assumed that Mel Etitis had overlooked the good points in the edit in question and that he would appreciate a kind and thoughtful note on his talk page to that effect. Something like the following might have been appropriate:

... Regarding your reversion of the edits of 129.79.205.132 on Adi Shankara, I think you may have overlooked certain positive aspects of those edits.

  • An extra parenthesis was deleted in the first line. It is easy to miss, but surely a good thing.
  • South was made lower case in keeping with my reading of the MoS on directions. Am I misinterpreting the MoS here? I notice that South India exists. Perhaps that link should be substituted here.
  • I wonder if the variant spelling of keraliya might be kept parenthetically, at least until the redlink article is stubbed and it can be debated there?
  • Perhaps one or two of the grammar edits could be retained on the principle of encouraging newcomers?

Thank you for considering these items and for your efforts fighting vandals. Best wishes, ...

I think Mel Etitis may have responded in a manner more to your liking to such an approach. I think it is important to keep in mind the saying, "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."
In conclusion, I don't know how, short of an indefinite block, to prevent an editor from reverting good, or bad, edits. All you can do is try to persuade the editor of your opinion of a particular edit. If you make a good case, most editors will either agree with you or try to reach an acceptable compromise. If not, you may have made the editor more receptive to the edit and you may persuade third parties. In either event, if you move on, you can improve some of the other 800,000 articles that need your attention. The anonymous editor, 129.79.205.132, has done that and has been complemented on his/her talk page on the quality of his/her contributions.
I hope that those reading my comments will not see them as one-sided. Although I have directed most of my comments toward Sam Spade, I have criticized the reversion of the anonymous editor by Mel Etitis in my example of how Sam Spade might have handled the dispute differently.
The anonymous edit at the root of this dispute.
Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You make good points. This is not the first example of Mel and I having a messy difference of opinion, and while that may not excuse, it might explain this incident. There was User_talk:Sam_Spade#Adi_Shankara which you may not have seen, btw. Sam Spade 12:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Just read the discussion. --Bhadani 15:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade, I have seen User_talk:Sam_Spade#Adi_Shankara. It is my opinion that arguments over grammar, if no clear rule applies, are best avoided. I think that the split infinitives in dispute here fit that description and that the two parties concur. To the extent that is not true, it is an issue better raised at Talk:Split infinitive, than here. In my example of how you might have argued your position with Mel Etitis (above), I listed it last and justified it on the basis WP:bite, not grammar. The grammar argument is very weak and I think many (or most) editors share the opinion of 195.93.21.104 (above).
  • It is inevitable, in a project as geographically and culturally disparate as this, that disagreements will arise over wording. Depending on the language that you experienced as a child, studied in school, or hear daily, a particular phrase may sound untutored, on one hand, or pedantic or precious, on the other. It is more positive to embrace the diversity of the backgrounds of our editors and the strength and vitality that such diversity confers on the project. At the same time, you should recognize that no particular uniformity of expression is likely to emerge from the chaos that is at the core of Wikipedia.
  • The content is not affected by how a thought is expressed, as long as it is expressed clearly. Please keep the goal of the project in mind (see below).
  • If the content is not clear, point out how the original could be misinterpreted and how the wording you prefer solves that problem. That is a good argument, in my view, and a fight that is worth fighting.
  • If the wording is a clear violation of a rule of grammar, e.g., a singular subject with a plural verb, it may be an argument worth pursuing. However, it may be an indication that the sentence is cumbersome and should be rephrased. As an example, consider "The traditional source for accounts of his life is the Shankara Vijayams, which are essentially hagiographies." The alternative wording, "The hagiographic Shankara Vijayams are the sources of accounts of his life" might be acceptable to both parties." It is a bit more succinct, as well. Rewording and reorganizing, even if not immediately successful, is more likely to lead to agreement than an edit war.
Sam Spade, I've replied to you, but I wonder if Mel Etitis wouldn't be kind enough to consider my comments, as well. Isn't it about time to settle this? Bhadani, have you any substantive comments? Best wishes to everyone. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I frequently counsel people who are getting frustrated about an edit war to think about someone who lives without clean drinking water, without any proper means of education, and how our work might someday help that person. It puts flamewars into some perspective, I think.

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. [2]

Thats nice, but what I'm doing is making sure that when 3rd world kids find a way to edit, some pedant admin like mel doesn't revert them out of hand and leave a nasty note on their talk page. Sam Spade 22:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


I am new to Wiki, and I guess a revert without an explination strikes me as "bad form," meaning it doesn't acknowledge or try to work with the work someone else it, it doesn't try to create any connection with the previous author, it just says, screw you, I am going to do what I want.

Having BRIEFLY read over this discussion page, I propose that both sides agree to not revert WITHOUT comment. Just a thought... I doubt there are ways to ban certain people/ip's from an article.

Howver, the good news is- Brahman is in everything and IS everything. The One without a Second is bad reverts and is grammer arguements, as well as mountains and music. I empathize with the frustrations of this situation, and I am certain that Shankara is laughing his ass off over this dispute. Sethie 20:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

This article was protected weeks and weeks and weeks ago, and there are no ongoing discussions. I've unprotected. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ughhh that may have not been a good idea.... Sam Spade started editing pretty soon after and I bet Mel will be right back un-doing them. (btw, I am neutral on this, I don't even understand the arguement). Sethie 05:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that if either party wishes to avoid resuming their reversion war, that it would be constructive to make the edits suggested by a third party (me) and agreed to by both parties above. Admittedly, not all issues were addressed by that discussion, but perhaps the parties could resolve the few remaining differences amicably by following the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, e.g., assume good faith, no personal attacks, etc., that are familiar to both disputants. Regarding the unresolved issue of the use of section headings, I think that the guideline is fairly clear. Mel Etitis' version hews somewhat closer to the guideline than that of Sam Spade, in my opinion. Please see Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Structure_of_the_article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I challenge you to review our previous discussion, particularly where we agreed and where we did not. Sam Spade 15:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, imo, the word challenge is inappropriate; Why don't you list out your points of agreement and disagreement as you perceive them to be? This would give a chance to Walter Siegmund to either confirm by corroborating your points or in disagreeing on specific points. --Gurubrahma 04:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, let me rephrase: I challenge interested parties to scroll up ;) Sam Spade 15:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Dasnami order?

Any info on the Dasnami Sannyasa and the formation Hindu monasticism by Shankara? Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Modern scholars

Wsiegmund: Please note that when there are differing views on the dates, then it must be stated that scholars have not agreed on the dates and not as you have reverted. What is modern scholarship? can you please define this? What is the sourse for saying that modern scholarship is agreed on the date of Adi Shankara as 7 or 8th Century A.D? Appaiah 10:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Appaiah, thank you for your query. Please see Talk:Adi Shankara/Archive 1 for the discussion of the dates with sources. The article, as written, discusses the date controversy and those holding different views in the section, Shankara's dates. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Poetry link

Animesh78 keeps linking to a poetry page which, though not very informative offers a number of links to poetry, only one of which is to poetry by Shankara. When I change the link to point to the relevant page, he insists on reverting, apaprently under the impression that they're all by Shankara (despite the clear statement that they're by writers such as Tulsidas and Vasishtha. I've changed the link again to point to the one poem by Shankara, "Five Cantos on Maya". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Of Poetry Links

And why don't you navigate to POEMS link just below the mainpage of stutimandal dot com to see the poems by Adi Shankara? It seems Mel Etitis finds it hard to navigate, contrary to what I (and many visitors have thought so far).

I mean -- we have more than one poem to offer -- should we link all of them one by one?

Animesh78 01:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Animesh for Stutimandal

What wiki says for adding links

<quote> Major connections with the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question. </quote>

I really don't understand how or why stutimandal (or any other poetry site having many stutis by Adi Shankara) should be deprived of having a link. The major connection that I observe is "Philosopher -> His poetry." I wonder if someone has a dispute against this.

I think an average web-surfer knows how to click at the home-page of another poetry-website.

Animesh78 01:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Animesh78


No one wishes to deprive stutimandal of having a link. Myself, Mel, and pletny of other editors doe wish to deprive stutimandal of having multiple links listed on one wiki article, especially if the links don't reffer specifically to the topic at hand!

I suggest you make a page that lists all of his poems and then put that ONE link into this article. Sethie 06:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Gone are the days of gentlemen. Enjoy the rule over a "free-wikipedia". I am withdrawing any links to Stutimandal from this *ruled and dictated* place. I still don't understand your *sad* claims that poetry of Adi Shankara has no reffer(sic) specifically to the topic of Who Adi Shankara was.

Regarding Sethie's suggestion of having a separate page for Adi Shankara -- I think Wikipedia should adapt to the world and the other way.

69.107.117.73 09:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Animesh78

Why do you think Five Cantos on Maya should not be linked? They seem relevant to me and satisfy the criteria of WP:EL, in my opinion. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the point is this: We have more than one poem (about 10 right now and increasing) of Adi Shankara; according to the (right) rules of wikipedia, 10 links from same website is a bad practice; I want to link the homepage for the same (from homepage the site can be navigated); Mel Etitis wants to link only Maya Panchakam. Either you guys decide with him or I am removing the link to Maya Panchakam. Linking only Maya Panchakam, at least to me, is a dishonor to Adi Shankara as well as the hard-work going on inside that website.

Animesh78 05:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Animesh

It is not our jobs to honor Shankara, as editors, it is our job to write a good article. I am for having one of his poems in there. If at any point your page is organized by author, then add in a Shankara page. Sethie 06:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on! Personally I think only those persons should edit who have an interest in that topic; if you don't want to honor Adi Shankara, then I don't know what to say. To me, still, it is a disrespect to the site and the poet in question. Now the bone is stuck in the throat -- neither it's going down nor coming out. I will prefer removing the link altogether.

Animesh78 07:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Animesh

It seems to me that a debate over the motivations of editors is not helpful. We should all assume that we are here to make the article better. The Eight cantos on Achyuta seem to me to satisfy the criteria of WP:EL. [3] Mel Etitis (20:49, 11 February 2006 UTC) says that the main page only has one link to Adi Shankara poems. Apparently the link to The Eight cantos on Achyuta is more recent. Also, I find the following additional poems by Shankara via links near the bottom of the page:

  • Poems 1
    • Five-Letter Eulogy (Shiv Panchakshar)
    • Eight Pada on Krishna
    • Eight pada on Bhavani
    • Garland of Names of Shiv
    • Six Pada on Nirvana
    • Nirvana Manjari
    • Sharda Bhujangam
  • Poems 2
    • Gauri Dashakam
    • Vishnu Shatapadi
    • Kaupina Panchakam
    • Maya Panchakam
    • Achyutashtakam

I concede that the site is not as ideally organized for the purposes of this article as it might be. But, since there are two links to Shankara poems (and indirect links to 12 others), is an external link to the main page (as Animesh78 has been advocating) unwarranted? Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Animesh78's behaviour in removing the link altogether (six times so far, five times from IP addresses and once from your account) hasn't helped us to take his case seriously. Still, when I last looked (and the site keeps changing) there was only one link to Shankara poetry on the main index page (labelled in tiny letters), and the Shankara page (to which I linked) then had a firther unspecified link to "poetry" which turned out to be another index page with a different selection of links, a few of which were to Shankara poems.
It's perhaps worth pointing out that he shouldn't be adding links to his own site at all; the most he should do is let us know about the site on this page, so that we can check it and decide whether or not to add a link (so says Wikipedia:External links#What should not be linked to, anyway: "A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article." --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I willingly concede that Animesh78's behavior has been less than exemplary. It is helpful to quote Wikipedia guidelines and policies that bear on this matter and I thank Mel Etitis for doing so. But, if I may, I'd like to cite the guidance of WP:BITE. "New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things."

However, I think this discussion should be about whether a link to the main page of stutimandal improves this article or not. It is a good point that linking to a site that is changing rapidly poses potential maintenance problems. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Mel: My first edit was with an IP address, I didn't bother much since it was the first addition. For the next time I signed in, having recalled my old time password. Since then Wiki is playing naughty -- it shows my status as Animesh78 when I visit the page. When I edit the page, it stores my IP address.
The site is not "only dedicated" to Adi Shankara but to all the sanskrit poets. That said, I did insist in the beginning that there are more than one-poem by Adi Shankara -- and Maya Panchakam (like any other poem, if I remain alive) will be thrown out of the main page since only recent-most stuff is stored there. The stuff that you quoted gives a *possibility* of incorporating external links to the article on your own. Finally, I still don't understand the motivation behind linking only one poem out of 12. You still need to answer this!
Walter: I think I received hostility about misunderstood issues here. For me -- as an information looker -- a website that hosts 10s of Adi Shankara's poem is worth a quote on the page. For Mel it isn't. Certainly there is subjectivity involved here and the *imposing* part started from the other side first.
The site does not changes (rapidly or otherwise), per se. Only the list of five-poems at front-page changes. Any added poem makes into the Poem list (1, 2, and so on in future). We are trying to deliver poetic content there and occasion or slight-redesign has been happening. But in all these cases, the list of poems has remained untouched.
Finally, I have also received a threat of being banned from modifying Wiki. The contention is that I cannot add or subtract links at my will. If there is a website which I am helping to run, I will love to see it presence here in totality -- if someone already knows Maya Panchakam or is not interested in Maya Panchakam will never follow that link; I don't mind removing the link altogether from Wiki for google has been kind on us. But having a tertiary presence in the form of one-poem is highly-objectionable. Sincerely,

Animesh78 00:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Animesh78

No one has threatened you with a ban from Wiki. A block is a short term (usually 24 hours)... block.

I suggest you look around some other articles. Take a look how external links are set up. Look and see how they are always very precise links to things mostly or only related to the article. I guess I am asking you to take a look around and get a feel for Wiki, then come back and discuss. Sethie 01:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

And what is wrong with my proposition -- Since Maya Panchakam alone will hardly add anything to the cause of poetry or life of Adi Shankara, so just chuck the link and forget stutimandal??? I don't want to get a feel for WIKI. Now can the WIKI let go it's feel of the poetry website in question?
Oh and I forgot to tell -- I added 6 links to demonstrate Mel Etitis that his *referencing* scheme has *obvious flaws*.
Animesh78 02:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Animesh78
Since the list of the five poems on the main page of the stutimandal site are the most recent added, it seems likely that on occasion, the list will contain NO poems by Adi Shankara. We would risk sending a reader to a site that would have no obvious link to the article subject. That would risk disappointing the reader.

I think it adds to the article to link somehow to stutimandal. I understand that Animesh78 does not like the article linking to just one poem and I agree that the site content is interesting, valuable and attractive and offers much more than just the one poem. I understand further that Animesh78 feels ill-treated and wishes stutimandal to no longer be linked from Wikipedia. I hope that those feelings will pass. But, I don't think that anyone can reasonably expect to control how Internet web sites link to one another. An alternative, however, is to link to the two poem lists. [4] [5] These contain links to 7 and 6 poems by Adi Shankara respectively. Above, Animesh78 says, "Only the list of five-poems at front-page changes. Any added poem makes into the Poem list (1, 2, and so on in future). We are trying to deliver poetic content there and occasion or slight-redesign has been happening. But in all these cases, the list of poems has remained untouched." It would seem that this alternative would address Mel Etitis' concern that "the site keeps changing".

You can read more about blocking at WP:BLOCK. In this case, I'm not sure what purpose a block would serve. Animesh78 has been very willing to discuss this matter. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


thanks Walter! That is a nice solution. I am up for it, if others agree to it. If there are any *great* changes which hurt the Wikipedia, I will let you guys know. Finally, *making poet profiles* is one project that has been luring us. If it ever happens, Adi Shankara will get His space and we will inform you. A minor change to the link names in the article would be good -- Just say Gauri Dashakam and other poems by Adi Shankara.
Animesh78 19:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Animesh78

Nirvana Shatkam - Sextet of Salvation

Theres a page on Nirvana Shatkam which I beleive was written by Adi Shankara. It would be great if someone here could check the page and see if its right and I've linked it to the right person. Cheers --Salix alba (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to jump ahead and talk, but ... Yes Nirvana Shatkam has been written by Adi Shankara. But that poem is covered by one of the existing links at Adi Shankara's page (see stutimandal's poem list). The site in question has font in Telugu, and has too many advertizements as well; also it works *only* with Microsoft Internet Explorer. If you insist on a link, you can use stutimandal's link or sanskrit.gde.to's link. Both are ad-free pages and so-far dont have commercial intentions. Animesh78 01:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)animesh78

recent edits

  1. "Sankara was born on the visaka sukla panchami day." This is meaningless to most readers (including me). If its significance can be given, and a citation supplied, then fine (saying that theres' no controveresy isn't enough; see WP:CITE).
  2. The change from the factual claim that modern scholarship agrees on 8th-centuryt dates to the false and misleading claim that this is merely a "popular" view isn't acceptable. The same goes for the removal of the sentence "However, there is no concrete evidence for the existence of these mathas before the 14th century." The change from good to poor English (e.g., "ascribe" doesn't mean "subscribe") doesn't help, but it's not the main problem.
  3. The removal of a reference and of three external links also needs explanation. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Mr. Etitis - (1) Meaningless to most readers??? Well, not to the ones I've talked to. (2) What proof are you looking for. You have conveniently dismissed the proof the Mathas have to offer. (3) The link to the reference was to the author and not the article? Explain to me how this is useful?? (4) Good content is more important than good English? You ascribe, oops subscribe to that?

I've noticed that you're a regular over these year and I do appreciate you taking the time to maintain this article but that does not give you dictatorial control over the content.

This article is no longer neutral, and I’ve notice that only those views that get the Mel Etitis nod of approval gets in which is just sad.

Thank you, M May 6 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.249.139.167 (talk • contribs).

  1. The article isn't for people who already know about the material; rather than claiming that the phrase (which gets no hits on Google) is familiar to your friends, why not explain what it means?
  2. We go by scholarship, not by religious institutions' myths and legends. That's the nature of an encyclopædia as opposed to a religious text.
  3. ?
  4. Good content and good English are both important; without the latter, we're not communicating satisfactorily.
  5. Placing the "PoV" template on the article just beacsue you're not getting your own way isn't good-faith editing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. Maybe if you had asked what it means before you removed it, it would not have been bad faith on your behalf.
  2. Thank you for taking the time to explain what an encyclopedia is as opposed to a religious text. Apparently truth coming from ‘religious texts’ don’t find place in your encyclopedias. Please remember that Sankara is a religious person and back in his time (509 BCE or 708 CE), there were no Encyclopedia Brittanicas or Wikipedias around.
  3. You had asked why I removed the reference section.
  4. False statements coated in good English is worse than truth coated in bad English. So before you go grab a dictionary or a grammar book, you perhaps need to get some authentic texts on Sankara.
  5. Oh please, just because you have the time to revert edits by others does not mean that article in neutral. It is slanted to the Mel Etitis views on Sankara.
  6. I hate to generalize but it appears that you want this article on an ‘Eastern’ subject to have a ‘Western’ bias - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Anglo-American_focus
  7. I know you are an admin, but maybe you should go reread these pages - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete So please discuss before you revert edits based on your subject matter expertise (which I gather is not much because you said you couldn’t find out what vaishaka sukla panchami stands for – Allow me to save you some more googling – It means the fifth day of the bright fortnight of the vishaka month – that was the day of Sankara’s birth. The controversy over the dates is about the year, and not the month/day of birth.)
  8. Whenever I edit the pages, I make sure that I give weightage to all opinions even if I don’t necessarily agree with them. But very rarely do I see you doing so. Aren’t you supposed to be neutral being an admin and all? It is very convenient to reject other’s views as religious and dismiss them. Secondly, just because a view is popular does not mean it is correct. The last time this article was locked was because of your disagreement with another contributor. That speaks volumes about how you have been influencing your control over these pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Key_policies

66.141.187.234 19:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC) M 2006/05/07

  1. When an anonymous editor adds text in a foreign language with no explanation, you'll find that it's frequently removed. To make this less likely, open an account and (more importantly) explain your edits.
  2. Once again, you need to read WP:NPOV, etc.
  3. Yes, and your response was unclear.
  4. You seem to have missed the point. And I have a number of scholarly texts on Indian philosophy in general, and on Sankara in particular.
  5. No, it's slanted to what can be backed up by scholarship and citations.
  6. See previous point. Playing the "East versus West" card doesn't work, given that much of the scholarship which disagrees with your position is Indian.
  7. First, I have read the section; you can't hide behind it, however — this issue has been debated at length, and a great deal of evidence and argument given. You're trying to ignore that, but it's all either above or in the history. Secondly I'll pass over your peculiar assumption that not understanding the phrase means that I know little about Sankara.
  8. We don't (often can't, and generally shouldn't) represent every opinion equally. Moreover, non-scholarly opinions such as religious faith should be mentioned, but not presented as on a par with scholars. We shouldn't say that there is one god in three persons, that Jesus was the messaiah, etc. — we should say that that's what Christians believe. We shouldn't say that Sankara was born long before the scholars agree; we should say that some religious believers hold that to be the case. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

++++++++++

Mr. Etitis, I’m short on time and so here are my responses (not necessarily in any order)

  1. The edits were explained in the body of the text (if you had cared to read them before reverting)
  2. If submitting edits by non-registered users is not acceptable, then why don’t you submit that to the Wikipedia policy makers? (there are quite a few Wiki articles that require a person to be logged in before making edits) Or is it because only views that are not acceptable to Mr. Etitis needs to come from registered users?
  3. The Aryan invasion theory is still believed to be true by a number of Indians but it does not make it correct. Here is a link to a ‘Western’ source on this subject – http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml Do you now see where the modern ‘scholars’ got their dates? Doesn’t matter if they are eastern/western. They still have the dates wrong and so do you. I'm not playing any East vs. West card here.
  4. You may have a number of ‘scholarly texts’ on Indian Philosophy but it does not necessarily make you an expert on Sankara to make dictatorial edits here. Any decent material on Sankara would have Vaisakha as his month of birth. Your arguments that the text was of foreign origin and hence the delete is bogus at best. So are you telling me that your knowledge of Sankara are based on translations which may or may not be correct? And of course, you reject translations coming from ‘religious sources’, which leaves you to the ‘modern scholarly’ translations. How enlightening!
  5. Finally, I don’t need to hide behind anything. I’m calling it as it is. You are biased and are in fact, providing little value to this article (except for the spelling/grammar check which can be very easily accomplished with a decent Word processor). Unfortunately, the general public are the losers in this case as all they can read about is the Mel Etitis version of Sankara history. May I suggest a little experiment – how about letting the article grow without your ‘oversight’ for a period of six months? How sad for Wiki that you are an administrator! It is futile and a waste of time discussing this with you any further.

bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam mudamate samprapte sannihite kale na hi na hi rakshati dukrunkarane (and here is the translation of the foreign language text - Adore the Lord, adore the Lord, adore the Lord, O fool! when the appointed time comes, the repetition of grammatical rules will not, indeed, save you) – Adi Sankara

peace 70.243.200.243 02:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC) M 2006/05/07

++++++++++

I can certainly attest to the fact that "Sankara was born on the 'isaka sukla panchami' day" means nothing to this American reader, nor to the vast majority of American readers, I suspect. Reliable sources such as the Encyclopædia Britannica support the 8th-century CE date. I'm concerned that you are not assuming good faith on Mel Etitis part. Moreover, your remarks are not in keeping with my reading of the WP policy of WP:NPA. Please don't make personal attacks on other editors. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Crocodile Myth

The crocodile story was actually something that Shankara spun on his own to make his mother agree to his sanyasa. There was no crocodile (remember he was bathing in a temple tank). Shankara did not actually lie because by Crocodile he did not mean the animal he meant the usual life (samsara). One has to read the story as Shankara saying to his mother that he will drown dragged down by samsara and hence she should let him be an ascetic.

Expanded life

I expanded the Life section. Babub 17:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/i/Talk%7EAdi_Shankara_Archive_2_28af.html"