Talk:Kanchi matha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've made a number of changes to this page.

• Removed quotes from 'influential institutions'. I can't see that there is any doubt about its influence. That's one of the reasons for the controversies around it.

• Removed the following text, because the first is arguable (see history later), and the second irrelevant here;

The Mutt has a long established history of saints and was reverred all over India.Sri Chandrashekarendra Saraswathi Swamigal was a saint who lived for 100 ears and was popular all over India for his simple life and humility. He refused to meet Indira Gandhi at the time of Emergency.

• Removed and simplified much of the history paragraph, to state only the formal claim to being founded by Sankara, and to the dispute as to Sankara's place of death The other claims, (e.g. that the courts support the matha's official history) need references and to be clearly written if they are to be included in the article. The existing references only support the statements now on the page.

Imc 19:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Imc:many o

The source http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/alt_hindu_msg.html does not qualify as a primary or secondary reliable sources according to wiki guidelines : "Personal websites as primary sources" "Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources". This link is to a email letter written to some organisation. This may be therefore deleted.

Appaiah 12:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Appaiah, I disagree, both with your above statement, and the same reason that was given for your edit of 19th Feb.

• First, the original posting was to a mailing list. A mailing list is not a 'blog', by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it a personal website. I agree only that it was an email, and that it was to a mailing list. Also the content was not 'from a blog' (as stated previously), it was from a person to the mailing list. Such posts are regularly quoted in scholarly circles, providing the content itself meets similar criteria to those that Wikipedia sets. An article does not have to be published in article format to be reputable and quoted.
• Second, this reference is not the original mailing list anyway. It is a web page at http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/ which is a major and reputed website, and publishes this posting because of its content.
• Third, S. Vidyasankar is himself a reputable source. He has other reputable published work on related topics, for instance that on Jyotirmath. This detailed and researched email has itself been reproduced, as here and on other websites, for its content and value. See also; [1]
• Finally, I've looked through Wikipedia:Verifiability and the only item that I can see that may support your case is that which says that 'blogs' are not verifiable sources. I trust that this is not the reason you insist on calling it a blog, when it is not.

On the reversion of the other (anonymous) edits, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to give details of the organisation's contacts in the USA. Imc 21:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History edits

This page sees drastic editing changes, with massive removal or massive addition of material. e.g. Latest editing of the history section: a blanket statement has been introduced, attributing a 5th century BC date to Adi Sankara, and all the earlier material that attempted to be objective in attributing dates has been removed.

This page needs careful monitoring.