User talk:Pranathi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 17:14, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Greetings

Holi greetings. --Bhadani 16:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calculus

Thanks for your addition there. Can you provide a source for that information? To avoid original research, it is best to cite the best sources. Thanks - Taxman 02:15, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I just added an external link. This same info is also found in several other websites. --Pranathi 02:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
You're going to have to provide more solid evidence for that assertions. There is not much in the external link that would support calling him the father of differential calculus. You may have to research to find some more reputable academic sources. Specifically the sentence says "are described as". Who describes him as that? It appears he didn't know the significance of differential calculus and it didn't get developed from his work. That makes it hard to support calling him the father of the subject. I'm not trying to be hard on you, since contributions like this are great, but the information you are adding is likely to not be known by many english speaking people, so it is important to be accurate and supported by facts. The other thing is this kind of information should go in the page on Bhaskara, since it neglects to mention any of it. Thanks for your contributions. - Taxman 13:21, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. Well your information is certainly welcome. It's someone I had never heard of and that is what makes wiki great. Keep it up. - Taxman 02:18, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Culture of India

Hi, I notice your good edits to Culture of India. Good work there. You might also want to look at the following links -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 05:50, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Links for Wikipedians interested in India content

Newcomers: Welcome kit | Register: Indian Wikipedians | Network: Noticeboard (WP:INWNB) | Browse: India
Contribute content: Wikiportal India - Indian current events (WP:INCE) - India collaboration of the week (WP:INCOTW) - Category adoptions


[edit] Wendy Doniger

POV? How is this article POV? If there is more to be said about her, please put it on the page. The controversy section is not a minority view as can be seen by the links provided. It is the view of the Hindu community, a very valid viewpoint, considering that see her 'claim to fame' is her 'expertise' on Hinduism.

I don't agree that this is POV. Please continue discussion here in the talk page. If I don't hear responses back, I will remove POV label shortly. --Pranathi 00:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


Two Points

1. "The view of the Hindu community" - who are you to say that the "Hindu community" has ever spoken with one voice. Do you speak for the "Hindu community?" Just because a certain sect has become offended by Doniger's scholarship does not place her into the context of contraversial.

2. By all means, every scholar offends somebody, but in the academic study of religion, Wendy Doniger is not controversial, but in fact mainstream. You could argue that she is controversial with certain members of various Hindu communities who take issue with her scholarship, that I will agree with. 7.28.05


I Tried

I attempted to remove any POV from the "controversy" section of the Wendy Doniger article. Please let me know if you feel that the POV is not entirely removed. I appreciate you desire to work on this. Take care. 7.29/05


Pranathi,

Rock on! I think this looks Great! Of course, there will be changes to be made in the furture as things progress; but for the present, I think this article reads very well. Please let me know if you have any further comments. I do not feel as though I can offer anything more to the article. I appreciate all of the work that you have put into these efforts and appreciate your flexibility in communication. Take care.

Thanks. 8/8/05

Thanks for your combatting of POV on the Doniger article. A certain someone inserts POV into all articles and backs it up with words like "controversy". Keep up the good work.Bakaman%% 01:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suttee

Hi Pranathi. Due to lack of time, I gave just a cursory look at the article and the controversial quote. I definitely agree that the quote is racist, but whether or not including that would be racism, I can't say for sure. Perhaps, we can mention the connotation in the line preceding the quote. Something like, "In a rather condescending tone, Sir Napier remarked thus: blah blah." How much ever his remarks were racist, we can't really justify Suttee. Of course, such barbaric acts have been perpetrated by almost all civilisations in various points in time. We need not either be guilty or defend/mask those actions just because those were perpetrated by people who once lived in a space that we occupy now. Let us defend the India of today; not the people who populated the places that happen to fall under the current Indian region.

Despite whatever I've said above, if the factual accuracy of the quote is disputed, then it can be removed. My general advice to you is to take a break from that article (remove it from your watchlist) and concentrate on some very different article of your interest for sometime before coming back to this article again in a week or so. There are a number of other India-related articles that need your caring attention. You can adopt an India category or take care of an article like the State Bank of India, Constitution of India, Parliament of India, Cuisine of India etc I'll stop by Suttee sometime later when I find some time and try to sort out the issue in an amicable manner. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:43, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't get what you meant by antiseptic in your comments at my talk page, but if you're offended, I'm sorry. My point was along two facts 1. Noone is obligated to defend historical wrongs 2. India as an entity did not exist at that time i.e. pre-Independence, at least, it was not the same entity as today's India.
Good that you decided to take a break from that article. I'm looking forward to more edits from you in India-related articles. I'll come back to the article after my current projects stabilise. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Pranathi, thank-you for suggesting I was being objective on the Suttee page. I try :). The only thing that occured to me is that there was an implicit suggestion Philip (and you yourself) were NOT objective. There is certainly a healthy dose of apologism in Philip's comments on British rule but I think all of his contributions were made in good faith. And no, I don't think you were taking it too personally. Anyhow, I have made a comment on the talk page which you can check. Marskell 12:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Still there? I hope you didn't give up on the article. Marskell 09:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "differential coefficient"

You use this phrase in a couple of articles, but I cannot find it in mathworld.wolfram.com or in wikipedia. What is its definition. (I know what "differential" and "coefficient" mean by themselves.) Rick Norwood 21:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Derivative is more apt to be understood, so I am going to make that change. Rick Norwood 13:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up Hinduism

Yes, I did the edits on the temp article. I don't know what's going on with the main article. It looks like it's going all to hell on the main one. ask Subramanian on situation on the temp. --Dangerous-Boy

[edit] Nice work

I like the things you did to the Vegetarianism page(s). The article is much better. icut4u

[edit] Smarta tradition

I am assuming that you were the one who asked about smartas. If not, please excuse. Smarta tradition is quite prevalent and defines the Western view of Hinduism. It is dominated by Advaita traditions.

As I said in monotheism, "In Hinduism, views are broad and range from monism, dualism, pantheism, panentheism, alternatively called monistic theism by some scholars, and strict monotheism, but are not polytheistic as outsiders perceive the religion to be. Hinduism has often been confused to be polytheistic as many of Hinduism's adherents, i.e., Smartas, who follow Advaita philsophy, are monists, and view multiple manifestations of the one God or source of being. Hindu monists see one unity, with the personal Gods, different aspects of only One Supreme Being, like a single beam of light separated into colours by a prism, and are valid to worship. Some of the Hindu aspects of God include Devi, Vishnu, Ganesh, and Siva. It is the Smarta view that dominates the view of Hinduism in the West. After all, Swami Vivekananda, a follower of Ramakrishna, along with many others, who brought Hindu beliefs to the West, were all Smarta in belief. Other denominations of Hinduism, as described later, don't hold this belief strictly and more closely adhere to a Western perception of what a monotheistic faith is. Additionally, like Judaeo-Christian religions which believe in angels, Hindus also believe in less powerful entities, such as devas.

Contemporary Hinduism is now divided into four major divisions, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, and Smartism. Just as Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in one God but differ in their conceptions of him, Hindus all believe in one God but differ in their conceptions. The two primary form of differences are between the two monotheistic religions of Vaishnavism which conceives God as Vishnu and Shaivism, which conceives God as Shiva. Other aspects of God are in fact aspects of Vishnu or Shiva; see Smartism for more information. Only a Smartist would have no problem worshiping Shiva or Vishnu together as he views the different aspects of God as leading to the same One God. It is the Smarta view that dominates the view of Hinduism in the West. By contrast, a Vaishnavite considers Vishnu as the one true God, worthy of worship and other forms as subordinate. See for example, an illustration of the Vaishnavite view of Vishnu as the one true God, at this link. Accordingly, many Vaishnavites, for example, believe that only Vishnu can grant the ultimate aim for mankind, moksha. See for example, this link. Similarly, many Shaivites also hold similar beliefs, as illustrated at at this link and at this link.

However, even Vaisnavites, like other Hindus, have tolerance for other beliefs because Lord Krishna, avatar of Vishnu, said so in the Gita. Few views illustrate this view of tolerance: Krishna said: "Whatever deity or form a devotee worships, I make his faith steady. However, their wishes are only granted by Me." (Gita: 7:21-22) Another quote in the Gita states: "O Arjuna, even those devotees who worship other lesser deities (e.g., Devas, for example) with faith, they also worship Me, but in an improper way because I am the Supreme Being. I alone am the enjoyer of all sacrificial services (Seva, Yajna) and Lord of the universe." (Gita: 9:23) Even a Vedic verse illustrates this theme of tolerance. The Vedas are revered in Hinduism, regardless of denomination. For example, a well-known Rig Vedic hymn stemming from Hinduism states that "Truth is One, though the sages know it variously." This is in contrast with some beliefs of other religious traditions, where one must believe in God being one aspect and to totally reject or disdain other beliefs"

As you see, Vaishnavites and Saivites hold an exclusive monotheistic model versus an inclusive montheistic model as Smarta traditions do.

This is what I mean:

"Monotheism can be divided into different types on the basis of its attitude towards polytheism: inclusive monotheism claims that all polytheistic deities are just different names for the single monotheistic God; Smartism, a denomination of Hinduism, follows this belief and holds that God is one but has different aspects and can be called by different names (this belief dominate the view of Hinduism in the West); exclusive monotheism, on the other hand, claims that these deities are false and distinct from the one God, either invented, demonic, or simply incorrect, as Vaishnavism, a denomination of Hinduism, regards the worship of anyone other than Vishnu. Exclusive monotheism is a well-known tenet in the beliefs of the Abrahamic religions."

Please look at any Vaishnavie and Saivite site and you will see what I mean.

An adherent web site is not necessarily an authorative site. A book like "Dancing with Siva," which also describes the various denominations of Hinduism is. Please see, http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/dws_mandala-02.html

Raj2004 18:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


Pranthi, I agree with you that most Hindus are not per see Vaishnavites but hold Vishnu as their Ishta deva, which is only found in Smarta traditions. Smarta tradition itself is heavily influenced by Advaita. A Vaishnavite would not worship Siva but someone with smarta viewpoint would worship either Vishnu or Siva and would not have a problem.

Thanks, Raj2004 21:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I thank you and others like you for removing anti-Hindu bias in wikipedia. I have been doing it as well. One editor with European background even argued with me that Vishnu does not mean all-pervading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vishnu#etymology


Raj2004 00:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vegetarianism

Hi - as we have no response from Slimvirgin, I guess we will have to abandon the proposal to discuss the issues. Go ahead and do whatever you feel is necessary, you'll have my support, even though I disagree with you. SP-KP 17:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] calculus

The information you added to the calculus article is still there. See the section on "history". The intro has been shortened to try to get the table of contents visible on a full page screen. Rick Norwood 21:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Happy Diwali

Tamaso ma jyotir gamaya ( Lead me from darkness to light.)Wish you Happy Diwali - P R A D E E P Somani (talk) Feel free to send me e-mail.
Tamaso ma jyotir gamaya ( Lead me from darkness to light.)
Wish you Happy Diwali
- P R A D E E P Somani (talk)
Feel free to send me e-mail.

[edit] History of Hinduism

I added some stuff and removed most of the expand tags. I still want to add Hinduism in Afghanistan and Hindu kingdoms in West Asia and Maybe connection to whole Indo-European religion theory such as the swastika. I don't really know how to go about it. Also, a map on the expansion in southeast asia would be nice Like they have on History of Buddhism..--Dangerous-Boy 10:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] India related links

India-related tasks | Indian noticeboard
v • e • d • h • w
v • e • d • h • w

Pamri • Talk • Reply 13:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kerala school

Great job on Vegetarianism and Calculus. Currently there is a lot of eurocentrism on philosophy pages. I recently added a page on Eastern epistemology. Maybe you would like to contribute there. Also, please check Religious cosmology

Would you like to work on an article on the Kerala school of mathematics? At least we need to make a start! deeptrivia 01:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two nation theory propaganda on wikipedia articles

Just wanted to bring to your notice such propaganda that is not difficult to find on wikipedia articles. An example from the Sindh article:

"The Aryans called most of what is today Pakistan, Kashmir and eastern Afghanistan, Sapta Sindhu, the land of seven rivers. In the Rigveda it is referred to as Sapta Sindhva, while India is named Bharat Varsa (the land of the sons of Bharat, a legendary Emperor). Thus, for the Aryans there were two countries in South Asia: Sapta Sindhva (Sindh) and Bharat Varsa (Hind). However, when India began to be called Hind by Persians and Arabs, and Ind by Greeks and Romans, the local people continued to call their land, Sind. This distinction continued for centuries."

I have made the following comment on the talk page:

Bharat Varsha is a name from the later Vedic age, separated by about 1000 years from the time of the Rigveda. The Bharat dynasty did not exist at the time the Rigveda was written. Consequently, the name Bharat Varsha is never mentioned in any of the vedas. It is universally accepted that the word Hind comes from Sind. In fact from Sanskrit to Avestan 'S' always changes to 'H'. For example, Soma becomes Haoma, Asura becomes Ahura, etc.

Also, the name Sapta Sindhu is never mentioned in any later Vedic texts like the Upanishads or the itihaasas.

It is unfortunate that such theories are posted on wikipedia articles. Please keep an eye. deeptrivia 13:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sati

"you think of it as murderous, the people that did it "obviously did not think so !!! Pranathi, First of all what made you do sure that they did not thik buring alive a humanbeing is not not murder ?? secondly, if it is so then obviously those who did it did not consider widows (all girls ?)as human !! --kxd23

You are taking my comments out of context. If you read the article completely you will see what I mean. First of all, most of the time, it was voluntary - so can be best compared to suicide not murder. There are multiple instances where the widow was attempted to be persuaded otherwise. Facts like these are hidden behind the hysteria surrounding the issue. That is maybe another good reason why it needs to neutral in tone. --Pranathi 02:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

I've been working on the Malwa article, and would like to request you to review the article. Seems like we can easily make it into a featured article. Any suggestions and/or contributions will be highly appreciated. deeptrivia 06:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vegetarianism

Sure, I just tried to make some modifications to the text that was already there. I don't feel strongly either that it should have been there at the first place. deeptrivia 01:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Hi Pranathi. Jyeshtadeva and Jyesthadevan are articles about the same person. Also, the articles show different years of death for the mathematician. Please look into the matter. Thanks deeptrivia 18:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sati anniversary

Todays selected anniversaries show;

  • 1829 - The practice of sati, a Hindu funeral custom in which the widow immolated herself alive on her husband's pyre, was banned by Lord William Bentinck in British India.

With the sheer scale of misconceptions regarding this issue, I believe that a touch more context is needed. I've added to the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#A_modicum_of_context_needed

With your experience & expertise on this subject, your input would be keenly appreciated. Veej 14:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Criticism of Hinduism

Hello Pranathi,

I apologize at assuming that you had posted some critical comments about the article, but the entries all together are quite confusingly made.

The Criticism article is meant to tackle all the criticism of Hinduism, albeit from Judeo-Christian POV, it is still criticism and should be addressed.

Nevertheless, I always knew this article would have a bumpy road. The people doing Criticism of Islam are not having much luck either.

Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 21:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Criticism of Hinduism

Yes I entirely agree with you,

You see, as a young Hindu I heard some sharp comments against Hinduism from some Muslims and some foreigners in books. Hinduism was criticized as a religion of 5,000 gods, including animal worship. Hindus were criticized for boon-worship, begging Gods for refrigerators, promotions, exam passing etc..

Now I understand the true nature of my religion, but I also know that this is what Hinduism is commonly criticized for. I feel that the article should address these concerns, albeit they are common misconceptions.

Frankly speaking, I don't really know how to craft a criticism article. Its a difficult job. I will work with you to improve the article, but it will be controversial. We should actually refer to books and proper sources as well.

Good luck on all pursuits, and happy holiday season!

Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 03:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Arabic" numerals

There's a debate going on at Talk:Arabic numerals about the relative contributions of Arabs and Indians towards the development of these numerals. An editor is trying to undermine Indian contributions, quoting some websites. In fact, in my opinion, the page itself should be renamed. Would you support renaming the page to Hindu-Arabic numerals, given the fact that this is how most encyclopedias ([1]) name the article, and this is how it is referred to in academic circles. Even on the internet, most sources (e.g. [2]) refer to the numerals as Hindu-Arabic numerals. See also Template talk:Numeral systems. Thanks. deeptrivia (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calculus

Hello, I have noticed on several pages you have added information about Indian involvement in the development of calculus. While I don't want to downplay the importance of Indian contributions to mathematics, this is one area where I think some of your edits are not entirely accurate.

When mathematicians say "Newton and Leibniz invented calculus", they are actually refering to a very specific thing: the statement and geometric proof of the first and second fundamental theorems of calculus. It is well known that Archimedes used a method basically similar to the integral, and even the most Eurocentric mathematician would credit Fermat, not Newton or Leibniz, with the invention of the derivative. (Although, as you rightly point out, it is properly credited to an Indian mathematician, likely Madhava). It is true that Gregory proved a limited version of the second fundamental theorem (for monotonic functions) in 1668. However, what Newton and Leibniz did was tie the field together in a beautiful and consistent way, allowing many new theorems to be proven, and most importantly, allowing the evaluation of a wide class of integrals. This is the result that was fundamental to the advancement of science.

I hope with a little work we can edit wikipedia in such a way that it's articles eventually reflect the true state of affairs. Grokmoo 01:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Its my pleasure to be of help, though I don't know much about the Western philosophy. As for India philosophy, I will be making more edits, additions and clarifications to the Shadadarshanas. Cygnus_hansa 19:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miracle

Thank you for your contribution to Miracle - I much appreciate your replacing my one-line stub and milk story with a decent section on this. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If you don't mind being alerted, Religious bias in WP is one of my soapboxes - see User:KillerChihuahua#Religious_bias_in_WP and I am profoundly ignorant of Hindu beliefs and practices, so I might well bother you again if you don't mind - or if you know any other Hindu-knowledgable editors who might be interested, that would be appreciated also. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Please see Capital_punishment#Religious_attitudes_towards_the_death_penalty No Hindu entry. Feel free to pass this on to someone else if you prefer - thanks! KillerChihuahua?!? 15:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu-Arabic numerals

Hi! User:RN moved the article to Arabic numerals despite 28 votes favoring the title "Hindu-Arabic numerals" and only 17 favoring "Arabic numerals." He argues that if we don't count voters with less that 150 (or sth like that) edits, only 56% voters "support changing the title to Hindu-Arabic numerals", while at least 60% support votes are required. However, it was agreed between all parties in the beginning of the vote that the proposal is to move the article to "Arabic numerals" from "Hindu-Arabic numerals." It was also agreed (though I thought it was very unfair) that:

  • Those opposing the move have the advantage that it won't be moved unless there's a 60% majority
  • Those supporting the move have the advantage that the person proposing the move can do the *short* opening statement.
  • For all the rest of the voting procedure both parties are equal. (quoting Francis Schonken from 21:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

I would definitely have preferred it the other way round, since I think an opening statement makes a HUGE difference, since many people just read the opening statement and understandably don't bother with the discussion below the votes. The present situation was accepted with the agreement that the article will be moved to "Arabic numerals" only if more than 60% voters favored that title. Thus, only 40% oppose votes were sufficient to retain the title "Hindu-Arabic numerals." In the present situation (with over 60% voters opposing the change), I find the move to "Arabic numerals" ridiculous, besides being completely unjust and unfair. Your comments will be appreciated. deeptrivia (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monotheism

Yes, Pranathi Perhaps. But not all schools of Hinduism are monistic. Madhva's school is dualistic. The overall trend in Hinduism is mostly panentheistic. All schools of Vaishnvaism agree on panentheism. But Madhva is a panentheistic monotheist. He thinks that Vishnu can only grant moksha. So perhaps monotheism in Hinduism is either monism or panentheistic monotheism.

What do you think? Raj2004 22:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Pranathi I agree. That is too much detail. Perhaps we can place the excess material into the talk section of monotheism.

What do you think?

Raj2004 23:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Pranathi I moved the excess info on the talk section.

Raj2004 00:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Great. Raj2004 23:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Pranthi, I made some changes to the polytheism article. Thanks,

Raj2004 00:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Holi greetings. --Bhadani 16:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prostitution In India

Since you are apparently an authority in this area, I have left the article for you to complete according to your own biases, expertise and wishes. Good luck. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 22:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article improvement

May I please ask you to look at the article [3], it should need some improvement and maybe you are able to write something on Wendy Doniger (for example), as I'm running out of ideas at the moment... --Sendrin 20:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Narayana bhattathri.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Narayana bhattathri.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Hetar 05:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
== Possibly unfree Image:Tulasi.gif ==
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Tulasi.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Hetar 23:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to read Indo-Aryan migration and Aryan Invasion Theory articles and talk pages and continuously deletion in archeves.

Pranathi, you might be interested in this topic where Eurocentric fingers are continuously deleting neutralizing effects. WIN 09:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Vemana

Hi, you have written comapct meanings recently in change http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vemana&diff=57922850&oldid=57318911. Thanks for nice compact sentences. Have you copied it from somewhere or from the works of C. P. Brown(it is also fine, as his work is also in public domain, or have you written yourself(I think that is also fine, as it would not considered as OR since it is just translation). Can you please comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vemana#Vemana_poems_copyrights_etc page? Asking since it has gone through two revertions recently. mlpkr 17:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for writing them up. mlpkr 14:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Ayurveda

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article History of Ayurveda, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 172.144.101.111 17:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking opinion from regular editors on reference pattern

References: Notes and citations section; change in reference and notes temporarily ceased; WP:FOOT says I am not doing wrong; Separate Notes and Citation sections

Opinion is sought from regular editors of the article Hinduism regarding the splitting of Notes and references section. This is a short gist of the discussions going on in the above mentioned talk links: Having a separate "Notes" (for explanatory remarks) and "Citations" (for direct citations), although permitted, is relatively rare in Wikipedia, and also in academic journals. The main rationale behind doing this is to distinguish a series of explanatory remarks from the series of citations (please see Rabindranath Tagore, Demosthenes for examples).

This sandbox gives a glimpse of how the article would look if we split the sections (the sandbox is under work, so may not be perfect). This link shows how the article looks with combined section. This may give an idea how it looked when I started working on references. I converted many references to Harvard format, apart from splitting the sections.

Opinion for regular editors are sought regarding the application of splitting of two section for this article. Please do so in Talk:Hinduism in the section Talk:Hinduism#Seeking_opinion_from_regular_editors_on_reference_pattern. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)