User talk:Rudrasharman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Vaishnavism wikiproject

[edit] Mahamad

Check the notice board you participated in and then make edits --99.238.149.85 (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Purohit article

Rudra, I hope you received the attachments I emailed, but having taken a deeper look at the article I think it is of little relevance to the Mahāmada article discussion. At best it could be used to add some details to the Khoja or Ismaili page, or perhaps create a Dasavatār (Gujarati poem) page (which I don't intend to do myself, since I already have too-much on my wikipedia plate). Your thoughts ? Abecedare (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You should have it now. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asuras

You cant make up History. Asuras are deities and are prayed among Buddhists and Hindus(In Hinduism, the Asura (Sanskrit: असुर) are a group of power-seeking deities). and Lord Shiva destroys the World in the end. you dont seem to understand and your making up garbage the Mahamad page will be better than your little Bhavishya Purana section with views and verses from all vedas and puranas. --DWhiskaZ (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI Abecedare (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. I had no idea it was this bad. Though I'm willing to believe that more than one person is involved, i.e. there really is a "team" at UoT Scarborough. They may be using the public internet facility at the library, or more likely, sharing cable access in a dorm. rudra (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ramakrishna

Hi Rudra, Feel free to edit (or trash) my suggested short rewrite of that Contemporary Scholarship section, since you seem to know better than anyone there what's really going on. I'll go back at it tomorrow. I don't know who most of the referenced 'scholars' are, but it seems that Roland has the most authority - though I'm seeing that listing scholars for/against is about as unhelpful as the former list of quotes. Thanks, ~ priyanath talk 01:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Counterpunch as a reliable source

You asked where it was decided that Counterpunch was a reliable source? See here Jayjg (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Three things

  1. Archive your talkpage!
  2. Don't believe everything you read on the internet, particularly on Rajiv Malhotra's blog.
  3. While psychoanalysis in history is, as far as I'm concerned, a waste of space, you're quite far off the mark in saying that for the past forty years people have agreed with me and Barzun. We must also admit that there's a certain contradiction in simultaneously claiming that formal training in psychoanalysis is pointless because its practically a pseudoscience, and that these historians don't know what they're talking about because they're not formally trained as psychonalysis.

Came here in lieu of commenting at Talk:Ramakrishna, where I intended to look in, but will now do so after rewriting is done. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The point about the contradiction is subtle: regardless of the status qua science, it's a staple that psychoanalysis by those who have not been psychoanalyzed themselves is not credible. A sort of dikshā, as it were. The debate on scientificity is basically for clinical practice only; outside that, it's basically bullshit either way. Malhotra's blog, btw, was simply to point to his "RISA lila" essay, which IMO does raise substantial issues on socalled "religious studies" of "South Asian" religions. Not to say there aren't scholars in that lot, but the field is a swamp of pretentious self-absorbed wannabes. rudra (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced matter

Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maithil_Brahmin#Organisation . Some unregistered user had added unreferenced matter without talking. I do not claim to be omniscient and if this person is in the right, he/she must disclose the source. I did not use any material which I could not verify from most reliable sources I could get. I am very busy outside Wiki nowadays and I have neither time nor interest in any edit war with a troll.-VJha (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help: Mango in the Vedas

Hello there, I've been having some difficulties in the Mango article page trying to cite a statement describing the mango as the 'the food of the gods', as mentioned in the Vedas. I've had a pretty long discussion with User:Paul144, you may refer to the contents of the discussion in my talk page and in his. To summarise, as we are not reaching a consencus, I was wondering if you could help me find the exact verse in the Vedas that describes the fruit as 'the food of gods', if not some verses that prominantly mentions the fruit. I'd need to know the exact verse and the version of the Vedas you are referring for a valid citation. I was recommended by User:Abecedare (to whom I asked this earlier) to copy you in. Looking forward to your reply. Thanks and have a nice day.  S3000  ☎ 10:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The thread on Dab's talkpage looks like the best place to answer. rudra (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Narayanasara

Heard of this book, its author and the underlying treatise [1]? Do you find a copy of it in your libraries? Do not wonder who I am ;). To be frank, I suspect an arch idiot there. Uzhuthiran (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

When in doubt, look up Potter (Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies). Turns out, Bhāsarvajña wrote several works (including a commentary Nyāyabhūṣaṇa on his own Nyāyasāra). TK Narayanan (1992) is listed in the bibliography, along with another critical study by Ganeshukak Suthor (1991). Me, I haven't the faintest idea about any of this. rudra (talk) 05:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback requested in an RfC

Hi Rudra, I am wondering if you might like to weigh in on an RfC that I initiated earlier this week. I fear that the discussion there has degenerated. I'm aware that you might not know anything specific about the language concerned (which I don't either), but the content issue is more general, and you know a lot about ancient India and Sanskrit. I've tried to explain this more precisely in my statement (at the expense of using too many words which I hope you don't find too off-putting). Needless to say, if you do decide to say something, I don't expect you to say anything in support of my position, only to provide you best opinion. Request for comment: When does the literary tradition in a language begin? Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Re [2], please mind WP:CIVIL --Be happy!! (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Next. rudra (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, I did get confused

I have no idea who I am replying to in these issues half the time. I can't imagine how the same subject suddenly blows up on half-a-dozen previously quiescent talkpages. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You have mail. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, not yet:-( rudra (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For your reading pleasure ...

... Halmidi dates. Using Google snippets to get the full-quote for Gai was a lot of fun (like a crossword). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] D. C. Sircar

I just created this stub article. Googling his name, I found that you reference his work on your Materials subpage; so I thought I'd drop you a note in case you are interested in expanding the article. Banglapedia has quite a decent (though somewhat hagiographic) article on him, but I am loath to copy it in toto (don't know if it is public domain either!) Regards. Abecedare (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

We haven't encountered each other much, but i've seen your work. "Zealots, hypocrites and busybodies have worked out how to have a free run of Wikipedia. I don't know why I bother."

Because somebody has to do it. That's why.

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For standing up in the face of otherwise unnoticed point-of-view pushing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re:Barelwi

No, that's quite alright... productive changes are always welcome. I do think that the poor quality sources should be removed and replaced with those of better quality where possible. I'm not a fan of using opinionated or polemical websites to as citations for their own claims... you'd think that if the arguments were significant or noteworthy then there'd be some sort of discussion of them in an independent, reliable source. ITAQALLAH 18:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wikidas

It's a classic case for WP:FTN. It's not a problem, the system can deal with this :) dab (𒁳) 15:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed it. Let me see if any additional wikilegal hair-splitting is required. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Way to go Rudra!!! I have been having trouble with this ISKCON/Gaudiya guy for a while! He has been writing absolutely preposterous and non-sensical ISKCON stuff for a while. I have been in pitch battles with this guy over the most out-landish ISKCON things. Please study this "Satswarupa" devotee on google.com...you'll flip out. We can not be using the works of these ISKCON gurus and people. Their whole group is based on anti-shruti beliefs. I am thankful that you stood up to his ISKCON/Gaudiya fanaticism. What gets me is that they list some very unsavory and contriversial ISKCON guru/characters as viable sources! If you guys were to know the history of these ISKCON gurus...you'll be shocked!Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Dude! Rudra....I love you Man! Touchet with wikidas! The whole dialog between you and the ISKCON-ite is sooo funny!Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In reply to your AN/I query...

Rudra, in answer to your question on AN/I about "analysis of things like writing style, characteristic typos and the like" in relation to Zeq I've now done just this; see WP:AN/I#Lingustic analysis. Hope this helps. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relata refero's point

I think the idea is that they're muslims, and there was a pogrom, but it appears to have occurred for political, not religious reasons, as the Jews (well, some of them, obviously - Most of those killed probably had no more power than anyone else) were the rulers and the Muslims the ruled. Since they killed innocent Jews, not just the rulers, it was clearly anti-Semitic. But it's not at all clear that the Muslim faith of those rebelling had anything to do with the events. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bhagavad Gita

You have asked me to justify my Trivia input on this page. I'm not sure why I must justify a fact. Surely the idea of this site is to spread knowledge and fact to further inform the user's knowledge and expand their horizons. When has fact needed justification? What is not interesting fact to you may very well be enlightening to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpinemonkey (talk • contribs) 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consult WP:TRIV and discuss the issue on Talk:Bhagavad Gita. rudra (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SRK biblio

Please feel free to contribute to this page: User:Goethean/SRKbiblio — goethean ॐ 15:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UNSC resolutions

Hi Rudra, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I thought I'd take this offline as I no longer think it belongs on the fringe board. In terms of what the experts say about the Namibia advisory are you referring to this:

The International Court of Justice took the position in the Namibia Advisory Opinion that Art. 25 of the Charter, according to which decisions of the Security Council have to be carried out, does not only apply in relation to chapter VII. Rather, the court is of the opinion that the language of a resolution should be carefully analyzed before a conclusion can be drawn as to its binding effect. The Court even seems to assume that Art. 25 may have given special powers to the Security Council. The Court speaks of "the powers under Art. 25". It is very doubtful, however, whether this position can be upheld. As Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice has pointed out in his dissenting opinion: "If, under the relevant chapter or article of the Charter, the decision is not binding, Article [69/70] 25 cannot make it so. If the effect of that Article were automatically to make al decisions of the Security Council binding, then the words 'in accordance with the present Charter' would be quite superfluous". In practice the Security Council does not act on the understanding that its decisions outside chapter VII are binding on the States concerned. Indeed, as the wording of chapter VI clearly shows, non-binding recommendations are the general rule here." Frowein, Jochen Abr. Völkerrecht - Menschenrechte - Verfassungsfragen Deutschlands und Europas, Springer, 2004, ISBN 3540230238, p. 58.

Can you briefly explain what that means in laymans terms? I seem to think it means that the words "In accordance to the present charter" nullify Article 25. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(IANAL, NDIPOOTV!) My understanding of what the experts are saying is that the ICJ misunderstood the scope of Art. 25. There was a lot of politics behind the scenes, BTW. The Namibia Advisory Opinion was a replay: the issue was whether South Africa's League of Nations mandate over Namibia could be considered terminated according to the UN resolution. When the matter was passed to the ICJ for an opinion in 1966(? maybe earlier, I'm working from memory), the ICJ basically upheld SA's mandate, but this was "helped" by the fact that Percy Spender of Australia, the President of the ICJ, forcibly recused Zafarullah Khan of Pakistan from the case. The second time around, Zafarullah was President of the ICJ by then, and SA "lost" the case. Matters were further complicated by the fact that in those resolutions, SC members (I think the UK and US) had abstained, which threw the validity of the resolutions to begin with into doubt. So somewhere in that tangle the ICJ reached for Art. 25 to uphold its opinion (that SA's mandate was over). There's a huge mass of details I don't even to pretend to understand here, but basically the Namibia Advisory is far from clear cut in its implications, which means that the "way the UN usually works" is still king. Hope this helps. rudra (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
As for Fitzmaurice's argument, i think that has to do with "in accordance with this charter" being part of Art.25, which means that Art.25 can't override any other provision, although the first part of its statement might seem to imply that. So, not nullify, but restrict. rudra (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I am also curious as to precisely what people here and at the FT/N mean by "chapter VII" resolutions. Resolutions that mention chapter VII? That only these are binding is a completely untenable position.John Z (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
My understanding: (a) "Binding" generally means "UN members are obliged to enforce"; (b) compare Art.38 (Ch.VI) and Art.39 (Ch.VII), both of which talk about "recommendations". The further reference to Art.41/2 brings in things like sanctions and military action, which obviously require enforcement. Thus resolutions by their language get classified according to which articles of the UN charter actually permit the SC to pass such a resolution in the first place. It follows that resolutions falling under Ch. VI (typically because they don't invoke actions that would need Ch.VII to be legitimate) are not really enforceable, in the sense that the UN hasn't undertaken to have them enforced. (Note also that Art.25 talks about decisions, not recommendations). Now we could spell all this out in mind-numbing detail every time, but the distinction seems reasonably clear, and to that extent using the terms "binding" and "not binding" as short-hand seems to have become established. At this point reading the long list of quotes Jayjg posted could help. And lastly, I don't propose to get into an argument defending terminology: that's for the experts. I'm simply giving my non-expert understanding. rudra (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name change: Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan: Allies/International support

The reason why I changed the name was with Wikipedia policy in mind. The word ‘allies’ is a word with certain connotations. On other articles on the war on terrorism, people have objected to certain nations being called ‘allies’. On the article in question, someone objected to India being called an ally. So I was reacting to existing objections. So to be, well not neutral, but allowing a little more scope, I changed it to ‘international support. I will happily discuss any objections, but if there are no objections, when can I go ahead and do the name change?

And if the move is OK, how can I do it and not break the rules? I followed your link but it did not offer any advice (why is it that Wikipedia ‘help pages’ actually create more confusion, not less? Frankly I don’t know why I bother here either). Chwyatt (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Chwyatt (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits on Svayam Bhagavan page

Dear Rudra, I have made some edits on the Svayam Bhagavan page. Please let me know what you think and any suggestions. Namaskar.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikidas editing on Svayam Bhagavan article

Dear Rudra, can you please help with the Svayam Bhagavan article. Can you please you at the edits of wikidas and myself. He keeps on re-editing. There might be some more friction between wikidas and myself again....Please help!!!Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wensinck

Thank you very much. I do agree with you that we should include critical views as well as less critical ones. We have little information about 1400 years ago but have a fair amount of information about what current scholars say. So, all we can do is to present the spectrum of views and let the readers adopt one as their own, whatever that view is. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rudra,
It is very unfortunate that some translators are so irresponsible. In any case, please don't bother yourself finding the source because of me (unless you want to add its content to wikipedia which would be admirable; of course if it worths the energy one has to spent).
Have nice times,
--Be happy!! (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the message. In case you learned more about the theory, I would appreciate it if you could keep me updated. Thank you!! I agree that the Constitution of Medina article needs much work and wikipedia does need serious and knowledge-lover editors like you who would dig through the sources. Wikipedia articles on Islam need much improvement still... Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mango, again!

Hi again! If you remember, I sent the same message as I initially sent you to BalanceRestored some time ago, but he's only recently replied. His message is in my talk page. Please have your say. Thanks!  S3000  ☎ 11:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)