User talk:Ms Sarah Welch/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 7

Shaktism: Bhavana Upanishad

@Nvvchar: I started Bhavana Upanishad in my Sandbox. It is a stub-like article, and please feel free to add to it. As I mentioned earlier, once we are done with stub articles, we should invite someone to review and decide if they should be made live. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I have added some text. You may review its relevance. --Nvvchar. 14:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Ms Sarah Welch. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#March.
Message added 02:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please have a look at this Tito Dutta (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Upanishad articles

Both these Upanishad articles look good to me. --Tito Dutta (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

GA nominations.

I propose to nominate this Kali-Saṇṭāraṇa Upaniṣad on GA for the GA Cup backlog clearance month in March. Please suggest a few others which could be nominated. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 04:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: For GA nominations, consider those articles where the content section is complete, and the main sources cited in the content section include Deussen, and/or Olivelle, and/or Ayyangar. These would mostly be the Sannyasa or Yoga Upanishads. For example, the Jabala Upanishad. The Manasollasa article is another possibility. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • In both Jabala Upanishad and Manasollasa references in the lead need to be shifted. I can do it by repeating the text under History or content sections. Any views of that.Nvvchar. 13:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Go ahead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible candidates for GA

@Nvvchar: Consider these: Avyakta Upanishad, Tejobindu Upanishad, Advayataraka Upanishad, Atharvashiras Upanishad, Atharvashikha Upanishad, Amritabindu Upanishad, Kundika Upanishad, Brahma Upanishad, Paramahamsa Parivrajaka Upanishad, Hamsa Upanishad, Yoga-kundalini Upanishad, Maitreya Upanishad, Mantrika Upanishad, Aruneya Upanishad, Bhikshuka Upanishad and Pranagnihotra Upanishad. There are others which with a bit of copyediting and ref-harv-formating can be nominated, if you are willing to put the effort: Nyaya Sutras, Murti, Bhagavata Purana, Brahma Sutras, Guru, Arthashastra, etc Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I am always willing to work on any topic related to religion. I will lost the Upanishads first. Nvvchar. 04:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Manasollasa GA

@Nvvchar: I see you nominated Mansollasa in the religion/philosophy section of GA listing. Should it be under Culture/Sociology section of the GA nomination page? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Changed.--Nvvchar. 13:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

On our way to wikipedia's 100th Upanishad article

@Nvvchar: I now have enough WP:RS and manuscripts to complete Mandala-brahmana Upanishad, Mahavakya Upanishad, Trishikhibrahmana Upanishad and Turiyatitavadhuta Upanishad. If you would like to get started on any of them, please go ahead. Once these four are complete, we would have reached the 101st Upanishad, making wikipedia by far the most comprehensive reference on the Upanishads, thanks to the effort @Redtigerxyz and you started over a year ago. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Mahavakya Upanishad added. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Trishikhibrahmana Upanishad added. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Mandala-brahmana Upanishad added. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • My inputs are complete for all the three.Nvvchar. 14:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Some people are not happy with my posting too many DYKs. I therfore request you to post these the following two Upanishads.Nvvchar. 04:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

... that the Mahavakya Upanishad asserts the nature of Atman (self, soul) and Brahman (ultimate reality) as identical and thar liberation is the state of fully understanding this identity?

... that the Trishikhibrahmana Upanishad presents non-dualist Vedanta ideas through Yoga practice with most of the Upanishad's discussion centered on Yoga?

@Nvvchar: Mahavakya and Trishikhibrahmana nominated. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Dakshinamurti Upanishad

I have completed this User:Nvvchar/Dakshinamurti Upanishad.Nvvchar. 12:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: The source you used, by Ramamoorthy and Nome, states that the Dakshinamurti Upanishad has 34 verses plus the closing Shanti verse. The two manuscripts I am looking at, have just 20 (plus the Shanti verse in one manuscript). Here is a publicly available one with 20. I am trying to trace the 34 version manuscript. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I leave it to you to take a view to recast the article as required. Nome's book appealed to me Nvvchar. 13:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I updated Dakshinamurti Upanishad. That makes it the 103rd Upanishad article on wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Please nominate with any appropriate hook of your choice.Nvvchar. 04:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • My hook suggestion ... that the Dakshinamurti Upanishad asserts that Dakshinamurti (pictured) is an aspect of Shiva, who is within oneself as Atman (self, soul), and everything one does in daily life is an offering to Him?Nvvchar. 02:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Upanishads Barnstar

Upanishads Barnstar
Great work on Upanishads-related articles. You deserve a barnstar. Tito Dutta (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

GA reviews in progress

Badami cave temples is under GA review. You may like to address a few issues.Nvvchar. 05:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

English variants

I've asked you before to respect the spellings on articles relating to India but seemingly every time you revamp something, such as Bhakti movement, you switch to US spellings, eg: using "-ize" rather than "-ise". You have been here long enough now to at least be able to conform most of the time. Your attitude in this regard is tiresome and uncollegial. - Sitush (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: I revised the Bhakti movement article long ago (~ 8 months). Everybody is free to edit and improve wikipedia. Please feel free to edit and replace US English spelling to Indian English spelling. If there is a bot which does this, let me know. If not, perhaps we should ask someone to develop one, or request some volunteers to help us. How is your health these days? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Subala Upanishad

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Varaha Upanishad

—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 00:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 12:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Tarasara Upanishad

—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 00:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 12:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Js82

I've semi-protected Sikhism and Bhakti movement for six months. Let me know if the trouble spreads to other articles. --regentspark (comment) 14:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding WP:UNDUE content to Bhakti Movement page

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bhakti_movement. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. The arti with candles is not mainstream as only a few sikhs do it. You cannot put something that is practiced by a few sects allegedly and say it represents the mainstream. You have been warned before and know that his does not represent the mainstream. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Article. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. You added this image again without discussing, here. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jujhar.pannu: You need to provide a source that it is "few sects". Yes, we need to include the few sects for WP:NPOV, because it is notable and important to reflect all majority and minority views with Sikhism, but indeed while clarifying that it is a few sects. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of referenced content

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Article, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

You made no mention to why you deleted "While Sikhism incorporated hymns from the Bhakti poet saints, according to Raj Pruthi, it was not simply an extension of the Bhakti movement, and Sikhism disagreed with some of the views of Kabir and Ravidas which include Sikhs believing in achieving blissful mukhti while alive, Sikhs placing emphasis on the path of the householder, Sikhs disbelief in Ahinsa, and the Sikhs afterlife aspect of merging with God rather than a physical heaven."[1] Jujhar.pannu (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Pruthi, R K (2004). Sikhism and Indian Civilization. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House. pp. 202–203. ISBN 9788171418794.

@Jujhar.pannu: You allege I deleted that. Actually, it was I who added that, for the first time, on March 3. Your frustration is perhaps misplaced. I deleted the last part of it, BTW, as it is WP:UNDUE, the "householder, Ahimsa, etc" is WP:COATRACK and irrelevant to the topic of Bhakti. Perhaps you can add that to Sikhism-related subsection of Kabir and Ravidas wiki articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You did not add that those sentences. It is not irrelevant as it continues of what is being discussed. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Article, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. You are distorting references again by removing and living a virtuous life. From: Guru Arjan, in his Sukhmani Sahib, recommended the true religion is one of loving devotion to God and living a virtuous life.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Surinder S. Kohli (1993). The Sikh and Sikhism. Atlantic Publishers. pp. 74–76. ISBN 81-7156-336-8.
  2. ^ Singh, Nirmal (2008). Searches In Sikhism (First ed.). New Delhi: Hemkunt Press. p. 122. ISBN 978-81-7010-367-7.
@Jujhar.pannu: Quit these uncivil threats. Take it to ANI. Wikipedia is not WP:Soap. "Lead a virtuous life" etc is irrelevant, has nothing to do with the topic of the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Article Distortion

Aside from the things mentioned on the Bhakti movement talk page with your text suggesting that "alternative to Sikhism, Hinduism has a nirguni and sarguni bhakti." suggesting Sikhism doesn't have nirguni and sarguni bhakti even after shown with citations why you are further distorting Sikhism by adding "Bhagti, Kirtan and Ardās is an important tradition within some sects of Sikhism. " I do not think there are any Sikhs anywhere that do not practice Bhakti, Kiran or Ardas. Write carefully and clearly to avoid these mistakes. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jujhar.pannu: See Talk:Bhakti movement. I already posted my comments with multiple sources and suggestions to improve the article. To be continued at the article's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Selecting a few new Upanishad articles for DYK

@Nvvchar: Let us pick one or two from these 5 for DYK.

  • Is the text paro rajase savad -om in this reference relevant to include.--Nvvchar. 15:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@Nvvchar: which reference? Generally, I discourage quote-farming and snippet addition from any primary text, unless the context/significance is also included from reliable sources, and the addition is WP:DUE or notable. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@Nvvchar: Thanks. The source looks non-RS, lets leave that text/phrase out. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggest Turiyatita, you pick one. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

  • You have covered all the above four Upanishads very well. I do not have much to add but recorded my presence. I suggest the following two hooks.Nvvchar. 16:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

...that the Turiyatitavadhuta Upanishad states that Avadhutas are the highest liberated Hindu monks (pictured) who are an incarnation of knowledge, of detachment and of inner purity?

...that the Annapurna Upanishad describes Jivanmukti– achieving freedom in this life, and the characteristics of those (pictured) who reach self-knowledge?

@Nvvchar: Done. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Niralamba Upanishad

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Puranas collection

@Nvvchar: Thanks to the note here, you posted many weeks ago, I have updated all major Puranas:

Some of these may be worth refining further, then nominating for GA review, if you are interested. For DYK, given its 5x requirement, only Devi-Bhagavata Purana qualifies (which is not in the above list). It is one of the few Goddess-related classics, and I have updated it. Feel free to revise it further, and nominate.

Please note that Puranas are very easy to inadvertently misrepresent and convert into a "quote farm". There are 1000s of sources (!) on these Puranas, see the bibliography embedded in the KP Gietz source I have included in these articles. There are numerous versions of each Purana text. For all these reasons, we need extra care, avoid quote farming, avoid using non-RS websites, and use only secondary or tertiary reliable scholarly sources as we improve the Purana articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Manasollasa

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You removed my edits from Islam amd Sikhism

Ms Welch, you had removed all of my sourced edits at Islam and Sikhism after Sisu55's block. Those edits were added by me, Sisu55 only made aome changes to them. All of my edits were well-sourced mostly. Next time, please try to be more careful. SiddharthSunny (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

While going through your user contributions, I've come across you again frivolously changing another person's sourced edits and adding something that is not in source. I also noticed that the proceeding section itself clearly mentions from a passage of Jahangir's biography that he had Guru Arjan arrested after he met with Khusrau. I've undone it as it was frivolous and unsourced. Please talk in case something is wrong. SiddharthSunny (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

We sure have a lot of sock-activity in Sikhism-related articles. To be continued at the article's respective talk pages. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiddharthSunny (talk • contribs) 01:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. See you there. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@SiddharthSunny, you deleted this. You wrote,
"This kind of attitude shows you don't care at all about cooperating. Keep on mocking. SiddharthSunny (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)"
No need for hostility and personal attacks. I am just acknowledging your note. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not hostility, I'm just acknowledging what you actually meant. But it serves no purpose. And now this argument is just becoming plain silly. SiddharthSunny (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@SiddharthSunny: You have been blocked for 36 hours by an admin. I hope you return, and will engage constructively. As I explained on the ANI board, [1] it is not okay to derive new conclusions that the source does not make, [2] it is not okay to delete sourced content or add unsourced content, [3] it is not okay to apply wiki rules on @Apuldram or other editors while exempting yourself from the same rules, and [4] it is not okay to edit war while lecturing others. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Notices, lecturing, hostility etc from @SiddharthSunny
{{{2}}}

@SiddharthSunny: Now that you are indef blocked, it is time to let it rest. Distortion, disruption and violence with words is inappropriate in real life, and in wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Devi-Bhagavata Purana

Hello! Your submission of Devi-Bhagavata Purana at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! FunkyCanute (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC) FunkyCanute (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is the tool for checking the word or ch counts in an article [2]. I have not been able to edit on our GA articles under re-review as the hard disc of my laptop crashed and I had to replace it at a cost of about $100. Probably due to long hours of use resulting in heating of the system. I will resume some compliance today.Nvvchar. 02:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Islam and Sikhism

Be careful. Don't get yourself blocked. Last year I got myself blocked because of that article. I realised a few months ago that the people who managed to get me blocked had WP:GAME 'd the system. I'm an experienced editor but should have know better. There are people at that article that will try that. SH 19:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Sikhism

Have you any views on this ? SH 20:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@SH: Indeed, Sikhism and panentheism-pantheism-monotheism is a very good topic to build a well sourced NPOV summary. This should be addressed in God in Sikhism article, as well, but that article is an entirely unsourced essay. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Annapurna Upanishad

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Rama Rahasya Upanishad

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For your contribution towards WP:HINDUISM. —Vensatry (Talk) 16:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Issues

I see you are having issues with Jujhar Pannu. My gut feeling it's more to do with WP:Competence SH 18:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:Bhakti movement and User Talk:Jujhar.pannu. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Akhand Kirtani Jatha

Hi fellow editor, I could use you help at this article. I've tried to use WP:RS but there are people who keep adding WP:NOT. I want to avoid an Edit Warso any help would be appreciated. Thanks SH 14:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@SH: I will take a look. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@SH: I have reworded the text a bit, after checking sources such as the University of Cumbria article and Encyclopedia Britannica article on Akhand Kirtani Jatha. As @Joshua Jonathan has noted elsewhere, we need to be careful in what we write and how we write when we cover controversial subjects. Otherwise, we will just be dealing with endless editwars. The first step is always to get the article right with quality WP:RS, then wordsmith-ing for balance and NPOV. The editwarring by IP-accounts in Akhand Kirtani Jatha is minor so far, but if it persists try talk page discussion, requesting page semi-protection, etc. just like we went through for the Sikhism article. There are a few more sources that need to be checked/replaced with better WP:RS in that article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Maitreyi

Congratulations, the article has passed for GA.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Coldwell: Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I may have missed some issues as a new reviewer, and want to be sure all the criteria are covered, so have reopen for further reviewing.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Bhikshuka Upanishad

Congratulations, the article has passed for GA.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Coldwell: Thanks. Appreciate you taking the time to review. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I may have missed some issues as a new reviewer, and want to be sure all the criteria are covered, so have reopen for further reviewing.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@Doug Coldwell: Please take your time. If you spot any issues, @Nvvchar and/or I will work on them, to hopefully address them. Appreciate you taking the time to review. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI

You reverted a large edit by Red Daredevil at Vedas. I've blocked him as a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buddhakahika/Archive. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for Sanskrit prosody

Hi, I see that you have been greatly expanding the article on Sanskrit prosody; thank you! This is a topic I am much interested in, but had not seriously made an attempt to edit the Wikipedia page for. Just a note: much of what you've added is probably of even greater interest at the Vedic meter article. (I think at some point, someone made the decision to split Vedic and classical-Sanskrit prosody; the article Sanskrit prosody used to be only about the latter but it looks like you've expanded it to cover both topics, which is fine, but the Vedic meter article probably can use some love too… or just get merged into this?) Shreevatsa (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Shreevatsa: Thank you for the note. Indeed, Vedic meter article needs a lot of attention, it is an almost-entirely unsourced essay. That article could be merged or reduced to a stub for now, and later expanded to cover the meter in the fours layers of text in all the four Vedas. And yes, I was meditating on how best to expand the classical and post-classical Sanskrit prosody sections. Perhaps, we should start with Chandas in the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. I would love it if you pitched in, to collaborate, and helped expand the article further. See Hopkins's chapter 4 and Lehmann's article, for example, as a starting point. I will be away from wikipedia for a few days, and it will be my delight if you revise/add to that article given your interest. @Joshua Jonathan: Would you like to add a few paragraphs from prosody in Buddhist Sanskrit literature, to the Sanskrit prosody article? There is some Jaina and Sikhism-related prosody literature that hopefully we summarize in there someday. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@Shreevatsa: The Deo paper is another good WP:RS for prosody in classical Sanskrit. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Trishikhibrahmana Upanishad

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The milestone: 108 out of 108 Upanishads

All 108 Upanishad articles are live.
@Nvvchar: I expect to work on Turiyatita and Tripuratapani in the coming days. I have not nominated some of the recently completed Upanishads to DYK. If you would like to, please feel free to nominate whichever you wish. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Tripuratapini Upanishad added. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Is the text paro rajase savad -om in this reference relevant to include.--Nvvchar. 15:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Annapurna Upanishad added. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Rudrahridaya Upanishad added. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Shukarahasya Upanishad added. That was 107th. I am working on the 108th. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Turiyatitavadhuta Upanishad added. All 108 are live now. We still need to go back and check the quality/WP:RS on a few Upanishad articles created before 2015. With a bit of cleaning up, the Upanishads collection of wikipedia will be complete. @Nvvchar and @Redtigerxyz, you have reached an important milestone. Cheers, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Hearty congratulations. I will try to add some text. Badami cave temples is now GA. I suggest the following hook for the Annapurna Upanishad. ... that the Annapurna Upanishad describes Jivanmukti– achieving freedom in this life, and the characteristics of those (pictured) who reach self-knowledge?Nvvchar. 02:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@Titodutta: Now would be good time to start thinking about that wikimedia blog on the Upanishads, you mentioned a while ago. Let me know if I can help @Nvvchar and you with the wiki-blog. Perhaps, Dr. Blofeld may have a few suggestions/sentences to contribute for your wiki-blog? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Sarah and User:Nvvchar, I have started drafting questions here, please start by answering: User:Titodutta/Recognition/Upanishad. --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Congrats on starting them all!! I don't know about commenting in blogs but I think it would be good to get these articles all up to GA status. You could make this a WP:Good topic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Titodutta:, @Dr. Blofeld: Thanks. Will work on it. Your guidance and words of encouragement are appreciated. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want me to review any for GA let me know.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: Your critical review/comments will be a huge help. Will keep you posted. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: We left the following red links in some of the articles we co-created:

What would you like to put in these articles? an overview? a table with names, linked Veda, notable aspects, etc.? Can you finish some of these, to tie up the loose ends of the Upanishads project? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I could not reply earlier as my lap top had crashed due to a global virus. Called in the expert to set it right. Regarding the above four articles I propose to give an overview and the list in a table format with some remarks. I will do it this week. As many of our GA nominations are pending I have not posted new ones. Nvvchar. 10:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Nvvchar: Please note @Dr. Blofeld has very kindly offered to review Upanishad GA nominations. Given his experience and the quality of his articles, he would be an excellent reviewer. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Umaswati

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yoga Yajnavalkya

Congratulations, the article has passed for GA.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Coldwell: Thank you for the review, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I may have missed some issues as a new reviewer, and want to be sure all the criteria are covered, so have reopen for further reviewing.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

GA review comments by Bluemoonset needs to be addressed. The lead is quite long and has first eleven references. I am rather confused about shifting all the references to the main text. You may like to have a look. Thanks.Nvvchar. 08:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Mandala-brahmana Upanishad

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

GA nominations

I have nominated these two Avyakta Upanishad and Avyakta Upanishad. I will nominate others also soon. Pl see.--Nvvchar. 03:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, can you help finding some good sources for this Template:Did you know nominations/Bharti Dayal? You can see discussion in my talk page. I am in a fix.

Umaswati is not moving as the nominator feels that there is nothing more to be done by him as you have addressed all issues. You may like to coment on his talk page.--Nvvchar. 03:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: We need to give Umaswati DYK more time. On Bharti Dayal article, I had never looked at that article of yours, @Yoninah's comments are well placed, will look at the article more closely and try to help if I can. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I have complied to GA review comments except the influence section and Notes (I could not open it) and also the quote which may be a combination of Duesen and Oliville. Please see my corrections--Nvvchar. 03:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@Nvvchar: Let us hold off and not nominate any more articles for GA review. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. To be continued there. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Badami cave temples

The DYK project (nominate) 00:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Mahavakya Upanishad

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Turiyatitavadhuta Upanishad

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

GA review of Jainism article: Digambara

@Capankajsmilyo: Per your note above, on GA review help, I started reading Digambara. The article is in decent shape, but has some verifiability issues. Consider the scriptures section. You have:

Quote: "Āchārya Dharasen, in first century CE, guided two Āchāryas, Āchārya Pushpadant and Āchārya Bhutabali, to put these teachings in the written form. The two Āchāryas wrote, on palm leaves, Ṣaṭkhaṅḍāgama- among the oldest known Digambara Jain texts."

The cited source is Paul Dundas. I checked. Dharasena and Ṣaṭkhaṅḍāgama (literally, Scripture of six parts) is from the second century, according to Dundas. Please correct. You may wish to discuss its history better, particularly the link of scriptures to South India in the 1st millennium CE, which Dundas discusses. Please mention and describe Kasayapahuda in the main article, as it is an important text to the Digambara tradition within Jainism (I see you mention it in the lead, but don't in the main). Summarize too the controversy on dates, since the Arya meter (see Sanskrit prosody) suggests composition or modifications at a later date. Dundas explains it on pages 79-80. There are other important texts in Digambara tradition such as Mulacara, Bhagavatiaradhana etc. which you should discuss (see Dundas and others on this). @जैन: I see you are actively editing that article too for GA; please take care of this. I am tempted to edit that article, but that may complicate your GA process. I will try to help from the shadows. You are in good hands with @Sainsf as reviewer, who is thorough yet helpful. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions on dates and texts. Got GA. Now only Jainism and Jain monasticism are pending. Also, I am planning to propose Bahubali for GA, as it is high-traffic article. What's your suggestion? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, can you please help me find some stats for Wikipedia:WikiProject Jainism articles like these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capankajsmilyo (talk • contribs)
@Capankajsmilyo: Congratulations to जैन and you for Digambara GA. Indeed, Bahubali is a good article to work on. Try to avoid using the single source so much, particularly that Vijay Jain's book. Try to weigh the source per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and see the links below for better/second sources:
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
On Project:Jainism stats, @Mr.Z is the best resource, whom you have already contacted. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you

take a look at this? --regentspark (comment) 16:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Will do. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Maitreyi GA review

Maitreyi issues which I addressed seem inadequate to the reviewer. Can you kindly have a look at them, pl? Thanks.Nvvchar. 02:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: I don't see new comments. Can you post a link please? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Please see reviewer's last date 4 April.--Nvvchar. 13:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Nvvchar: I already took care of it. See the time stamps on 4 April. Did I miss any specific comment or section that you want me to work on? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Jyotisha

On 9 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jyotisha, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jyotisha was an ancient Vedic study of time keeping and astronomy, that later adopted astrology ideas and the zodiac from the Greeks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jyotisha. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Nondualism

You've got an open {{refn|group=note|It is often ... tag and I don't know where to close it. Bgwhite (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: Oops on my part. I will fix it now. Thanks for the note. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK: Umaswati / Jainism

Hello, Umaswati was approved for DYK. Can you please tell me, what does that mean? Will it be featured somewhere, or a tag will be placed on the page / talk page? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: It is in DYK-queue, will likely appear on the main page of Wikipedia on March 31 2016 at 00:00 UTC (which may be late morning in your Indian clocks). You will be notified by an wikipedia admin when it does feature on the main page. If there are other major and important high traffic wikipedia pages on Jainism, that I can help you improve, let me know. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Yes there are quite a lot. One being the Jainism itself. I am trying to promote Jainism, Mahavira, Jain monasticism and Digambara to GA. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey, Mahavira has just been promoted to GA. I got a message that I can nominate it for DYK. Can you please tell me, if it qualifies as per rules. I am not well versed with DYK yet. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Capankajsmilyo:, @जैन: Indeed, freshly promoted GA articles qualify. I see you have already nominated the article, with some minor format errors, which I will shortly fix, to help you out. Congratulations, you two, and don't forget to thank any GOCE team members who helped you with copyedits. Aren't they amazing? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: Yes they are. -Nimit (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

You do an invaluable service to Indian culture by bringing good basic information to Wikipedia. I would like better Indian-Western relations and you advance good will by making this kind of content more accessible. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: What a lovely message. Thank you for the words of encouragement, and for the review of Natya Shastra. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

page 74 says "decapitated"

page 74 of Blackwell Companion says "decapitated"VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Thanks. To be continued at Talk:Shrauta. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Kali-Saṇṭāraṇa Upaniṣad

@Nvvchar: I suggest we withdraw the Kali-Saṇṭāraṇa Upaniṣad from GA nom, clean it up, then submit it for GOCE's help first. What do you think? Same for any other Upanishad articles whose GA review has not started. To complete the Jabala Upanishad GA review, do you know who Chandra is, since you added that summary. Please see @BlueMoonset's recent review comment. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  • i have with drawn Kali-Saṇṭāraṇa Upaniṣad and two other Upanishads from the talk page of the articiles. About the author S.S.Chandra quoted in the history section of Jabala Upanishad, his full name is Dr. Soti Shivendra Chandra. He is Principal of the S.S. Post-graduate College, Shahjahanpur, Rohilkhand University. He has authored several books which have been mostly published by Atlantic Publishers and Distributors. This reference [3] gives some biographic details. I have replied on GA talk page and made a small correction in the text, only giving his full name. Pl see.--Nvvchar. 02:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

maya (illusion)

hi, please see the talk page of Maya_(illusion). request your continued participation please. thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)mayasutra

@Mayasutra: you don't need to ping and post a note on a user talk page. To be continued on Talk:Maya (illusion). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Natya Shastra

On 25 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Natya Shastra, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Hindu text Natya Shastra is an ancient encyclopedic treatise on the performing arts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Natya Shastra. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Natya Shastra), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Sikhism articles and sock activity

@Apuldram:, @Sikh-history: I just noticed the recent SPI results after the disruptive editing in two Sikhism-related articles by @SiddharthSunny and @AkhtarHussain83, where these new accounts jointly edit-warred or argued with JimRenge, Omni Flames, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, me, you and a few others, few weeks ago in Guru Arjan and Islam and Sikhism articles. Both @SiddharthSunny and @AkhtarHussain83 turned out to be confirmed socks of @KahnJohn27. Thanks to the keen memory of Joshua Jonathan, his guess was right after all. Both were a time sink for all concerned, given WP:AGF. We have faced the same issue with @Js82-socks, which the watch of @JJ and Kautilya3 has helped contain. Thanks to admins RegentsPark, EdJohnston and others who have semi-protected some of the Sikhism articles, which has not only help stabilize those articles, but reduced the time sink for everyone in dealing with this.

I would like to focus on a few Sikhism articles, and with your help, check and clean out WP:Copyvio or WP:REFLOOP such as this, use more WP:RS and generally update/improve the articles in Project:Sikhism. @Apuldram, @Sikh-history: Would you use this wikitool on high priority Sikhism articles to identify which need some attention? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

That's an impressive tool, but I haven't spotted how to tell which is the source and which the copier. For example, in the Guru Nanak example you provide, two bits of the text identified as copyvios were added to the Wikipedia article by me, and I certainly didn't copy them from that source. I put information from a different source (The Encyclopaedia of Sikhism) as best I could into my own words. I think perhaps the other site copied Wikipedia. How do we identify when that happens? If a new addition to an article is found to be taken word for word from elsewhere, then there is a clear case. Apuldram (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Apuldram: Indeed, you are right on the mark. Finding the copier often requires a lot of digging. In recent Copyvio investigations, triggered by the flagging by @Diannaa and @SpacemanSpiff of some Jainism articles, and during DYK reviews, I used this tool to find, in most cases, when a sentence was added to wikipedia for the first time. Then compared it to that of the non-wikipedia site. This does not work all the times. Regardless, one thing is for sure: if a non-wikipedia website has the same content (sentences /paragraph /or more) as wikipedia, that source cannot be used anywhere in any Sikhism article because of WP:REFLOOP problem. So the tool helps us identify either a Copyvio problem or unacceptable REFLOOP source that we must delete/fix. Perhaps admin @Utcursch or someone has more ideas for us? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Apuldram: Ranjit Singh article has at least some Copyvio from Encyclopedia Britannica, and from this 2001 article. Identified using the above wikitool. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Gold Wreaths from Thrace

Can you find more references and edit this article Template:Did you know nominations/Gold Wreaths from Thrace? Thanks.--Nvvchar. 01:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: Sorry. I am too busy, and some RL family vacation events will leave me little time for wikipedia for a few days. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Try the above links. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What else can one do

A stone wall is probably equally receptive and understanding. Nothing will help here. See WP:CHEESE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I like your edits. I will fix the Samsara article first, which is where rebirth-redeath theories of Indian religions ought to be clarified. Then, will check if some second/third scholarly sources to 4NT article are necessary. Frankly, you have done a great job with 4NT article. I am puzzled by @Robert Walker's behavior, given what is in the scholarly sources on four noble truths. I hope AGF addition of second/third scholarly sources will bring stability to the 4NT article. If after that he continues, RSN /DRN /ANI may become necessary. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. We've already been through that traject, including proposing a topic ban and even a site-ban. I really appreciate your assistance here; I'm also deeply puzzled. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I am not really surprised about it, if I remember correctly he produced about 3000 edits last year because he wanted 2 articles, Karma and 4FNT, be restored to his favourite version. JimRenge (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: See Peter Harvey's chapter on 4NT.[1]

References

  1. ^ Peter Harvey (2015). Steven M. Emmanuel (ed.). A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 26–44. ISBN 978-1-119-14466-3.
On page 30, he quotes and discusses Dhamma-cakka-pavatana Sutta (DCPS) in Vinaya Pitaka. He writes, as he explains the 4NT, "the first features described as painful [dukkha] in the above DCPS quote are basic biological aspects of being alive, each of which can be traumatic. The dukkha of these is compounded by the rebirth perspective of Buddhism, for this involves repeated re-birth, re-aging, re-sickness, and re-death". His focus is 4NT, but samsara theme is everywhere throughout his chapter. FWIW, he too mentions the "realms of rebirth" on page 27. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Could you please take a look at the Samsara article, particularly the Buddhism section there, and expand/reword it if you have time? Another article, the Saṃsāra (Buddhism) is also quite weak, and a quote farm, but very much tied to the 4NT article. I see @JimRenge flagged the Samsara (Buddhism) article as a quotefarm too, a while ago. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I will, but not right now. Please remind if I forget, okay? I will look at it. First end this nonsense at the four truths. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Samsara

Hi. I started to take a look there, but I'll have to dive into the sources. I've never been into this topic; I've never been interested in rebirth, because I don't believe in it. But I already noted one interesting "thing": "re-becoming" is a good term, connected to Pratītyasamutpāda and Nirvana as the ending of re-becoming, not only of the ending of craving. In this respect, "nirvana" is not that different from Brahman et cetera. Not at all. The oldest Buddhism may have been quite different from what we know as Buddhism... NB: the article on Rebirth (Buddhism) needs improvement too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I also took a look at Nirvana again; I note again that those Sanskrit have multiole meanings, several of which seem to be invoced. Nirvana as blowing out craving et cetera, but also nirvana as blowing out re-becoming. This multivalency seems to be lost on many (western) commentators, turning the Buddhist teachings into some sort of strarightforward technical manual: A results in B. While it is this multivalency, and the interconnectedness between the terms, which make sit "work": "getting it" in a 'flash of insight' connecting the (multivalent) dots. So, Nirvana is (mental) peace (what a lot of westerners seem to be looking for; 'wellness spirituality'), but it is also the blowing out of craving, and the stilling of the process of rebecoming ("rebirth," but also the re-beoming of craving). But this multivalency also makes it hard to "explain" here at Wikipedia; we need some sort of "poetic" style to convey these multople meanings and connections, not just a striaghtforward exposition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@JJ: Indeed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Mobile

Using a mobile telephone is an effective way to reduce responses, isn't it? ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Yoga Yajnavalkya

I have addressed soome of the review comments of GA review. But others need your specific attention. Also please see if my corrections are in order. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 07:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Manasollasa

It is now proposed for review. I have done some editing. Pl see.Nvvchar. 13:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • If you are free now, please have a look at the replies I have given in the above review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvvchar (talk • contribs)
  • The issue of Bharturupabhigakarana in the text is still unresolved and one more issue on subheadings. Pl see.Nvvchar. 00:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Nvvchar: Indeed, I missed that. Checked the sources and manuscript. Updated the article and added a WP:RS. Did I miss anything else? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Sunyata/Nirguna Brahman

See my note at Talk:Anatta#Brinkhorst. Stream of thought: neo-Advaitins posit, nay experience, the non-existence of an "I." Many of them refer to Ramana Maharshi, but close reading of some sources show that he experienced an "avasam," a spirit, c.q. was possessed by a spirit, in line with local beliefs, which he regarded as his real self. Another source is Nisargadatta Maharaj, who was alos grounded in local nirguna Brahman spirituality. Actually, those neo-Advaitins resemble Madhyamaka-philosophy, and the "emptiness of emptiness." So, is their "nondualism" just a synonym for nirguna Brahman, or a new form of emptiness/nirguna Brahman?
Jump of thought: could it be that sunyata/nirguna Brahman can be regarded as a post-Sramanic, pan-Indian development? The sramanas believing in a transmundane, c.q. methaphysical (modern pov) Absolute, be it Nirvana-dhattu or whatever, including early Buddhism; while there-after developed the notion of emptiness of self (Theravadins), sunyata (Prajna Paramita sutras, Nagarjuna), and Nirguna Brahman (Advaita, Saivism, Sikhs). Atman=Brahman=consciousness is just a variation of this theme.
Can you follow me? It's a stream of thought, but it may point to something highly relevant: the development in Indian culture of new religious and metaphysical ideas, in the post-sramanic period, while pledging adherence to older ideas which were written down - ah! more or less "exactly" when those new ideas took shape! That's not unique, is it? Writing down existing ideas and canonizing then when new ideas develop?
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: The modern Ramana Maharshi story is interesting, but unusual and atypical. The ancient/medieval Sanskrit literature/manuscripts on Advaitins, and of non-Advaitins that discuss Advaitins, is very large. These are a better source for atman, brahman (nirguna/saguna), nondualism, etc. They discuss Buddhist schools too. Agreed on sunyata/nirguna Brahman concepts developed over a long history. Indeed, it is very likely that Buddhists and Hindus (and Jainas) influenced each other as much as brothers/sisters do within a family even while disagreeing and developing into their own beautiful personae. Canonizing likely occurred when (too many?) new ideas develop, and then the scholars/monks/professors/elders say, "ok, ok, this is all getting too much, let us agree on something and write it down". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your tremendous work on Reincarnation

You have certainly earned points toward a favorable next life! :) HGilbert (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hgilbert: LOL. I was shooting for nirvana / moksa. I will settle. Thanks for these words of encouragement. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors

The fix to your errors is to change pp= to p=. sfn references use only p= even when there is multiple pages cited. Ogress 02:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Ahhh, it was that simple. Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
It's literally just {{sfn|Surname|date|p=}} every time, unless a page is not provided/appropriate, in which case you just use {{sfn|Surname|date}}. Also if you don't know, RefTag is the best thing ever (check the box at the bottom labeled "Harvard"). Ogress 02:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ogress: Thanks again. I tested with "Show preview" feature on edit page. Both "p=" and "pp=" work. The Sfn template's description too suggests either should. I try to use p for single page, pp for multiple page, but I err just like with my spelling. The problem may have been "loc.=" in the old version, which prolly should have been "loc=", but what do I know of all this. I sometimes feel clueless with these templates. Indeed, RefTag is best thing ever. @Doug Coldwell and @Kautilya3 were super kind to reveal RefTag a few months ago and then patiently explain it to me, along with "harv errors" detection tool. It has been great help. Now many sources I add, go through RefTag, even for piles of books of my desk – saves me time from having to look up ISBN etc and type it. Yep, thanks again to you, Doug Coldwell and Kautilya3. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

GA review: Yoga Yajnavalkya

@Nvvchar: Do you have information about BBRA and BBRAS, and some Indian authors-related comments in the GA review of Yoga Yajnavalkya? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Abbreviated versions are not clear to me.--Nvvchar. 12:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Nirvana

Please discuss problematic behaviour at the user talk page or ANI. "Comment on content, not on the contributor" on article talk pages WP:TPYES. Please consider to move such comments to his talk page if they have not already been answered. JimRenge (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Zen

Sorry, interfering with your edits. Zen is the one topic I really know more than just some bit about; those characterisations as de-emphaszing texts and shock-methods are part of a typical Zen-narrative; see, for example, John McRae's "Seeing trough Zen," and Faure's "The rhetorics of immediacy." Despite the popular image, Zennies are just like other ordinary people... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:: Actually, I was going to thank you for challenging/removing that part, as I was on the fence to include or not include role of "shock, surprise" in Zen practice. There is some debate on the role of "shock, surprise" in Zen. Indeed, Zennies are just like others, lovely wonderful. The 'shock education' as Zen practice, nevertheless, somewhat notable. I remember D. T. Suzuki mentioning it many times, such as page 155 of Zen Buddhism. Damien Keown's Oxford University Press published 2004 text also mentions 8th-century Zen teacher Ma-tsu Tao-i, as "shock Ch'an" method of enlightenment, on page 175 (and elsewhere such as page 142, under 'kill the Buddha'). But I see your point, and I am fine with keeping it out from the main Buddhism article. These Indian religions and Asian creativity are fascinating. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
D.T. Suzuki is notoriously unreliable, but the time of Jin-li and Ma-tsu is indeed the time that this narrative of "shock techniques" came into existence. It was a romantization, fit for the high elite which searched for something new & thrilling. If that still exists, or did exist a couple of decades ago when Zen became popular in the west, it may have been due to the military regime on Japanese Zen temples. Little to do with technique, and a lot to do with Japanese disciplinary methods. Said the cynic western Zennie... Have a look at this classic to get an impression of the degree of textual knowledge in the Zen-tradition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Samanya Upanishad

Sorry for the long delay in writing this article. I was busy with 100 Wikidays project and Red Womens edithons. I have prepared the article here User:Nvvchar/Samanya Upanishads. As the table exclusively draws material from the existing articles it may not be necessary to give detailed citations. Please see.--Nvvchar. 16:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: It is a good start. The draft needs some copyediting and content corrections. The images distract, and are unnecessary. The total should be 21, because that is the more generally accepted number (we can mention Muktika count for NPOV). I will add to it later next week, may be sooner if my schedule permits. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Nvvchar: Updated and moved to article space. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Do you think it can be posted on DYK? I will do the rest of the subgroups on the same lines.Nvvchar. 04:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Nvvchar: It is mostly a list, so may not be a good candidate for DYK. The Yoga Upanishads article might better qualify. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

I have been away. I only got your alert now. SH 07:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sikh-history: Welcome back. No worries, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Punjab edit-a-thon

Hello friend,
A multilingual national-level edit-a-thon is being conducted at this moment with an aim to create or improve Punjab-related articles. A community that will create or expand the most number of articles during this edit-a-thon contest will be awarded a trophy during WikiConference India 2016. Best contributors' recognition may also be considered. We need your help here. Please join right now as a participant and help your community.
Thanks and regards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Banned

Dear Ms Sarah Welch, I want to bring this matter to your kind notice that we are blocking your access to the Ancient Indian Scriptures due to our concerns of misuse of this Sacred Ancient Knowledge against the Humanity. For access to this classified category of Ancient Knowledge you need to seek permission from the Indian Authorities and Establishment and prove your worthiness for this Critical Piece of Technology. We are forming a Knowledge Suppliers Group (NSG) and a UNSC for regulating the use of this Ancient Knowledge. You will need to work to lobby to gain membership for these groups.

Thanks and Regards, The New Kid 05:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshat sin1 (talk • contribs)

Already blocked. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan:, @Doug Weller: Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yoga in Music

Sarah - I see that you have reverted the music category - There is a page on wikipedia about that Yoga song...Time magazine said that it was the 9th best song..This is a milestone that shows acceptance of Yoga into the mainstream consciousness. You should be celebrating this as yoga is now going to be adopted my millions to teenagers.....Its something to be proud off - not hidden....Oh yes it might not be transcendental meditation but the youth will discover it. Magenta1984 (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC) magenta1984

@Magenta1984: Yoga is GA-quality article, and we need to be extra diligent on sourcing everything, and checking the reliability of the sources we use. Youtube and blogs are unreliable. You added, "Popular American singers Janelle Monáe and Jidenna brought the practice of Yoga into the mainstream".... that is an exceptional claim, and needs an exceptional source. Janelle Monáe etc is interesting and talented indeed, but Yoga has been a notable movement in the West long before she was born in 1985. I do not mind if you or someone added a carefully summarized Yoga music subsection somewhere in that article (possibly under Modern History?), but everything in a GA article must be from WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yoga Upanishads

Please see this User:Nvvchar/sandbox1 for further editing and additions. I was not active for about a month as underwent cataract surgery.--Nvvchar. 02:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: Welcome back. Hope you are feeling better. I will work on that sandbox draft. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Nvvchar: I updated the Yoga Upanishads, and made it live. Will work on Vaishnava Upanishads draft this coming week. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. In case you wish to post it on DYK please do so as I have recussed from such nominations now. You may also like to look at Shaiva Upanishads here User:Nvvchar/sandbox4.Nvvchar. 02:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I have also completed Shakta Upanishad here User:Nvvchar/sandbox2 for your further edits. With this all the subgroups of Upanishads are covered with Sannyasa Upanishads covered by you under Sannyasa .Nvvchar. 14:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@Nvvchar: Updated and moved Vaishnava Upanishads. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@Nvvchar: Updated and moved Shaiva Upanishads. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@Nvvchar: Updated and moved Shakta Upanishads. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks.Nvvchar. 06:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Brahman and Advaita

Hallo Ms Sarah Welch,

N sani may have a point, when he notices that there is an Advaita 'bias' (my words; call it 'preference' if you like) in your description of Brahman. This 'bias' has been pointed out by others before, and I've also noticed it. It's not a 'fault', and I may be wrong of course, but in case there is some influence of your own preferences on your understanding and description of Vedanta, it may be good to be aware of it. It's not unique; I've got my preferences (and dislikes) too. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Thanks for joining the discussion. Check the sources cited. Lochtefeld, Raju, Phillips, Fowler, Flood etc are secondary/tertiary reviews on Brahman. Fowler's Perspectives of Reality book, for example, has three big chapters on Dvaita, Advaita and Vishistadvaita, as chapters 8, 9, 10. Compare it to the single sourced (Chari) version in the article, and the Chari source is a Vishistadvaita book/perspective (which my draft keeps). If you identify which sources have not been summarized properly and improve the article, or add new sources, I will cheer. I will also welcome if you merge the two versions, and add your own. I agree we should not overemphasize Advaita (or any specific school), and FYI, just yesterday, this is what I wrote in the edit summary. Let us take this up on the Vedanta page, so others can join in as well. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Chhinnamasta: Wikipedia:Peer review/Chhinnamasta/archive1

Hi Ms Sarah Welch.. I hope you are doing well ... The article Chinnamasta was recently expanded for a potential FAC. IMO, Chinnamasta will benefit from your comments to improve it further, considering your immense knowledge about Hinduism. Chinnamasta is a self-decapitated Tantric goddess, who holds her severed head in her hand and drinks blood from her wound. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz: I will join you there, may be this week (I am out on vacation for several weeks soon, so my progress may be slower). I see the good hands and enthusiastic wisdom of @Johnbod already involved. That should make our job easier. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey Ms Sarah Welch, can you please check if any of your comments are addressed adequately. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
@Redtigerxyz:: Yes, you have addressed my comments with recent edits. You have put a lot of good work into that article. Cheers. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry ! i thought wikipedia was a blog.

Ref here. Thank you for pointing me out that wikipedia is not a Blog. i thought wikipedia was a blog.--RsEkanayake 12:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch,Ref your comment here and see WP:OR. i quote."This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages".What does it mean? --RsEkanayake 11:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Rsekanayake: Indeed, the WP:OR applies to the article space. On the talk pages, WP:FORUM and WP:TPNO applies. More specifically, please do not use the talk pages as a forum. The wikipedia community agreed guideline is, "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it." Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
First you do try to get the key point there.i used the talk page to improve the article not to dischage emotions. however WP:TPNO says " There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation" i am in line with that. I think you are the doorkeeper of the article? if you want to go with the ignorence it's upto you. i just tried to correct it for betterment of other readers. because i know that there is an error.anyhow what i can understand is that The wikipedia policy has now become a slave of emotional part of the brain ..of..--RsEkanayake 17:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@Rsekanayake: You are cooking up this "personal knowledge... to promote further investigation" part. That is what you did on Avidya talk page, but it is forum-y, best avoided. If you do post your personal opinion on any article talk page, such as "Avidya is not ignorance", expect a reply. FWIW, Avidya is translated as ignorance by multiple WP:RS. See the very first source in the lead: Damien Keown's Oxford University Press published book, at page 73 for example, tenth last line on that page. It states "ignorance". We must stick with what the sources state, in wikipedia. We shouldn't suppress information in reliable sources. Let us take further discussion back to that article's talk page, to welcome additional editors who might comment. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Adi Shankara

@Ms Sarah Welch : Before Adding Economic Times-Times of India , Outlook India, The Hindu and Indian Express Links, you removed the content. These are the most reliable links:
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-04-19/news/38674414_1_referee-mithila-debate
http://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/oh-but-you-do-get-it-wrong/262511
http://www.business-standard.com/article/beyond-business/the-management-trinity-116061401189_1.html
http://www.thehindu.com/2001/08/21/stories/1321017c.htm
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/Buddhist-Path-a-Way-to-Asian-Century-PM-Modi/2015/09/03/article3008470.ece

These tell in detail about one of the most celebrated ddebate between Ubhaya Bharati and Adi Shankara in 8th Century A.D The other links of Firstpost and Mid-Day are equally reliable:
http://www.firstpost.com/politics/as-pm-modi-goes-to-darbhanga-a-look-at-history-of-a-land-which-forced-the-shankaracharya-to-learn-kamasutra-2491768.html
http://www.mid-day.com/articles/transplant-this-soul-in-that-body/16565180
http://www.mid-day.com/articles/devdutt-pattanaik-agree-disagree-argue/16954167
--Nihoyari (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nihoyari: Not true. To be continued on Talk:Adi Shankara. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Mystery addition to script pages

Hello! You added a "See also" to Devanagari and Nandinagari‎ which reads: "Shiksha - a Vedanga on phonetics, phonology and alphabet design". The problem that first of all "vedanga" should be glossed/linked, because it is not a general English word, but anyway this does not link to a "Vedanga" (whatever that is, exactly) on the subject of phonetics, phonology and alphabet design, it just links to the page on Shiksha. At present, it is thus not helpful. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Imaginatorium: To be continued on the article talk pages. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll reply here, to save having to make two copies. I spent a bit more time on this, and see that I was strictly wrong, in that it says "Shiksha is the field of Vedic study of sound, focussing on the letters of the Sanskrit alphabet". So I suggest it would be better to add it with a description similar to this, perhaps:
  • Shiksha - the Vedic study of sound, focussing on the letters of the Sanskrit alphabet
I personally have only a vague idea what "Vedic" means, but it is an (assimilated) English word, and tells me this is about something in India a long time ago. I was also suspicious of "alphabet design", because as far as I know the only designed writing system in the world is Korean hangeul. What do you think? I'm sure the same wording could be used on both Devanagari and Nandinagari‎ pages. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@Imaginatorium: Your suggestion works. It is just a navigational link for the curious. We can wikilink for Vedic too. FWIW, Shiksha has been one of six fields within Vedanga, and its texts do cover aspects of alphabet arrangement and design. You are right about hangul, from the little I have read about it. Thanks for keeping the critical eye and challenging me. Much appreciated, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks: that looks good, and I think it is less intimidating. Totally off topic, but I wonder if you can help me. I see videos on Youtube "Learn the Sanskrit alphabet" (and it looks like Devanagari); but I read Sanskrit#Writing system, and it more or less says "There is no such thing as the Sanskrit alphabet". Am I right in guessing this is true, and the "Sanskrit alphabet" videos are playing loose with words. If so, I wonder if there is any way this could be made explicit? Feel free to push me over to the article talk page if this is not really appropriate here. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@Imaginatorium: Youtube, like all blogs, is personal opinion / wisdom / prejudice and non-RS. Sanskrit is a language. Alphabet corresponds to a script. Sanskrit manuscripts have been discovered in several scripts, both in South Asia and outside of South Asia (such as the Sanskrit script in Bali, central Asia). The alphabet in these scripts, in peer reviewed scholarship is called "Sanskrit alphabet". See for example this, for dozens of papers on "Sanskrit alphabet". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Krishna and Durga

I saw that you are an active contributor to "Hinduism" related articles. Therefore I request to you please contribute to these articles like Krishna, Durga, Radha, Krishna Janmashtami, Maha Shivaratri. These article needs some serious attention. Thanks--Øystein.Eide (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Øystein.Eide: Indeed, these and related articles do need attention. @Redtigerxyz is among those few who know the wikipedia guidelines, the subject of Hindu deities and write well. @Redtigerxyz: any interest? @Øystein.Eide: you are most welcome to contribute as well. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Øystein.Eide, I had made Krishna a GA once GA version, but due to numerous edits, it was difficult to maintain the article and I had no time to clean it up again. Consequently it was delisted. I am busy with saving Shiva's GA status and trying to make Chhinnamasta GA currently. In the future, may be I would look at Durga. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch can you take on Krishna article and make some necessary changes if you have time. @Redtigerxyz: articles like Ganesha or Shiva or Krishna must be semi-protected article because you guys are working hard to contribute on opposite side novice editors are make unnecessary changes. Therefore please make indef-semi-protect so no novice editors can make changes moreover the stability of the articles is lost. Its clearly not possible to monitor every article. Especially articles which are GA or FA must be semi-protected. Anyway guys in free time if possible try your best to contribute on the above articles i mentioned. I'm also contributing to these articles.--Øystein.Eide (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
@Redtigerxyz:, @Øystein.Eide: Both of you are right indeed. GA and FA need semi-protection, because it takes a lot of work to get them to that quality. Valued contributors such as Redtigerxyz and others cannot babysit GA and FA articles. I hesitate on working on specific articles to raise them to GA quality, for the reasons you two mention. Yet, we must acknowledge that "anyone can edit" a wikipedia article is another core community agreed premise, and it is a good premise. If 1 in 100 readers happen to be subject experts, we should welcome them, and not make it difficult for him or her to contribute/edit for the first time. Yet this welcome unfortunately also means "anyone can vandalize, anyone can delete sourced content, anyone can add unsourced undue content, anyone can disrupt". We thus have a dilemma, and I frankly do not know how to balance the two goods while preventing the 99 out 100 instances of disruption. Semi-protection is likely a good compromise. See WP:ECP2016 community discussion, parts of which apply to this issue. I will put Krishna etc on my review/clean up to do list in future. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
@Redtigerxyz: Guys I would support both of you go for "indefinite semi-protection". You can't imaging the level of vandalism going on in the Krishna article just check its history, editors are removing huge chunks of information just like a flick. I'm sure the same stuff shall happen in other articles which you contributed, slowly they will loss GA or FA status. Guys can you help me provide a link where can I raise request for "protection of article". Thanks--Øystein.Eide (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
@Øystein.Eide: WP:RFP. -Redtigerxyz Talk 06:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Rollback question

Hi Ms Sarah Welch, I saw you appear in my watchlist and I noticed that you occasionally revert vandalism/spam, as well as noticed you are trusted with other userrights. Would rollback rights be of use to you? If so, I'd be happy to grant them to you. Please let me know what you think. Best. Acalamari 14:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Acalamari: That feature could be useful indeed. Those rights would be helpful to @Kautilya3 and @Joshua Jonathan who do a much better job than I do in reverting spam/ vandalism/ testing/ disruption (they may have this right already). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I have the rollbacker privileges. Even though I mostly use Twinkle rollback function, the rollbacker version is useful for reverting multiple edits of the same user (typically vandals or socks). I think you should get it too, Sarah. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I've got rollback-rights too. I took a look once at Twinkle; much too complicated for me! Let alone Huggle; I didn't even know that that existed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
As you've said you'd find it useful,  Done and thanks for recommending Kautilya3 and Joshua Jonathan even though both users have the userright; I appreciate being given suggestions! :) Acalamari 17:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Walpola Rahula

Hallo Ms Sarah Welch. I've finally bought a copy of Walpola Rahula's "What the Buddha Taught"; it's even more orthodox theravadin, and factual incorrect, than I'd suspected.
One of the peculiarities I noticed is this:

"Even the very pure spiritual states of dhyāna (recueillement or trance) attained by the practice of higher meditation, free from even a shadow of suffering in the accepted sense of the word, states which may be described as unmixed happiness, as well as the state of dhyāna which is free from sensations both pleasant (sukha) and unpleasant (dukkha) and is only pure equanimity and awareness- even these very high spiritual states are included in dukkha. In one of the suttas of the Majjhima- nikāya, (again one of the five original Collections), after praising the spiritual happiness of these dhyānas, the Buddha says that they are ‘impermanent, dukkha, and subject to change’ (aniccā dukkhā viparināmadhammā).[3] Notice that the word dukkha is explicitly used. It is dukkha, not because there is ‘suffering’ in the ordinary sense of the word, but because ‘whatever is impermanent is dukkha’. (yad aniccam tam dukkham)."
Note [3]: Mahãdukkhakkhandha-sutta, M I (PTS), p. 90.

The Nanamoli/Bodhi translation of the MN, p.184-185, describes the four jhanas. Then, in verse 36, it says, "Feelings are impermanent, suffering, and subject to change." It does not say "Jhanas are impermanent, suffering, and due to change." Nor does this translation say so. It says that the fourth dhyana can be accompanied by a feeling that is free from affliction, both one's own or someone's else. With other words, in which there is no empathy. It is this feeling which is due to change, impermanent, et cetera. Not the dhyana-state itself, if I understand correctly.
Of course, Rahula uses this to underscore the importance of insight, in line with Theravada orthodoxy. But is stands in contrast to what Vetter, Bronkhorst and others have concluded about the earliest Buddhism, and the central role of dhyana. And it shows an error in Rapula's interpretation, willingly substituting feeling for dhyana.<br"> So, what do you think? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Indeed. You are spot on. Rahula's substitutes 'feeling' for 'dhyana', completely changes the meaning, where parts of his book are better titled "What the Buddha never Taught". The quote you provide above, corresponds to Mahãdukkhakkhandha-sutta in Majjhima Nikāya, as follows:
cetaso ekodibhāvaṃ avitakkaṃ avicāraṃ samādhijaṃ pītisukhaṃ dutiyaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati … pe … yasmiṃ samaye, bhikkhave, bhikkhu pītiyā ca virāgā, upekkhako ca viharati, sato ca sampajāno sukhañca kāyena paṭisaṃvedeti yaṃ taṃ ariyā ācikkhanti: ‘upekkhako satimā sukhavihārī’ti tatiyaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati … pe … yasmiṃ samaye, bhikkhave, bhikkhu sukhassa ca pahānā dukkhassa ca pahānā pubbeva somanas­sa­do­manas­sā­naṃ atthaṅgamā aduk­kha­ma­su­khaṃ upekkhā­sati­pāri­suddhiṃ catutthaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati, neva tasmiṃ samaye attab­yābādhā­yapi ceteti, na parab­yābādhā­yapi ceteti, na ubhayab­yābādhā­yapi ceteti; abyā­baj­jhaṃ­yeva tasmiṃ samaye vedanaṃ vedeti. Abyā­bajjha­paramā­haṃ, bhikkhave, vedanānaṃ assādaṃ vadāmi. Ko ca, bhikkhave, vedanānaṃ ādīnavo? Yaṃ, bhikkhave, vedanā aniccā dukkhā vipari­ṇāma­dhammā—ayaṃ vedanānaṃ ādīnavo.
Vedanā = feelings, =/= jhānaṃ (dhyana). Some of the translations and interpretations by Theravada orthodoxy is puzzling, interesting but grossly incorrect. Unfortunately these are available for free on the internet, while the contrasting and NPOV (better) translations cost a bundle. We must watch and flag out wiki articles with such WP:PRIMARY quote farms (as you have done in past, despite great resistance to your efforts). The peer reviewed scholarship such as those by Vetter, Bronkhorst, Conze, Harvey, Kennedy, Nakamura, Hirakawa, etc. indeed provide the contrasting balance. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
"What the Buddha never Taught" - LOL! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I found one other sutta which says "What is the allure of feeling," the Bhikkhu Sutta, SN 36.23. It says: "Contact is the origination of feeling. Craving is the path of practice leading to feeling. From the cessation of contact is the cessation of feeling." That sounds familiair, doesn't it? Otherwise, verse 32-35 is really odd. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Indeed again. For another, more in depth analysis and cross examination of various Sutta on "feelings", see Chapter 4 (pages 108-129) of The Fundament Teachings of Early Buddhism by Choong Mun-Keat (2000) published by Harrassowitz Verlag. It compares the Sri Lankan version with the Chinese version, mentions SN 36.23-25 / Bhikkhu Sutta on page 115, footnote 29, and many other "feelings and cessation of all feelings"-related Suttas. The whole chapter is worth a careful read and then reflection. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Dear Sarah,

Your job on the article is commendable. Truly appreciate the effort. But some of the pictures are irrelevant to the point you are trying to make. I was trying to clean it up. The pictures that were in the article does not represent the established artists of Kuchipudi, but rather looks very random. Hope you understand and please let me know if you have concerns with this. We can leave the changes you made if you do not like this but I would like you to think about it, thank you, great effort again, you improved the article significantly, thanks, Wikishore. Wikishore1985 (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Wikishore1985: Thanks for the kind words. Wikipedia is not the place to "represent established artist of Kuchipudi" by plugging his or her photos; neither is it a place to add long lists of names without reliable sources. Your edit history suggests you have attempted this a few times, twice now (1, 2), that too with photos of the same artist that you uploaded seemingly with copyright problems. Please do not delete relevant images in a section or article, as they illustrate the content in the article per MOS:IMAGES guidelines. If you have better quality relevant photos which you can upload with wiki compatible Creative Commons license, that would be most welcome. Let us discuss this further on the article's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Buddhist jhanas

Hallo Ms Sarah Welch. These publications will interest you:

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

This one's interesting too, though it omits important sources (Vetter, bronkhorst):

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Vedic language and Sanksrit

Take a look here:

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/OldAvestan/oldavestanindex.pdf

It clearly distinguishes between Old Indic (ie. Vedic) and Sanskrit. It's quite known that the term Sanskrit refers to the result of the standardization effort by the grammarian Panini.

Although the term "Vedic Sanskrit" is used, the stricter notion regarding the origin of the term Sanksrit compels us to avoid using the term. Also, there is wide use of the adjective "Vedic" for the language of the Vedas.

See these:

https://www.academia.edu/2068512/Vedic_pr_d%C4%81kus%C4%81nu

https://books.google.com/books?id=AAdwhOr0WU0C&pg=PP10&lpg=PP10&dq=lubotsky+%22Vedic%22&source=bl&ots=wztQyB2hF_&sig=axeRO5O_md1F03J_2384WKD11Bs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9wtfe7sjPAhUCgx4KHWY9AMMQ6AEIQzAH#v=onepage&q=lubotsky%20%22Vedic%22&f=false

http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1CD0.pdf

In the Encyclopedia of Indo-Eurpean Culture:

https://books.google.com/books?id=tzU3RIV2BWIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=encyclopedia+of+ie+culture&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKnZ238cjPAhWDjz4KHdrGDAkQ6AEIIjAB#v=snippet&q=%22vedic%20lanugage%22&f=false

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Myedits2 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Myedits2: You must provide page numbers, rather than vague links. FWIW, no the above sources you provided do not say there is nothing called as "Vedic Sanskrit", and there was only "Vedic language". Your Lubotsy source link, on page 543, for example, uses the term "Vedic Sanskrit". Similarly, the Encyclopedia of Indo-Eurpean Culture on page 302 states, "the earliest old Indic languages are frequently distinguished as Vedic Sanskrit". Witzel too has extensively used the term "Vedic Sanskrit" and in his discussion of ancient history of languages. See for example pages 158-160 of this by Witzel. Your own sources above, in addition to those already in the affected articles, suggest your systematic removal of "Vedic Sanskrit" phrase from many wikipedia articles, and mass move of wikipedia article names is misinformed and disruptive. Please do not do so. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Use Conrol-F to search "Skt" and "OI" in http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/OldAvestan/oldavestanindex.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myedits2 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
@Myedits2: Don't be silly. Just provide page number(s) that you believe provide the substantive basis for your mass disruption of wikipedia articles that use the phrase Vedic Sanskrit or are related to Vedic Sanskrit. Don't ignore the numerous WP:RS that use the term Vedic Sanskrit. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much. The thing is that many sources use the term just Vedic to refer to the language of the Vedas, and there is some consensus that the term Sanskrit refers to the standardized artificial language developed by Panini. Do you think it will be better to ask Alexander Lubotsky and Prods Oktor Skjervo personally? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myedits2 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
@Myedits2: You are misinformed when you allege, without citing page numbers and sources, "that many sources use the term just Vedic to refer to the language of the Vedas". Yes, authors do sometimes use the phrase "Vedic language" but that does not mean "there was no Vedic Sanskrit", those terms are not mutually exclusive. There is no need to "ask Lubotsky or Skjervo". As I note above, even Lubotsky edited book uses the term "Vedic Sanskrit" on page 543 for example. We must rely on published scholarly sources in wikipedia articles. If you find reliable sources that are non-fringe that challenge the existence of Vedic Sanskrit and suggest "only an unknown Vedic language existed", we can add a sentence or few in appropriate article. But mass removal of the term "Vedic Sanskrit" by you is unconstructive, disruptive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

No stars for you!

Please keep your hands off the Jagadguru page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.164.159 (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Ts ts ts... Not a gentleman! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
For the record: [4] [5] [6]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Please undo your last change on the Jagadguru page, Grayfell's gone crazy.... 117.207.186.35 (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I invite you to carefully check the Jagadguru page and restore all that you have trimmed to the original if you find it to be true... And if you do become convinced of the authenticity of the information, I further invite you to improve and cleanup the article...

117.241.145.213 (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@117.*.*.*: I checked a few sources. The evidence suggests that @Grayfell is right, and your violence with words / personal attacks / rudeness against @Grayfell or any fellow human being is inappropriate. For content guidelines, please see WP:RS and WP:OR. To be continued here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Right about what? The pictures or the content? I think you are new to the internet. If you find what I said about that user violent/rude, you have a lot to see...
I don't think I'll bother you guys anymore over here.. But I will keep an eye on what you guys do over the Jagadguru page..

117.241.145.213 (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

See Tantra article

Thanks.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, Congratulations - I quit

Allright, I'm tired of dealing with you, and now you're coming after stuff I've edited. You don't know what you're talking about with this lipi stuff. You don't understand wiki policy at all, you're combative, ignorant of basic standards of scholarship or cooperation, and I do not have time to deal with people like you. I'm done with this whole thing. I do not have time for it.Tarchon (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will take care of summarizing Norman/Goody/etc in the Brahmi script article. Bye, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ms_Sarah_Welch/Archive_3&oldid=1136161322"