An invite to join WikiProject Russia
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Nuvola_Russian_flag.svg/48px-Nuvola_Russian_flag.svg.png)
Hi, you are cordially invited to join WikiProject Russia. We are a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Russia.
We look forward to welcoming you to the project! —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 4, 2011; 15:10 (UTC)
Talkback
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
New Page Patrol survey
![]() New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Dbachmann! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Speedy deletion nomination of Syncatabasis
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
A tag has been placed on Syncatabasis, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here.
Talkback - The art of googling
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Talkback - The art of googling - additional references added
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The art of googling - additional name variations
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The art of googling - updated reply
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
dab, I noticed that you had marked some information in the article, sourced to Gavin Flood, as dubious. Flood is usually a reliable source (and I don't mean in only in on-wiki WP:RS terms) and Shaivism is his area of specialization, so I was wondering if there was anything specific about the claims in that article that made you doubt them. If so, I can try a deeper search of literature but I'll wait for your reply before I make that effort. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I do not pretend to speak with Indological authority, and in the end it doesn't matter what I think unless I can pinpoint specific reasons to back it up, but I have serious doubts about Gavin Flood and his "Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies". It is certainly possible that I get a distorted view of Flood's work because it is being cherry-picked for the purposes of Wikipedia, but I have frequently seen very dodgy stuff attributed to him on Wikipedia. As for the case at hand (ShvetUp), it will be best to see what other scholars have said and cite a "second opinion". --dab (𒁳) 08:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I now remember that my suspicion was aroused because it is claimed that according to Flood, ShvetUp is one of the Mukhya Upanishads, It is possible that ShvetUp is one of the Upanishads that are by some canons considered "mukhya" but not by others, but then a proper reference would point this out and state where we find the claim of ShvetUp being "mukhya". Just saying "ShvetUP is mukhya" is misleading to the point of being wrong and if Flood really did this, it would reconfirm the impression I describe above. --dab (𒁳) 08:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I found this book (1962) which ideosyncratically includes SvetUp as "Principal". I fixed it. Flood is innocent in this case (or perhaps in every case), his name just once again popped up in the vicinity of dodgy content. --dab (𒁳) 08:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, quick survey:
- Patrick Olivelle dates the verse upanishads collectively to post-5th c BC and "probably in the last few centuries BCE"
- fr:Michel Hulin dates it as "3rd century BC ?" (the series editor is Jan Gonda, so Hulin can't be too bad)
- J. N. Farquhar (not necc. the best of sources, but ...) dates it to roughly between 5th and 3rd c BC
- I found a couple more "unreliable" sources that date it in the same range. Given the normal error-bars on such dating I would say that these all are consistent with each other and with Flood's estimate.
- About Flood: My main exposure to him has been through the The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism which he edited (see contributors; this is one of my go-to texts for citing/finding references), and I have found him to be a middle of the road scholar, in the sense that he is neither a Hindu-antiquity/superiority drum-beater, nor a feather-ruffler a la (say) Doniger. So give him a second look. Btw, not long back I realized that my visual system/memory was mixing up Klostermaier with Koenraad and therefore looking askance at citations to the former's work; so I know how such mental associations can form. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding Mukhya vs Principal Up. etc: I don't know about Nikhilananda's thinking, but I have seen a larger set of Upanishads clubbed together as major, prinipal etc w/o reference to the Muktika cannon. For example Joel Brereton here talks of 14 "Vedic Upanishads" which I assume is just a term of convenience as being of central importance. Brereton is translating the Rigveda for OUP and Olivelle's acknowledgement to him is quite gushing,
The one individual to whom I owe the deepest debt of gratitude and without whose advice and assistance this project would not have been completed is my colleague and friend Joel Brereton, who perhaps knows more about the Upanisads and the vedic literature than any living scholar
- so we need to consider whether Upanishads should mention classifications other than the one in Muktika. Nothing urgent, since this will require some research to judge how widely accepted these alternates are, but something to look into eventually. Abecedare (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- thank you. I think I should review my "opinion" (gut feeling) on Flood, I am sure he is bona fide; it's just that I have encountered his name frequently when I was annoyed for having to clean up broken Hinduism articles, but that is no fault of his, anyone can be cited out of context. As for the SvetUp date, it is perfectly reasonable, I tagged it for future attention because I was confused by the "principal" claim (which I had inserted myself in 2005 it turns out...), and the tag did it's job now, the point has been reviewed and cleaned up.
- I think it turns out that there are ten principal Principal Upanishads, i.e. ten who everyone agrees to include. Then there are various candidates who are included sometimes and sometimes they aren't. Of course the Mukhya Upanishads page would be the place to cite all the details of this. So far, I have cited one case of 11 and one of 13 "Principal Upanishads". There are also "12" and Brereton's "14". This means we'll end up with a list of four Upanishads which "may or may not be" considered principal, and SvetUp is one of them. --dab (𒁳) 10:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Etymology of Wicca
My dictionary has etymology under etymon, the true origin of a word. As the content of the article derives the current use of this single term, and is not an article about general wiccan terminology, as your new title seems to imply, I do not understand the reasons for the move. Please clarify. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, the article does explain the origin of the term Wicca, as does witch (word). It then goes on to explain the history of Wicca and its terminology for about another ten pages. The "etymology" of the term "Wicca" is Old English wicca. The end. The rest of the article is not about "etymology" and may even be more at home in a history of Wicca article. I am genuinely concerned about WP:CFORK (i.e.{{duplication}}), not just in this topical area, it is a present danger in practically all of the project. --dab (𒁳) 12:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Focus of Vedas article
dab, your input will be appreciated here. Abecedare (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Please fill out your edit summaries to describe what you are doing to the article. Please do not disrupt the flow of the chronology (Art should come before Athleticism, and both of them before Criticism by Followers). Please do not assert in the lede what Chinmoy is best known for, because that is completely subjective and unproveable. Please do not delete content without discussion. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Art should come before Athleticism, and both of them before Criticism by Followers"? Then I presume "crapping his pants" should become before "Art"? The "biography" section certainly should be chronological, but the other sections, I would humbly submit, should be informed by notability, not pure chronology.
- also, there is a reason articles have talkpages. I do not propose to resolve edit disputes by edit summary. I am willing to compromise, of course, as long as you are willing to have a relaxed discussion on talk. What we cannot discuss is removal of unreferenced claims or needless hyperbole. What we certainly can discuss is the relative notability of "art" to this bio article, and if you can convince me that he is better known as an artist than as an athlete, you will certainly convince me the "Art" section should be moved up. --dab (𒁳) 09:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
IAST
Hi, I happened to notice this move, and while I have no objection to it, I'm surprised by the comment you made. IAST uses "c" for the Sanskrit letter close to the English "ch" sound (the Devanagari च), and uses "ch" for the aspirated version (छ). There is no "chh"; the correct IAST for छान्दोग्य would indeed be chāndogya the way it was in the earlier title. chhāndogya would be something meaningless like छ्हान्दोग्य . Shreevatsa (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
you are completely right, sometimes I say stupid things in edit summaries. I then notice after posting them, but there is no way to edit them so they remain up for everyone to see. Sorry. --dab (𒁳) 06:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This needs work and updating, I'll add sources on the talk page. I've minimised the MacKie stuff as it had more coverage than anything else. We could use some stuff translated from the German version. Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
British India redirecting to provinces and presidencies of British India
Can i ask why you chose to self-revert? I agree with your previous edit. No search for a country of empire redirects to the districts so why do we use it here? 69.165.246.181 (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
One point is that "British India" is not an empire, the British Empire is an empire, and "British India" just a (respectable) portion within that empire. The second point is that "British India" refers to the entire period of British possessions in India, 1612–1947, not just to the "British Raj" proper (1858–1947). We do not at present have any article about "British India" as in "British posessions in India, 1612–1947", so the "provinces" article is the best redirect target we currently have. Often "British India" is used to refer to the British Raj of 1858ff., and this is duly noted in the disambiguation hatnote.
Actually, I note that this is already made clear in the article, so I don't know why you ask. Another target might be the section Colonial_India#English_and_British_India, which however already links to British India as its main page. --dab (𒁳) 13:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Sikhism
Hi fellow editor. Please could you help me. I'm having a really frustrating time with an editor who's first laguage is not English and clearly lacks WP:Competence. I've tried warning, engaging, everything you can think of, but to no avail. Please can you try. His main two focuses are Nihang and Sikhism which he is systematically turning into what I can best describe as Pidgeon English. ThanksSH 21:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
diffs [1][2] I have to say, while his style certainly isn't brilliant, it isn't really much different from the average bland style of prose on the wiki. Nothing I would describe as "pidgeon" English, or that couldn't be fixed by minor copyediting here or there. Are you sure this isn't actually about content? --dab (𒁳) 19:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it's content. He seems to have some good references (then again some equally poor ones) but he seems to quote them out of context, and the wording is skewed. He seems to have calmed down for now, but feel free to take a look as well. Thanks SH 11:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)