User talk:Abecedare

.

Bollywood

I've been watching the ongoing discussions on the talk page - pertaining to scripts - with initial interest, then amusement, followed by exasperation and now concern (due to the amount of bad blood it has begun generating, with allegations and counter-allegations being thrown around). It has been going on in circles for over a month now without any end or direction in sight and now seems to have reached a point of no return, as there appears to be absolutely no hope of the editors concerned reaching any consensus on the matter. After having consumed much space on the server, and wasting much productive time of the editors involved, I think it is time to invoke some community action - perhaps an RfC or even mediation - that will hopefully bring the existing discussion (more like an ugly war of words now) to a speedy close, resolve the issue for now and more importantly, restore focus to the core areas of the article requiring improvement (an attempt was recently made but seems to have gotten lost in the midst of all the mudslinging). What say? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it'll work but perhaps someone should step in and conduct a straw poll to see what support there is for "English only", "English/Devanagari", and "English/Devanagari/Nastaliq". There has been a lot of talk and I'm not sure if an RfC will clarify things or just make them murkier. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The situation seems to be getting worse now - a vicious series of personal attacks have broken out on the talk page. Does mediation have to be initiated by the parties themselves or can third parties (i.e. the community) step in? Also, I'm willing to conduct a straw poll, as RP suggested - would either of you be willing to moderate if things turn ugly or are attempted to be hijacked by any of the involved parties? Please let me know, and I'll go ahead (or not) accordingly. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that something needs to be done otherwise we're in danger of losing a couple of valuable editors. However, it seems that Abecedare already has the matter in hand (see below). --RegentsPark (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I somehow missed this whole thread on my talk page the last few days. Anyways:
I am skeptical of RFCs or straw polls working at this stage, since we'll still be left with the problem of closing either and determining consensus and I'm afraid they'll just generate much more circular arguments and heat. I am more hopeful of the mediation process, since the mediator can guide the discussion and hopefully help prevent it from getting circular, or uncivil. Since the parties seem willing, perhaps one of us can set the ball rolling (unless of course, everyone simply moves on - which would frankly be my preferred solution). Volunteers ? Abecedare (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

regarding 8800 verse claim in "jaya"

thanks for giving that source,i think now rudra may give a neutral veiw

• Here,The question is not to take any reference from any secondry sources,but it is to take a reference from reliable and authentic source,the source here mentioned by rudra is very old and not so much appresiable.you can easly see that author used a old critical version of mahabharata in 1967,because at that time not so much research had been done on mahabharata.if you see new version published after doing a lot of research by bhandarkar institute poona on behalf of which old version Gupta and Ramachandran gave that statement.bhandarker institute removed that verse because it was not present in the most of manuscripts they found.i think you are well aware of bhandarkar institute poona,because most of world scholar use this version as a mahabharata reference.

• it will be preferable to use new research or article to show that claim,because no reknowned scholars like michael witzel have given such type of statement.so i will prefer you to use a secondry source from authentic and reknowned scholars,However i You want to keep this claim further in mahabharata article,then mention it seperately,because it contradicts with the statement that is given in 2nd paragraph of wikipeda mahabharat article,where it is claimed as 24000 verse as a intial version

--115.240.109.56 (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

i think if you want to keep this claim behalf of some secondry article,then you should represent it as "At least three redactions of the text are recognized by some scholars",instead of "At least three redactions of the text are recognized".so that everybody may understand it is a scholar opinion,not a true fact in mahabharata itself.it will resolve the whole discussion.because it is represented with the facts that are saying about claims present in mahabharata--115.240.69.242 (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated than that, and weasel words like "some" are not an answer anyway (see WP:WEASEL). As I wrote on the Talk:Mahabharata page, there are three issues that need to be untangled. Right now it looks like that the 8800 number is in (serious) doubt. This is distinct from whether there was a "Jaya" version at all (of unknown size), and from how many redactions have been detected in the text by scholars. rudra (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Replied on article talk page. Abecedare (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't sweat this right now (since the discussion has been constructive) but I do think our IP friend has had at least one account recently ;-) rudra (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My curiosity is piqued (surely not Mkbdce (talk · contribs) ?!) but I agree that the discussion, though a bit wordy, is constructive (unlike at Manusmriti) and so there is not much point worrying about account identities. Abecedare (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi,Abecedare! i finally got source which contradicts 8800 verse claim,see Jhon Brockington contradicts it in his article,in this whole topic is disscused that how some scholars misinterpeted 8800 verse as a sepereate 8800 verse version as "jaya".I think it is enough for now,because this source cleary shows 8800 verses as a misinterpetation by some poor indian scholars.I hope now it will not a problem to delete this misinterpeted information.Thank you--Mayurasia 11:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and others that you added at Talk:Mahabharata. I think, by now, we all agree that the idea of three redactions - Jaya (with 8,800 verses), Bharata (with 24,00 verses) and finally the Mahabharata - while quite popular and widely cited, is not universally held. We need to decide how best to convey this academic dispute(s) succinctly and fairly in the article. I'll read through the references, think it over, and add my comments at the article talk page in the coming days (am a bit busy at the moment).

I appreciate your following up on my suggestion and getting an account, and for your patience with the discussion. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

hi!Abecedare,i have done some changes in mahabharata aricle due to some unreferenced material,like ms spitzer dating,absence of virat parva in it from proper source,i gave Brockington reference for 8800 verse original veiw.If u think it is not suitable than edit it or revert.I will be grateful to you for guiding me.thank u--Mayur (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have tweaked the text a bit to attribute the views and since discussion of secret verses meant to slow Ganesha seemed to be a distraction from the main point. I haven't taken a look at the Epic Undertakings book. Can you add the relevant quotes from it to the article talk page for future reference ?

A tip: it helps if the references are formatted to provide as much information as possible, and not left as naked links. You can look at the various citation templates such as {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} etc, or enable the gadget refTools in your account preferences (see under Gadgets -> Editing tools) to activate a form-based interface to enter the reference data. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for encouraging and guiding me,i want to inform you that this verse(refering 8800) has been removed by bhandarkar oriented institute poona,because it was found in very few manuscripts,this matter has also been discussed by Brockington,however this verse is present in gita press version,now suggest me either to add Brockington statement at talk page or gita press verse reference,i have also done some correction in your statement in mahabharata article,THank you--Mayur (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as you probably know Fitzgerald (pg. 155; footnote 11) discusses the prevalence of the Ganesha verse among the various manuscripts compiled by BORI. That however is not too relevant to our precis description in the Mahabharata article, since one could argue that only certain traditions chose to elliptically refer to the existence of the "original" 8,800 verse Jaya by adding a verse to MB itself (note: I am not actually arguing that; only demonstrating why undertaking our own analysis is risky business.) Since Mahabharata is a summary article that has to cover a lot of material, I think it suffices to just outline the various views about the early redactions without documenting the evidence and arguments for each view. The current article attempts that, but it can be tweaked based on other sources we discover: that's why I asked for the relevant quotation from the Epic Undertakings book. I don't think we need citations for the Ganesha verse itself (Crit. Ed. or GP version), since we are are primarily interested in it only so far as recognized scholars in the field interpret it to support their views on the issue. Let me know if this does not address the question you had in mind! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I just realized that Epic Undertakings is a compilation of papers presented at the 12th World Sanskrit Conference. In this case we need to cite the exact article along with it's authors and not ascribe the views to the editors. Can you specify the article title, authors and relevant quote at Talk:Mahabharata ? Abecedare (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In this listing of the papers, I don't see any title that suggests discussion of or focus on the redaction issue (the closest seems to be Fitzgerald's paper). Material is thus likely to be offhand and sound-bite-ish. rudra (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Prof. Muneo Tokunaga is also refering Brockington book,but he is the editor of final version of mahabharata by BORI,and he had removed this verse from new edition of BORI,see this Link--Mayur (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Mayur, it is very difficult to discuss the issue unless we all can see what Prof. Tokunaga says exactly. Can you please provide the citation information and quotes, or we can remove the reference from the article, till it has been verified ? Incidentally, AFAIK, Prof Tokunaga is not an editor of the BORI crit. edition and didn't play a role in deciding what verses to include or remove from the core version; rather he was instrumental in creating an electronic copy of the BORI version. Those are very different tasks. Abecedare (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my misinterpetation,thanks for giving me right information, the Exact article name is"Papers of the Twelfth World Sanskrit Conference, Vol. II. Epic Undertakings" edited by Edited by Robert P. Goldman and Muneo Tokunaga.see Reference1 or Reference2 for confirming author and book name. if this information is not sufficient,then remove the reference regarding Tokunaga.More exactly title of particular paper was "Bhisma's Discourse as a sokapanodana" and author was Muneo Tokunaga I am again extremly sorry for my mistake,thank u for giving me nice instruction.--Mayur (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply

I've been on Wikipedia for over three years. And I've tried so much to make the quality of the project better or at least just good enough. While others spent their time adding scripts to satisfy their agenda, I was trying to make the best of what I could. Instead of edit warring, I better enjoyed my time yesterday creating Hindi film articles such as Judaai or Jahan Ara. This is according to me the spirit of Wikipedia and reflects the best of what I am doing here.

Today, someone violated a policy in a terribly extremist way and even admins are taking long time to conclude the clear verdict. It is terrible that a bureaucrat is assuming such bad faith on my part (Taxman), speaking of non-existent consensus (which I proved on the Bollywood talk page) and saying that I was edit warring, while it is actually the other user who did it. He ignored the fact that this user violated WP:CANVASS. I'm starting to think whether my time is well spent on Wikipedia.

Don't mind me. I just feel it is unbelievable that I'm fighting to prove something that is plain as day. I'm all for discussing the use of Urdu in Hindi films, its history, decline and varied presence in Hindi films. But could someone say that it is the language of Bollywood and as present as Hindi? Have you seen my analysis of the previous "consensuses" Anupam keeps mentioning? No, clearly no one wanted to hear. It is okay for them to cite random film posters and then ignore official film certificates (I spent hours checking film certificates). It is okay for them to cite some books and then ignore all those books and quotes I provided, ignore Google statistics, other editors' opinions.

I also do not think one discussion can reflect one decision for such a huge list of movies. This is far too inclusive. There's a great difference between Umrao Jaan and Omkara, so having one discussion concluding the fate of both is not the right way to go according to me. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Replying to each of your paragraphs above:

1. Completely agree. That is the reason I posted the note on your page!
2. Sorry, but I think the rhetoric ("extremist", "terrible" ...) is overblown. I think the fact that the discussion has gone on for so long, and often in circles, has put tempers on the edge and resulted in a loss of perspective. (You are not the only one guilty of this IMO. Talk about "ethnic cleansing" etc is similarly disproportionate and undeserved.)
3. This is a genuine content dispute, in which both sides have argued in good faith, and the result is not really clear-as-day on either sides. What's disappointing are the recent ill-feelings that have been expressed for both the other side's arguments, and the editors themselves; and the attempts to "win" the dispute on technicalities (eg, did a prior consensus exits or not ? what say a bureaucrat has in determining consensus ? did some someone break 3RR ? etc).
4. That is a good point that should be considered. Since it is very unlikely at this stage that Anupam, Zora, you etc will be able to discuss the issue fruitfully among yourselves, a more structure discussion under the guidance of an uninvolved mediator is more likely to help reach an appropriate and mutually acceptable result.

As I have said before, I really don't care what consensus is reached on this issue, since I think hardly any reader will care whether the Nastaliq script is displayed or not (except for ones who are looking to detect bias in either direction). Therefore, IMO, the effect this discussion is likely to have on involved editors is much more harmful than any harm the presence/absence of the script can possibly cause. Abecedare (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much. I agree with you. I would want to ask you what you think we should do in regard to my last point. I also don't quite understand how WP:MEDCAB and WP:MEDCOM work. Should a new discussion get started? What about the previous discussions? Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No. I don't think a new discussion should be started. I think Abecedare's decision and comments make perfect sense and is what I've been saying all along.... If it must continue to the point that either ANupam or Shahid "wins or loses" then take it to MEDCOM if you must but please lets NOT waste any more time on this issue.. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 13:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Request

Dear Abecedare, thank you for your comment on my talk page and for your contributions to the current discussion at the Bollywood talk page. I agree with your statement and am willing to seek mediation on the issue. As I mentioned in the discussion, I have not touched a single new Bollywood related film article to add a new Urdu script, since this is the topic of the current discussion. I kindly asked Shahid to do the same, and so did the Wikipedia Administration/Bureaucracy. In his case, he should have not started to remove Urdu scripts from Bollywood related film articles until the current discussion was resolved. I only reverted Shahid's recent edits because they went against this mutual understanding and moreover was encouraged by two Wikipedia Administrators to do so. In other words, my reverts only put the articles in their original position, before the new discussion began. At the close of the administrative report, I fully agree that mediation should be sought in order to help peacefully resolve the current discussion. Thanks again for your concern. Best wishes, Anupam^Talk 23:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Any advice?

... on what to do about what LuxNevada is doing at the Gautama Buddha article: [1]? Mitsube (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you start a discussion on the article talk page, so that LuxNevada has an opportunity to show that Lopez's views are idiosyncratic (in which case the views should be excluded as undue, or at least attributed to him inline), or you to argue that he/they represent the mainstream. If Lux refuses to discuss the issue or to follow the talk page consensus, and continues to revert, he can be blocked; but hopefully, other editors will chime in and a consensus reached and followed. I'll watchlist the article, though I don't expect that I'll be contributing to the content per se. Abecedare (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Narada

The page is moved is moved to "Narada Buddha", which is improper. The user seems to be confused with one of the 24 Buddhas [2], which is NOT what the article is about. Please move it back. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Done, and fixed a few redirects. Abecedare (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. On an another issue about Kanhopatra, I remembered. Can you check for the Tulpule book in your local library (it was out till Jan) ? Reference: User_talk:Abecedare/Archive_12#Wikipedia:Peer_review.2FKanhopatra.2Farchive1 --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just checked. Unfortunately it's been renewed and is out till mid-May. Abecedare (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ganesha

Ganesha article is very visible (FA status, many links to it, popular deity, 1.5+ K hits) and always been attacked by anons. Can it be protected? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am involved with the article and so cannot protect the page myself. You can ask User:RegentsPark, User:SpacemanSpiff to take a look or post at WP:RFPP. Since the vandalism on the page has been persistent but relatively slow-paced (2-3 incident/week), it will come down to the responding admin's judgment call. Abecedare (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)