![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The translation, which the references say has been taken from a book by P Venkatesh Rao, has since undergone a number of edits: names have been changed to IAST spelling and some words here and there seem to have been edited. My question: should it remain a literal quote of the referenced source?
For the time being, I will leave the IAST spelling and just correct the other deviations.
Update: I’ve made some changes, but I get the feeling my source is not the same book as the one cited, even though all the details seem correct: https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.382194/page/691/mode/2up
Therefore, I have left in different wordings that didn’t seem to change the meaning, even though the whole thing isn’t very satisfying this way.
Any suggestions are very welcome!-- Geke ( talk) 04:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
I have removed original research from this article, since it seemed to be original synthesis, which is not allowed. Also it seemed to be promotional in tone. — MATRIX! ( a good person!) citation unneeded 20:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The translation, which the references say has been taken from a book by P Venkatesh Rao, has since undergone a number of edits: names have been changed to IAST spelling and some words here and there seem to have been edited. My question: should it remain a literal quote of the referenced source?
For the time being, I will leave the IAST spelling and just correct the other deviations.
Update: I’ve made some changes, but I get the feeling my source is not the same book as the one cited, even though all the details seem correct: https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.382194/page/691/mode/2up
Therefore, I have left in different wordings that didn’t seem to change the meaning, even though the whole thing isn’t very satisfying this way.
Any suggestions are very welcome!-- Geke ( talk) 04:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
I have removed original research from this article, since it seemed to be original synthesis, which is not allowed. Also it seemed to be promotional in tone. — MATRIX! ( a good person!) citation unneeded 20:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)