This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kristubhagavatam article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Kristubhagavatam appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 19 December 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Text copied from India-related topics Noticeboard:
This paragraph, requesting an explanation of the quality assessment, was just added ( diff) to the talk page of User:Maclean25:
Discussion copied from User talk:Savitr108 ( DIFF) by User:Health Researcher on 29 April 2011:
RESPONSE: 1) Yes, thanks, you were correct in changing 'aca~nvalam' to 'aca~ncalam - the latter is what appears in the book; 2) Yes, introducing spaces seems fine - the transliterations are not part of the original text, so there is no issue with precise fidelity to the original text (and this is so mechanical that it doesn't constitute original research); 3) In looking at the word 'tapattapaḥ' in the book (last part Canto XII, verse 3), I do not see any long vowels. I suppose it's possible that this could be a typo (maybe good Sanskrit proofreaders are hard to find?). If so, I suppose we could add an "sic" or a footnote that says "sic". Or perhaps we should seek a 2nd opinion from a Sanskritist, who might see a reason why a long vowel might not be needed? -- Health Researcher ( talk) 23:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
HR: I managed to find a copy of the original KB text. What you have here matches it. How can we gainsay Devassia himself? He was surely lots more of a Sanskrit expert than I am, a mere enthusiast. No need to contact any other authority, IMO. Savitr108 ( talk) 16:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Done. Savitr108 ( talk) 05:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a section to discuss the purging of all citations to material published by Global Vision. Perhaps that should be done, but I'm not yet completely satisfied. Therefore I will restore the content by WP:BRD, inviting a discussion here. Please note that the Global Vision content on this page was mentioned earlier in content now archived HERE: RS Archive 89. Note the last few paragraphs of the "Potentially a big problem" subsection discussion, in which User:Sreevatsa mentions this article in arguing against blanket bans of particular publishers, even though some of them (such as Global Vision) clearly have enormous problems. His point was that some of their content may occasionally still be useful and valid for Wikipedia's purposes. And he seemed to draw agreement from the other editors in the discussion.
My question is: In view of the points made in that discussion, what's the best way to handle the Global Vision references here. Do they serve a unique function for the present article, that might be a consideration in keeping them? I'm concerned that the large-scale purge being carried out does not seem to take such factors into consideration. -- Presearch ( talk) 05:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kristubhagavatam article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Kristubhagavatam appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 19 December 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Text copied from India-related topics Noticeboard:
This paragraph, requesting an explanation of the quality assessment, was just added ( diff) to the talk page of User:Maclean25:
Discussion copied from User talk:Savitr108 ( DIFF) by User:Health Researcher on 29 April 2011:
RESPONSE: 1) Yes, thanks, you were correct in changing 'aca~nvalam' to 'aca~ncalam - the latter is what appears in the book; 2) Yes, introducing spaces seems fine - the transliterations are not part of the original text, so there is no issue with precise fidelity to the original text (and this is so mechanical that it doesn't constitute original research); 3) In looking at the word 'tapattapaḥ' in the book (last part Canto XII, verse 3), I do not see any long vowels. I suppose it's possible that this could be a typo (maybe good Sanskrit proofreaders are hard to find?). If so, I suppose we could add an "sic" or a footnote that says "sic". Or perhaps we should seek a 2nd opinion from a Sanskritist, who might see a reason why a long vowel might not be needed? -- Health Researcher ( talk) 23:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
HR: I managed to find a copy of the original KB text. What you have here matches it. How can we gainsay Devassia himself? He was surely lots more of a Sanskrit expert than I am, a mere enthusiast. No need to contact any other authority, IMO. Savitr108 ( talk) 16:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Done. Savitr108 ( talk) 05:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a section to discuss the purging of all citations to material published by Global Vision. Perhaps that should be done, but I'm not yet completely satisfied. Therefore I will restore the content by WP:BRD, inviting a discussion here. Please note that the Global Vision content on this page was mentioned earlier in content now archived HERE: RS Archive 89. Note the last few paragraphs of the "Potentially a big problem" subsection discussion, in which User:Sreevatsa mentions this article in arguing against blanket bans of particular publishers, even though some of them (such as Global Vision) clearly have enormous problems. His point was that some of their content may occasionally still be useful and valid for Wikipedia's purposes. And he seemed to draw agreement from the other editors in the discussion.
My question is: In view of the points made in that discussion, what's the best way to handle the Global Vision references here. Do they serve a unique function for the present article, that might be a consideration in keeping them? I'm concerned that the large-scale purge being carried out does not seem to take such factors into consideration. -- Presearch ( talk) 05:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)