Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Upanishads/1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: kept It appears that the specific points addressed in the nomination for reassessment have been satisfactorily answered by the addition of citations. Much of the reassessment appears to be a disagreement between editors. Please remember that such disagreements should be discussed civilly on the relevant article talk page. If consensus cannot be reached then dispute resolution procedures should be followed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA 2 : Factually accurate and verifiable: The Section regarding " authorship " is completely false , without evidence and has no citation confirming the same. The linkage of possible new composition of upanishads to "Ranade 1926" is false, as this has been checked and is not verifying with the said statment

GA 4 : Neutral

In order to acheive unnatural Neutrallity of the article, information which has no evidence and acceptance has been given at the " Criticism " section and also information does not have a neutral tone and the criticism is based on a single line quote from a single upanishads out of 100's of upanishads does not reflect criticism on the entire upanishads at source Shrikanthv (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Above user is a religious POV-pusher, see Talk:Upanishads#Regarding_recent_POV-pusing. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check my history of editing i do not have an agenda or beliefs of things , the above editor is in conflict or view point and taking things personnely. Please have look at the points i have mentioned Shrikanthv (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Neutral point of view again the criticism section ( now others in critcism section )mentions about the author John Murray Mitchell, who was was a religious preacher from UK who came to India (with chritian ideology and agenda )in 1800 's , and i reject him of being authoritative about Upanishads , as he had no prior knowledge of Indian culture and writings, you can also find that the only other book he has written is about islam ,which is again was suiting to his requirement for Indian agenda. how would he ever be considered to have a neutral view point on religious subject matter ?

The whole Criticism ( now in the others section) does not have a neutral tone and are not criticising the literature itself , but on the possible interpretaions of the litereature. and this is done by qoutes out of christiam missionaries to India. which are not to be trusted for having neutral point of view interms of religion literature concerend Shrikanthv (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New findings on false hoodness of the article

I have done a quite a research on the citation qouted and how the article has been twisted so that the general outlook is turning out to be poor their are two authors and books which does not match

1) Mahadevan's History of Philosophy Eastern and Western

Where Mr Mahadevan never wrote the book " History of Philosophy eastern and western " but again this was written by Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (who was president of India ) and again i really went to the page number 56 (as the first reference is Mahadevan p 56 in the whole article) the funny part was it is simply not there .

for those of you who do not want to buy this book and check, here is how i can prove the editor did not had neutral point of view and just adding his own texts and linking wrongly.

Their are 4 lines linking to same page of mahadevan p 56 (first reference in the article)

line 1 - The Upanishads are found mostly the concluding part of the Brahmanas and in the Aranyakas.[a] line 2 - If a Upanishad has been commented upon or quoted by revered thinkers like Shankara, it is a Mukhya Upanishad,[b] line 3 - Not much is known about the authors except for those, like Yajnavalkayva and Uddalaka, mentioned in the texts line 4 - The Brihadaranyaka and the Chandogya are the most important of the mukhya Upanishads. They represent two main schools of thought within the Upanishads. The Brihadaranyaka deals with acosmic or nis-prapancha, whereas the Chandogya deals with the cosmic or sa-prapancha

you can see the difference in content , it has to be an small essay to include such a varied topics and definitly not from a book which has 9 volumns in total !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikanthv (talk • contribs) 15:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2 )

Regarding quotes reference 2  : Ranade 1926, p. 205 , these are outrageously lie!! please check yourself with the following links the book is in pubic domain!! and look in to page numbers , it is completely not existing !!!

3)reference 104 : Ranade 1926, p. 59-60.

Here the author picks up only one line. !! and then puts another text from another source to bring about wrong meaning. Eg the line from the book is " The Brihadaranyaka gives an unorthodox explanation of the origin of the caste-system." and then qoutes from other source "This has been criticized by the Dalit leader Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar."

where the actual content says that the brihadarnayaka explains caste system based on duties and responsibalities which is unorthodox !

which gives false notion that it was from a single content !!

the link : http://www.archive.org/details/A.Constructive.Survey.of.Upanishadic.Philosophy.by.R.D.Ranade.1926.djvu

The actual pdf file : http://ia600604.us.archive.org/2/items/A.Constructive.Survey.of.Upanishadic.Philosophy.by.R.D.Ranade.1926.djvu/A.Constructive.Survey.of.Upanishadic.Philosophy.by.R.D.Ranade.1926_text.pdf

Will an admin please close this mess?

This report was filed to 'right great wrongs'. Despite Shrikanthv's claims, Mahadevan wrote the portion cited from the book edited by Radhakrishnan, and the Ranande 1926 reference is not false. This was already discussed at the talk page for the article, where I provided quotes to prove this, though someone decided to ignore them. As for the sources that he dismisses on racist and sectarian grounds are cited for their criticism of the Upanishads. He doesn't seem to have a problem with non-Hindus praising the Upanishads, and he would rather have a source where a Hindu criticizes western study of the Upanishads, but he doesn't want western criticism included. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recently added material has been merged into the appropriate headings, referenced and attributed. Article looks to meet the criteria. Possibly a pointy nomination. AIRcorn (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather disappointing to see that wiki articles have been compromised of quality because of force full editors, I am still waiting for answers for my 3-4 questions , where out for 1 only pertained view of one person being forced to be true, i am just asking to make the article better, giving it good status , makes it to be true. And cleaning or improving it becomes not easy. Shrikanthv (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reckless editor involved

The above Ian is involved in reckless editing of the upanishad page, Possible diversion from the issue by branding me as a racist, without out answering the complete issues in hand Shrikanthv (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quit lying about me. I did not delete your additions to the criticism section (as you've claimed on the talk page and on User talk:Jojalozzo), I merged it with more appropriate sections. Your additions to the criticism section only served the purpose of weakening the rest of the criticism section and were given WP:UNDUE weight.

I will admit that when you tried to dismiss sources just because their authors were not Indian Hindus, that I did call that dismissal racist and sectarian.

As for not answering the complete issues at hand, I keep pointing out that the citations provided support the information given, and even quoted half of them, but you keep ignoring it. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes , you were intelligent about deleting two section and merging only one section with article, so that your activities are seen to be justifiable, and again i am pointing out to Point 3 and point 2 and not to point 1 (which you are answering , which i know not to be true ) and stop convicting me for doing 'right great wrongs'. , i have not added any commercial links nor from book which is commercially selling know , but from a book which is available free to public!, and no personnels interests are being involved Shrikanthv (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]