| Revision as of 01:28, 9 January 2007 editTaxman (talk | contribs)14,708 edits →wikiproject pakistan???: response← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:24, 10 January 2007 edit undoViscious81 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,954 edits →wikiproject pakistan???Next edit → | ||
| Line 196: | Line 196: | ||
| ::::::::Taxman, i have proved that the tag was added in bad faith. See the link below for another example of bad faith addition of this tag. Thanks.]] 21:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | ::::::::Taxman, i have proved that the tag was added in bad faith. See the link below for another example of bad faith addition of this tag. Thanks.]] 21:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::I'd be really curious how you'd justify that statement. Just adding another link does not make it bad faith. It may not be correct, but calling an edit bad faith just because you disagree with an editor is just as outrageous and unhelpful to the project as Nadirali calling everyone that disagrees with him an ultra-imperialist Indian. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | :::::::::I'd be really curious how you'd justify that statement. Just adding another link does not make it bad faith. It may not be correct, but calling an edit bad faith just because you disagree with an editor is just as outrageous and unhelpful to the project as Nadirali calling everyone that disagrees with him an ultra-imperialist Indian. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::::Taxman, i admit that you are logically right as i have just provided a single link. But do you really think that i am wrong or that i cannot produce more evidence for this insanity??? I can do that if you really think that i am wrong, just that it will take up a bit of my time.]] 21:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Taxman, please note that this is not an isolated behaviour of insanity. See for example.]] 05:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | ::Taxman, please note that this is not an isolated behaviour of insanity. See for example.]] 05:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:24, 10 January 2007
 | India: History NA‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Biography NA‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Linguistics NA‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Template:Bounty Perhaps a hint on how to pronounce the name..? Pah-nee-nee or Pah-ni-nee or Pay-nee-nee even? --Sam Francis
- Pah-nee-nee
- IIRR, the first 'n' is retroflex, the second is dental, and the stress is on the first syllable. The first 'i' is short; I'm not sure about the second and will have to find my Sanskrit book to find out. -phma
- For the Italian word, same 'n's and second 'i' too is short.
- Second i is short too. I've added pronunciation info to the article. -- Arvindn 13:50, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Form of Name
People who understand "Pāṇini" won't be troubled by "Panini" in the remainder of the article, but someone learning about him for the first time will probably be baffled by "Pāṇini". Jacquerie27 13:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- But the accepted spelling is "Pāṇini", not "Panini". In an encyclopedia such as this one, there is no reason to use incorrect spellings -- people come here for detailed information, not for "dumbed-down" content. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 14:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- it's 'not dumbed down' as long as we give the correct transliteration at the beginning of the article. Anyway, we either give Pāṇini exacty once, or always, but not two or three times, mixed with the diacritic-less variant. I'm fine with 'once', but both are possible. dab (ᛏ) 15:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be once or always. But I think the once option is a little silly, as it implies that the diacritics aren't really necessary. Too many people ignore diacritics as it is. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 20:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- your voice is very welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (use English) ;o) dab (ᛏ) 21:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be once or always. But I think the once option is a little silly, as it implies that the diacritics aren't really necessary. Too many people ignore diacritics as it is. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 20:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- it's 'not dumbed down' as long as we give the correct transliteration at the beginning of the article. Anyway, we either give Pāṇini exacty once, or always, but not two or three times, mixed with the diacritic-less variant. I'm fine with 'once', but both are possible. dab (ᛏ) 15:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It might just be my browser, but when you type in "Pāṇini", I think most people will get a result saying Paini, with a square to indicate that the ASCII text will not render the diacritic.
- I suggest we incorporate a small jpeg or PNG file of the name written out (with the offending diacritic in place) into the bodytext to clarify.
- It is not "dumbing down" to exclude diacritics, it's just being realistic, as a lot of keyboards do not have them, so people tend not to use them, and I bet very few people would even know how to pronounce them even if they could.
- Speaking of which, a IPA note would be nice. How *do* you pronounce it? 71.58.60.115 21:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
"Topics in Hinduism" template
I'm removing the "Topics in Hinduism" template because it doesn't seem to belong here. I mean, he was presumably a Hindu, but he wrote about language, not religion, right? --Angr/tɔk tə mi 4 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)
- I don't think a line can be drawn between language and religion in this case. The whole motivation for his grammar was the correct usage of Sanskrit in ritual. Classical Sanskrit is not a natural language, in this sense, but an artificial language intended for religious use. 83.79.181.171 16:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Move the article
This article is currently at Pāņini , which isn't correct -- the first n should have a . under it, not a cedilla. Paṇini currently redirects to Pāņini, so this should be fixed...
- I disagree. This is the English Misplaced Pages and all articles are supposed to have their usual English spelling. In this case it is simple Panini. The version with diacritics is not English, it's a romanization of Sanskrit or something along those lines. — Hippietrail 23:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- The article already has a transliterated name. However, the transliteration is incorrect. And also, see Devanāgarī. Arun 00:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- I know it already has a transliterated name, this I belive is wrong as it should have the usual English name in the usual English spelling. I have expressed similar views already on Devanāgarī, Taíno, and Yoruba language. The last of these implemented the move to the usual English spelling. — Hippietrail 15:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've moved it to Panini (grammarian)
- the article was at its correct name to begin with. Some old browser render n-underdot as n-cedilla because the don't have the right glyph.
- I realize some misguided soul moved it to the n-tilde version in September. That should just have been silently reverted.
- Paṇini as the correct IAST transliteration is perfectly acceptable. This is the usual spelling in English Indologist literature. I've moved it back.
83.79.181.171 16:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not Indologist literature. It is a generalist encyclopedia. The spelling "Panini" is used by other widely known generalist publications such as Encarta , Merriam-Webster , The American Heritage Dictionary , and The Columbia Encyclopedia . — Hippietrail 20:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that the postage stamp pictured in the article also uses the usual English spelling with no diacritics. — Hippietrail 02:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support move to Panini Philip Baird Shearer 08:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- I support move suggestion made by HT & PBS too. Mark 10:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- predictably, I oppose. Already because Panini is a disambiguation page. "generalist", give me a break. It is Pokemonist and Runologist as well as Indologist, that's the beauty of it. Indological articles on WP are Indologist, and Runological articles are Runologist, and that's no problem, because it is not paper. That said, "Panini" is an acceptable spelling, but it is ambiguous, because it is also the name of a type of sandwich, and of collectible stickers. I might add that I have actually written most of this article, so I am not "style-trolling" here like others I could mention. dab (ᛏ) 18:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- I respect your opinion and tend to agree that as long as we can be accurate, there is no need not to. However I'll point out that I have a lot of unicode fonts installed and I see the title as Pā ini or with a square in the middle. Also it's transliterated anyway, so having the diacritics in the Latin characters is pointless for the title at least. I'd have to say I think Panini (grammarian) is the best article name. The current one seems arbitrary; at that point why not use IPA? - Taxman 18:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Panini (grammarian) is fine. I guess I was objecting more to the "WP is not Indological literature" statement. I am looking forward to the day Microsoft decides to fix their browser however; it's not like you need OSX or Linux, just use Firefox on Windows, and you'll see the title alright (so it appears the issue is not the number of fonts installed on the system). It is not Misplaced Pages's fault if people use broken browsers. dab (ᛏ) 09:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- I support the move to Panini (grammarian) because while Pāṇini shows the correct Romanised pronouciation, the letters with diacritics hovering around them appear as squares for those with old computers and confuses people who are not literate in IAST (which is the majority of people). The convention for Sanskrit terms/names is to leave out the diacritics in the article name anyway. Gizza 01:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Computerworld rip-off
FYI, most of this article has been copied, with little modification, as a ComputerWorld short: . No attribution, as far as I can tell. (Apologies if nobody cares, or this isn't the proper procedure - my first Talk entry.) (John 13:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC))
- While Wiki articles are GFDL, I don't think it is a fair commercial use. Just another instance of websites/print media pirateing wiki. --ΜιĿːtalk 15:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- what a jerk, "Geek's Garden, today's top stories copy-pasted fresh from WP". Although they have a better image of the stamp, we could take that in return :) dab (ᛏ) 06:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Ancient Indian??
I think this comment makes a good point: http://goreism.livejournal.com/105511.html
- no. it would be anachronistic to call him an "ancient Pakistani grammarian" of course, but "India" is first and foremost a geographical term. It can of course also be used as short for "Republic of India" in post-1947 contexts, but that doesn't make usage of the term in pre-1947 contexts anachronistic. It may, btw, be a good idea to have India disambiguate (India (disambiguation)) between Indian Subcontinent and Republic of India, but I imagine this would raise too much of a stir (and most links to India will assume a contemporary context, I assume) dab (ᛏ) 11:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps the best course of action would be to call Pāṇini an ancient hindu grammarian? While he most certainly were a native of what is today Pakistan, he was as certainly a hindu. Asdfgl 10:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- no, that's a complete anachronism. Panini was from India (the subcontinent). Whether we was a "Hindu" is a matter of definition, he certainly much predates what we know as "Hinduism" today. "Hindu" entered the English language in the 17th century, from the Persian, meaning "from (NW) India". Hinduism summarizing "Indian polytheism" is from 1829 . We are not discussing Panini's religious faith, in any case, just his geographical origin. dab (ᛏ) 11:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hindu was used in a religious sense—though admittedly, not necessarily the same religious sense as the modern word—in other languages for nearly a millenium, however. And even though the category it designates (which includes several non-polytheistic beliefs) is of recent construction, that doesn't mean that it can't be applied retroactively. "Jew" only entered the English language in the twelfth century, and yet we say that Abraham and Hillel were Jewish. We read that the disciples of Jesus were only called "Christians" in Antioch in Acts 11, and the term was only used in English much later, but does that mean Stephen (martyred earlier, as mentioned in Acts 7) wasn't a Christian? So Panini can be a Hindu.
- I agree with you. I find it very amusing how cleverly the Panini article and Shiva shutra article avoid the term Hindu while using numerous terms that are integral part of Hinduism. By Dab's logic no one has a religion after long enough time as all religions change with changing times. Sure, no one is going to be able to say for sure what the reality was. But atleast in my field of Biology, we have and continue to infer lot more from LOT less information and no one has yet accused us of being unscientific (generally speaking :)) --Blacksun 15:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- On the other hand, Indian already points to a disambig page, so I doubt there's any confusion. But yeah, I agree that India should either be a disambiguation page or a page describing the geographical area, like China or Ireland. --Xiaopo ℑ 03:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. That goes against the reality of the usage of the word India whether your look at newspapers (NYT, Washington Post, whatever), Embassy names, literature, general use, OTHER encyclopedias (Britannica, Encarta, etc. all have pages named India for RoI) or whatever else. Either of your two proposals would make information lot less accessible for countless users.--Blacksun 15:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hindu was used in a religious sense—though admittedly, not necessarily the same religious sense as the modern word—in other languages for nearly a millenium, however. And even though the category it designates (which includes several non-polytheistic beliefs) is of recent construction, that doesn't mean that it can't be applied retroactively. "Jew" only entered the English language in the twelfth century, and yet we say that Abraham and Hillel were Jewish. We read that the disciples of Jesus were only called "Christians" in Antioch in Acts 11, and the term was only used in English much later, but does that mean Stephen (martyred earlier, as mentioned in Acts 7) wasn't a Christian? So Panini can be a Hindu.
- no, that's a complete anachronism. Panini was from India (the subcontinent). Whether we was a "Hindu" is a matter of definition, he certainly much predates what we know as "Hinduism" today. "Hindu" entered the English language in the 17th century, from the Persian, meaning "from (NW) India". Hinduism summarizing "Indian polytheism" is from 1829 . We are not discussing Panini's religious faith, in any case, just his geographical origin. dab (ᛏ) 11:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps the best course of action would be to call Pāṇini an ancient hindu grammarian? While he most certainly were a native of what is today Pakistan, he was as certainly a hindu. Asdfgl 10:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- In theory "I agree with Blacksun and a solution may be: India redirs to RoI and then there is a disambig for Akhand Bharat (subcontinent), India Arie, etc.Bakaman
Ancient Pakistani
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Panini.html
The source which you have given doesnt say he was Ancient Indian. He was from What is now Pakistan, and Direct Descendant of what are now the Pakistani people. i.e Ancient Pakistani. Please dont make up stuff. India doesnt gain history simply because the person is related to Hinduism. Hinduism was founded in Pakistan and Afghanistan, yet Indians claim just about everything Hinduism related. If you want to argue about this, then please go ahead, but dont edit this without proof. User:Unre4L
- Pakistan was established 1947. By "Ancient India" we mean "Iron Age India", that is "the Indian subcontinent in the Iron Age". Kindly see also India (disambiguation). It is, of course, undisputed that Gandhara is now in Pakistan, that's not the point. dab (𒁳) 17:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Using the Name India after 1947 implies modern India which was also established in 1947. Ancient India implies to Rebublic of India, in ancient times. You cannot call him Ancient Indian. Ancient South Asian is another matter, but to be specific, it should be Ancient Pakistani.
Let me give you an example: You wouldnt go around calling people "gay", because its older meaning meant "happy". Its the current definition that counts, and you know better than any what Ancient India implies. So please dont use it incorrectly. User:Unre4L
- hah, but you would use gaiety without qualms. Just like you can use "Ancient India" without fear of misunderstandings. dab (𒁳) 08:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- That might be why the cat reads "Afghan Hindus". There is no such thing as "ancient pakistan", the history of pakistan starts on August 14, 1947.Bakaman 23:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
For the love of god THINK before you speak. India was also born in 1947, prior to that it was called British India, and it can only be called that if Pak is included. Unless of course you think India was reincarnated. You cant claim history of people who no longer are related to you. They have their own identity, and their history belongs to Ancient Pakistan. User:Unre4L
- Excuse me?saying something?. No longer related to me? There is no such thing as ancient pakistan, because Islam wasnt even around back then. Ancient India is the geographic term for Akhand Bharat (or Indian subcontinent). Travelers like Zheng He, Ibn Battuta, Marco Polo, etc. visited India. Making bad analogies doesnt prove anything, anyway 1947 was the Republic of India not the region of 'India'.Bakaman 01:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
"Ancient Pakistan" happens to be "Ancient India", Ινδια is the region of the Indus river, which is now almost entirely in Pakistan. "Pakistan" and the "Republic of India" are political entities established in 1947. So yes, Bakaman is right, India is primarily a geographical term (and should not redirect to Republic of India) dab (𒁳) 10:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Could you explain why you use the Republic of India's Flag, when mentioning the Ancient History of your so called "India" You are not kidding anyone by using Ancient India. Its obvious you are wanting to cut out the Pakistani people from their own history, and gift the history to modern Indian people. The Term India is now different. Because a modern Country is using the name. You effectively have 2 different Ancient histories related to the same word, and use the reference as it suits you to cut out the Pakistani people. This is absurd! Unre4L
- Give up the POV junk. You have not met your burden of proof and have provided no reliable evidence for your position. Do not keep changing the article without consensus. - Taxman 17:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Where exactly is your proof? Your only comeback is that Pakistan didnt exist before 1947. Well India didnt either. Read my comments above. I have done more than enough explaining. Dont make a joke out of Pakistani history. And I still dont know what that Indian flag is doing on the top of this page. Unre4L
- Pakistan not existing at the time of Panini's life is enough evidence. Add to that the volumes of evidence referring to India as a geographic region including the area Panini lived in and that puts your claim in the minority position. Thus you need to provide evidence to support your point. Without that you are disrupting. Please stop, and collaborate instead. If you continue to revert against consensus you will be blocked from editing. The Indian flag at the top of this talk page is just a Wikiproject and has nothing to do with the content of the article. - Taxman 18:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Omg. Why do you keep repeating that lame "Pakistan didnt exist card"? Let me put it in block capitals for you. British united the small kingdoms, fiefdoms etc. and made it India. There was no such thing as India before British united them. The Greeks, The Persians, NOBODY called it India. India, THE VERY WORD was invented by the Brits for the region. The people of the region called it Bharat, and its very unclear what the Bharat actually was. According to your logic, Ancient Pakistan is flawed, but please dont ignore information. Ancient India is just as much flawed then. Unre4L
- You might actually want to check your sources before you make claims like that. The etymology of the word India should be rather instructive. Don't bring your nationalistic views to Misplaced Pages. Not everything needs to be an us vs them. See WP:NPOV. You've now broken the 3 revert rule, reverting without evidence, and against consensus. Please stop, if you don't have evidence and aren't willing to build consensus, don't edit. - Taxman 03:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This must be your tenth post without any evidence of your own. I have explained every aspect of my opinion.
So, do you also support calling Vergil an ancient Italian poet? --Xiaopo (Talk) 03:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Unre4l is incorrect in saying the "Indian hijackers of Pakistani history" (lol i love those two words together, what an oxymoron) havent cited anything. I cited 4 academic pages proving my point. All from American universities as well (since unreal has issues with Indian people).Bakaman 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I have put disputed in brackets. lets make a compromise while this is being discussed.
The Roman empire doesnt have a problem. But if another country emerged tomorrow calling itself Rome, then yes their would be a problem. I dont have issues with Indian people. Indian people have issues with logic. I dont see why you can claim history of people who have nothing to do with India. Simple statement. This matter requires a little bit more thinking as the Idea is hard to grasp. India as a country was born at the same time as Pakistan. I am not talking about the subcontiment that was known as India. The ancient subcontinent which was known as India requires a name change because India in modern time refers to something else.
You have already decided your views and there is no changing them. I understand that. Thats why I want some non south asian to help sort this out.
- Unre4L, yes the nations India and Pakistan didn't exist before 1947. But before the entire region was called Ancient India. South Asia in the ancient history (defined as before Early Middle Ages) period is called Ancient India. That is the term English-speaking academics coined and it has stuck. India doesn't and shouldn't be the same as Republic of India, which is why you becoming confused. In this context, India is geographical term not a political one, just like the subcontinent and South Asia. But nobody use the term "Ancient South Asia." Therefore we are left with India. Gizza 04:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- User Bak,No OR is allowed in Misplaced Pages.-Bharatveer 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Who is User Bak? Are you referring to Bakaman? He was the one who cited outher sources Gizza 05:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Unrel4, I am non South Asian. I have no vested interest, unlike yourself where your POV is very clear. I already pointed you to the Etymology of the word India, try the OED for example. That alone settles the issue. But also consider the multitude of sources that refer to all of South Asia as Ancient India. Just for ease try this. I'll leave the other option there as an excercise for the reader. Also consider this. Further reverting without gaining consensus is not productive. - Taxman 05:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- the point regarding the term "India" is settled. Regarding the RoI flag, Unre4l has a point of course, but that concerns project tags on talkpages, not actual article content. See this discussion. I don't care about flags on talkpages, but I can understand it bothers some people, and since the complaint keeps wasting our time, we should get rid of it: {{WP India}} where dealing with pre-Republic times should not display the RoI flag, precisely because, unlike "Pakistan", "India" can be used for times before 1947. dab (𒁳) 10:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I just realized that this is already addressed. {{WP India}} has the "pre=" parameter; in articles addressing pre-1947 Indian history, the correct tag is {{WP India|history=yes|pre=yes}}. This is also the correct thing to tell people who go around removing tags because they object to the RoI flag. dab (𒁳) 10:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- the point regarding the term "India" is settled. Regarding the RoI flag, Unre4l has a point of course, but that concerns project tags on talkpages, not actual article content. See this discussion. I don't care about flags on talkpages, but I can understand it bothers some people, and since the complaint keeps wasting our time, we should get rid of it: {{WP India}} where dealing with pre-Republic times should not display the RoI flag, precisely because, unlike "Pakistan", "India" can be used for times before 1947. dab (𒁳) 10:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Say, dab, what do you think about moving India to Republic of India and having India mirror China or Ireland? I suppose it would generate a lot of dispute, but it seems like the Right Thing To Do here. --Xiaopo (Talk) 05:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- that's what I've been preaching to the warring factions for some time now. But since I am known as our resident RoI-basher among some of our more zealous editors, I am not the right person to push the move. dab (𒁳) 08:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Say, dab, what do you think about moving India to Republic of India and having India mirror China or Ireland? I suppose it would generate a lot of dispute, but it seems like the Right Thing To Do here. --Xiaopo (Talk) 05:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It would be a useful exercise to imagine which side Panini would have chosen at the time of partition. I dare say it wouldn't have been Pakistan. "Ancient Pakistan"...LOL SM GMT1.09
- Ancient India is funnier since its only camp into existance as a country in th 1800s. yet they claim the history of land which isnt :even India.
- Panini was from what is now Pakistan, there was no such thing as India in his time. What do you think he would have chosen LOL
- User:Unre4L
- This page isnt the page to debate which country Panini would have chosen..Bakaman 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- there is, in fact, no such page anywhere on Misplaced Pages. dab (𒁳) 08:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, Panini would have looked around him and recognized the religious make up most familiar to him. Do you think that would have been Islam??? Do you think now in Pakistan a man who writes the "Shiva Sutras" would be welcomed and made into one of "the Brothers" in Pakistan?? He's a classic Kaffir!!....I reiterate..."Ancient Pakistan"LOL...SM—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.194.239.33 (talk • [[Special:Contributions/
The above is me...red indica...have registered...Red indica 12:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC) GMT 12:54
- ancient pakistani! O_O! this is why wikipedia will never be credable.--D-Boy 06:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- guys are you enjoying your trolling session? The page said "Ancient Pakistani" for like five minutes. This is an example of why (and how) Misplaced Pages does manage its credibility. dab (𒁳) 08:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why yes I am! I'm sure this will please my master Rajnath Singh, and my guru L.K. Advani.Bakaman 16:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- glad to hear it. dab (𒁳) 16:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why yes I am! I'm sure this will please my master Rajnath Singh, and my guru L.K. Advani.Bakaman 16:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- guys are you enjoying your trolling session? The page said "Ancient Pakistani" for like five minutes. This is an example of why (and how) Misplaced Pages does manage its credibility. dab (𒁳) 08:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesnt anyone else think that claiming greats from the past is a bit rich from a culture that if the individual in question was alive today would have been marginalized (at best) and persecuted (at worst). If Panini were to be reclassified as an "Ancient Pakistani" I would hope that the educational establishments of Pakistan would reflect the glories of vedic culture, and that Pakistani children would be exposed to the literature that inspired Panini. Fat chance. And anyway, Pakistan having been purely created as an "Islamic" state, I though that any culture before the Prophet was concidered to dwell in the "Dark Ages"?? 80.194.239.33 08:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)resign....80.194.239.33 12:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- yes yes. if you people would invest as much zeal in documenting the intricacies of Ashtadhyayi as you do in bashing Pakistan, we would have a great article by now. Misplaced Pages is not a discussion forum. If you are so proud of Panini, show it by studying his work and honouring it by writing good articles. dab (𒁳) 11:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Dab... I believe you are the best person to edit this article. I'd taken Sanskrit for my GCSE. How i used to curse panini! All those sandhis and samases still give me creeps!
अमेय आर्यन DaBrood 23:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have given the briefest of overviews at Ashtadhyayi, and it's been on my todo list for a long time now. Not sure when or if I'll get round to adding deeper detail, it is a rather involved topic. dab (𒁳) 14:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Links
I removed a couple of links whose relevance was not immediately evident (to me) -- if anyone feel strongly that they should be re-added, plz. discuss it here. Thanks Zero sharp 21:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
wikiproject pakistan???
this template is being added to this page again and again. At least give a source that says Pakistan recognises Panini's Sanskrit as a language before you add this template (or i shall be removing it shortly).BTW, do we have a reference to Panini in any of the Pakistani textbooks.nids(♂) 18:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I shall be removing the pakistani template soon. Before you reinsert it, please find a citation which says that "history for pakistan" started before 700 CE. (BTW, we wouldnt have required partition, if Pakistani's would have recognised anything happening before 700 CE as history.) nids(♂) 21:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- It IS irrelevant. Its like calling Moctezuma Mexican.Bakaman 23:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Who cares if a project tag is there or not? It's not worth fighting over. If they want to help with the article, that's fine. Just leave the tag, it's not hurting anything. If you guys spent half the time researching material for the article as you do arguing, it would be a featured article by now. - Taxman 04:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- It does hurt. Its like claiming that Einstein was a Nazi scientist. Sorry, but thats the best analogy that i could find. And anyway, all i am asking is a citation which says that they recognize Panini (or any Kaafir before 600CE for that matter) as a Pakistani. Or even a citation which says that anything that happened before 622 CE is considered history in any of the pakistani textbooks.nids(♂) 04:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's nothing of the sort. It's a talk page project template and nothing more. It has nothing to do with the article other than who is trying to help with it. You guys are just too much. Instead, why not figure out how to stop fighting about things that aren't that important? - Taxman 03:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Taxman, i must clarify here that there is no way that Pakistani editors can improve this article. And even if they could, you can be rest assured that they will not waste their time in glorifying a Kaafir. And as i have already pointed out, the whole purpose of adding "wp pakistan" template is to cause disruption. you can check the link given in my post below for further example. nids(♂) 11:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Taxman, just to inform you that Nadirali accused you to be an ultra-imperialist Indian administrator(sigh) here.nids(♂) 12:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- He said as much on my talk page, so I'm not surprised. What's funny is I'm 100% Caucasian and have never been to India or Asia at all. But his being wrong about that does not automatically mean his position on including the project template is wrong. The real problem here (well half of it at least) is your statement "there is no way that Pakistani editors can improve this article". That is demonstrably false, and is part of the root of this whole problem. Basically if someone adds the project tag and you can't prove it's bad faith, you need to assume good faith and leave it. - Taxman 20:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Taxman, i have proved that the tag was added in bad faith. See the link below for another example of bad faith addition of this tag. Thanks.nids(♂) 21:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be really curious how you'd justify that statement. Just adding another link does not make it bad faith. It may not be correct, but calling an edit bad faith just because you disagree with an editor is just as outrageous and unhelpful to the project as Nadirali calling everyone that disagrees with him an ultra-imperialist Indian. - Taxman 01:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Taxman, i admit that you are logically right as i have just provided a single link. But do you really think that i am wrong or that i cannot produce more evidence for this insanity??? I can do that if you really think that i am wrong, just that it will take up a bit of my time.nids(♂) 21:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be really curious how you'd justify that statement. Just adding another link does not make it bad faith. It may not be correct, but calling an edit bad faith just because you disagree with an editor is just as outrageous and unhelpful to the project as Nadirali calling everyone that disagrees with him an ultra-imperialist Indian. - Taxman 01:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Taxman, i have proved that the tag was added in bad faith. See the link below for another example of bad faith addition of this tag. Thanks.nids(♂) 21:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- He said as much on my talk page, so I'm not surprised. What's funny is I'm 100% Caucasian and have never been to India or Asia at all. But his being wrong about that does not automatically mean his position on including the project template is wrong. The real problem here (well half of it at least) is your statement "there is no way that Pakistani editors can improve this article". That is demonstrably false, and is part of the root of this whole problem. Basically if someone adds the project tag and you can't prove it's bad faith, you need to assume good faith and leave it. - Taxman 20:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Taxman, just to inform you that Nadirali accused you to be an ultra-imperialist Indian administrator(sigh) here.nids(♂) 12:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Taxman, i must clarify here that there is no way that Pakistani editors can improve this article. And even if they could, you can be rest assured that they will not waste their time in glorifying a Kaafir. And as i have already pointed out, the whole purpose of adding "wp pakistan" template is to cause disruption. you can check the link given in my post below for further example. nids(♂) 11:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's nothing of the sort. It's a talk page project template and nothing more. It has nothing to do with the article other than who is trying to help with it. You guys are just too much. Instead, why not figure out how to stop fighting about things that aren't that important? - Taxman 03:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Taxman, please note that this is not an isolated behaviour of insanity. See for example.nids(♂) 05:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- It does hurt. Its like claiming that Einstein was a Nazi scientist. Sorry, but thats the best analogy that i could find. And anyway, all i am asking is a citation which says that they recognize Panini (or any Kaafir before 600CE for that matter) as a Pakistani. Or even a citation which says that anything that happened before 622 CE is considered history in any of the pakistani textbooks.nids(♂) 04:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Taxman, considering Ive added sections on Ashtadyayi concerning modern usage of Panini's work, I have all the legitimacy I need and I created Category:Hindu mathematicians. Taxman if you havent realised by now, WP:PAKISTAN is only used now to tag talk pages with their graffiti to mark their dominion.Bakaman 18:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Some side questions out of curiosity. Is there a Sanskrit department in any university in Pakistan? Are there any Sanskrit scholars in Pakistan? Is there anyone in Pakistan who knows Sanskrit? Does promoting Arabic and Persian leave any resources for the "Ancient Pakistani" language? How does their archaeological department work? deeptrivia (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely no chance that you can have a sanskrit department in any university of Islamic republic of pakistan. However, there may be some pakistani Hindus who are sanskrit scholars. Anyhow, it seems that younger generation of Islamic republic of Pakistan is facing an identity crisis. They are even unable to accept revisions to pure Hudood laws. nids(♂) 20:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)