Talk:Substratum in Vedic Sanskrit

WIN

I appreciate you having created this article - it is necessary and interesting. BUT: You cannot remove tags placed by other editors - only other editors can do that once the problems have been adressed. This article is messy- it is text cut from the OIT article and pasted into here - that is not the way to create a smooth flowing article about an importat and interesting topic: it needs a cleanup. Having been cut from the OIT article it has the same POV problems that are found in that article and the POV tag will have to stay on the article untill you fnd a way to detach yourself from your emotional baggage and edit in an objective way - or until someone else edits this article to make it neutral (I don't have the time or the will to do this at the moment). Also if you look around a few wikipedia artuicls you will se that they never contain large bolded sections because this looks ugly and impedes readability. If what you want is to italicize the quote then you should only place two'' and not three. Maunus 09:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not created this article. It's by Dab. I am not that well in creating article page ( may be because I never tried ). WIN 09:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am sorry. You did bold the paragraps though and remove the pov tag. Maunus 09:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup

I got round to doing some quick cleanup. The article is sitll far from satisfactory of course. It turns out that it is undisputed that some 2% of Rigvedic vocabulary is non-IE. That's an appreciable fraction, typical for a substratum, but not in any way extremely high. Once again, the story is surprisingly aligned with Greek (Pre-Greek substrate, although I gather the number of words is somewhat higher there). It would be interesting to compare the two cases, there are many parallels between the arrival of the Greeks in Greece and that of the Indo-Aryans in India, since both took place in the same period, towards the end of the Middle Bronze Age. It also turns out that while the presence of a substratum (or possibly adstratum, if you want to split hairs) is undisputed, but its identification is much more uncertain, and opinions seem to be divided into "Dravidian", "Munda" and "both" camps. dab (𒁳) 11:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of reference requirement tags

I have placed (citation required) tags on some of the sentences. Mr.Dieter Bachmann has removed all of them without any explanation. It looks like you want to impose your opinion on others without plausible explanation (I dont think Wikipedia policies allow this kind of actions). vcpk (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained my removal: this article is fully referenced. Please come back and raise specific concerns, after you have consulted the references given. You cannot just sprinkle articles with tags just because you feel like it, you have to present a valid reason. Now how about you actually tell us what it is you want instead of your oblique beating around the bush? dab (𒁳) 14:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the references may be there. But, they were not quoted right next to the sentences. That is just confusing for Wikipedia readers. People who use Wikipedia usually use it for quick references and it would be convenient to have the references in a convenient location rather than to search the whole article and find out.

My intention is to make sure if these aricles reflect a fair opinion and not a propaganda of a view which has not gained a lot of attention. If you delete my reference rewuirements and deny me proper explanations, I may have to end up asking other people's (administrator) help in resolving this issue.vcpk (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please do. see also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. A good first step may be to say what you actually want, and to read the references provided in order to familiarise yourself with the topic. As you read, you are also welcome to (gasp) actually improve the article by adding more references to points you feel have been neglected. dab (𒁳) 16:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a case of reference style preferences, since all the sentences that VCPKumar asked for citations for did have citation with page number in the end-note at the end of the paragraph. The guideline here is that different reference styles are allowed and that the style which is applied by the articles main editor (in this case mr. Bachman) should be followed by the rest of the editors.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 18:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, that sounds like an acceptable reason. Thanks Maunus. vcpk (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Witzel

Stop this Witzel spamming in this article. Witzel is not really reputable. He flip-flops day by day. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's professor of Sanskrit at Harvard. In wikipedia terms that's about as reliable as it's possible to be. Paul B (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's his problem. He's a Sanskritist. They always have their own theories. And his contradicting positions to Harappa-Culture language are well known. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]