Fwd: Negative portrayal ....Also add Sanskrit to Wiki AntiHindu Articles' list

hinducivilization , Sandeep Dedge <sandeep_wxyz wrote: Namaste Niharji and dear all... Thanks for bringing key issue to the tablhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SanskritWhile'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SanskritWhile I am not a Scholar in Sanskrit, I strongly feel that it is not unbised, and does not accurately describe language, its significance, and its contributions.Following are my observations, in relation to Sanskrit article on Wikipedia.Problem#1: One of the ?"...Sanskrit (संसà¥à¤•à¥ƒà¤¤à¤¾ वाकॠsaṃská¹›tÄ vÄk, for short संसà¥à¤•à¥ƒà¤¤à¤®à¥ saṃská¹›tam) is a historical Indo-Aryan language, one of the liturgical languages of Hinduism and Buddhism,[2] and one of the 22 official languages of India.[3].."One of the ?....it's mother of most Indian languages. Statement makes it seem like one of the many crowd.On other hand ...Wiki on Urdu starts as follows..."UrdÅ«, (historically spelled Ordu) is a Central Indo-Aryan language""Central" word is used in positive connotation with respect to Urdu.Why does article about Sanskrit starts with a negative sounding connotation?Problem#2Indo-Aryan: This term is defined as ....The Indo-Aryan languages (within the context of Indo-European studies also Indic[1]) are a branch of the Indo-European language family."There just indicates that it is one of many Indo-Europian languages. It fails to note it's superior place in the collection.Why this term "Indo-Aryan" Why not "of Indian origin" ?Problem#3"Its position in the cultures of South and Southeast Asia is akin to that of Latin and Greek in Europe... "Comparison seems to be used to limit it's significance, and limit its contributions to many languages, including those above used for comparison.Problem#4"... its oldest core dating back to as early as 1500 BCE,[5] ..."First of all...there is no citation for date of Rigveda being 1500 BCE. Actually it is much earlier than that. Unfortunately I am lacking reference.Secondly the statement is misleading; it sounds as if Sanskrit was born 1500 BCE.For a language to form a rich creation such as Rigveda, it must be existing several centuries before this date.Problem#5"Beginning of Vedic Sanskrit can be traced as early as around 1500 BCE (accepted date of Rig-Veda).[citation needed]..."Here...who accepted Rigveda date as 1500 BCE? Some anti-Hindus ?Problem#6: Lenghthy Paragraph on Decline and Death of Sanskrit"DeclineSee also: Termination of spoken SanskritThere a number of sociolinguistic studies of spoken Sanskrit which strongly suggests that in this oral use it is limited and is not developing.[18] Based on this, some suggest that Sanskrit had become 'dead', but the distinction is not clearly understood, as Pollock (2001) describes it in comparison with the "dead" language of Latin:[19]Both died slowly, and earliest as a vehicle of literary expression, while much longer retaining significance for learned discourse with its universalist claims. Both were subject to periodic renewals or forced rebirths, sometimes in connection with a politics of translocal aspiration… At the same time… both came to be ever more exclusively associated with narrow forms of religion and priestcraft, despite centuries of a secular aesthetic........."This paragraph unncessesarily so big. Specially when the article has limited comments about linguistic richness of Sanskrit.Problem#7Side Problem:In Urdu's Description, it is noted that.."..For them, ordinary informal Urdu and Hindi can be seen as variants of the same language (Hindustani) with the difference being that Urdu is supplemented with a Perso-Arabic vocabulary and Hindi a Sanskritic vocabulary.."The more correct statement would be as follows:"..For them, ordinary informal Urdu and Hindi can be seen as variants of the same language (Hindustani) with the difference being that Urdu is supplemented with a Sanskritic vocabulary as well as Perso-Arabic vocabulary and Hindi mainly a Sanskritic vocabulary.."--- On Thu, 6/18/09, Nihar Sashittal nihar_s83 wrote:Nihar Sashittal nihar_s83Subject: [hc] Negative portrayal of Hindu revivalism in Wikipediahinducivilization Date: Thursday, June 18, 2009, 4:51 AMHi All,You would have observed that the pages in wikipedia on various subjects including Aryan Invasion theory etc are largely written by Left leaning editors and administrators. Pages on authors seen as symphatetic to the Hindu cause are badly vadalised: For example see http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Subhash_Kakhttp://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Koenraad_ elsthttp://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Voice_of_ IndiaI have been trying to improve some of these pages and tried a neutral portrayal, but often also have faced with resistance from many editors. If any of you has already been an editor of wiki and are familiar with the rules of the wiki, your services would be needed the most. Others can also join, understand the rules and start contributing. Please let me know if you have any questions in this regard. RegardsNihar