W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Anup Ramakrishnan

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Welcome!


Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and welcome ↗ to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian ↗! Please sign your name ↗ on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions ↗, ask me on my talk page, or place <code>{&#123;helpme}}</code> on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!&nbsp; deeptrivia (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

{{India Links}}
deeptrivia (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Shiva ↗, Kailasha


http://books.google.co.in/books?id=O5BanndcIgUC&pg=PA474&dq=siva+kailasa+Himalaya&client=firefox-a&cd=6#v=onepage&q=siva%20kailasa%20&f=false ↗ from Vamana Purana ↗ as well as Kalidas's Meghduta ↗ explicitly refer to Kailash as well as Kubera ↗'s city Alaka on slopes of Shiva's Kailash in the Himalayas. Not only scholars, but also swamis http://books.google.co.in/books?id=EWlHPAkjBKUC&pg=PA787&dq=Kailasa+siva&as_brr=3&client=firefox-a&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Kailasa%20siva&f=false ↗ like Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami ↗ say Himalayas. Then there are examples in Sanskrit poetry where Shiva and Vishnu are mocked to be leaving at their father-in-law's places (Himalayas and ocean). The moreover, your explanation contradicts reliable references ↗ and comes under original research ↗ policy of wikipedia. Please give secondary ↗ reliable references ↗ to prove your assertion, without use of direct primary ↗ sources like Matsya Purana as the Sanskrit scriptures could be misinterpreted (Sanskrit has many tricks of double meanings etc.) --<span style="color:red;">Redtigerxyz</span> <sup> Talk </sup> 03:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Anup Ramakrishnan. Voting in the '''2018 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''voting page ↗'''. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/01&oldid=866997855 -->

Padmanabhaswamy Temple article



The lead of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple article which you restored is not in an acceptable state. It contains inappropriate tone, ({{tq|"that are considered among the most sacred abodes of Vishnu"}}, {{tq|"The temple is built in an '''intricate fusion''' of the Kerala style and the Dravidian style of architecture, featuring high walls"}}) (considered by whom? 'most sacred' is not a term we should be using lightly in Wikivoice, and 'intricate fusion' is unambiguous puffery.) unnecessary trivia ({{tq|"The name of the city it stands on, Thiruvananthapuram, in Malayalam and Tamil translates to "The City of Ananta" (Ananta being a form of Vishnu)"}}) (this is information that should be in the lead of the city's article, not a temple within the city). There's even source to text discrepancies; neither of the sources after that latter quote mention anything about the temple's architecture, and that's aside from the fact that the lead shouldn't contain references anyway.

The same issues are present throughout the article; in the first paragraph of the next section we see more inappropriate tone like {{tq|unimaginably wealthy}}. There are three entirely unsourced paragraphs in that section. That's why it's direly in need of a proper rewrite actually based on reliable sources; which is what I'm currently in the process of doing at User:Athanelar/sandbox (you're welcome to take a look, but please don't edit.)

Obviously I don't own the article, and anyone will be free to edit it when I'm done with the rewrite - it's just that it's much easier to do a ground-up rewrite based on the available sources rather than trying to go in and surgically fix the current article. I am obviously using the current article's references as a starting point, so none of the (reliably sourced) information currently in the article will be left out. Athanelar (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

:I know that you are not done with the rewrite in your sandbox atm. Though I obviously have no idea what stage you are at in your own estimation. Your "history" section atm omits that the Temple was mentioned in the Sangam period and how it was described by the poets and other scholars then. As also that it was described as a Golden Temple back then itself. Every reference is from solid places by established scholars most of who are Phds (both late Dr R Nagaswamy ex-head of ASI South Zone and Dr Vasudha Narayan of UFL are very highly regarded). Otoh the Late K.R.Vaidhyanathan ("Temples and Legends of Kerala") - with due respects - was an employee of Central Railways and was not an academic by any means to my knowledge<ref>https://irfca.org/articles/bio-k-r-vaidyanathan.html</ref>. Hope the existing referenced info is/are not removed eventually. I would add them back in that event anyway. Anup Ramakrishnan (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::{{tq|Your "history" section atm omits that the Temple was mentioned in the Sangam period and how it was described by the poets and other scholars then.}} Because I have yet to come across that information in my source research; I finished with Vaidyanathan's section and am now reading through the section about the temple in Ramesh's 108 Divya Desams. Then I'll move on to other sources.
::As for Vaidyanathan, his opinion is quoted by Ramesh, so I thought it fitting to read his text and take what I could from it. I am deliberately omitting some shakier/less reliable aspects of these texts, such as vague allusions to "a legend" of the Temple's founding which are not ascribed to any particular person, time, etc. Athanelar (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
:::http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-build-world-class-museum-near-padmanabha-temple/20110718.htm
:::http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/eclectic-architecture-exquisite-features/article2236138.ece
:::http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-interview-with-prof-mg-sashibhushan-on-padmanabhaswamy-temple%20treasure/20110712.htm
:::https://www.huffingtonpost.com/vasudha-narayanan/endless-riches-in-the-end_b_894550.html?ir=India&adsSiteOverride=in
:::The sources are all perfectly reliable and legit.
:::It was mentioned multiple times in the Tamil Sangam period and in many of the Puranas (the latter being from Ramesh).
:::Some Sangam texts even reference it as the Golden Temple (The Huffpost article by Dr Vasudha Narayan of UFL and The Hindu Article both mention it).
:::https://books.google.com/books?id=WQ5XAAAAMAAJ (Pg 29)
:::https://books.google.com/books?id=k57RAAAAMAAJ (Pg 47)
:::https://books.google.com/books?id=Vns9AAAAIAAJ
:::....above in addition mention that the Sangam and Bhakti movement periods call it a Golden Temple.
:::No way these are going from the article.
:::```` Anup Ramakrishnan (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
::::{{tq|The sources are all perfectly reliable}} I don't have time to review all of these in detail right now, but The Hindu piece is clearly labelled as an op-ed ↗, which {{tq|are not reliable for statements of fact}}. The HuffPost article is the same, as the disclaimer at the top notes it was posted via their now-closed "HuffPost Contributor" program. Neither of these can therefore be used to source as fact the idea that Sangam-era texts call it the 'golden temple.'
::::{{tq|No way these are going from the article.}} I'm not saying that information will or won't be in my initial rewritten article. The rewrite has just begun, I've barely read through two sources at the moment; there's still a lot more ground to cover and no point arguing with me about what I haven't included yet. Athanelar (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Well the Hindu article oped is not alone as a ref in that. I put in multiple refs for many claims.
:::::Anyway the article has neem here since around 2004. I have (as have many others) worked on it for the last 12 plus years extensively. Its far from being tagged with for lack of refs or any other such.
:::::Only three sections namely the "Extant Records" and "Rituals" and "Past Management" have been tagged for a lack of sufficient refs. If the issue is single words like "unimaginable" they could be replaced with something.
:::::And now one person's "rewrite" is going to replace this whole work over almost decades??? Especially considering that the most important sources that are being scoured at the outset are books written by ex-Railway employees rather than Phd holding researchers like Dr Nagaswamy or Dr Narayanan.... Anup Ramakrishnan (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::Again, I am neither going to replace nor leave out anything. I will robustly review the sources currently in the article and include the information available inside. If indeed people have put so much loving care into the article for so long as you say, that is all the more reason that there shouldn't be things like three completely unsourced paragraphs in the 'History' section. As for my sources; I don't know how much more I can stress that these are literally the first few sources I've read, and I obviously have much more to get through.
::::::I want to get this article into acceptable shape; I can either do that by rewriting from scratch starting from the sources, or I can do it by working twice as hard to clean up all the existing prose and find sources for the unsourced claims, and I have no interest in working twice as hard as I need to. Athanelar (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Kindly look into this



@Anachronist/@Musikanimal/@Vsmith/@Yamaguchi AIA for approaching you with a single message like this but you would see the need for the same as You read my message. Also I am posting this on my Talk as I thought this may be more feasible than your Talk or ANI etc. I request your kind attention and intervention viz the above page Padmanabhaswamy Temple ↗. The editor above has almost unilaterally decided that they are going to do a complete rewrite of the article. This article has been on English Wikipedia since around 2004 and I have been editing it since 2014 at the least. Its on the Watch of over 200 editors. It has plenty of good reliable references. I have worked on it to the best of my capacity and have been honest with the references all these years....Though I have never tried to have this (or any other article ftm that I have edited) go higher up on the content assessment scale. Fwiiw this article was rated "B"-class by User:TheImaCow in March 2024 and they have rated scores of articles over the half a dozen years they have been here. I am aware that this is not the same as FA or GA but still....I reckon one could conclude that the article would not typically warrant a complete rewrite as articles above "C"-class do not do so.

I have been here as you can see for over two decades and have never put in iffy or shoddy references whether on this article or elsewhere. While I have never had "higher" editing privileges (and have no wish to) I respect Wikipedia's endeavour to have verifiable good citations as far as possible.

As you can see from above they say that op-ed from The Hindu (which is considered top of the line RS from among Indian media outlets) is unwarranted but the writer is a long-time contributor to The Hindu and cites multiple scholars in it naming some specifically who have Phds in their domain (history or archaeology here). Many articles are from established scholars some of who I have named above though their articles appear in media outlets and not in a book or volume from some publishing house. I mean there are really ver few books dedicated like that out there specializing on very few temples. The place literally has hundreds of thousands of Hindu places or worship and if one adds in the Jain Buddhist Sikh ones too even more so. The editor above mentions a book they are reading - which while sort of popular - is by an ex-employee of Indian Railways.

Would a book like above warrant a higher position than articles by researchers with Phds in media outlets just as the latter is not a book or volume from a publishing house?

Well if they can unilaterally decide that a rewrite is must I too can insist on keeping the present structure and "wikifying" rather than a full rewrite. I therefore humbly request you to have the article checked and rated by anyone you think could do a good job with it and suggest changes to be made and I shall work to rectify the drawbacks and make the necessary changes over the coming days/weeks. Kindly help here. Anup Ramakrishnan (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

:The article is stable and there have been no significant edits for two weeks, except for one you made that was reverted because it doesn't comply with WP:LEAD ↗, as explained in the edit summary.
:If you're having a content dispute, the accepted first step is to start a discussion on the article's talk page, but you haven't done so. No resolution can proceed until you do that.
:Note that administrators don't get involved in content disputes. What, exactly, are you expecting an administrator to do here? ~Anachronist (who / me) <small>(talk)</small> 22:22, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
:Ah, I see you have a discussion about this in a section above. Please continue it there. Or you can look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution ↗ and see what options you have. ~Anachronist (who / me) <small>(talk)</small> 22:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
::Maybe my one primary request/requirement got lost in my five para message....it was in the last part....not sure whether this can be called a content dispute anyway.
::It is My opinion is that 'the article does not need a complete rewrite which is what the above editor is intending'. If you would kindly get someone (may be who rates Hinduism related articles or Indic places of worship or India associated spaces or any one else you deem fit) to review the article and re-rate it that would be great (TheImaCow rated it as "B" in March 2024). If they feel there are gaps or inadequate citations or wrong claims (I have tried my best not to indulge in such in my editing here but still) I will make the changes as per their recommendations accordingly.
::Also a query (which I did mention above)....does an Op-ed in a media outlet like The Hindu by a senior journalist (like the article that I have mentioned above) not qualify as an RS? I have used it as well as other media outlet links and also published books as refs. The Op-ed above eg mentions the opinions of some scholars (historians and archaeologists). Can it be dismissed as a non RS as the editor above suggests? Wikipedia rules seem to suggest that such articles can be cited. Also my understanding is op-eds may not qualify as RS in contentious topics political or inter-religious or geopolitical etc....which certainly does not apply here.Anup Ramakrishnan (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
:::You might want to read again Athanelar's last comment above. That proposal is fine.
:::An op-ed is usually acceptable ''only'' for attributing opinions to the op-ed's author, not to make assertions in Wikipedia's voice. If the opinion piece mentions other reliable scholars, then those scholars should be cited directly, not indirectly through the op-ed. ~Anachronist (who / me) <small>(talk)</small> 18:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
::::I feel like I am going around in circles while trying to get my point across to you. If you can please look below their comment. They call the article a quagmire of unsourced content and full of npov. Does that mean I am a liar or a deceiver? '''AND....the number of examples he can offer of the the article being a quagmire of unsourced content and full of npov....ZERO.''' '''Also....number of other editors that feel the same....again ZERO.'''
::::There are over a hundred references. NEVER has it been tagged for lacking in references. Many Admins have been on here. As also experienced editors with higher editing rights. '''NO one has tagged the article for lack of RS or any such.''' Nothing on its Talk as well. I know for a fact that many of the 200 plus editors who have it on their watch are longtime editors with higher rights. Fwiiw it was rated B class by someone who has rated scores of articles. Last I checked "typically" C-class articles are in need of rewrites. There are literally tens maybe hundreds of thousands of articles that are wanting in terms of sourced content and RS. This certainly is not one of them.
::::I will not disturb you again. But when they try to rewrite (they can do whatever on their own sandbox) I will knock on every door I can on Wiki and approach every admin and ANI and every other place here. I am also reworking the article and will try to get it rated again. Thanks and regards. Anup Ramakrishnan (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|the number of examples he can offer of the the article being a quagmire of unsourced content and full of npov....ZERO.}}
:::::The "Mythology Legends and Stories" section has massive swathes of unsourced content. The entire existence of this section is a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE ↗ problem; a section dedicated to verbatim repeating the poorly-documented mythohistorical origins of the temple is not encyclopedically appropriate.
:::::Same goes for the "History" section, which also includes statements like {{tq|ensured that the mercenaries did not proceed with the misdeed.}} which is clearly not NPOV. We should not describe actions as "misdeeds" in Wikivoice.
:::::In 'extant temple records' {{tq|The translations of this section of manuscripts by some scholars serve as a rare though very inadequate primary source material on the temple and its rich traditions.}} is both unsourced and an NPOV issue. We should neitber be saying things like "rich traditions" nor making judgements about how useful certain materials are for scholars in wikivoice.
:::::I could go on. The point is that the article is based on fundamentally flawed foundations; as you've said yourself, you've been upkeeping the article in this subpar state for over 10 years. It's not something that can be fixed by listing some few specific examples; it's a fundamental issue with the way the article is written.
:::::{{tq|when they try to rewrite... I will knock on every door I can on Wiki and approach every admin and ANI and every other place here}}
:::::I look forward to it. Athanelar (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::See my reply below to Admin Anachronist. I accept one thing. That I did not know npov applies in articles like this which is on a place of worship....NOT "unsourced content" mind you....but what is deemed as "npov". I mean I always got the feeling that npov was relevant in contentious topics. And I almost never checked what was already here for npov as it applies in these cases like this religious site.
::::::I separated that Mythology section from History just these last three to five days. You can check my contributions both with this account and with SumerianPrince to confirm if I have worked at all on those sections before. Except for the Puranas part. I only added the Puranas part as supported by MS Ramesh. The Parasurama story and the Swamiyar legend and were already present as also their refs. And the Swamiyar legend is mentioned by the Temple's official site and by many other books like the one I added today. Not sure what you are on about on that.
::::::On my part I will try to improve the article in the coming weeks by removing what is defined as npov. And I will go to the board you have mentioned above around mid-May. I take responsibility for that. Anup Ramakrishnan (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the content assessment scale rating of this article or the reliability of particular references, because neither of those things has anything to do with whether or not the article needs to be rewritten. The article needs to be rewritten because it's a total quagmire of unsourced content and bad WP:NPOV ↗, and it's far easier to start from scratch with the sources than to try to selectively cut out and rewrite the existing inappropriate content. Athanelar (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
::::ONLY ONE person so far has said that the article is a quagmire of unsourced content and full of npov or anything even close to that. ONE. Of the scores of editors who have been here NONE have said so. Neither on this article's Talk nor on any board. This article does not warrant a rewrite and will not be rewritten till Admins or other editors with higher rights or longtime raters opine the same. EVEN in that case I will fill the gaps and improve the article to the max it can be enhanced. Don't continue to soil my Talk. Anup Ramakrishnan (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::Neither adminship nor "higher rights" makes any editor's opinion more authoritative than any other. If you genuinely want feedback on the state of the article, then request that feedback in appropriate places like the NPOV noticeboard ↗. I assure you people will agree with my assessment of the state of the article. Athanelar (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::Not only one person. I also agree with Athanelar's assessment although I wouldn't call it a "quagmire". It has much content that is unsourced and violating NPOV. Does it warrant a rewrite? To answer that, ask this: if every unsourced and NPOV-violating statement were outright deleted, would the article be in worse shape? ~Anachronist (who / me) <small>(talk)</small> 17:08, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::"unsourced"? Sir? Really? Not adhering to npov Yes. But unsourced?
::::::And I would want a "repair". And am willing to put in all the time and effort needed. Why I say this is cuz it has a lot of refs and very good ones at that. And of course if we did away with unsourced content and npov any article would become better, more encyclopaedic, more respected.
::::::I will concede one thing. I never thought about the material that was already here or put in by other editors who seem a bit more devoutly religious. Esp in the Mythology and History sections. The language they have used - some of which Athanelar has listed above - is certainly unencyclopedic (though they are sourced as well). However this lack of "wikivoice" or npov or encyclopaedic language is there in literally every article on religious sites especially sites that are classed as Indic (Hinduism Jainism Buddhism and Sikhism). And I am sure you see the difference between "sourced content" and "npov".
::::::Wiki rules do allow for sections on Mythology. I mean Jewish and Christian ones also have them. I created that separate section titled "Mythology Legends and Stories" over the last week or less so that they are not in the "History" section. Honestly I have always paid attention - in regards to what I have added - to sourced content and the sources being RS and proper English grammar/spelling/structure etc. I never knew that the mythology part should also adhere to certain rules. My understanding was that "npov" applied more in the context of disputes and such (political, inter-religious, between nations etc).
::::::I will work over the coming days/weeks....and put the article on the board they suggested asking them to assess....maybe in May. Might ask for some guidance from you at certain points. Regards.Anup Ramakrishnan (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Padmanabhaswamy Temple ↗


25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Padmanabhaswamy Temple ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/Boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Anup_Ramakrishnan&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Padmanabhaswamy Temple}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1348104089 report it to my operator].
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Padmanabhaswamy Temple ↗


25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Padmanabhaswamy Temple ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/Boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Anup_Ramakrishnan&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Padmanabhaswamy Temple}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1350552461 report it to my operator].
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2026 (UTC)