?"  
 Wikipedia is a source book for facts and at least in principle the last thing it wants to become is a source book of "garden variety" opinions. There is a place to publish your opinions that you derive from observing history - IT IS RESEARCH JOURNALS - if they do accept your entry. To publish your opinion on Wikipedia as if "ITS A FACT" - is bullshitting of the highest order. 

 ON USING PROPER SOURCES: 
 Gayatri Chakravorty, for instance, is a secondary source not a primary one. On top of that, she is certainly not a historian. To say that Gayatri Chakravorty says that so and so monk read Vedas is an argument full of poverty. Gayatri Chakravorty's understanding of this is as not an inch more than Obama's or Osama's opinion on what the monk was reading. PRIMARY SOURCES PLEASE !! 
 Now, Porphyry himself is a primary source because he is a classical writer who was known for his other philosophical works in his times. In our times however is best known for his studies on vegetarianism and vegetarian people across the world in his times. Like Herodotus, before him, Porphyry is invaluable because he is the only remaining source for several extraordinary historical claims.