# Talk:Vedic Mathematics

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vedic Mathematics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 00:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
The article complies with the required sections of MoS. The prose needs some work before I can feel comfortable approving this. Here are some issues I see:
The infobox should include the author's name. The infobox says that the book was originally written and published in English; if this is true, then it should be stated in the body, as well.
No clue; removed.
The text would flow better if the "Contents" section were moved to the top, before the section on "Publication history".
Done; not bothered, either-ways.
In "Source": "... irrespective of whether they may be factually located" is unclear; what does it mean for knowledge to be "factually located"? There's got to be a better way to say whatever this is trying to say. 
Typo; an extra f.
In the first paragraph of "Reception": the sutras don't "allude to" abstract expressions, they are those abstract expressions.
Done.
At the end of "On sources and the relation with Vedas": I'm guessing "contrary to all available incidence" is meant to be "contrary to all available evidence"
Done; typo.
In "Originality of methods": "Dani believes Krishna Tirtha's methods to have stemmed from his education" is unnecessarily unclear. How does an idea "stem from" an education? What does Dani actually say about the relationship between Tirtha's math education and the contents of the book?
Don't agree but clarified.
Also, all of the content in "Computation algorithms" belongs in the section "Reception" (and the first sentence currently in that section has nothing to do with the algorithms presented in the book).
Done.
Great progress! A couple more minor points: the first sentence of "Contents" should be edited to clarify that the author claims that the sutras "allud[e] to ... mathematical tools" (in fact they contain no explicit mathematical content and are susceptible to an almost unlimited range of interpretations). I'd also like the final sentence of the first paragraph of "Source and relation with The Vedas" to be more clear; I couldn't make out what Agrawala was supposed to be saying until I read the source. His justification seems to be that "everything true is ideally part of the Vedas, even if it's not actually part of any written text of them" (which is is to say, he admits that these "sutras" aren't part of any actual text of the Vedas). A citation from page 7 of the Kandasamy source might be in order for the part where the encyclopedic voice comments on this explanation. In the second paragraph of "Reception", "to head a national college, that were increasingly set up" needs to be rewritten. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
The article has a reference section and cites suitable published sources. No sign of plagiarism from online sources. The sourcing is quite good, with only one issue I noticed.
In the second sentence of "Contents", I don't see anywhere in the Dani source that say Vedic Math includes anything relating to mechanics or finance. (The source does say that mathematics touches all of these things, and it says it as an example of how far short of being comprehensive the book's focus on arithmetic and algebra falls). The Hogendijk source quotes Tirtha in the book claiming that its lessons are relevant to astronomy but again saying nothing about physics or finance. This claim as currently phrased doesn't appear to be supported by these sources.
Need to check. I am pretty certain about reading the mechanics bit, over some source.
Dani (Pg. 7, 1st paragraph):- ... and in Chapter XL we find a whole list of subjects such as dynamics, statics, hydrostatics, pneumatics and applied mathematics listed alongside such elementary things as subtractions, ratios, proportions and such money matters as interest and annuities (!), discounts (!) to which we are assured, without going into details, that the Vedic sutras can be applied.
Ah, I see. So, the book asserts that its methods are applicable to those fields but doesn't demonstrate any of the applications. I've lightly copyedited the sentence to clarify that this is the range of applications the book claims for itself. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
The article stays focused and doesn't stray into unrelated matters. It has sections on the major facets of the topic that I would expect to see covered here, though some of them need work (as noted elsewhere in this review).
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
The article as it now stands is much too willing to present as fact, in the encyclopedia's voice, the implausible claims of the book's author and apologists regarding its contents and provenance. To start with, all instances of reference to the author as "Tirthaji" need to be changed to just plain "Tirtha."
Please provide the exact lines that leads to the impression of mine stating things in WP's voice from the author and its apologists.
I already gave one example below, but here it is again: "He re-wrote a summary volume in the later years of his life." This is part of the story that there was this massive 16-volume opus that was mysteriously lost and had to be re-summarized just before the author's death; this was stated as a fact, in WP's voice, and it's good that you've now removed it. The broader impression came from the fact that, in the previous version of the article, the sections presenting the author and publisher's claims didn't contain any rebuttal of those claims (it was saved for much later in the article), which is why I asked you to move the rebuttals up into those sections, which you've now done. Thank you! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Replaced Tirthaji with Tirtha (2x).
"Publication history" says that "Krishna Tirtha allegedly wrote 16 volumes, ... but the manuscripts were lost before publication." Who alleges that he wrote these longer texts and that they were lost? The later statement that "He re-wrote a summary volume in the later years of his life" is part of this same "the dog ate my homework" story. The book's proponents claim that it represents a hasty summary of a much longer series of sixteen texts that was mysteriously lost just prior to publication, but no one has ever seen these supposedly lost manuscripts, and the sources dismiss the story as a fabrication. These claims can't be stated as fact in the encyclopedia's voice; it needs to presented as a claim, and then the texts debunking and dismissing that claim need to be discussed (this is discussed e.g. on pages 3–4 of the Dani source).
Krishna Tirtha (and sp. Manjula) have propagated this dog-ate-my-homework story.
Right, and that is what needs to be spelled out in "Publication history and reprints" rather than leaving the reader to guess who is "alleging" these things. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Need to think about whether I effect this change or not. That the claims came from the author (and his ilk) is fairly implied but probably better to clarify. ∯WBGconverse 18:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Your new text handles this nicely. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Now, allegedly has been used in the sentence, precisely to introduce an element of doubt in the veracity of the claim. Nowhere does H.S. Bal (vide ...He, it is said, then wrote 16 volumes on Vedic mathematics, one on each sutra. Mysteriously, just before their publication, the manuscripts were lost. But in 1960, the last year of his life, Tirathji managed to rewrite one volume which was published in 1965 as Vedic Mathematics....) comment on the veracity of this story; somethings are better left implied through subtle phrasings (italicised in the quoted part) and I have taken a similar approach. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Words_to_watch.
Dani was solely commenting on the fake nature of the claimed Vedic-Parisista-sources and noted that those 16-volume-lost-manuscripts were definitely not the Vedic-stuff, from where he retrieved those sutras. I have emphasized on certain parts of that portions, so that your understanding may be aided in—... Let us suppose for a moment that the author indeed found the sutras in some manuscript of the Atharva Veda, which he came across. Would he not then have preserved the manuscript? ... While there is a specific mention in the write-up of Manjula Trivedi, in the beginning of the book, about some 16-volume manuscript written by the swamiji having been lost in 1956, there is no mention whatever either in her write-up nor in the swamiji’s preface about any original manuscript having been lost...
Please find me a source that outright notes of the 16-volume-detailed-write-up-getting-lost-story being fake/fabricated and I will be glad to add the observations, in a suitable manner.
The section "Contents" exclusively presents the author and publisher's hyperbolic claims about the book's contents and applicability. A good start could be made here by just moving the first paragraph of the current "Reception" section into "Contents", but this section cannot possibly be complete without making perfectly clear the book the book does not in fact contain "all of mathematics". Here, also, the section would benefit from just moving the first paragraph of "On sources and the relation with Vedas" into "Source". The "Source" subsection cannot possibly be considered complete without making very clear that the "sutras" Tirtha claimed were the inspiration for this book are not in fact part of any Veda, nor do the Sanskrit fragments he quotes contain any explicit mathematical content of any kind.
Cool. Transposed, to ensure abidance by WP:STRUCTURE.
As to making perfectly clear the book the book does not in fact contain "all of mathematics", we need not thrust it down a reader's throat that the book is garbage; we are targeting an average reader.
The new text you've added to the section covers this. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
On the other hand, the section on "Integration into mainstream education" repeatedly uses the tendentious term "Saffronisation", which implies a criticism of the changes being imposed on the school texts. Wikipedia shouldn't be taking sides on something like this in the encyclopedia's voice; the only way that term should be used in this article is to say that numerous critics have described efforts to incorporate "Vedic Math" into educational curricula as an attempt to "saffronise" India's education system.
There have been ample scholarly literature (incl. a few books) which discuss the issue in depth. Find me one reliable scholarly source which rejects that BJP attempted to saffronise the education system. You need to read WP:GEVAL. We don't say that numerous critics have noted Homeopathy to be bogus; we state that it is pseudo-scientific nonsense, in WP's voice.
I think the thrust of my feedback isn't getting through, so I'll try to be more clear: the sources are definitely in agreement that the BJP and other Hindu-nationalist groups are trying to use India's education system to spread their ideology, in part through the addition of supposedly "indigenous" studies like "Vedic Math" and "Vedic Astrology" to curricula. The sources you've cited definitely agree (and so do I) that this is bad and embarrassing for India. I'm not disputing any of this, and the article should definitely include the commentary it does on this issue. I'm saying that Wikipedia shouldn't use a politically loaded term like "saffronisation" in that discussion in its own voice. I think we should try to keep our language a bit more WP:IMPARTIAL by, as the policy says, "describing the dispute without engaging in the dispute" lest the article "end up as a partisan commentary, even while presenting all relevant points of view". The existing sentence that reads "This was only shelved after a number of academics and mathematicians ... opposed these attempts ... and criticized the move as a politically guided attempt at saffronization" is an excellent example of what I'm advocating for: it documents that these authoritative figures have called these moves "saffronisation" without making the same assertion in Wikipedia's voice. I'm only asking for the use of that term in WP voice in the first sentence of the section to be replaced with something more impartial. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Strong disagree. Once again, please read GEVAL. We don't need to bend backwards to strive for a false non-partisanism. ∯WBGconverse 18:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Let me frankly acknowledge some ignorance here: I'm not Indian and I'm not familiar with the usage of this term in contemporary Indian sociopolitical discourse. To my American ear, "saffronisation" sounds like "pro-choice" and "death tax" and other terms used by partisans on one side of a political dispute to try to frame the debate in a way favorable to presenting the opposing side's views as a straw man. Those terms are examples of a sort of contentious WP:LABEL that our policy recommends trying to avoid, so as to keep the encyclopedia impartial. I guess to me the question here hinges on something I don't necessarily feel qualified to assess, which is whether to a supporter of the BJP and Hindu nationalist education the term "saffronisation" would sound pejorative (like the terms I mention above) or merely descriptive (more like the labels "liberal" and "conservative" in American discourse). If you think that the average proponent of these changes would be comfortable having them described as "saffronisation" and wouldn't feel that that term represented a criticism, then we're good to go; if, however, that term would feel, to partisans on that side of the dispute, like an implicit criticism of the policy by Wikipedia, then I think WP:IMPARTIAL has to come into play here. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that folks aligned with BJP will have any problems with the word, given that the (junior) education-minister from their party has (verbatim) said of the need to saffronize the curriculum. The erstwhile prime-minister has said something very similar; need to dig up archives, shall you wish.
Fair enough. You're obviously more familiar with this discourse, and I'm willing to accept your read on it. The objection is withdrawn. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Appropriate fair-use rationale for the book cover in the infobox, and the only other related image I could find on Commons was an MS-Paint-quality sketch of the use of one of the multiplication tricks that would really add nothing to the article.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Aside from some shaky prose and a need for better organization, this article currently suffers from a show-stopping failure of neutrality, being too credulous in parts and too critical in others. The neutrality and factual accuracy of the article needs to be greatly improved before it can even be considered for GA; I'll do a deep dive into the sourcing once the neutrality is addressed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Bryan Rutherford
The only show-stopping event is your's inability to understand the boundaries of your expertise and (thus) wading into an area where you know neat-nothing and then, sprouting nonsense about how mentioning in WP's voice that BJP was engaging in a saffronisation of the education-system (which even the party-supremos embrace, as a sign of pride) is using of tendentious wordage, on my part. Not to mention an outright failure to read sources (Dani) minutely. I have reverted your NPOV tag.
I remain hopeful to see all the sources that crop up in your deep-dive but in the meanwhile, pray point me to WP:INTEGRITY violations w/o throwing random aspersions based on your own failure to read sources. ∯WBGconverse 10:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Godric, please tone down your personal attacks and try to keep it professional. Removing an NPOV tag without discussion is also out of process; in the future, as the template itself says, please do not remove such messages until there is consensus that the issue has been resolved. Good work on cleaning up the text and organization; the prose is still too florid for my taste, but I won't press it further for the GA standard. Moving the counterpoints into the "Contents" section goes a long way toward making the article clearly call out the pseudo-science of the book. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to be harsh as to weeding out florid text, but there is no need to engage in hyperbolic rhetoric about potential violations of WP:INTEGRITY and show-stopping NPOV failure. ∯WBGconverse 18:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the change in tone! If you took offense at the phrase "show-stopping", then I apologize and withdraw it. I'll carefully point out that you explicitly agreed with my assessment (above, when you cited WP:STRUCTURE), and I think you've done a great job of addressing my concerns about making sure that the article doesn't accidentally give a careless reader the impression that this book is anything remotely like what it claims to be. I did not at any point say that you had violated WP:INTEGRITY (as I said, I waited to read through every last source in detail until the text was more set). Please try not to take constructive feedback about the article, given in a formal review process, as some sort of personal attack on your editing; you're clearly a dedicated and constructive editor, and I appreciate your work to make this into a GA. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that all of your concerns have been met. ∯WBGconverse 13:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Yep, we're done here. The article now meets the standard and is hereby promoted to GA. Thank you for your diligent and rigorous editing! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)