Talk:Bakhshali manuscript

message: The page should be pruned of Pearce's text.  Tkuvho (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree or at least any content kept should rely on appropriate sources rather thab Pearce.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: After posting the comment above, I noticed that the footnote referring to Pearce actually links to an article by the usual (reliable) authors at the MacTutor archive.  It is hard to reconstruct what happened but it could be that between 2007 and now, Pearce's article was replaced at smoe point by a more reliable one. Tkuvho (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I noticed that too, but in any case the footnote needs to match the intext attribution.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

text: @Kautilya3 I just saw this addition of yours from 2017. It seems to reference Pearce in a , but the link goes to a different article (by J. J. O'Connor and E. F. Robertson). Both the linked article and what appears to be a dead link to the Pearce article are listed in the external links section, like this(the first one is also correctly referenced either). The correct/new link for the second one seems to be https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Projects/Pearce/chapter-7 (weirdly enough, referring to chapter 7 instead of 6). Do you happen to remember which of the sourced you intended to reference, especially considering the comments/concerns above? 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The diff you mention is not my edit. In any case, the MacTutor reference with "Ian Pearce" name was added here by an account called "". Other than the incorrect author(s), the reference seems to be to the correct article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Kautilya3 Sorry, I was talking about Special:Diff/800736972; not sure what made the script bug out. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess I must have copied the original 2007 reference to my private database and inserted it here! I had seen the zero notation mentioned in plenty of places. As for the Ian G. Pearce chapter, the renumbering must have taken place when they included it in the MacTutor archive and counted the abstract as "chapter 1"; so this became "chapter 7". The chapter doesn't contain any original research, as far as I can see, but summarises published papers of other Indian scholars. (But on the whole, mathematicians are not particularly good in history. Luckily, we now have proper historians doing it.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ian Pearce's pseudohistory 

message: The Oxford press release  is wrong when it says Hayashi dated it to 8th-12th centuries. Hayashi said it was no later than the 7th century. There is nothing said by Hayashi or the Indian scholars that is inconsistent with the latest dating. -- Kautilya3 (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hayashi 

message: ::Vasiṣṭha is Vasiṣṭha. I don't understand why there can't be a refer to the page Vasiṣṭha Can u give me the reason for revert? Zzt514 (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you have information that the Vasishtha mentioned is the same as Vasiṣṭha? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Rigveda, local indian people started calling Vasiṣṭha a Saptarishi before 11th century B.C. Yes, I understand your question that you need something to prove those two are the exactly same person. But it's really hard to prove the Vasiṣṭha mentioned inside the manuscript is the Saptarishi Vasiṣṭha. But according to the context, we can infer that Vasiṣṭha mentioned inside the manuscript，is the Vasiṣṭha. Just like you won't misunderstand Jesus in most conditions. And I believe the writter of the manuscript won't misidentify Vasiṣṭha as well. And according to A Dictionary of Hinduism, there's no any other namable Vasiṣṭha.Zzt514 (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can't infer such things for Wikipedia. See WP:SYNTHESIS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the last sentence. There's no any other namable Vasiṣṭha but the Vasiṣṭha.There's no infer inside. Zzt514 (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Zzt514, just because the rishi is the only person with that name to have an entry in a general-purpose encyclopedia, does not mean he is the only person with that name to have ever lived. You can't make inferences like that on wikipedia (WP:SYNTHESIS is already linked above), and even if you want to make that inference for yourself you'll have to reckon with the fact that the person in question here lived more than a millennium after the time of the Vedic rishi. – Uanfala (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vasishtha