630:
different, I suppose), scholars, writing reviews in scholarly journals. If there are no scholarly sources, then, I guess, newspapers and magazines and the like. If no such publications are available, then maybe
Koenraad Elst could be mentioned, but with mentioning the context, that his, his 'pro-traditional interpretations of Indian history and religion'. Or something like "The book attarcted a lot of attention by Hindutva/nationalist/name-an-alternative writers, but was ignored/n.a.a. by the scholarly press."
1522:- I would prefer the page to remain. There was another academic review I found in my files, and added it to the Further reading list. I admit that the book didn't receive a lot of attention in the media, despite my expectations, but I think it was a result of a misguided campaign against the Murty Classical Library, which sidetracked everybody from the book. But I think the book represents a legitimate point of view, which should be represented without disdain. --
81:
178:
71:
53:
463:
385:
1215:, and at least notify the India project. I note that when you did the undiscussed conversion to a redirect (which I reverted), you simply redirected it, so blanking the page, not even removing the "main article" link to here. Not winning awards is no reason for effective deletion. Pollock's complaints about it themselves strengthen notability. Maybe an Afd would have been better.
357:
371:
168:
273:
252:
147:
22:
395:
283:
1587:, petitioned (change.org/p/harper-collins-india-in-view-of-the-widespread-plagiarism-found-in-rajiv-malhotra-s-book-indra-s-net-published-by-harper-collins-india-we-call-on-the-publisher-to-make-a-formal-public-apology-and-to-withdraw-the-book-from-the-market) Harper Collins to withdraw Malhotra's Indra's Net on charges of plagiarism. You can see RFY's
1544:. The supporters of Malhotra then mobilised on change.org (www.change.org/p/publishers-of-rajiv-malhotra-s-books-do-not-yield-to-mafia-pressure-tactics-that-seek-to-compromise-intellectual-freedom) and persuaded the publisher. Pity that none of this was covered in the media. (If it happened today, there would have been a huge hooplah.) --
1442:
If you start by saying "not reliable" without indicating what the problem is, and then you start yelling at everyone who's not convinced, don't be surprised if people get tired of you. I'm happy you feel things: maybe then take this shit to RSN; be my guest. That's more fruitful, because it invites
1270:- Nowhere has Pollock commented on the book, to the best of my knowledge. Malhotra mentioned the book in a petition to remove Pollock from heading the Murthy Classical Library; accordingly, the book was name-dropped in a few articles on the controversy. We cover the controversy, in details, both at
633:
Maybe more important for now is to give a synopsis, in a more or less neutral way (more or less; I don't ecpect miracles in this regard), so readers get an impression what the book is about. I hope this helps? NB: I've already searchng several times for reviews; so far, the book seems to be ignored
1400:
I see more value in the Rediff article than you do, the
Indiafacts article (well, obvious POV piece) has some merit, the Jankriti International Magazine seems to have been legit at some point. Your assessment of the three you mention was "are not reliable"--well, you need to do better than that. I
972:"specifically targeting alienated social groups": why the removal of dalits etc? This is vague and uninformative. And how are these groups being targeted? Are they attacked? And how is Sanskrit (I guess that this is what "subject" refers to) being denigrated by targetting "alienated social groups"?
629:
Koenraad Elst is notable for his, let's say, pro-traditional interpretations of Indian history and religion. Nobody expects a, let's say, 'neutral' review by him. "Critical analysis of the book by notable, published critics" first of all means, regarding this book (for example, the criteria may be
1056:
Swarajya is biased source which I agree but it’s reliable and nowhere mentioned that for notability it should be unbiased. Also, it’s not associated with author of book. Book has created enough momentum of approaching language through dharma shashtras and so called
Acharyas as Malhotra describes.
493:
Please: writing an encyclopedia does not mean copy-pasting quotes. Especially if only quotes from the author and affiliated sources are being used. No NPOV, no context from neutral sources. And yes, indeed, this is an example of tagging new "articles" - better said, scrapbook-pages.
1565:
What you have added to the
Further Reading section is not a book review. If you see the date carefully, it was long before the book was published; Taylor was responding to Malhotra's "plenary session address to the 16th World Sanskrit Conference in Bangkok" on the same theme.
1333:
If you do not like the "unfortunate" rules, initiate a RfC to convince the community and I will happily abide by. Till then, whether you feel that my tactics are underhanded or not is irrelevant. Comment on content; not on contributors.There exists nothing to be merged
1311:, just sticking a redirect on and moving off to edit something else. This is (unfortunately) within the rules, but pretty underhand, so don't complain about "aspersions" if tou get called out on it. As you say, we cover the controversy at the other articles, but
806:"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on."
764:
Ehm... "fair enough," but the website-promo is still there? I also think it does not belong there; it's meant to sweep the sales. Readers can as well go to the website; they don't need
Knowledge to read this. We should provide an extra!
1423:
bibliographic index of repute and appears to be one of the many low-tier/predatory journals that exist in India. I feel that RSN is a better venue to sort the issue of reliability because such concerns will cloud a potential AfD?
534:
That's a good question! At least, you could summarize those "reviews," and make clear that the reviewers are sympathetic to Rajiv malhotra. See also the next thread, "Reception." NB: I appreciate the change of tone.
1338:
Debroy's opinion because the rest of the sources are unreliable. Or, do you dispute that? Or maybe, you feel that the chapter-wise summaries — sourced from the book itself — should have been merged; who knows?
576:"include facts (with a cited source), and the opinions of notable people that have been published in some form. The section should be reserved for critical analysis of the book by notable, published critics.
1307:(but it might get reverted). Otherwise, the merge should be first proposed and discussed, as detailed below...." If you thought this was uncontroversial, you were obviously wrong. Plus you have made
1170:~15 citations per GScholar (not 32) in seven years, do not show that the book had any meaningful impact in scholarship. Neither do I know that this book is used for any course in any reputed university.
969:": which subject is being denigrated here, and by who? Is Sanskrit being denigrated by American Indologists, or is liberation philology being used by Malhotra to denigrate American indologists?
1558:
None of this is based in policy, whatsoever. We do not keep articles because they are legitimate (or illegitimate) points of view in our eyes. For an example, I created our article on
811:
Srinivasan and banerjee are definitely primary sources, participating in
Malhotra's Battle. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not an advertisement for the book.
1719:
1642:
I do not recall anything on academics petitioning HC to not publish future works (TBS -?); do you? The whole petition and counter-petition was limited to Indra's Net.
743:
Ah, you did find some more. Funny, despite the "battering," I do sense a lot of respect from Rajiv
Malhotra for Sheldon Pollock. I haven't read the book though, yet.
1382:
In that case, where are the sources? Do you dispute my assessment of reliability of
Indiafacts.org / Jankriti International Magazine / sandeepweb.com etc.? Thanks,
1058:
565:
918:"Being influenced by Marxism, it aims to empower alienated social groups such as dalits, women and Muslims in their struggle against oppressive cultural forces."
1592:
1689:
234:
224:
1233:. And, if you had clicked on the hyperlink to NBOOK, you would have known that a criterion for meeting notability is winning an award of significance.
1704:
1694:
339:
329:
1062:
1460:, you are not being yelled at. Editors are expect to be diligent in evaluating sources with tell-tale signs of unreliability than be spoon-fed.
1714:
453:
443:
200:
1684:
1156:
864:
Srinivasan and
Banerjee are combattant's in Malhotra's Battle. Besides, the other issue is not solved either: no context has been provided.
1724:
1679:
839:"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.
305:
101:
678:
reliable sources, and avoid propaganda put out by the author and the publisher. Your reinstatement of the so-called "Synopsis" section
1699:
1094:
1066:
1005:
191:
152:
105:
1709:
955:"Marxism" is a clear explanation, while "liberation philology" begs for an explanation, even the more since the linked article
1674:
296:
257:
714:
Summaries don't need to be sourced, provided they are objective and factual. However, you can also take material from here:
1211:
Of course not many here like
Malhotra's views, but that does not excuse cancelling him. Please do the proper tagging, per
1084:
33:
700:, fair enough. I'll update it with a 100 words summary. Does it have to be sourced? If I write one, would that be okay?
1160:
671:
418:
408:
362:
95:
58:
1581:
I hear that 250 scholars and intellectuals wrote to the publisher asking them not to publish The Battle for Sanskrit.
1632:
1492:
1038:
984:
873:
820:
774:
752:
643:
591:
544:
503:
841:
They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on
705:
613:
525:
1401:
think this isn't great but has some notability, and if you don't agree with Johnbod or me, send it to AfD.
1647:
1604:
1595:
among others — and the controversy has been covered with all relevant details in our article on the book.
1571:
1508:
1465:
1429:
1387:
1344:
1283:
1238:
1195:
1562:— another intellectual from Malhotra's camp — because he had received ample coverage in reliable sources.
39:
1626:
1596:
1486:
1071:
1065:
source tells about to start new moment so that ‘outsider’ can’t translate so called holy scriptures.
1030:
1015:
976:
891:
865:
852:
812:
766:
744:
675:
635:
605:
583:
536:
517:
495:
109:
951:
That's not a minor copy-edit; that's a substantial change, which left an incomprehensible sentence:
21:
1549:
1527:
734:
686:
1419:
Indiafacts is a far-right-Hindu blog; not even a news website! Jankriti has never been indexed in
304:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
199:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1625:"Withdraw" is not the same as "not to publish," but I do recall Malhotra was severly criticised.
1485:
No problem with merging. The synopsis is incomplete, and the reception-section doesn't add much.
1006:
https://www.academia.edu/22413957/Book_Review_not_by_me_The_Battle_for_Sanskrit_by_Rajiv_Malhotra
701:
665:
624:
609:
521:
183:
886:
1643:
1600:
1567:
1504:
1461:
1425:
1383:
1340:
1320:
1315:, which this article does. It seems to me that this is the appropriate way of doing things.
1300:
1279:
1254:
1234:
1220:
1212:
1191:
1178:
798:
674:
for how articles about books should be structured. Your best is to follow that structure. Use
1540:
I hear that 250 scholars and intellectuals wrote to the publisher asking them not to publish
1069:
which says the book has stopped work of one library. This is more than enough to have page. —
1448:
1406:
1366:
1309:
no attempt to actually merge the much longer material in this article into the other article
1271:
1112:
1011:
721:
288:
113:
1111:— the author of the book — for the following reasons which evidence non-conformance with
1545:
1523:
1304:
1275:
1131:
1108:
1026:
730:
697:
682:
1152:
Indiafacts.org, Jankriti International Magazine, sandeepweb.com etc. are not reliable.
1668:
1559:
1230:
1123:
review in any academic journal or MSM except the cited articles from Rediff and Open.
1303:: "No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial;
1229:
There is no policy that mandates discussion before an unilateral redirect or merge.
520:
Who's problem is it if none of Malhotra's critics are writing reviews of his books?
80:
1651:
1637:
1608:
1575:
1553:
1531:
1512:
1497:
1469:
1452:
1433:
1410:
1391:
1370:
1348:
1324:
1316:
1287:
1258:
1250:
1242:
1224:
1216:
1199:
1096:
1077:
1045:
1025:
Thnaks. The review is by Shrinivas Tilak; also available at battleforsanskrit.com:
1019:
991:
897:
880:
858:
827:
781:
759:
738:
717:
709:
690:
650:
617:
598:
551:
529:
510:
400:
86:
1163:) which covers the author's usual antics/tirade against the biased (sic) Academy.
1584:
1444:
1402:
1379:
1362:
196:
1155:
Trivial namedrops can be found in the cited article from Business Standard (or
177:
569:
Reviews / Commercial and critical reception / Criticism / Analysis / Reception
390:
278:
173:
76:
956:
929:
462:
384:
356:
70:
52:
301:
906:
Marxism, Liberation Philology, and targetting "alienated social groups"
272:
251:
167:
146:
100:. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can
1583:- Nope; this was about a different book. A bunch of scholars, led by
370:
416:-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the
1001:
Just leaving a review here for anyone to update the article with..
962:"and use it": is "it" American Indology, or "liberation philology"?
832:
A primary source is a document from an event or period of history:
413:
1268:
Pollock's complaints about it themselves strengthen notability.
15:
1588:
461:
1145:
the afore-cited review lends to the notability of the book.
1057:
Book has been discussed with Sheldon Pollock’s interview
850:
A primary source would be a Sanskrit document from 1300.
1187:
The book did not win any major (or even, minor!) award.
910:
679:
1130:
Of the two, the former — whose author has written for
1599:, I assume that I am not misremembering the details?
681:
is no good. This is not synopsis, it is promotion. -
1027:
http://battleforsanskrit.com/shrinivas-tilak-review/
300:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
195:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1313:
we don't cover the book itself in any detail at all
936:
by specifically targeting alienated social groups."
582:That clearly excludes people like Koenraad Elst.
1443:other editors, and it'll show up in the record.
412:, which aims to improve Knowledge's coverage of
836:
566:Knowledge:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article
112:. To improve this article, please refer to the
8:
959:says nothing about "liberation philology";
351:
246:
141:
108:. To use this banner, please refer to the
47:
1591:, too. That did receive media coverage —
1361:I don't see a good reason to merge this.
1107:I propose that this article be merged to
1720:C-Class India articles of Low-importance
106:discuss matters related to book articles
353:
248:
143:
114:relevant guideline for the type of work
49:
19:
1580:
1267:
1249:A criterion, but not a necessary one!
1179:accusing scholars of ignoring his book
1134:among similar publications — is junk.
928:"He presents how it is influenced by
7:
1231:Please do not cast aspersions either
406:This article is within the scope of
294:This article is within the scope of
189:This article is within the scope of
92:This article is within the scope of
1690:Low-importance Linguistics articles
1083:Meh. I will open a merge proposal.
38:It is of interest to the following
724:, OPEN Magazine, 26 February 2016.
470:This article was last assessed in
14:
941:with the following edit summary:
209:Knowledge:WikiProject Linguistics
1705:Low-importance Hinduism articles
1695:WikiProject Linguistics articles
393:
383:
369:
355:
281:
271:
250:
212:Template:WikiProject Linguistics
176:
166:
145:
79:
69:
51:
20:
448:This article has been rated as
334:This article has been rated as
229:This article has been rated as
314:Knowledge:WikiProject Hinduism
1:
1715:Low-importance India articles
1177:The author appears to agree,
317:Template:WikiProject Hinduism
308:and see a list of open tasks.
203:and see a list of open tasks.
1685:C-Class Linguistics articles
1652:10:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
1638:09:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
1609:09:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
1576:04:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
1554:22:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
1532:22:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
1513:11:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
1498:07:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
1470:06:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
1453:23:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
1434:05:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
1411:05:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
1392:05:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
1371:00:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
1349:04:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
1325:22:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
1288:19:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
1259:22:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
1243:19:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
1225:19:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
1200:18:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
932:and use it to denigrate the
1097:10:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
1078:18:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
946:"typos and minor copyedits"
428:Knowledge:WikiProject India
122:Knowledge:WikiProject Books
1741:
1725:WikiProject India articles
1680:WikiProject Books articles
1052:Book meets basic criteria.
992:09:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
898:21:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
881:21:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
859:17:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
828:16:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
454:project's importance scale
431:Template:WikiProject India
340:project's importance scale
235:project's importance scale
125:Template:WikiProject Books
1700:C-Class Hinduism articles
965:"use it to denigrate the
782:21:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
760:20:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
739:20:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
710:20:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
691:19:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
651:20:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
618:18:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
599:16:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
552:20:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
530:18:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
511:15:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
469:
447:
378:
333:
266:
228:
161:
64:
46:
1046:06:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
1020:04:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
1542:The Battle for Sanskrit
634:by (western) scholars.
192:WikiProject Linguistics
1710:C-Class India articles
846:
466:
28:This article is rated
1675:C-Class Book articles
1209:, now changed to Keep
1141:Of the used sources,
608:please explain, how.
465:
930:liberation philology
672:WP:WikiProject Books
297:WikiProject Hinduism
215:Linguistics articles
467:
184:Linguistics portal
34:content assessment
1301:Knowledge:Merging
1213:Knowledge:Merging
486:
485:
482:
481:
478:
477:
409:WikiProject India
350:
349:
346:
345:
320:Hinduism articles
245:
244:
241:
240:
140:
139:
136:
135:
96:WikiProject Books
1732:
1635:
1629:
1495:
1489:
1122:
1092:
1087:
1043:
1042:
1035:
1034:
989:
988:
981:
980:
896:
878:
877:
870:
869:
857:
825:
824:
817:
816:
779:
778:
771:
770:
757:
756:
749:
748:
669:
659:Avoid propaganda
648:
647:
640:
639:
628:
596:
595:
588:
587:
549:
548:
541:
540:
508:
507:
500:
499:
436:
435:
432:
429:
426:
403:
398:
397:
396:
387:
380:
379:
374:
373:
372:
367:
359:
352:
322:
321:
318:
315:
312:
291:
286:
285:
284:
275:
268:
267:
262:
254:
247:
217:
216:
213:
210:
207:
186:
181:
180:
170:
163:
162:
157:
149:
142:
130:
129:
126:
123:
120:
102:join the project
89:
84:
83:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1740:
1739:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1665:
1664:
1633:
1628:Joshua Jonathan
1627:
1597:Joshua Jonathan
1493:
1488:Joshua Jonathan
1487:
1272:Sheldon Pollock
1120:
1105:
1088:
1085:
1054:
1040:
1039:
1033:Joshua Jonathan
1032:
1031:
999:
986:
985:
979:Joshua Jonathan
978:
977:
908:
893:VictoriaGrayson
890:
875:
874:
868:Joshua Jonathan
867:
866:
854:VictoriaGrayson
851:
822:
821:
815:Joshua Jonathan
814:
813:
796:
794:Primary sources
776:
775:
769:Joshua Jonathan
768:
767:
754:
753:
747:Joshua Jonathan
746:
745:
663:
661:
645:
644:
638:Joshua Jonathan
637:
636:
622:
606:Joshua Jonathan
593:
592:
586:Joshua Jonathan
585:
584:
562:
546:
545:
539:Joshua Jonathan
538:
537:
518:Joshua Jonathan
505:
504:
498:Joshua Jonathan
497:
496:
491:
489:Multiple issues
433:
430:
427:
424:
423:
399:
394:
392:
368:
365:
319:
316:
313:
310:
309:
289:Hinduism portal
287:
282:
280:
260:
214:
211:
208:
205:
204:
182:
175:
155:
127:
124:
121:
118:
117:
85:
78:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1738:
1736:
1728:
1727:
1722:
1717:
1712:
1707:
1702:
1697:
1692:
1687:
1682:
1677:
1667:
1666:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1578:
1563:
1535:
1534:
1516:
1515:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1437:
1436:
1414:
1413:
1395:
1394:
1374:
1373:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1328:
1327:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1276:Rajiv Malhotra
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1189:
1188:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1172:
1171:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1157:InsideHigherEd
1153:
1147:
1146:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1132:Voice of India
1125:
1124:
1119:I cannot find
1109:Rajiv Malhotra
1104:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1067:Another source
1053:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1009:
1008:
998:
995:
974:
973:
970:
963:
960:
949:
948:
939:
938:
921:
920:
907:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
887:RS noticeboard
848:
847:
809:
808:
795:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
727:
726:
725:
660:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
631:
580:
579:
561:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
490:
487:
484:
483:
480:
479:
476:
475:
468:
458:
457:
450:Low-importance
446:
440:
439:
437:
434:India articles
405:
404:
388:
376:
375:
366:Low‑importance
360:
348:
347:
344:
343:
336:Low-importance
332:
326:
325:
323:
306:the discussion
293:
292:
276:
264:
263:
261:Low‑importance
255:
243:
242:
239:
238:
231:Low-importance
227:
221:
220:
218:
201:the discussion
188:
187:
171:
159:
158:
156:Low‑importance
150:
138:
137:
134:
133:
131:
91:
90:
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1737:
1726:
1723:
1721:
1718:
1716:
1713:
1711:
1708:
1706:
1703:
1701:
1698:
1696:
1693:
1691:
1688:
1686:
1683:
1681:
1678:
1676:
1673:
1672:
1670:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1636:
1630:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1585:Jesse Knutson
1582:
1579:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1564:
1561:
1560:Vishwa Adluri
1557:
1556:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1518:
1517:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1496:
1490:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1422:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1359:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1337:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1266:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1208:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1186:
1185:
1180:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1169:
1168:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1139:
1133:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1114:
1110:
1102:
1098:
1095:
1093:
1091:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1051:
1047:
1044:
1036:
1028:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1007:
1004:
1003:
1002:
996:
994:
993:
990:
982:
971:
968:
964:
961:
958:
954:
953:
952:
947:
944:
943:
942:
937:
933:
931:
926:
925:
924:
919:
916:
915:
914:
912:
905:
899:
895:
894:
888:
884:
883:
882:
879:
871:
863:
862:
861:
860:
856:
855:
845:
844:
842:
835:
834:
833:
830:
829:
826:
818:
807:
804:
803:
802:
800:
793:
783:
780:
772:
763:
762:
761:
758:
750:
742:
741:
740:
736:
732:
728:
723:
719:
716:
715:
713:
712:
711:
707:
703:
702:HemaChandra88
699:
695:
694:
693:
692:
688:
684:
680:
677:
676:WP:THIRDPARTY
673:
667:
666:HemaChandra88
658:
652:
649:
641:
632:
626:
625:HemaChandra88
621:
620:
619:
615:
611:
610:HemaChandra88
607:
603:
602:
601:
600:
597:
589:
577:
574:
573:
572:
570:
567:
559:
553:
550:
542:
533:
532:
531:
527:
523:
522:HemaChandra88
519:
515:
514:
513:
512:
509:
501:
488:
473:
464:
460:
459:
455:
451:
445:
442:
441:
438:
421:
420:
415:
411:
410:
402:
391:
389:
386:
382:
381:
377:
364:
361:
358:
354:
341:
337:
331:
328:
327:
324:
307:
303:
299:
298:
290:
279:
277:
274:
270:
269:
265:
259:
256:
253:
249:
236:
232:
226:
223:
222:
219:
202:
198:
194:
193:
185:
179:
174:
172:
169:
165:
164:
160:
154:
151:
148:
144:
132:
128:Book articles
115:
111:
110:documentation
107:
103:
99:
98:
97:
88:
82:
77:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1644:TrangaBellam
1601:TrangaBellam
1568:TrangaBellam
1541:
1519:
1505:TrangaBellam
1503:Thanks, JJ.
1484:
1462:TrangaBellam
1457:
1426:TrangaBellam
1420:
1384:TrangaBellam
1341:TrangaBellam
1335:
1312:
1308:
1280:TrangaBellam
1235:TrangaBellam
1206:
1205:
1192:TrangaBellam
1190:
1142:
1106:
1089:
1072:
1070:
1055:
1010:
1000:
997:Link dropper
975:
966:
950:
945:
940:
935:
927:
922:
917:
909:
892:
853:
849:
840:
838:
837:
831:
810:
805:
797:
718:Bibek Debroy
662:
581:
575:
568:
563:
492:
471:
449:
419:project page
417:
407:
401:India portal
335:
295:
230:
190:
94:
93:
87:Books portal
40:WikiProjects
1634:Let's talk!
1494:Let's talk!
1041:Let's talk!
987:Let's talk!
876:Let's talk!
823:Let's talk!
777:Let's talk!
755:Let's talk!
670:Please see
646:Let's talk!
594:Let's talk!
547:Let's talk!
506:Let's talk!
206:Linguistics
197:linguistics
153:Linguistics
1669:Categories
1305:just do it
1207:Suspicious
1012:Crawford88
799:WP:PRIMARY
722:Home Alone
472:April 2016
1593:Scroll.in
1546:Kautilya3
1524:Kautilya3
957:Philology
911:This edit
731:Kautilya3
698:Kautilya3
683:Kautilya3
560:Reception
1113:WP:NBOOK
1073:Harshil
913:changed
311:Hinduism
302:Hinduism
258:Hinduism
1317:Johnbod
1251:Johnbod
1217:Johnbod
967:subject
934:subject
452:on the
338:on the
233:on the
30:C-class
1589:letter
1458:Please
1445:Drmies
1403:Drmies
1380:Drmies
1363:Drmies
1336:except
1161:HTMint
923:into
36:scale.
1103:Merge
425:India
414:India
363:India
119:Books
59:Books
1648:talk
1605:talk
1572:talk
1550:talk
1528:talk
1520:Keep
1509:talk
1466:talk
1449:talk
1430:talk
1407:talk
1388:talk
1367:talk
1345:talk
1321:talk
1284:talk
1274:and
1255:talk
1239:talk
1221:talk
1196:talk
1159:and
1143:only
1063:This
1059:here
1016:talk
885:See
735:talk
706:talk
687:talk
614:talk
564:See
526:talk
104:and
1421:any
1121:any
1090:WBG
444:Low
330:Low
225:Low
1671::
1650:)
1607:)
1574:)
1552:)
1530:)
1511:)
1468:)
1451:)
1432:)
1409:)
1390:)
1369:)
1347:)
1323:)
1286:)
1278:.
1257:)
1241:)
1223:)
1198:)
1115::
1061:.
1029:.
1018:)
843:."
801::
737:)
729:-
720:,
708:)
689:)
616:)
571::
528:)
1646:(
1631:-
1603:(
1570:(
1548:(
1526:(
1507:(
1491:-
1464:(
1447:(
1428:(
1405:(
1386:(
1365:(
1343:(
1319:(
1282:(
1253:(
1237:(
1219:(
1194:(
1086:∯
1037:-
1014:(
983:-
889:.
872:-
819:-
773:-
751:-
733:(
704:(
696:@
685:(
668::
664:@
642:-
627::
623:@
612:(
604:@
590:-
578:"
543:-
524:(
516:@
502:-
474:.
456:.
422:.
342:.
237:.
116:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
