User talk:Buddhipriya/Archives/2007/June

Bloxham

I presume that you removed the reincarnation edit because it linked to a page that was trying to sell a product. I understand why Wikipedia would not want this. I added it because I felt that there needed to be a link to Bloxham and his York investigations, and found that page to be suitable reference. Seeing as it is not, I shall have to look for another. 81.152.12.70 22:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

May 2007 (Yoga article)

Dude... zen/ch'an derivation from dhyaan is one of the least controversial (and, btw, one of the most relevant) bits of information on Hinduism and Buddhism out there. I thought you'd have known that. Regardless, I've sourced it as requested. --69.203.80.158 02:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Slap-happy reversions

Your suite of slap-happy blanket reversions of my recent edits contending that my inclusions are unsourced is ripe Buddhipriya. I was principally iterating "[sic]" concepts, paradigms and language use...not introducing "nu" content: stop "un" or my boon for you will bane. HARK! Dismiss ur Dis miss.

The unsourced items in cross-cultural correlates sections I have populated I understand, but given my editing history the deletion instead of insertion of a citation prompt is disrespectful. I am populating these headings as deixes for article progress and iteration.

Respectfully B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, unsourced material added to articles may be removed by any editor. Please make more of an effort to souce your contributions in the future. If you wish to make a point but do not have a WP:RS supporting it, you can bring the point up on the talk page for the article and ask for assistance in sourcing it. Buddhipriya 00:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Buddhipriya,

Thank you for joining the Kushan debate-. You appear to be a voice of reason (as indicated by your name) among the crowd. You asked for other sources, here is a reputable one: [[1]].

• This is from the metropolitan museum of art. PHG was referencing an amateur website.
• No authority has pushed the boundaries of the Kushan's so far south.
• These users are not experts. In fact, none of use are. I was merely making the point that none of us can directly interpret the Rabatak inscription as per wikipedia guidelines. Otherwise that is original research
• PHG was attempting to hide behind a source that did not specify clear boundaries.
• When I pressed phg on a point above, he changed the boundary. So he changed the map based upon what I said, not based upon what an expert said.

Please let me know if you need me to account for anything else. I hope this will explain why his map is inaccurate and unsuitable for wikipedia articles.

Regards,

Devanampriya 23:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. Since these points pertain to the article content, I will reply on the talk page for the article. Buddhipriya 00:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Samkhya and Buddhism

Hi Buddhipriya. Are you interested in following up the issues of dating Samkhya ideas and the influence of "proto-Samkhya" on the Buddha's thought? If not I'll try to do it myself in the future. Arrow740 04:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not had much time due to real life issues, but I was able to locate a review of the issues in a book by Mircea Eliade that discusses the history of claims of connections between Buddhism and Samkhya in some detail. It is a very interesting review. I have not had time to post it to the article talk page but the subject does interest me quite a bit. I am fatigued by all the battles and have little taste to take on a new one. The reference is in: Mircea Eliade. Yoga: Immortality and Freedom. Bollingen Series LVI. (Princeton University Press: 1958, Princeton, New Jersey) Translated from the French by Willard R. Trask. I am using the second edition (1969) which is a corrected edition. The discussion of the Buddhist/Samkhya influences is on pp. 377-381 in which he provides a review of what he calls an "extensive" bibliography of interconnections and debates on this topic. In a nutshell, the idea of some sort of connection has come up in many sources, but with many disagreements on what it all really means. He also notes the confounding issue of how Yoga philosophy connects to Buddhism (Yoga used here as the formal name for a school of philosophy, which assumes many aspects of Samkhya philosphy as an underpinning). I do not have time to work on this now, but wanted to share the reference in case others have the book at hand or can get it from a library. All I can say is that I would like to find the time to go into it in more detail, but the atmosphere of conflict in the article makes working there unenjoyable. I suppose if I were a better yogic (Buddhist?) practitioner I would be able to overcome these feelings of aversion and attraction more effectively. :) Buddhipriya 04:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: my edit to Shiva

According to the French wiktionary the French is 'excellence', so my edit to the article was correct. However, if the source you're quoting from has incorrectly used 'excellance' and you want to quote it accurately, then please include a [sic] after each incorrect word, enclosed in a hidden comment if you prefer. Then editors will know to ignore the word. Thanks Rjwilmsi 06:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation of the Websters link is that spellcheckers will correctly suggest that 'par excellance' should be 'par excellence' (e.g. on the occurred page spellcheckers correctly suggest that 'occured' should be 'occurred'), but the original text in Shiva was a direct quote, so it doesn't matter. Rjwilmsi 07:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, AWB crashed so I had to re parse some articles, including this one. Since you hadn't yet added the [sic] after the quote, I made the edit again, and hadn't reviewed my edits before you contacted me again. I've checked and the page is now ignored. Thanks Rjwilmsi 06:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Bhavishya Purana

Can you take a look at this article ? It is completely unsourced and seems to present a devotees POV in encyclopedic voice. Cheers. Abecedare 22:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the POV. Now all we need is sources and content. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Gizza and Buddhipriya for your quick response! I would have tried editing the article myself but couldn't make sense of sentences such as, "There is controversy regarding some parts of this Purana and research has been done proving redaction.". Huh ?

I also played around with Yoga Sutras of Patanjali earlier today. Can you guys prrofread my edits sometime and make sure that I didn't introduce any errors. Also would help if you could take a look at the sentence where I added the {{vague}} tag.

Thanks again and cheers! Abecedare 02:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Bhavishya Purana appears to be the sort of obscure quiet corner that I would prefer to retire to for the moment. I will try to dig up a few citations. I am also very interested in the Yoga Sutras but suspect that it is an article that will take some effort to do well. Due to real world demands I will be unable to put in great efforts but I wanted to rise to support your request. The issue of redaction is probably true, but the same could be said for all the Puranas so I am unclear what the issue is. Winternitz metions at least one redaction point but it is minor. I have never really looked at this Purana before so I must crack the books. Buddhipriya 02:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no rush in bringing up these articles up to standard. I just like to bring these articles which I think can/should be significantly improved to the attention of of knowledgeable and interested editors such as you, Gizza and Gouranga, as and when I come across them. You are right though, that the Purana article is unlikely to be a focal point of much attention/controversy and therefore a good candidate to work on in peace!

As for the redaction sentence: my contention is not that the sentence is false, just that it is hard to interpret for the lay reader. A way to clarify it would be, say, along the lines, "There is controversy regarding the origins of this Purana with recent scholarship indicating that it was composed through redaction of earlier works." This would clarify that (1) the controversy being referred to here is regarding the origins/authorship, and (2) guide the reader to "literary redaction" as opposed to the more common non-technical meaning. Of course, as you say, we'll need to source this bit, so I'll leave the final formulation to you. Cheers. Abecedare 03:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Winternitz just tosses the whole thing out as a new work, dismissing claims that it is the same work as the ancient one mentioned in the much older Dharmashastras. I will look in a few more reference works and integrate what I find from them. The advantange of this article is that is appears to be in a state of complete neglect, so I feel free to make major edits. On all the articles I have come down to adding a single line here and there, waiting a week, and then checking to see if it is still there. So this one is more fun, less battle. Buddhipriya 03:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Winternitz is wrong. The Bhavishya Purana was obviously written around 5000 BCE but true to its name the authors looked into the future, and made it appear to be a much later work :-)

On a more serious note, you are right that we shouldn't have to fight many battles in editing the article at the moment since we'll be expanding content rather than deleting/correcting previous edits. But once the article is developed, I am sure there will be resurgence of suggestions such as this one.

It is sometimes surprising how articles on wikipedia can receive vastly different attention. I recently noticed that the French Open article is just a stub, especially compared to Wimbledon. Wonder if it is the other way around on the French wikipedia ... Abecedare 03:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the French Open article is a suprise. I expected all pop culture/sport/current topics to be bloated on Wikipedia while more archaic and often more important areas like ancient history and philosophy to be bare. But as you say Abecedare, information on the English speaking countries is overwhelming compared to other "non-controversial" countries (which excludes Israel, Iraq, et al). Also note that at the moment Bhavishya Purana is quiet but if/when the trolls arrive, it is not an article they are going to easily give up on. I imagine the extreme believers will persistently try to add quotes on how the text "prophecises" the evil mlecchas Mohammed and Queen Victoria. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is now a fatter, jucier target for trolls to add all the prophecies interspersed with and camouflaged by the scholarly information that has been added. This comment or just a simple Google search shows the kind of "scholarship" this subject attracts. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty indeed. Abecedare 08:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice Job: Just wanted to note my admiration for your edits of this article. Outstanding work!--Nemonoman 13:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the encouragement and thanks for the 2 cents. I'm saving all of the 2 cents I get to someday buy a maseratti. I am sorry that this person drug you into this. Take care.TheRingess (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

disputes etc

Re your message to me: I have already obtained the opinion of a third party, who agrees with me, and I notice that at various places to do with disputes, they suggest using things like Village Pump, Wikiquette alerts, direct contact with coordinators etc, so I can't see what you're complaining about.

Sardaka 12:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could name this editor, because this is getting slightly confusing. Addhoc 13:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that Sardaka focus on one dispute resolution process and carry that process to completion before beginning another. Conducting multiple processes at the same time makes it difficult to keep track of multiple cross postings of material. By using a specific process and carrying it to conclusion, the results of that process become input for the next, if there is a next. Would you agree to participate in mediation on this matter? If so, that voluntary process could be used to air out the issues and perhaps reach agreement. Buddhipriya 17:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Buddhipriya

Agree with your concerns about cross posting. In addition to the medcab case, should we proceed with other forms of dispute resolution? Would a RfC create a central location to discuss concerns? For example, we could start a RfC about Sardaka and use this page to discuss the overall problem. Addhoc 13:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your involvement in this matter. I would first encourage the parties who are in conflict to voluntarily participate in a MedCab case. If they do not explicitly agree to that process, then I would got for an RfC on whichever party declines to participate. Currently that appears to be Sardaka. It is also possible that Sardaka or other editors do not understand procedures, in which case a first step is to be sure they have been explained (including the disruptive effect of cross posting). Once those have been clearly explained, if disruptive behaviour continues I would go for an RfC or ANI on any editor that persists in disruptive behaviour. For the record, if I am being involved as a party in any of this (due to having been attacked) I would be eager to participate in any Medcab case which may pertain to the matter. At this point I still think of myself as only indirectly involved. However I intend to actively participate in warning editors of disruption and in defending myself against attacks. Buddhipriya 17:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Addhoc 18:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I am more than willing to participate in a mediation case or an RFC. Thanks for asking. Take care. TheRingess (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Buddhipriya

For your message welcoming me to Wikipedia. I don't have a huge amount of time to give to it, but would like to contribute in areas where I have some special knowledge. I noticed that you give it a lot of time and do a huge amount of work. I am curious to know how you manage to find the time. Am not sure about the etiquette of asking personal questions to other Wikipedians so will leave it there, but if you don't mind this question you could maybe leave me a note on my talk page. Hope to collaborate with you in the future. Rivergod 15:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Hey Buddhipriya, You can save yourself all the talk page archiving hassle be delegating the task to a bot (say, User:MiszaBot_III). If interested, you can see the configuration instruction at User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo, or simply open up my talk page in edit mode and cut-paste the top few lines (with minor and obvious modifications.) Abecedare 02:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I will give it a try. Buddhipriya 03:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

MedCab

I have been going through proper channels, in spite of what some people think. I got an opinion from a third party, Ganesham, who agreed with my complaints. then I went to MedCab and went straight to Addhoc because that is suggested on the page. If Addhoc can't help, I will go to the next level. If you think you can help, by all means get in touch.

PS. What does RfC mean?

Sardaka 09:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have gone to MedCab, please provide a link to the current MedCab case. I cannot find an open MedCab case, which may mean that you are not currently using MedCab. If you are using MedCab, you will have a mediator identified and a mediation page will be opened for your case. Who is your mediator, if have one? I gave you a link to the conflict resolution procedures previously. Here is a link to the step involving opening a request for mediation: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation. At this point my perception is that you have declined to enter into formal mediation. RfC means "Request for Comment" and it is a type of feedback method that tries to get multiple editors looking at a situation. See: Wikipedia:Requests for comment. To ensure that you have these policy links available, I will crosspost this reply on your talk page. If you have further questions about any of this please let me know. Again, I encourage you to contact the user you are in conflict with and reach agreement directly with that person on use of a mediator. Buddhipriya 10:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fact tag

You said:Alternatives to immediate deletion include moving the challenged unsourced material to the talk page for discussion, or placing a fact tag on the material and leaving it in the article so other editors may try to find a reference.

Can you show me an example. Thanks a lot for your info, I will use the same.BalanceRestored 09:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have placed a fact tag on the sentence that you raised a question about. Here is the diff that shows how it is done: [2] Buddhipriya 10:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've yet removed that sentence for the while. I personally feel it is teaching the wrong. I am thinking of adding the reasons why Indian Government decided to give the special privileges to certain sections of the Indian Society. I am sure there should have been valid discussions in writing and the could be possibly available also. In the mean time I am trying to read indiacode.nic.in to see if everything stated at wikipedia is abiding all the rules. I've tried to glance though your tons of articles. You have surely done a lot good here. Also, if you have things that you would like to share in that direction I will surely appreciate the same. BalanceRestored 05:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Back to Tantra

I've been contemplating your comments, from several weeks ago, regarding the Tantra article. More specifically, I've been contemplating the analogy of the blind man and the elephant. I do believe that it is an appropriate analogy for this article.

I've heard the analogy before, of course. I find it interesting that in the story the blind men's observations are correct (given their modalities of observing and the parts that they observe) but their conclusions are not. The point of the story seems to be that their conclusions aren't valid since they aren't given a proper context for understanding that they are observing a small part of a larger whole. If the story were expanded to include a meta observer who could provide them with the greater context then they might realize the validity of their own observations but the erroneous nature of their conclusions (and have a good laugh about the whole thing).

As you implied, the purpose of the tantra article is not to simply define the term tantra (if the analogy is correct, we lack a meta observer who could correct our conclusions).

I suggest that the purpose of the article is to present as many different observations from as many different blind men as we can (not excluding blind women, of course) and ensuring that the blind people at least ran their observations by other blind people (those others should be generally recognized by the population of blind people as "elephant" experts). In that way we provide the broadest possible overview of the subject.

For this reason, I continue to suggest that we examine the article in terms of the various quality levels the Wikipedia community has established (e.g. start, B, Good Article) and use the standards the community has agreed upon for those levels.

In my opinion, the article is basically a start class article. There are too many issues regarding sources right now.

Once we can resolve those issues we can ask ourselves, what's missing?

Take care.

TheRingess (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that start class is a good description for the article. The idea that tantra is a vague term that means different things to different people could be at the top of the list of issues. I regret that I may not have much time to help with this article, but one role is simply to look for compliance with Wikipedia:Verifiability and raise concerns about unsourced material. Buddhipriya 03:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Kama Sutra Article - Pleasure and the spiritual life

In response to your post, I had earlier sourced the above section in its enirety from exoticindiaart.com. I realize that the text has since been altered completely, however, the title remains the same (Pleasure and the spiritual life). I am afraid I am not authorized to reproduce text from the website without acknowledgment of the source - without which it becomes a copyright violation. Since you have been active on this subject and article, I request you to either restore the credit to source or remove/alter the header (Pleasure and the spiritual life).

I had introduced this section since it places Kama Sutra in the correct perspective - as the general perception links it entirely to erotica, unfortunately.

Thanks,

seema 11:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

exoticindiaart.com is a website selling erotic art. Its Kama Sutra related merchandise can be referenced from here: http://www.exoticindiaart.com/search.php3?pagecount2=1&searchval2=kama+sutra&table2=all&table3=all&searchmodifier2=allwords&limitfields2=all&minprice2=0.00&maxprice2=0.00&submit2=Search

I have no wish to offend anyone, so I'll leave it for others to discuss whether it is an appropriate source of information, and whether it could be considered an authoritative source.Rivergod 11:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I consider that to be a spam website and will probably object to insertion of any new links to it. I would like to recommend that people use books as sources. It would be best if further discussion on this matter take place on the talk page for the article so all editors can chime in. Buddhipriya 03:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I was under the impression that going to Addhoc was the same as going to mediation, because the guidelines suggest going to a coordinator as one of the options. Apparently this is not the case, so I will now go to MedCab. I was not declining to the use the channels, I simply had the impression that Addhoc was the same as going to MedCab. So, now we can get the ball rolling. I'm looking forward to it. Thanks for your time.

Sardaka 09:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that you have opened a case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-13 Sardaka. I hope that you will find that service helpful. Buddhipriya 04:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

reg Samkhya : Vedanta is not advaitic

Vendanta has been interpreted by Sri Shankara in advaitic manner. Sri Madhva has interpreted it in a Dvaitic way.

To say vedanta is advitic is wrong. Infact Dvaitic philosophy uses the tenets of Samkhya to interpret vedanta.

So saying "Sankhya serves as the main opponent of Vedanta Philosophy which elucidates the non-dualistic (a-dvaita) theory of creation" makes no sense.

Rather "Sankhya serves as the main opponent of Advatic Vedanta Philosophy which elucidates the non-dualistic (a-dvaita) theory of creation" makes more sense.

The above unsigned comment was added in this diff: [3]. Unfortunately the author does not mention any particular article or edit to which this comment may pertain, so i am at a loss to understand what it refers to. Buddhipriya 03:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It refers to the "samkhya" article on wikipedia. Please refer to the sentence Sankhya serves as the main opponent of Vedanta Philosophy which elucidates the non-dualistic (a-dvaita) theory of creation".

What are your basis for saying Vedanta is non-dualistic? Does it not depend on whose commentary you are reading, Sri Shankaracharya's or Sri Madhvacharya's or others like Sri Ramanujacharya or Sri Nimbarakacharya!

The above unsigned comment was added in this diff: [4]. I am still unclear on why this comment is directed to me, as I do not see any specific edit that I have made that pertains to it. Buddhipriya 05:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Manusmriti

I am sorry about the link issue but i don't appreciate completely removing my edit. Latest reasearch on manusmriti conducted by Prof. Dr. Surendra Kumar is highly important as it is the only succesful reserach on this matter till date. All vedic scholars and Arya samaj mandirs in India refer to this book only in all matters pertaining to manusmriti. Since the article doesn't speak anything on this research work, i felt the need of an edit. I would appreciate if you convey your views/suggestions.

The above unsigned comment was added in this edit: [5] by Rockwillgetu. Regarding the spam removal, the edit explictly was trying to sell a book by referring the reader to a bookseller site. Regarding sourcing, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability which says: "Articles should only contain material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed." If you feel this issue needs further discussion, please take it up on the talk page for the article so other editors can participate. Buddhipriya 19:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Shiva

Why did you remove the text I had added?? You didn't explain it on the talk page or didn't inform me about it. It was correct and useful info. What was wrong with it? Best regards Kkrystian 12:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding sourcing, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability which says: "Articles should only contain material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed." If you feel this issue needs further discussion, please take it up on the talk page for the article so other editors can participate. Buddhipriya 19:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sir I have posted comments about MARATHAin hindu wikipedia.but u refused to accept it.we people flooded our blood for hindu religion still there is not a single word about shivaji maharaj or Marathas..plz aacept my comments or plz reply me.

The above unsigned comment was added in this edit: [6]. Unfortunely I am unclear on what point the author is trying to make, and thus am unsure how to reply. Buddhipriya 19:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Ganesha

I believe the article is ready to go through the WP:FAC process. What are your thoughts? Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should complete the work by the League of Copyeditors first. It seems that our copyeditor has not been active lately. I will see if we can revive that process. Personally I am less concerned with feature status than I am with ensuring that the article is of the highest possible quality, but I understand your interest in suggesting it as a FAC. Buddhipriya 19:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

CFD

Since you are a regular contributor to India related articles, I was hoping you could weigh in on this discussion. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_22#X_by_descent.Bakaman 17:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Baka, thanks for making me aware of this. I have made a comment in support of merge. Buddhipriya 19:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

manu

I'll see what I can do. Leaflord (talk · contribs) knows quite a bit on it as well.Bakaman 20:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am suggesting this because I want to be sure that we get a strong test of sourcing, and I want to make sure that the discussion centers on what sources are appropriate as WP:RS. Buddhipriya 20:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Rosary

Hi Buddhipriya. Please check out Talk:Rosary#Origin_of_the_rosary. Even if these theories are not accepted by everyone today, I don't understand why nothing is mentioned at all about them. Just wanted to let you know. deeptrivia (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. I really don't know much about the origins of the practice. If you can find any citations in academic books, they may be worth mentioning there. I suspect that dating for these practices would be difficult, but I have never looked into it. I guess I always just assumed they sprang from some innate human impulse for repetitive prayer, since practices similar to japa occur so universally. Buddhipriya 04:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Vedas

In the current version of the article, all sources listed under "References" use Template:Citation and the article itself is Harvard-referenced until the "Etymology" section. Have at it! JFD 22:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. Since the Harvard templates are an acquired taste, let's see if there is comment by any other editors on them. I think there is no rush to get it all one way or the other, as general movement toward order is better than none. Buddhipriya 22:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I created two versions of the article: one with all Harvard referencing and one with no Harvard referencing. See which one you like better. JFD 13:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this interesting demonstration. I have replied in detail on the talk page for Vedas. If the problem with named references can be taken out of the equation, as this seems to do, I personally would be willing to experiment with this system on that article as I have never before worked on an article that successfully implemented these templates. I would still like to see what other editors think about this issue, so let's track it on the article talk page. Buddhipriya 19:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

United States housing bubble, featured article candidate, 28 June 2007

Please take a moment to enter your thoughts for this article as featured at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#United_States_housing_bubble. Frothy 13:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not know much about the topic, but I have added comments as you requested. Thanks for getting in touch. Buddhipriya 22:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)