Talk:Sushurata

sushruta samhita is the greatest & oldest book written over surgeory & consists of mostly the practical aspects.. it has been written 3000 yrs back & has the description of almost all surgical procedures including the exision of benign tumors the only difference in western medical scince is of terminology but the principal behind every surgery & the disease is the same.. ofcourse in the present time with the changing time & need various modifications in the surgical instruments for their easy & better practice has been done. maharshi sushruta is not alive now or else he would definately come up with better instruments what we have now in practice.. maharshi sushruta has written description for not only the size n shape of his instruments he has given the basic concepts of how the design of the instrument should be so that the different types of surgeries can be performed with different instruments. one of the greatness os sushruta that he has given the freedom to the surgeon that according to the situation & need u should think & design ur own instruments.. he has allowed the surgeon to not only follow the books but also to use his brain & perform surgeries according to the situation..

for further information n sharing of thoughts pls contact ashish kumar singh <thepsychopath007@gmail.com>

Compromise

There seems to be an issue over the date in which Sushruta wrote the Sushruta Samhita.

JSR's lead:

Sushruta (also spelled Susruta or Sushrutha) (c. 6th century BC) was a renowned surgeon of ancient India, and the author of the book Sushruta Samhita. In his book, he described over 120 surgical instruments, 300 surgical procedures and classifies human surgery into 8 categories.

Anpersonalaccount's lead:

Sushruta (also spelled Susruta or Sushrutha) (c. 6th century BC) was a renowned surgeon of ancient India, and claimed to be the author of the book Sushruta Samhita. In his book, it is said that he described over 120 surgical instruments, 300 surgical procedures and classifies human surgery into 8 categories. However, Richard Salomon states that the earliest confirmed specimens of India's earliest written script, the Brāhmī script, are rock-cut inscriptions called the Edicts of Ashoka and are dated to the 3rd century BC; any excavated evidence for writing in India that may predate these Edicts (such as graffiti on pottery shards from Sri Lanka that may date to the 4th century BC) are controversial and their dating ambiguous.

I don't know the scholarly merits of Salomon's statement, but if it is legitimate (which I presume it is), then I recommend that the note about Salomon be presented possibly as a footnote. Here is one possible solution:

Sushruta (also spelled Susruta or Sushrutha) (c. 6th century BC) was a renowned surgeon of ancient India, and the alleged<ref>Richard Salomon Indicate why his opinion matters. Is he a scholar? states that the earliest confirmed specimens of India's [[Brahmic family of scripts|earliest written script]], the [[Brāhmī script]], are rock-cut inscriptions called the [[Edicts of Ashoka]] and are dated to the 3rd century BC; any excavated evidence for writing in India that may predate these Edicts (such as graffiti on pottery shards from [[Sri Lanka]] that may date to the 4th century BC) are controversial and their dating ambiguous. Salomon, Richard. (2003). "Writing Systems of the Indo-Aryan Languages," in ''The Indo-Aryan Languages'', 67–103. Edited by George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0700711309.</ref> author of the book Sushruta Samhita. The book described over 120 surgical instruments, 300 surgical procedures and classifies human surgery into 8 categories.

The article goes on to describe the Sushruta Samhita later on, so it might be more appropriate to take the entire reference out and introduce Salomon's points somewhere here. Thoughts? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, basically anything will do, execpt for removing the source entirely like what JSR does. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that he had already redirect Sushruta Samhita to here, so you can see how problematic this goes. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Saw that earlier. If JSR expands the info about Sushrita Samhita in this article significantly, then I suppose we can move some of that content back to Sushrita Samhita. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like a quote by Salomon from Anpersonalaccount on the matter of India's medicine. I would also like to know the qualifications which enable him to be included in Surgery related articles. The works of Sushruta are written in the Indo European language Vedic Sanskrit (extinct by the 6th century BCE) BTW. 21:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of the Salomon chapter is available on Google Books, but since I don't have time to read through 40 pages at the moment, could Anpersonalaccount please link us to the sections in which Salomon makes the aforementioned claim? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Anpersonalaccount, Why are sources on literature being used in articles on surgery when they don't have anything to say on the subject? I have produced sources from Cambridge University Press, National Informatics Centre (Government of India), Encyclopedia Britannica, and Oxford University Press but have made sure that these well published sources deal with medicine. Have you done the same? JSR (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The source isn't provided by me, but it seem to be refered under page 94 and page 96, by the way are you saying that with 2,551,246 articles in Wikipedia, there's no room for Salomon's opninion? I hope you're not kidding. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the user above has admitted to falsely producing a source about which he has little (none actually) knowledge of and he cannot establish a reason for his connection of surgery with literary critique I now consider the discussion closed. Can I remove the lines now? JSR (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Who said that I has little knowledge about this? The source is still vaild for the article, and I don't see why it should be removed. Consider this discussion closed? Think about what you're talking before you remove the lines. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Then produce the quote with respect to surgery in this article. If you have any knowledge about the source then explain why should Salomon be used in surgery? What degree does he hold in medicine? Don't threaten other others with think before speak when you are ignorant of what you push. JSR (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Give me policy that stated Salomon shouldn't be used in surgery or that only a book that holds that certain degree should be included, the fact that “surgery" you're arguing did not even existed later in the modern period. What about this source here? Your comment on other's ignorant is indeed quite laughble, consider you don't know anything more than what you're pushing here. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Vedic Sanskrit a Brahmic script? I have found no evidence that this is the case, and it seems that Vedic Sanskrit existed before the development of the Brāhmī script. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to explain that once before to him. To no avail. JSR (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Is all so obvious that I had provided a new source that nobody here seems to bother, not even the admin who had sent by JSR, so I ask where is my answer to JSR's disputative edit on the removal? Anpersonalaccount (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Writing scripts of South Asia

User:Nishkid64 writes:

Is Vedic Sanskrit a Brahmic script? I have found no evidence that this is the case, and it seems that Vedic Sanskrit existed before the development of the Brāhmī script.

But that's just the case. Richard Salomon, a University of Washington professor with a Ph.D. in Sanskrit from the University of Pennsylvania (1975), asserts that there was no native writing script of South Asia before the 3rd century BC, and that the Brāhmī script is the first that is known (at least to our knowledge using archaeological finds). User:JSR asserted on my talk page recently:

Pericles, Let me look up Britannica on this and that ought to settle it once and for all. India was the hub of global influences (in both directions) and the script may not be native but scholars have already identified that complex documents were written in Indo-European languages earlier. Bear with me on this.

Well, if this is the case (i.e. "documents were written in Indo-European languages earlier") can we prove that the Sushruta Samhita was written contemporaneously in the 6th century BC in some other script? Do we have a confirmed archaeological find of the earliest document of the Sushruta Samhita which can be accurately dated? That's all that really matters here. One could make a case for variations in philology which prove the document came from a different era than the 3rd century BC, but this isn't quite as solid as having direct proof.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Charles Leslie (1998) asserts that the Sushruta Samhita did not exist until the 4th century AD (look at leprosy), long after Sushruta would have lived. As JSR has clearly shown, there is no 100% scholarly consensus on the matter either.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User Nishkid64, you initially asked me on my talk page to give my opinion on the footnote compromise. Personally I think it is a good idea, since information on the Brahmi script isn't entirely relevant to Sushruta, but it does indirectly deal with Sushruta's literature.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Shushruta compiled a text in Vedic Sanskrit, a language almost extinct by 6th century BCE so his text is at least that old as attested by all the major sources eg. Kearns, Susannah C.J. & Nash, June E. (2008). leprosy. Encyclopedia Britannica. and Aufderheide, A. C.; Rodriguez-Martin, C. & Langsjoen, O. (1998). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Paleopathology. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521552036. Page 148.

Charles Leslie was writing about the addition made to the Samhita and not on the life and origin of its founder. Sushruta himself lived by the 6th century BC according to the experts on the subject (mainly: Lock, Stephen etc. (2001). The Oxford Illustrated Companion to Medicine. USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0192629506. and Dwivedi, Girish & Dwivedi, Shridhar (2007). History of Medicine: Sushruta – the Clinician – Teacher par Excellence. National Informatics Centre (Government of India).

The source was just introduced here because of Anpersonalaccount's trolling. He neither has it, nor has read it, and neither can produce its relation to Indian medicine.

JSR (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The history of the Sanskrit language is known to linguists, philologists, and other experts. Texts belonging to it have been dealt with in mainstream works and dated convincingly.

Saloman's assertions on the literature of India starting at the time of Ashoka belongs in the literature of India section. Saloman has no knowledge of Indian medicine and has not written anything on the subject.

Saloman was introduced here by a vandal who said that: "I did it because you're annoying" and has been trying to fake a content dispute here ever since.

JSR (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, I had read all the sources you provided, including Britannica, don't make such assumes when you don't even know. Vedic Sanskrit is a language not a script, the fact that they're scholders not just Saloman who argued about the date on this text, which you seems to think that is safe for it to be under 6th century BCE. So you should get it over. Next time, if you contiuned to removed source that other's provided, you will be reverted. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You had not read the sources you provided, leave alone the sources I provided. If you had then you would have known that Kearns, Susannah C.J. & Nash, June E. (2008). leprosy. Encyclopedia Britannica. disagree with you.

You still have to produce the quote on Saloman's relation with surgery. Since you don't have the book I urge you think about what you write. Others have work to do here.

Wikipedia does not work by empty cries of dispute. You have no quote from Saloman and your actions are disruptive, as is your speech.

You have enjoyed 'posting' here now. Why not let others 'work'. This is not a discussion forum or a chat room you know. Here is how it works: No quotes, no talk. Its time to stop trolling.

JSR (talk)

After much trolling, user: Anpersonalaccount was finally blocked. He continued to undo edits made by other people on the only place he could, his talk page. [1][2] JSR (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. User:JSR writes:

Shushruta compiled a text in Vedic Sanskrit, a language almost extinct by 6th century BCE so his text is at least that old as attested by all the major sources eg. Kearns, Susannah C.J. & Nash, June E. (2008). leprosy. Encyclopedia Britannica. and Aufderheide, A. C.; Rodriguez-Martin, C. & Langsjoen, O. (1998). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Paleopathology. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521552036. Page 148.

Yes, but what script did Sushruta use to write in Vedic Sanskrit? This still has not been addressed. I don't doubt that Sushruta lived in the 6th century BC, given the variations in Vedic Sanskrit and Classic Sanskrit, but was Sushruta's work handed down orally (something common in ancient India) and then transmitted into textual writing posthumously? I ask this because scholars assert that there was no writing in India before the 3rd century BC. Hence this entire discussion.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The following text was being pushed on surgery articles by the disruptive and blocked editor user:Anpersonalaccount:

However, Richard Salomon states that the earliest confirmed specimens of India's earliest written script, the Brāhmī script, are rock-cut inscriptions called the Edicts of Ashoka and are dated to the 3rd century BC; any excavated evidence for writing in India that may predate these Edicts (such as graffiti on pottery shards from Sri Lanka that may date to the 4th century BC) are controversial and their dating ambiguous.
— Salomon, Richard. (2003). "Writing Systems of the Indo-Aryan Languages," in The Indo-Aryan Languages, 67–103. Edited by George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0700711309.

Why are we discussing India's linguistic history on a page related to surgery? The use of Vedic Sanskrit has been dated to 6th century BCE. As for India's literature being invented by Ashoka refer to either my talk page or yours.

Sweeping generalizations on specific articles are bound to be misused. Hindutva activists might use them to try and place India's literature to Ashoka and attribute all of India's literature to the geographic boundaries of the Republic of India—denying other sources of cultural influences.

General statements about India's literature belong in the Wikipedia article on Indian literature, not on surgery articles elsewhere. Edits on scripts and linguistics being made here is improper, especially since Salomon himself does not have anything to say on the matter of Indian medicine.

JSR (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

So, in other words, you don't want to compromise with a footnote?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The logic that 2,551,246 articles in Wikipedia, and we must push Salomon's views on all of them is simply wrong. This attitude has seen vandal user:Anpersonalaccount push the same content on three articles no less. This will go on and become more dangerous as the same information is reproduced in the remaining of the '2,551,246 articles in Wikipedia' by vandals when it belongs in Indian literature only. Even there it has to be re-worded.

No Compromise? Salomon is there in the article right now. That's the compromise. JSR (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead of defending the whimsies of vandals its time to move on to real editing, which seems to suffer when vandals appear and editors spend a substantial period arguing over what the blocked vandals really meant and what made them do it? Salomon is there even though he doesn't need to be and he is not being removed for now. Compromise reached. Time to move on. JSR (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

JSR, please stop calling Anpersonalaccount a vandal. His edits were not even close to meeting the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My various encounters with the user, and his incivility, are given in the list below:

• Why are you begging him to remove the sentence?
• the very Indian article
• You are clearly begging on him
• What a prick, don't act mature when you have neither the guts nor inteligent to speak up.
• I did it because you're annoying
• I did it because you're annoying, that's why not because I wanna cover up my ass. There is nothing to hide.
• Oh and next time, I hope that you won't bother to tell me that your boss had fired you because you engaged an editing war with some new user over the Wikipedia.
• Strikes out a text by me.

All my work was stalled thanks to his blatant edit warring. I wrote: Would a fully sourced rewrite of these two articles using proper sources take care of the present situation so no outside intervention is necessary? The editor is new after all, and bound to make a few mistakes initially. Should I try and attempt a sourced rewrite (the article can benefit from some improvement) first and see if the pattern persists ?. I even avoiding a conflict here, where I offered my sources for help on Chinese articles—where he liked to edit and even thanked him after he became less abusive.

I did rewrite the article painstakingly but to no avail.

His standards may not meet Wikipedia's level of vandalism but they were directed towards me and have been the most disturbing encounter I've had in my short Wikipedia career.

However, I will refrain from calling him a vandal it as long as he does not resort to disturbances again. This is simply my obligation to the editors involved; His block log, and the above mentioned incidents of gross incivility, speak volumes on why I called a spade a spade.

JSR (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

why on earth was this article discussing early Indian epigraphy? Sushruta is likely a historical physician who lived in the 6th century BC. Nothing is known about him except for what we find in the Sushruta Samhita, a text of the 3rd or 4th century AD. There is no reason whatsoever to keep this article separate from that on the text. It is enough work to clean up and maintain one article on this, no need to scatter the same material over two. --dab (𒁳) 13:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)