This has to be a record: a mod note in a thread with less than 10 people π.
I'm going to try one last time to make clear what is a citation: text link to the specific verses. Like say to the KMG verse or Bhagavatham or Harivamsa
NOT the link to an Internet article where it claims the text said so.
Because as FP pointed out, and you surely know for yourself, anyone can write anything on the web.
NOT a link to where the text can be bought.
If you have only paperback, give publisher's name, edition, volume, page number. A lot of us do have access to same books.
If you're claiming Radha is mentioned in veda or upanishad, the link to the verse in the veda or upanishad is what is needed. NOT to some internet article stating so.
Link to commentary is all right ONLY if commentary is being discussed, not the veda or upanishad itself.
......
Once again, as FP said, this is not about me making rules, this is about common sense approach to scholarly discussions. I don't know how old you are, @SP, but when you're in higher education, you WILL find that no one would accept internet articles or Amazon links for citations. I was in academia for a while. I happen to know Chilii was, too. Not sure of FP, but I think she deffo has familiarity with that sort of discussion.
That is all we are saying. Claims need to be backed up by proper citations.
Belief is a diff issue. But belief cannot be mingled with fact. "I believe Radha existed" is faith. "I believe Radha existed because Veda XYZ says so" is faith based on a supposed fact. In that case, stated fact must be backed up by evidence.
Hindi TV Shows
