→Gipmochi: amend again |
|||
Line 174: | Line 174: | ||
:: {{ping|Adam4math}}, you need to explain on the article talk page why the present content lacks balance. And, please make sure that you understand what [[WP:BALANCE]] means before you do so. Wikipedia's BALANCE means balancing reliable sources, not balancing China and India. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3#top|talk]]) 09:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC) |
:: {{ping|Adam4math}}, you need to explain on the article talk page why the present content lacks balance. And, please make sure that you understand what [[WP:BALANCE]] means before you do so. Wikipedia's BALANCE means balancing reliable sources, not balancing China and India. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3#top|talk]]) 09:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC) |
||
::: Taking this to the article talk page will only waste my time under the current wikipedia policy, because it is overwhelmed/populated by editors in India which is a party in the dispute, with more than one billion people inundated by the media so most are biased on the dispute on [[Doklam]]. I will not be their match discussing the issue on that page to get a consensus. Since I have work, family etc to take care, I do not have that kind of time. The current wikipedia policy on hotly disputed topics needs to change as I told you before. If it were a non-controversial issue, I would be glad to bring this (and all the articles related to the current dispute on [[Doklam]]) to the talk page. Please, again, do not misunderstand me and charge me of bringing nationalities and ethnic origins into the discussion - This about India as a party in the dispute, as in court cases. |
|||
::: I consider it harassment when someone persistently misuses wikipedia policy to question my integrity and judgement in handling the articles related to [[Doklam]]. Did you notice that I just added a paragraph for {{main|2017 India China border standoff}} on the single most important and the only official document India released in order to strengthen its case and help the reader to understand better the situation, along with its "convenient and official link" at India Ministry of External Affairs? But what did you do with my edits? What did the other editors in India do with my edits? Do you understand what the media hyped (whether in India or China) does not matter, but everything goes back to what the law says in this standoff, and the document I added for India side is the only legal document that matters so far for its case? |
|||
::: I initially thought maybe it was China's fault in the dispute {{main|2017 India China border standoff}}. But as I get thoroughly educated on the matter, truth emerged to me. As I advised you before, be brave and truly patriotic as Dr. [[Manoj Joshi]] and Mr. Sourabh Gupta and other patriotic Indians, face the truth and reality and educate India public about it, avoid using threatening words like you said in another note to me about your country's attitude towards China. Help bring the standoff to a peaceful and happy end and live peacefully with your neighbor China. Imagine what would have happened if India had a neighbor like a western country other than China. China has peacefully settled its land-based border disputes with all its 14 neighbors except India and Bhutan, but India is using security and other lame reasons as excuses to prevent Bhutan from reaching border agreement with China. And India is blaming China for treating it so special from what I read in India sources. China is working hard to settle its maritime disputes peacefully with all its maritime neighbors, and so far not a single bullet was fired. I only wish one day, there are no borders between any countries and people all over the world can live together peacefully. [[User:Adam4math|Adam4math]] ([[User talk:Adam4math|talk]]) 21:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:40, 20 August 2017
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
I did delete this section from Kashmir conflict and I don't see why you needed to revert that "According to Seema Kazi, Indian forces have committed many human rights abuses and acts of terror against Kashmiri civilian population including extrajudicial killing, rape, torture and enforced disappearances. Crimes by militants have also happened but are not comparable in scale with the crimes of Indian forces." Who is Seema Kazi and how is she making such allegations? Does she or you have any proof of this very preposterous allegation? Can I just add a line saying "according to Suyash Agrawal.........."? Is this how it works? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A suyash (talk • contribs) 18:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Seema Kazi is a recognized scholar and her work constitutes reliable source according to Wikipedia policies. There might be WP:NPOV issues with the content but you need to discuss them on the article's talk page. You can't delete the content just because you don't like it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kautilya3, the OSM Location map is far better and should stay the only map in the article. Regards, Railfan (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Blue Sky with a White Sun
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Sky with a White Sun. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Your comment deleted
Could you pls reinsert your comment in the middle? I got some problem with my browser and cannot manipulate it right. Thank you and sorry for inconvenience. --146.96.252.3 (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Internet Archive
According to this Indian Wikipedians can no longer archive URL's ?? 86.97.129.103 (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, it says that archive.org is going to be blocked in India, which is more serious. Hopefully, people can convince the cour that it is unnecessary. Or may be archive.org can change their policies to weed out pirating sites. But, yes, this is a cause for concern. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Ram Janmabhoomi Page
Kindly let me know what wasn't neutral in my edit & I'll back it with court orders. As a lawyer, I'd love to challenge this. However, in absence of same, the same yardstick must be applied to the current content of the page which provides no credible links & is therefore ineligible to be termed "neutral". I have backed ALL my edits with links. Thanks. Jimmy9bond (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- That is great. Can you then apply your lawyer's mind to tell me which sentence or sentences in the cited source imply what you wrote:
The Allahabad High Court in its judgement confirmed that the birth place of Lord Ram was indeed at the same place in Ayodhya on which Babri Mosque was erected.[1]
You appear to be an egoist & since you've reverted in the manner you deemed fit, it opens doors to treat you with the same. 1) The source quoted, you didn't quite read it. But you should've read the headline at least if not reading the article of a reputed national daily at least. Or you skipped it because you didn't find it "neutral"? ;) 2) Allow me in that case to embarrass you further by asking you to read the Allahabad HC judgement, which you should've before showing your shallow anti -Hindu bigotry. Quoting the exact court order verbatim: Issue No. 1b: Whether the building had been constructed on the site of an alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same? Answer: Affirmative, Yes. The above question was put across a 3 judge bench & was won with an "affirmitive" yes (2-1) by Justices Sudhir Agarwal & Dharamveer Sharma. Kindly DO NOT, & I repeat for the sake of your fragile, ill-equipped ego, DO NOT Google search the court verdict PDF as you'll find it "not neutral". Hope after this dressing down (publicly) you'll begin to stand by truth, talk to people politely & learn to research on subjects before approving/disapproving legally tenable edits. But then you edited back Lord Rama to Rama. Sad to see such Hinduphobic extremists guised as editors. What has Wikipedia been reduced to. Sad state of quality. Hope someone intervenes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy9bond (talk • contribs) 18:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- You have completely dodged the question I asked. What part of the source supports the sentence you wrote? This is a Wikipedia requirement:
The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate).
Without doing this you are not going to get anywhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- You have completely dodged the question I asked. What part of the source supports the sentence you wrote? This is a Wikipedia requirement:
The headline. Care to read it? And what made you revert Lord Ram to Ram? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy9bond (talk • contribs) 18:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC) Read: "Disputed site in Ayodhya is Ram's birthplace: High Court The Allahabad High Court on Thursday ruled that the disputed land in Ayodhya where a makeshift temple was built after razing the Babri mosque in 1992 was Lord Ram\'s birthplace." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy9bond (talk • contribs) 19:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, the headlines don't count. They are often sensationalised slogans invented by copy editors. Unless the substance of the headline is written in the body with enough supporting detail, it should be ignored. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- As for "Lord Ram", see WP:RNPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I knew this would be your bigoted reply. Hence copy-pasted the 4 introductory lines of the article. But if the court order doesn't count clearly the content of the article (backing the headline) won't count either. Right? Lol. Jimmy9bond (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- If you keep goiong with these pesonal attacks, you are going to get blocked. So, quit making them and focus on the issues.
- Koenraad Elst[1] does a good job of analysing the Ayodhya judgement. Here is what he says:
Mr. Justice Dharam Veer Sharma opens by affirming: “The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram.” Mr. Justice Sudhir Agarwal concurs: “The area covered under the central dome of the disputed structure is the birthplace of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of Hindus.” The one Muslim on the Bench, Mr. Justice Sibghat Ullah Khan, isn’t equally affirmative on this point, and merely accepts: “That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram”. That is why: “[M]uch before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi [‘Sita’s kitchen’] had come into existence and Hindus were worshipping in the same.”
- So, one judge says that it is the birthplace. One says it is the birthplace by faith and belief, and the third says that at some pont Hindus started identifying it as such. Hardly a unanimous opinion. The Hindustan Times copy editor has to make up a pithy slogan to sell his newspaper. Wikipedia, on the other hand, doesn't sell anything. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ Elst, Koenraad (September 2011), "Ayodhya's three history debates", Journal of Indian History and Culture
1) I had already said that in the 3 judge bench, it was a 2-1 judgement in favour of the Hindus. What great finding have you done in pointing out that the Muslim judge differed although not in entirety? 2) You can start personal attacks by saying "apply your lawyer's mind" or by calling editor of a reputed news daily as one who "make up a pithy slogans to sell his newspaper". But calling out your bigotry is a personal attack. 3) Hindustan Times is not unanimous, but 1 judge out of 3 differs in a judgement, that is accepted as unanimous & must be accepted as the final word on a Wiki page? That's your neutrality?
Go suck on your hypocrisy & block me all you want. Better to lead a life which sees the other side & respects them than to lead a life of a bully who pushes propaganda. Your Karma will strike back at you even if no one watches you one day. Mark my words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy9bond (talk • contribs) 21:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have copied the discussion to Talk:Ram Janmabhoomi. Please post your responses there. I do not wish to receive any more messages from you on my talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Trump campaign–Russian meeting
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trump campaign–Russian meeting. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I need your help. User:Maestro2016 is using this source by Vincent Arthur Smith for Maratha related articles to describe the crimes committed by them. Is this a reliable source? It seems like a lot of old Orantial despot judgment by this 19th-20th century author. User:Maestro2016 seems like using that to spread his POV.[1] (63.143.235.246 (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC))
- As per WP:HISTRS, recent scholarship is more appropriate. If later sources contradict VA Smith, they should take priority. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Utcursch is your expert on this period of history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Credentials of the author aside, Vincent Arthur Smith's books are pretty much obsolete: everything covered in those books has been covered in newer, better sources which do not suffer from colonial-era biases. I wouldn't use his book as a source for the history-related articles. utcursch | talk 17:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Utcursch is your expert on this period of history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ Vincent Arthur Smith (1919), The Oxford History of India, Oxford University Press, page 435-436
- @IP: You make lots of changes on lots of articles, using lots of IPs (all geolocating to the same area...), without discussing your edits, even when told to do so by the multiple editors who have reverted your edits. Causing enough disruption on multiple articles for articles to be protected, just because of you... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thomas.W please read WP:WRONGVERSION, I was defending established content. Utcursch clearly mentioned, VA Smith is an obsolete source. You kept putting it back. Clear NPOV on your part. (2600:1001:B008:460E:A025:8EEC:8978:2D26 (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC))
- @IP I didn't revert you until others had, a quick look at your edits also showed what seems like POV to me, and being the "established version", as you claim, doesn't matter, since everyone is responsible for what they add, no matter how long it had been in the article before being removed. Being reverted means having your edit challenged, which per WP:BRD means that you must discuss it on the talk page before doing it again (unless there's a very good reason for reverting, such as removing vandalism), which you haven't done. And that's why the articles where protected. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC) (PS. When you link to something, please read the page you link to first. WP:WRONGVERSION is, as clearly stated at the top of the page, a humorous page, making fun of people who believe that there really is such a thing as a "right version" or a "wrong version" in a content dispute...)
- Thomas.W please read WP:WRONGVERSION, I was defending established content. Utcursch clearly mentioned, VA Smith is an obsolete source. You kept putting it back. Clear NPOV on your part. (2600:1001:B008:460E:A025:8EEC:8978:2D26 (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC))
- @IP: You make lots of changes on lots of articles, using lots of IPs (all geolocating to the same area...), without discussing your edits, even when told to do so by the multiple editors who have reverted your edits. Causing enough disruption on multiple articles for articles to be protected, just because of you... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
UTC))
- Thomas.W please answer how VA Smith is reliable? You put that obsolete source back. (2600:1001:B008:460E:A025:8EEC:8978:2D26 (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC))
- @IP I have no intention of taking part in that discussion since a quick look at the edits gives the impression that both versions are POV, but for different sides, just like most articles about that part of the world (and also several other parts of the world, for that matter...). So it's up to you and the others to slug it out, but without a revert-war while it's being discussed... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thomas.W please answer how VA Smith is reliable? You put that obsolete source back. (2600:1001:B008:460E:A025:8EEC:8978:2D26 (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC))
UTC))
IP, I have advised you before to register an account. Unless you have an established track record, it will be difficult for people to take you seriously. Making unregistered edits is only good for minor edits that are non-controversial. If you want to get into long debates, continuity is needed.
Secondly, when an edit is reverted, the standard recommendation is for you to open a discussion on the article's talk page. You should do that and ping Utcursch from there so that he can offer his opinion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
By typing in a message?... Oh, and using the link, witht eh heart-symbol, in the tabs at top of the talkpage. Typically, you won't see this link at your own talkpage! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC) |
- Oh, great! I never relaized that the heart symbol generates a much better message than the templates. Thanks very much! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Make your own message!
Make your own message! | |
Ah, and if you use "Make your own," and photoshop or GIMP in combination with an online GIF-maker, you can stretch the boundaries of your creativity faaaaaaaar beyond the limitations of those pre-figured templates :) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC) |
Indian subcontinent
I guess it's deeply painfull, if not impossible, for Indian nationalists to admit that the Vedic culture came from Pakistan, so to speak. Also because, and I've seen this argument at a forum, because it would mean that Islam is no more invasive than the oldest core of Hinduism, which would put Islam at an equal status as Hinduism, and relegate the Vedic culture to the status of an invasive culture. It would also mean that the Dravidian nationalists and the Dalits have got a point when they state that they were in India before the Vedic people, and that the oldest Indian culture is the Dravidian and tribal culture, which were incorporated into "Hinduism," that is, into the synthesis of the Vedic-Kuru/Bharat culture and indigenous cultures and religions. Painfull... I can understand that these discussions, including IAmt, are so loaded in India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, the problem is also the term "Vedic" itself, which promotes the myth that there was only one Vedic culture. The Rigvedic Aryans were jihadists, not unlike the Turkic invaders of the 2nd millennium AD. But the rest of the Vedas were developed inside India, in the Kuru state, which represent a synthesis between the Indians and the Aryans. The Mahabharata war represents a conflict between the two groups in which the "jihadists" were defeated. So it wasn't at all a loss for the Indians, but only for the modern day Vedic propagandists. (I wouldn't stretch the Ayan-Dravidian distinction too far. There were enough Dravidian words in the Vedic Sanskrit itself and, later, the Dravidian gods entirely jettisoned the Aryan gods and the later languages labelled "Indo-Aryan" by linguists are really Dravidian languages that borrowed Indo-Aryan words. Linguists haven't bothered to explain anomalies like why Hindi should use a Dravidian word for the horse!) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Musunuri Nayaks
Mallampalli Somasekhar Sharma and Prasad are two prominent historians to say Musunuri Nayaks are Kammas. Musunuri surname is only present in Kamma caste based on that they theorised caste of Musunuri Nayaks. How can u say caste identities doesn't exist until last stages of Vijayanagar empire????After formation of Caste identities only the House names for Telugu people are formed. Based on useless kaifiats some people told Madurai nayaks as balijas though there is no supporting evidence for those kaifiats. Though Musunuri is present only in Kamma y can't u people recognize them as Kammas???? Rajal naikil (talk) 08:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Kamma caste
Remove the ancient history section. Its absolutely rubbish there is no proof to say Kammas came from kurmis....this is not encyclopedic Rajal naikil (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) I don't suppose you know Reforety, by any chance? Or perhaps their, ahem, "friend", Rajesh rao kumar? You're doing similar stuff to them and it is likely to end up with the same outcome, ie: you will be blocked. - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Badme
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Badme. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buddhakahika. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kautilya3,
The following shows that you removed what I consider to be a part that balances a one-sided, biased exposition. Can you add back what you removed? Thanks.
- 17:33, 17 August 2017 Kautilya3 (talk | contribs) . . (10,997 bytes) (-2,998) . . (All this content better belongs in the 2017 China-India border standoff article) (undo | thank) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam4math (talk • contribs)
- @Adam4math:, you need to explain on the article talk page why the present content lacks balance. And, please make sure that you understand what WP:BALANCE means before you do so. Wikipedia's BALANCE means balancing reliable sources, not balancing China and India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Taking this to the article talk page will only waste my time under the current wikipedia policy, because it is overwhelmed/populated by editors in India which is a party in the dispute, with more than one billion people inundated by the media so most are biased on the dispute on Doklam. I will not be their match discussing the issue on that page to get a consensus. Since I have work, family etc to take care, I do not have that kind of time. The current wikipedia policy on hotly disputed topics needs to change as I told you before. If it were a non-controversial issue, I would be glad to bring this (and all the articles related to the current dispute on Doklam) to the talk page. Please, again, do not misunderstand me and charge me of bringing nationalities and ethnic origins into the discussion - This about India as a party in the dispute, as in court cases.
- I consider it harassment when someone persistently misuses wikipedia policy to question my integrity and judgement in handling the articles related to Doklam. Did you notice that I just added a paragraph for on the single most important and the only official document India released in order to strengthen its case and help the reader to understand better the situation, along with its "convenient and official link" at India Ministry of External Affairs? But what did you do with my edits? What did the other editors in India do with my edits? Do you understand what the media hyped (whether in India or China) does not matter, but everything goes back to what the law says in this standoff, and the document I added for India side is the only legal document that matters so far for its case?
- I initially thought maybe it was China's fault in the dispute Manoj Joshi and Mr. Sourabh Gupta and other patriotic Indians, face the truth and reality and educate India public about it, avoid using threatening words like you said in another note to me about your country's attitude towards China. Help bring the standoff to a peaceful and happy end and live peacefully with your neighbor China. Imagine what would have happened if India had a neighbor like a western country other than China. China has peacefully settled its land-based border disputes with all its 14 neighbors except India and Bhutan, but India is using security and other lame reasons as excuses to prevent Bhutan from reaching border agreement with China. And India is blaming China for treating it so special from what I read in India sources. China is working hard to settle its maritime disputes peacefully with all its maritime neighbors, and so far not a single bullet was fired. I only wish one day, there are no borders between any countries and people all over the world can live together peacefully. Adam4math (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC) . But as I get thoroughly educated on the matter, truth emerged to me. As I advised you before, be brave and truly patriotic as Dr.