This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
On 4 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Peacebuilding in Jammu and Kashmir, which you recently co-nominated. The fact was ... that cases against 9,700 Kashmiri youth in India were withdrawn by the government as part of its "healing touch" policy for peacebuilding in Jammu and Kashmir? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Peacebuilding in Jammu and Kashmir. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
You deserve equal credits for your valuable advice on this article's talk page, while preparing this nomination. Cheers. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 07:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
What makes u assume that your version is the correct version? Let other editors take a call on that. Moreover, whats wrong in having sub headings?[[ 2409:4070:2091:CA61:0:0:354:D8A0 ( talk) 15:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)]]
whats up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulipiiiiiu ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
∯WBG converse 13:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Why have you reverted the edits that I made to 'Kashmir Conflict' page under 2016 unrest. Your figures of the casualities are not up to date. You reverted the casualities back to 40 dead and 2000 injured, which was at the begining of the uprising, while the numbers surged to over 100 dead and 17,000 injured. I gave refernce from the Guardian article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.108.234 ( talk) 21:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Should we be concerned about what has been going on at Sengunthar recently? I am a bit preoccupied in real life. - Sitush ( talk) 14:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kautilya, can you please check the sources I have mentioned at Talk:Raju. Sitush reverted all my edits stating the sources were unreliable which I don't understand why. The article just states one author's views as general views and is not at all balanced. Thanks. Sharkslayer87 ( talk) 13:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilpa kaur ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 5 August 2018
I was only trying to best describe the group while keeping a neutral standpoint. Now it says Islamist Militant group on the page instead of Terrorist. These definitions always lead to edit wars. I had no intent here other than this. Pranav ( talk) 13:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Would you be able to have a look at Draft:Ladakh division? Appears legit, but this topic area has seen a bit of subtle hoaxing lately, so I can't be entirely sure. – Uanfala (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Kautilya. Chinnaraiu ( talk) 09:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I want to bring to your notice that kammanadu stretched beyond Krishna river. The first reference to kammanadu comes from inscription at jaggayyapeta located in modern day Krishna district Chinnaraiu ( talk) 09:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok i added them. Please check it Chinnaraiu ( talk) 20:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User:Hikmatullah_Sudhan
This person keeps on reincarnating as someone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.38.137.66 ( talk) 21:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Please read the reply to your welcome on the talkpage for your reasonable answer. You contributed a second welcome 126.243.85.139 ( talk) 18:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion, duly noted, yet the alteration was most certainly of good use to readers; it`s not as if one were trying to unilaterally change "Indian Ocean" to "African Ocean". II understand your pont, and stand embarrassed as my skin turned red. The image on nation-state does seem a bit pale, but I stand by the contribution. 126.243.85.139 ( talk) 18:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Please stop following my edits. It's called WP:FOLLOWING. If you continue to do so you will find yourself at ANI. MehrajMir (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
You might wish to see Template:Did you know nominations/Warwan Valley. ∯WBG converse 19:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Kautilya3 ~ You completely deleted my input. I'm not interested in a petty edit war but you asked me to provide sources in "The forward policy"
Forward policy is a famous policy made by Nehru
You want sources. Here they are ~
https://www.deccanherald.com/content/392828/forward-policy-nehru-govt-blamed.html
"The "Forward Policy" of the government under late Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and the then army leadership has been blamed for India's humiliating defeat in 1962 war against China in a top secret report accessed an Australian journalist" aka The Henderson Brooks report.
Chinese never accepted the McMahon Line. The Chinese know exactly where it lies; they simply don't recognize it as legitimate since they never signed the Simla Accord. So this isn't a case of reneging on a prior commitment / agreement; there was no agreement on the part of the Chinese.
And that's not all: the Simla Accord claimed that Tibet was under Chinese suzerainty. Suzerainty means control over domestic affairs but delegating control over foreign affairs to the suzerain. To me, it seems that the Simla Accord was never a valid agreement because the party that agreed to it, Tibet, did not have the legal capacity to agree to it under the terms of the agreement itself!
So to be clear, the Indian Army had set up outposts NORTH above the McMahon Line in what was Chinese territory: IF you go to wikipedia and lookup nehru and his forward policy.
"In June, local Indian commanders had estab- lished Dhola Post, in Tawang. The relevant issue was that Dhola Post was one mile north of the McMahon Line, in Chinese territory even by Indian standards."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm
All of this was after the Chinese had built a road across Aksai Chin. So there are plenty of sources and established reasoning behind my words
Undelete my input and add in the source. Don't just remove completely and fyi, i was not the one who originally added india into the article. So you deleted other people's work too.
I also noticed that you have been flagged for petty edit warring in the past. 120.18.180.210 ( talk) 18:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
No offence mate, but please do not gaslight me as that is not a valid reason. If you read the first paragraph.
"A Forward Policy is a set of foreign policy doctrines applicable to territorial and border disputes, in which emphasis is placed on securing control of disputed areas by invasion and annexation, or by the creation of compliant buffer states.[1]"
It is not about a specific" forward policy". Forward policy in this article, is not a name for a historically specific policy but an umbrella term to categorise and explain ALL forward policies doctrines in history and future, in general.
The "forward policy" in the Sino-indian war could not be more relevant to the article and is just as EQUALLY relevant to the "forward policy" used in the Great Game. It's both named "forward policy" abd additionally a forward policy doctrine in itself
If you are going to delete IT. You might as well also delete "great game" as they are both significant case examples of a "forward policy doctrine'.
It is named" "Forward policy" PLUS it is also a forward policy doctrine. 🙊 It has BOTH the name and the categorization of a forward policy doctrine. Don't get confused.
Nehru was the one who created the doctrine in response to the border disputes with China, in which emphasis is indeed placed on securing control of disputed areas by invasion. I explained that fully.
Also if you look at past history of the page. Other people have already added it in as they recognised and included it as a an example of a forward policy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Forward_Policy&oldid=724794837 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.180.210 ( talk) 20:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
If your English is lacking, i apologise for accusing you of gaslighting but i know you made a mistake here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.180.210 ( talk) 20:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
dude, I'm a native English speaker and I can easily comprehend that article is not about the Great Game "forward policy" in particular.
It's about all "forward policies" in general. Also Nehruvian "forward policy" was not alleged as it actually happened. Historians don't dispute it and in fact refer to it often.
Indian posts were indeed placed above of mcmahon line by Nehru's orders. That's not even disputed by anyone including the west, indian government and china.
Harvard–Yenching Institute wrote a peer reviewed paper.
Regardless this article is not about the Great Game "forward policy". Not sure if you actually understand me perfectly but are dishonestly gaslighting me, but the first paragraph literally writes as :
"A Forward Policy is a set of foreign policy doctrines applicable to territorial and border disputes, in which emphasis is placed on securing control of disputed areas by invasion and annexation, or by the creation of compliant buffer states"
It's a general article about forward policies and the great games was merely a single example of one. The Sino-indian forward policy is also another example. But the article is not about a particular forward policy but ALL FORWARD POLICIES and its criterion.
Please get someone who is familiar with English at a native level, as they will agree with me in a heartbeat. Not trying to be rude but this seems more like an argument between native English-speaking people and non native English language people.
This will be my last message and final but kind warning.. That you are incorrect and need to realise that. I am not going to spend further time to fight you over this as i have my own life but i hope you can open your mind and ask a third party who is preferably born in a western country and tell you who is correct. Because this is just too ridiculous and tiring and we are just going around in circles here. Arguing about silly basic English semantics. 😕🤨
120.18.180.210 ( talk) 21:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
In addition, this article is about the "forward policy" doctrine. The first sentence is literally the criterion. Which defines a 'forward policy" doctrine.
As you see, Nehru doctrine completely satisfies the definition with flying colors plus it is not a coincidence that it's also referred by academics as the "forward policy", as that is essentially what it is.
My beef is that the 2 forward policies used in the great games and lead-up to sino—indian war, are both examples of forward policies and additionally are arguably the most 2 most significant "forward policies" in modern history.
It makes no sense to delete one historic "forward policy" but leave another. Hence why I suspect indian nationalistic censoring here very strongly. I will change it but not at all interested in playing petty games if that's what is really happening. I don't want to edit it and 5 months later. It gets deleted with another bad but suspiciously underhanded excuse. 120.17.233.32 ( talk) 02:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gab (social network). Legobot ( talk) 04:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syrian Civil War. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian law. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Operation_Python#March_2019. ∯WBG converse 07:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Asia topic. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Conspiracy theory. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, someone is messing with the article Kamma (caste). Can you please fix it. Cheers. Sharkslayer87 ( talk) 02:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Swedes. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Now the socks have been blocked, I've pretty brutally taken the chainsaw to Nizams of Hyderabad, and had a poke at Mir Osman Ali Khan. I may have accidentally eaten something of value (indeed, something added by you); I certainly won't take it amiss if you undo bits of what was a quick and radical excision. Pinkbeast ( talk) 00:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Kammas only talk telugu as thier mother tongue. Please kindly remove Tamil word from the header section Ventrun ( talk) 14:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello Kautilya, Thank you for your commitment to ensuring fair and unbiased standards in Wikipedia articles, especially caste ones. Though I have a concern. If you look at Reddy one and compare it to the Kamma one it’s clearly an unfair construction. In the Reddy one it states, “At one time they were a warrior caste and later became feudal overlords and peasant proprietors.[1][2] Historically they have been the land-owning aristocracy of the villages.[3][4][5] Traditionally, they were a diverse community of merchants and cultivators.[1][6][7] Their prowess as rulers and warriors is well documented in Telugu history.” The Kamma starts of by saying that are simply agricultural families and doesn’t discuss their warrior status, like the Reddi article. Moreover, the Reddy article has many notable and well deserved historical leaders mentioned, but Kammas aren’t able to mention Pemmasani Ramalinga Naidu, Venkatadri Naidu, or other notable historical members from the group in the respective sections. When someone adds them or anything speculative, it’s instantly removed, despite the facts that the Reddies speculate to be Rashtrakutas on their page. The Reddies have phrase “analagous to Kshatriyas”, but the Kammas, despite having the same social status don’t have it on their Wikipedia page. The same thing goes for the Velama article where it proudly mentions their zamindari ancestry (though Kammas have them do to) but neglect to mention to their agricultural status. Why can’t the same standards apply to both communities? Why can’t we cite the historians who believe Kammas are descended from the Kamboja Clan or a mixture of Haihayas, Durjayas, Chalukyas, and Chodas. Why can’t we Note their “analagous to Kshatriyas” in the Varna status like it’s done for Rajus. Why can’t Kamma zamindaris be referenced like the Velamas? Why can’t pictures of Gandikota or the Battle of Raichur (which Krishnadevaraya credited to Pemmasanis) be put in the Kamma article. We can make it clear that it’s speculative. I want to work with you on this. I’m not going to hide the fact that I’m a Kamma, but I hope you can see why this is unfair. Will you work with me on a reasonable basis to fix this? I have done research and have a list of primary source and reliable documents that meet Wikipedia standards. I trust you to help me with this. Vivek987270 ( talk) 02:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
References
I understand Ms. Cynthia's work. But many other historians and Harrison say that the Musunuri nayaks are Kammas and that Kammas are warriors. We can definitely include that as it is sourced. To this day, Pemmasani is a surname found only in Kammas, and it openly acknowledges in another section of the caste page that Pemmasani Ramalinga Naidu is a Kamma. In that same breath, I have provided a litany of suggestions to improve the article (includig mentioning of Experts Naidu, warrior occupation of Kammas, Musunuri Nayaks, the Kamma Zamindars during the British Raj, and etc.) The current wikipedia page totally washes over their martial/warrior roots. Now with Cynthia's work, with all due respect to her, she is in the minority view ln this topic in scholars and Srinata in Bheemeshwara Puranam mentions Kammas and Velamas as separate groups. That point alone negates hee argument, but the fact the regional historians disagree with her should raise eyebrows too. If Sitish can help, that would be appreciated.
Vivek987270 ( talk) 13:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
"We state what the scholarly sources say." This may be true for other caste pages, but not Kammas. There is a clear neglect of the Musunuri Kayaks, Kamma Zamindars, The warrior status of kammas (harrison and benheballi explicitly say this), and etc. If what you say is true, i have provided scholarly citations on the Kamma talk page abour these points. I hope you enact them. Othewise use Talbot's work and remove the Rashtrakutas and Reddy Dynasty from the Reddy page since caste groups, according to her, were formed after the Vijayanagara Empire. You can't have double standards. Vivek987270 ( talk) 13:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Kautilya3 I came to you in good faith for edits. Instead, you deleted an entire section of the Musunuri Nayaks being Kammas today after I mentioned it, despite the fact that regional historians believe they are and you failed to mention the viewpoint of regional historians. Moreover, you could have used this time, which you used to delete sourced content that was achieved after a consensus on the talk page, to edit the Reddy and Velama articles since you believe Talbot is correct. I guess "When I have time to edit" is your excuse to not edit them, but you seemingly did find time to edit out the Kamma link to the Musunuri Nayaks. I hope you will return the good faith work by having a discussion to reach a consensus. So, what can we add to the Kamma page from the sourced content I provided.
Vivek987270 (
talk)
Kautilya3 That statement is ironic because no where do I see "aristocratic", "best warriors in Telugu states" "Reddy Dynasty", "Kshatriya", or anything of that sort in the Kamma article but it is present in the Reddies, despite them having the same social status and history. I am not shooting one down. I am asking for equal standards to apply. You removed the view of regional historians that Kammas were Musunuris and cited Talbot's view. I say fine. Remove the Reddy Dynasty information from the Reddy article since Talbot's standard applies to them. If you chose not, then why did you remove the Kamma mentions of the Musunuris and are not engaging with me on sourced edits to balance the article? With all due respect, I will continue posting here with sourced work that follows the rules of Wikipedia. You clearly have an anti-Kamma bias, as I have pro. I was hoping we could work together on reasonable edits that show the whole picture, but your apparent prejudices are quite clear. Vivek987270 ( talk)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Party of Canada. Legobot ( talk) 04:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Nice column by Razib Khan. Tells a lot with a 'little' anecdote. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Ran into this passage today:
Had varna rank been crucial to social recognition and prestige during that time, we would observe a greater number of royal and chiefly lineages advancing claims to kshatriya status. The fact that they did not do so is an indication of the relative insignificance of varna for non-brahmins in the thirteenth century. In other words, the classical varna scheme was a paradigm that was meaningful primarily to those individuals who considered themselves brahmins. Current research suggests that consciousness of varna became stronger during the colonial period, partially as a result of the listing of castes according to varna affiliation in the Census of India (Cohn 1984, Pederson 1986). [1]
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
References
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kautilya, Thanks for reviewing my edits. One contributor asked to provide evidence that jaati refers to caste in Tamil language. I provided that reference. It's unfortunate that you have decided to classify my edits as "not needed". Do you agree that "jaati" is the word used to refer to "caste" in Tamil language (i am not sure about other languages)? If yes, then we should make it clear to the reader of the article. If you dont agree, lets discuss to come to the same understanding. Thanks, arun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barunskumar ( talk • contribs) 15:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kautilya, yes - Jati is mentioned, along with Varna. It equates Varna to Class according to occupation...which is fair. But the Jati section explains the origins of jati and perspectives of different historians. AND IT DOES NOT SAY JATI REFERS TO CASTE IN INDIAN LANGUAGES (atleast in Tamilnadu). I think we should mention the fact that common people use the term jati to refer to caste. The way the first 3 sections are organized currently, many folks are going to assume caste is portugese origin english word and it has no relation to jati in india. That's why i want to add that clarification. Please let me know if I have missed out some section which equates jati to caste. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barunskumar ( talk • contribs)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump). Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
This change not acceptable Rutvesh ( talk) 17:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics. Legobot ( talk) 04:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fascism in Europe. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair. Legobot ( talk) 04:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MS-13. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
You are most welcome sir.
Fylindfotberserk (
talk)
09:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ronna McDaniel. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
From your comments on the Talk page of this article, it appears that you consider that you are in some sort of dispute with me. I have no idea what this dispute is supposed to be about. Sweet6970 ( talk) 12:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
for this. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:David_Frawley&diff=898228437&oldid=898034601 Weird allegations. ∯WBG converse 07:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
>> I am continuing the discussion on caste/jati from archived discussion..which i cannot comment on >>
Hi Kautilya, Please explain how Jati is more nuanced than caste...with references (I am not talking about what caste meant to portugese or english. I am talking about what caste means to indians). And then please add that to the section explaining why u dont want to equate it to caste (with references) & i can add a section explaining why i think both are same. Let the readers decide on the point/argument that appeals on them. In colloquial usage in tamil, both words mean the same. For common references like wikipedia, mentioning this important...imho.
Thanks for ur time. Regards. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barunskumar ( talk • contribs)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Frankfurt School. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Reference: Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, "Tahdhib al-Tahdhib", Volume 7, 226. "Al-Hajjāj, wrote to Muhammad bin Qasim Thaqafi to summon Atiyya and ask him to curse Ali ibn Abi Talib and, in the event of his refusal to do so, to slash him four hundred times and to shave his head and beard. Muhammad summoned Atiyya and read over al-Hajjāj's letter to him so that he might choose one of the two alternatives. Atiyya declined to curse Ali and agreed to the alternative"
Kautilya3, You could edit the heading but not delete the text after a credible reference was provided from book of history much reliable than chachnama or other books cited already in this article. Although chachnama too is a source that has its place. Ibn Hajar's work is not only a history book but it also follows the rules of Hadith science of Islamic tradition. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim ( talk) 18:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Ibn Hajar is considered to be one of the most authentic historians by academics. His work Tahdhib al Tahdhib is one of the most credible books in hadith science, one that deals with authenticity of Hadith. When scholars debate about Hadith of Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim, they quote his work. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim ( talk) 22:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric, you said that my ping somewhere didn't work. Checking to see if this works. If it does, please say 'aye'. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I am asking for assistance in dispute resolution
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! regarding our disagreement on "Revolt of Al-Ash'ath and Muhammad bin Qasim". I hope it helps, Best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Hamza Ebrahim ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Hamza Ebrahim ( talk • contribs) 12:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
You are most welcome.
Fylindfotberserk (
talk)
17:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Legobot ( talk) 04:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Schoharie limousine crash. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Dear Kautilya,
I am supposing you have perused my arguments. If you indeed have, then what's your opinion on the same? Do you find them convincing? Have I laid out all the requisite facts? I'd be grateful if you also point out the flaws in it, except for certain gratuitously rhetorical comments that I'd made, which I'd beseech you to overlook.
Best,
On 17 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 2016 the Indian Army advised replacing pellet guns with non-lethal pepper guns, sonic cannons, and chili grenades to manage violent riots in Jammu and Kashmir? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 00:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:China–United States trade war. Legobot ( talk) 04:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kautilya, are you busy these days? Sharkslayer87 ( talk) 18:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For tirelessly dealing with endless castecruft from the likes of ForeverKnowledgeSeeker & Co.. utcursch | talk 01:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC) |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
This BLP is notable?— Bukhari (Talk!) 12:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rojava. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Indigenous intellectual property. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I gave verified link to support my modification and I can give more such links that clearly shows that Romila Thapar is Marxist historian . In fact she confessed that history not only depends on facts but also depends on historians ideology . Her way of writing history clearly shows that she believes in Marxist histography and she called her critics as right wing Hindutva historian which means that she considers herself as a Marxist historian. Birat Roy007 ( talk) 12:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I greatly appreciate your moderating the discussion at the talkpage. Let me know if it becomes too much of a time-sink and the editors need to be directed to DRN, or if other admin-y interventions are needed (article protection, warnings, restrictions, topic-bans etc). Thanks again. Abecedare ( talk) 13:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kautilya3, thanks for joining in. I have I think discovered a key reason for the current dispute: the article was written about what an academic might call Singleton's vision of modern yoga, viz, the yoga that is practised by millions around the world consisting mainly of asanas with a bit of pranayama and relaxation thrown in, sometimes a little meditation and possibly a bit of chanting and other spiritual elements too; but excluding the religious-sect kinds of yoga where it's all about a guru and there's little or no asana practice, which (let's face it) most of the public wouldn't recognise as "yoga". Singleton observed that "yoga" so defined (as it is known outside India, corresponding approximately but not exactly with "yogasana" in India) does not fit into any of Elizabeth De Michelis's categories (the nearest is "Modern Postural Yoga", but that would exclude its other often minor components; and my first attempt at a title for the article was accordingly "Yoga (postural)" as that seemed to be most of it, but it is clunky and didn't exactly fit, so I changed it, see the talk page). In other words, the article is about "modern Singletonian yoga" (we urgently need a name that works...) not De Michelis' parent category "Modern Yoga" (capital letters). I am concerned that editors imagine that the article is however about the De Michelis category, in which case it would be basically an academic discussion of typology (a possible topic but for a different article). This article has been until this week about something non-academic, the yoga that is widely practiced, and I am worried because the new definition that has been inserted makes it look as though the article's goal and subject has been changed, which is not acceptable practice. I've actually never faced a problem of this scale on Wikipedia, and I've written hundreds of major articles. Your suggestions, advice, and assistance would be warmly welcomed, as I wish to deal with this sensibly and rationally in the face of a continued dispute with a tone that is not at all comfortable. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
This book investigates the rise to prominence of āsana (posture) in modern, transnational yoga. Today yoga is virtually synonymous in the West with the practice of āsana, and postural yoga classes can be found in great number in virtually every city in the Western world...
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mehrajmir13. Regards, ∯WBG converse 07:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bill Shorten. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
For all the tps's, who, like me, might have had their heads down while the storm was passing, time for a catch-up:
And the drama stage itself. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I've started again at User:Chiswick Chap/Yae and would be grateful for your thoughts. The task is easier without the need for pre-modern history, and with the sharper definition (modern denominational yoga, etc, are now excluded). I've redone the comparison to have similarities as well as differences. Most of the rest seems to me quite neutral, even with a quantity of hindsight actually, but you may think otherwise? Certainly there's no attempt anywhere to force a story on to the facts, which are plentiful and reliably cited. The intention is to cut down the -as-exercise bits in the other article, and to put in placeholders for the other kinds of modern yoga for whoever fancies it to fill in, so the overlaps will greatly reduce. In theory.
I've reworked the Yoga as exercise draft for strict neutrality, but I'm now so close to it that another pair of eyes would be very valuable on that question. I've also gone through anything that might be thought OR; again I really can't see any, but your thoughts would be most useful.
All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Waskom, Texas. Legobot ( talk) 04:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! ==
By LovSLif ( talk) 09:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gatestone Institute. Legobot ( talk) 04:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Free Palestine Movement. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States involvement in regime change. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ilhan Omar. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
hi can you have a look at this user:Pak-Egale really making mess of articles related to the topic, may be a sock ? quite amazed at other users jumping in together , no idea where to complain Shrikanthv ( talk) 13:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Southern strategy. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
How can IAF be removed as 1965 war and Kargil 1999 war whose epicenter was Kashmir...IAF had been a very important part of it....and then you have balakot airstrikes and then next day dogfight between India and Pakistan air forces... Mayank Prasoon ( talk) 15:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
If it is so then the name of air chief Marshal of IAF B.S Dhanoa be also removed from infobox template of Kashmir conflict page...since IAF had no role in Kashmir conflict...as my edits were reverted Mayank Prasoon ( talk) 15:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh okay so rather remove the entire infobox and just add the name of political leaders then Mayank Prasoon ( talk) 14:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Good work on Article 370. GSwarnkar 16:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC) |
Hi Kautilya I was flicking through the Gilgit-Baltistan page and in the first few paragraphs it stated that International organisations and the United nations refer to Azad and Gilgit as Pakistan administered Kashmir but they also referred to Indian side as administered by India regardless of whether it is union territory now so do you think its necessary to mention this? I think it's a bit unfair if it's high lighted prominently on Gilgit-Baltistan but not Jammu and Kashmir page double standards if you ask me please reply with a suggestion. - 82.132.243.110 ( talk) 20:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The same statement applies to Indian administered Kashmir so why is this statement only present on Gilgit and Azad Kashmir article it's a bit biased on my opinion. I wish to avoid edit wars and get people like you involved who are mature and balanced because it quickly degenerates into edit wars. 82.132.243.110 ( talk) 21:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
[1] This articles first reference regards it as a autonomous territory of Pakistan from the Pakistani Beurea of Statistics it's only fair to have this as the way to describe it. 82.132.243.110 ( talk) 22:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Can you help me to demand two way interaction ban with user who is constantly reverting my edits, being hostile, nominating my page for deletion and pushes POV on me? I just want interaction ban on that user so that he can't do it further. -- Harshil want to talk? 11:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
After the discontinuation of Article 370 in the J&K region, Pakistan can no longer claim the region, Pakistan is already scared for PoK and hasn't yet announced a claim again on the J&K region. Also, It had been an integral part of India in the past which makes India it's parent country, has a parent country can and should claim over the disputed territory and the daughter country can no longer claim on the regions of the parent country.
is it playing out over Kashmir related articles? ∯WBG converse 13:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Next United Kingdom general election. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Why are you publicizing an ignorant person like Ramchandra Guha on this article? Dagana4 ( talk) 23:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi , Regarding the the reverted edit Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ram_Janmabhoomi&oldid=prev&diff=910072388 , Can you explain why did you revert the Citation required tag. Irfannaseefp ( talk) 15:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Kautilya, an Indian Wikipedia editor, told Dawn by email! Hmmm, Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 13:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, well, in my input I mainly bad-mouthed the newspapers, including Dawn. Obviously she didn't put that in. I told her specifically how The Hindu and New York Times ensured accuracy, while all other South Asian papers fell short. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
In the case of Kashmir, the other 2 areas of the country that are truly administered are so out of an administration agreement which was followed by occupation. This area I changed was first occupied then forced to be administerrd, thus not truly administration in origin, but occupation in origin. The other arras, tho not happy w/either the foreign administration AND origin nevertheless agreed to the foreign administration. The area I changed did not agree, wish, nor desire both administration nor ocvupation from the beginning. Hence the change/edit to the page. Thx. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambein ( talk • contribs)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Suicide of Leelah Alcorn. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Meghan Murphy. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Lakshmisreekanth ( talk) has given you vanilla ice cream! Vanilla ice cream promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else vanilla ice cream, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
You must be working hard about Jammu and Kashmir. Have some ice cream.
To spread the goodness of vanilla ice cream, you can add {{ subst:Vanilla ice cream}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Why did you cancel my edits to the above page? Makes no sense. I had just added some info which everybody knows about. I added that PDP and BJP formed an alliance government in 2015. Check these links : https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-agenda-for-alliance-full-text-of-the-agreement-between-pdp-and-bjp-2065446 (about 2015) and (after Mufti's death, a new agreement) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30585105 . Only people who are extremely ignorant would be unaware of these simple facts. Why would you remove that info from wiki pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.160.115 ( talk) 18:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I got your message on my talk page. I understand we all are working for an unbiased and informative Wikipedia where rather then promoting a particular agenda we provide the insight into the topic of article. The additions which I want to add were in line with same principle. You told me I am free to add the allegations made by army on Sheila Rashid and I added what I found. I even added the recent statement made by her concerning the allegations. Even after giving a long summary with clear meaning my edits got reverted only because the editor thinks I added soundbytes and contradictions ? How adding counter allegations made by an organization against which the original statements were made and adding recent statements made by the person contradictions? I hope you understand and give a proper explanation before reverting and assuming that I am going in for an edit war. AnadiDoD ( talk) 20:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
there is no doubt in Ranjit's Singh's ancestry Neither his clan claim Rajut ancestry.I personally know the royal family.Everybody know who Ranjit Singh was and he is never mentioned Sansi I can give reference but I will remove these claims 1000 times because the truth is the truth Ponia.sp ( talk) 04:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Kautilya3 please stay unbiased and neutral. Keep Wikipedia free from your unjustified assertions. Ngnrpu ( talk) 23:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Article 370 is not a Special provision to J&K but a temperory one. Vishalmenon ( talk) 15:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Then what is the purpose of undoing my edit? Vishalmenon
Find it out.The sentence was confusing and contradictory.So corrected it. Vishalmenon
Kashmir is a United Nations nominated disputed region and its borders and status will be decided by United Nations based plebiscite. Any politically biased assertions ok any article contradicts the international laws. Kindly stay neutral and avoid Hindu supremacist ideology away from Wikipedia. If you need training the he contact Wikipedia foundation or me. Ngnrpu ( talk) 23:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the revert linked above - is it the content you disagree with or simply the sentence structure? In other words will you allow the content back in the article if I alter the sentence structure? -- Edit-pi ( talk) 12:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Indian revocation of any article and making Kashmiri Muslims slaves by using cerfews is against United Nations based resolutions. Please keep facts clear and right and avoid vandalism. Ngnrpu ( talk) 23:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kirkland & Ellis. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Are you sure this page move was a good idea? - INX Media case to INX Media case against P. Chidambaram. Maybe the article just now focuses mainly on P. Chidambaram but then the case as a whole isn't only about him and a lot of information is available which can include others related to the case. Comments? DiplomatTesterMan ( talk) 02:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 El Paso shooting. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For your good work on " Article 370 of the Constitution of India" as the top contributor of the page and keeping it in good shape when it was in the list of top viewed pages of Wikipedia. DBig Xrayᗙ 06:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC) |
References
Was it an Indian victory or not? Dagana4 ( talk) 14:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Did you see this? [4] - LouisAragon ( talk) 16:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey Kautilya! I made the article Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (amendment) Bill along with reorganisation bill. Now, this page has been proposed to the deletion. I saw that you expanded the article of reorganisation bill. In my opinion, even if bill is withdrawn, bill is still notable and historical and enough details are available. Can you please help me to expand this article? -- Harshil want to talk? 03:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Boris Johnson. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
If there is ambiguity regarding the terminology of Indian administered or Indian state, why don't you take a look at Mangla Dam. The dam's location is mentioned as Azad Kashmir there. If Kishanganga Project is termed to fall in "Indian-administered Kashmir" why is Mangla Dam not named to be located in Pakistan-administered Kasmir? Afterall it also falls in the disputed area. So I am going to revert your edit. There cannot be this sort of double standard editing. Trojanishere ( talk) 09:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Trojanishere
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Koch. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Kautilya3,
If it fits into your interests, could you keep an eye on this article? It was the subject of a lot of disruption in the past day that took me a while to unravel. It doesn't look like you've edited this article but I'd appreciate it if some experienced editors had it on their watchlist in case it gets moved again to any unusual new page titles. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, to be clear, what the user is trying to do is to merge all three articles into one Shia Islam in the Indian subcontinent, and redirect the India- and Pakistan-specific titles to this page. The structure broadly makes sense to me, but I think there is a lot more country-specific stuff for Pakistan which might warrant a separate article (e.g., the Shia-Sunni conflicts, the militant outfits, the Gilgit-Baltistan stuff etc.)
As to the "Indian subcontinent" vs "South Asia" debate, I don't have strong opinions. I used to favour "Indian subcontinent", but I have come to accept "South Asia" as a suitable alternative. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage. Legobot ( talk) 04:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kautilya3, I have reverted your edit on the talk page here as the thread was started by EH and the edit was not helpful in anyway. I have asked him to open a thread. he will start if he wishes to. FYI, A discussion on exact same topic is being done elsewhere at Talk:Operation_Blue_Star#Replace_human_shield_claim_of_unknown_origin_with_UK_claim. So it is upto him where he wishes to engage. regards.-- DBig Xrayᗙ 11:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
To call Pakistani Occupied Kashmir anything other than occupied is in fact biased towards Pakistan. By referring to it as such, you are giving validity to the occupation of India by Pakistan, as you would understand if you look at the fact that Kashmir became a part of India in 1947, and Pakistan subsequently invaded it. Even the UN has requested that Pakistan leave Kashmir before anything goes further. I request that you revert your deletion of my edit, for the view that is currently expressed is indeed the biased one, and referring to Kashmir that is not a part of Indian control as occupied would be quite accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalobabo ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Democrat Party. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sahar Khodayari. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Right-wing politics. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey Kautilya, I can see you reported one user but he reverted my two edits on that page. Kindly, add those two too in the report. — Harshil want to talk? 12:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
What's going on with this article? The second para of the lead reads well but the first paragraph is a mess of maybes and possiblies about Jainism. Could you take a look when you get the chance?-- regentspark ( comment) 16:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israeli settlement. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Namaste, Kautilya3. We would like to inform you about the recent changes to the WikiProject. As you may know, the old newsletter for WikiProject India ceased circulation in 2010. Now we have re-launched the newsletter in a new way. As a member, you are cordially invited to subscribe to the newsletter. Thank you.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the update, still learning the protocol here. Think I accidentally linked the wrong source here it is: https://books.google.com/books?id=dpTpCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA157#v=onepage&q&f=false It is not original research it is from page 157 of the 2nd source it self. See paragragh 2. Should I go ahead and update the page back? Ultrachez ( talk) 11:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Is Elst a reliable source? this edit. Could you take a look? -- regentspark ( comment) 13:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Gandhi visited Kashmir between 1-4 August 1947. He didn't go there on his own. He went the upon the request of Mountbatten, who wanted to ward off Nehru from going himself. Also, Gandhi had to take permission from the state for visiting, which in turn required him not to create any "political trouble". These are some of the facts that the ill-informed commentators miss.
When he reached the Valley he received a terrific reception. On his entry into Srinagar he was met by thousands of people on either side of the road, shouting “Mahatma Gandhi ki jai”. Since the bridge across the river Jhelum had been taken over by the crowd, Gandhi took a boat to the other side, where he addressed a public meeting of some 25,000 people, convened by Sheikh Abdullah’s wife. He spoke of spiritual rather than political matters, in Hindustani. His doctor Sushila Nayar, who was with him, wrote that “men and women flocked from the neighbouring villages to have a glimpse of the Mahatma. Friends and foes alike wonder at the hold he has on the masses. His mere presence seems to soothe them in [a] strange fashion”. [1]
In a note describing his meeting with the Maharaja Hari Singh and the Maharani, he wrote:
“both admitted that with the lapse of British Paramountcy the true Paramountcy of the people of Kashmir would commence. However much they might wish to join the Union, they would have to make the choice in accordance with the wishes of the people. How they could be determined was not discussed at that interview”. [1]
In a public meeting, he said:
He could say that on 15 August, all being well, legally the State of Kashmir and Jammu would be independent. But he was sure that the State would not remain in that condition for long after 15 August. It had to join either the [Indian] Union or Pakistan. It had a predominantly Muslim population. But he saw that Sheikh Saheb had fired Kashmiris with local patriotism. (Sushila Nayar's notes) [2]
Christopher Birdwood adds an interesting reaction after the tribal invasion of Kashmir:
As to the tribal invasion, the people should not flee. They should learn to be brave and fearless and lay down their lives in defence of their homes. He would not mind if they died at their posts. He regretted very much that the tribesmen were apparently led by former officers of the I.N.A., which had valiantly fought under the able leadership of the late Shri Subhas Bhose.... If he was in their place he would wean the tribesmen from their error! They could meet Sheikh Abdullah, if they thought he was harming either Islam or India [meaning, present day 'India' and 'Pakistan' combined]. He reiterated his belief that, the Princes being the creation of British imperialism and the British having quitted India, the people in the States were now their own masters, and the Kashmiris must therefore decide, without any coercion or show of it from within or without, to which Dominion it should belong. The rule was of universal application. [3]
Birdwood comments:
I have often wondered what his contribution would have been to the conflict of ideology which has come to divide the world. If his advice to the Kashmiris is in any way a guide, it would surely indicate a far firmer condemnation of totalitarian oppression than is generally attributed to the apostle of non-violence. To approve of death at one's post in defence of a cause sugests that there would have been approval of resistance to tyranny in any form—and I cannot believe that Gandhi would not have recognised tyranny however subtly disguised it may be... would it not have received the unqualified condemnation of the Mahatma? [3]
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
References
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:State of Palestine. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Self-coup. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The India Barnstar of National Merit | ||
This is for your valuable contributions in India related articles. Regards PATH SLOPU 14:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC) |
Thank you for intervening on the /info/en/?search=Talk:Divya_Dwivedi I don't know how you did it but you do could resolve something that kind of looked like unending. I think the subject is highly controversial in India. If you could keep the page in watch it will be of help. I see that you know the context quite well. WWorringer ( talk) 02:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
“She was really frivolous, had no idea what she is talking about and the context of the debate. Not sure if she has anything to do with the Left though,” he wrote on Twitter.
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
As per Talk:Divya Dwivedi, these two pages were made with promotional intention and user pushed names of these two people in several articles. How it can be removed? Will you help me in doing so?— Harshil want to talk? 10:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
On 4 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Peacebuilding in Jammu and Kashmir, which you recently co-nominated. The fact was ... that cases against 9,700 Kashmiri youth in India were withdrawn by the government as part of its "healing touch" policy for peacebuilding in Jammu and Kashmir? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Peacebuilding in Jammu and Kashmir. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
You deserve equal credits for your valuable advice on this article's talk page, while preparing this nomination. Cheers. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 07:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
What makes u assume that your version is the correct version? Let other editors take a call on that. Moreover, whats wrong in having sub headings?[[ 2409:4070:2091:CA61:0:0:354:D8A0 ( talk) 15:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)]]
whats up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulipiiiiiu ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
∯WBG converse 13:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Why have you reverted the edits that I made to 'Kashmir Conflict' page under 2016 unrest. Your figures of the casualities are not up to date. You reverted the casualities back to 40 dead and 2000 injured, which was at the begining of the uprising, while the numbers surged to over 100 dead and 17,000 injured. I gave refernce from the Guardian article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.108.234 ( talk) 21:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Should we be concerned about what has been going on at Sengunthar recently? I am a bit preoccupied in real life. - Sitush ( talk) 14:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kautilya, can you please check the sources I have mentioned at Talk:Raju. Sitush reverted all my edits stating the sources were unreliable which I don't understand why. The article just states one author's views as general views and is not at all balanced. Thanks. Sharkslayer87 ( talk) 13:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilpa kaur ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 5 August 2018
I was only trying to best describe the group while keeping a neutral standpoint. Now it says Islamist Militant group on the page instead of Terrorist. These definitions always lead to edit wars. I had no intent here other than this. Pranav ( talk) 13:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Would you be able to have a look at Draft:Ladakh division? Appears legit, but this topic area has seen a bit of subtle hoaxing lately, so I can't be entirely sure. – Uanfala (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Kautilya. Chinnaraiu ( talk) 09:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I want to bring to your notice that kammanadu stretched beyond Krishna river. The first reference to kammanadu comes from inscription at jaggayyapeta located in modern day Krishna district Chinnaraiu ( talk) 09:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok i added them. Please check it Chinnaraiu ( talk) 20:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User:Hikmatullah_Sudhan
This person keeps on reincarnating as someone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.38.137.66 ( talk) 21:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Please read the reply to your welcome on the talkpage for your reasonable answer. You contributed a second welcome 126.243.85.139 ( talk) 18:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion, duly noted, yet the alteration was most certainly of good use to readers; it`s not as if one were trying to unilaterally change "Indian Ocean" to "African Ocean". II understand your pont, and stand embarrassed as my skin turned red. The image on nation-state does seem a bit pale, but I stand by the contribution. 126.243.85.139 ( talk) 18:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Please stop following my edits. It's called WP:FOLLOWING. If you continue to do so you will find yourself at ANI. MehrajMir (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
You might wish to see Template:Did you know nominations/Warwan Valley. ∯WBG converse 19:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Kautilya3 ~ You completely deleted my input. I'm not interested in a petty edit war but you asked me to provide sources in "The forward policy"
Forward policy is a famous policy made by Nehru
You want sources. Here they are ~
https://www.deccanherald.com/content/392828/forward-policy-nehru-govt-blamed.html
"The "Forward Policy" of the government under late Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and the then army leadership has been blamed for India's humiliating defeat in 1962 war against China in a top secret report accessed an Australian journalist" aka The Henderson Brooks report.
Chinese never accepted the McMahon Line. The Chinese know exactly where it lies; they simply don't recognize it as legitimate since they never signed the Simla Accord. So this isn't a case of reneging on a prior commitment / agreement; there was no agreement on the part of the Chinese.
And that's not all: the Simla Accord claimed that Tibet was under Chinese suzerainty. Suzerainty means control over domestic affairs but delegating control over foreign affairs to the suzerain. To me, it seems that the Simla Accord was never a valid agreement because the party that agreed to it, Tibet, did not have the legal capacity to agree to it under the terms of the agreement itself!
So to be clear, the Indian Army had set up outposts NORTH above the McMahon Line in what was Chinese territory: IF you go to wikipedia and lookup nehru and his forward policy.
"In June, local Indian commanders had estab- lished Dhola Post, in Tawang. The relevant issue was that Dhola Post was one mile north of the McMahon Line, in Chinese territory even by Indian standards."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm
All of this was after the Chinese had built a road across Aksai Chin. So there are plenty of sources and established reasoning behind my words
Undelete my input and add in the source. Don't just remove completely and fyi, i was not the one who originally added india into the article. So you deleted other people's work too.
I also noticed that you have been flagged for petty edit warring in the past. 120.18.180.210 ( talk) 18:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
No offence mate, but please do not gaslight me as that is not a valid reason. If you read the first paragraph.
"A Forward Policy is a set of foreign policy doctrines applicable to territorial and border disputes, in which emphasis is placed on securing control of disputed areas by invasion and annexation, or by the creation of compliant buffer states.[1]"
It is not about a specific" forward policy". Forward policy in this article, is not a name for a historically specific policy but an umbrella term to categorise and explain ALL forward policies doctrines in history and future, in general.
The "forward policy" in the Sino-indian war could not be more relevant to the article and is just as EQUALLY relevant to the "forward policy" used in the Great Game. It's both named "forward policy" abd additionally a forward policy doctrine in itself
If you are going to delete IT. You might as well also delete "great game" as they are both significant case examples of a "forward policy doctrine'.
It is named" "Forward policy" PLUS it is also a forward policy doctrine. 🙊 It has BOTH the name and the categorization of a forward policy doctrine. Don't get confused.
Nehru was the one who created the doctrine in response to the border disputes with China, in which emphasis is indeed placed on securing control of disputed areas by invasion. I explained that fully.
Also if you look at past history of the page. Other people have already added it in as they recognised and included it as a an example of a forward policy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Forward_Policy&oldid=724794837 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.180.210 ( talk) 20:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
If your English is lacking, i apologise for accusing you of gaslighting but i know you made a mistake here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.180.210 ( talk) 20:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
dude, I'm a native English speaker and I can easily comprehend that article is not about the Great Game "forward policy" in particular.
It's about all "forward policies" in general. Also Nehruvian "forward policy" was not alleged as it actually happened. Historians don't dispute it and in fact refer to it often.
Indian posts were indeed placed above of mcmahon line by Nehru's orders. That's not even disputed by anyone including the west, indian government and china.
Harvard–Yenching Institute wrote a peer reviewed paper.
Regardless this article is not about the Great Game "forward policy". Not sure if you actually understand me perfectly but are dishonestly gaslighting me, but the first paragraph literally writes as :
"A Forward Policy is a set of foreign policy doctrines applicable to territorial and border disputes, in which emphasis is placed on securing control of disputed areas by invasion and annexation, or by the creation of compliant buffer states"
It's a general article about forward policies and the great games was merely a single example of one. The Sino-indian forward policy is also another example. But the article is not about a particular forward policy but ALL FORWARD POLICIES and its criterion.
Please get someone who is familiar with English at a native level, as they will agree with me in a heartbeat. Not trying to be rude but this seems more like an argument between native English-speaking people and non native English language people.
This will be my last message and final but kind warning.. That you are incorrect and need to realise that. I am not going to spend further time to fight you over this as i have my own life but i hope you can open your mind and ask a third party who is preferably born in a western country and tell you who is correct. Because this is just too ridiculous and tiring and we are just going around in circles here. Arguing about silly basic English semantics. 😕🤨
120.18.180.210 ( talk) 21:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
In addition, this article is about the "forward policy" doctrine. The first sentence is literally the criterion. Which defines a 'forward policy" doctrine.
As you see, Nehru doctrine completely satisfies the definition with flying colors plus it is not a coincidence that it's also referred by academics as the "forward policy", as that is essentially what it is.
My beef is that the 2 forward policies used in the great games and lead-up to sino—indian war, are both examples of forward policies and additionally are arguably the most 2 most significant "forward policies" in modern history.
It makes no sense to delete one historic "forward policy" but leave another. Hence why I suspect indian nationalistic censoring here very strongly. I will change it but not at all interested in playing petty games if that's what is really happening. I don't want to edit it and 5 months later. It gets deleted with another bad but suspiciously underhanded excuse. 120.17.233.32 ( talk) 02:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gab (social network). Legobot ( talk) 04:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syrian Civil War. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian law. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Operation_Python#March_2019. ∯WBG converse 07:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Asia topic. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Conspiracy theory. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, someone is messing with the article Kamma (caste). Can you please fix it. Cheers. Sharkslayer87 ( talk) 02:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Swedes. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Now the socks have been blocked, I've pretty brutally taken the chainsaw to Nizams of Hyderabad, and had a poke at Mir Osman Ali Khan. I may have accidentally eaten something of value (indeed, something added by you); I certainly won't take it amiss if you undo bits of what was a quick and radical excision. Pinkbeast ( talk) 00:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Kammas only talk telugu as thier mother tongue. Please kindly remove Tamil word from the header section Ventrun ( talk) 14:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello Kautilya, Thank you for your commitment to ensuring fair and unbiased standards in Wikipedia articles, especially caste ones. Though I have a concern. If you look at Reddy one and compare it to the Kamma one it’s clearly an unfair construction. In the Reddy one it states, “At one time they were a warrior caste and later became feudal overlords and peasant proprietors.[1][2] Historically they have been the land-owning aristocracy of the villages.[3][4][5] Traditionally, they were a diverse community of merchants and cultivators.[1][6][7] Their prowess as rulers and warriors is well documented in Telugu history.” The Kamma starts of by saying that are simply agricultural families and doesn’t discuss their warrior status, like the Reddi article. Moreover, the Reddy article has many notable and well deserved historical leaders mentioned, but Kammas aren’t able to mention Pemmasani Ramalinga Naidu, Venkatadri Naidu, or other notable historical members from the group in the respective sections. When someone adds them or anything speculative, it’s instantly removed, despite the facts that the Reddies speculate to be Rashtrakutas on their page. The Reddies have phrase “analagous to Kshatriyas”, but the Kammas, despite having the same social status don’t have it on their Wikipedia page. The same thing goes for the Velama article where it proudly mentions their zamindari ancestry (though Kammas have them do to) but neglect to mention to their agricultural status. Why can’t the same standards apply to both communities? Why can’t we cite the historians who believe Kammas are descended from the Kamboja Clan or a mixture of Haihayas, Durjayas, Chalukyas, and Chodas. Why can’t we Note their “analagous to Kshatriyas” in the Varna status like it’s done for Rajus. Why can’t Kamma zamindaris be referenced like the Velamas? Why can’t pictures of Gandikota or the Battle of Raichur (which Krishnadevaraya credited to Pemmasanis) be put in the Kamma article. We can make it clear that it’s speculative. I want to work with you on this. I’m not going to hide the fact that I’m a Kamma, but I hope you can see why this is unfair. Will you work with me on a reasonable basis to fix this? I have done research and have a list of primary source and reliable documents that meet Wikipedia standards. I trust you to help me with this. Vivek987270 ( talk) 02:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
References
I understand Ms. Cynthia's work. But many other historians and Harrison say that the Musunuri nayaks are Kammas and that Kammas are warriors. We can definitely include that as it is sourced. To this day, Pemmasani is a surname found only in Kammas, and it openly acknowledges in another section of the caste page that Pemmasani Ramalinga Naidu is a Kamma. In that same breath, I have provided a litany of suggestions to improve the article (includig mentioning of Experts Naidu, warrior occupation of Kammas, Musunuri Nayaks, the Kamma Zamindars during the British Raj, and etc.) The current wikipedia page totally washes over their martial/warrior roots. Now with Cynthia's work, with all due respect to her, she is in the minority view ln this topic in scholars and Srinata in Bheemeshwara Puranam mentions Kammas and Velamas as separate groups. That point alone negates hee argument, but the fact the regional historians disagree with her should raise eyebrows too. If Sitish can help, that would be appreciated.
Vivek987270 ( talk) 13:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
"We state what the scholarly sources say." This may be true for other caste pages, but not Kammas. There is a clear neglect of the Musunuri Kayaks, Kamma Zamindars, The warrior status of kammas (harrison and benheballi explicitly say this), and etc. If what you say is true, i have provided scholarly citations on the Kamma talk page abour these points. I hope you enact them. Othewise use Talbot's work and remove the Rashtrakutas and Reddy Dynasty from the Reddy page since caste groups, according to her, were formed after the Vijayanagara Empire. You can't have double standards. Vivek987270 ( talk) 13:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Kautilya3 I came to you in good faith for edits. Instead, you deleted an entire section of the Musunuri Nayaks being Kammas today after I mentioned it, despite the fact that regional historians believe they are and you failed to mention the viewpoint of regional historians. Moreover, you could have used this time, which you used to delete sourced content that was achieved after a consensus on the talk page, to edit the Reddy and Velama articles since you believe Talbot is correct. I guess "When I have time to edit" is your excuse to not edit them, but you seemingly did find time to edit out the Kamma link to the Musunuri Nayaks. I hope you will return the good faith work by having a discussion to reach a consensus. So, what can we add to the Kamma page from the sourced content I provided.
Vivek987270 (
talk)
Kautilya3 That statement is ironic because no where do I see "aristocratic", "best warriors in Telugu states" "Reddy Dynasty", "Kshatriya", or anything of that sort in the Kamma article but it is present in the Reddies, despite them having the same social status and history. I am not shooting one down. I am asking for equal standards to apply. You removed the view of regional historians that Kammas were Musunuris and cited Talbot's view. I say fine. Remove the Reddy Dynasty information from the Reddy article since Talbot's standard applies to them. If you chose not, then why did you remove the Kamma mentions of the Musunuris and are not engaging with me on sourced edits to balance the article? With all due respect, I will continue posting here with sourced work that follows the rules of Wikipedia. You clearly have an anti-Kamma bias, as I have pro. I was hoping we could work together on reasonable edits that show the whole picture, but your apparent prejudices are quite clear. Vivek987270 ( talk)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Party of Canada. Legobot ( talk) 04:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Nice column by Razib Khan. Tells a lot with a 'little' anecdote. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Ran into this passage today:
Had varna rank been crucial to social recognition and prestige during that time, we would observe a greater number of royal and chiefly lineages advancing claims to kshatriya status. The fact that they did not do so is an indication of the relative insignificance of varna for non-brahmins in the thirteenth century. In other words, the classical varna scheme was a paradigm that was meaningful primarily to those individuals who considered themselves brahmins. Current research suggests that consciousness of varna became stronger during the colonial period, partially as a result of the listing of castes according to varna affiliation in the Census of India (Cohn 1984, Pederson 1986). [1]
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
References
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kautilya, Thanks for reviewing my edits. One contributor asked to provide evidence that jaati refers to caste in Tamil language. I provided that reference. It's unfortunate that you have decided to classify my edits as "not needed". Do you agree that "jaati" is the word used to refer to "caste" in Tamil language (i am not sure about other languages)? If yes, then we should make it clear to the reader of the article. If you dont agree, lets discuss to come to the same understanding. Thanks, arun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barunskumar ( talk • contribs) 15:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kautilya, yes - Jati is mentioned, along with Varna. It equates Varna to Class according to occupation...which is fair. But the Jati section explains the origins of jati and perspectives of different historians. AND IT DOES NOT SAY JATI REFERS TO CASTE IN INDIAN LANGUAGES (atleast in Tamilnadu). I think we should mention the fact that common people use the term jati to refer to caste. The way the first 3 sections are organized currently, many folks are going to assume caste is portugese origin english word and it has no relation to jati in india. That's why i want to add that clarification. Please let me know if I have missed out some section which equates jati to caste. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barunskumar ( talk • contribs)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump). Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
This change not acceptable Rutvesh ( talk) 17:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics. Legobot ( talk) 04:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fascism in Europe. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair. Legobot ( talk) 04:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MS-13. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
You are most welcome sir.
Fylindfotberserk (
talk)
09:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ronna McDaniel. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
From your comments on the Talk page of this article, it appears that you consider that you are in some sort of dispute with me. I have no idea what this dispute is supposed to be about. Sweet6970 ( talk) 12:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
for this. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:David_Frawley&diff=898228437&oldid=898034601 Weird allegations. ∯WBG converse 07:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
>> I am continuing the discussion on caste/jati from archived discussion..which i cannot comment on >>
Hi Kautilya, Please explain how Jati is more nuanced than caste...with references (I am not talking about what caste meant to portugese or english. I am talking about what caste means to indians). And then please add that to the section explaining why u dont want to equate it to caste (with references) & i can add a section explaining why i think both are same. Let the readers decide on the point/argument that appeals on them. In colloquial usage in tamil, both words mean the same. For common references like wikipedia, mentioning this important...imho.
Thanks for ur time. Regards. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barunskumar ( talk • contribs)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Frankfurt School. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Reference: Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, "Tahdhib al-Tahdhib", Volume 7, 226. "Al-Hajjāj, wrote to Muhammad bin Qasim Thaqafi to summon Atiyya and ask him to curse Ali ibn Abi Talib and, in the event of his refusal to do so, to slash him four hundred times and to shave his head and beard. Muhammad summoned Atiyya and read over al-Hajjāj's letter to him so that he might choose one of the two alternatives. Atiyya declined to curse Ali and agreed to the alternative"
Kautilya3, You could edit the heading but not delete the text after a credible reference was provided from book of history much reliable than chachnama or other books cited already in this article. Although chachnama too is a source that has its place. Ibn Hajar's work is not only a history book but it also follows the rules of Hadith science of Islamic tradition. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim ( talk) 18:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Ibn Hajar is considered to be one of the most authentic historians by academics. His work Tahdhib al Tahdhib is one of the most credible books in hadith science, one that deals with authenticity of Hadith. When scholars debate about Hadith of Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim, they quote his work. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim ( talk) 22:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric, you said that my ping somewhere didn't work. Checking to see if this works. If it does, please say 'aye'. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I am asking for assistance in dispute resolution
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! regarding our disagreement on "Revolt of Al-Ash'ath and Muhammad bin Qasim". I hope it helps, Best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Hamza Ebrahim ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Hamza Ebrahim ( talk • contribs) 12:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
You are most welcome.
Fylindfotberserk (
talk)
17:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Legobot ( talk) 04:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Schoharie limousine crash. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Dear Kautilya,
I am supposing you have perused my arguments. If you indeed have, then what's your opinion on the same? Do you find them convincing? Have I laid out all the requisite facts? I'd be grateful if you also point out the flaws in it, except for certain gratuitously rhetorical comments that I'd made, which I'd beseech you to overlook.
Best,
On 17 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 2016 the Indian Army advised replacing pellet guns with non-lethal pepper guns, sonic cannons, and chili grenades to manage violent riots in Jammu and Kashmir? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 00:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:China–United States trade war. Legobot ( talk) 04:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kautilya, are you busy these days? Sharkslayer87 ( talk) 18:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For tirelessly dealing with endless castecruft from the likes of ForeverKnowledgeSeeker & Co.. utcursch | talk 01:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC) |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
This BLP is notable?— Bukhari (Talk!) 12:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rojava. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Indigenous intellectual property. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I gave verified link to support my modification and I can give more such links that clearly shows that Romila Thapar is Marxist historian . In fact she confessed that history not only depends on facts but also depends on historians ideology . Her way of writing history clearly shows that she believes in Marxist histography and she called her critics as right wing Hindutva historian which means that she considers herself as a Marxist historian. Birat Roy007 ( talk) 12:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I greatly appreciate your moderating the discussion at the talkpage. Let me know if it becomes too much of a time-sink and the editors need to be directed to DRN, or if other admin-y interventions are needed (article protection, warnings, restrictions, topic-bans etc). Thanks again. Abecedare ( talk) 13:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kautilya3, thanks for joining in. I have I think discovered a key reason for the current dispute: the article was written about what an academic might call Singleton's vision of modern yoga, viz, the yoga that is practised by millions around the world consisting mainly of asanas with a bit of pranayama and relaxation thrown in, sometimes a little meditation and possibly a bit of chanting and other spiritual elements too; but excluding the religious-sect kinds of yoga where it's all about a guru and there's little or no asana practice, which (let's face it) most of the public wouldn't recognise as "yoga". Singleton observed that "yoga" so defined (as it is known outside India, corresponding approximately but not exactly with "yogasana" in India) does not fit into any of Elizabeth De Michelis's categories (the nearest is "Modern Postural Yoga", but that would exclude its other often minor components; and my first attempt at a title for the article was accordingly "Yoga (postural)" as that seemed to be most of it, but it is clunky and didn't exactly fit, so I changed it, see the talk page). In other words, the article is about "modern Singletonian yoga" (we urgently need a name that works...) not De Michelis' parent category "Modern Yoga" (capital letters). I am concerned that editors imagine that the article is however about the De Michelis category, in which case it would be basically an academic discussion of typology (a possible topic but for a different article). This article has been until this week about something non-academic, the yoga that is widely practiced, and I am worried because the new definition that has been inserted makes it look as though the article's goal and subject has been changed, which is not acceptable practice. I've actually never faced a problem of this scale on Wikipedia, and I've written hundreds of major articles. Your suggestions, advice, and assistance would be warmly welcomed, as I wish to deal with this sensibly and rationally in the face of a continued dispute with a tone that is not at all comfortable. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
This book investigates the rise to prominence of āsana (posture) in modern, transnational yoga. Today yoga is virtually synonymous in the West with the practice of āsana, and postural yoga classes can be found in great number in virtually every city in the Western world...
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mehrajmir13. Regards, ∯WBG converse 07:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bill Shorten. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
For all the tps's, who, like me, might have had their heads down while the storm was passing, time for a catch-up:
And the drama stage itself. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I've started again at User:Chiswick Chap/Yae and would be grateful for your thoughts. The task is easier without the need for pre-modern history, and with the sharper definition (modern denominational yoga, etc, are now excluded). I've redone the comparison to have similarities as well as differences. Most of the rest seems to me quite neutral, even with a quantity of hindsight actually, but you may think otherwise? Certainly there's no attempt anywhere to force a story on to the facts, which are plentiful and reliably cited. The intention is to cut down the -as-exercise bits in the other article, and to put in placeholders for the other kinds of modern yoga for whoever fancies it to fill in, so the overlaps will greatly reduce. In theory.
I've reworked the Yoga as exercise draft for strict neutrality, but I'm now so close to it that another pair of eyes would be very valuable on that question. I've also gone through anything that might be thought OR; again I really can't see any, but your thoughts would be most useful.
All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Waskom, Texas. Legobot ( talk) 04:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! ==
By LovSLif ( talk) 09:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gatestone Institute. Legobot ( talk) 04:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Free Palestine Movement. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States involvement in regime change. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ilhan Omar. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
hi can you have a look at this user:Pak-Egale really making mess of articles related to the topic, may be a sock ? quite amazed at other users jumping in together , no idea where to complain Shrikanthv ( talk) 13:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Southern strategy. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
How can IAF be removed as 1965 war and Kargil 1999 war whose epicenter was Kashmir...IAF had been a very important part of it....and then you have balakot airstrikes and then next day dogfight between India and Pakistan air forces... Mayank Prasoon ( talk) 15:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
If it is so then the name of air chief Marshal of IAF B.S Dhanoa be also removed from infobox template of Kashmir conflict page...since IAF had no role in Kashmir conflict...as my edits were reverted Mayank Prasoon ( talk) 15:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh okay so rather remove the entire infobox and just add the name of political leaders then Mayank Prasoon ( talk) 14:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Good work on Article 370. GSwarnkar 16:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC) |
Hi Kautilya I was flicking through the Gilgit-Baltistan page and in the first few paragraphs it stated that International organisations and the United nations refer to Azad and Gilgit as Pakistan administered Kashmir but they also referred to Indian side as administered by India regardless of whether it is union territory now so do you think its necessary to mention this? I think it's a bit unfair if it's high lighted prominently on Gilgit-Baltistan but not Jammu and Kashmir page double standards if you ask me please reply with a suggestion. - 82.132.243.110 ( talk) 20:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The same statement applies to Indian administered Kashmir so why is this statement only present on Gilgit and Azad Kashmir article it's a bit biased on my opinion. I wish to avoid edit wars and get people like you involved who are mature and balanced because it quickly degenerates into edit wars. 82.132.243.110 ( talk) 21:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
[1] This articles first reference regards it as a autonomous territory of Pakistan from the Pakistani Beurea of Statistics it's only fair to have this as the way to describe it. 82.132.243.110 ( talk) 22:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Can you help me to demand two way interaction ban with user who is constantly reverting my edits, being hostile, nominating my page for deletion and pushes POV on me? I just want interaction ban on that user so that he can't do it further. -- Harshil want to talk? 11:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
After the discontinuation of Article 370 in the J&K region, Pakistan can no longer claim the region, Pakistan is already scared for PoK and hasn't yet announced a claim again on the J&K region. Also, It had been an integral part of India in the past which makes India it's parent country, has a parent country can and should claim over the disputed territory and the daughter country can no longer claim on the regions of the parent country.
is it playing out over Kashmir related articles? ∯WBG converse 13:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Next United Kingdom general election. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Why are you publicizing an ignorant person like Ramchandra Guha on this article? Dagana4 ( talk) 23:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi , Regarding the the reverted edit Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ram_Janmabhoomi&oldid=prev&diff=910072388 , Can you explain why did you revert the Citation required tag. Irfannaseefp ( talk) 15:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Kautilya, an Indian Wikipedia editor, told Dawn by email! Hmmm, Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 13:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, well, in my input I mainly bad-mouthed the newspapers, including Dawn. Obviously she didn't put that in. I told her specifically how The Hindu and New York Times ensured accuracy, while all other South Asian papers fell short. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
In the case of Kashmir, the other 2 areas of the country that are truly administered are so out of an administration agreement which was followed by occupation. This area I changed was first occupied then forced to be administerrd, thus not truly administration in origin, but occupation in origin. The other arras, tho not happy w/either the foreign administration AND origin nevertheless agreed to the foreign administration. The area I changed did not agree, wish, nor desire both administration nor ocvupation from the beginning. Hence the change/edit to the page. Thx. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambein ( talk • contribs)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Suicide of Leelah Alcorn. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Meghan Murphy. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Lakshmisreekanth ( talk) has given you vanilla ice cream! Vanilla ice cream promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else vanilla ice cream, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
You must be working hard about Jammu and Kashmir. Have some ice cream.
To spread the goodness of vanilla ice cream, you can add {{ subst:Vanilla ice cream}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Why did you cancel my edits to the above page? Makes no sense. I had just added some info which everybody knows about. I added that PDP and BJP formed an alliance government in 2015. Check these links : https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-agenda-for-alliance-full-text-of-the-agreement-between-pdp-and-bjp-2065446 (about 2015) and (after Mufti's death, a new agreement) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30585105 . Only people who are extremely ignorant would be unaware of these simple facts. Why would you remove that info from wiki pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.160.115 ( talk) 18:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I got your message on my talk page. I understand we all are working for an unbiased and informative Wikipedia where rather then promoting a particular agenda we provide the insight into the topic of article. The additions which I want to add were in line with same principle. You told me I am free to add the allegations made by army on Sheila Rashid and I added what I found. I even added the recent statement made by her concerning the allegations. Even after giving a long summary with clear meaning my edits got reverted only because the editor thinks I added soundbytes and contradictions ? How adding counter allegations made by an organization against which the original statements were made and adding recent statements made by the person contradictions? I hope you understand and give a proper explanation before reverting and assuming that I am going in for an edit war. AnadiDoD ( talk) 20:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
there is no doubt in Ranjit's Singh's ancestry Neither his clan claim Rajut ancestry.I personally know the royal family.Everybody know who Ranjit Singh was and he is never mentioned Sansi I can give reference but I will remove these claims 1000 times because the truth is the truth Ponia.sp ( talk) 04:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Kautilya3 please stay unbiased and neutral. Keep Wikipedia free from your unjustified assertions. Ngnrpu ( talk) 23:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Article 370 is not a Special provision to J&K but a temperory one. Vishalmenon ( talk) 15:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Then what is the purpose of undoing my edit? Vishalmenon
Find it out.The sentence was confusing and contradictory.So corrected it. Vishalmenon
Kashmir is a United Nations nominated disputed region and its borders and status will be decided by United Nations based plebiscite. Any politically biased assertions ok any article contradicts the international laws. Kindly stay neutral and avoid Hindu supremacist ideology away from Wikipedia. If you need training the he contact Wikipedia foundation or me. Ngnrpu ( talk) 23:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the revert linked above - is it the content you disagree with or simply the sentence structure? In other words will you allow the content back in the article if I alter the sentence structure? -- Edit-pi ( talk) 12:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Indian revocation of any article and making Kashmiri Muslims slaves by using cerfews is against United Nations based resolutions. Please keep facts clear and right and avoid vandalism. Ngnrpu ( talk) 23:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kirkland & Ellis. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Are you sure this page move was a good idea? - INX Media case to INX Media case against P. Chidambaram. Maybe the article just now focuses mainly on P. Chidambaram but then the case as a whole isn't only about him and a lot of information is available which can include others related to the case. Comments? DiplomatTesterMan ( talk) 02:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 El Paso shooting. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For your good work on " Article 370 of the Constitution of India" as the top contributor of the page and keeping it in good shape when it was in the list of top viewed pages of Wikipedia. DBig Xrayᗙ 06:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC) |
References
Was it an Indian victory or not? Dagana4 ( talk) 14:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Did you see this? [4] - LouisAragon ( talk) 16:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey Kautilya! I made the article Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (amendment) Bill along with reorganisation bill. Now, this page has been proposed to the deletion. I saw that you expanded the article of reorganisation bill. In my opinion, even if bill is withdrawn, bill is still notable and historical and enough details are available. Can you please help me to expand this article? -- Harshil want to talk? 03:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Boris Johnson. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
If there is ambiguity regarding the terminology of Indian administered or Indian state, why don't you take a look at Mangla Dam. The dam's location is mentioned as Azad Kashmir there. If Kishanganga Project is termed to fall in "Indian-administered Kashmir" why is Mangla Dam not named to be located in Pakistan-administered Kasmir? Afterall it also falls in the disputed area. So I am going to revert your edit. There cannot be this sort of double standard editing. Trojanishere ( talk) 09:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Trojanishere
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Koch. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Kautilya3,
If it fits into your interests, could you keep an eye on this article? It was the subject of a lot of disruption in the past day that took me a while to unravel. It doesn't look like you've edited this article but I'd appreciate it if some experienced editors had it on their watchlist in case it gets moved again to any unusual new page titles. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, to be clear, what the user is trying to do is to merge all three articles into one Shia Islam in the Indian subcontinent, and redirect the India- and Pakistan-specific titles to this page. The structure broadly makes sense to me, but I think there is a lot more country-specific stuff for Pakistan which might warrant a separate article (e.g., the Shia-Sunni conflicts, the militant outfits, the Gilgit-Baltistan stuff etc.)
As to the "Indian subcontinent" vs "South Asia" debate, I don't have strong opinions. I used to favour "Indian subcontinent", but I have come to accept "South Asia" as a suitable alternative. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage. Legobot ( talk) 04:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kautilya3, I have reverted your edit on the talk page here as the thread was started by EH and the edit was not helpful in anyway. I have asked him to open a thread. he will start if he wishes to. FYI, A discussion on exact same topic is being done elsewhere at Talk:Operation_Blue_Star#Replace_human_shield_claim_of_unknown_origin_with_UK_claim. So it is upto him where he wishes to engage. regards.-- DBig Xrayᗙ 11:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
To call Pakistani Occupied Kashmir anything other than occupied is in fact biased towards Pakistan. By referring to it as such, you are giving validity to the occupation of India by Pakistan, as you would understand if you look at the fact that Kashmir became a part of India in 1947, and Pakistan subsequently invaded it. Even the UN has requested that Pakistan leave Kashmir before anything goes further. I request that you revert your deletion of my edit, for the view that is currently expressed is indeed the biased one, and referring to Kashmir that is not a part of Indian control as occupied would be quite accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalobabo ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Democrat Party. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sahar Khodayari. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Right-wing politics. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey Kautilya, I can see you reported one user but he reverted my two edits on that page. Kindly, add those two too in the report. — Harshil want to talk? 12:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
What's going on with this article? The second para of the lead reads well but the first paragraph is a mess of maybes and possiblies about Jainism. Could you take a look when you get the chance?-- regentspark ( comment) 16:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israeli settlement. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Namaste, Kautilya3. We would like to inform you about the recent changes to the WikiProject. As you may know, the old newsletter for WikiProject India ceased circulation in 2010. Now we have re-launched the newsletter in a new way. As a member, you are cordially invited to subscribe to the newsletter. Thank you.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the update, still learning the protocol here. Think I accidentally linked the wrong source here it is: https://books.google.com/books?id=dpTpCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA157#v=onepage&q&f=false It is not original research it is from page 157 of the 2nd source it self. See paragragh 2. Should I go ahead and update the page back? Ultrachez ( talk) 11:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Is Elst a reliable source? this edit. Could you take a look? -- regentspark ( comment) 13:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Gandhi visited Kashmir between 1-4 August 1947. He didn't go there on his own. He went the upon the request of Mountbatten, who wanted to ward off Nehru from going himself. Also, Gandhi had to take permission from the state for visiting, which in turn required him not to create any "political trouble". These are some of the facts that the ill-informed commentators miss.
When he reached the Valley he received a terrific reception. On his entry into Srinagar he was met by thousands of people on either side of the road, shouting “Mahatma Gandhi ki jai”. Since the bridge across the river Jhelum had been taken over by the crowd, Gandhi took a boat to the other side, where he addressed a public meeting of some 25,000 people, convened by Sheikh Abdullah’s wife. He spoke of spiritual rather than political matters, in Hindustani. His doctor Sushila Nayar, who was with him, wrote that “men and women flocked from the neighbouring villages to have a glimpse of the Mahatma. Friends and foes alike wonder at the hold he has on the masses. His mere presence seems to soothe them in [a] strange fashion”. [1]
In a note describing his meeting with the Maharaja Hari Singh and the Maharani, he wrote:
“both admitted that with the lapse of British Paramountcy the true Paramountcy of the people of Kashmir would commence. However much they might wish to join the Union, they would have to make the choice in accordance with the wishes of the people. How they could be determined was not discussed at that interview”. [1]
In a public meeting, he said:
He could say that on 15 August, all being well, legally the State of Kashmir and Jammu would be independent. But he was sure that the State would not remain in that condition for long after 15 August. It had to join either the [Indian] Union or Pakistan. It had a predominantly Muslim population. But he saw that Sheikh Saheb had fired Kashmiris with local patriotism. (Sushila Nayar's notes) [2]
Christopher Birdwood adds an interesting reaction after the tribal invasion of Kashmir:
As to the tribal invasion, the people should not flee. They should learn to be brave and fearless and lay down their lives in defence of their homes. He would not mind if they died at their posts. He regretted very much that the tribesmen were apparently led by former officers of the I.N.A., which had valiantly fought under the able leadership of the late Shri Subhas Bhose.... If he was in their place he would wean the tribesmen from their error! They could meet Sheikh Abdullah, if they thought he was harming either Islam or India [meaning, present day 'India' and 'Pakistan' combined]. He reiterated his belief that, the Princes being the creation of British imperialism and the British having quitted India, the people in the States were now their own masters, and the Kashmiris must therefore decide, without any coercion or show of it from within or without, to which Dominion it should belong. The rule was of universal application. [3]
Birdwood comments:
I have often wondered what his contribution would have been to the conflict of ideology which has come to divide the world. If his advice to the Kashmiris is in any way a guide, it would surely indicate a far firmer condemnation of totalitarian oppression than is generally attributed to the apostle of non-violence. To approve of death at one's post in defence of a cause sugests that there would have been approval of resistance to tyranny in any form—and I cannot believe that Gandhi would not have recognised tyranny however subtly disguised it may be... would it not have received the unqualified condemnation of the Mahatma? [3]
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
References
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:State of Palestine. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Self-coup. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The India Barnstar of National Merit | ||
This is for your valuable contributions in India related articles. Regards PATH SLOPU 14:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC) |
Thank you for intervening on the /info/en/?search=Talk:Divya_Dwivedi I don't know how you did it but you do could resolve something that kind of looked like unending. I think the subject is highly controversial in India. If you could keep the page in watch it will be of help. I see that you know the context quite well. WWorringer ( talk) 02:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
“She was really frivolous, had no idea what she is talking about and the context of the debate. Not sure if she has anything to do with the Left though,” he wrote on Twitter.
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
As per Talk:Divya Dwivedi, these two pages were made with promotional intention and user pushed names of these two people in several articles. How it can be removed? Will you help me in doing so?— Harshil want to talk? 10:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)