User talk:Kautilya3/Archives/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Ram Mandir

Hi Chanakya,

Hope you are doing good. I have noticed a discordancy about a sentence in Ram Mandir article. There is a sentence in that article, It is located at the site of Ram Janmabhoomi, the hypothesized birthplace of Rama, a principal deity of Hinduism. Actually, it is surprising to see that in the article on city of Bethlehem, the world 'hypothized' is not used when mentioning about Jesus of Nazereth. Here is the copied sentence from that article, In the New Testament, the city is identified as the birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth. So, accordingly I tried to modify the sentence in this way, It is located at the site of Ram Janmabhoomi, the birthplace of Rama as per Valmiki Ramayana. Rama is a principal deity of Hinduism and considered as the seventh incarnation of Vishnu. However, an editor has reverted this edit. You helped me in improving the Turquoise throne article and can you do something to modify the sentence removing the word hypothized in Ram Mandir article while respecting the guidelines of Wikipedia? Thank you very much friend. Take care. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

"Hypothesized" is not correct. I have changed it to "believed". It cannot be stated as a fact unless there is scholarly consensus about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It was made into hypothesized to avoid WP:CLOP of the BBC article and to avoid the weasel term believed. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The Herald, I am afraid you are not making any sense. Hypothesized. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "By whom" applies equally to "believed"; certainly the belief is not universal, across all faiths and geographies. The difficulty here is also the specificity of belief; that Rama was born in Ayodhya is a non-controversial statement within Hindu doctrine, but of course this statement refers not only to Ayodhya, but to a specific ~2 acre plot of land. "Purported" or "supposed" is probably more precise here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

In matters of religion, we almost always say "believed" and nobody finds it necessary to ask, who believes? We have records that the belief existed at least since the 17th century. We have testimonies saying that people set up a platform in the frontyard of the mosque and prayed to it.I don't see how terms like "purported" and "supposed" cover such practices. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

In matters of religion, we almost always say "believed" and nobody finds it necessary to ask, who believes? - What? No, that's the central question of atleast a few hundred (even more?) texts on the sociology of religion. I agree with V93 that "supposed" is the best word. TrangaBellam (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't be silly! The fact that the sociologists study the believers and beliefs doesn't mean that we stop using "believe" in the context of religion. Our page on Hinduism has 64 occurrences of "belief" or "believe", Islam has 49, and Christianity tops it with 88 occurrences. And, "believe" is the word BBC is using, which is a perfectly common usage. You guys are gaslighting me! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the difference between Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic faiths is important. And, more to the point, numerous Hindus have rejected — and reject — that Ram was born at that very site; what maks their belief any less important? TrangaBellam (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

There's also a key difference in pages about a given faith, in which belief is implied to be within the framework of said faith, and pages about (ostensibly) history or geography, where the implication is much less clear. Lots of places - including Ayodhya itself - have religious significance to more than one set of people. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know that "belief" in Abrahamic faiths is a much more stronger idea. But in Hinduism, with its variety of gods, myths, holy places etc., there are thousands and thousands of beliefs all around. The beliefs concerning Ayodhya, and this particular spot, are no different from the myriads of other places. Does everybody believe every one of them? Hell, no! But we don't go around saying "some Hindus believe", "a section of Hindus believe" etc. If you want to contest the nature of belief in Ayodhya, then please find some religous studies scholars who have studied Hinduism and see if they support your objections. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, if agree that this particular belief isn't shared by all Hindus, then I fail to see why we shouldn't say that; indeed, if you insist that we can generalize that belief to all Hindus, the burden to demonstrate that that's what the sources do is on you. The BBC, for instance, says "many Hindus" in the most recent article I can find [1]. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The way how consecration ceremony has been watched by millions of Hindus all over the world and how devotees are thronging over to have a darshan of the deity can give some glimpse how much vast majority of Hindus believe Ram janmabhoomi as the birthplace of Rama.

Ayodhya's Spiritual Soar: Set to surpass Mecca and Vatican as a global pilgrimage hub, Times of India, 27 January 2024

Ayodhya's Ram Temple may draw 50 million visitors annually, to surpass Tirupati, Mecca, and Vatican,CNBC TV18, 24 January 2024

If there is a minority opinion among Hindus about exact birthplace of Rama then that can be quoted with valid Hindu scriptural references and ancient and medieval historical sources. In the name of minority opinion it is suggested not bring reports like "Babri Mosque or Ram’s Birthplace? Historians Report to the Indian Nation" which were junked as a mere opinion and nothing more by the courts. Here is a reference related that news.

Historians’ report on Babri mosque mere ‘opinion’: SC, Times of India, 18 September 2019

In the cross-examination before the HC, Bhan admitted that only he and Sharma had gone to Ayodhya prior to the study. He admitted having no knowledge of Puranas and said, “We were given only six weeks time for the entire study. Pressure was being repeatedly exerted; so, we submitted our report without going through the record of the excavation work by B B Lal. This was the point the bench focussed on to refuse attaching any value to the four historians' report."

Bsskchaitanya (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• As long as the meaning is conveyed and WP:CLOP is cleared, I'm good to go with supposed, purported or hypothesized. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  • The Herald, copying sentences from somewhere and replacing words by synonyms is indeed what is called close paraphrasing (CLOP). Your supposed used of a synonym doesn't "avoid" WP:CLOP. It lands you into it! You are not making sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

    • Kautilya3, I am sorry friend to have landed you in a unwanted controversy. Really, surprised to see your talk page now and it is very sad that you seem to be a victim of gaslighting. It is no ordinary task to counter Hinduphobia/Indophobia in Wikipedia unless we have some deep familiarity about Hinduism and India. Even India Today reported the western media bias in reportage on Ram mandir. Nevertheless, your contribution on my request is noteworthy. You are not alone. We will do our best to bring consensus. Take care.

    Bsskchaitanya (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Please don't worry. These kind of debates are entirely normal on Wikipedia. And don't be so harsh on your opponents. Everybody is trying to build Wikipedia in the best way they can. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Good to know that you are fine. Oh! you found my responses are harsh. Then please highlight them so that my reponses can be more polite in my responses. Its been a quite learning experience in Wikipedia. Can you have a look at this article Śāstra pramāṇam in Hinduism, Rajahmundry Circar, Balak Ram, Pondicherry Representative Assembly and Yanaon which were created by me and I request you to review to make any necessary improvements if required. I am more interested to contribute in Wikipedia on History, Philosophy, Hinduism and Linguistics than controverseial topics like Ram mandir that eat away so much of my time and attention due to my love and addiction for Wikipedia. Have a nice day. Take care. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

References

FYI - mentioned at Talk:Mohammed Zubair (journalist)

I mentioned you at Talk:Mohammed_Zubair_(journalist)#Moving_Mohammed_Zubair_(journalist)_to_Mohammed_Zubair_(fact-checker) as you created Mohammed Zubair as a redirect back in 2022. Totally botched the ping, hence this note. Thank you! Ravensfire (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

[2] 👈

Please stop this type of cold messages in my talk page. I have removed your content only twice.If I am in an edit war it should be the same for you as you have also reverted my edit with reliable source twice . I don't plan on any edit war. Also, we are already discussing in the talk page Talk:Thangjing Hill 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 16:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Look again! The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually.. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2014

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Nepal–Sikh war, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey, that is silly. I just reverted it to an older version that was cleaner. The POV edits that have been made aren't even grammatical! Have you checked if anything even verifies from the soruces?-- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Can you stop the baseless accusations of edit warring when I am only establishing the WP:STABLE version? If you want to make these changes, seek consensus on the talk page. Wikipedia policy clearly states that WP:BEBOLD edits (such as yours) can be reverted, in particular to a WP:STABLE version, and in such cases, the proposed edits should be discussed on the talk page first. It doesn't matter that you personally think that such edits are "policy based": a dispute is a dispute. There are a small number of exceptions (see WP:3RRNO) but outside these, you are supposed to seek consensus on the talk page, not engage in an edit war.

Note: I am NOT asking for the page to reflect my other suggested edit (right -> far-right). I am only asking it to remain at the WP: STABLE lead until such time as consensus is reached at the talk page to change it. Brusquedandelion (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

New message from TrangaBellam

Hello, Kautilya3. You have new messages at Talk:Dhaneshwar Mandal.
Message added 18:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TrangaBellam (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Just a positive message :) TakuyaYagami (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, vow! That you very much TakuyaYagami. Hope your editing is going well? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Help with forming a sentence

To the Anti-Hindu sentiment article, under the India section, I want to add this: "Waris Pathan has been charged for his 15 Crore Muslims can outweigh 100 crore Hindus remark but has apologised on Twitter for the same." Can I? -Haani40 (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Haani40 (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't really monitor that page, which is in general terrible. To do it right, one would need to find a scholarly source or at least a newspaper op-ed, which analyses all remarks of this kind and puts them in context. The NDTV source doesn't say that it was "anti-Hindu". It just seems to be mindless bragging. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Nageshwar Temple article

Hello Kautilya3, I hope this message finds you well. I just came accross the Nageshvara Jyotirlinga article and it was edited to whole different temple and not the one which is commonly consider jyotirlinga in Dwarka, Gujarat. I request to review the article and can you make sure that it was did with the proper Wikipedia rules and not just by random. Curious man123 (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Curious man123, I don't know anything about the temple. Please raise this issue on the article talk page, and see what the editors of that page might say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Kautilya3, as you said to raise to topic in the talk page of that article, i have raised and if you know anyone who can refer that page i request you to invite to them so that we can a proper debate about it over the topic Curious man123 (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Neither I nor you should be "inviting" editors. See WP:CANVASSING. If nobody responds on the article talk page, you can revert back the edits that you disagree with. That might bring the editors to the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay Curious man123 (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft

I have created a draft article here. I want to add it with that title as a section in the Second Modi ministry article but will it pass muster?-Haani40 (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You had told me to start and use the Sandbox to experiment, so I have put the above matter here now. Am I allowed to delete this "draft" now (which I mentioned above)? Can I add it with that title, "Achievements_of_Second_Modi_ministry" as a section in the Second Modi ministry article?-Haani40 (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

some Baklava for you:)-Haani40 (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Haani40, thanks for the baklava! Making my mouth ooze!

To add even a section on this, it needs to be reasonably complete. And, it shouldn't be a laundry list. There is needs to be information. Note that ANI is seen to be highly pro-government. WP:RSPANI. So you need to consult other sources and see what they have to say about these issues. Also don't call it "achievements". It is the government's job to grow the economy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like too much to do. I will skip it.-Haani40 (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Reversed edit for changes requiring no sources

Hi, I noticed that you reversed an edit by me and your reasoning was that I didn't include references and said to contact you on your talk page if you made a mistake. You made a mistake. I just rearranged information in chronological order for better readability and neither added nor removed any information, therefore no references are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:C402:54C0:C940:C8C5:B34F:D8B7 (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:StoneToss on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Clarification

Can this be used in the 2024 Indian general election article about the BJP's initiatives or will any sentence I add citing that be removed for being, "promotional"?-Haani40 (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Anything BJP says is WP:PRIMARY. You need to look for WP:SECONDARY sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Can this be used in the 2024 Indian general election article about the BJP's initiatives or will any sentence I add citing that be removed for being, "promotional"? If not in that article, can it be paraphrased and added to the Second Modi ministry article?-Haani40 (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Newspaper opinion columns can only be used for making attributed statements. See WP:NEWSORG. If they are established experts in a field and can be regarded as "scholars", that it would be different matter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

So can I type, "According to Shashi Tharoor, ............"? I plan to fill in the blank with paraphrased text from the source cited.-Haani40 (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is allowed, but it is subject to editor WP:CONSENSUS. Everything depends on CONSENSUS of course, but the use of PRIMARY sources, especially so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Proposed deletion of Usanas Foundation

The article Usanas Foundation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable per WP:NORG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 13:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Elissa Slotkin on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Please add User:Capitals00 to the AE

Please add Capitals00 to the complaint at the AE noticeboard along with Abhishek0831996. He has reverted you again, see this.-Haani40 (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Can I add this sentence?

Can I add the first sentence mentioned here to the "Aftermath" section of the 2024 Bangalore Cafe bombing article?-Haani40 (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. But an important policy WP:BLP states that you can't name the accused unless they are convicted in a court of law. So, you can state "one arrest", and omit the name. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks!-Haani40 (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone respond?

Can anyone respond to this?-Haani40 (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

That article (Article 370 (film)) says,

..... criticised it for distortion of facts, depicting narratives favouring the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party due to the upcoming elections and for ignoring the views of the Kashmiris.

based on movie reviews and that sentence should be removed (in my opinion).-Haani40 (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding a sentence

Can I add the first sentence mentioned here to the, "Dilution debate" section of the Homeopathic dilutions article?-Haani40 (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I just read this, so I probably should not use that as a source!-Haani40 (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Statement by the US

This may interest you.-Haani40 (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

Is this a reliable source to write that Kejriwal took money from the Ford foundation?-Haani40 (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Please stay away from websites. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This says,

Arvind Kejriwal is therefore not a political threat but a security threat to this country, his main objective being to destabilize India to perpetuate US agenda

-Haani40 (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

In many different websites, I observe that many different politicians are accusing him of being a CIA agent (Harsh Vardhan, Captain Amarinder Singh, Prem Singh Chandumajra, Ashwini Upadhyay etc.)!-Haani40 (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

You can make an attributed mention of the RSN Singh comment. Please give full citation and add quotation. Political potshots are wrothless. Please remember WP:BLP. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Can I add this?

Can I add the first sentence mentioned here to the, "Controversies" section of the Arvind Kejriwal article with a sub-heading, "Security threat allegation"?-Haani40 (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a reasonable edit. Expect it to be contested. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot.-Haani40 (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Can this be added?

Can the first sentence mentioned in this sandbox be added to the, "Relevant opinions" section of the Two-nation theory article?-Haani40 (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't that page say it already? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It presently says,

The theory rested on the view that Muslim Indians and Hindu Indians were two separate nations due to being from different religious communities.[1][38] It asserted that India was not a nation. It also asserted that Hindus and Muslims of the Indian subcontinent were each a nation, despite great variations in language, culture and ethnicity within each of those groups.

which is not the same. It is saying something like they were already 2 different nations, while what I want to add is more accurate (see my sandbox).-Haani40 (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't get into such fine-grained analysis. Your source is again an online encyclopedia with unknown credentials. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

So, in short, you are saying that that "encyclopedia" isn't a reliable source right?-Haani40 (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to write about the historical past, you need books and journals. If you are only able to deal with news sources, you can only write about current affairs. But once again, if they make historical claims, you would need backing from scholarly sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, sure!-Haani40 (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Biased editing?

A new user has changed the meaning of a paragraph with this edit. Is it justified? What can I do?-Haani40 (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Since he/she added a new source, you need to read that and check if the content added/modified is in accordance with that source (or even with the existing sources). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Burjor Avari

I found your restoration of BLP-violating content at Burjor Avari surprising given your tenure and knowledge of policy. I know that you're aware aware of the requirement for such content to be supported by reliable sources, so please include your sources if you intend to restore it. Thank you, -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo, you caught me in an edit conflict. :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I knew there must have been something odd going on! -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

RS

Is this a reliable source for the Arvind Kejriwal article?-Haani40 (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

It was used in this edit.-Haani40 (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Newspapers are perfectly fine for current affairs. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks!-05:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Haani40 (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

How to change my user name slightly?

How to change my user name slightly (I just want to change 40 to 39)? Will I lose my extended confirmed user rights if I do so?-Haani40 (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

i would advise against it, because it would confuse people who are just about getting to know you. If there are strong reasons why you have to do it, please ask at WP:Teahouse. (I used to know it some time, but it was a long time ago.)

Congratulations on getting extended confirmed! But this also means that you cannot be considered a "new user" any more. You need to edit responsibly in contentious areas. If not, you can be taken to WP:ARE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Haani40, please read the Changing Username information page. It includes a link to where you'll need to make the request. You should not lose the EC rights on a rename. Ravensfire (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks to both of you! -Haani40 (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Article about India

I see that there is no mention of the Maratha Empire in the article about India (neither in the lead nor in the History section) but the lead of the Maratha Empire article reads,

The Maratha Kingdom was expanded into a full-fledged Empire in the 18th Century under the leadership of Peshwa Bajirao I.

- so should we not mention that India was ruled by the Marathas and that the English East India Company seized control of Bengal in the Battle of Plassey and then defeated the Marathas in the second and third Anglo-Maratha wars and established Company rule in India?-Haani40 (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The India page is not expected to contain a comprehensive coverage of history. For that, there is a path on History of India. Any change to the India article requires WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page, because it is a Featured Article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

In the, "Maratha Empire" sub-section of the, "Early modern period (c. 1526–1858 CE)" section of the History of India article, it says,

The Marathas are credited to a large extent for ending Mughal rule in India.

- so should that not be mentioned in the lead of that article?-Haani40 (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

References

WP:IN

I think you should mention the edit wars or proposed, "Request for Comments" going on in the Aksai Chin, Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), Sino-Indian border dispute and India articles at WP:IN.-Haani40 (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning, "Delhi CM"

I added a sentence here at the RSN Singh article. Now to that sentence if I add, "..... in which he alleges that the CM of Delhi is a security threat as he received money from the Ford Foundation" will it be a WP:BLP violation?-Haani40 (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

If I add, "..... in which he alleges that the CM of Delhi is a security threat. (without mentioning the Ford Foundation)" it may be more acceptable.-Haani40 (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a major WP:BLP violation. In fact, that page is already terrible, because it has practically no biographical information about RSN Singh himself. The primary purpose of that page is to write about RSN Singh, not to reproduce his views. Wikipedia cannot be a mouthpiece for RSN Singh. We can only include information from WP:SECONDARY sources that write about him. To write anything about his books, you need to find book reviews regarding those books, and you need to summarise them fairly without WP:CHERRYPICKING. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Have a look

Have a look at these changes. May be a case of POV. Skimming through I've seen atleast one instance of WP:OR in the second para - Bhutan and North Bengal are not mentioned in the accompanying source, Secondly the map [3] used doesn't have sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)