User talk:Kautilya3/Archives/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 20

Filibustering by some users

User:RegentsPark and User:El C, as you may be aware there have been excessive WP:FILIBUSTERing on Talk:Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. I understand that this is a controversial article under AC DS and we all need to discuss disputes, but we have continuous display of "Not hearing" and Walls of text on the talk page there (also in the archives), and it is becoming a big time sink, when the editors could have been utilizing their precious volunteer time in actually editing the article. Any suggestions ? --DBigXrayᗙ 11:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I was not aware. Can you provide a few examples? El_C 11:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
here is an example of filibustering about a FAQ document, released by the Indian govt, that failed to get attention from independent media houses and which is, according to some politicians, a part of govt's misinformation campaign to discredit CAA protests.
That does seem excessive. But Kmoksha is a new user, so they might be unaware they are crossing the line toward WP:TE. At any rate, I've placed a discretionary sanctions alert on their talk page, for now. El_C 12:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I had alerted them about DS a month back. Hope your note helps. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Replying here since I was pinged. El_C Please note that :Kautilya3 had accepted only recently that section "Indian Government Response" needs to be expanded using accepted good source links of the article. Please see - here Kautilya3 even thanked me for mentioning that link in that regards. And of the 4 links which DbigXray puts, only 2 were started by me. And the second thread was started by me since Kaulitya3 had insisted to put separately issues in different threads. And he also asked me to put concrete proposals from what the section says at present and what they are proposed. So, all these charges are baseless and all this is wasting other`s time and not discussing for the improvement of the article.
The real issue here is not of WP:FILIBUSTERing but of recent disagreement regarding edits done for a section by Kautilya3 for that article. The new content put violates Wikipedia policies. Please see - Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#Latest_"Relationship_to_NRC"_edit_violates_Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view_and_WP:SYNTHESIS
Regarding DBigXray`s assertions regarding alerting me, after he posted warning of "Original Research" on my talk page, I had gone to his talk page and asked him to be more specific and give some examples of what in my edit is "Original Research" and that which of my edits were not good. He did not even bother to reply !! DBigXray frequently posts vague allegations on other`s talk page in spite of frequently requesting not to do so. -- Kmoksha (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
In any case, Kmoksha, as I also note on your talk page, tending toward greater concision would be beneficial for all concerned. So I urge you to be mindful of and apply that. El_C 13:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@All, I have now added Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019/Archive_3#Government_FAQs_on_Citizenship_Amendment_Act thread link as Link #1 in my list of threads above as evidence for filibustering and walls of text. Apologies for any confusion, I may have caused. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your response El_C . It would be really helpful if the allegations are more specific, giving what exactly I am doing wrong and example of expected behavior. I do try to improve. You can see that thread of proposal was created AFTER other editor asked me to do so.
I would like to quote text of Filibuster link here to bring things into context - "Stonewalling or filibustering – repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution." Please note there has been consensus achieved that "Indian Government Response can be expanded using already accepted source links" after my efforts. I have already given the link of that in my previous comment. So, the charge of Filibustering on me is untrue and baseless. -- Kmoksha (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not sure that filibustering is the right term to be used here. But, Kmoksha, you do need to be clearer and more concise in your comments. My suggestion, after attempting to read the talk page of that article, is that you start afresh. Make a new section. Propose small pieces of content that you would like added or point to specific rewrites of the article (small ones). At present, it does look as if you're repeating the same arguments again and again without getting consensus while the problem may just be that other editors are unclear as to what exactly you are proposing. You may, or may not, be making good points but you're in danger of being seen as a tendentious editor and that will end up with topic bans or blocks. --regentspark (comment) 21:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@regentspark Thanks for your response. At the beginning, I put a thread on the article Talk page telling 3 issues with the article. The editors there wanted one issue in a post. Now, when that is being done, the allegation is that there are too many posts. I have made only one thread and one proposal thread for FAQs by Indian Govt was made AFTER a editor at Talk Page told me to do so. I am being blamed for creating threads which are not even created by me. I had informed the new user that such post already exists and I gave the link for that issue. So, I am trying my best to improve the article and the Talk page.
Quoting from "tendentious editing" - "Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view." I had suggested recently that matter from accepted sources which are already present in the article be used to improve the article. And there has developed a consensus regarding that. I am not saying either to put any matter for or against anyone which is not supported by the sources already present in the article. So, this is not Tendentious behavior by the definition of the Wiki policy link. -- Kmoksha (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Kmosksa, I think you're editing in good faith but this response of yours is illustrative of why you're having problems. If other editors have problems with you, it is rarely helpful to go into long explanations on why you're being "blamed" or unfairly treated. Rather, you should either change the way you're interacting with them, or focus on presenting small changes and sticking to content and be clear and precise in what content changes you want to see, or, in the worst case, just move to a different subject area for a while (you can always come back to this later). Tendentious editing is, in particular, very hard to see in oneself. --regentspark (comment) 01:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@regentspark I am willing to improve. But it would be really helpful if the specific wrong which I am doing is pointed out by quoting the relevant part of the wikipedia policy. And example of expected behavior is given. That is seldom done even on requesting that. DBigXray had posted warning of "Original Research" on my talk page, I had gone to his talk page and asked him to be more specific and give some examples of what in my edit is "Original Research" and that which of my edits were not good. He did not even bother to reply !! So, if other person refuses to be specific, it is not always possible to change behavior which will be satisfactory to that person also.
You said "focus on presenting small changes and sticking to content and be clear and precise in what content changes you want to see, or, in the worst case, just move to a different subject area for a while (you can always come back to this later)"
Now, I am putting as limited content as possible in one thread. But now there are false blames that there are too many posts, this is the accusation made in this post. You can see there are only 2 posts created by me on FAQs. The one archived post is a duplicate. I started the other thread because I was asked to put separate specific proposal. All this problem is since the editors are not being specific.
Please tell me that are lengthy and frequent discussions on editor behavior claims on Article Talk page regarding a healthy thing for the article improvement ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Kmoksha, "tendentious editing" is a broad pattern that gets displayed over a period of time through a number of edits. It is not possible to give "examples" in the manner you are expecting. Rather, you need to reflect upon your own conduct in the light of the criticism and consider how you need to change your ways. You also need to spend a lot less time in writing posts and spend more time reading other posts and truly understand what they are saying. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and your value is determined by how well you are able to collaborate.
You should also consider editing other topics where you are less invested than this one. Being tied to a topic does not give you the breadth of experience needed to become a good editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3 Most of the wikipedia policies apply for a number of edits, not for one edit. These policies have listed in them tens of types , sub-types and exceptions. Unless accuser is specific what he has in mind, other person is unable to read the mind of accuser as to what he wants.
So, the accuser should point out the specific wrong which he claims that an editor is doing by quoting the relevant part of the Wikipedia policy. And link that behavior of editor showing numerous similar edits over time (Every edit is recorded on Wiki, so that can be easily done). And the accuser should try to give example of expected behavior. If one is incapable to do so by oneself, help should be asked from others. So, vague accusations do not lead to any constructive result. Rather than copy-pasting text on 10-20 editor talk pages in a week for violation of Wikipedia policies, accuser should focus on few editors. Rather than just copy-pasting text of violation and then refusing to specify them, accuser should discuss their claims in details with Quoting of the policies and other specifics mentioned previously.
I will quote here from the link Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Accusing_others_of_tendentious_editing - "Making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment if done repeatedly. Rather than accuse another editor of tendentious editing, it may be wiser to point out behaviours which are contrary to Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and the 3RR rule. See also: WP:AOHA and WP:ASPERSIONS."
I did edit other articles too. Managing time is my personal issue, which I will try to do so. -- Kmoksha (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@DBigXray, The second and third link given by you in the thread opener are the same, so there are only 2 threads on FAQs created by me. I have been saying all along that I created one thread with issues initially. I created another thread after I was told to not put multiple issues in one thread and to make concrete proposals for the changes I would like in the article. So, I made another thread only for Proposals for adding FAQs with their counter-points. So, where are the multiple threads on FAQs which you are claiming ? In fact, even before you posted these allegations on me, in the article Talk page when user Yndesai had started the thread on FAQs (the 4th link given by you), I had informed him that thread on this topic already exists so that he posts there. When he did not do it, I explained him "we should FIRST see the already accepted source links of the article. In my opinion, they have sufficient matter in them to improve the article. Adding new sources should be done only if present sources are insufficient." And he closed the thread himself ! So, you can see if we are polite to others and explain them properly, they understand and change behavior.
When I made the first edit, you straightaway went and copy pasted on my talk page language which is accusatory and vague, without detailed information what I have done incorrect. So, I went to your talk page and asked you to give some examples of which edits were "Original Research". You never mentioned those either on your talk page or on my talk page !! So, you can see the difference in my and your behavior with other editors and which is more efficient in changing behavior. Now, I would request you to end this campaign of vague charges on me and focus on improving Wikipedia articles. -- Kmoksha (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Kmoksha, I looked into this first edit about which you have complained several times. The edit you made on Christmas Day replaced the existing sources with egazette (the text of the Act) for the lead sentence and somewhere down the line the government FAQ. Both of these are WP:PRIMARY sources, which should be used with much caution, if at all, and certainly not for the lead sentence. You also removed existing content about the relation to the NRC, using your own arguments as to what the page should cover. DBigXray's revert, done within minutes, said "Pov edits with poor sourcing, discuss on the talk page please". The "POV" refers to the fact that you were pushing the Government viewpoint. "Poor sourcing" refers to the fact that you were using PRIMARY sources. And he invited you to discuss it on the talk page.

The warning message you received is the standard template message for WP:NOR. There is no separate template message for using PRIMARY sources. However, if you had clicked on the link given, and read through at least one section of it, you would have known that the issue was PRIMARY sources. They do not fit into the five categories of sources listed as being acceptable "reliable sources". DBigXray's "original research" complaint also possibly refers to your arguments in your summary:

3. NRC is not part of CAA and its rules and procedures are yet to be decided and so NRC should not be discussed in this wiki article. 4. Bill does not exclude anyone, it does not include people other than those who meet certain criteria.

If you want to raise points like that, you need to do so on the talk page and obtain CONSENSUS, not in an edit summary where nobody can respond to you.

You removed the warning message within 20 minutes. It is not clear whether you had read the policy page by then. Your next action a few hours later, was to write on DBigXray's talk page, saying "You have not pointed even a few sources which were not according to Wikipedia policy". You also seemed to be accusing him of bad faith and possible conflict of interest, neither of which was warranted. "Discuss on the talk page please" is a perfectly polite and welcoming conduct on the part of DBigXray. His response was also equally polite.

The normal course of action we expect of experienced editors at this stage, both as a response to "discuss on the talk page please" and reference to WP:BRD, is to post a message on the article talk page, asking for why your edit was reverted. The subsequent discussion on your talk page, in the presence of two admins, is certainly not edifying.

Your eventual post on the article talk page is perfectly ok. It is the right thing to do. But, after having made the post, I think you didn't carefully listen to the objections that were raised, and find other solutions. For example you could have dug up the "IE Explained NRC+CAA" article, which does cover the Government FAQ in the context of its own discussion, and proposed content based upon it. You are yet to do that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Will now respond to the allegations by Kautilya3
1. "pushing the Government viewpoint" and related allegations -
I would like to say once again that my principal concern is for improvement of the Wikipedia article. Other editors have similar expressed concerns on the Talk page that the Citizenship Amendment Act article is of poor quality lacking proper view points. As told multiple times by me, FAQs released by Indian Government was a major event covered prominently by Indian media, so it should be covered in the article. One can see that I have proposed critique along with the Government response. Will a person whose sole aim is to "push Government viewpoint" put critique of the Government FAQs in his proposal ? NO. So, I fail to see why few editors continue with their allegations of "pushing the Government viewpoint"
From Day 1, vague charges have been levied on my talk page and elsewhere.
2. My First and Second Edits of Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 Wiki Article -
2.1 Allegations of adding Primary sources -
Please see the statement by Kautilya3 while discussing on Article Talk page regarding Primary sources -
"The citations where the text is directly quoted will remain, as per the policy on WP:PRIMARY. "
The egazette link was already in the source links and so was used by me as reference for the definition of the act. Unless someone tells me, I did not find anything wrong with that.
2.2 My first edit and DBigXray's revert -
In my first edit, I had made several changes amongst which one was -
"In practice, non-Muslim minorities do face discrimination and persecution." This statement from BBC is there in the current Wiki article version.
An experienced editor is expected to not revert blindly the whole edit but to keep part of the edit which is useful for the Wikipedia article. My first and second edits had useful parts like correction of spelling mistakes etc. but the whole edits were reverted within mintues without bothering to conserve the parts which could be useful for the article.
See what the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Revert says -

"Before reverting, first consider whether the original text could have been better improved in a different way or if part of the edit can be fixed to preserve some of the edit,..."

On talk page of DBigXray, I had written "you reverted all of the edits without going through all the edits. You wrote in your edit to discuss on talk page of article. But you yourself posted on my user page and said that "it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies." You have not pointed even a few sources which were not according to Wikipedia policy. Even if you had pointed a few and corrected those, I would have corrected the rest. My whole effort was to remove errors including hearsay, unreliable sources and make the article have a neutral point of view."
I removed the warning message by DBigxay because it had no details regarding what was wrong with my edit. It was simple copy-paste. Accusing on another editor`s talk page and not giving any examples of what was wrong with the edit is not polite, but accusatory. Reverting in 20 minutes does not in any way prove that I did not read the policies listed in that copy-paste.
3. Nationwide NRC procedure details
The Nationwide NRC full details have not been yet declared but Kautilya3 had claimed that full Nationwide NRC rules were published in 2003. So, I asked him question that "for a person X who is claiming to be a persecuted minority in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh and comes to India in January 2020, what will be documents required for that person to prove the claim and get citizenship of India. He has not even responded to that yet. See - here.
4. "IE Explained NRC+CAA" article and Government FAQs -
Kautilya3 said that I have not yet proposed content for Government FAQs based on this secondary source. Please note that Yndesai has suggested in my thread already but Kautilya3 or other Talk page editors have not responded to that yet. I would request all to kindly give their opinions on that.
I have earlier answered other allegations like posting several threads on Government FAQs. Of the links posted by DBigXray, two are duplicate and one is by Yndesai, so only two were started by me. And the second one was started since I was asked to give concrete proposal regarding what should be added in the article regarding this topic.
You can see that I have, as far as possible, tried to adjust with other editors with aim to improve the Wiki article. That is my sole aim. For example, when I was told to give limited number of proposals in one thread, that is what I have been doing.
So, I would request to STOP false allegations on me and talk about improving the article.
Kmoksha (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Gleichshaltung

Nazification under Narendra Modi, Media coverage of fascism under Narendra Modi... DTM (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The current scholarly analysis of the Modi government is Hindu majoritarianism. There is a full article on that by Christophe Jaffrelot. See the citation at Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019#Background.
Attaching stronger labels is not warranted. But there is always the danger that majoritarianism and ethno-religious nationalism will degenerate into fascism. Some elements of that are present already, e.g., branding people as "anti-national", "unban naxal", "go to Pakistan" etc. But I won't accept the fascism label until Jaffrelot is ready to do so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
DiplomatTesterMan, The author in my link above is a scholar with several books. That said, "Modi government is fascist" is still his view point. Although I think it is now shared by many others. I am not sure if we can start an article with the topics that you suggested. For now I would suggest adding section with solid sourcing in existing articles and taking it from there. The article I linked on the top is a good interview, I would still want to hear back the answer to my question on what you think. DBigXrayᗙ 12:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
DBigXray Yes, it is a good interview. And Hindu majoritarianism as an article seems very hopeful; my suggestions were exaggerated of course with the usage of words such as fascism. (But if there are enough good sources for a topic, then well, there are).
To answer the question directly DBX - I would just want to evade it. I am not a scholar enough to understand and collate what happened in Germany, Russia or Italy and then compare it with the progression of events in contemporary India. Do I put it on a scale 0 to 100, with 100 being the completion of the Gleichshaltung? Do I say that India is seeing the progression of a hybrid version adapted to the Indian situation for different reasons and gains? Do I try to ascertain the level of exaggeration in the words of people as compared to the physical unfolding of events and their actual intensity and impact... I don't know. Do I see it through the eyes of a mother or soldier or farmer or businessman?... I don't know. And since I don't know what to say.... simplifying this (dangerously) to a yes or no... I would say no, nowhere near, we are at a physical binary zero. But then there is the perception part, slightly different with unique attributes from the physical aspects. Now has Modi already crossed a line of no return in that aspect?... It is up to you to answer the question yourself...
Tomorrow if you ask the question again I may have a totally different set of ramblings. What a delightful topic and stream of thoughts. And one new article in the making from it - Hindu majoritarianism DTM (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Yup. an article on Hindu majoritarianism may be the right thing to do. Vanamonde93, views? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Iranica Online

Hi, is this source reliable. It was used by the sock master here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Iranica Online is definitely a reliable source, in fact a very good one at that. But the edit misrepresents it as meaning "equivalent". The Dardic people were called pisacha and Dardic languages were called paisachi. But I believe various other kinds of hill tribes may have also been called pisachas and their languages paisachi. See Paishachi.
As to what the good old Aryans of Punjab meant by the term pisacha is not quite clear. Some references to "eating raw flesh" are found in old texts, which got interpreted in later days as eating human flesh. But the sources don't actually say that. But the term does indicate some kind of prejudice by the plains people against the hill people. See Talk:Kashmiris/Archive 2, where some discussion of Dardic pishachas occurred. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Considering that the source was introduced by that troll, I thought it would be better to discuss with you. Thanks for reminding about this. I used to read those discussions. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Need help

Hello, thank you for the intro before for my edits in Mian family. Appreciate it. However, I need your help. My edit here has been reverted for the fact that that article is “high-level”. But, my thought is, I am trying to improve a section of a high level article. It was nothing but good information I used from INC article. INC as you know, is the most premiere organization of the Indian independence, however, it only got a footnote, so I added much needed material. Can you double-check for mistakes and put it back, if possible? (2600:1001:B020:408:6566:F30A:A8C2:BDFE (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC))

Fowler&fowler says that for a History of India page, we only need to use material from a History of India textbook. We can't go into much more detail than that. I generally agree with him. If INC is not getting enough coverage, please find a History of India textbook that gives more coverage and argue based on that. That is all you can do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! I will research it in the next few months. (2600:1001:B020:408:6566:F30A:A8C2:BDFE (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC))

Issue with the term Lieutenant Governor's rule

Please remove the term lieutenant governor's rule because it is no where described by the government of India so please remove it.Some citations are also given which tell central rule to remain in union territory through Lieutenant Governor not that term .So please do something with it. Arjunuws (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Arjunuws, which page are you talking about? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I am talking about the page president's rule and List of chief ministers of Jammu and Kashmir. Arjunuws (talk) 10:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, the pages don't seem to be protected. Could you not edit them? I fixed the problems now anyway. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sir Arjunuws (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Cute - West Bengal

Ring a Ring-of Roses
the Door to Secularism Closes
Hush-a-Hush
We all fall sown[1]

"They are encouraged by the dividends the sharp communal polarisation prior to the 2019 Lok Sabha election fetched them." i can't recall why there was a communal polarisation. Can you remind me the events that caused it.? DBigXrayᗙ 22:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
It was probably local to Bengal and probably generated by BJP itself by campaigning against the Bangladeshi immigrants. There is a page on 2019 Indian general election in West Bengal. But it doesn't say. This needs to be understood better. The BJP is very close to winning there. It could be the driving force for the whole CAA+NRC project. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The Hindu BusinessLine said, had it been a bi-polar contest, the TMC would have lost. Mamata is trying to some clever balancing act now, but it is probably not going to work. If the BJP can convince all the Hindu Bangladeshi immigrants that they are going to get citizenship, Mamata will be finished. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Dey subrata, Can you confirm the guess made by Kautilya3 on the causes of communal polarisation ? DBigXrayᗙ 23:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Some data:

The CAA certainly fulfils a longstanding demand of Hindu Bangladeshi immigrants in West Bengal-mostly from the Matua community who entered India after 1971. As per the 2011 Census, Matuas comprise 17 per cent of the state's population of 100 million. They are a force to reckon with in as many as 70 assembly constituencies, out of the total 294 in Bengal. They have voting rights, but are yet to get citizenship certificates. With CAA, the BJP seeks to consolidate the support of Matuas, who helped the party secure 9-10 seats in the general election in May 2019.[2]

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Shoaib Daniyal figured this all out back in April:

Shah made sure to communicate exactly this order of events at his April 22 rally in the state. “Mamata Banerjee is lying that all refugees will have to leave as a result of the NRC,” he said. “First we will bring in the Citizenship Amendment Bill, which will give citizenship to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist and Christian refugees. Then we will flush out infiltrators.”[3]

Repeats it in his more recent piece.[4]-- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

In the 1990s, communalising the migrant became one of the electoral strategies of the BJP and its allies... And such actions were not confined to the BJP. ... The implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, marked the return of the debate on refugee versus infiltrator (saranarthi banam onuprobeshkari) by freezing the category of ‘illegal migrant’. In West Bengal, the binary gained considerable attention; it translated into a poll agenda for mobilising electoral support in the border districts. During the campaign for the 2014 Lok Sabha election at Krishnanagar town in the border district of Nadia, which is predominantly populated by Namasudras and Muslims, Narendra Modi asserted: ‘There are two types of people who have come in—infiltrators and refugees. Those who are refugees are our family’.[54]... However, despite the rhetoric of claiming Namasudras as part of the larger Hindu family, my research reveals that neither trust nor civility has been extended to Namasudras post-Partition, as they continue to live under a perpetual threat of disenfranchisement and have to struggle to achieve substantive citizenship.[5]

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Romita Datta, Why no one will douse the CAA fire in Bengal, India Today, 10 January 2020.
  2. ^ Kaushik Deka, Who is (not) a citizen?, India Today, 10 January 2020.
  3. ^ Shoaib Daniyal, ‘We saw what happened in Assam’: BJP’s citizens register gambit may be backfiring in Bengal, Scroll.in, 28 April 2019.
  4. ^ Shoaib Daniyal, Will NRC only target Muslims? A government clarification directly contradicts Amit Shah, Scroll.in, 21 December 2019.
  5. ^ {{citation |last1=Sinharay |first1=Praskanva |title=To Be a Hindu Citizen: Politics of Dalit Migrants in Contemporary West Bengal |journal=South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies |volume=42 |issue=2 |year=2019 |pages=359–374 |doi=10.1080/00856401.2019.1581696 |ref=CITEREFSinharay,_To_Be_a_Hindu_Citizen2019}

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lipulekh Pass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

DRR

I have made a DRR here and I hope you respond there. Thanks!—Spasiba5 (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Sharjeel Imam as a Notable Figure in the ongoing anti-CAA-NRC Protests

Can you confirm if Sharjeel Imam is 'notable' enough for a Wikipedia page? You have also reverted my edits to Sonia Gandhi's page. Perhaps we'll discuss that on that talk page. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachi bbsr (talk • contribs)

Sachi bbsr, I don't have an opinion on that issue. Even if I did, it wouldn't matter because it all depends on what the WP:RS say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Sachi bbsr no he is not notable to have his own wikipedia page. Kautilya3, his family member contested on a BJP ticket. he has been planted to throw muck around JNU's name. Dirty games obviously, since nothing else seems to be working for BJP. DBigXrayᗙ 15:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Notoriety is also a variety of notability, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachi bbsr (talk • contribs) 07:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting Placards on CAA Protest

Media kitna gir gaya - indeed.
What is the pichle saal ki topi? A couple of banners mentioned it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
pichle (last) saal ki (year's) topi (cap/hat), they are saying, I cant even find my cap from last winter/year. how do you expect me to find papers older than 1971 ? --DBigXrayᗙ 13:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh wow that is a good, creative and in your face set of placards. So many of the people holding the placards are smiling and look happy in the pictures; look empowered. "We have been there" held by the European hits you though. DTM (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

this tweet says that CAA has open the flood gates of creativity on social media.--DBigXrayᗙ 18:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Do check out, the interview of Anurag Kashyap. He is a film director actively participating in protests. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The great Indian Three-card Monte--DBigXrayᗙ 18:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Donate a book to the needy... Kids on an outing, like eating pizza...
DBigXray, talking of placards, I found this one to be interesting, esp the handwritten one. DTM (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
DiplomatTesterMan, Do check this out. Hitler version. [1] DBigXrayᗙ 14:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
{{The Citizenship Amendment Act protests, also known as the CAA and NRC protests, the Citizenship Bill and National Register of Citizens protests, or the CAB and NRC protests, are a series of ongoing ...

Injuries: 175 (reported as of 16 December) Death(s): 27(including 3 minors) Arrested: 3000+ (reported as of 17 December) Date: 4 December 2019 – present Location: India Gurpreet Singh khalsa67 (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Balija article edit reason

Mr. Kautilya3 The caste content will take us before british raj era its not about scientific article to update with current reference its about culture and origin of caste so it is historical so old approved government documents will be useful for this article andcalso if we want to update new reference then we cant write about old historical articles. I used a reference Madras district gazeeters in Balija which is approved and used by Government its not a fake or unknown writer's book till now "Madras district gazeeters" is preserved by Government. Thank You Sathyanarayana naidu (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring raised at WP:ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Cluebat needed on Balija. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Expressinng dissent towards you removing sections with proper references

Dear Kautilya,

You may be an experienced Wikepedia contributor. I appreciate you for the same. But you have been removing sections that I have added at Uniform Civil Code page with proper references. This is uncalled for from an experienced person like you. You can instead say why the references quoted are not acceptable. Instead you chose to remove them with arbitrary reasons. Kindly let me know why you removed the same. Don't you understand Hindi ?

Sriramadas.mahalingam (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Golwalkar and Malkani are not reliable sources. You have been referred to the policy on reliable sources repeatedly. You need to drop it now. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

What as Leader of RSS, Shri Golwalkar said is relevant to the topic Uniform Civil Code and Hindu Code Bills. Hope you get the point.

Sriramadas.mahalingam (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bishonen:, can you help? This user is badgering, while making no effort to understand policy.— Kautilya3 (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Kautilya. I have warned the user on their page. Er, don't you want to move this section down to the bottom of the page? Sriramadas.mahalingam, please post at the bottom of talkpages, not the top. People may not find your post if it's in an unusual place. Bishonen | talk 16:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC).
Redoing ping to Sriramadas.mahalingam. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
With regard to your comment at my User_talk:Sriramadas.mahalingam on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, on the article Uniform Civil Code, like Jawaharlal_Nehru and B._R._Ambedkar stand on the the issue, the stand of M._S._Golwalkar is also important. He was the leader of Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh and the sources that I have cited are his own published by his own Organization. User:Kautilya3 certainly seems to in favour of the what the article intend to bring about and hence isn't letting the other sides of the opinion to come out to the external world. He removed sections bluntly saying they arent from reliable sources. They are indeed reliable sources.I have provided pages from the book published itself. User:Kautilya3 is attempting to suppress other side of the opinions. He is suppressing facts and freedom of expressing duely backed by facts and mis-using his privileges. —Preceding undated comment added 08:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sathyanarayana naidu (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Golla (caste)

Kaudilya3 why you removed my articl in Golla (caste) page Sathyanarayana naidu (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Sathyanaraya naidu, , I have already given my explanation at Talk:Golla (caste)#Original research galore. Please continue the discussion there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Request

Kautilya3 brother i want to say Sorry, Sorry, Sorry for my behaviour in past which may hurt you. Please forgive me Please and also iam new user of wikipedia so i know only little about wiki but you are much more senior than me please Guide me like this in future too. I want you to be my master in wikipedia. can you guide me master. Please accept my sorry request and forgive me master. Please , please, please, please Sathyanarayana naidu (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The Asian 10,000 Challenge

WikiProject Asia Hello Kautilya3/Archives. You have been invited to join WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Asia-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the participants.

If you know someone who might be interested, please invite them by: 

{{subst:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge Invite (1)|~~~~}}

Thanks,
Dey subrata (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for welcome message

Had you guys followed 

   The five pillars of Wikipedia
   Contributing to Wikipedia
   How to edit a page
   Editing tutorial
   Picture tutorial
   How to write a great article
   Naming conventions
   Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia: 

   Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
   Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
   Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
   No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
   If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
   Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
   Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

No need of guys like me to come here, thanks again. 2405:204:3323:9B54:C52E:6E2D:E178:BB9 (talk) 11:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Ethnic groups of Asia - Non-indigenous minorities

HI, can you take a look at this section recently created by an IP hopper from Netherlands. I took care of some blatant WP:OR, but a lot of the refs themselves look unreliable. IP seems to be pushing some sort of racialism based agenda. I wonder whether the section should be there at all. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, I took a look at the section you mentioned. I am not at all comfortable with the content that has been added here. Some specific issues:
  • "Non-indigenous minorities" is a terribly POV term, and I doubt if any reliable sources used it.
  • This is not a list article, and there should not be a list unless such a list appears in some reliable source. Even there, there needs to be a narrative, again reliably sourced, in line with the rest of the content on that page.
  • I tried to verify the numbers given for India, but I couldn't, from the cited sources. So, we need to check if the sources are actually saying what the content does.
Unfortunately, I am quite busy at this time, and expect to be so for at least another month. So I will leave it in your good hands.
Talk page watchers! If you are able to help, please do so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The original header as edited by the IP was on racial lines "Europeans and Eurasians" [2]. I found that header rather "colonial" so changed it to "Non-indigenous minorities". A term also used in Ethnic groups in Europe. Since the IP is very active in the article (also in similar articles) I thought it would be better to take care of things after they stop editing. I just removed some of the obvious original researches and nerfed clearly racialist terms like mixed race, white, etc in the section. Apparently the IP thinks US, UK and Russia are 100% "European" countries. As for the numbers, most are likely original researches. Thanks and regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems that I prefer the term "Europeans and Eurasians" because that is an ethnic description without any value judgement. Calling them "non-indigenous" would require a reliable source. For the most part, these people are descendants of former European colonisers. They might have never seen any country other than the one they live in, and may regard themselves as "indigenous". Even in the Ethnic groups in Europe page, it would be better to call them "Asians and Eurasians" without saying anything about indigeneity.
Vanamonde93, can you give your view? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, "Europeans and Eurasians" is preferable to "non-indigenous minorities", but I haven't the time to evaluate the sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Junaid Azim Mattu for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Junaid Azim Mattu is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junaid Azim Mattu until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

gawkadal massacre page is being altered

look at the recent history of Gawkadal massacre. unknown editors are changing the lead with all sorts of outlandish changes. I dont want to revert any change myself in case it causes an edit war or something. You seem to have a better handle of things here, can i suggest the page be reverted to the status quo and placed under protected status ? Mhveinvp (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mhveinvp, please feel free to revert whenever you find such vandalism. All you need to do is to write a clear edit summary and post warning/welcome message on their talk page. If they reinstate the content, please open a talk page discussion and ping me or admins from there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Help

The matter I had put up at, "Religious conversions in Pakistan" was removed because I had copied it from the, "Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan" article. I have now created a new draft here: Draft:Religious conversions in Pakistan . Please improve the draft and move it to where it belongs (so as to re-create the article). Thanks!—Spasiba5 (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Spasiba5, I am quite short of time to be able to branch out into new topics at this stage. I should admit that I am also not particularly interested in religious conversions. I notice that El_C gave you some good advice on how to improve the page. Please use it and submit it for review whenever it is ready. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Why were edits to Uniform Civil Code removed

In the Uniform Civil Code page, just like Tufail Ahamed a noted journalist, another journalist Madhu Kiswar had expressed her opinions on the topic. That portion represents alternate important view points on the topic. She is also a women. The source cited was from a noted magazine Swarajya, where she writes. Could you explain your problem with that source. Rajarajan2020 (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't remove the Madhu Kishwar content. But I also thought your write-up was pretty pointless. I will clean it up when I get time to look at it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Mathematics in medieval Islam

 – content discussion

The name of the section on Wikipedia is: Mathematics in medieval Islam It is written here "Mathematics in medieval Arabia"? It doesn't matter how many Arabophile illiterate writters want to make everything Arabic. It must be very unwise to think that since non-Arab scholars (such as Berbers and Persians) wrote in Arabic, we should call all the achievements of the golden age of Islam Arabic. RedEye98 (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

RedEye98, the title of the page you are editing is Hindu-Arabic numerals. It is not Hindu-Islamic numerals. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

If you think so, go in the Arabian horse page, write Arabic Zoology! What you are talking about is a fallacy. They call it Arabic because it was used in the Arab Caliphate. In fact, Persian Khwarizmi made it from Indian numbers. You know that RedEye98 (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Message

Dear Kautilya3, Thanks for your guidance Knowiunderstandit (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC). but i need guidance regarding what to do if i need to add content in a topic in semi protected pages.

Take time to update yourself on neutrality

Hello user, thank you for your contributions on Wikipedia it would be better if you take time out to refer to those neutrality articles of Wikipedia than suggesting them to others while taking sides yourself. You mentioned "BJP bagged 40 percent of the vote by raising allegations of 'Muslim appeasement' against Mamata Banerjee." without any references and it does belongs to something which is related to Lok Sabha elections. So few other things can also be mentioned which are important in the run up to Assembly elections. And the most important thing is I have provided references to everything I wrote and none of it were my own words, all of it were taken from those news articles.

You also wrote "Soon afterwards, the party passed the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA), promising citizenship to Hindu immigrants from Bangladesh and hoping to win the election by garnering their vote" which also had no reference.

Soon after forming government, Central government not only passed CAA but abrogated article 370, 35(a), triple talaq so these things are also required to be mentioned. And by the way CAA not only provides citizenship to only Hindus but also Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and Parsis who are religiously persecuted not only from Bangladesh but also Pakistan and Afghanistan.

With best regards.

SamanyaGyan (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

SamanyaGyan, welcome to Wikipedia. At the top of your talk page, you wrote "I'm open to suggestions if you have one. Thank you!" Did you really mean that? Then how do you explain the fact that you have completely ignored a clearly written edit summary with a policy link, as well as the suggestion I made on your talk page? Let us talk about those first. If there is need, we can get to your issues later. Do you have any idea what WP:UNDUE means? If so, please explain it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm open to suggestions but not from manipulative and biased persons. I have not overlooked anything, I have made edits to an article with proper references so I don't have to justify those edits on someone's talk page. If someone have doubt about the edits they can visit the references which are from reputable media agencies and not some sham media sites or bloggers.
My edits aren't undue expansion of the article. The "Background" section requires information about what has happened in the run up to the polls and I mentioned them only. But it is ironical that other things were fine before my edit because they helped to promote a particular ideology!
Why aren't you explaining how these edits "BJP bagged 40 percent of the vote by raising allegations of 'Muslim appeasement' against Mamata Banerjee." without any references or partial facts like "CAA promises citizenship to Hindu immigrants from Bangladesh" are justifiable? SamanyaGyan (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@SamanyaGyan: I see. So I am a "manipulative and biased person". So my suggestions mean nothing. You are quick to jump to judgements. Well, let us leave that aside.
How do you decide what is undue in a section on "Background" on an election that has not even happened yet? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Since you mentioned what was written on my talk page so I thought to clarify that I'm not open to suggestion from manipulative and biased persons, if you take it on yourself then nobody can help. Leaving that aside it is you who should explain what undue expansion is because it was you who appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election. But if you want to hear from me then:
1. In the aforementioned article you edited "BJP bagged 40 percent of the vote by raising allegations of 'Muslim appeasement' against Mamata Banerjee." without any references and I request to produce any reference which solely credits "allegations of 'Muslim appeasement' against Mamata Banerjee." for the BJP's performance in the Lok Sabha elections. So I improved the article by adding other factors which were responsible for BJP's win and with proper references and also added how BJP alleged 'Muslim appeasement' against Mamata Banerjee.
2. In the same article you wrote "Soon afterwards, the party passed the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA), promising citizenship to Hindu immigrants from Bangladesh and hoping to win the election by garnering their vote" which also had no reference. Since the central government also cleared other legislation before CAA so I mentioned them there which holds importance for the assembly elections.
3. In the same line you wrote "promising citizenship to Hindu immigrants from Bangladesh" which are partial facts mentioned in a particular way to satisfy a particular section of people and promote a particular ideology violating the neutrality of the article, please refer to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV) to know more. In reality CAA provides citizenship to Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Parsi immigrants fleeing the 3 officially declared Islamic countries Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan due to religious persecution which has been officially notified by the Government of India.
4. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. So you should also explain how you could add partial and biased facts without any references violating Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). —Preceding undated comment added 09:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Since you keep on going on about "references", the references were clearly present in the version you replaced: the references 4 and 5. You simply did not read them. If the content is "partial and biased", you are welcome to raise it on the article talk page and we can discuss it.
The NPOV template covers the issue of WP:DUE. Since it might not have been clear, I added an additional note on your talk page as well mentioning WP:UNDUE in the edit summary, two things that you again failed to follow up.
But you have ignored the central question, how do you decide what is due in a background section of an election that is yet to happen? Until you provide a clear answer to that, this discussion is simply going in circles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
It has been a standard throughout the pages on elections that circumstances or situations prevailing in the run up to elections i.e., the events, topics or points which arises or are raised by the campaigning parties are considered as the background of the election.
It would be great if you put some light on the questions asked by me. You are no investigation officer and it ain't a grilling session where I'm responsible to answer you. WP:CONSENSUS can't be reached like that. SamanyaGyan (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The WP:CONSENSUS page does explain how to obtain consensus. Please read it carefully.
Background sections are always contentious. They need to be discussed thoroughly and in good faith. In my view, it is too early to be writing a detailed background section for this page since the election is still far away. However, if there are good sources that discuss the background now, they can be summarised, but very very briefly. When the time comes, we will now what to expand and what not to expand.
I have also told you that the 2019 election page has practically no content. So if you want to write about that election, it should go into that page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia pages doesn't runs on someone's personal view or what someone thinks is right or wrong. You saying the time is not appropriate for expansion then you contradict yourself since you made an edit mentioning "Expanding article" in the edit summary. You will be glad to know that no time is early for knowledge.
In the concerned article it is mentioned by you that "BJP bagged 40 percent of the vote by raising allegations of 'Muslim appeasement' against Mamata Banerjee." in the background section then all factors should be mentioned for the win and not only a single factor to satisfy a particular section and promote a particular ideology. Partial facts are also mentioned regarding the CAA. Your sources doesn't proves your edits and it violates the WP:NPOV. SamanyaGyan (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Whatever concerns you have with the article content, you are welcome to raise them at the article talk page. You should note however that this is not the place for general discussion of the 2019 election. Only those pieces of information that reliable sources consider relevant for the upcoming Assembly election go here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I will make sure that subjects belonging to 2019 Lok Sabha elections will not be put into the article and will make sure the contents at present belonging to 2019 Lok Sabha elections will be removed. SamanyaGyan (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hope you're doing well

I just wanted to drop in and see if you remember me :) I believe it's been years since we last interacted. I hope all is well with you x

Tiger7253 (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect Title of Article "Muhammad Ibrahim Khan (Politician)"

Dear Kautilya,
I am sorry for copy paste of message but Inside Pakistan Administrated Kashmir few family have surname "Sardar". Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan was a very famous person of 1950s, United Nations invited him to New York during Kashmir Crises to brief about possible solutions. We have thousand of Articles related to his name "Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan". Even his invitation of UN was "Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan". He was a Professional Lawyer and practicing in Poonch, Mirpur and Srinagar. He was Popular of his case on Poonch Court for Double tax and he was only person from Tehsil of Poonch who got 1st Position among other candidates of Poonch. Maharaja Hari Singh support him for his studies. Even in Indian Documentaries he is considered as a Barrister. There are a lot of information available related to this person. So, it is my appeal please at least we should have correct title of a person. Thanks
Knowiunderstandit (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Knowiunderstandit:, here is what you need to do:
  • First, find reliable sources that state that "Sardar" is part of his name.
  • Then file a move request asking for the page to be moved, citing the sources you found.
After enough time, somebody will close the move request and determine whether it should be moved. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Jamia attack

A video of library --DBigXrayᗙ 10:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

[3] Creativity of SM users. fyi User:DiplomatTesterMan--DBigXrayᗙ 11:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Lol... Phir Hera Pheri if I am guessing correctly; Akshay Kumar is a patriotic one too and Madhu was Mr. Raval (Uri boss)... as patriotic as it gets... if the links made consciously then even better, and what the scene in the movie itself represents. Anyway no thesis on this..... Wonder why no one has created a page for Amit Malviya as yet. Not even a deletion tag. DTM (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
And yes if I remember correctly those three end up getting the money at the end of the movie....DTM (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
DiplomatTesterMan, :D . I did not understand " Madhu was Mr. Raval (Uri boss)'" ? I am not sure which movie, may be you are right. The pic is very funny indeed. Even bigger wonder is there is no page for the IT cell. I discussed about it here [4] DBigXrayᗙ 14:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
"Madhu was Mr. Raval (Uri boss)" In the meme the lady refers to Madhu Kishwar as far as I can tell, hence the Madhu. Mr Rawal... her face is cropped onto the face of Paresh Rawal, the actor, if I am a guessing the movie and movie scene correctly. Paresh Rawal also play the role of Govind Bhardwaj, the National Security Advisor in the movie Uri. So I was thinking AltNews, if they have created the meme, sure chose to depict an uphill battle in all ways, chasing Akshay Kumar (Mission Mangal ISRO star) and Paresh Raval (NSA)....( I mean all this in a funny way, though I am terrible at humour so just forget all this I am overthinking since the movie isn't what is being referenced to, it is just a background. The meme was a good one.)
As for video/s related to JMI, I wonder what will happen over here in the page move request - 'attack' or 'violence'.... both? But that is best left for the closer. And that article maybe could do with some more additions now, this stone story for one. While the stone story can be passed off as a something small, it isn't, like the people in the Wire video connecting things to the larger picture. DTM (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
DiplomatTesterMan, OMG, that is surely some over analysis you did there. I will just remain with the Herapheri comedy that I guess was the Meme maker's intention. I feel it was made by an Alt News fan.
As for the JMI attack, may I request you to withdraw your request, that may probably tilt the balance. It hardly makes much difference, but it appears that using violence waters down the incident and makes it appear as if it was from both sides, while in reality it was one sided attack on JMI.
here is another interesting video by Swara Notice how this lady is trying to push the government Propaganda and how well the actress brings her down. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 18:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. I didn't realize the ABP has turned so pro-government now, or is it just this lady? Swara is awesome always. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
It has been since the Media takeover by the governement. Punya Prasun Vajpayee was fired by ABP after he did one episode exposing Modi's lies when he interviewed the farmer to get the trth that their income has reduced infact. [5] [6] That farmer was made to lie and say that their income has doubled, to a question by Modi. The ruling party could obviously not bear the embarassment or a journo with a spine. This lady is akin to a BJP worker in Media, her tonic question to modi got her immortalized in Memes. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The stone story

The 'stone' story was propagated by:

and others I don't need to mention.[1]

And watch this video from 04:10 and again at 22:15. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Fact Check: Channels Reported a 'Stone' in Jamia Student's Hand – But It Was a Wallet, The Wire, 18 February 2020.

Meet the Dolan

here, I cracked up. User:DiplomatTesterMan--⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray Friend should have some common trades, or the above case could be our PM's real benifits from those awkward hugs from "Dolan Bhai". Check it. Peach face's best words of 2018 :) Dey subrata (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
While within India (and on Earth) it is said much of the media may not have spine as if a spine is still a necessary thing for the media, this show sure still has... "temporary symbol of hate" (ep 181) I wonder if this phrase could go in Narendra Modi's Wikipedia article (media outlets cover it too). (The word "criticism" has been used over 20 times in the article, any more times seems to do little harm in today's world). As for Dolan, Oliver's pronunciation of Yogi (11:08) may trump Dolan. On another note, as scary as the RSS is made out to be, the media seems to be getting into the head of RSS, at least the chief. Maybe the word should disappear from the RSS article too where is appears 7 times in the body... and 23 times in the sources, to reflect this change in thinking/media portrayal... I'm never using that word again. DTM (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[sarcasm]
Trump is something ! His gibberish in english could be percieved but Indian names, my goodness, it was hilarious, may be Vivekananda need to visit Chicago again to clarify Trump that his name is not "Swami Vive"kamun"nand, which Trump said in "Ababad" (Ahmedabad). Sachin must be thinking which of his relative's name is "Shhoochin", Something if anyone guess "Chiwala" some kind of animal species! :P 1 Dey subrata (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hindustani language

Hello, I'm Fogstar, on Hindustani language, you reverted my edits, I put Urdu to the top, because untill the end of 18th century or 1857, the language may not call Urdu, but it was written in Urdu alphabets, and call the language of Muslims (from British Raj), but I want to add that, now it is a Hindi dialect, indeed it was a language of Muslims. —Preceding undated comment added 08:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Fogstar, I have reverted your edits since you didn't provide sources for any of your claims. Please note that for historical information, you need WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, there is a lot of discussion on the talk page with numerous sources and quotations. You will benefit from reading some of it. You cannot make edits without support from reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

EPH Tool

IS very helpful. Recommended. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 10:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Swarajyamag

The editor wants Hindus to fight the war --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 12:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Gosh, this is ultra right. And, he used to be the editor of Firstpost, may be even its founding editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3, Firstpost is owned by TV18, an a Mukesh Ambani company. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Yet it fired him! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3, possibly due to financial /performance reasons. I would still be interested to know why ? did he breach TV18s tolerance limits ? ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Businessmen, by and large, believe in peace and prosperity. They might have subtle biases, but that is not to say they would nourish raving lunatics. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3, Indeed, I agree. One of the reasons I posted this link was to log it so that I can find it if someone insists on using this magazine. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 15:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Western Media vs Republic

Taseer :D DTM, Dey ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray Haha !! I can't stop laughing! So much regardS from Republic TV, he said enough with my breakfast !! I mean, see who is begging for discussion on fake news. One of my neighbour has a pomeranian and another watch Republic, I some time forget which one is which :D Dey subrata (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Dey subrata, the journo put it aptly, "surreal". He was smart enough to dodge the bullet. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I am just thinking, how she might be reacting to the reply, even could she was able to tell her boss about the warm wishes sent !! Dey subrata (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saffron terror; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Pectoretalk 00:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. — Sanskari Hangout 09:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Kho article

Hi, Kho article's "History" section has been changed today by some new user. Skimming through the 'updated' section, it seems that some of the sources are not that reliable, not to mention the usage of news sources (I came across one). Would you check it, in your time? Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit delhi riot page: its anti-india protest not Islamophobia

This riot is purely organized by people with anti-india mind set. Many hindus and muslims has been killed. Stopping labelling this as Islamophobia. Thats totally absurd. Write an article only if you know the truth. Half baked knowledge, one-sided articles cannot make the truth from showing itself. For this article i could also call Hinduphobia, will you accept?!!. "Truth alone triumphs". Sri Dhanalakshmi (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Truth alone triumphs! I certainly hope so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers
  • New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
  • If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment on NRC

by Jharkhand CM is pretty badass. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 08:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi, Kautilya. I've asked you a rather urgent question in response to your e-mail. I hope you'll be able to reply soon. Bishonen | tålk 18:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC).

Sock puppet??

Please check the recent edits at the caa protest article 1 and 2. Lot of materials are being removed, in the name of sock puppet who was blocked months ago I think. But do you think this users are itself a case of sock puppetry ?? Dey subrata (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, sorry for the delay in getting back. You are well within your rights to take ownership of the blocked sock's edits.
It would be appropriate for you to write a note on the talk page with a general overview of the content you have taken ownership of. It is not necessary to explain "each and every item" as the other editor demands. We operate on a WP:BRD cycle. People may revert particular content with justification, and then a discussion can proceed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Dey subrata, please see Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947–1948#Kautilya3_and_meat_puppetry for the storm that broke out when I did such a thing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes just seen, Check this, give me a laugh. Wow, they are trying their best. I just feel sorry for DBX, that ANI thing just pissed him, that was unnecessary stress I think along with those offwiki articles, I think opindia is now blacklisted, can you confirm it? Dey subrata (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea. I never even heard of OpIndia until they started raiding the North East Delhi riots page.
As for the SPI, I think Bbb23 is looking for you to respond. It would be a good idea to do so, even if it is just a simple denial. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

need help in deciding if a new page could be created

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mhveinvp/sandbox i wrote the page on my sandbox and i need your help. Should i go ahead with creating a new page for this as there is a similar page for blocked websites in china. I could just create this and would see later but i am just asking for your opinion here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhveinvp (talk • contribs) 10:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mhveinvp, this is definitely not encyclopeadic information. But some summary of it can go in the Jammu and Kashmir lockdown page. Please try to find secondary sources and summarise what they say. The list of sites can't be put here, but you can certainly add a link to the government website that has the list. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websites_blocked_in_mainland_China i am referring to this page. there is an entire table of the websites. Because the situation has NOT eased up entirely and the government still hasnt fully lifted the ban, i am hoping in coming days as things progress, we would see changes to the list and that could be done. Mhveinvp (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

That appears to be part of censorship, whereas in the case of Kashmir is part of lockdown. These restrictions may be temporary. If and when they appear to become permanent restrictions, and reliable secondary sources say so, then we can start such pages. But not yet. At the moment, all we can do is to summarise the information in the relevant event-based pages like Kashmir lockdown etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
(talkpagewatcher)Mhveinvp, I am not sure how serious I am when I say this, but consider a page called Censorship in Jammu and Kashmir. And if no one else integrates the content into lock down,  I won't mind doing so and expanding it a little more. enough talk. DTM (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

North East Delhi riots

DTM, Dey subrata be safe. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know guys. Have been too busy lately to follow this.
Some things that I didn't see covered in the article. A "special commissioner" by name of Srivastava has been appointed? There are some hopes that he might bring it under control.
I have seen reports of journalists being attacked/threatened too.
Was the Trump trip overshadowed by all this? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3, No, infact the the trip overshadowed the riot. But I guess, that was the plan ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Delhi's a big place, NCT covers 1,400+ square kilometers and has a pop of over 11 million... But then considering that a few ladies in Shaheen Bagh can hold over 100,000 to ransom, the numbers play out and mean little. Photographs would have been interesting. Ashok Nagar mosque will be there, so maybe even sometime later on. DTM (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
a nice pic of that Hunuman flag for the article.... it is funny how Kejriwal also paid his respects to Hanuman after winning. DTM (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
DiplomatTesterMan, Bringing Hanuman into the picture became necessary, since "कुमति निवार सुमति के संगी" You can hear from the MLA himself in this lucid explanation. yeah pics would be nice, it is sorely lacking. Even landscape pics of Delhi with smoke can be a good representational pic for the article that is now on mainpage. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 11:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
polarizing the Gods indeed!.... though the bond of Ram and Hanuman should be strong enough handle this as the stories go. That's an enlightening explanation! DTM (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting article, that I found today. This Opinion piece covers most of the points. Do take a look at it ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 21:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

---> Consolidating the contents from another section with the same heading ------- Hi User:Kautilya3, I hope you're doing well. I noticed that you changed the spelling of the Hindi-Urdu word for traitor (it may have been an accidental click on your end). This is the entry from a Hindi dictionary and this is the entry from an Urdu dictionary (you can click on the first audio sample in the Hindi dictionary to hear how it is pronounced). The word is romanized as Ghaddār from ग़द्दार / غدار. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Anupam, I spelt it as ghaddaron from my own sound sense, but the sources were using gaddaron, e.g., [7]. So I thought, what do I know. Please change it to whatever is correct. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks User:Kautilya, I have done so. I hope you have a great day. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Takbir source given please see. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I find it impossible to correct the narrative especially when someone has a full-time job and other commitments. You suggesting some contents for your review as I have seen mostly one-sided stories so far on wiki pages

  • Two things stand out in this move: first, OHCHR’s complete blindness to the rampant violation of human rights by India’s immediate neighbours, namely Pakistan and Bangladesh—violations because of which the minority population in these two countries have decreased drastically, unlike in India where various minority communities have been thriving, as obvious from their burgeoning numbers; and second, the abysmal ignorance of the UN body, for it comes across as uneducated in its inability to read and understand a law which is all about expediting the citizenship of minorities fleeing from persecution in the three Muslim majority countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, and is not about taking away the citizenship of Indian Muslims. [1]
  • Another video of hate monger Harsh Mander surfaces clearly saying issue can only be resolved on streets [2]
  • ink of Umar Khalid speech on 17th Feb in Amravati. Listen to this from 14:00-14:40 min. He is appealing to people to come out on streets in huge number when Trump arrives in India on 24th. What happened in Delhi was planned a week in advance? [3]
  • A Muslim woman candidly admit, in front of DelhiPolice, her husband force her to go and sit at #AntiCAA dharna/protests site [4]
  • Mahmud Pracha, Legal advisor of Shaheen Bagh and lawyer of Bhim Army Chief asking “Muslims to sell their property and jewellery and buy GUNS, for self-defence” [5]
  • Wife of DCP Amit Sharma, who was critically injured in the anti-CAA Islamist mob attack says that women invited DCP for talks, surrounded him and initiated attack on him and were soon joined by men armed with hockey sticks, iron rods, knives and pistols. [6]. Here is the video of this incident - clearly how Mob word is used to hide the identify the real culprits [7]
  • Delhi violence: Head Constable explains how he controlled Shahrukh, man who pointed gun at him [8]
  • AAP leader Tahir Hussain leading the riots from his house [9]
  • Outdated but still good for reading different PoV - https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/muslim-persecution-of-hindus-in-india-the-story-you-wont-see-in-the-western-mainstream-media

Rkb76in (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Rkb76in, please acquaint yourself with our guidelines to reliable sources. El_C 17:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/hands-off-india-ms-bachelet
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/girishs2/status/1235220386888867841
  3. ^ https://twitter.com/AshishSinghNews/status/1234342817889079296
  4. ^ https://twitter.com/goyalsanjeev/status/1234538733887578116
  5. ^ https://twitter.com/pokershash/status/1234453971009339392
  6. ^ https://twitter.com/DivyaSoti/status/1235628487928471552
  7. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/city/delhi/delhi-riots-video-of-day-2-violence-shows-mob-attacking-cops/videoshow/74490792.cms
  8. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/city/delhi/delhi-violence-head-constable-explains-how-he-controlled-shahrukh-man-who-pointed-gun-at-him/videoshow/74401250.cms
  9. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/city/delhi/delhi-riots-case-absconding-aap-leader-tahir-hussain-arrested/videoshow/74491744.cms
El_C, Those tweets have Videos embedded in it, just not comments from random people. And others are from news outlets. Rkb76in (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Videos are not reliable sources either. Please use newspaper sources only, and avoid opinion columns unless they are from recognizable scholars. In any case, your comments should go at the article talk page, not here. I am not involved with the page at this time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3, :El_C, There are still 3 articles from the newspaper. But I guess, it does not matter. Thanks!! Rkb76in (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Kaaba Conversion of non Islamic Places of Worship into mosque.

[Diff of revert at Conversion of non-Islamic places of worship into mosques]

I have posted the citation while doing the changes let me share them again 1)https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-art-history/west-and-central-asia/a/the-kaaba ( from an islamic origin) 2) https://www.al-islam.org/story-of-the-holy-kaaba-and-its-people-shabbar/kaaba-house-allah ( from non islamic origin)

Regarding the Ram Janm Bhoomi I have posted the reference and report of ASI which was cited by the hindu news paper Which clearly state that no temple was demolished to built the mosque also a structure do exist but it is not temple. for further clarity please read the verdict of Supreme court of india https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/The-ASI-Report-a-review/article16052925.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedfalah7711 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk page watchers, can somebody look into the claims being made here? I do not have much time today to attend to it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ahmedfalah7711: Neither khanacademy not al-islam are reliable sources so I haven't looked at them. The Hindu article you link to does not categorically state that no temple was demolished to construct the mosque. Rather, and admittedly I only skimmed the article, it is a review of the ASI report that appears to think that the report does imply that a temple existed at the site but, according to the author, that is based on a dubious reading of the archeological evidence. You will need to show that the writer of the review is an academic archeologist whose views are reliable enough for inclusion in any article. --regentspark (comment) 14:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Regentspark, Coming to kaaba first well both domains are of very high authority khanacademy is being sited by many big publishing sources like newsweek and here is the britanica source which clarifies it further more.

Now coming to ramjanmbhoomi ram lala land dispute feel free to read it out here is the hd (check on page 530) "One of the objections before the High Court was that the ASI report did not specifically answer whether there was any pre-existing structure which was demolished for the construction of a mosque and whether the pre-existing structure was a temple." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedfalah7711 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

on page No. 530 of same Judgement quoted by you, it concludes by observing "High court held... "The existence of several pillar bases all show earlier existence of a sufficiently bigger structure, if not bigger than the disputed structure then not lesser than that also." (Page-531). Further "After Analysing the evidence, Justice Agrawal observes:.....(i) The disputed structure was not raised on a virgin, vacant, unoccupied, open land. (ii) There existed a structure, if not much bigger then at least comparable or bigger than the disputed structure, at the site in dispute. (iii) The builder of the disputed structure knew the details of the erstwhile structure, its strength, capacity, the size of the walls etc. and therefore did not hesitate in using the walls etc. without any further improvement. (iv) The erstwhile structure was religious in nature and that too non-Islamic one. (v) The material like stone, pillars, bricks etc. of the erstwhile structure was used in raising the disputed structure. (vi) The artefacts recovered during excavation are mostly such as are non-Islamic i.e pertaining to Hindu religious places, even if we accept that some of the items are such which may be used in other religions also. Simultaneously no artefacts etc., which can be used only in Islamic religious place, has been found. Santoshdts (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 – content discussion

To article or not to article

Your mention of Haider over at JKPSA got me thinking. The Haider monologue (Hum hain ya hum nahin?/Are we or are we not?/To be or not to be) could have it's own article! That would be a splendid! Here's a citational start -

  • The renowned line of Haider’s monologue “Hum hain ki hum nahin” (Bharadwaj, 2014) or Hamelt’s soliloquy “To be or not to be” (Shakespeare, 1982) is in fact a metaphor. (Hamlet-Haider: From Rotten Denmark to Rotten Kashmir, International Journal of English and Education)
  • Finally, references to the soliloquy are made during Haider’s monologue at Lal Chowk. It is on this occasion that the hamletic dilemma is generalised, as the question is directed at a crowd of Kashmiris to make them reflect about and react against their poor living condition. (Bollywood Adaptations of Shakespeare: An Analysis of Vishal Bhardwaj’s Trilogy)
  • The blindspot riddled Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act is brilliantly turned into a soliloquy as Haider stands in a street square to ask the question,

" (The New Indian Express)

But I guess there isn't enough content for just that monolouge. (edit) Not even Monologues of Haider.
I wonder when Wikipedia will see its first article in the Category:Monologues. Or maybe they're already here in other places such as in Category:Lectures ex Religion not the crying need of India. DTM (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi DiplomatTesterMan, I am one of those deranged guys who can only use fiction to understand the non-fiction :-) So I am afraid all the Hamlet connection passed me by. And I don't remember the monologue at all!
But I remembered the movie in our context because of the uncertainty of custody, not knowing where a person is, whether he is alive or dead etc. And the death, when it finally arrives, doesn't surprise anybody. I am surprised that the reviewers say it didn't have a punchline. It certainly did for me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Chanakya. You wrote "I am one". I think you meant "I am NOT one". Just confirming.
Uncertainty is something felt all over the world. Uncertainty of custody isn't unique to Kashmir, and will never be. I am not trying to play this down, just sounded like a nice line to write, meaningless at best. You yourself haven't mentioned Kashmir persay in your reply so I will take you meant it as a universal (earthly) truth. DTM (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
No, indeed, I meant I am one. What I got out of the movie was that it portrayed a realistic scenario where the people we brand as "terrorists" are ordinary people and the people that we brand as "patriots" are traitors. However, I got the sense that, for normal Indians that watched the movie, the central characters of the movie were "normal people" that were caught in the middle of a battle between terrorists and the government. They totally identified with them. The brother the traitor was indeed a traitor who manipulated the government into doing the wrong thing. The government was noble, the terrorists were evil, and the people the victims. So there was no "punchline". Obviously, there isn't, because they missed the whole point of the movie.
Coming back to uncertainty, I was talking about Kashmir of course, that being the context of the movie. Elsewhere in India, when a person is arrested, he/she is charged with cognizable offences, has access to relatives and lawyers, and it is known where they are imprisoned. They are eventually produced in a court of law, where a public trial takes place. Under the laws operating in Kashmir, none of this happens. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I've forgotten all this; probably will need to watch the movie again :D. I missed all this. When I was just watching it, I just watched it without thinking, I didn't even register the word Kashmir at the time is was released. Actually got bored in parts.
Well now that Kashmir has been integrated on paper into India, and central laws are slowly being shifted (in a different way as compared to before).... Kashmir should/will see the same rights as other states/UTs, not only on paper but in reality (yes yes I am not making this statement as a universal truth but generally as you also acknowldeged "Elsewhere in India...") DTM (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Related to laws in JK, after the reorganisation, PSA should have been scrapped as other laws were right?

An official statement later said all the central laws, applicable to the whole of India except the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir before October 31, 2019, are now applicable to Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir from October 31, 2019.(HT)

The question is why draconian laws enacted by the erstwhile state assembly such as the Public Safety Act (PSA) are still operative... To rebuild the trust deficit and to win over the confidence of the Kashmiris, the government must immediately repeal the PSA – which should have become ultra vires, in the first place (ORF 28 Jan 2020)

This is a good question raised in ORF - "why laws enacted by the erstwhile state assembly such as the Public Safety Act (PSA) are still operative". What confusion. Using Wikipedia, it is impossible to understand what is going on in terms of all these laws?... or am I missing something? DTM (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't see what confusion there is. "Central laws become applicable" doesn't mean that state laws won't be applicable. People believe that the PSA violates the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Indian Constitution. But somebody needs to challenge it in a court of law. Are they expecting the government would repeal it on its own? Really? How else would Farooq Abdullah be detained, just to give an example?
The ORF guy's paragraph is talking about the contradictions in the Centre's walk and its talk. Are you really surprised that there are contradictions? Really? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
PSA has been challenged... don't know what sort of a challenge and how serious but a petition has been filed in the SC in Feb 2020, just mentioned the petition in the PSA article too. This is hope!! Bhim Singh (politician) can be a legend! (DeccanHerald Feb 2020).... as for the contradictions, my bad. I didn't mean to come across in that way.
You know, Yoninah has said the PSA article is too critical and even tagged it. But now that I am trying to sort it out, I can't find anything positive written about it, anywhere... the most I got was Omar refused to revoke it when he was CM and that it protects the nations "security".... and stops timber smugglers. DTM (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Edition or section

Are you sure it is the Asia-Pacific edition of WaPo? As far as I'm aware, it doesn't have any, unlike Time or Newsweek. Is it the Asia-Pacific section of the newspaper? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Fowler&fowler, you are probably right that it is the Asia-Pacific section. I will remove the edition bit. But I am basically trying to figure out how to distinguish between the article titles they are using online and those they are using for print editions. Some times they are just shortenings, but at other times they are completely different. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
They usually say at the bottom of the online edition, "This article appeared in the afternoon edition of the Post on Saturday, ... etc." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are most welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Duniya bananey waley... Kya tere mann mein samai kaahe ko duniya banai?

It is really a big mystery why people forget these things:

Boya ped babul ka amua kahan se paye? A thought taking birth in brain of a person is just like a child taking birth from womb. Yatha Drishti, tatha Srishti!

Slow and steady wins the race

Gupt daan is shresth daan

The Vedas says "Satha hastha samahara sahasra hastha samkira" which means earn as if you have hundred hands but donate as if you have thousand hands.

"Bhagwaan ke yanha der hai andher nahi" - Copyright is poison of mankind and open source is boon for mankind. It may seem for a while that devils are powerful but the eternal truth is angels only start working when the time ticks and duty force them to act.

What did Ravana do in his last moments? Hiding truth for Dharma is totally valid but hiding truth for Adharma is totally invalid. A building constructed on base of falsehood can never last long.

Your username and userpage inspires many people so thought to keep this on your talk page.

Satyameva Jayate | Micchami Dukkadam | Bhul Chuk Maaf

--Sooryavanshi (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding revert of my edit on controversies section on AltNews article

Hi Kautilya3, I believe I missed signing my edit. I can add my signature as you suggested. But according to Wikipedia guidelines, the cited reference to the edit I had proposed is a tweet from the verified account of the co-founder of the news outlet. I request you to suggest me a proper way to get the revert that you made to be restored back. Thank you. Vishal Telangre (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You need to read the edit summaries. My edit summary said "Please use WP:SECONDARY sources". I also posted a welcome message on your talk page, which explains how to use reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
So even a tweet from the verified account of the owner of AltNews, Pratik Sinha can not be added as a citation? That's highly suspicious. He acknowledged himself in that tweet that he spread the misinformation. If Wikipedia cannot even trust the verified account of an organization then who should we trust on? By the way, according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, "In most cases, Twitter accounts should only be cited if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way". Vishal Telangre (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The issue is not one of reliability, but of due weight. Please read that policy, and make sure to use secondary sources for contentious information. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Destruction of Somanatha - Motives

There is lot of discussion about the destruction of the temple. But, the motives for the same havent been discussed in the article. As far as my edit the word manycould have been inappropriate, Instead if I use: The purpose of the raid were Political, Economic in nature and Undoubtedly Iconoclasm was also one of the reason. or can I quote the auther of the book verbattim?Santoshdts (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Santoshdts, note that this suggests that the primary reasons were political/economic, which fits with the pattern of Mahmud's raids in general. And, plunder has already been mentioned in the page.
There was also a specific iconoclasm issue with Somnath, because there was a belief that Arab deity called Manat was moved to Somnath. So he was possibly thinking that he was destroying an idol of Manat, rather than a Shiva linga. This is discussed later in the book. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
if this is the reason, then it doesn't make adding "Iconoclastic motives" any problematic and biased (as his intention was destruction of a place of worship, immaterial of any religion). However, I do not see the mention of "manat" in the article, or did I miss it? Thanks for reply. Santoshdts (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
No, it is not in the article. But, if you want to discuss iconoclasm, you need to bring it in. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Would be wise to bring "manat" into this article (wrt WP:RS)? AFAIK, all the sources reffering to manat are observations from Exaggerated records of near contemporary Muslim scholars, which most Historians don't consider as reliable sources to bank on. Santoshdts (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Whatever Romila Thapar has described can be safely covered in the article. But honestly, is this the time to be debating a thousand-year old boondoggle? You can write what you are able to write. I was only objecting to the fact your original addition was an NPOV-violation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Request your views on this proposed edit: The purpose of the raid could have been Political, Economic in nature and Undoubtedly Iconoclasm was also one of the reason.[1] Some Muslim writers tried to establish connections to an idol of "Manāt" from Ka‘ba with Somanatha. They said, manāt was hidden from destroyers in Ka‘ba and smuggled to a place “which had from times immemorial been the home of idolatry” and installed the idol in a temple which was known as "su-manāt".[2] Thank you. Santoshdts (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Santoshdts, A British Raj era history book is not considered a WP:HISTRS. Have you read Manat (goddess)#Somnath temple? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I can add: Some Muslim writers established connections to an idol of "Manāt" from Ka‘ba with Somanatha. They said "Somanatha or Somnat (as it was often rendered in Persian) was a garbled version of su-manat — referring to the goddess Manat ." and cite Thapar page 48 or Link it to the section you have provided (Thanks for that) or completely remove Su-manat reference. What do you suggest? Santoshdts (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Thapar, Romila (2008). Somanatha:the many voices of a history. Penguin. p. 39.
  2. ^ Nazim, M (1931). The life and times of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazna. p. 210.

Synthesis?

With all due respect, what the heck are you on about here? That's what the source says. You know as well as I do that original research in this topic is grounds for a topic ban, so please don't throw that accusation around lightly. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You wrote "this claim, without the associated context, is egregiously misleading". What makes you think the second source provides the context for the first? That is in fact wrong, let alone SYNTHESIS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The context is that sources do not discuss the low transmission rate without also discussing underreporting; even the Indian express source discusses the potential problem of underreporting. But that's not the point. You accused me of violating our core policies with the text I added, which, as I have said, represents the source accurately. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The Indian Express source is not saying that the underreporting is an explanation for the low transmission rate. But your edit is implying that, is it not? If there is a source that says that this transmission rate was a result of underreporting, please feel free to use it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
My edit is implying nothing of the kind. My edit added a sentence sourced to the BBC representing a viewpoint about the pandemic in India that is widely reflect in reliable sources: that is the context missing from the present version. If you believe that a single study from CMI deserves mention in the lead, but that adding this widespread narrative constitutes synthesis because it doesn't directly contradict the previous finding, you've lost perspective here. I am reinstating that edit. RegentsPark, take a look at this, if you would be so kind; If you believe I've lost my ability to read and synthesize the source material, I will gladly step away from this morass of an article. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The BBC story is commenting on the low figure of reported infections. But this is really a case of pots calling kettles black. Tell me which country is doing enough testing to report an accurate figure of infections. If you want to provide this context for figure of infections, be my guest. But this does not in any way affect the infection rate, which is what the Indian Express source reported. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
K, you're changing the topic again, and I don't particularly appreciate it. The UK's lack of testing, or that of any other country, is utterly besides the point. Our articles on the pandemic in India need to reflect the sources about the pandemic in India. I added appropriately sourced content, which you reverted, accusing me of violating a core policy. I'm not especially interested in forced apologies, but don't do that sort of thing unless you've got serious grounds for it and are prepared to bring that accusation to the relevant forum. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you don't see it. But your edit was undercutting the infection rate, which has good authority, and I believe it to be correct. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Even if it was, and it isn't, that's no grounds to accuse someone of violating policy; that's a question of ordering existing content appropriately. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, I believed that you meant to undercut it. I had no idea you were trying to undercut something else that was further out! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
And that's the opposite of assuming good faith. What's gotten into you? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Help developing a page

Request you to help me out in developing a page I created 2020 Tablighi Jamaat Congregation Crisis. It would be very helpful if you would add on to this page. Thank you. Karnatakapolatics (talk) 05:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Karnatakapolatics, it would have helped for you to read the Tablighi Jamaat page in the first place, where it has already been covered. Also, I am not confident that it is a "crisis", at least not in India. It could have been in Malaysia, where they had a much bigger congregation and essentially "jump-started" a pandemic which didn't exist earlier. In India, it is happening in the middle of a lockdown and it can be easily contained. Who has called this "crisis"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shanze1 (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

With reverting your article

Stop your disruptive editing Wikipedia is not the place to edit the article with your own opinions. It is unlawful to blame the supreme authority of India prime minister Narendra Modi. Write ur opinions in your diary Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Not on Wikipedia Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Here article supports by references work Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Not your Original research Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Next time Be aware Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

ABVP

Regarding revert of my edit on ABVP edits. Dear author you seems to be biased and more interested in putting you own opinions about any such group,incident,place or person. It is okay to have your own opinions but since you are on a page like Wikipedia you have to follow NPOV (neutral point of view). You gave no reason why and how my edit violates any of Wikipedia Terms. Please give valid reason how my edits were against any condition? Until you don't provide a valid reason to revert my edit , You will be called ideologically biased and may i report this to authority. You should be neutral why being on sites like wikipedia. I saw your many or all edits are specifically biased toward a specific Religious-Political part of India. Some of your Edits Violates wikipedia's terms and condition. And some of your article are reverted. I want you to be as neutral as you can restore my edits to maintain neutrality of article on ABVP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilabh Shivam 333 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Nilabh Shivam 333, that was not a "minor edit." Please discuss contested additions and observe WP:ONUS, especially the part that reads: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. El_C 14:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. Nilabh, welcome to Wikipedia. Please note that the ABVP is a contentious topic. You need to go slow and take one issue at a time. Ensure that all the objections raised by the editors are addressed. And read the edit summaries that we write when we revert edits. "Talk page" in means the article's talk page, in this case Talk:Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) El_C then how to restore my edits after making some changes that i might have made some minor mistake. But the reason given for reverting my edit is something else like unreliable source. But that is infact a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilabh Shivam 333 (talk • contribs)
Nilabh Shivam 333, that should be discussed on the article talk page or at the Reliable sources noticeboard. El_C 15:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3 the reason given for reverting my edit is something else like unreliable source. But that is infact a reliable source. And one more thing will you undo my revert or not. If no then why and what should be criteria for that ? Nilabh Shivam 333 15:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Care to explain this message

Can you explain this message? And how you think it only applies to me and but not you? And if you admit that it applies to you please explain what you have done differently than me?VR talk 16:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

All edits are subject to WP:CONSENSUS. Trying to rail road them is what gives rise to such warnings. Please follow WP:BRD. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Not news

Hi Kautilya3, you reverted some of my recent edits to the 2020 coronavirus lockdown in India article citing WP:NOTNEWS. While some of my reverted edits in the page seemed like news but this article says hundreds of people gathered together and it seemed notable to me. Or is it because i included more intricate details about the incident in the "Effectiveness" section? Please forgive my ignorance here as i'm still in the learning stage. SUN EYE 1 16:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

It is publicity stunt, and is of no encyclopaedic value. Not everything that gets published in a newspaper goes into an encyclopaedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

A radical COVID thought

For talk page stalkers, here is a radical thought. It is becoming clear that recovery from COVID for under-65s can be essentially taken for granted (unless they have other risk factors), whereas for over-65s it can be deadly. So the thing to do seems to be isolate the over-65s from under-65s. The under-65s need to mingle so that they develop herd immunity and become able to break the chains of transmission, while the over-65s need to stay away from them until a vaccine becomes available. Viewed from this angle, the lockdowns in Italy and India seem to be headed in the wrong direction. When the lockdowns are lifted, the same situation will recur. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You are not invincible... WHO said something like that to youngsters. And this line you wrote "The under-65s need to mingle so that they develop herd immunity and become able to break the chains of transmission, while the over-65s need to stay away from them until a vaccine becomes available." The Wikipedia page for Herd immunity is interesting - it has a "Cost–benefit analysis" and lines like "Since the adoption of mass and ring vaccination, complexities and challenges to herd immunity have arisen." (Please don't think I know what I am talking about) Cost benefit analysis for humans always sounds dystopian no matter which way you look at it. DTM (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Although you meant it from a health perspective, the Bajaj MD said the something similar yesterday "We should have kept only the vulnerable at home, closed all public spaces, and allowed the young and healthy to keep turning wheels of the economy". (ET) DTM (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems to be common knowledge among the educated middle classes now, and they are taking precautions. The poor won't know, and they also won't have the means to isolate the older people. But, at the same time, Indians accept the march of fate a lot more readily. Losing the older people to the mahamaari seems like just what the fate orders. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The WHO's talk of "eradicating COVID" seems dangerously misguided. We have seen how fast the COVID virus can jump and spread. It is nothing like "small pox" and "polio". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Sad to see people being ostracised for exposure to COVID.[8] Even worse to see COVID being regarded as a 'dirty' disease.[9]

The fact is that COVID is a form of cold/flu with an added complication of attack on the respiratory system. The mortality rate is somewhere between 0.5–1.0%, but it is a lot higher for the people around 65 year old or higher. While we don't have detailed statistics, I would venture to say that the mortality rate might be something like 10% for people over 65, and something like 0.01% 0.1% for people under 65. Plenty of younger people that get COVID don't even know that they got it. Here is a very informative tutorial: 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOJqHPfG7pA

If you get COVID and recover (with or without knowing), you can be proud of it. You will be part of the the valuable 'COVID fighting force' that will block the chains of transmission. Next time you get the virus, you will kill it without passing it on. Be proud. Be proud. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Technically then, we are already in the list of quite a few fighting forces. DTM (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, we are. (It has been a bit of learning curve for me to understand all these diseases over the last week or two.) Even normal flu has a mortality rate, which is not particularly different from the mortality rate of COVID for under-65s. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

A sobering read here. Has great links to other information too:

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, talk of this is spreading. The cure being worse than the disease. Reminds me of the term "Pyrrhic victory":

Pyrrhic victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has also taken a heavy toll that negates any true sense of achievement or damages long-term progress.

DTM (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Finally. Some sense circulating again. John Oliver back with his third covid video. And to even think that the economists were swaying us. WP:Signpost has come out with some really good articles on covid.DTM (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
What you are ignoring is that about 20% get very sick. If the disease is allowed to go unchecked, hospitals will be overwhelmed (as they already are) and a lot of people who could have survived will die. Your 0.1% for under-60s assumes that the very sick under 60s will get adequate medical care and that won't happen if they are all getting sick at the same time. Without testing and without managing the cases, the effects are devastating and you cannot have functioning economies where 6% of the work force (20% of very sick cases assuming that 30% of the population is infected) is either very sick or dying. With testing and judicious quarantining of infected people, the 6% can be spread out over time without serious economic damage and without overwhelming the health care system. Shock therapy to get herd immunity is nice in theory, and would have worked in medieval times, but it is not an appropriate strategy in our more modern world. --regentspark (comment) 17:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi RP, the percent that get very sick is not 20%. It is being estimated at around 3-4%[10], but I believe it is an overestimate. For example, in the US, the recovery rate is only 50-60%, i.e., roughly half of the seriously sick are dying, despite the world-class medical treatment they get there. So, I think the percent that get very sick could be no more than 2%. See this summary for scientific statistics, rather than the off-the-cuff statistics made up by journalists.
You make the valid point that even 0.1% under-60s getting very sick will overwhelm the health care system. At the moment, that is still going to happen in India according to CDDEP predictions (a peak of 1 million hospitalisations) [11]. But, isolating over-65s will reduce the burden. At the moment, that is not on anybody's consciousness. The general feeling in India is that everybody that gets COVID is going to die. Even if you tell them that the fatality rate is 0.1%, which is the same as that of seasonal flu, they still have no comprehension of what that means. So, strategies are being made based on misinformation and paranoia.
Poor Laxminarayan who tried to give them scientific information was hounded out, getting branded as a scare-mongerer. Indians are not going through a 21-day lockdown in order to reduce the burden on the health care system. They are going through it in the belief that they are going to "eradicate" COVID from India. They have solid confidence that Modi is going to "defeat the Coronavirus". When they realise that it wouldn't happen, they are not going to be happy campers. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if Ramanan Laxminarayan could have his own Wikipedia article rather than the redirect it is just now. DTM (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Possibly. It all depends on what sources there are and what they say about him. But I think we better wait. He is still a very young researcher. If his predictions for India come out right, of course he will be a star. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Even a smallest star can absorb the largest black hole if it has patience and courage to remain in isolation within the core of black hole. Gradually absorbing all dark energies and emitting the bright or positive energies from the core of same black hole helps the star to emit more bright energies which further increases the radius of the star nucleus. Ultimately the star increases its current speed to travel in space. This can also be referred from the epic of Neelkanth Mahadev--182.182.27.53 (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Can't figure out what this is about
Undocumented Vedic or Pre-Vedic Science?
People busy with:
1) Law of conservation of energy i.e.
"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another."
2) E = mc2
Why not documented?
1) Cause and Effect (required updates in Megh Malhar)
2) Cause and Effect (required updates in Satish Acharya)
April Fools Day? --182.182.123.180 (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kautilya3/Archives/Archive_14&oldid=1143108305"