User talk:Kautilya3/Archives/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Hi @Kautilya3:!

Hi, I'm MBlaze Lightning. I noticed that you are a very well experienced editor and you are contributing to India and Pakistan related articles from a long time, i guess! I want to inform you about continuous POV pushing and TAG-TEAMING and off-wiki communications between few editors mostly belonging to pakistan. You may like to have a look to these edits First, Second, Third, Fourth, and several more wiki articles mainly related to India-Pakisan, and those must be on your watchlist i guess! So you see, these guys are adding blatant controversial contents/POV/WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. There edits gives WP:UNDUE weight in the article, and ultimately they are violating several wiki policies like WP:BALASPS and to some extent WP:RS.

I was about to take this matter to an administrator but i found you more helpful in this case! I expect, that you will have your attention towards this. Thank You! MBlaze Lightning (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, MBlaze, nobody is perfect. And, you have to recognize that the Indian and Pakistani editors will have different perspectives which they bring to Wikipedia. The way to address them is to do a lot of discussion on the talk pages, focus on the reliable sources, and adhere to Wikipedia policies. I made some suggestions on the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War talk page. Please try to follow them. It doesn't do any good to just blame each other of POV-pushing. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind, thanks! MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

India and lactose tolerance

You're going to love this one:

"“We thought they would have a different mutation, because they’ve had cattle for a long time and they’ve been drinking milk,” Gallego Romero said. “But it was all European, except for a couple mutations that we haven’t proven yet do anything. We were very shocked by that, it was interesting.” The finding suggests that the most common lactose tolerance mutation made a two-way migration out of the Middle East less than 10,000 years ago. While the mutation spread across Europe, another explorer must have brought the mutation eastward to India – likely traveling along the coast of the Persian Gulf where other pockets of the same mutation have been found, Gallego Romero said."

So far for 40,000 years old ANI. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Great, if I were a geneticist, I would try and find out whether the ASI have lactose intolerance, and that would tell us a lot of information. In Dravidian languages there is only one word for milk, covering mother's milk and cattle milk. I recall that Sanskrit has several words. I might also say that there is a "cult of milk" among the Indo-Aryans, but not among Dravidians. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

But why did the 40,000 year old ANI stay separate from the ASI? The distribution of female ANI DNA seems to be the key. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

We have "Dugdha" only in our IA Language groups in India.see this :-) We do not use "Payaḥ" or "Kṣiram" as both of them have different meanings.Ghatus (talk) 11:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: and Kautilya3:

Hymns of the Rigveda yield extensive evidence of the importance of cattle in the Early Vedic society. Many linguistic expressions in the Rigveda are associated with the cow (gau). Cattle was the chief measure of wealth and a wealthy man who owned many cattle was called 'gomat'. The terms used for conflicts and battles in this period were gavishti, gavesana, gavyat, etc. The former literally means 'to search for cows'. The terms themselves suggest that possession of cattle was the bone of contention betwee goups and led to occasional inter-tribal fights and conflicts. The Panis, who. were the enemies of the Vedic people, are stated in the Rigveda to have hidden their wealth, mostly cows, in the mountains and forests. The Vedic god Indra was invoked to release these cattle. This reference suggests that cattle raids were common. The raja or the chief is called the 'gopati' or one who protects cows. In the Rigveda, Godhuli is used as a term for a measure of time. Distance is called gavyuti. A daughter is called duhitr or one who milk the cows. Kinship units are labelled as gotra.

Ghatus (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I think now you can understand the importance of the cows and milk to the north of the Vindhyas. It's an off the mark intervention, but I even did not know this few days ago. So the moment you talked about IA languages, Milk and Cows, these are the few historical thinks came to my mind first.Ghatus (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ghatus. Can you explain the difference between the different Sanskrit words for milk?

It occurs to me that there is a way to square the Central Asian and West Asian connection of the ANI as follows. The Central Asians had constant communications with the people in Iran, but not with India because of Himalayas and the predominance of the Indus Valley Civilisation along the northwest border. The Indo-Iranian civilisation could have developed inside Iran (or Greater Iran). These mixed Central Asian-West Asian people expanded into Afghanistan and Punjab after the IVC declined. I am personally convinced that the Rigveda was composed in Afghanistan (Helmand), not Punjab. That would mean that the Rigveda and Avesta are much closer than currently imagined. This is my theory of the ANI. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Scandinavians are the most lactose tolerant people on earth, from what I've read, so it might very well have spread south from there, across Europe. And since I've seen totally wild claims here on en-WP that Jats descend from the Jutes of Southern Scandinavia, maybe there's a connection? (Just joking, there's absolutely nothing that supports a connection between Jats and Jutes...) Thomas.W ^talk 12:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Language and genetics

I think trying to connect language to genetics etc is pretty dodgy territory and it reminds me of scientific racists. And genetic studies themselves are also dodgy territory from a Wikipedia perspective: far too many small-scale ones reliant on self-identification, far too new a science, far too many variables. That's why they've tended not to be used in caste articles. - Sitush (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush, I am afraid the Genie is out of the bottle. We can't put it back. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

No, but we don't have to mention it until large-scale studies happen and there scientific consensus regarding them, rather than small-scale one-off papers etc. - Sitush (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Reich and the follow-ups, which also relate to the recent research on west-European genetecs by Haak, can't be ignored. It's too massive. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: Wikipedia is enough of an anarchy that we can't enforce such a policy. I have tried by formulating an RfC, but nobody participated and the opportunity was lost. You can try again if you wish.

The problem is not connecting language with genetics. All language shifts involve some population movements, though we don't know if they involved enough population movement to have left a genetic trail. Just as we connect linguistics with archaeology, we should also connect linguistics with archaeogenetics.
The problem is more that the geneticists by and large are ill-educated in the historical aspects and many of them are hostile to the linguistic evidence. One paper says the "purported Indo-Aryan migration" and says emphatically that their results don't support anything like that.
Most papers start off with an introduction reviewing the historical literature, thus giving the appearance that they are testing historical hypotheses. But the conclusions often don't say anything about the historical phenomena other than to vaguely hint that their results don't support what is known. Then the authors go and release press statements saying that they have disproved the historically accepted phenomena.
The authors don't collaborate with the historians (or linguists). So they don't formulate coherent historically valid hypotheses and test them. Rather, their work feel more like a random search. And,the Indian researchers seem quite intent on disproving the Indo-Aryan migration theory.
As for sampling, there seem to be two kinds of studies, which I will call "population genetics" and "full-genome studies." The population genetics people probably do statistical sampling, but their genetic research is typically limited to counting particular genetic markers (in the Y-chromosome or mtDNA, or the paternal and maternal heritage). The full-genome studies are typically based on smaller samples (without statistical sampling), but the authors say that, since each genome represents hundreds of generations and thousands of ancestors, the effective sample size is much larger than the mere number of genomes used. That seems to me to be a valid argument. So I am not going to quibble about the sample sizes.
Unfortunately, the full genome analysis seems to be available only for selected parts of the world. Europe, India and China, certainly. But it is not available for large parts of West Asia and pretty much none for Central Asia. The results reported are therefore limited by data. But the authors often don't tell us what data was unavailable and some times draw conclusions based on negative evidence that is not made explicit.
All I am trying to do is to clean up behind JJ's additions to Indo-Aryan migration theory, where he reported isolated statements from dozens of papers which, when taken together, represent a conflicting mess of conclusions with no light being thrown on the matter.
Socially, there are scary prospects. Pretty soon it will be possible to get tested for "pure Aryan" genes, and for each caste and tribe to calculate when the Aryans "intruded" into their community, and the Dravidians and other heritages to do likewise. There is enough known already to predict the picture is not going to be pretty. The communal conflicts that might arise from these results are unimaginable. This is also what I mean by the genie is out of the bottle. But, hopefully, I will be long gone before the technology gets there. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"Clean up behind JJ's additions"? Tss tss. I see another prospect, a change of narrative: a rainbow-flag with not just seven, but a ot more colours, and a banner "India, home of the world," where all streams of migration come together. No "pure Aryans" and whatever, but a proud specimen of the world's almost entire genetic history. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, of course. I am fully confident that the VHP will spearhead the Rainbow Movement!

Coming back to the present, there is often far too much statistics lingo that is not explained, and inexcusable in papers that claim to make general observations for historians. I barely understand some of it due to my math background, and I can see that the claims are overblown. To give one example, Sahoo (2006), which has Estonians as coauthors, says that the Indians migrated to Central Asia because there is a gradient of decreasing genetic diversity. However Reich (2009) contradict them saying that the Indian diversity is due to Indian caste groups having small numbers of founders. The Estonians seem to have accepted it, but never said that what they wrote in Sahoo (2006) has been abandoned. In some of your edits, JJ, you make it appear as if Sahoo (2006) is the final word. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Ho! I don't have much confidence in Sahoo (2006) and his categorical statements on migrations. I also don't dig Indian migrations to central Asia (except for very minor movements). But it is what this source says, and what some want to be definitely included, so, I try to balance the various sources and editors. There are also authors who seem to be more balanced; Reich and Haak, for example, seem to be of another calibre, just like Allentoft (2015). And no, the VHP will not spearhead the Rainbow Movement, but we ~~will~~ do! proud to be impure! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: My impression is that these scientific papers don't undergo rigorous reviewing of all statements like the Humanities papers do. The publication cycles are very rapid, lest the others might duplicate the same results, and the extraneous commentary that we hang on to is rarely considered important within the papers themselves. The kind of analysis that Sahoo (2006) were doing is now dead, full genome analysis being the current trend. My preference would to ignore this paper. It is a fringe view. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed some of his statements as being undue, as you may have noticed :). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Language and genetics 2

Hi Kautilya3: the more I think about it, the more obvious it is: The ANI-component in the Indian genepool were the Dravidian Harappans, who came from Iran/Levant, bringing with them farming, R1a and lactose-tolerance. Due to farming their population grew rapidly, and they started to colonialise southern India, over land (Deccan plateau) and over sea, just like the Greek started colonies in the Mediterranean. The Indo-Europeans were only a minor addition to this genepool, though a major cultural and linguistic influence. If the Harappans were not the ANI, then we're looking for a mysterious consituent of the Indian genepool who managed to hide themselves from the Indo-Europeans (where are the ANI-loans?), yet had a major impact on the Indian population. If they were not Dravidian, omposing their language on the ASI-population, then we're looking for an unknown language in Indian, spoken by a million people back then, which magically disappeared. And if they did not come from Iran/Levant, then where else? Not from the steppes either, and also not from east Asia. Think about it, please. I saw it, others saw it, and I'm pretty sure a lot of geneticists and linguists/anthropologists also see it. Anyway, in this light, Sahoo et al. (2006) is indeed nonsense.Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I will keep it in mind. But note that, if the Harappans colonised any place, they would have left their bricks there, and even granaries and public baths etc. South India shows none of this. It had Deccan megalithic cultures, which seem entirely independent of of the Harappans. George L. Hart finds the Deccan cultural elements entering Sanskrit by the time of Kalidasa, via Maharashtra. Sanskrit didn't have them earlier. The Harappans and the South Indians could have spoken similar languages, but culturally, they seem quite dissimilar. Finally, there is no evidence of mixing between the "ANI Harappans" and the "ASI South Indians" before 2,200 BC. So I am afraid the evidence against this theory is quite overwhelming. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Bricks: maybe. But necessarily?
We're speaking here about Harappans, not Sanskrit
Different cultures: we're speaking here about a mixed culture, or Dravidian culture.
Indeed, after 2,200 BCE, when a huge drought set in. What do people do when their living conditions are shrinking drastically? To don't starve voluntarily; they start to move.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You'll probably like this blog: Razib Khan (2015), Agriculture Came with Men to the Indian Subcontinent. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the blog is understandable. But, as usual, it ignores the admixture issues. The authors of the cited paper (Palanichamy et al. 2015) say, Overall, there is no consensus on the spread of west Eurasian lineages being linked to the spread of agriculture, the proto-Elamo-Dravidian language, and [or?] the Indo-Aryan migration. (p. 638) But this paper seems to have interesting information about the West Eurasian mtDNA. So I am going to read it at leisure. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, this paper is disproving your ANI-Dravidian connection. The relevant quote is in the Razib Khan blog. The Iranian mtDNA is found among the Dravidians as HV14a1 and U1a1a4. There is also a correspondence in the Y-DNA in terms of the L1a lineage. But the Dravidians don't have the L1b and L1c lineages which are also found in the Iranian populations. If they told us how old the latter lineages are, we would be able to infer when the Dravidians migrated from Iran to India. But the authors seem to think the migration happened in 9100 BP, in neolithic times. In any case, L1a is not found among the North Indians. So this is clearly unrelated to the ANI. Both the males and females migrated, unlike the ANI who either didn't bring their females or, if they brought them, ignored them and mated with lots of local females.

I guess you need to look at Pagel et al., 2013 to find out about the development of the proto-Dravidian language 15,000 BP. - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The blog refers to Palanichamy (2015), who states explicitly that the Dravidians may have come from Iran: ""the Dravidian language originated outside India and may have been introduced by pastoralists coming from western Asia (Iran)." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

NB: I already did take a look at Pagel (2013); funny, that we both picked out this one. You may also be interested in this blog by Razib Khan: The Last 10,000 Years and the Rise of Patriarchy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

David Reich leans to the Indo-Aryan correlation for the Big Admixture Event. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I hope you will give up the vain search for connections between the ANI and the Dravidians now. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If I were interviewer, I would have asked Reich, "how do you know that the ANI were in India before 2,200 BC?" That is the crux of the issue, isn't it? - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd also ask: who were the ANI? We'll have to wait for the answer... Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that question should be put to historians, not geneticists! - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, here's Michael Witzel speaking! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's the link to Witzel himself. Some more homework to do, I guess. He's filleting Singh, of course. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Nice! As more and more Indians get into science, we can count on science becoming more and more corrupt and less and less scientific. You were speaking of the rainbow, sir? - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Robert Lindsay himself is quite clearly anti-Hindu; in this case, this accusation really makes sense. Even the more reason to believe in the rainbow, and to practice it. Never give up: Teaching Diversity. The Science You Need to Know to Explain Why Race Is Not Biological. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not giving up. Just forming a realistic assessment of the situation. The Michael Witzel response is good, but it is a pity that it didn't appear more publicly. I think a lot of youngsters in India have been influenced by the CCMB statements, which weren't countered by sane scientists. In the battle for the `mind space' this was a big set back. (By the way, the comment on the corruption of science is not from Lindsay, but "N. Ganesan," an acquaintance of Witzel.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Asaduddin Article

Hi कुटिल, It seems somebody has put entire stuff(including 'bharat mata' slogan thing under the "Political career" section of the article.. I think you were right and the article looks more balanced now ..thanks Adamstraw99 (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, The Masked Man of Mega Might did a great job. The article is hardly "balanced" however. A long list of scandals can hardly be called "balance." To bring balance, we need to find quality material about Owaisi and his politics. (Any reason why you are addressing me as kutil? You have seen my User page I hope?) - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Azad Article

Hi Kautilya3, i have noticed that just like Asaduddin article you are reverting my edits on this article too(tactfully ignoring those who start the revert of my text). anyway, As suggested by you, i have decided to talk more and edit less. in the process i have put a new section on Azad talk page. I Hope you will respond there..

And about previous comment, my hindi typing tool couldn't write kautilya properly in hindi hence it was कुटिल .. this is nothing more than ONLY a co-incidence that कुटिल is also referred to this guy -->> Jeevan (actor).. sorry about that..thanx Adamstraw99 (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, more game-playing! My user page already explains why Hindu nationalists regard me as कुटिल. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Asaduddin Owaisi page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Corporal punishment

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Corporal punishment. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hyderabad

Hi Kautilya, it does seem fair that such historical matters require scholarly sources, but I've noticed that other pages, allow for such new articles. Plus this topic has affected me and my family personally. But now that I think about it, I feel as if what I wrote should be on the Hyderabadi Muslims Wikipedia page and not on this one, though they relate. Do you think this would be a good Idea? Thanks anyways for keeping Wikipedia a trustworthy website. Hammad.511234 (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammad.511234 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Kautilya3/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hi

Hi. How are you Kautilya? I am extremely busy in my real life duties. I hope you are taking care of all controversial matters on Wikipedia. You are one of editor who inspired me very much in my initial days on Wikipedia. I really miss my Wikipedia days. Wikipedia is one of best thing happened in my life. When I look back in my life I really feel proud that I have contributed to some extend to Wikipedia. Now a days I don't edit Wikipedia. But I remember and miss many Wikipedia editors, I miss all my wikifriends and also my "opponents" badly. It was so nice time. I hope one day I will come back actively, till then I leave it on you. I wish you best luck for editing and for your happy life. Cheers. --Human3015^TALK 18:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Humanist, don't worry. We can't take time off work all the time. Many neutral editors that understand Wikipolicies are also away, and, as I said above, Hindutva is forcing more and more workload on us. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Kivisild

Looks like Kivisild has interesting things to say. I'm reallu curious about the discussions between Reich, Tangaraj, Kivisild, Metspalu and Manjoori. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Images removal?

Hi Kautilya, Whats up with the images for articles on ethnic groups being removed? Wasiq 9320 (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You mean the collages of people? There was a site-wide decision to remove them because the ethnic identities are often unsourced and hard to verify, and there is often fighting about whom to include and exclude. I think it was a good idea. A lot of time will be saved from fighting useless disputes. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Ohh, alright. Thanks. Wasiq 9320 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeb Bush

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeb Bush. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

A good read

I, to a large extent, agree with this- The Historiography of Medieval India Needs a Middle Way Ghatus (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I am getting more and more impressed with The Wire. We need to do a wikipage on them. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Shehla Rashid Shora for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shehla Rashid Shora 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/Shehla Rashid Shora until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maqbool Bhat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kashmiri. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

You might be interested

In this draft, which I've finally gotten around to completing (at least at a very basic level). Planning to move it to mainspace soon, but any input you have will be appreciated. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Excellent! Should I put my comments on the talk page? I presume that you will want to make this a GA eventually? I will give it a thorough read during the (thankfully long) weekend. An offhand coment at the moment is that the VP Singh reference in the lead jumps out a bit abruptly. It would be better to start with a reference to the Ayodhya dispute that dates back to centuries. And, I think we need to mention in the Background section the fact that the 1949 capture of the mosque was also a political move, by the Hindu Mahasabha to recover from the aftermath of the Mahatma Gandhi assassination. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk page works fine, if you want to add a paragraph, that's fine too. Ignore the lead for now, I write that at the very end, usually. This is still a work in progress, but the first round of work on etymology, background and aftermath are done, so perhaps you could start with those? Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"Nationalism is the new communalism"

... says Shehla Rashid Shora. Nice slogan, but not exactly true. It is in fact the "old" communalism. See Hindutva#Hedgewar and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and also Hindutva#Bharatiya Jana Sangh. How do we get Indian students to read Wikipedia? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Finding a book

Hi, is there any way through which I can have full access to a book source? Like this book isn't available in full view, so is there any way through at least a full page can be seen online? MBlaze Lightning -talk! 17:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, three options: find a library that has the book, buy a copy yourself (try abebooks.com), or risk downloading a pirated e-book from somewhere.

What do you want to find in this book? Note that this version has limited preview. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, i wanted to verify the claims on one article and page no. 87 has a very limited view. Anyway, Thanks for your help! MBlaze Lightning -talk! 17:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Have a cup of tea, and some peace of mind. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Peace of mind? We are facing the `rising intolerance' right here! - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I know... Recent events seem to have attracted a lot of WP:SPAs. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

'Rising intolerance'? Look who's talking! Someone that can't bear a change made to the great grandpa of the Nehru-Gandhi family.Atul Kaushal 11:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aks23121990 (talk • contribs)

If you are looking a debating forum, I am afraid Wikipedia is not the place for you. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Only people like you and the INC are scapegoating what you term `rising intolerance' everywhere. Please introspect. Thank you for your `highly tolerant' comment that if I rise my voice then Wikipedia is not the place for me.Atul Kaushal 07:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aks23121990 (talk • contribs)

External Links

Hi, I understand you pasted a link to a video in 3 articles. [1],[2], [3]. I would once again recommend that external links need to be neutral and should not be biased and show one particular point of view. Another problem with external links (particularly videos) is that editors often link to videos which have been uploaded by a particular Youtube account (where the increased views can translate into possible advertisement revenue). The best way to avoid such situations is to either not link at all, or provide a single external link to a website controlled by the article subject. In case of the 2 BLPs, you can provide links to their official websites. You can have a look other articles like Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 and Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 to see the external links. They usually do not include external links to one particular debate/opinion article/interview. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I am aware of your objections and I am also aware that they don't apply to the links I have posted. You are welcome to raise the objections again on the article talk pages if you wish. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the message about "edit summary" which I will keep in mind in future. Normally I think some edit summary gets auto-generated but that did not happen here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.128.6 (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome. There is no autogeneration of edit summaries. You would need to explain the rationale for your edit, especially if you are changing any sourced content. All the best! - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Query about Hussain Haqqani

Dear Kautilya, thank you for your warm welcome and for the update on the wiki pedia guidelines as well . I hope I will learn and contribute constructively. Being a relatively inexperienced editor I wanted to ask you something. There is a portion on Hussain Haqqani article which I believe violate Wikipedia rules and guidelines, the following section is quoted as follows:

"The Wall Street Journal described Haqqani as "a hostage" while he was in Pakistan and published an interview with him from the Prime Minister's house in which he outlined why he was hated by Pakistan's intelligence services and Jihadi groups.[47] Michel Hirsh, writing in The Atlantic, described Haqqani as "The Last Friendly Pakistani" towards the US[48] Jeffrey Goldberg, writing for The Atlantic and Bloomberg News, has been a consistent supporter of Haqqani, calling him "The Hardest Working Man in Washington" and criticising Pakistan's military and security services[49][50] Simon Tisdall of The Guardian called Haqqani "an instinctive ally of the west" and attributed Memogate to the ambassador's difficult relationship with Pakistan intelligence service.[51]"

Isn`t this portion based on the OPEDs which I believe goes against the wikipedia policies. Can you elaborate on this because I want to remove this section DelusionMBT (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi DelusionMBT, thanks for checking. I personally don't like newspaper op-eds, because there is no editorial control over them. We, Indians, however extensively use news magazines like the Outlook and Frontline, which are often cited in academic articles. These magazines are known for taking an independent line, often opposed to the Government point of view. Pakistan doesn't seem to have such magazines.

If the author of a newspaper op-ed is a recognized scholar or a notable writer of some kind, Wikipedia policies allow it with in-line attribution. That seems to have been satisfied in the instances you mention. The writers are career journalists who have built up a reputation for themselves. The commentators in the Tribune often seem like just instruments of the Pakistan military. If I take it to WP:RSN, they will say no to most of them.

Pakistan cannot be, and should not be, reduced to its military. That would be an insult to Pakistan. I hope you get the point. No matter what the Pakistani media says, Husain Haqqani is a highly respected scholar worldwide, and that will not change based on Wikipedia rants. So this vendetta is entirely pointless. Read the talk page discussions to see what I mean. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Kautilya,

Thank you for your response. I agree with you, Hussain Haqqani is indeed a respectable scholar. But please lets not make this about India-Pakistan we are neighbours and should remain as such saying that Pakistan doesn`t have newspapers which are critical of its government or the establishment is totally false. I am a regular reader of dawn an independent newspaper but as for the case of tribune I agree it still needs time to mature up a bit. Being critical of a government policies doesn`t make you an anti-national rather its a good thing to introspect. In my opinion you are a neutral editor but Wikipedia instead of being a battle ground between the people of the two countries should be a platform where we can work together considerate of one another to make our region a better and prosperous one. I don`t doubt your intentions. But the section which I have pointed out is a highly biased POV that too based on OPeds. Have a great its been great talking to you. Thank you long live India & Pakistan :) DelusionMBT (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I am glad that you don't want to make this an India-Pakistan issue, but note that that is exactly what your edit did. There is no evidence that Haqqani is working with any Indian lobby. It is just that he holds an anti-military, pro-democracy view, amply documented in his books. It is wrong to make him look like an Indian agent. The source cited is a highly opinionated op-ed. To maintain WP:NPOV, you need to find also other points of view expressed in the news media and decide how much WP:WEIGHT to assign to each of them. At the moment, I find the coverage to be biased. All the neutral, third party editors that have visited the page also find it biased, as you can see from the talk page.

The passage you quoted above was there from before I started paying attention to this page. If you would like, I can review the sources and see if they reflect an accurate summary. However, the way the op-eds are summarised in this passage is the correct one according WP:NEWSORG.

I agree that Dawn is a respectable newspaper. But your colleagues seem to have carefully avoided all opinions published there. They have also deleted vast quantities of text sourced to Ayesha Jalal, and claimed that she was biased too. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Kautilya,

Going through the talk page I believe the reason Ayesha Jalal work was objected to/against was because of the conflict of interest. It also seemed to compromise the integrity of Mr. Mansoor Ijaz claims due to her rather personal association with Hussain Haqqani. As for Haqqani working with the Indian lobby it sure is a bone of contention between the Pakistani and Indian editors, mainly the reason for this is the nexus which is being operated by Tarek Fatah, Hussain Haqqani and Christine Fair. Tarek Fatah and Christine Fair unlike Hussain Haqqani have been pretty unreasonable and unscholarly not to mention at times bigoted, I have personally myself seen Hussain Haqqani sharing the same platform with the duo . As for the mention of the Indian lobby, the reason given by Hussain Haqqani for preventing anti-terrorist aid/machinery to pakistan was that it would be used against india which obviously resulted into a reaction from Pakistan saying that he is working for the Indian lobby same is true for his opposition to the sale of Military hardware to Pakistan which includes Viper Helicopters and 8 F-16s. These are the reasons which I believe are the source of the contentions, also by Indian lobby it is meant the Indian caucas at the Capitol Hill. The section I pointed out to contain things like "Last friendly Pakistani towards the west" like what is this? Of course such things will lead towards more misunderstandings. Wishing you the best for the future. Take cares

DelusionMBT (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Any two academics working in the same academic area often get together at conferences, invite each other for seminars, go to dinner together and compare notes etc. These kinds of interactions are not considered `conflict of interest'. Note also that the Wikipedia policies do not allow any editor to decide whether reliable sources are biased and discount them for that reason. Newspaper op-eds in contrast are never considered reliable sources just because they got published in a newspaper. As long as you understand and follow these policies, you will be fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I totally agree with you.DelusionMBT (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The changed discourse

Up to a few months ago, the discourse was about Modi, the RSS, VHP, Ayodhya, Gujarat, forced conversions, attacks on churches, rising intolerance etc. Hindutva has now taken charge, changing the discourse to nationalism, Kashmir, Bharat Mata, Sanskrit, and what have you. The Nazis are here finally. Dear friends, where are you? - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Rabrindranath Tagore once said that “people who need to be hypnotised with shrieking invocations to a mother or a deity, do not love their country so much as they love passion. The attempt to maintain a stronger infatuation with something over and above the truth is a symptom of our instilled sense of slavery.”[4]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

As a history student, I can not use the word "Nazis" so carelessly. It's a highly loaded word of great magnitude.Ghatus (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

What Happened When A Man Confronted A Random Muslim Woman About Brussels. Good laughs and a great comment at the end. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ghatus: Perhaps I do use the term "Nazi" lightly, because it is the ideology that I care about. Here is the record, documented by Ghulam Nabi Azad in the Rajya Sabbha: [5]. Sorry folks, it is in Hindi. If I can find a written coverage of the speech, I will post it here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The chidiya at 24:55 are especially brilliant! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

What is your point? What are you trying to say? Be a little bit more clear. There are so many theories to prove that since discourse is an extension of Ideology, it is decided not by common individuals but by the privileged and the powerful, or the hegemonic people and institutions (Althusser). It's true to large extent in India and hence, "Dadri" is in the discourse, not "Malda". Discourse may build the narrative, but it's quite far away from "facts". And, Congress should be last one to talk on "Nazism", especially after The Emergency (1975). BTW, how much "Azad" is this "Ghulam" before the 10 Jan Path? :-) Ghatus (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Nehru said:- "The revolt of 1857-58 was the last flicker of feudal India." He further added, " [I]t was ... of the old feudal type, with an autocratic emperor at the head. There was no freedom for the common people in it. … It was fighting for a lost cause, the feudal order …". Personally, I see these recent noises as the "last flicker" of the Indian Old order before giving its way to a new one. India inherently is too strong and I myself have realized this studying Indian history thoroughly. Ghatus (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC).

Hold on, we can talk about resilience of India some other time. What I am trying to say is precisely what was in the first couple of sentences of my post. The "Hindu" part of the "Hindu nationalism" has been dropped. Why this has been done is quite clear to me. It will also be clear to you if you think about it for a second. But how it has been done was narrated by Ghulam Nabi Azad in his speech, which I didn't quite know until this point. The result of this changed narrative is the threat issued by a goon of the Samajwadi party yesterday that he was going to gun down the JNUSU activists by the 31st. I understand that he is entirely capable of doing it. Whether anybody else is taking him seriously, I don't know. I am waiting with bated breath.

As scholars, we should note that this is not a new ploy. The RSS was originally supposed to have been called "Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh," as per the wishes of the Hindu Mahasabha sponsors of Hedgewar. But he would have none of it and, in the end, his sponsors relented. He quickly outgrew the Hindu Mahasabha. According to the RSS explanation, Hedgewar realized that Hindutva and Rashtriyatva meant the same thing. That sentence needs to be imprinted on a plaque and put up on a wall, so that we read it again and again everyday.

Since the 1980s however, Rashtriyatva took a back seat, as the RSS let the VHP grow out of size and take over the agenda. The BJP officially adopted Hindutva as its agenda in 1989 in what is called the "Palampur Resolution." But now that the BJP is in power, Rashtriyatva is being brought back. And, it has been done successfully because we don't hear about Hindutva any more. This was an incredibly hard to thing to do, but the RSS has managed to do it. Call it the "saffronisation of India." If Amit Jani carried out his threat, we will see it in action. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

So, Who is afraid of a nincompoop? A barking dog seldom bites - be it a SP goon or a vainglorious "patriotic" lout suffering from self-inflicted victimhood or a fear mongering Congressi hypocrite. And, those who take them seriously are bigger fools. There is no proof on the ground to indicate that the Indian state has retreated an inch from its core ideals or principles. It reminds of Adi Shanka's Adhyasa which spoke on Sarpa Rajju Bhranthi (Seeing a Snake in Rope). Ghatus (talk) 11:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

MBlaze Lighting

He was alone against a bunch of POV pushers in that SPI. --Greek Legend (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I neglected to put it on my watch list.

MBlaze, congratulations on getting an SPI through. However it was a risky one. The evidence for your original connection was thin, and in fact turned to be false. Next time, please take your time in collecting evidence. There is no hurry. And, make sure that you notify all the editors that you opened an SPI against them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Why do you believe him? Those who know Urdu/Hindi, it means something derogatory. Since India is a multilingual country, I assume that you don't know what it means. Thanks anyway. --Greek Legend (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The only people that call me names on Wikipedia are the Hindu nationalists. And, now the Tamil nationalists are getting there too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you have some new company, and he is blocked for one week. They are not from Tamil Nadu. I checked their edits. Both edit some article related to Sri Lanka. One of them edits less about Sri Lanka while the other one is obviously from Sri Lanka.Greek Legend (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Oops!

Kautilya3 -- sorry, I meant to only remove the photo request. Thanks for catching that screw up on my part! KoshVorlon 19:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Please Check your E-mail.

Hello, Kautilya3/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

MBlaze Lightning -talk! 11:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi MBlaze, I know it is frustrating to get reverted. You should take it easy while you are under 1RR and go do other things. All the best! - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"Dravidisation" and Shaivism

Just a thought: if my idea of a Dravidian Harappan expansion to south India, which "digested" many local populations, is corrct; then could it be that Shaivism is closer to the older Harappan religiosity, while Vishnuism is closer to Indo-Aryan religiosity? I know you reject this "Dravidian Harappan expansion" anyway, but think about it: the south Indians as the cultural remainders of the older Harappan inheritance. Somehow Asko Parpola seems to think along the same lines. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Shiva was a pre-Aryan god associated with fertility and the animal world (including humans). "Without Shiva's command, even an ant cannot move" - a popular saying. Shiva was identified with the Rigvedic Rudra later on. The Vishnu cult probably developed in the Kuru state, but it also absorbed many folk religions and gods over time. The 10 avatars of Vishnu represent that diversity. But overall, Vishnu became the symbol of royal authority ("maintaining the world order" and punishing the enemies of the state/settled civilisation), whereas Shiva remained a god of the people, especially the Shudras. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the Dravidians populated the entire subcontinent, including the Indus Valley. If we can understand why the IVC didn't expand into South India, we would understand a lot about the IVC. (My belief is that the mature IVC became an "industrial" civilisation, and they were focused on the natural resources in their neighbourhood. They didn't care for the agriculturalism of South India.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Indian Barnstar of National Merit
		You really deserve this! Keep up the good work. Thanks. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 14:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, MBlaze. You are doing pretty well yourself. Let me point out however that I also affiliate myself with WP:WikiProject South Asia and WP:INDOPAK. I don't regard the present day national boundaries in South Asia as being particularly meaningful. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

That's nice. I gave you the Indian one because of your tireless contributions to Indian related articles, Cheers. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 15:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War

Hi Kautilya, you closed some sections at Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War and closed the last section where me and Vinegarymass911 commented. Those are valid comments. Can you please move them to the bottom of proper section. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:YouTube

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:YouTube. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Assess this article request Suggestion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_sponge Atul Kaushal 15:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Atul, the article reads reasonably well-written to my untrained eye. However, the lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Note in particular the difference between a "journalist lead" and an "encyclopaedic lead." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kautilya3. You have new messages at Talk:Kammanadu.
Message added 11:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vin09 (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Would you read this story and tell me if it's eligible for getting published?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00MYY0DMA Read '7 Seconds: Typical Teenager, Atypical Life' on Kindle platform because the story revolves around one 'Akshant Kautilya'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aks23121990 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Quite Urgent.

Hello, Kautilya3/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

MBlaze Lightning -talk! 04:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Check it once again, please. :- ) MBlaze Lightning -talk! 13:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of South America

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of South America. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:National Rifle Association

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Rifle Association. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

FLC for List of Padma Bhushan award recipients (1960–69)

Hi! I have nominated the subject list for FL. Could you find some time out and give your comments here? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Dasas and Ludo Rocher

@Kautilya3: Have you seen Ludo Rocher's more recent review of the term 'Dasas', particularly with respect to Sudras, in ancient and medieval literature? It is in chapter 30 of this, particularly pages 507-512 (edited by Donald Davis Jr). Interesting. Some of it supports what you mentioned months ago, some doesn't. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Turkic(Muslin) conquest of N.India was a liberation for majority of Hindus - The subaltern Theory (???)

Here is a direct quote a Govt published "model" book (2013) for Universities :"It has been pointed out that as the popular Bhakti Movement could not take root in Northern India before the Turkish conquest because the socio-religious milieu was dominated by the Rajput-Brahman alliance which was hostile to any heterodox movement. The Turkish conquests brought the supremacy of this alliance to an end. The advent of Islam with the Turkish conquest also caused a setback to the power and prestige commanded by the Brahmans: Thus, the way was paved for the growth of non-conformist movements, with anti-caste and anti-Brahmanical ideology. The Brahmans had always made the people believe that the images and idols in the temples were not just the symbols of God but were gods themselves who possessed divine power and who could be influenced by them (i.e. the Brahmans). The Turks deprived the Brahmins of their temple wealth and state patronage. Thus the Brahmans suffered Both materially and ideologically. The non-conformist sect of the Nathpanthis was perhaps the first to gain from the declining power of the Rajput-Brahman alliance. This sect seems to have reached its peak in the beginning of the Sultanate period. The loss of power and influence by the Brahmans and the new political situation ultimately created conditions for the rise of the popular monotheistic movements and other Bhakti movements in Northern India."

Then, these subaltern historians go on to say how this Bhakti Movement uplifted the majority of Hindus (non-upper caste) and hence the 1206 Turkish conquest was a blessing in disguise for Hindus actually, paving the path for Marathas and Sikhs ultimately. Do you agree with such new interpretations???Ghatus (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ghatus: yes, I do. It makes perfect sense. Contemporary Brahmanic writers want us to belief that Hinduism = Brahmanism/Vedism, but it's clear that a large part of "Hinduism" is heterodox. I've been working on Vaishnavism and Sri Vaishnavism for the past few weeks; great movements, opening the gates for the Sudras! Now that I read your comments above, I understand more of it.

It's also related to Nirguna Brahman (influence of Islam?) and the popularity of Neo-Advaita, c.q. Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj in the west: lay religiosity, initiated by the Sant movement. Funny thing is, most westerners think that this is Advaita Vedanta; it has become Sanskritizised and elitizised again, just like Ramana Maharshi. "Power to the people!" Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, it is plausible, and quite likely to have been true. The correlation between the arrival of Islam and the Bhakti movements has always been noted. That the Turks broke the Brahmin power is also clear. This passage is attributing a causal connection between the two. Makes sense. However, I am not sure of the Rajput connection. Rajputs, being neo-Kshatriyas themselves, patronised Brahmins (they had to), but they were hardly orthodox. They themselves promoted Vaishnavism, Saivism as well as Jainism, constructing humongous temples (including the one at Ayodhya). This movement had its parallels in the South too, where, for example, Kakatiyas happily proclaimed that Shudra heritage. So, I would say that the Turkic rule accelerated a process that was already under way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, the same group of historians say that Hindutva is an extension of Brahmanism which is a modified version of Mimamsa which is just one of the six orthodox Hindu philosophies ( Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta).Ghatus (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya, Rajputs had no other way but to support the Brahmins as their social status was dependent on them. Further, we must not confuse the Rajputs of Pre-Turkish era with the Post Turkish conquest era. When the Worship of "Lord" Ram started is itself controversial.

Another interesting quote from the same source:

" There arose during the Sultanate period (13th-15th century) many popular socio-religious movements in North and East India, and Maharashtra. Emphasis on Bhakti and religious equality were two common features of these movements: As has been pointed out, these two were also the features of the South Indian bhakti movements. Almost all the bhakti movements of the Sultanate period have been related to one South Indian vaishnava acharya or the other. For these reasons, many scholars believe that the bhakti movements of the Sultanate period were a continuation or-resurgence of the older bhakti movement. They argue that there existed philosophical and ideological links between the two either due to contact or diffusion. Thus, Kabir and other leaders of non-conformist monotheistic movements in North India are believed to have been the disciples of Ramananda who, in turn, is believed to have been connected with Ramanuja's philosophical order. Similar claims have been made that Chaitanya, the most significant figure of the vaishnava movement in Bengal, belonged to the philosophical school of Madhava. This movement is also believed to have been connected with Nimbarka's school because of its emphasis on 'Krishna' bhakti.
There are undoubtedly striking similarities between the older bhakti tradition of South India and various bhakti-movements that flourished in the Sultanate and Mughal periods. If we exclude the popular monotheistic movements of Kabir, Nanak and other 'low" caste saints, the two sets of movements can be shown to have possessed many more common features. For example, like the South Indian bhakti movement, the vaishnava bhakti movements of North and Eastern India and Maharashtra, though egalitarian in the religious sphere, never denounced the caste system, the authority of Brahmanical scriptures and the Brahmanical privileges as such.
Consequently, like the South Indian bhakti, most of the vaishnava movements of the later period were ultimately assimilated into the Brahmanical religion, though in the process of interaction, the latter itself underwent many changes. However, the similarities end here. Bhakti movement was never a single movement except in the broad doctrinal sense of a movement which laid emphasis on bhakti and.religious equality. The bhakti movements of medieval India differed in many significant respects not only from the older South Indian bhakti tradition but also among themselves. Each one of them had its own regional identity and socio-historical and cultural contexts. Thus, the non-conformist movements based on popular monotheistic bhakti contained features that were essentially different from various vaishnava bhakti movements, Kabir's notion of bhakti was not the same as that of the medieval vaishnavm saints such as Chaitanya or Mirabai. Within the vaishnav movement, the historical context of Maharashtra bhakti was different from that of the Bengal vaishnavism or North Indian bhakh movement of Ramanand, vallabna, Surdas and Tulsidas. During the later period, when the vaishnava bhakti movement crystallized into sects, there arose frequent disputes between them which sometimes even turned violent. Among all the bhakti movements of the period between the 14th and 17th century, the popular monotheistic movements of Kabir, Nanak, and other "lower" caste saints stand out fundamentally different."

Ghatus (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ghatus: I figured the same, about the Brahmins trying to regain control! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan,, OMG. I am a Brahmin myself!!! Evil but smart Brahmins!!! :-)Ghatus (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

OMG? I'm just a dumb-ass working-class descendant; what does OMG mean? Anyway, I'm glad there are Brahmins with self-mockery! And, by the way: if Hindutva = Brahmin = Mimamsa, then Advaita Vedanta = heterodoxy in disguise? (yes it is, yes it is!) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

OMG = Oh My God!Ghatus (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

To speak frankly, we Brahmins are the real minorities in India with just 5% share of population. And, there are still many underprivileged and poor Brahmins living in our country. However, the perception has gone like Brahmins are always too smart and are always privileged. And further, you will find that majority of those who are leading the fight against "Hindutva" at the intellectual level are Brahmins. You can not hold one accountable for what has his ancestor done 2000 years ago, can you?Ghatus (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right, my apologies. I appreciate your contributions! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, why? No need of it. Actually, I do have a great laugh when I go through such discussions in Quora. :-)Ghatus (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Hi Ghatus, 5% share of the population doesn't necessarily make Brahmins a "minority." What is their share of the graduates? Bureaucrats? Ministers? RSS pracharaks?

I am not quite sure what the point of the long quote is. But it is quite certain that the Brahmins did exercise a significant amount of power in the society before the advent of the Turkic rule, which was broken by the latter, not consciously but by the natural mechanics of power. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: The difficulty is that much of the history and evidence is contrary to this hypothesis. Many of the early and famous Bhakti saints were Brahmins, including Ramananda whom many of their medieval texts credit influencing Kabir, Nanak and many others. Kabir, Nanak etc, were not from "low caste", general consensus among scholars is that Kabir was Muslim by birth who criticized Islam (and criticized Hinduism too). Bhakti movement started centuries before Turk invasion, "visibly" grew after 12th century, despite Islam and not because of Islam (see Karen Pechelis' recent book). Nirguna Brahman and nondualism has nothing to do with Islam, because Islam is dualistic monotheism. If there is any sub-school that is closer to Islamic ontology and dualistic theology, that may be Madhvacharya's Dvaita, but even Madhva's views have major differences. Strange are the views in the "model" book proposed there!!! Interesting history reconstruction effort and a creatively imaginative discussion, nevertheless. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Was this a mistake?

[6] or have I missed something?

Kindly talk me on Watsapp it's urgent +919876167540 Rohit497 (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ooty

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ooty. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Pakistan Barnstar of National Merit
		For laudatory work at Pakistan. LavaBaron (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

User:LavaBaron means 'laudable' and he's only done this because you reverted me, sorry... Firebrace (talk) 06:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't. LavaBaron (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he does (if we keep this up do you think we can make Kautilya3's talk page even more of an ugly mess than the edit warring report I filed against you earlier?) Firebrace (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop. This behavior is unacceptable. This is a barnstar thread for goodness sake. LavaBaron (talk) 06:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Go bake an apple pie and calm down. Firebrace (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both. As a member of WP:INDOPAK, I would request both you to find ways to collaborate with each other rather than confront. Paraphrasing Lord Mountbatten from another context, India and Pakistan can never run away from each other! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

RE: Kulbhushan Yadav

Hello,
I've noticed that the article is still protected form editing. Also that nobody has added any further comment to the talk page. I was wondering what is happening?

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 23:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nuro Dragonfly: I notice that it is under full protection till 27 April. If there is visible consensus on the talk page, then you can request the protecting admin, or any other admin, to unprotect it. However, it is unlikely that you will see visible consensus. So it is better to wait it out. You can of course copy the page to your sandbox and do your editing there, and install the changes after it gets unprotected. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Right ok thanks. This is my first time doing something like this. I edit musical albums in the main, more for syntax fixes and to have a coherency to the body of work by an artist/band. So I can copy the page to my sandbox? Never done that before, I'll give it a try..

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 23:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Brahmaguptas Multan connection

I see that you have removed the sourced reference to Multan in Brahmagupta article, and added an unsourced reference of your own preference. I also saw your reasoning in the talk page [7] of the article where you speculate on the background of the author of my source whilst making references to "Islamists and Pakistani Militarists being thrilled". I have replied there, but I also need to inform you that I have raised a case with Wiki Arbitration here [8] --Xinjao (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

As Robert McClenon has noted, there has been "inadequate talk page discussion." Your first step is to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. By the way, what is an "unsourced reference"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks i have read you message — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mema zanakh (talk • contribs) 16:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

talk page

Hi, replied to you on the talk page of Maya_(illusion) --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Please comment on Talk:Time Person of the Year

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Time Person of the Year. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

last date for release and rearrest of Irom Sharmila Chanu

Dear Kautilya3 you appear to have some interest in tidying up this wiki article. An error is now becoming entrenched because it appears to be referenced but no one has checked the reference. It regards the long standing legal action against Sharmila. I can provide some help if you want but if editors can't find it by other means you tend not to want my assistance.

The last paragraph of the Fast and Responses section now states:

On March 28th 2016, she was released from judicial custody as charges against her was rejected by a local court in Imphal.[30] Sharmila kept her vow of neither entering her house nor meeting her mother till the government repeals AFSPA and went to continue her fast at Shahid Minar, Imphal on the same day of her release.[31] She was again arrested by the police under the same charge of attempt to commit suicide by means of indefinite fast.

These are references to two separate trials somehow mashed together. She was in Delhi from 28-31 March having been released by a judge in Imphal who had not heard any of the evidence at that trial in Imphal the newly appointed CJM IW. He had held her for over 400 days and then released her unconditionally earlier in March but not on the day stated in wiki. Previously the longest she had been detained continuously was 758 days http://scroll.in/article/804983/why-irom-sharmilas-fast-holds-no-meaning-for-those-shes-trying-to-move but on that occasion (2004) the Supreme Court ordered her release on the grounds that a year comprises 365 days. Since then she had been released after a maximum of 367 days until the last occasion where a manipuri prison year lasted for over 400. You can check for exactly how long if it interests you.

The date of 28 March has no supporting reference. On 30 March she was declared not guilty of IPC 309 again by a new judge who had not heard any of the previous evidence and was released conditionally with some kind of six month detention order in case the judgement was appealed. That was the trial in Delhi which has now ended.

The trial in Imphal is awaiting the charge sheet which the Police claim they have despatched but the new judge there says hasn't arrived the next hearing is 3 May 2016. I don't know how intested you are in tidying up this article but mistakes after a period become entrenched. I leave it up to you you appear to be interested for now. Desmond Coutinho using Portumna Library Computer free access I believe the IP address follows83.71.21.137 (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Desmond, I will take a look. But you can edit the page yourself. It is not protected. At a minimum, you can add a {{failed verification}} tag so that other people can look into it. I would also recommend that you register an account. You will be taken more seriously if you have an account. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe under conflict of interest or something I am advised not to edit the page directly. I am Irom Sharmila's fiance. I have known her for about seven years and did 77 days prison with the torture option for her last year. Wiki editors get very touchy about how things are done it is my belief if what I am saying is verifiable and true then others can work it out. I don't really understand the rule of wiki so I feel it's better just to point out to others who do understand the rules that there are errors. But I am not pressing the matter. But thanks for your courteous response. If you don't have time perhaps someone else will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.21.137 (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Just to confirm what I said above. I am Sharmila's fiance I am not making any more edits so please kindly stop reminding me to do so. The latest message apparently from you tells me not to make edits and this earlier one tells me to make edits. I am going with my plan not to make edits can you please stop reminding me not to make edits or ask me to make edits and then tell me not to do so. Thank you. If you are too busy to edit the sharmila page then that's fine too I have lost all real interest in wiki. I hope you don't take offence at my response and bar the library computer but if that's what you want to do knock yourself out. Des again. 86.46.197.108 (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Desmond, I understand that you have a conflict of interest and so cannot edit the page yourself. However, you can still participate in the talk page discussions and make edit requests on the talk page of the article. Please state them in the format "Change X to Y." If your IP address is not stable, it is highly advisable for you to register an account. There is absolutely no prohibition against registering accounts. All the best! - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

do not edit others comments

Don't strike comments made by other editors. It is basic wiki etiquette, read about it at WP:TPO. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict restrictions

Please see Talk:Kashmir_conflict#Editing_Restrictions --regentspark (comment) 17:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

1971 Bangladesh genocide

1971 Bangladesh genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Your name appears in Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide#RfC: Addition of content about Biharis and different figures regarding people killed and women raped where you stated that the RfC was premature. If you have knowledge of the dispute about this article, perhaps you feel like commenting on a current WP:AE request that concerns it. I put the article under two weeks of full protection but am not optimistic that it will cure the problem. Issuing page bans to one or more people is something that could still be tried, it it's likely to help solve the dispute. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Indeed the article has been on my watch list for a long time, along with most other South Asian dispute articles. I am mostly an observer rather than a participant. This particular page has difficult issues, with claims and counterclaims by Bangladesh and Pakistan nationalists. There is some indication that the traditional accounts may be faulty, but the truth is not yet known and difficult to get hold of. Given the difficulty of the subject, an honest and focused debate needs to happen. The discussion is made more difficult by some editors who have no interest in content creation but only participate on talk pages, often inflaming the debates. They also do reverts, defeating the consensus-building. Freeatlast is one of them, but not the only one. I think admins can help by checking this free-wheeling behaviour. RegentsPark has recently made a start on Talk:Kashmir conflict. Similar restrictions can be placed on all the 1971 Bangladesh articles (and there are a lot of them).

It will also be useful if we allow uninvolved editors to strike posts and comments that are not in accordance with talk page guidelines. I recently did that with a discussion on Talk:Kashmir conflict, and it was quite revealing to see how much space and energy is taken up by nationalistic posturing, throwing discussions off track. I was an involved editor there. So I could do nothing when Freeatlast reverted the strike-off. But, why can't uninvolved editors do that kind of thing to keep the discussions focused?

I will try to write a comment at the WP:AE page, but I think the problem is broader than the conduct of a single editor. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You yourself claim that you are a mere observer and not a participant, but you have taken all the liberty in fully participating at the talk-pages while influencing the consensus building process. However, you consider that when editors (like yourself who are observers and not participants - per you statement above) who do not create content and only participate at talk are at fault?! Self-defeating isnt it? Last time I checked, here at wikipeida it was preferred to participate at talks instead of fighting it out read edit-warring at the main-space, no?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 22:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

You have missed the key parts in what I wrote: often inflaming debates. They also do reverts, defeating the consensus-building. If you believe that I have done such activity, please feel free to take me to WP:AE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Kulbhushan Yadav, you may be blocked from editing. I have been telling you about this for a while now. Please read WP:TPO it details all the guidelines as to what you can, and cannot do with comments made by other editors FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You need to read the policies that you keep citing, for instance, If a discussion goes off-topic (per the above subsection § How to use article talk pages), editors may hide it using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates—these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This was the third time you did this, and I see that you have reverted me as well. I have given you fair warning, the next time you do this, you will be reported. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that you report me now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

And I suggest that you take a deep breath and stop this kind of disruption. This time you have been warned, next time you will be reported, don't worry about that. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Take a deep breath? I thought that was a snide remark? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

But, seriously, I am asking you to take this to WP:ANI right now. No need to wait for a "next time." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

In a debate it is a snide remark, but when an editor is being warned as your are being warned right now and he continues to argue that he will continue to do the same and says that, go on! report me! Then such a remark is not out of place. As I stated earlier, you should pay attention to context. See, here we have two very different contexts and therefore two different situations. As I said earlier as per the rules an editor is warned first, the if he/she continues to disrupt then he/she is reported. I warned you today, if you continue to disrupt i will report you. till then, Cheers. To be frank I have seen that warnings work wonders. I most recently warned you not to canvass Ghatus, you raised hue and cry but the warning worked quite well and you have refrained from pinging him to discussions. So when warnings are working , why should we waste time at ANI? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You live in an imaginary world my friend. When I believe I have made a mistake, I will admit it and apologise. I don't need any warnings. You can take me to any forum any time. Now, please stop posting here and pinging me every second. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Brahminsm vs Historical religion article

Hi User, Thanks for sharing your view points on the article Brahminsm. Actually I am working on the same project in my university and I like to add the same topic to wikipedia also.Please help me by giving your valuable suggestions. Your view points are always welcomed.We can disscuss about the topic on the talk page of the article.--IrumudiChozhan (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Objection for deleting or modifying or merging Brahminsm article

Brahminsm is a seperate topic related to the influence of Brahmins in Hindu religion. There are so many references are available throughout India.Aryans (Brahmins) are seperate race migrated to India around 1500 BCE through Khyber and Bholan pass.They invaded India and they influenced the religion of native people and created castes and divisions through religious texts.Even they deviced penal codes in which different punishments are available for the same crime based on caste.The mahabharatha incident ekalaiva and karna are true and can be verified.Even many reformists in India tried to reform Hinduism and tried to reduce the influence of Aryans on Hinduism. I dont have much experience in editing wikipedia article.So I am not able to provide citations. But I am having all the source material or reference material. We can discuss all of them in this talk page. If we simply delete this article in future we are stopping a chance to know about the topic. So view points of everyone is welcomed and we all can disscuss about this topic --IrumudiChozhan (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Genocides in history

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Genocides in history. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Balochistan

I think WP:RfC will be a good option in order to achieve consensus. Bharatiya 29 09:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Probably. Generally, RfC's are successful if they follow detailed discussion. You need to give it some more time. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

So should I remove the section on Yadav or mantain the status quo? Bharatiya 29 09:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That depends on how much stomach you have for edit wars. Personally, I think there is no point doing anything until there is consensus. There is plenty of Wikipedia out there for you to edit. No point wasting a lot of time on this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Scranton General Strike

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Scranton General Strike. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please help in improving the article Buddha in a Traffic Jam

Please look at this version of the article "Buddha in a Traffic Jam". I feel it was not neutral. If you also feel so, please help in improving it. Thanks --Gaurav (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Please help if you also think so. --Gaurav (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm spamming your talk page. I just wanted to mention that this article is about a movie which claims to "exposes the sinister politics of the nexus of Naxals, NGOs, Academia and the Intelligentsia of India". --Gaurav (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The only way is to increase the number of involved editors

What is happening in Yadav page is nothing but ganging up of three Pakistani editors. The remedy lies in involving maximum editors on the talk page including 1 or 2 admins. Only then NPOV can be established. It seems to be the only solution now. Ghatus (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, the page has been full-protected for a second time. I am sure RP is watching it. How about if we collaborate to polish up Nuro Dragonfly's version? And then we can do an RfC if there is a dispute about it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a good Idea. Should we involve cool headed JJ as he also belongs to a third country? He can provide some NPOV.Ghatus (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

No go. You have to follow WP:CANVASS, according to our friends. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Yuan dynasty

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Yuan dynasty. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Reliable source?

This appears to be a reliable source:
Kushwaha, R.S. (2003). Glimpses of Bhāratiya history. Ocean Books. ISBN 9788188322404

Would you be able to offer any insight(reliability)? Do you have access to this book which would in able you to check some things?

Also, what do you know about Jai Dev Anand? When he lived, died, etc, etc. Because it would appear he lived nearly two hundred years, defeating both Mahmud of Ghazni(d.1030) and Muhammad of Ghor(d.1206). --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kansas, The book is definitely Hindutva mythology, the page is a hoax, and should be speedy deleted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you very much! --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Insertion of Weasel Words into CPEC Article

Text under discussion: Historically, Balochistan has been treated as an "internal colony" by the Punjabi-dominated central government, extracting profits from the province's natural resources with only a "miniscule portion" going into local development.^[1]

Please refrain from insertion of Weasel words into the article regarding the China Pakistan Economic Corridor. You indeed have provided a source, but your choice of wording which includes : "Punjabi dominated" Pakistan using Balochistan as an "internal colony" to whom only a "miniscule portion" of natural resource revenue goes is clearly Weasel Wording.Willard84 (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Willard84: Who are you? Are you the IP that is edit warring? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Further, I just read the source you quoted. It offers absolutely no numbers to justify the term "miniscule portion" of resource revenue reverting to Balochistan, nor does it even explain why the author used the term "internal colony" (which he uses also to reference Indian rule in Assam - I'm certain if I insert this into the Assam article that Indian contributors would remove it, and rightfully so, because the author again does not explain the use of this term).

Please bear in mind that just because something is published in a book, that does not make it a good source if the author neglects to even justify usage of such charged terms.Willard84 (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I went even a step further, and looked more deeply into this article you posted. Firstly, the book you quoted merely mentions the findings of one Adeel Khan. I found the paper by Adeel Khan who was quoted in your source. He writes: "He [Adeel Khan] would like to thank Siddiq Baloch, a senior journalist and Baloch nationalist, for providing him with contacts in Gwadar and for insights on the Balochistan Crisis".^[2] This is a biased source, and the article itself doesnt even mention a "Punjabi dominated state," but rather a Punjabi dominated military. Nor does he provide any numbers he was using to calculate the "miniscule portion" of revenues being directed back to the provincial government.Willard84 (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Willard84: You haven't yet answered my question. Who are you? If you are the same as the IP then you must declare it, as per Wikipedia's sockpuppet policy.

I presume you are as smart as you think you are. If so, you would note that the paragraph that I have cited is the editor's summary of a two full articles in the book. Please read those articles before you start casting aspersions on scholarly work based on your own opinions. A reliable source may be WP:BIASED. It is not for you, as the editor, to determine the validity. If the source is not accurate, then you should be able to produce other reliable sources that contradict it. Then we can use WP:NPOV to find a WP:BALANCE. We can't discount reliable sources based on your opinions.

As for the Assam article, please feel free to add well-sourced information. Nobody will object. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Willard84: Even though you started off on the wrong foot by mirroring the IP's comments, I will admit that your edits to the article last night were quite competent. Nevertheless, you are falling into the same trap as all POV-pushers by trying to counter reliable sources with WP:OR. The section currently brushes off all the Balochi complaints using Pakistani news sources. But the independent scholars that have studied the issue point out the considerable exploitation of the region over decades. This needs to be stated in the section to balance the propaganda as per WP:NPOV. And, scholarly sources trump all newspapers and government statements. I am happy for you to propose change of wording, but you cannot simply remove reliably sourced material. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

References

^ Chima, Jugdep S. (2015), Ethnic Subnationalist Insurgencies in South Asia: Identities, Interests and Challenges to State Authority, Routledge, pp. 12–13, ISBN 978-1-317-55706-7
^ http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/as.2009.49.6.1071?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

edits in Edwin Bryant page

Pradeepwb 15:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)I reversed your edit in that page, because "ishvara-pranidhana" is an important subject in any commentary in Yoga Sutras as it introduces devotional approach in yoga practices; the known authority in this matter David Gordon White pointed out, "Edwin Bryant,... considered ishvara-pranidhana to refer to the practice of devotion to Krishna"; similar view is given by Baba Hari Dass, a known master yogi, who wrote his own Yoga Sutras commentary where this practice is included in Bhakti yoga. Several other authors also support that view as well.

"systematically exposes the logical weaknesses of most of the arguments that support the consensus of either side.." -- this edit was introduced by someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradeepwb (talk • contribs) 15:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pradeepwb, I have no problem with the ishavara-pranidhana passage. I was looking at the other formatting changes, which were unexplained. In general, when you do edits, please don't combine them across different sections and different topics. When reverted, you need to at least take the opportunity then to separate the edits. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Saffron terror

I posted in the Talk page for saffron terror but no one has replied. The articles needs drastic changes given new ruling on the court regarding the subject matter. It is now precisely verified that it is a conspiracy by UPA and is not a real thing. I have posted sources on the talk page and can also provide more sources given this new ruling.

Kushagr.sharma1 (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kushagr.sharma1: I haven't been following the developments on this topic as I am busy with other areas of Wikipedia at the moment. However, you need to note that Wikipedia content is not based on police reports and court judgements, but rather on reliable sources as described at WP:RS. Note also that whatever TimesNow says about its own investigation is a WP:PRIMARY source. You need WP:SECONDARY sources to talk about the investigation. Pinging Vanamonde93 for further advice. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your guidance.

Kushagr.sharma1 (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Kushagr.sharma1, Kautilya is entirely correct here. I am also unaware of any recent developments as I do not follow the Indian news on a day to day basis; however, any changes need to be based on reliable secondary sources, and in a topic as fraught as this, preferably academic sources. The sources you placed on the talk page do not tell us very much; two of them are statements made during a debate on television, which is very dodgy; the others only discuss very specific issues, about witnessing changing their positions and the court cases going nowhere. None of these affect the substance of the article very much. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 Thank you very much for your response. There have been more developments since I last posted that. What I want to know is what type of secondary source will it take to show the conspiracy. The government has started calling out the UPA for the conspiracy and certain newspapers are also agreeing that it is indeed nothing more than a fake conspiracy.

Newspapers showing what the government is saying^[1] News showing it is a sham by congress ^[2] Another ^[3]

If these do not satisfy the require I can wait until more sources come out. At the very least the article does need serious changes. Kushagr.sharma1 (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Kushagr.sharma1, these sources are still either opinion pieces, government statements, or facts about a very specific case. They carry little weight, as such. The article is far from perfect, but it contains sources describing a general phenomenon called "saffron terror," not restricted to a couple of incidents. You need to find a source, not an opinion piece, challenging this general view. Your source needs to say that Saffron terror does not, in fact, exist as a phenomenon. Your current sources are more appropriate to the article about Pragnya Thakur, for instance. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

According to this report,^[4] the case is still on. Certain "peripheral players" have been released. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Mughal

What exactly are you trying? This guy is a ref spammer who has spammed hundreds of pages. You think we should give him a voice?--regentspark (comment) 23:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. Should we ban him from Wikipedia because he has been refspamming? I didn't realize that was the plan. There wouldn't be enough content on that page if we remove these reviews. I can go and look for some more if there are some. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Ceteris paribus, someone busy spamming Wikipedia with their own references is unlikely to be worthy of using as a source. Most serious academics don't have time for this sort of thing. But, if someone (you, in this case) has independently added the reference then I guess it's ok. --regentspark (comment) 00:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Erfurt massacre

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erfurt massacre. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sênggê Zangbo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tibetan language. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

A recent lecture by Thapar

Why can't we think of civilisation as a process of tracking cultures? --Ghatus (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Rahul Gandhi

Take the edits to the relevant talkpage and do not engage in edit warring please. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 21:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, at the moment, you are the one edit-warring. Please read WP:BRD. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Opinion

Concerning the furthest reaches of the Seleucid Empire.[9] Your thoughts? Since per Thapar[10], the Seleucid's were holding Trans-Indus region. Would not Pakistan(for a modern state representation) be more correct? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I believe Chandragupta Maurya repelled Seleucus off all areas presently in India and then they made a treaty. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hyderabad State

IF grammar of any paragraph is not correct, improve grammar. Don't remove entire paragraphs. All things mentioned there is historically correct and relevant reference is given. So remove them only when you have evidences to prove your claim. CAKrutesh (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I have mentioned three reasons for my revert. Poor grammar was the last. I don't believe you have fixed the other issues when you reinstated the content. I will review it. If it is still unsourced, it will be reverted again. That is how Wikipedia works. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Pleasr ask Bb to restore Torture in Pakistan It's a decent article 82.21.35.147 (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hey K, you sure are popular among renowned socks.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 20:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Potato chip

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Potato chip. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring on Chalukya dynasty

Hi Kautilya3. A new user (or some one who has no real history of edits on wiki) called Civfanatic has been edit warring in the above article claiming that Telugu language was a major (central) language of administration in the empire but is unable to produce any secondary or other sources to support this. user Pied hornbill and myself have been refuting this as there is no evidence in books written by over a dozen authors we researched to support civfanatic's claims. He has one source that has listed a few Telugu inscriptions (not sure if they are published) from that period (c.543-745) but only from the Telugu speaking regions and toward the very end of the empire's existence. No mainstream author that I can search far mentions Telugu language as a language of epigraphy or administration of this empire. They only discuss Sanskrit and Kannada as the main languages of the empire and this has held water for almost 10 years since the FA was created. Please drop by and read the discussion on the talk page. I don't know if you are an admin. If you are, that's good. If you are not, let me know whom I can contact so the article can be locked up while discussions are in progress. Civfanatic does not seem to be interested in a mature discussion on the topic. I have a feeling he is an old hat called Kumarrao was was blocked numerous times in the 2007-2008 timeframe for edit warring with the Karnataka work group who created the FA around 2007. Our contention is Telugu was only a regional language at best, not the main language of epigraphy at that time.Mayasandra (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I noticed the debate but didn't get involved because you were doing pretty well. I am not an admin, but you can always ask for full protection at WP:RfPP for edit warring, or use "ARV" in the Twinkle menu. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Corina Abraham

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Corina Abraham. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

API change will break your script

I noticed that you have been using http:// to access the API, rather than https:// This is going to break soon, because of changes to the API. You can find more information in this e-mail message. If you need help updating your code to use https:// , then you might be able to find some help at w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard or on the mailing list. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Your profile is very helpful. Thank you.

Atul Kaushal 13:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Before you post baseless crap onto talk pages because your Indian pov is being removed look at who initiated the revert go and ask your Indian ip friend to discuss on the talk page that edit has been there for months and stop accusing people of wrong doing when they have not. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:25E3:629:71E6:8671 (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Spam

Please explain how this is "spam". There may be issues with the content, but how is it spam? Sundayclose (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I used the term because the post has nothing to do with the page. The editor (probably a sock) has been posting incessantly on Talk: Kapu (caste), and now this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It may have had nothing to do with the page, and the editor may or may not be a sock, but it was not spam. Spam include advertisements, external link spam, and adding references that serve as advertisements. Please don't make misleading edit summaries; that in itself is a policy violation. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I didn't realize that the term "spam" has become so specialized. (This was not its original meaning by the way.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2016 U.S.–Iran naval incident

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 U.S.–Iran naval incident. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

A latest Scientific report on Indus valley civilization published in 'Nature'( in May 2016) concudes IVC is much older and place IVC at 6000 BCE.

Recently published research paper( May 2016) in the 'Nature' journal concludes that IVC is 2500 years older than presently accepted which places the civilisation in the 6,000 BC. Institutions involved in the research study: 1. Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, 2. Institute of Archaeology, Deccan College, Pune, 3. Physical Research Laboratory and; 4. Archaeological Survey of India

Research paper name: Oxygen isotope in archaeological bioapatites from India: Implications to climate change and decline of Bronze Age Harappan civilization Anindya Sarkar, Arati Deshpande Mukherjee, M. K. Bera, B. Das, Navin Juyal, P. Morthekai, R. D. Deshpande, V. S. Shinde & L. S. Rao Scientific Reports 6, Article number: 26555 (2016) doi:10.1038/srep26555 Palaeoclimate Received: 05 November 2015 Accepted: 29 April 2016 Published online: 25 May 2016 Their links: 1. http://www.nature.com/articles/srep26555 2. https://iitkgp.org/content/iit-kgp-researchers-say-indus-valley-civilization-india-older-thought 3. http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/revealed-the-truth-behind-the-indus-valley-civilizations-collapse/

I request you to please analyse this research study and add this info into the IVC wikipedia page. I'm asking you b/c if I edit, it will be reverted even after I provide genuine and reliable reference. So, please take it up if you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BodduLokesh (talk • contribs) 08:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I will check. Even if the paper claims it, I think it is still a primary source, and can't be treated as representing scholarly consensus. But I will check. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The paper is a single paper, and their main conclusion is not about the actual origin of Harappan civilization, it is about the causes of its collapse, and its relationship to climate. This is not sufficient basis to change the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Then, can this research paper be helpful in adding new research data about climate change aspects of IVC, b/c the parties involved in the research are in the top rated ones in the Indian subcontinent. BodduLokesh (talk) 05:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

All good quality WP:PRIMARY sources can be reported in articles with in-line attribution. You can see, for example how genetics research is covered in Indo-Aryan migration theory. But their contents should not stated as a fact. Only when it is widely accepted by the scholarly community will it become a "fact." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

True meaning of the word 'Bharat'

I'm breifing you about this just to let you know.

Recently, I read this explanation given by an 95 year old ancient yoga and sanskrit teacher in one of his written records. He mentioned every sound in sanskrit is attributed a particular meaning. While explaining an important concept related to yoga, he mentioned the reason why right from pre-vedic times(the period when sanskrit is developed) most of the tribes/communities(in vedas) and in later period kings and kingdoms of Indian sub-continent always tried to affiliate themselves to the term 'Bharat' in one way or the other. He said we have to understand the meaning affiliated to sounds in sanskrit.

For example guru = gu+ru => gu=ignorance, ru=remover, guru=remover of ignorance.

Similarly, Bharat = Bha+rat/rati => bha=self-luminous, rat/rati=intense desire,love,attraction,interest.

So, Bharata is the one who has intense desire towards the self-luminous state. This in yogic terms means to attain Samadhi(real existence state). Acc to Patanjali's yogasutras, 8th and the final stage of yoga. This is the reason why even in vedas, where ever the word Bharata occurs it is given extreme importance and the same is followed till today, but the only difference now and then is that the ancient meaning behind the word is forgotten in present India.

So, Acc to the yogic explanation, any person who has intense desire to attain samadhi (real state of existence), is termed as Bharata/Bharat. This is the main reason why the word 'Bharat' is given extreme importance right from ancient times, through mythological stories either puranas or Ithihasas or even vedas for that matter.

I just wanted to inform you some good knowledge. BodduLokesh (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That is nice. All true Bharatiyas must be yogis, like Gandhi. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I doesn't require to become a great person like Gandhi to be called Bharata, what I require is having intense desire to know about myself. Rat in Bharat comes from rati which means intense desire. Here rati is towards 'bha'.

BodduLokesh (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Historiography on Carlism during the Francoist era

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Historiography on Carlism during the Francoist era. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sarasvati River may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

for Hindus because it is said that it was on this river's banks, along with its trubutary [[Drishadwati], in the Vedic state of [[Brahmavarta]], that Vedic Sanskrit had its genesis,<ref>Manu

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Falklands War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Falklands War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Common law

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Common law. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! 20:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Bunch of Thoughts

Hello, Kautilya! I just saw your edits on this page. Do you think this removal was correct? It was sourced from the original website of RSS and book and I think that the removal was wrong so I reverted it. I would like to know your opinion. With regards, Terabar (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is. WP:PRIMARY sources can only be used to provide additional detail to WP:SECONDARY sources. In this case, there was no secondary source at all. You can try looking up what the Noorani book says about the issue. Personally, I don't think much importance can be placed on the quote because China was going to war with India and lots of people would have said lots of nasty things. It has to be seen context, which only secondary sources can provide. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Look at Sher Shah's coin. His name is written in Sanskrit.

My prof told me that Sher Shah issued coins with inscription both in Persian and Sanskrit. It was a unique thing in the Medieval Period. But, I could not get material in its support. Suddenly, I looked into the wiki article of Sher Shah. Just look at the bottom of the first coin. His name is written. --Ghatus (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Really cool. I can see the Devnagari "clothes line" at the bottom clearly. As to what is written, I have to squint a lot to read "Sher Shah." I also remember from my high school history that Sher Shah was an administrative genius, and he vastly improved the administrative systems many of whose elements are still in use today. Akbar was lucky to have had him as a predecessor.

Asher and Talbot say that the exclusion of Afghanistan from Indian history is a colonial hangover. A truly modern history of India should regard Afghanistan as an integral part of historical "India." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Not quite "unique" in medieval times. You have seen Mahmud of Ghazni's coins of course? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Ghaznavi also did so in the 11th century.Ghatus (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I am also beginning to think that the so-called "insularity" of Indians was propaganda by Al Beruni and later by the British, both of whom hung out a lot with chauvinist Brahmins and imagined that they represented all of India. The trade routes had always been open, despite Islam, until the British closed them as part of their imperialist policies. The Chabahar route might be the greatest legacy that Modi is likely to leave behind. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hari Singh Nalwa closed the Khyber pass and the Britishers cemented it.Ghatus (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I do not think that Al Beruni was propagandist. He talked about the 11th century Hindus specifically and observed that their ancestors were not so narrow minded. The Muslim rulers of N. India in the medieval period were very cosmopolitan and maintained relations with the Central and West Asia. Ghatus (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Swami Vivekananda:- "I am thoroughly convinced that no individual or nation can live by holding itself apart from the community of others, and wherever such an attempt has been made under false ideas of greatness, policy or holiness-the result has always been disastrous to the secluding one.... The fact of our isolation from all the other nations of the world is the cause of our degeneration and its only remedy is getting back into the current of the rest of the world. Motion is the sign of life." --Ghatus (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

An interesting fact - the commander-in-Chief of the army of Sher shah was a Hindu (Brahmajit Gaur). He was really a unique ruler. We still use his land revenue system, GT Road. He was also the pioneer in introducing civilian postal system in India. We use the term Sarkar (Government) invented by him.--Ghatus (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean to say that Al Beruni was making up stories that weren't true. But I think he was being selective, and was hearing what he wanted to hear. We don't find him talking about the bonhomie that existed between Hindus and Muslims that Romila Thapar narrates. He was the first one to have written that Hindus hated Muslims. There begins a long line that ends with Jinnah. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The famous quote of Al Beruni, which Thapar called the "most incisive" one of the 11th century :

"The Hindus believe that there is no country but theirs, no nation like theirs, no kings like theirs, no religion like theirs, no science like theirs.They are haughty, foolishly vain, self-conceited, and stolid. They are by nature niggardly in communicating that which they know, and they take the greatest possible care to withhold it from men of another caste among their own people, still much more, of course, from any foreigner ... Their haughtiness is such that, if you tell them of any science or scholar in Khorasan and Persis, they will think you to be both an ignoramus and a liar. If they traveled and mixed with other nations, they would soon change their mind, for their ancestors were not as narrow-minded as the present generation is."

--Ghatus (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I am sure Al Beruni has earned his due to say such things. But we should just wince and ignore it.

I, on the other hand, think that Hinduism had been defensive and insecure from the fall of the Gupta empire until about the time of Sankaracharya. It was under attack, by Buddhism, Jainism and Islam. And it didn't have a powerful empire to protect it. The bravado that Al Beruni speaks about was actually insecurity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

[1] Chima, Jugdep S. (2015), Ethnic Subnationalist Insurgencies in South Asia: Identities, Interests and Challenges to State Authority, Routledge, pp. 12–13, ISBN 978-1-317-55706-7

[2] ttp://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/as.2009.49.6.1071?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[3] ttp://zeenews.india.com/news/india/malegaon-blast-bjp-rss-attack-congress-upa-for-coining-saffron-terror-defaming-patriots_1884809.html

[4] ttp://www.firstpost.com/politics/the-congress-must-introspect-over-tehelka-scandal-coffin-gate-and-now-saffron-terror-2782850.html

[5] ttp://www.newsx.com/nation-at-9/28441-nation-at-9-saffron-terror-a-sham

[6] ttp://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/maharashtra-ats-recoveries-tainted-says-nia-chief/article8597133.ece

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]