User talk:Kautilya3

Please comment on Template talk:Nazism sidebar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Nazism sidebar. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Lord's Birth Place

Hello Kautilya3, thank you so much for helping me, I know this is a controversial topic but I have several sources which are powerful than the only book you have sourced on the article Ayodhya. I advice you to have a look on Stephen Knapp's researches, his books and I assure you his website is an Authentic source. He is a well-known personality around the world, known for his researches on India's Vedic Culture. This source is much more powerful and authentic than the already attached book. Please revise and revert the changes. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.vivek0305 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mr.vivek0305: Sorry Vivek. If Stephen Knapp is an authentic historian, he needs to publish his research in peer-reviewed journals, where other experts in history can examine his conclusions. The Wikipedia guidelines are absolutely clear that self-published sources are not permitted. There will be no compromise on this principle. So I suggest you give up and start reading authentic history written by historians. If you send me a private email, I can send you the excellent paper by Hans Bakker. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Gender test

he says hello to him or her. @Joshua Jonathan: apparently you haven't declared your gender, whereas I did. I have no idea where. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Gender gap task force

I cannot believe I am getting mansplained and denied at the Gender gap task force and Women in Red. Like, two people writing "i'm a woman and this doesn't happen" like I gave detailed examples and how is this even a debate, this entire page is about the gender gap. And the "I don't think certain groups should get special treatment" comment... I'm like a woman SEEING red rn. Ogress _smash! 17:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I read about only half the article and I thought the mild expletive in the title was entirely justified. But, for a lot of other people, it puts them on the defensive and they shut down. What can I say? That is how the world works. On a side note, are we people on South Asia pages any better, or are we the same? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Uh... South Asia pages? There might be a specific incident but my wikimemory is short, so... I mean, my general sense is that the Hinduism and South Asian pages are always going to be as messy as the real-life situation India-Pakistan-Nepal-Bengal-Sri Lanka-(I missed some). We just keep grinding away at making them encyclopedic as best we can. It's only noticeable because it's such a huge percent of the Earth and its population. Drama with, for example, North Korea is relatively easy to manage... Personally I stay out of a lot of it because I don't have the knowledge to do deep digging; I stick to page cleanup, grammar, spelling, the occasional hagiography removal, that kind of thing. I only know about Buddhism to any degree of facility and that's a minor topic in modern South Asia outside of Sri Lanka. Ogress _smash! 18:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes, we have loads of POV pushing here. But, I am asking, are South Asian editors any better with regard to the gender bias/sexism? If we aren't then I will try to watch out for them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:India

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:India. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Trance, hypnosis and neurological damage

It's a fascinating topic: trance, hypnosis and neurological damage. Interestingly, hysteria as described by Freud may also have been caused by neurological damage. And hypnosis was early on recognized as bearing similarities with meditation-induced trance. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

See also [1]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, this is amazing! Try reading this paper [2]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Quote: "The two main forms of religious experience, the ongoing belief pattern and set of convictions (the religion of the everyday man) versus the ecstatic religious experience, may be predominantly localized to the frontal and temporal regions, respectively, of the right hemisphere." Maybe we can add rules for behaviour? The strict rules of Buddhism, Advaita etc. aim to increased self-control. In Buddhism, meditation aims at mindfulness of one's impulses and desires, which enlarges the ability of self-control. That has very little to do with extatic experiences. It's the western modern esoteric discourse that has given such a prominent place to extatic "religious experiences." The influences of this discourse can be seen in every New Age bookstore. Ironically, the self-control side can also be seen at work at many places: many woman-magazines have an endless series of articles on health, meditation, self-improvement, etc. Very practical!

Did you ever read Krishnamurti? He's very outspoken on this 'experience-thing': 'a mind that yearns for experiences is an unmature mind.' Krishnamurti also emphasizes self-awareness, uncompromising and totally honesy self-awareness.

What's also of interest: neither classical Buddhism nor Advaita Vedanta promote happiness in this life; they promote liberation from this life, which means liberation from all suffering after one has dies. Suffering in th elifes of enlightened beings is due to past karma, and has to be endured while living this last, enlightened life.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of cities proper by population

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of cities proper by population. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Lists of early Hindu Muslim conflicts in Indian subcontinent source article

You still haven't sent the article that I requested. Instead of complaining about me and send me ARBIPA sanction notification, simply send the article I asked so we can solve this matter as soon as possible. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Malhotra

A lot of new accounts lately involved in propagating Malhotra. Even a newbie from Amsterdam, who knows right-away how to create a userpage! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan Is it bad to do that (endorsing Malhotra or creating a userpage right away for a new user)? I just copied userpages from other experienced users. Crawford88 (talk) 07:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "2002 Gujarat Riots". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 September 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning 2002 Gujarat Riots, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Please comment on Talk:Early 2012 Hong Kong protests

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Early 2012 Hong Kong protests. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for your support to form consensus in the British Pakistani article's dispute. Regards —☮JAaron95 Talk 11:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Error

Upon your reversion you've introduced an error here, it is not July but June.--Vin09 (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't me. Apparently this edit [3] made the change. Please feel free to correct it, and add a better source as well because I couldn't access that Government document. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:European colonization of the Americas

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:European colonization of the Americas. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chetan Bhatt (September 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Chetan Bhatt and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Kautilya3, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 TT me 15:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited K. B. Hedgewar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tricolor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan peoples

Kautilya, I have enough knowledge about this subject, it's important to explain how ANI and ASI came to be as South Asia are product of ANI and ASI admixture which is known as 'Indian cline'.

It's not good to having early 20th century racial-type categorization in topic, it's out-dated. Genetics gives much more detailed understanding of the topic.

Is there any reason it was revered? Today, I added how ASI, Proto East Asia and Andamaese split with the appearance of Y-DNA CF haplogroup and later F haplogroup and it's decedents. M mtdna is oldest Haplogroup in South Asia and related to Andamanese M mtna, as are all M mtdnas in the world. However all Y-DNA AND R U mtdna in South Asia are not found in Andamanese due to their isolation after the split some 50,000 to 40,500 ybp. They are ASI related group through M mtdna.

Here is chart of splitting of Eurasians, I'll try to get this chart in Wikicommons in the future after getting permission from Reich et al but at movement it gives a basic idea on how 'Indian cline' was formed. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2010/11/reich1.png - The chart is from Reich et al study, Reconstruction of Indian population. Pebble101 (talk)

I understand your concern, i'll be removing ANI and ASI topic from the Indo-Aryan page atm as one can find more detailed information in Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia.

I will only add this for now - as it will give basic information about Indo-Aryan people, migration and Indo-Aryan associated haplogroup R1a1

article text

The genetic analysis of two Y chromosome variants, Hgr9 and Hgr3 provides insightful data. Microsatellite variation of Hgr9 among Iranians, Indians and Pakistanis indicate an expansion of populations to around 9000 YBP in Iran and then to 6,000 YBP in India. This migration originated in what was historically termed Elam in south-west Iran to the Indus valley, and may have been associated with the spread of Dravidian speakers from south-west Iran Subsequently, the Indo-European migration into subcontinent from Sintashta culture about 4,000 ybp. and the Tibeto-Burmans and Austroasiatics via the Himalayan and north-eastern borders of the subcontinent. The most frequent mtDNA haplogroups in the Indian subcontinent are M, R and U. All major Y chromosome DNA haplogroups in the subcontinent are Haplogroup F's descendant haplogroups R (mostly R2a, R2 and R1a1), L, H and J (mostly J2). other minor but notable haplogroups include O3 among Tibeto-Burman speakers, O2a among Austroasiatic speakers, G and T. Haplogroup R1a1 in particular is associated with Indo-Aryans in South Asia. In South Asia R1a1 has been observed often with high frequency in a number of demographic groups, especially among Indo-Aryans. Its parent clade Haplogroup R1a is believed to have its origins in the South Asia or the Eurasian Steppe, whereas its successor clade R1a1 has the highest frequency and time depth in South Asia, making it a possible locus of origin. However, the uneven distribution of this haplogroup among South Asian castes and tribal populations makes a Central Eurasian origin of this lineage a strong possibility as well. References

Would this be okay? it gives all basic information Pebble101 (talk)

@Pebble101: I am glad you are knowledgeable about the subject. However, you are still new to Wikipedia, and you need to better understand the policies and protocols here. First of all WP:BRD tells you that if a "bold edit" is reverted, you should discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Re-reverting constitutes edit-warring and it is frowned upon. Your contribution is not lost. It is still in the edit history, and we can go back and retrieve it after consensus is reached.

As for the matter at dispute, I have three concerns: (1) The section you are editing is not about genetics. There is a separate section for it at the bottom. So that is where any new material on genetic evidence should go. (2) The section titled "Early migrations..." is a quick summary of what people might have lived in India before the arrival of Indo-Aryans. It should not be expanded to become an entire article of its own. (3) The material you add in this section should be understandable by a non-specialist, and it should relate to people rather than DNA markers. Do you think you can do that? - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Please note also that the material you removed from the first section is sourced to Basu et al (2003), except for the first sentence. I find nothing wrong with it. So please state clearly what your objection is. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I do try to fix basic information on here as most people get their first-hand information from wikipedia before doing any major research work. Early Migrations - The current version we have covers it as "Haplogroup F and it's descendant Haplogroups" which makes up modern South-Asians from 40,000 ybp, link to F covers this. Previously existing Y-DNA haplgoroups (Pre-F Haplogroups) does not exist in South Asia anymore. M mtdna is oldest linage in South Asia, link to M covers this as well. So, we have all basics covered here that makes up modern South Asians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebble101 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry. I don't understand. I am not interested in your version yet. The old version that you overwrote [4] is sourced to Basu et al (2003). What is wrong with it? Why is there a need to change it? - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

1) Y-DNA F and mtDNA-M represents the oldest linage in South Asian, as modern population are decedent of these two specific haplogroups and it's sub-clads. 2) Basu et al is good but some of those have been debunked (no mention of time-period of major migrations either) in newer studies as earliest arrivals are Adivasi F and M, we do not know what language they spoke before adopting Dravidian, Indo-European or Austro-Asiatic languages but there is 'Vedda langauge' in Sri Lanka which is linguistic isolate and they predominantly carry Haplogroup F like Adivasi tribals so they could have spoken a language related to that. 3)Rice-farming appears during Late Harrapa period and is associated with Austro-Asiatic speakers (Y-DNA O2a) in South Asia, so they are not earliest arrivals.

I have simplified the reich et al study for easier understanding in Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia, According to the study "ASI" is not found in South Asia since split happened 40,500 ybp but mtDNA-M represents this old linage in South Asia.

article text

According to the phylogeographic distribution of haplotypes observed among South Asian populations defined by social and linguistic criteria, the possibility arose of Y-DNA haplogroup F and mtDNA Haplogroup M might have originated in South Asia. The presence of several haplogroup F, Haplogroup M and K that are largely restricted to the Indian subcontinent is consistent with the scenario that a coastal (southern route) of early human migration out of Africa carried ancestral Eurasian lineages first to the coast of the Indian subcontinent, or that some of them originated there. Studies based on mtDNA variation have reported genetic unity across various Indian sub–populations. Conclusions of studies based on Y Chromosome variation and Autosomal DNA variation have been varied, although many researchers argue that most of the ancestral nodes of the phylogenetic tree of all the mtDNA types originated in the subcontinent. Recent genome studies appear to show evidence in support of the notion that modern south Asians (both Indo-Aryans and Dravidians) are a hybrid population descending from two genetically divergent populations referred to as the 'Ancestral North Indians' related to western eurasians and the 'Ancestral South Indians' who are not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent. References

This covers all basics of early migration and making of modern South Asians. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebble101 (talk • contribs)

I'll be adding this part in earliest migration in Indo-Aryan peoples.

article text

According to the phylogeographic distribution of haplotypes observed among South Asian populations defined by social and linguistic criteria, the possibility arose of Y-DNA haplogroup F and mtDNA Haplogroup M might have originated in South Asia. The presence of several haplogroup F, Haplogroup M and K that are largely restricted to the Indian subcontinent is consistent with the scenario that a coastal (southern route) of early human migration out of Africa carried ancestral Eurasian lineages first to the coast of the Indian subcontinent, or that some of them originated there. Studies based on mtDNA variation have reported genetic unity across various Indian sub–populations.

It should explain basic information about earliest migration into South Asia during Paleolithic era. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebble101 (talk • contribs)

@Pebble101:Sorry, none of your versions are as informative as the Basu et al (2003) version. They are still couched in genetic terminology and don't speak of populations. I am not sure why you are so bent on deleting the Basu-based text. You haven't answered that to my satisfaction. Please expect further objections if you replace the text. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Please comment on Talk:Joseon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joseon. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "2002 Gujarat Riots 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 September 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Irreligion in Bangladesh

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Irreligion in Bangladesh. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

BBC Contents

Hi Kautilya3,

First of all i want to thank you for your message and your concerns about Material published from BBC. I have have checked all those Policies and found that scholarly sources are better for information about academic topics like specialized article on Science while Kashmir is an ongoing regional conflict between two countries so along with books, News sources will be reliable for these Articles and BBC is a reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Moreover In this particlar source BBC is representing historical facts instead of Opinion. So i should restore my Sourced edits. HIAS (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Hitch Hicking Across Sahara: Glad you are able to find your way around the policies. We always prefer scholarly sources and, in this case, for writing about events that happened half a century ago, WP:HISTRS applies. Of course, the entire history section needs to be cleaned up using HISTRS, but that will be a big project. For the time being, we should at least make sure that it doesn't get any worse than it already is. The line that you took from the BBC web site (an unsigned summary of history, not current news) is not corroborated by any other source. So I am afraid it has to go. The suggestion that the Maharaja asked for a referendum as a condition for accession is an extraordinary claim, which needs extraordinary sources. Multiple reliable sources would be needed for it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

3RR

Kautilya3 - you fully know I did not delete the statements - I have "moved" them to make it less redundant. The only true change that has been made is the instances that Nussbaum summarizes are moved into the body as they are not needed in the lead as it is amply indicated in the lead section (note there are three sentences that say the exact same thing about complicity of law enforcement). In the latest revision I have kept everything almost the same without the individual instances which I moved to body. Why would you say that I "deleted" the sourced content? --Sdmarathe (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sd, you know very well that this lead is contentious. It is disingenious to edit war about it. One revert is enough. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya - If you look the second edit, the contentious Godhra theory is still there, the scholarly opinions about ethnic cleansing and summary by Nussbaum is also still there. The only thing that HAS changed is the individual instances that show police bias have been moved to the body. However, there are 3 sentences that support scholarly indications including Nussbaum summary that states the same thing. Does it not? Do you honestly think reiterating all instances in the lead that are already in the TOC template and (after I moved to body) is a better flow? If you honestly think so, I will not argue further.. thank you. --Sdmarathe (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Warminster Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Warminster Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Indra's web of misrepresentations

Ah, you're reading along. I can recommen the original 1970 article.Please also read my comments at the talkpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I am finding it tough reading. Can't even understand what he means by "apologetic". - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Helaas... Anyway, it proves again that it's good to read the original sources (but when you can't get through to it, well, ehm - just believe me! I'm a pretty cheap guru; no feas at all!) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning 2002 Gujarat Riots 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Sir

Thank you for your guidence Sir. 39.47.75.200 (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Due to Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Undiscussed moves of articles' growth into a know-nothing mob, I feel little choice but to retire as it's clear I am not wanted. Ogress 18:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hijra

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hijra. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

COI editing

When I saw this edit I couldn't help but think that this would be COI editing :) —SpacemanSpiff 16:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, in Indian folklore, Chanakya was the good guy that repelled the Greek invaders, and Kautilya was the bad guy that subverted Brahmanism. I am the bad guy :-) - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so، you are not a Bad Guy. HIAS (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean it seriously. On another note, the ball is in your court on Talk:Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mizrahi Jews

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mizrahi Jews. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Indra

Hi Kautilya, I actually did explain in great detail why I removed the "Appearance" section from the "Indra" wiki page. My reasoning was based on the fact that the description was based in an imperialist, racist, and (most importantly, in regards to the wiki page itself) historical revisionist analysis. I ask that you undo your changes, and remove the section. I can provide scholarly sources that would back all of what I've mentioned, if you'd like. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanakya Volume 2 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Those sources would be vey welcome! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Chanakya Volume 2: Welcome to Wikipedia. Please note that all content on Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Please read through the policy pages posted on your talk page to get an understanding of Wikipedia works. You need to produce reliable sources for your claims and, once you do so, you can add the other scholarly points of view on to the pages respecting WP:DUE weight. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

De-communalising Indian history

Hi Kautilya3, I'm Abdulmc. Nice to meet you. It seems we disagree and are beginning to enter an edit war. This is of course a highly sensitive topic so let me tell you why I made the changes that I did.

The Reddy page had several statements about 'Muslim invaders'. This is a deeply damaging hangover from colonial rule where the British wrote history books in a way to divide Hindus and Muslims on the lines of religion. Therefore they paid deep attention to ensuring that it was written in a highly inflammatory manner. This framework is still being used today by the Hindutva right. Therefore the language of Muslim invaders, Hindu resistance, etc. The correct term to use is Delhi Sultanate, Mughals, etc instead of 'Muslim invaders'. Hardly anyone calls the British, Dutch, Portugese and French as 'Christian invaders'!

Also this framework is highly fallacious. It ensures that the Muslims of today are blamed for the activities of the Mughals or Delhi Sultanate. It only works to deepen hatred and hostilities and deaths between Hindus and Muslims in India. In interest of academic rigor and social peace, this framework of viewing history in communal terms should be completely eliminated. Therefore I made those edits. Kindly cooperate with me and let us work together to make history more neutral.Abdulmc (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Abdul

@Abdulmc: Welcome to Wikipedia. Please take it slow while you are still getting used to editing here. I guess you haven't looked at the Wikipedia adventure tour that was posted on your talk page. I will post another welcome message that you gives you easier links that explain how Wikipedia works. As far policies are concerned, (1) you cannot delete sourced content without achieving consensus first. See WP:RS and WP:OR. (2) when an edit gets reverted, you should not keep reinstating it without achieving consensus. So, I suggest that you self-revert the last edit until consensus is reached. There is no hurry. You can always re-make the edit after agreement is reached.

As for the issues here are concerned, as I pointed out the term "Muslim sultans" etc. are used in the sources cited. I know that the historical sources would have called them turuq, turuka or turushka. But it is not easy to explain what that term means, because all people that converted to Islam were also called turuka. We can't simply translate it as "Turk." We are still trying to figure out how to address these historical issues. See the recent edits to the page Hindu. So, for the time being, it is best to leave the Reddy page as it was, because the content is sourced and there are no aspersions cast on Muslims. There is nothing unusual about Telugu people rebelling against "Muslim invaders" who followed different language, culture and religion. That is how history works. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Abdulmc: Your edit on Telangana [5] was even worse because you simply deleted key content, claiming you were making it "neutral." If you persist in this way, you are liable to get blocked. Please be warned. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

And politically, white-washing history is playing into the hands of Hindu nationalists. It is entirely counter-productive. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thanks for the guidance. Indeed I am new here. I'll go through the material you've posted and familiarise myself with them. Till then i've done as you requested and removed the last revert on the Reddy page (but not on Telangana). I've done this only as we can discuss the issue and reach a consensus.

I'll go through the references and see what they say. Will also see whether any and all references can be accepted. We can then discuss the issue threadbare. I disagree with what your last statement about Telugus vs Muslim invaders who followed different language, culture, etc. The right term to use is Delhi Sultanate/Qutub Shahis/Asaf Jahis etc and not Muslim invaders. That is because it is unclear who you refer to by Muslim invaders. Is it the Sayyids (Arabs), Lodis (Turks) or the Mughals (Afghans)? They all had different cultures from each other.

Besides, as already pointed out it is a communally charged term inappropriate in the current context. Anyway, this isn't about our personal thoughts. I'll examine the source and get back to you.

Thanks for the passive-aggressive warning. What key content was deleted? I've already said what's wrong with the term "Muslim invaders". That's why it was deleted. And MK Vellodi and the other ICS officers were trained in BRITISH and not Indian systems of administration. The Indian system btw was BRITISH which it took over wholescale after Independence.

Indeed. The only whitewashing is using blanket and communal terms like Muslim invaders and Hindu resistance. It is this that truly counter-productive and I intend to see it removed wherever I find it. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by abdulmc (talk • contribs)

The problem in the Telangana edit was that you deleted the sentence "Later the region was ruled by many Muslim rulers." Simply gone! This is presumably due to your POV that any reference to "Muslim" is "communal." Yet scholars tell us that "Muslim" or "Musalamana" at best meant a jati or an endogamous ethnic group in the Indian context [6].

Replacing "Indian" by "British" is a smaller problem, but it is also misleading because it is not making it clear that the administrative system under question is the one that is prevalent in India (inherited from British of course). - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Using the framework of "Muslim rule over Hindus" is what is communal, not what you said. Don't waste time trying to presume my POV and simply respond to the points I am making. One of the Wiki guidelines is not to make these discussions personal, so you might do well to follow them yourself before preaching.

What is not misleading but downright false is saying that MK Vellodi and co were trained in Indian systems of administration. What might these be? The ones used by the Mughals? Princely States? The Chogyul of Sikkim which wasn't even a part of India then? The fact is that as ICS officers they were trained in the British system plain and simple and I have simply corrected a factual error.Abdulmc (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)abdulmc

Please note that WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is not a successful strategy for editing Wikipedia. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Abdulmc: I took care of the Reddy page. But similar locutions appear on all Telugu-related pages. I suspect it is because turuk and Muslim are synonymous in Telugu and those writers would tend to use "Muslim" when they write in English. If you search for "Kakatiya Muslim" you will find a lot of hits. You are welcome to fix them all in the same way. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Chandragupta Maurya

Kautilya3 there is no proof that Chandragupta Maurya converted from Hinduism to Jainism. All the texts say that he became Jaina Muni. None of the texts say he converted his religion. It means he was Jain originally. Also the name of a Ganadhar of Tirthankara Mahavira was called Maurya. He was indeed descended from him. Why don't you give proof that Chandragupta Maurya followed Hinduism before converting to Jainism. If you can't provide proof it means Chandragupta Maurya was originally lay Jain and later in his life he became Jaina Muni. Ashvawiki (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)