Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution.
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Disregard the comment of change in designs. Its just colour change and i assume he is re-painted with different schemes a few times. (Not a good thing to do, but whatever.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have stayed in Mysore for several years and been to Chamundi Hill several times. There is only one statue AFAIK.really liked the snake is like finally scared of Mahishasur and is trying to get away--sarvajna (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah! Quite logical, why would they have two statues. But whats with that snake? Unsolved mystery. Maybe it was revamped. It must have escaped or fallen down. Its COG seems faulty. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will surely comment in sometime. I am at my work place and bit busy today. I was also part of the dispute regarding the definition of Saffron Terror. There are lot of issues on one hand we say that its a form of terrorism conducted by Hindu extremists and then write that Saffron is related to Hindu Nationalism, its something like Nationalism = Extremism. --sarvajna (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now, another matter has come up about the assertions of fact in the lead, I changed the first line to ″The phrase Saffron terror is used, especially in India, to refer to acts of terrorism that have been linked to Hindu nationalists″. I was reverted by Lowkeyvision. I put it back. Then immediately afterwards got a scrupulous comment from Qwyrxian. So I self-reverted (no more edits there). But then I looked around and noticed that this discussion doesn't seem to have an official closure. I initiated a discussion about the line on the talk please, comment there if you will, that will be helpful. Thanks :) Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)13:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!
Hello AdhunikaSarvajna:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
I think the destination already says everything about the link between Purohit and the blast, but I like your idea of creating a separate section also. I suggest you do that in your userspace, in that way I can contribute too unencumbered. Would that be okay? Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)14:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Careful of the NPA
Calling Lowkeyvision a "habitual liar" is probably too strong, and could arguably be considered a personal attack. He could simply be misreading the DRN...and even if he's not being fully honest, it's a somewhat gray area. In any event, you could express the same point without directing a negative judgment against him, which is really what WP:CIVIL is all about. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can strike out that part but if you take a quick look at his talk page time and again I had asked him to stop lying which he does very often. I agree I should not have used such words.Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ratnakar Kulkarni, I've read with interest your recent changes to the Amritsar page, and would like to ask you a few questions, please. You changed a section from:
FROM (my edit)
He became a celebrated hero in Britain among people with connections to the British Raj,[3] but unpopular with Winston Churchill who wished to see Dyer punished.[4]
TO (your edit)
He became a celebrated hero in Britain among most of the people connected to the British Raj.[3] [4]
I've re-read my reference (reference 4), but cannot find anywhere the mention that most people connected with the British Raj saw Dyer as a hero. The reference (reference 4), shows that Winston Churchill lead the debate in the House of Commons, and successfully got even MPs who were pro-Dyer to vote against him. The House of Commons voted 247 to 37, a massive blow to Dyer. (see reference 4.) If Dyer was a celebrated hero with "most", why did the majority of MPs vote against Dyer, why was Dyer removed from duty, and why was the army's role re-evaluated to become less confrontational? Surely if he was a hero, he would have remained at his post in Amritsar?
If, however, you have reason to believe that the majority of Britons connected with Dyer saw him as a hero, please state your source. I was quite careful when I edited the introduction to not delete anything added by previous writers; I simply added, "but unpopular with Winston Churchill who wished to see Dyer punished." Since it was WC who lead the House of Commons debate, is it not reasonable to give him this credit? --Samcoghlan (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Samcoghlan, my intention was not to make it look like all the Britons connected with British Raj saw him as a hero. The sentence He became a celebrated hero in Britain among people with connections to the British Raj sounds like Dyer was seen as a Hero by all the Britons connected to Raj taht is the reason why I added most which I am sure is different from all (If I am wrong you are free to make the change, English is not my native language you see). I just wanted to make it clear that not all supported Dyer. WC did protest but IMO that need not be mentioned in the lead of the article. Most may be all the Indian leaders protested do you see that in the lead? NO. We need not mention everything in the Lead. If you see my edits I did not try to remove WC's response from the article. We do need to give proper space to him.Thanks--sarvajna (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ratnakar Kulkarni, thanks for the swift reply. What about this, "He became a celebrated hero in Britain among most of the people connected to the British Raj,[3] but unpopular with most Members of Parliament[4]"
My reason for suggesting this is that 247 MPs voted to forcibly retire Dyer from duty with only 37 MPs voting to keep him. Later, a Dyer supporter (Carson) attempted to pass a motion of mild approval of Dyer, but was defeated 230 MPs (against approval), 129 MPs (pro-mild approval). This suggests that a majority of MPs was against Dyer. All this is covered in the reference 4. Please let me know what you think, I think adding what I suggest above would balance the introduction, yet keep it short. --Samcoghlan (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can write but unpopular with most Members of Parliament. House of lords passed a resolution favorable to Dyer (AFAIK 129 in favour of Dyer with 86 against ). The house of lords passing resolution in his favor is mentioned here which is also used as a source in the article. I read here that it is also mentioned in The Lion's Share: A Short History of British Imperialism 1850-1970 and also in the The Butcher of Amritsar: General Reginald Dyer I do not have a copy of both these books.
Member of Parliament refers to elected members who sit in the House of Commons; in this case, it is quite abundandly clear that the majority of Members of Parliament were against Dyer. Nevertheless, I take your point that the Lords (from the House of Lords, not MPs) supported Dyer. I still think the statement in the introduction, "He became a celebrated hero in Britain among most of the people connected to the British Raj," is misleading because he was clearly highly unpopular with the House of Commons - as the vote I mention clearly shows. Surely there must be some way in which a sentence can be added to the introduction to show this divide? For example, adding, "He became a celebrated hero in Britain among most of the people connected to the British Raj,[3] he was popular with the House of Lords, but unpopular with most Members of Parliament from the House of Commons[4]"
I don't like leaving the sentence as it stands, "He became a celebrated hero in Britain among most of the people connected to the British Raj,[3]" because it does not show the division of political opinion. I take your point on the House of Lords, but what about the two votes in the House of Commons I mentioned? The House of Commons was clearly against Dyer. --Samcoghlan (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ps - could you add a reference for the House of Lords? The reference I've quoted only refers to the House of Commons, as it is a biography of Churchill who was in the HoC but not HoL at the time. --Samcoghlan (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the refs however I somehow feel that the way we have added it is a bit non encyclopedic. But there is a lot of work needs to be done on the article, the crawling on hands and knees and whipping of locals was done after the incident, it should not be prelude. This source used in the article says that the crawling orders were issued on April 19th that is 6 days after the shooting. He met injured Miss Sherwood on April 19 and not to forget that when HoC forced him to retire, morning post organized a fund raiser for Dyer which can make way into British reaction.--sarvajna (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding reference. I did hear from one source that the crawling order was after the massacre, but the majority of the sources I've read says it was before the massacre. It would make more sense for it to have been beforehand, or the crowd would not have had a reason to protest. Also the crawling order only applied to Indian men, not Indian women (see the book: General Dyer: the Butcher of Amritsar). You can read the whole book online. It was I who added the crawling order to the page. William Manchester says the crawling order was before the massacre, and he's a respected historian who took 10 years to write the book on WSChurchill. I'll keep looking at sources of crawling order and see what the earliest sources say. I'd be surprised if William Manchester was wrong because he adds about five references per page on his book. --Samcoghlan (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, it works. Even the Butcher of Amritsar says that the crawling orders were given after the on April 19th after the shooting, looks like majority of the sources say that ( I have already provided two sources above) We need to correct it.--sarvajna (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings fellow editors! Apologies for butting into your conversation. I believe the crawling order was instigated when Dyer returned from visiting Ms Sherwood in hospital on the 19th April. It was repealed by O'Dwyer on the 24th April. With regards to the massacre, I understand there was some initial support for Dyer (but by no means a majority) including a sympathy fund to which Rudyard Kipling contributed; but this support diminshed rapidly after Dyer had been called before the Hunter commission. Niall Ferguson, in his book, Empire: How Britain made the Modern World, suggests Dyer alienated his remaining admirers when he openly and unashamedly admitted that his intention was to strike terror into the whole of the Punjab. Montague asked those MPs who defended Dyer, "Are you going to keep your hold on India through terrorism, racial humiliation, subordination and frightfulness?"
Hope that's of some help (or at least interest) to you both. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ykraps for joining the discussion. Could you add that to the Introduction? I don't have the book you have, and would be glad to see Dyer's popularity portrayed accurately. The recent BBC coverage suggested Dyer became a full-time hero in England, but when I read earlier sources (such as the sources you quote), it seems reaction to him was mixed - even within the army, many were against the crawling order and saw it as extremist nonsense and "un-British". For some strange reason I don't understand, recent news coverage does not mention this. Could you add the reference to show Dyer's diminishing popularity after Hunter? --Samcoghlan (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would request both of you to be very considerate when you add these stuff. one. the article is not about dyer and two. the majority of the sources are in agreement that he was considered a Hero in England.--sarvajna (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ratnakar Kulkarni, I have been very considerate, and have not undone any of your edits without first discussing it with you on your talk page. You, however, have undone my edits without discussing it first with me. As to "majority of sources" which sources are you referring to? In my experience, "new" sources, such as internet pages are unreliable because they do not have footnotes, and often do not quote their sources. Most, but not all, books do quote sources. If you look at the Times of the 9th July 1920 (the day after Churchill's speech in parliament), you'll see that the Times was completely against Dyer. If, however, you wish to only look at the Morning Post then I agree that you'll come to the conclusion that the whole of England loved Dyer. The book, "The Butcher of Amritsar" that I have quoted clearly shows that Dyer's crawling order was unpopular within most of the British army in Amritsar, and popular only with a few. But if you wish to overlook that, then you are being incredibly insensitive to the British who, mostly, deplored Dyer and wished to see him removed at once for the awful atrocities committed against India. If you wish to believe all the British loved him, that is your choice and I cannot help you. --Samcoghlan (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need for condescension Mr.Samcoghlan, I am not sure which was the edit of yours that I have undone, if you are speaking about removal of sentence from the lead that mentioned WC, I thought I had already given a very fair explanation in the very first reply. So do not accuse me of doing something wrong. I only requested you to be considerate when you make edits not accuse you of making wrong edits. Please read Wikipedia:AGF. I can very much give you the list of sources that I see but I am on short of time now (will provide it in a day or two). Also internet pages from reliable news sources which are otherwise considered reliable on Wiki are being considered unreliable by you.--sarvajna (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In ALL kindness, you removed the sentence I added, "but unpopular with Winston Churchill who wished to see Dyer punished," and you gave the reason, "removing the explicit mention of Churchill, looks like his hagiography". I'd added the sentence to show British public opinion was split. In fact, it was not split evenly: it was strongly anti-Dyer, and the House of Commons voted to support Churchill and the Government against Dyer. They voted 247 to 37. The majority of Britons was against Dyer. We see him like a crazy man who needed removing. Please do not call me condescending for adding balance. I have added British mistakes, such as the crawling order. I am referring this talk page to a Wiki editor. --Samcoghlan (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just like mentioned about I have already given a very fair explanation to my edits regarding removal of WC from the lead. Sure please go ahead and refer this talk page to anyone you want, I had already requested on your talk page that we should start a discussion on the article's talk page.--sarvajna (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. Just a few points (since I was asked on my talk page):
It looks like you guys are sorting things out, but please remember that this can be an emotive topic, so extra care to understand and appreciate other viewpoints should be made. If things do get a little heated, it's fine to sleep on a response.
I'm nervous about words like "most". Such qualifiers need support from reliable sources. If in doubt, why try to interpret the source? Why not create a quote box and display the original text from the source? That way you are giving the reader the tools to make up their own mind.
Discussions like this should be on the article's talk page because you are discussing content (not behaviour). On the article's talk page other interested readers can have input, and there is an obvious permanent record which can be referenced if the topic re-emerges in the years to come.
Also:
BBC says:
"There have been two major theories about the early development of early south Asian traditions. The Aryan migration thesis that the Indus Valley groups calling themselves 'Aryans' (noble ones) migrated into the sub-continent and became the dominant cultural force. Hinduism, on this view, derives from their religion recorded in the Veda along with elements of the indigenous traditions they encountered. The cultural transformation thesis that Aryan culture is a development of the Indus Valley culture. On this view there were no Aryan migrations (or invasion) and the Indus valley culture was an Aryan or vedic culture."
I won't be reverting you but there is in fact no consensus either way. Consensus is not a vote and OBC is not caste (we can't mention Ganchi/Teli for that reason, btw). I think the person who added this is the same person whose efforts I was trying to fix last time round when you deleted the stuff completely, but I really cannot be bothered digging into it right now. You might want to let them know of the talk page discussion. - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have informed that editor twice, yesterday and today, check User_talk:Gzyo. I am aware that Consensus is not a vote and honestly I am against this whole self identification thing, I just don't want Modi to be made an exception. I can bet that I know more about OBC not being a caste than you do (I am just not interested in caste based articles). When you call someone a OBC means you are coming very close to mention his caste.I also think your edits were more harmful as you were writing Modi has claimed that he is a OBC or something like that which is not correct, atleast according to the two sources that you presented. --sarvajna (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"When you call someone a OBC means you are coming very close to mention his caste". Yes, somewhere within 1,000 or so possibilities, including many communities that are not castes at all. That's very close ;). - Sitush (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Modi, again
Yet again you have removed stuff from Modi when the problem was the placement, not the content. Please can you consider moving rather than removing. It is beginning to look like some form of censorship and I am sure that is not what you intend. - Sitush (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any intention of censorship at all, it was added by an editor Manus [3] and he was reverted by another editor Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington which I agreed because the political stance of BJP and L.K Advani was completely undue there. All this happened even before I reverted Indopug. I have informed Indopug about the same.--sarvajna (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thatcher
We learnt during the deletion of "Death of Bal Thackeray" that natural deaths of politicians do not warrant a separate article even though they may be well covered in the media. Will you please AfD "Death of M. Thatcher" Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thats kinda right! There is no reason to have separate article just because the British press has a big mouth. But i suggest waiting till the funeral is finally over (17th Apr). Who knows, Harry Potter might visit. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got the expected answers and to be honest I agree with them, Death of Thatcher needs to be covered in a seperate article. It is unfortunate that we need to deal with people like Sitush who thinks that everything we add is a POV. Nothing much can be done about the deleted article, the deletion review says that deletion review should not be used to point out other pages that have not been deleted .--sarvajna (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
