User talk:Ghatus

Ghatus, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Ghatus! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

History of India

You mean that the sources are not provided? The Wiki-links do work. "Archaic" and "outdated" betrays a lack of understanding. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Being a history addict and student of history, I will soon edit the table there and try to give some links written by Historians with modern research. The History of India must not be confused with history of Hinduism. Historians Richard Eaton, Romila Thapar and R.C Majumder have thrashed even the "archaic" concept of periodization on the basis of continuity of Indian History and the heterogeneous nature of India. BTW, I have kept the table but it requires urgent improvements which i will do with time. It is also incomplete without Marathas and Sikhs. All are taken from books written on religion and culture, not on historical research. Links are not working in the main template. Btw, I will try to fix them all. Regards and don't worry,Ghatus (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I have just completed the table by adding Marathas and Sikhs. Other works will be done gradually in my leisure time.Ghatus (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This table inserted is erroneous. We talked about it on my talk page. Sources are taken from those authors who are neither Historians nor experts on India History nor written on the periodization of Indian Histoy.All eminent Historians on Indian history like R. Thapar, R.C.Majumder, Eaton etcnever gave such periodization. Such pharses like “Ascetic reformism”, “Late-Classical Hinduism”, “Islamic rule and "Sects of Hinduism", “Modern Hinduism” as periods of Indian History are bogus. Show me one such example given by ANY historian on Indian history in ANY historical work/research/book as the name of those as historial periods. You are trying to pass some phrases of Hinduism as The History of India. NO historian has done such periodization of Indian History. It is totally a fanciful creation.

The other table is detailed. Hence it was entered. Name it what you want- south Asia or Indian Sub-Continent. It does not matter. But, do not replace it with a bogus one.Ghatus (talk) 07:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

1500 BC

Hi Ghatus, I didn't understand why you did this revert [1]. I think that sentence has been there for a while. It would be more productive if you open discussions on the talk page rather than reverting edits. My principle is, don't revert anything unless the edit was totally totally wrong. That is not the case here. Anyway, please look under "Sources" for the sources that have been cited. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Somanath

Hi Ghatus, would you have the expertise to cross check the recent edits to the Somanath page [2]? We will need to work on cleaning it up at some stage but, for the time being, let us at least make sure that it doesn't get any worse. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Logo of Bharatiya Janata Party

Hi, Could you please upload a Flag/logo for the Bharatiya Janata Party article. There was a logo but unfortunately it was delete due to license issue. Therefore, please upload valid license logo for BJP make sure its in SVG format and uploaded in commons section, so that it can be put in other languages as well. Thank You--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk!

Hi Ghatus, can you please do discussions on the talk pages instead of the edit summaries? It is so much more civilized that way! Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

History of India

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India#Vedic_period_.281750_BCE_-_500_BCE.29 and on the left, there are two templates, that's why you don't have to insert maps outside the template when they are already inserted inside. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan , do have a look at History of India page. It seems that there is a problem/resistance to depict/insert the Aryan Migration template in clear pictures.That's why @Bladesmulti is insisting to keep a floating template you inserted on 13th Jan only. Look into the matter and I have nothing more to see or do.But, I have seen such tendencies before also to Aryan migration theory.I can not revert anymore. It was better before 13th Jan. Thanks. Ghatus (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

V. K. Agnihotri

Hi Ghatus, is there a historian called V. K. Agnihotri? His book is being cited on a host of pages like this one [3], which look quite flakey to me. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the thanks! Highly appreciated. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Now, we seem to be able to cooperate together diff. Glad to see so. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

March - 2015

Most of what you had recovered back to the page,[4] it was removed by a user as it was copied from here. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti, if there is copyright problem, change the language then. No need to delete the section.Ghatus (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As you ask, I will change it. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism on Khilji dynasty & Alauddin Khilji

This source does not appear to be reliable, not to mention you copy & pasted from it which is plagiarism. Also, the paragraph you plagiarized does not appear to be supported by The Life and Works of Sultan Alauddin Khalji, by Ghulam Sarwar Khan Niazi. Therefore, since you have plagiarized this paragraph, I will be removing it. Please do not re-add said plagiarism or unreliable source, since this would be a violation of policy. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

None can hide history. Proper sources are given. One can find in any book on alauddin Khilji the killing of "New Muslims". Even, page number is given in OUP book. Have changed the language totally. Oxford University Press is not an unreliable source.Ghatus (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't care for your statement, "none can hide history". If you have something to say, I would suggest you say it. My reversion was clearly endorsed by policy according to plagiarism. If you want to make this personal then I would be happy to have an Admin address your concerns. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

LoL!!! Hahahahaha. Source was GIVEN.Ghatus (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

hahahaha, you plagiarized and tried to make it personal. Doesn't say much for you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Whether it was copyright violation or not, wiki is there to say. But, I won't tolerate any attempt to "hide history"-good or bad. One can easily change the language if one wishes. But, what is the need to delete the entire section??? I don't live on grass.Ghatus (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't understand the definition of plagiarism? Are you unable to understand Wikipedia's policy on plagiarism? On unreliable sources? It is very clear you are here to promote a particular agenda. As long as you use reliable sources in a neutral manner without plagiarizing, I could care less who killed who, when or where. I have seen editors like you before, here to promote a particular agenda, and I have seen them all blocked or banned. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No further need to make me understand your "innocent intents". I have understood them all. Thank you.Ghatus (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

LOL join in!

It's the mix of ingredients that gives the most extraordinary taste!

You're right! And point 4, "The impact of the "Aryans" [...] on the formation of a race or nation" is the most interesting point. The Kuru Kingdom is most relevant in this respect, since that's the place and the time when the "Vedic fold" was formed, which has enveloped most of India, it's culture, and it's societal organisation. These two sources were highly informative for me, on this topic:

• Witzel, Michael (1995), "Early Sanskritization: Origin and Development of the Kuru state" (PDF), EJVS vol. 1 no. 4 (1995)
• Samuel, Geoffrey (2010), The Origins of Yoga and Tantra. Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century, Cambridge University Press

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.Ghatus (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Vivekananda International Foundation

Hi Ghatus, I hadn't noticed that you had removed my tags [5]. Please check now what the other sources say. You should note that the Sangh Parivar fans always want to create Wiki pages based on what the organisations say. They don't believe in third party sources. All such articles should be tagged just like I did. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Mimamsa and history

Hi Ghatus. I don't know if you've got access to scientific journals, but this article may be of interest to you. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

And maybe this one's interesting for you too (and also for Kautilya3). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan & @Kautilya3), As far as I know,"Mimamsa" is one of the six systems of Indian Philosophy. To quote a genius:

"The early beginnings of the Indian systems of philosophy take us back to the pre-Buddhist era. They develop gradually, the Brahminical systems side by side with the Buddhist, often criticizing each other, often borrowing from one another. Before the beginning of the Christian era, six Brahminical systems had taken shape and crystallized themselves, out of the welter of many such systems. Each one of them represents an independent approach, a separate argument, and yet they were not isolated from each other but rather parts of a larger plan. The six systems are known as: (1) Nyaya, (2) Vaishesika, (3) Samkhya, (4) Yoga, (5) Mimamsa, and (6) Vedanta...

...The next system (here Fifth) of philosophy is known as the Mimamsa. This is ritualistic and tends towards polytheism. Modern popular Hinduism as well as Hindu Law have been largely influenced by this system and its rules which lay down the dharma or the scheme of right living as conceived by it. It might be noted that the poly-theism of the Hindus is of a curious variety, for the devas, the shining ones or gods, for all their special powers are supposed to be of a lower order of creation than man. Both the Hindus and Buddhists believe that human birth is the highest stage that the Being has reached on the road to self-realization. Even the devas can only achieve this freedom and realization through human birth. This conception is evidently far removed from normal polytheism. Buddhists say that only man can attain the supreme consummation of Buddhahood...'"

Ghatus (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Medieaval Mimamsa seems to have been of (far) more importance than I ever knew; more important, in the early medieaval age, than (Advaita) Vedanta. And our understanding of Advaita Vedanta seems to be strongly influenced by modern discourses, on the importance of socalled "religious experience." Ah! The splendour of instant perfection! No need to work hard and try to control yourself! (said the old, grumpy man...) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, Truly speaking, I am yet to understand all the six systems of Indian philosophy. I am a naive in this matter of theology. I know a little bit on Advaita Vedanta, propagated by Vivekananda with a little bit moderation. I have hardly any idea about other five. They all sound Greek to me.:-) Ghatus (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it wonderfull, how we keep on learning? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been searching again for articles on Advaita Vedanta; it appears that very little is known about the (social) history of this tradition. What I've gathered throughout the past few years, is that Shankara's ideas rose to rpominence in and after the 10th century, that is, when Muslim dominance started, and Indian scholars started to search for an "essence" of Indian religions. Advaita Vedanta scholars were prominent in this. In the 19th century, western scholars in their turn were influenced by these writings, seeing Advaita Vedanta as "the essence" of Indian thought. Vivekananda, himself a student of a Tantric teacher, elaborated on this theme, introducing the concept of "religious experience", which is alien to classic Advaita Vedanta, and presenting Advaita Vedanta as some sort of Yoga, that is, a meditation discipline. It isn't; Advaita Vedanta is about textual exegesis, analytical skills, and a high competence in Sanskrit language and culture. But it's this version which has conquered the world, "incoporating" Ramana Maharshi, a vernacular and highly eclectic Shaivist, and Nisargadatta Maharja, a vernacular Nath. My oh my. I think it's an impoverishment of Indian intellectual history... (this story is; Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta are okay). A fundamental lack of historical knowledge and insight. There's so much more to Indian thought than Advaita Vedanta, let alone the Vivekananda-version. And this does not only apply to "Hinduism", but also to Buddhism; the idea that you get a "spiritual awakening", and all of a sudden you're a perfect human being. Wauw. Great story, but far removed from the facts. Most believers don't seem to wonder what this enlightenment is, let alone what happens, or is to be done, there-after. Oh well, some thoughts, and frustrations, on the topic of India and historical consciousness. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what the context is for this discussion. But I think Shankara was battling Buddhism, not Islam. Throughout his life, he debated Buddhist monks and supposedly "defeated" them. By the end of it, Hindus began to believe that Hinduism had all that Buddhism had, which probably contributed to the decline of Buddhism. As for advaita vs yoga, I see no opposition between them. One is theory and the other is practice. They are complementary. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan & @Kautilya3), Kautilya is right. Hinduism survived because of Adi Shankara. By 8th century, he destroyed Buddhism intellectually in India. Again, I am confused what JJ is trying to convey. It seems he is reading too much about Indian religions. Haha... As far as I know, Vivekananda spread "Yoga", not "tantra".:-)Ghatus (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

For "destroying Buddhism," see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kumaarila/. And for Advaita practice, see N. Dalal (2009), Contemplative practice and textual Agency in Advaita Vedanta. My point is: India's intellectual history may be much more complex than we all realise, or are even able to know. "Historicity," being aware of historicity, is an aspect of this (lack of) awareness & knowledge. I'm bothering Gathus with this because of his interest in history; somehow he made me aware of the importance of being aware of historicity, and a possible lack of such a notion with some Indian editors. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and Vivekananda is said to have spread Advaita, which is doubtfull. There seems to be much more about Advaita Vedanta than just some 'mystical insight'. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no. Advaita is the simplest possible theory: tatvam-asi -- you are the Brahman. But most human beings are prone to ask stupid questions like, then why don't I feel like Brahman? All the theory is devoted to answering such questions. Happily, I learnt advaita before I knew enough to ask stupid questions. For me it is as plain as the day light! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"Ik ben een God in het diepst van mijn gedachten" - Willem Kloos ppoem. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I think it's a very good question. Wasn't it Ramanuja who asked how you can pretend to be liberated in this earthly life, when the pain of life just continues? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, Physicists also wonder how an electron can be a particle (a unitary thing) as well as a wave (spread out all over space). Neils Bohr said, don't ask such stupid questions. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The Advaita (non-dualist) interpretation of Vedanta was developed by Adi Shankara. Ramanuja spread Vishishtadvaita, another interpretation of Vedanta. There is also Dvaita (dualist) interpretation of Vedanta. These are all different interpretations of a same thing-VEDANTA.Ghatus (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen, thanks for the nice conversation. Plaeae have a cup of tea! Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, not until you hear this! If there are two electrons, they don't make two separate waves. They merge into a single wave. But if a photon comes and hits them (whatever that means), they separate out again. Only one electron absorbs the photon, never the two. Bohr and Heisenberg knew enough Vedanta to get comfortable with this craziness. We really expect Brahman to be simpler than the silly electron? Kautilya3 (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Good interaction, I will have tea too. I am pursuing degree from two Universities in "Indian Philosophy" but wish to stay away from it on Wikipedia. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

Maratha's lost many engagements during 1680-1707, however you are removing the battles in which Maratha's lost against the Mughals, which demonstrates clear bias and is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. You have been warned. Xtremedood (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said, you are destroying the entire articles. Almost blanking the whole pages. Deleting all the references. Not improving at all. There is talk page. Discuss every point there. I am just undoing your blanking of Wiki pages.You have just joined Wikipedia. First learn how to edit. Ghatus (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

ARE formatting

Thank you for contributing there. But you really don't have to add separate headings like you did here. It also speaks about your knowledge of WP:ARE and how they are formatted. Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Astha Bharati

Hi Ghatus, these guys say all our standard history is still colonial: [6]. What do you think? Kautilya3 (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, The man is confused. It is true that Indians were thought the colonial narrative of history till 1950s & 1960s, but not now. We have corrected the National Narrative by 1990s and work is going on Regional Narratives/Histories. Read this piece of Thapar[7]. Indian historians are now reputed worldwide. BTW, there is no permanent interpretation of History. It changes with the passage of time as new researches emerge.Ghatus (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain why you say he is confused? (He is the chief editor of this journal, which seems a bit of a "reasoned Hindu voice" to me.) He says the Delhi Sultanate is given too much importance, which sounds similar to what you were saying earlier (and I was disagreeing). Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, He is confused/ignorant because he was writing on contemporary writings when he does not know what is being written in contemporary historial works. The Delhi Sultanate is not given too much importance in contemporary historical works and it is considered as a power of North India only, not the whole of India. In modern historical researches, Vijayanagara , Rajputs and regional powers like Orissa, Bengal etc are given the much needed importance. It is we who give too much mind space to Delhi Sultanate as in our inner psychology we, the common people of India, think the beginning of the Delhi Sultanate to be the end of a "glorious" order and beginning of a new, not so "glorious", "foreign" order. Modern Indian historians never say so. It is perception, not reality or propagated by any modern historian. And, the person himself is a victim of such perception as he says "The period between 1030 to 1175 and that between 1175 and 1206 is termed as the First and the Second Holocaust respectively without justification." Who told him to believe in such rubbish? Which modern historian did write this? The man is suffering from either victim hood or inferiority complex. Ghatus (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Arabs

Are you sure about this? [8] Most of our historian friends think the Arabs were preoccupied with the Byzantium and didn't have the resources to open another front in India. Trying reading the Jethmalani article that I cited yesterday. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Arabs moved to every direction, why not to India? There must have been some resistance. Ghatus (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Jethmalani explains why not. (And this coming from a BJP bigwig, you better believe it.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Jethmalani is lawyer, lol. He is a funny character. I do not trust him on matters of history. BTW, where is the article?Ghatus (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but a Sindhi. He should know more about the Arabs than we do. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, He says-"For a century after Bin Qasim's conquest, from Karachi to Multan, the Arabs were repeatedly repulsed by the local rulers, their most notable defeat being in the Battle of Rajasthan (738 AD) by a coalition of the Pratihara king Nagabhata, Jaysimha Varman of the Chalukya empire, and Bappa Rawal of the Mewar kingdom of Rajasthan. The Arabs in Sindh had taken a beating. Another attempt of invasion in the early 9th century was defeated by the Hindu coalition, after which Arab chroniclers record that Caliph Mahdi, "gave up the project of conquering any part of India".[9] LoL Ghatus (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that is old news. That is not the part that is interesting, but this: Umar, the second Rashid of the Rashidun Caliphate was opposed to attacking India, even when he was told that "Indian rivers are pearls, her mountains rubies, her trees perfumes," for he regarded India as a country of complete freedom of thought and belief where Muslims and others were free to practice their faith. My guess is that the Arab governors in Sindh were attacking the Rajputs either out of their own adventurism or because the Rajputs were fomenting rebellions in Sindh. The Gurjara-Pratiharas seem quite muscular but not particularly brainy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems like a fairy tale. History taught me that every imperial power, as rightly uttered by Akbar, has to go for conquest or they will be conquered. This part can not be true - "Umar, the second Rashid of the Rashidun Caliphate was opposed to attacking India, even when he was told that "Indian rivers are pearls, her mountains rubies, her trees perfumes," for he regarded India as a country of complete freedom of thought and belief where Muslims and others were free to practice their faith." It seems like a propaganda.Ghatus (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps in the long run, but the first order of business is to eliminate the potential enemies on the borders. I can see why India wasn't an enemy and so not high on the priority list to the Caliph. He was busy with the Romans and the Turks (and the Chinese too apparently). In any case, I thought your theorisation was on the speculative side. Unless I see evidence that the Arabs had designs on India, I am not going to assume that they did. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

What I said is just that - "Arabs moved to every direction, why not to India? There must have been some resistance. " Why did they spare India when they did not spare the Central Asia or Iran? There can not be fire without smoke. :-) Ghatus (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The Arabs definitely wanted to spread Islam, but their focus must have been on regions they perceived as being hostile to Islam. India wasn't one of those. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Then, why to Iran (Zoroastrianism - much like Old Vedic Religion) and Central Asia(Buddhism)?Ghatus (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

References

TW rollback

Thanks for your contributions. I would request you not to use WP:TW on good faith edits like you did here. Please also read "when to use rollback". Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Andre Wink

He seems like a genius. See [10]. I am surprised we don't have more about him on Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you been watching Battle of Rajasthan? I could use your help there. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, I will respond/reply after 20th May. My exam is on from 11th to 20th.:-)Ghatus (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, wow. All the best with the exams! - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi Ghatus, can I urge you to be nice to the newbies? We need good new editors who can battle the POV-pushers. We should mentor them to become productive. Blanket reverts like this [11] will either demoralise them or turn them into edit-warriors themselves. Please check the talk page, where I have had a discussion with the editor, and he self-reverted a lot of the changes he did. If there are still remaining problems with his edit, please explain them to him, either on the article talk page or his personal talk page. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, He gave no edit summaries for his two major edits. He also removed a quote without any explanation. Hence, I reverted his edits.

Well, he is a newbie. If he makes mistakes, we should tell him gently. Reverting an edit for which the newbie might have spent a lot of time is very demoralising. Try to make friends, not enemies! - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I have self-reverted it with modification.Ghatus (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW, have you seen my responses in Mahmud of Ghazni talk page. The whole article is a communal propaganda and it needs to be re-written.Ghatus (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have responded to it as well. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyrights

Please do not copy-paste content from books to here, even if it's to talk pages. It's a violation of our policies. —SpacemanSpiff 19:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Indian Armed Forces page edit reverts

Hi, You have reverted my edits in Indian Armed Forces page and noted to discuss. I have tried to provide citations which are most authentic i.e Ministry of Home Affairs' Office Memorandum for CAPFs nomenclature, ICG history from their official website.. I am not sure how to discuss and where to discuss. I am new to wikipedia talks. Please direct/advise me to take to discuss page. I will be much grateful for your assistance. Thanks Hvvk89 (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hvvk89: The protocol we follow is WP:BRD. Every article has an associated talk page, e.g., Talk:Indian Armed Forces. That is where you discuss. You can start by explaining the rationale for your edit. See WP:TALKPAGE for how to use talk pages and glance through WP:TALK for guidelines and policies. That might seem like a lot of reading. But you have chosen to get into contentious areas. So learning to "talk" is a must. All the best! - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hvvk89:, You got your answer. Best wishes,Ghatus (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 & Ghatus Thanks. I will do it. Hvvk89 (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

[[12]]

Have a look to [[13]] The two users [Faizan,Mar4d] misused the rollback rights. They'd been making unnecessary reverts and pushing there POV on the article! I will request you to pls visit this article: [[14]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.245.158.109 (talk) 09:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

Dear Ghatus! Please read this and add few points to the indo-Pak air war of 1965! This source also can helpful in correcting WP:FICTREF claims in other indo-Pak articles! Thanks 101.60.204.248 (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit War

You are engaged in an edit war on page Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 within same contents since two days 1 2 3 and you do not want to discuss on talk page. Its clear violation of WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. BTW per WP:BALANCE Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence per WP:BALANCE. 1965 War was not Indian Victory. Since many sources describe the war as Pakistan Victory, Indian Victory, Draw, Stalemate and Inconclusive so there is source contradict and are relatively equal in prominence. So I have to undo your revert per WP:BALANCE . HIAS (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ghatus, refusing to discuss, as in here [15], won't go down well when an admin comes to look at it. So please do discuss. I have watch listed the page now. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

He indeed discusses his reverts only through further reverts. Which Wikipedia policy or guideline states that in war articles, 50/50 ratio should be used? Faizan (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ghatus. I don't know what's going on, and I'm also not going to find out. But it sounds like it may be wise to take a couple of deep breaths, meanwhile counting to 100,000 or so, long enough to let at least a day go by. All the best, take care, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, @Faizan: Sorry for the delay. I was busy in some works. So, here the point is whether a pic of Pak Army capturing a fort in R'stan should be inserted or not in addition to the existence of a similar kind of a photo already in the specific section.

• First, India-Pakistan land capture ratio in '65 war was 3:1 in favour of India. And, the final result was stalemate with India having the upper hand. This is more or less accepted by all. So, weightage of texts and images has to given accordingly keeping these basic facts and figures in mind.

• Secondly, WP:UNDUE says " Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

• Further, WP:BALASPS says, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." And, WP:FALSEBALANCE says, "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."

• Before the insertion of the pic, (by Hitch Hicking Across Sahara) the weightage was 1:1 as far as the images were concerned in that "The War" section. But, with the insertion of the pic the weight has gone to 1:2 in favour of Pakistan. It violates both historical facts & reliable sources and WP:NPOV.

• Finally, Images are more powerful than texts. And, they are used many a times to create a false impression. Hence, the picture should be removed. By the way, Hitch Hicking Across Sahara inserted the pic abruptly and it was on him,(not on me) to get consensus. Ghatus (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Any idea how to change the armed forces components in Portal:Military of India It is semi-protected and only autoconfirmed users can edit it. Thanks Hvvk89 (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)