User talk:Ghatus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome back[edit]

Hi Ghatus, glad to see you back! We are debating the issues of slavery at Dasa and Religion and slavery. Hope to see your expertise help us there. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, I have started to take Ms Sarah Welch less seriously. She is doing Kolaveri Di in every article as if she owns them. Stop responding to her whims and fancies. Ghatus (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, on Wikipedia, we have to represent all view points fairly. You can get access to sources in University libraries in India, which will be useful for the purpose. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya3:, Through my university library, I do have free access to JSTOR, Project MUSE etc, but I have found only a few helpful. Others are the result of "overheated imaginations". Books by eminent writers are the best. And, being a PG student, I know very well HOW and WHY these papers are written. We mostly write papers not to spread knowledge, but to improve our "academic score" for our career. :-) Ghatus (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, that is too cynical a view. Of course, all academics have a career to build. They are not doing public service. But, within that frame, they are also following their interests and the issues they might care about, perhaps not all of them but a good majority. When they don't do it out of interest, their work ends up being mediocre and gets ignored.
Coming back to the issue, JSTOR etc. are fine for us over here, but I don't have access to the physical books published in India. I thought you might. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
An afterthought: I sense a bit of socialist dogma above, which claims that everybody does public service and only the crooks look after self-interest. The fact of the matter is that we all look after self-interest and we all do a bit of public service. Both are valuable. Take a scholar like Cynthia Talbot for example. She picked an area that was little studied before (the history of medieval Deccan) and made a phenomenal difference. Did she do it for "academic score" or just to improve things? Does it matter? - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya3:, I myself is a born "anti"-socialist. I consider them animals of " The Animal Farm". But, my opinion was not on morality, but on quality, especially for most those papers are written by M.Phil/ PhD students/scholars (though they are my seniors but my interaction happens with them almost on daily basis in our department. Personally, I have seen their sincerity!!!) However, I am not talking about eminent Profs./researchers/writers. I am talking about those campus guys who crowd national/foreign journals with their "research papers".Ghatus (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, the Indian academic scene is not yet of a high standard. Most University departments don't do much research and everybody with a suitable degree can get a job. And there are all kinds of journals cropping up to cater to such people. But JSTOR etc. don't accept such riff-raff journals as far as I know. At least I haven't yet run into a bad paper on JSTOR. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya3:, I can only say what I see. And, research varies from university to university. Take it sportingly, I doubt if you have enough experience on how a "Paper" is prepared for a journal. The borders of nations in publishing a "Paper" in a journal are insignificant today. There are three steps - registration process, fee process and publication process. Today, almost every student has to pay to publish in a journal- be it an Indian journal or a foreign journal, only eminent writers are excluded. And, finally JSTOR is not at all a journal. It's a digital library giving access to those journals I mentioned before. If you write a "Paper" with proper citations and there is some sense in it and you are ready to pay, I can make arrangements to publish your "Paper" in one of the world's reputed journals and subsequently you can "see" your paper in JSTOR. It is only the ISSN number that matters. Ghatus (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know why I haven't run into such papers. I know the publishing racket ok, because I myself get "invitations" to publish or serve as an editor etc. But JSTOR is a non-profit group supported by contributions from member Universities. If it includes junk journals, we can complain and get them removed. So please use your hamsa niti here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya3:,This is not any racket,Kautilya. This is the norm. You have to pay to the journal OFFICIALLY (they will give you receipt also) to get your "Paper" published. No payment, no publication. What is the illegality here? All journals charge for publication. BTW, what is hamsa niti?Ghatus (talk) 12:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The allegorical hamsa drinks all the milk and leaves out the water. I don't know why we don't have a Wikipage on it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya3:, This Article processing charge has now become a norm than exception. This was not the situation even a few years ago. Now, you think that a PH.D scholar has to publish about 20-25 articles within 5 years along with preparing his thesis paper (do not forget project works+pre submission readings+ public defense) and continuously attending seminars and doing presentations in workshops in order to be a Professor or to get a good job. And, then they complain why quality research is not being done??? That is why we all must follow hamsa niti...Ghatus (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there![edit]

Please note that there is an ongoing discussion on Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose and the page will soon be reorganized. We would welcome your comments on the talk page, but would be grateful if you would hold off making major edits for now, as the reorganizing process will become harder and more confusing. Thanks for reducing the captions of the images! Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

PS I have now added and "underconstruction" sign on the Bose page. I hope you did not mind my reverting your edit. Perhaps it can be reintroduced in a paraphrase later. It is just that quote boxes put one POV (the one in the box) in the limelight, and, before long, to counter it, another quote box appears ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
All right. I will wait for some days. The quote is WP:RS. BTW, I was also going to put a counter PoV quote by Gandhi but you intervened.Ghatus (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
A quote, for sure, is RS, as an illustration of some reliably sources critical opinion, but a quote box, or two, or three, ..., is problematic in controversial articles. (See WP:LONGQUOTE: "*As a matter of style, quote boxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it. Such emphasis on one quote violates NPOV. All quotes should be treated the same. Instead of using a quote box to highlight its notability, explain its importance before introducing the quote or in an introduction to the quote. The quote can simply be indented using a colon and enclosed in quotation marks.") Besides, Gandhi is not an expert on Indian history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration[edit]

You are mentioned here [1], in regards to the dispute in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 in the arbitration request noticeboard. Xtremedood (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971[edit]

Dear, Ghatus. This is to inform you that, Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 has been vandalised again by bunch of pakistani POV warriors. You are an experienced editor, so its my humble request to you, to revert edits by those POV pushers on Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. thanks. 101.60.155.226 (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I'll look into it.Ghatus (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for arbitration declined[edit]

A request for arbitration you were party to has been declined.

The request has been declined as the request should be made as an Arbitration Enforcement request.

For the Arbitration Committee. Amortias (T)(C) 20:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.Ghatus (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ghatus![edit]

Please reply to the on-gooing dispute at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. 14.98.84.194 (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 ‎, you may be blocked from editing. According to wikipedia policy a source is "NOT REQUIRED TO BE ONLINE" for it to be considered a"reliable" source. Please read WP:RS before blanking again FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

LoL!!! Ha..Ha.. You are doing WP:DE. Forget link, you failed to provide any verification or secondary source. None even can verify what you are claiming.Ghatus (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Feeatlast, WP:NEWSORGs are too weak for historical topics. Please try to find WP:HISTRS. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Big reverts[edit]

Hi Ghatus, please don't do big reverts like that. They are very demoralising to the editors and only help to inflame opinions. Three editors are currently under ARBIPA sanctions. You risk getting there too if you act in this way. Please feel free to open talk page discussions. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

MBlaze Lightning[edit]

Hi Ghatus, you might have noticed that MBlaze Lightning has gotten blocked for having socked. There is now an ongoing effort to revert all of his edits. Please look through these reverts and make sure that they are proper. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes because to hell with the wikipedia policy of not allowing socks. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Meat puppet alert best to ignore. 5.71.195.155 (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Kautilya3Ok. Don't worry. I am just thinking that despite this (A decision is needed) consensus, how could FreeatlastChitchat even think to revert in '65 war page's neutral assessment section?Ghatus (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC on the 1965 war[edit]

Hi Ghatus, it seems that you feel quite strongly about this issue [2]. However note that calling it a "fact" does not settle the matter. Different people might see different "facts" and Wikipedia is not an investigation agency or a court of law to determine whose facts are actually facts. RfC's are indeed the established mechanism on Wikipedia to determine the appropriate content. So "withdrawing from the RfC" isn't productive. Please calm down and get an understanding of how Wikipedia works. Pinging Joshua Jonathan and RegentsPark to offer further advice. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks.Ghatus (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I can understand that Ghatus withdraws form that RfC. India-Pakistan is a hellish topic, isn't it? So/but indeed: stay cool, calm down, have a break, etc. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Ghatus, there is no such thing as a fact on Wikipedia, only reliably sourced information, appropriately balanced. If there is a preponderance of reliable academic sources supporting a statement, then that should go in the text of the article along with the reasons stated in the sources and with opposing views presented, appropriately balanced. But it is your responsibility to make the case that the sources are reliable and that they are reasonably representative of scholarly consensus, and then to follow whatever dispute resolution mechanisms there are if you can't convince other editors. Facts are elusive and facts in the fog of war particularly so. --regentspark (comment) 12:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
But at the same time, can numerical majority turn scholarly logical conclusions upside down? I mean - just by numerical majority without providing counter wp:rs? In that discussion, no one is providing any source. They are giving opinions only whereas I provided eight scholarly( all even non-Indian) sources. So I lost my temper. BTW, thank you all (Kautilya3,Joshua Jonathan, RegentsPark)for your valuable advices.Ghatus (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
That's where the DR process comes in - by providing a larger set of neutral eyes. --regentspark (comment) 13:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely correct. Hence, it proves the futility of RfC in this case.Ghatus (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Not really. If you don't make a good case in an RfC, you're going to find it harder when you go up the chain. Plus, you're sending two dangerous messages - that you know what the right answer is and that the 'other side' is unreasonable. In my experience, neither of those two assumptions are likely to be valid. The correct (balanced, reliably sourced) wording of contentious ideas in an article is usually somewhere along the spectrum of where you are and where the 'others' are. And most long term editors recognize this and are willing to work toward that wording. Disengaging sends the wrong set of messages. --regentspark (comment) 13:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks.Ghatus (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Relax, relax, relax. Wikipedia has seen hundreds of battles like this one. So has the Indian subcontinent. I started this RfC in order to calm things down. If some people want to bet their life on it, let them. You don't need to do it as well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to Wiki, boy. I am here for about two years. And, do not disturb me on my talk page.Bye.Ghatus (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Please refrain from personal attacks. Refrain from personal attacks includes attacks in edit summaries and even on your own TP. So try to behave yourself please FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat, And do not try to be over smart. Remain within your aukaat. Get lost from my talk page.Ghatus (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Ghatus. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Editors are allowed to post warnings on others TalkPages. If you do not want a warning please be kind enough to stop the behavior leading to a warning. Your sentence "And do not try to be over smart. Remain within your aukaat. Get lost from my talk page." is very uncivil so please be kind enough to either strike that or just remove it, no need to apologize for it, just be kind enough to remove it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If you continue your tantrum here anymore, you will be reported.Don't you have any shame! Ghatus (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ghatus dude read what I wrote just below lol. It was edit conflicted or something and didnt go through. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Some peace[edit]

Hello. I tried posting this before but seems to be edit conflict or soemthing lol. Anyway here goes. We both seem to be going around in circles biting at each other over petty little things. So how about we do something about this bad faith eh? I see that you are interested in South Asia, and you can see that so am I so lets create an article together about the old history of the subcontinent, something without politics, about agriculture, some history article perhaps or even one about the environment. We can use my sandbox for this article, feel free to edit it as you wish. I will let you decide whichever article you want to pick and we can work on it before getting it into mainspace. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat, You are welcome. I am a student of History. So, I can only contribute in the history section- be it economic history, military history, social history, religious history , political history or the new flavor of the age - subaltern history. I am post graduate student of History, probably will be doing research from the next year. If you create anything on history, feel free to share with me. I am sick looking at the amount of communal history believed by ignorant masses of our subcontinent whereas we had a composite culture of mutual exchange from time immemorial in our History of India. Ghatus (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Kulbhushan Yadav edits[edit]

Hi Ghatus, I don't know why you are wasting time on this. We can't do anything sensible until better facts are available. We have better things to do than fight over this. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

But. that does not mean allowing Pak POV as NPOV. I can't play "neutral-neutral" game.Ghatus (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Nothing to do with this, but check out this edit, especially the word "liberated." There is more to life than fighting Pakistani militarists. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
What's point? King Manindra was a great Greek "King" converted to Buddhism. His conversations with Saint Nagsen is a very important historical text. BTW, are you referring to one Sardar Fateh Mohd Khan Karelv?Ghatus (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The point is to note a local Poonchi's view of their history as well as their view of what happened in 1947. I have seen several Poonchis say on the Internet that they never heard of anything called "Poonch uprising," which supposedly gave rise to the Azad Kashmir movement. Have any historians studied what actually happened in Poonch? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Kautilya3, Discussion on Jammu Massacre is strictly forbidden in Univs by UGC/Govt. Something happened surely but the degree is unknown. Same is the case with Hyd massacre. All historians get more or less finalcial help from Govts/UGC, so none tried to unearth it fully.Ghatus (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
That is awful. I am going to work on an article on the Jammu massacres. Hopefully, at least some information will come out that way.
However, it is a misconception that the `Poonch uprising' had something to do with the Jammu massacres. It started on 4 September 1947, whereas the Jammu massacres probably started around 20 October (even though there was disorganised communal violence earlier). See Timeline of the Kashmir conflict. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Kautilya3,all were interrelated upto the tribal invasion. All were "Actions-Reactions". Something was brewing for a long time, probably from 1932.Ghatus (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but I think you are in danger of inverting reaction and action. That is why I worked on the timeline to get the sequence clear. For the significance of the 20 October date, see the M. S. Golwalkar page. There is a book to be written about these things. But nobody does. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I notice that you have gotten into trouble at WP:ANI as well as WP:AN3 for edit-warring at Kulbhushan Yadav. I can stick my neck out and support you, provided you promise to stay away from this page. You are valuable editor, and we need you, with a clean block record!-- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kulbhushan Yadav. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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 | 16:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. lolGhatus (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Please take a deep breath, its a doctor recommended remedy for bouts of hysteria. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
" If we don't take an action against the violator now, he will surely violate it again thinking that Fortuna, Jeppiz or Kautilya are there at AN3 to defend and save him so why should he care for any policy." - Too much. LoL.Ghatus (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Brahmagupta's Multan connection?[edit]

Hi Ghatus, your historical expertise would be useful here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3

Brahmagupta...Newton of India... Post Gupta era... Represents the Golden Age of India... Born possibly in Rajasthan... No confirmation. (If historians can not even say where Chanakya was actually born, how could they be certain about any Tom-Dick-Harry's birth palce?)Ghatus (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh my God!!!Such a heated debate on canvassing...Ha..ha..ha.Ghatus (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Kautilya3, I will ping you hundred times from now. Pinging someone does not mean canvassing. :-)Ghatus (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like pining is a better way to call people than to request it on User talks. Will do so from now on.
I will copy your message to Talk:Brahmagupta and respond there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Tarek Fatah[edit]

Interesting guy [3]. I am looking forward to his book, apparently called "Jinnah's orphans." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It reminds me. Jinnah's biggest grouse that he didn't have the exclusive right to Muslims. "If you nominate any Muslims to the Cabinet, I want my Pakistan." The Congress did nominate Muslims and he had his Pakistan. That is how the Cabinet Mission Plan fell apart. Maybe Jinnah himself was an Intenet beast of his time, who had lost touch with the real word.
Sorry this Radio XL is messing with my head. I am losing the Internet realities! - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hate is the weak's/coward's revenge for being humiliated/intimidated. (GB Shaw) Jinnah was thoroughly humiliated by the Congress and so he became a fanatic for Pakistan. The radical right/left is always under the impression of "imagined humiliation" and hence they hate so much. Hate always has a dagger in his hand and with this dagger he stabs none but himself.(Marlowe)Ghatus (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I haven't seen anything to suggest that the Congress humiliated Jinnah. Gandhi introduced religion into politics (in a spiritual way) and turned it into a mass movement. Jinnah didn't relate to it, so he became irrelevant and he quit. Then he was brought back by Muslim League which was asking for due share of power for "Muslims." I guess, at this point, he felt that his sidelining in Congress was a communal thing, so he felt justified in turning rabidly communal.
Fatah is not using the word "communal" but he is interpreting the phenomenon in his own way. That is a lot better. "Communalism" is not a word that I like and, in any case, it carries no meaning to the Westerners. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Kautilya3, no, Kautilya ,no. Jinnah was subjected to one of the ugliest personal scandals after he married a teenager Parsi whose father was a powerful Congress leader. Rumors and whisper campaign were spread by a section in congress.(ToI says it subtly).
And after 1937 elections, this happened - "“After the [1937] elections were over and the Congress had agreed to accept office, Jinnah told me, when we were by ourselves in the Bar Library of the Bombay High Court, that ‘we’ [the Congress and the Muslim League] should work together. I promised to convey his wishes to Sardar [Vallabhbhai Patel] and Gandhiji, which I did. I understood at the time that Jinnah had a similar discussion with Kher” (the Congress Premier of Bombay). Gandhi rebuffed Jinnah and directed him to meet, instead, Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad. The Congress refused to accept Muslim Leaguers as members of its Ministries in the United Province and Bombay unless they left the League and joined the Congress, though they had fought the elections in a friendly spirit. On February 5, 1938, Jinnah bared his anguish to the Aligarh Muslim University Union. “At that time there was no pride in me and I used to beg from the Congress.” Muslims “were led by either the flunkeys of the British government or the coup followers of the Congress”(Why Jinnah became defiant)
Such humiliations made Jinnah a fanatic and radical.Ghatus (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, all this is news to me. I had read Stanley Wolpert's biography on Jinnah, and nothing of this kind has stuck in my mind. I will re-check. Note that the first article you cite above, reinforces what I said about Jinnah becoming irrelevant when Congress became a mass movement. M.J.Akbar wrote (before he became a Congress member) that Jinnah was slated to become the leader of Congress after the passing of Tilak and Gokhale, but then Gandhi entered the scene and everything changed. The Congress before Gandhi and the Congress after Gandhi are entirely different entities. The Muslim League was certainly no equal, just as the Hindu Mahasabha was no equal. The Congress, being a broad church, always allowed both Muslim League members and Mahasabha members to join the Congress but it didn't deal with them on an equal basis. Rightly so, in my opinion. Why should a national party treat a communal party as an equal?
I know that the 1936 UP Government formation is controversial, but a lot has been written in retrospect. In 1936, the thing that mattered to Nehru, whose decision it was, was that Congress was a "progressive" party and the League was a "conservative" party. So their ideologies and programmes did not match. Since Congress had the numbers of its own, there was no need for Congress to dilute itself by forming a coalition. One might say that Nehru didn't recognize the communal divide that was developing, but why would one expect Nehru to recognize a communal divide? He was one of the two "nationalist Muslims" of the country, according to Patel. Nehru had a lot of wilful blindnesses, and this was one of them. I didn't know that all this amounted to a humiliation of Jinnah! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
But aren't we getting sidetracked? Fatah is not talking about history. He is talking about the present. History comes into the picture only so far as it has shaped the present. We can't hide behind the history all the time to justify the present. Recognizing that history has gone wrong would be a first step to understanding what is wrong with the present. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Internet world[edit]

I am sitting here listening to Radio XL and the Pakistani compere is taking requests from Hindu ladies, whose names he can't figure out ("Saudamini"), but nevertheless admiring their choice of songs. That is real world. I look at my screen and find this nationalist-fundamentalist bullshit. This is the Internet world. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and Volunteer Marek:. You can't do anything. My friend Drmies has always protected me in ANI. He will close the AE with no action. I can do whatever I want. ROFL. --فریاتلستچتچاٹ (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@فریاتلستچتچاٹ hello! and goodbye!(I have requested a hardblock so the guy who is manning you will lose another "safe location" :D) and ty for reminding me of @Drmies: I need to get my grovelling antics up to date. So chill, relax, enjoy your ban and feel free to use ur real IP and your real account when u have the intestinal fortitude to do so. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR[edit]

same OR here on China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (Section- Comparison to Chabahar Port) added by Willard84. Do delete OR and irrelevant materials. Thanks, --ArghyaIndian (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Here are some good articles.
* Raisingn the stakes with Chabahara, Editorial, The Hindu, 25 May 2016.
* Suhasini Haider, Chabahar and the Afghan roundabout, The Hindu, 25 May 2016.
* Srinath Raghavan, The takeaway from Tehran, The Hindu, 26 May 2016.
The editorial has a direct comparison that can be used along with moderated commentary. I also like Suhasini's phrasing "roundabout" as opposed to "encirclement." It looks really stupid if you look at the map, which you can find here:
The only thing I like about this deal is that India now looks less and less like a "Hindu power." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Kautilya3, we identify ourselves as "Hindus", a name originated in the Iranian land. Now, understand the irony. --Ghatus (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, no. We are not going to go there, the Savarkar way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Allegation of Original Research[edit]

Please note Wikipedia's policies regarding original research:

"Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations." [4]

Can you prove I made a mathematical error on the China Pakistan Economic Corridor page? or that I've reached an irrational or illogical conclusion? Because such basic calculations do NOT appear to contradict Wikipedia's own stated standards regarding OR. Willard84 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Willard84, your OR is not WP:CALC. Investment commitments are conditional (CPEC has several conditions too). Same is the case with China's commitments as well as India's commitments. So, you can not compare one's initial value with another's end value. And secondly, you are violating WP:SYNTHESIS, i.e.,"combining materials from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". Thirdly, economic impacts are nowhere measured by just adding initial investment values. Ghatus (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Kulbhushan Yadav[edit]

The article is POV from top to bottom, Pakistan POV has been presented as NPOV and the Indian government and Iranian president statements have been deleted on blatantly spurious grounds. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

ArghyaIndian, yes, I know. I'am now busy with some works. BTW, I am also waiting for the right time and gathering all materials needed. The page is recently unlocked. There is no need to hurry. You can also join there. The article is in my watch list for a long time. There are some important developments going on in Iran and Pakistan failed to provide any "concrete" evidence till now. The more they add their PoV in the article, the easier it would be to deal with it in future before Admins. Ghatus (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
+1. I agree with you. Pakistan don't have any concrete evidence, their ISI paid media is just fooling their peoples (awam). Anyway, NPOV version of the article needs to be restored. Here's one more source (Dawn) confirming that Pakistan has denied Indian demand of consular access to Yadav! --ArghyaIndian (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Indian military history[edit]

I invite you to join the Indian military history group, an initiative of the Military history WikiProject. This group is created to deal exclusively with the topics related to Indian military. If you're interested, please add you name to the participants list. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 12:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)