Talk:Padmavat

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Sohcb8's edits

@Sohcb8: I've undid your edits, because they have several problems. To begin with, you've obviously not read any of the sources. You've simply copy-pasted some of the content ("Hemratan's Gora Badal Padmini...") from Rani Padmini (I know becuase I added it to that article). You've also edited some of the existing content in the article, jumbling up the references in the process. For example, Mohammad Habib and K. A. Nizami are editors of the book A Comprehensive History of India -- the actual author of the relevant content (from a specific chapter in the book) is Banarsi Prasad Saksena. Also, you've tried to whitewash content about the doubtful historicity of the legend. Finally, the original manuscripts of Padmavat were in Nastaliq and Kaithi, not in modern Devanagari. utcursch | talk 20:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Your comment on Rani Paadmini page, "Websites like indiafacts.org are not acceptable sources" indicates some kind of biasedness and same is reflected in your edits and undoing the works of others. E.g. who decides what is acceptable source and what is not.

Second,, text is written in Awadi language and yu could read the whole text here.

Your edits suggest some kind of hard pushing of the narrative that the whole thing is fictional and you just mentions the references that support your POV and remove others. Same could be seen from your edits and talk page on the Rani Padmini

The best way I suggest for you is to take a liberal view and present both sides of the story, rather than subjective views and enforcing it on others.

@Sohcb8: Indiafacts.org not being an acceptable source is not my personal opinion. Wikipedia's WP:RS guideline determines if a source is reliable or not, and Indiafacts.org doesn't meet the criteria.

Also, please see WP:FRINGE. Fringe theories should not be given an equal weight on the pretext of presenting "both sides of the story". Padmavat is fictional: As far as I know, no historian believes that a talking parrot from Sri Lanka told a king of Rajasthan about a beautiful princess, prompting the king to visit Sri Lanka with 16,000 soldiers and marry the princess with help from gods etc. Yes, there are some historians who believe that Padmini may have been based on a historical character, and that bit is covered in the relevant article (Rani Padmini#Historicity).

You've not added any references to the article, and I've not removed any of them. So, I'm not sure what you mean by "you just mentions the references that support your POV and remove others". If you find a reliable source that considers Padmavat as history, feel free to add it to the article. I'll not remove it.

Finally, Awadhi is a language, not a script. The manuscripts of Padmavat exist in several scripts, and we can't include all of them (to avoid lead clutter). The oldest of the manuscripts are in Nastaliq (Persian script), not in modern Devanagari. Kavitakosh is a website that uses the modern Devanagari script -- several of the texts presented on that website were not originally written in this script. utcursch | talk 22:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Utcursch:Man, what is the problem with you. You are removing the text taken from the very book dear to you. Though you might have copied from somewhere else but I added it after reading the book itself. In fact I've almost gone through all the chapters mentioned in references. I could also see that how you've carefully built the whole propaganda based on just two authors and dismissed all others as if there have been only two authors in the world whose views must be heard.

Second, refrain from enforcing your propaganda. Your opinion on which source is reliable is not of any value or relevance. Wikipedia is not a place to write your views. Go write and publish your views on some new site if anyone finds any merit in that but Wikipedia is definitely not the place.

Read about WP:Vandalism to understand how you are degrading the quality of Wikipedia. Please refrain from doing this.

Avoid using words like "as far as I know" because ignorance is never an evidence and even bigger issue is that all the alternate narratives which doesn't suit your propaganda are termed as "unreliable" and boldly removed. Also your mention that "you've tried to whitewash content about the doubtful historicity of the legend" is far from truth and could be easily verified by any third party. Just think or ask anyone to judge that whose actions indicate that. In fact, your words, "Padmavat is fictional" at once clears the whole picture. In fact, only stupid person takes the things literally and dismiss the whole work if they find few passages to be illogical without considering the poetic freedoms, distortions through time etc.

Your point that you haven't removed any text with sources is plain lie and your latest edit completely exposes this fact. Plus, go and check all the edits you made on Rani Padmini page, where you removed everything which didn't suit your agenda.

Is there some form on your website that I need to fulfill to check if my references are "reliable" as per your standard?

I strongly advise you in general that rather then reverting the works of other either because of your ignorance or brain washing, it is best if you first talk on the talk page and then after the agreement make the change as per the Wiki policy. It seems from your edits that every time someone edited your change you revert it back and starts a thread whereas for others it is simple task of reverting their changes.

I don't know you told you that this text was written in Persian and the the historian in your referenced text A Comprehensive History Of India also mentioned that there is no proof of that. Plus there are lack of Persian words which also suggest the same. I believe that you should make changes in Wikipedia based on some research rather than what just comes to your mind.

I hope that you would do some serious thinking before making any further edits and I also hope that you revert the changes of others which you previously removed. Otherwise, I've no time to waste to teach fools and I couldn't degrade myself to your level to take this issue furtherSohcb8 (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sohcb8: My bad about Bahrulamvaj -- it is indeed mentioned by K. S. Lal in a footnote. The author is referring to medieval Persian historians when he says "Most of the later than Ferishtah". And he goes on to dismiss these accounts as based on the unhistorical Padmavat legend. I've re-added this bit to the article, but in the proper place, where Lal dismisses these accounts.

I haven't built any "propaganda" here -- the article states what reliable sources state. And no, it's not just two authors -- multiple authors cited in the article dismiss the Padmavat as unhistorical.

If you have any source that considers Padmavat as historical, please feel free to add it to the article. Please provide evidence that I've "boldly removed" any such source as "unreliable". I missed the mention of Bahrulamvaj in K. S. Lal's book, because it was mentioned in a footnote. But the source does not support your views -- in fact, on the contrary, the author clearly states that "it cannot be accepted as true history".

As for Persian, we are not talking about the Persian language here. We're talking about the Persian script, which is mentioned in the article, with a source. utcursch | talk 00:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)