User talk:Kautilya3/Archives/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Sharma

I've just finished reading the Sharma-article; interesting. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it was a good overview. I thought it was valuable because it gave tons of references to other work that we can look up when we need to. But I found his treatment of Hindutva underwhelming. He is really a religious studies man, not much of a political science/sociology specialist.

Here is another interesting article, a bit more technical, discussing what kind of "nationalism" Hindutva is:

• Berglund, Henrik (2004). "Religion and Nationalism: Politics of BJP". Economic and Political Weekly. 39 (10): 1064–1070. JSTOR 4414737.

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

India Pakistan

Gujarat riots happened in India . Why it is kept under India Vs Pakistan topics?--CosmicEmperor (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@CosmicEmperor: Probably because Pakistan is mentioned enough times on the page. Please note that I din't write this page. It was long settled before I came on the scene! Kautilya3 (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Meerut 1987

Can you create this article 1987 Meerut Riots ? , --CosmicEmperor (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I will keep the topic in mind and look for information. Reports like this are "primary sources" and wp:RS warns us to be careful in interpreting them. It is far better to find academic books or articles. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Ways to improve Meenakshi Jain

Hi, I'm Ironholds. Kautilya3, thanks for creating Meenakshi Jain!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please address the tags on this article. Thanks!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Ironholds (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hinduism edit

In this edit, the jargon Devasthana was readded in heading. A temple is known by various names, including the popular "mandir". Thus, I suggest removal from heading. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Aryan

Yes, it's a perpetual problem-term. The same repeated problems crop up at talk:antisemitism, because of the multiple usages of "semite". Paul B (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, yeah, when terms become "nationalistic", it would seem that more people misunderstand what we say than those that understand it! I guess we have to try harder to be clear. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi concerning your draft on indigenous aryans ... any thoughts on moresocialservicesplease.com OIT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.157.227 (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that site was trying to mirror the old Wikipedia, which has now been cleaned up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Tufail Ahmad for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tufail Ahmad is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tufail Ahmad until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. bender235 (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Kautilya3,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you have switched out of VisualEditor several times. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work for you, so that you didn't need to switch to the wikitext editor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list • Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter • Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Schools by religious affiliation vs Religious schools

Good day! What is a difference between these two categories? --Glovacki (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The former is a holder for subcategories by religious affiliation. I don't know about the latter, but I will check. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

In all wiki on different languages that is 1 category that is a holder for subcategories by religious affiliation. Why English wiki should has two? --Glovacki (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, please put this explanation on the category talk page. Otherwise, people will mistake for it vandalism. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sikander Bakht, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Democratic Alliance. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

RSS clarification Tag Removal

Hi, you recently reverted my edit to RSS, regarding the tagging, a statement is properly described and its giving good sense of mission "To unite whole world under one family" Tagging for clarification is vague. Can you please discuss. BTW, I had corrected your previous edit for which you have received disambiguation notification. Kswarrior (talk) KLS 17:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ks, Thanks very much for fixing the disambiguation link! The clarify tag on the RSS page had an explanation, something like "how can a wordview be a mission?" I think the paragraph was badly worded, and might need to be rewritten. The "whole world" stuff is also quite bogus because RSS is a nationalist organisation that is limited to India. In fact, the overseas shakhas are called Hindu Swayamseveak Sangh and other such names. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This is what i want to claify, it that para it is mentioned that the leaders cited philosophy of Vedas that Whole World is one family (Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam) actually it matches the Hindu philosophy, Yes RSS is nationalists organisation but it works under principle for peace and stability of whole human race or whole world. To unite world under common culture & Philosophy of Human Life as it is believed to be most ancient and originator of the all others. RSS actually works on Hindu Philosophy of life, it is not like Army thing but Social & Cultural theme of Nationalism. i.e. RSS treats Country as Goddess "Bharat Mata" more than a land

Kswarrior (talk) KLS 18:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

That is all very interesting. Coming back to the clarification tag, it is there because, to most of us, "worldview" and "mission" are quite different concepts. But the sentence is supposedly sourced from a book. To clarify it, you would need to produce a quote from the book that justifies the sentence. Otherwise, it will get deleted after certain amount of time. Kautilya3 (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Kswarrior, you should not remove the tag without discussion. You may provide a clearer reference and that should help. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Moorjani 2013

Moorjani et al. (2013), Genetic evidence for recent population mixture in India. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 93(3), 422-438. abstract, full text AJHG abstract PubMed full text PuMed pdf

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

You'll be interested in these comments: [1] [2]. And Defence Forum India:

• "Stepping back in time from the early modern to the ancient, the implications of this research seem straightforward, if explosive. One common theme in contemporary Western treatments of the Vedic period is to interpret narratives of ethnic conflict coded in racialized terms as metaphor. So references to markers of ethnic differences may be tropes in Vedic culture, rather than concrete pointers to ancient socio-political dynamics. The description of the enemies of the Aryans as dark skinned and snub-nosed is not a racial observation in this reading, but analogous to the stylized conflicts between the Norse gods and their less aesthetically pleasing enemies, the Frost Giants. The mien of the Frost Giants was reflective of their symbolic role in the Norse cosmogony." dfi
• "I believe that this component is correlated with the second, smaller wave of admixture, which brought the Indo-European speaking Indo-Aryans to much of the subcontinent. The Dasas described in the Vedas are not ASI, but hybrid populations. The collapse of the Indus Valley civilization was an explosive event for the rest of the subcontinent, as Moorjani et al. report that all indigenous Indian populations have ANI-ASI admixture (with the exceptions of Tibeto-Burman groups)." dfi
• "it does not seem that the admixture times for Indo-Europeans coincide with the appearance of the Indo-Aryans, presumably during the 2nd millennium BC: they are much later. I believe that this is fairly convincing evidence that north India has been affected by subsequent population movements from central Asia of "Indo-Scythian"-related populations, for which there is ample historical evidence. So, the difference in dates might be explained by secondary (later) admixture with other West Eurasians after the arrival of Indo-Aryans."dfi [3]

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Joshua. Brilliant stuff! Two things that worry me

• So much ANI DNA in India, but no females among them? That is really sad.
• How come there is so little evidence of Indo-Aryans in 1500 BC? It appears that the Indian archaeologists have had a better theory. Should linguists go back to the drawing board and recalculate?

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Back to the drawing board? I don't know. The main question may be: how can a small group affect a language shift? The answer may be complicated, and expand over a longer period of time, including the Kuru Kingdom. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

anti christian violence in india

hello, kautilya. thanks for the message and guiding me to contribute more effectively in wikipedia. regarding anti christian violence in india, its not correct to paint BJP and VHP in same colour. secularism in india is , including wikipedia , criticized to be pro minorities rather than balanced, and same goes with indian media. i bet an average 10th standard student knows nothing about "kautilya( or chanakya) than Aurangzeb or faruskyyar brothers... i saw the page was showing only one side of view... and not balanced... mention of nun rape but no mention of suspects nabbed by police and their bangladeshi links.... they were not hindus(but muslims) or any BJP links but apparently illegal migrants from bangladesh...seeing this i was perplexed.Im completely new to wikipedia,would strongly thank and concider your further sugestions.. thanku....Nurmengrad (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)nurmengrad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurmengrad (talk • contribs) 12:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nurmengrad: Glad to see that you have registered as a user. You have added information to the page along with reliable sources, which was good. Please work on writing more polished English as well. This is after all an encyclopedia. Once again, welcome. If you have any questions on how to do something, please feel free to ask. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Hello, I'm AmritasyaPutra. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. If you continue your commentary on your opinion about me rather than content I will not hesitate to bring this up in AN. AmritasyaPutra^T 09:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear friend, I will certainly be glad to welcome to the club of collaborators. But, when you truly begin to collaborate, I am sure I will know it. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I can say the same about you here, so, WP:FOC, I abide by WP:NPA. -AmritasyaPutra^T 14:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Wapsi Daisy

Not getting involved - that's me with the contents issues at GW.... I have left a note at the tagger's page, with little expectation of any much notice being taken. If he doesn't stop PoV pushing (or whatever he IS pushing - I'm totally at sea with the whole thing), AN/I will probably be needed. Peridon (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Peridon. Don't worry, I think we can handle this user. I think it is new user and the CSD proposal was a reaction to his/her edits being reverted. The article needs quite a bit of work as well. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

My Draft Article

Hi, Kautilya3. Thanks for your welcome note sent to me. Can you please review my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Arun_Kumar_Sinha. Hoping to receive your inputs, best Lotus2015 (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Lotus2015: Sorry I have been busy with some other articles. I will look at your draft this weekend. All the best! Kautilya3 (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Friendly Request

According to my experience you are very much interested in topics related to Kashmir conflict. I'm suggesting you few pages to keep on your watcahlist. These pages are about some foremost separatist leaders which are repeatedly vandalized by registered or unregistered users. One party writes words like "freedom fighter", "Hero of Kashmiris", "Indian occupation" etc while other party uses words like "terrorist", "various abusive words", "abusive word regarding religion" etc. And it seems that I'm the only one who is watching those pages. These leaders were/are in news recently and these pages got 2-3 times more views than article Kashmir conflict. Following are the pages..

• All Parties Hurriyat Conference
• Syed Ali Shah Geelani
• Masarat Alam
• Asiya Andrabi

There are 25-30 pages related to Kashmir conflict which I'm watching, but I'm suggesting you just 4, hope you will help. Thank you. Cheers. --Human3015 05:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Human3015, I will put them on my watch list, but I am afraid I don't know all that much about these topics. I know the history of Kashmir issue fairly well, but not so much the current happenings. But I will watch the pages. Thanks a lot for all your work on Wikipedia. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: Xtools records that 17% of your edits don't have edit summaries. While it is not a big proportion, it is still a bit problematic. Please make an effort to put edit summaries on all your edits. You can use Twinkle (under Preferences/Gadgets) to give you some canned edit summaries for routine edits. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for advice, and also thanks for new info for me about Xtools. --Human3015 13:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Indian Council of Historical Research

added a link pointing to University Grants Commission

Kar seva

added a link pointing to Golden Temple

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Polytheism

Can i add the polytheistic word in Hinduism by giving relevant source?? Ankush 89 (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ankush 89: You can't do so in my opinion. The lead is a summary of the article. The article section on "Concept of God" describes the complex view of God in Hinduism. It can't be reduced to a single word description. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Why then Judaism, Christianity and Islam collectively called Abrahamic even though the theism concept in each of them is very different? Ankush 89 (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about them. But I am sure that it is not right to call Hinduism either "polytheistic" or "monotheistic". Kautilya3 (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Can my polytheistic word be not used anywhere in the article if not in the lead or my contribution is useless according to u and u r completely right? Ankush 89 (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not question of right or wrong. I reverted your edits as per Wikipedia policies, which you should make yourself aware of. You should also read the article first, make sure you undertand it, and follow up on some of the scholarly sources cited, before starting to think you need to make corrections. This is a massive article written by a lot of knowledgeable people. Please show regard to them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: But in one of the section of Hinduism wiki article, it has been described on the scale of theism, then why can't my polytheistic word be included? Almost all Hindus worship Lord Ganesha in the beginning of any hindu ritual and along with that they also worship Ishtadevata, Kuladevata, Also, is it not compulsory that a reliable source according to WP:RS should be not from a source completely dedicated to that subject or article itself. Ankush 89 (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Listen friend. Hinduism is a vast ocean and you only know the surface. Why don't you learn enough about Hinduism first? You can get one of the books mentioned in the Further Reading section. We can talk afterwards. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

No there is no rule in WP:RS that says the source should not be dedicated to the subject. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ankush 89: I actually agree that Hinduism is "polytheistic" in the sense that it allows multiple gods, which contributes to its tolerant and liberal nature. However, Hinduism also says all gods are manifestations of the One True God (Brahman). So, it is not correct to label it simply as a "polytheistic" religion. Bhagwad Gita says "in whatever form you worship me, that worship will reach me." So, these kind of labels are irrelevant to Hinduism. All the best. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for your reply buddy, you please guide me for my future edits :) Ankush 89 (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I will be glad to. Wikipedia has lots of policies. To be a successful editor, you need to read and follow them. You can't do it all at once. But, whenever issues arise, the experienced editors will point you to the relevant policies. Please be sure to follow through. Try to be critical of the sources. Who wrote this? What do we know about them? Where was it published? What kind of review does it go through to get published? Et cetra. All these issues play a role in deciding what is a reliable source. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:

Yeah, i strongly believe in Lord Shiva, the Nataraja idol picture in my infobox is a good one, I deeply respect his fierce manifestations of Bhairava which gives us the strength to tackle obstacles Ankush 89 (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen

added a link pointing to Aurangabad

Suraj Bhan (archaeologist)

added a link pointing to Punjab University

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting Piece

Was the Ramayana actually set in and around today’s Afghanistan?[4]

NOTE: Scroll is a Left of the Centre / Marxist site.Ghatus (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, this is worse than the Hindutva history :-( Kautilya3 (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"Favorite" editor

Took me a few minutes to figure out whom you meant, especially considering this. :) But we do seem well-covered in terms of redirects to IVC. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have been reading books by Ashis Nandy and Vinay Lal. Both of them say that this "history" stuff doesn't work for Indians. They are into myth. That is how they have been from the beginning of time. So why change now? Meera Nanda points out that an amazing 93% of the Indians think that their culture is superior to others. Put the two together, and you have got vanity@myth.com. We just have to put up with it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't doubt that. But Indians, unfortunately, are far from exceptional in either the myth-making, the anti-intellectualism, or the sense of superiority. And that is the sad/scary part, since it suggests that this is unlikely to change simply through increased literacy or economic prosperity. Yes, we are all doomed. :) Abecedare (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"Favorite editor"? It's like searching for eastern eggs. Regarding "into myth": nice observation. By the way: when queen Maxima said that "the Dutchman does not exist", she was strongly criticised. Stupid; it was a very good observation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Neither Nandy nor Vinay Lal shoot down the mythophilia of the Indian psyche. Rather they point out that it is rooted in Indian tradition and `modernity' has in no way improved upon it. Quite the contrary. They also accuse the Indian historians of ignoring the limitations of their own trade and almost hint that they are engaged in their own version of myth-making. (See my recent article on Suraj Bhan for an example.)

The Indians "lost" the Sindhu and Saraswati has dried up. So there is a sense of loss. Myth-making is a way to counter that.

Incidentally, the Sarasvati is an important river historically, but the page on it is quite off-putting with all the Vedic stuff and Witzel's counter-points. Should we spin off a separate page for the Vedic Sarasvati river? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Sarswati & myth-making

Dear Kautilya3 , I thank you for your acknowledgement of my point on mentioning the Sarasvati river.

I want to add some more to this discussion. Please take a few minutes to have a look at this. What is myth-making? If some false idea is believed to be true.

I want to ask you the most fundamental question that was never asked about the whole concept of Ancient India.

If Vedas were composed by Aryans who were assumed to have entered the Indian sub-continent after Indus Valley Civilization(IVC) collapsed due to the dried-up of Sarasvati river, Why would the so called Aryans mention Sarasvati as the most important river in Vedas, why would they considered the Sarasvati river as their mother and goddess of education? In fact, people of IVC should consider Sarasvati as their mother because their civilization had flourished mainly because of Sarasvati river. What does the so called Aryans had to do with a river that has already dried up before their arrival, why would any one call a dried up river their mother,because of which they were no way benefited and which even seized to exist before their very assumed arrival into the sub-continent. IVC people are the one who were enormously benefited by the Sarasvati river, not the so called Aryans. In fact how did the so called Aryans came to know about a river that was already dried-up long before they migrated to the sub-continent.(It took many years even to the present scientific and historical community to accept that there is ever a river called Sarasvati existed. Until the satellite imagining was done, Sarasvati river was taught to be a myth.)

Now, personification of Sarasvati river into a mother goddess(which is called as myth-making). You are absolutely right about myth-making. But the myth-making has never happened to counter the loss of Sarasvati River, but to remember it as the most fundamental root of the civilization, and the most significant achievements of the civilization because of the existence of the river. The beauty of this myth is that none of it is actually false.

If any one lost their money or property they don't keep a personificaton of that property to remember it all the way in their future. If any losts their parents, definitely they will keep a photograph of their parents so as to remember in their future and to show to their children and grand-children. This happens only because of a basic understanding that the family was born and continuing to exist only because of their initial parents. The future generation should always remember their family roots.

Sarasvati river is personified into mother of education only because the most important wealth of the whole IVC(the knowledge that they gained in their all generations) had been possible only because of the existence of that mighty river. If there is no river there will be no IVC at all. Sarasvati river has taken care of all the needs of IVC people(which in a family is taken care by the mother), so they are able to spend their time in the goals they wanted to achieve. So, making the future generations of the civilization to remember their civilizational roots is as important as a person to remember his\her family roots. That too remembering the root of all the knowledge that they have gained is much more important. Because from generation to generation knowledge is the only wealth that passes. Even today, if you go to most of the Educational Institutions or homes in India and see their prayer rooms, you will definitely find a picture or an idol of Sarasvati as mother goddess and goddess of education, with a river flowing in the back ground.

This is the reason why even after the Sarasvati river dried up and the IVC people moved from Sarasvati river basin to the Ganges river basin, they still remembered the Sarasvati river in the form of person, this is only because something very significant wealth generation in terms of knowledge had happened due to the existence of Sarasvati river which led the Sarasvati river to gain the title as mother goddess and goddess of education. Now, why would the so called Aryan people who were assumed to have arrived long after the dried-up of Sarasvati river and who had not benefited a single bit from Sarasvati river would give her the name of Mother Goddess and goddess of education in Vedas?

If you go this deeper, won't you get the doubt regarding the most fundamental question that was never asked about the whole concept of Ancient India? WHAT IS THE REAL MYTH REGARDING THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF ANCIENT INDIA? My question is whether the present Indian society, who continue to worship Sarasvati river as the mother goddess and the Goddess of Education is a continuation of INDUS VALLEY CIVILIZATION or the so called ARYAN CIVILIZATION? So answer this question to your self.

Once again I thank you for your acknowledgement regarding the addition of river and your patience to read all the above info. I believe, now you might have understood the reason behind my repeated edits regarding the mentioning of the Sarasvati river. IT IS THE ROOT OF THIS MORE THAN 10,000 YEAR OLD TREE.

By Your "Favourite" Editor -- BodduLokesh (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, the answer may be quite simple: only if you believe that "the Aryans" were a closed culture, which were not influenced by their surroundings, then it would be strange that they mention the Sarasvati river. But if they were a heterogeneous group, or groups, who were open to "external" influences, and who accepted new members wihtin their social organisation, then the explanation is quite simple: older myths were incorporated, together with the people who held those myths; just like "the Aryans" had incorporated myths from Bactria. Only if you believe in a "pure" "essence" or origin, then it would be strange to see a mixing of traditions. But it's quite clear that there's been a continuous mix of cultures in india for thousands of years. Not only the IVC and "the Aryans," but also other cultures and groups. That's bad news for people who believe in pure origins, but common sense for people who take a look around and see that people and cultures continuously mix, and influence each other. The fact that we're communicating here in English is a very good example... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@BodduLokesh: Thanks for writing on my talk page. But that is rather too long a message. In future, please try to make it shorter. The mention of "myths" came up because I was reading books that talked about how myth and history get combined in Indian discourse. Saraswati river is highly "mythical" in that my first introduction to it was as a mythical river that came and joined the Ganga and Yamuna in Prayag. This is what was written in all the Puranas, trust me. There was never any mention of a Saraswati river that went to the Arabian Sea. I first found about the real Saraswati river from a David Frawley book and then I discovered it had something to do with the IVC. After looking at everything I could lay my hands on about the IVC (in the 80s), I still had a big question mark because the different pieces of evidence didn't fit. Things are a bit better now because scientists believe that Saraswati could have started drying up around 2000 BC, and Rigveda could have been composed some time before 1500BC. My current thinking on the subject is expressed in my post Talk:Indigenous Aryans#Why the debate.

• As for Rigveda, I don't think it is mentioned anywhere that Saraswati is the "most important" river. We believe that it was probably the most important river because it had the maximum number of hymns associated with it.
• There are actually very easy explanations for the prominence of the Saraswati in the Rig Veda and in fact for the entire development of the Rig Veda. We know for sure that, when Saraswati started drying up, people moved upstream (from Rajasthan to Haryana and Punjab). The Indus economy was totally destroyed. Rains were so low that people gave up agriculture and took to pastoralism. A religion that says that one must appease gods in order for rains to fall and rivers to flow becomes attractive in this situation. And the river that you pray to the most is precisely the river that is drying up.
• The Saraswati in the Rigveda has nothing to do with Saraswati, the goddess of education. In fact, none of the gods that we are familiar with are in the Rigveda, except for Brahma, who was an abstract creator god, not a four-headed one. Vishnu had a minor mention. So did Rudra, who was later identified with Siva. There were no Lakshmi or Parvati or Shakti, in fact no goddesses at all. So, it was a patriarchal community. How did it change into the present day Hinduism? You can read the Hinduism article for some answers.
• I never heard of Saraswati being thought of as a mother goddess. You might be confusing her with Shakti.

And as for Aryans, the current target of myth-making in India, I said in my other post that it is a meaningless term and we should stop using it. It looks like you agree. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: @Joshua Jonathan:

• You are absolutely true in mentioning that none of the gods that we are familiar with are in the Rigveda, essentially there is no reqiurement at that time. Taking the case of Saraswati in Rigveda. When the Rigveda was composed there is no requirement in itself to personify Saraswati River in to a human form, because the river was still flowing at its fullest capacity. The personification was done after the Rigveda was composed and the Saraswati has dried-up, and to make the future generation of the civilization aware of their civilization's root.
• Next one, About hearing the personifed Saraswati as the "Mother Goddess of Education", We believe Saraswati is the most important river in the Rigveda not because of most number of mentions but because of most important mentions. In Rigveda while the Saraswati is still flowing and has no requirement for human personification of Saraswati had arised , the Rigveda had not simply mentioned Saraswati as the most important river it mentioned, ámbitame nádītame dévitame sárasvati, "best mother, best river, and best goddess" in RV 2.41.16(The whole mention is for a river not for a human goddess) . I don't think Rigveda or in that sense any records of Vedas ever praise any thing in a lot without appropriate necessity because each any every word is most important because it should be carried down to the future orally for centuries until the perfect script to write them down was developed. A simple mention with the most important word is enough.

If there is a need to praise one's lover(girl friend), a whole book will not sufficient for our modern authors. But for praising one's mother, even today or some 5000 years after or some 5000 years ago, mentioning a single word MOTHER is enough, that itself will explain everything.(In any picture of Saraswati in human form you find her catching a small manuscript(a very samll) in her hand, which is traditionally referred to as The Vedas which is the most important education that is gained by the Vedic people. This is simply to signify that the achievement of Vedas(which is considered by the vedic people as the most important knowledge by those vedic people is only possible by the existence of Saraswati river.

So personification of Saraswati river was done after the composition of Vedas(which happened only because of the existence of the river) after it has dried-up.

Cheers --BodduLokesh (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@BodduLokesh, you're aware that you're "back-reading" your/our own interpretations into the intentions of the composers of the Rig Veda?: "We believe" (emphasis mine). If you want to understand what the Rig Veda meant to those people, you'll have to try to understand what it meant to them, how they used those hymns, how they were composed, etc.

@Kautilya3: yes, turning to pastoralism seems like a likely scenario - which also explains why the "Aryan"/Vedic culture had such an influence. Compare it to the Jews: the Torah reflects the lifestyle of nomadic people. Your mention of the Puranas is also interesting; the Rig Veda is not the only text which shaped the mythological properties of the Sarasvati.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: You have rightly mentioned that there's been a continuous mix of cultures in India for thousands of years.

But the question is not that simple. Because when one moves to a new society or a culture it is quite natural that they adopt the cultures and traditions of the existing people, because it is essentially necessary to lead a peaceful life. They can adopt the existing people's scared things as equally important and scared to them.

Here, the case is the Sarasvati river has already been dried up and the people of IVC moved to Ganges and now Ganges is their mother and the Sarasvati is their grand-mother. Because Ganges is the life supporter now for the IVC people. Why would someone adopt someone else'e grand mother as their mother? Adopting someone else's mother as their mother is appropriate, if they want to fulfill the purpose of leading a peaceful life in coexistence with the native people, but adopting some one else's grand mother as their mother and making her their mother of knowledge that they gained in all their previous generations is simply not necessary neither relevant even in their point of view.

Now, if the so called Aryans came after the Sarasvati dried-up and the period when Ganges is bearing the status of mother(this mention can be found in later texts such as mostly Puranas and Itihasas). Now if one enters a new culture, it's relevent if they adopt the existing mother river(Ganges) as their mother river too. But why would they adopt the grand-mother(Srasvati river which led IVC to flourish and whose dried up led the people to move to Ganges basin) of the existing people as their mother of knowledge, which is completely not necessary neither relevant even in their point of view.

Its ok if they adopted Ganges as their mother river, because now Ganges is the life supporter for both the existing people and the newly arrived group. But why an already dried up river has been given the status of mother of knowledge in the Vedas that they were assumed to have composed, you have to note the word "Mother", its not a simple thing.

This is one of the most fundamental doubts that should arise for any one as they go deeper into this aspect.

Every one adopted English because it is essentially necessary for everyone irrespective of their origin, to lead a peaceful and constructive life coexisting with each other. English is the one that is globally adopted not the ancient Latin or Greek which once existed. In this case, Ganges is English and Saraswati is Latin or Greek.

And for your mention of "We believe"; I mentioned we believe, in response to the one that was earlier mentioned by Kautilya3. By mentioning "We believe", I,m not mentioning my interpretations of Rigveda but just a response to Kautilya3.(have a look at kautilya3's response)

Cheers.. BodduLokesh (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BodduLokesh: What you are doing here is precisely the kind of myth-making that the authors of my books are talking about. Unfortunately, even though Indians seem to be into myth-making, I am afraid I am not. I read pretty much all the Puranas when I was still in high school, in order to find out the "truth". At the end of it, I decided none of them is true. Advaita is what appealed to me. So, sorry, you can't recruit me into your project.
In any case, Wikipedia is not the place to document myths, either our own or other people's. We can only document what the scholars and scientists agree on.
@Joshua Jonathan: People turning to pastoralism because of the climate becoming arid is Madhukar Keshav Dhavalikar's theory. He does cite some evidence for it, but I don't find it definitive. His big theory is that the late Harappans were the "Aryans." Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@BodduLokesh: read Indo-Aryan migration theory: "the Aryans" did not unitarily adapt to the locals; some locals may have adapted to pastoralism and the Aryan lifestyle, meanwhile also influencing this Aryan culture. Compare it to western Christianity: pledging allegiance to the Bible, meanwhile celebrating Christmas at the winter solicistice, and believing that you go to Heaven after you die. Europe is still full of pre-Christian beliefs, narratives and rituals. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Definitely, what you mentioning is absolutely right. As a global citizen, and a modern learner, the most fundamental objective of a learner should be:

"To be able to come to radical conclusions based on observed facts by using reasoning and logic as the tools, not prejudice and stereotypes".

Your point is 100% true.

I know that the things mentioned in Puranas are myths(the word Purana itself says it), you might be knowing Puranas comes under "Smruti Literature", which takes excerpts of "Sruthi Literature" and explains them to people by imbibing them mythical stories.

Any way, I'm not worried about any of the aspects of Ancient History, because with the advancements of Scientific Techniques in archaeology, and the ever increasing archaeological evidence will ultimately take care of it.

But the only thing that I mention finally is as Abecedare mentioned, that the whole 30,000 years history of Ancient India is summarized in a paragraph and the whole IVC, the root of Indian Civilization in two lines, then each and every word counts. Each and every word should do its best in representing the truth of the Ancient History. So, it would be more genuinely informative, if in the Article India, the Ancient India Section is revised by experienced editors like all you guys to make justice to each and every word mentioned. At the least, there is a genuine need to revise at least the second paragraph of the Ancient India Section. So, I request all of you to think of it.

If you want to have more reliable information about Sarasvati River, you can refer the book, " The Lost River: On The Trail of the Sarasvati ", authored by Michel Danino . I assure you will get the most reliable and authentic information available regrading Sarasvati River from the book.

Finally, I thank all the ones' praticipated in this discussion in making it lead to a constructive outcome.

Best Regards --BodduLokesh (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Any way, the most interesting point I acknowledge to mention is,

" You all are putting enormous efforts for wikipedia, may all your efforts continue the spread of genuine information to everyone around the globe. "

Best Regards --BodduLokesh (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@BodduLokesh: Indeed, thanks for the dialogue. If we changed "Indus Valley Civilization" to "Indus-Saraswati Civilization," that would probably satisfy you. Unfortunately, we can't. "Indus Valley Civilization" is the official scientific name. It might still change in future but, for now, that is how things stand. I could try rewording the sentence a bit to make the river valleys come out more prominently. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

As for Michel Danino's book, the citation list [5] has only one published citation, one unpublished one, and a load of Hindu nationalist web site mentions. Unless there is a scholarly review in a journal, we can't be sure if it is worth the trouble. (The problem is that this is a non-scientist writing about a scientific topic. So, we need the scientists to certify it. Otherwise it is fringe.) Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I have no any problem with the name of "Indus Valley Civilization" , let the scholarly community take their own time in deciding it. But the one I requested to look over is that in the Ancient India section , in the second paragraph, at the least there is a genuine need to mention the status of archaeological evidence regarding "Indo-Aryan Migration" in a few words. I will keep this point in the Article's talkpage Talk:India. So, I requested you to think of it.

As for Michel Danino's book, I mentioned it with an intention to make you get through the genuine info(as a personal guide) regarding Sarasvati river, not to site the book as a reference anywhere. My point is that, the book was written with a genuine motive of placing the facts of Sarasvati river to the layman. Anyone who knows about this author can understand his credibility.

Best regards -- BodduLokesh (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@BodduLokesh: Well, the Sarasvati river and Indo-Aryan migration are quite different topics, aren't they? As for the latter, many Indians believe that archaeology is the main discipline that has a say on it. But that is not true. Since "Indo-Aryan" means Sanskrit speakers, it is first of all a question of linguistics. Somewhat shamefully, Indians are no good at linguistics ("shamefully" because linguistics originates with Pāṇini). So, their conclusions are all wrong. Anyway, this issue has been debated to death, and we had an RfC last year, which settled the issue once for all as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Unless there is some new evidence that overturns the current state of knowledge, nobody at Wikipedia wants to revisit that issue. But I will check to see if the current wording is right. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: @Joshua Jonathan: No worries, as the time passes, with the advancing scientific techniques, technologies and new archaeological evidences, the truth will unveil itself. I can happily concentrate on the outcomes rather than the origins of the teachings of our ancient humans', as science and technology will take care of the latter. In fact, our ancient generations wanted the same to happen, that is the reason why they had paid only succinct attention to mention about their origins or history but concentrated more on the outcomes of the learnings of their lifetimes. In this very limited life span(a 100 revolutions of the earth of which almost 1\4th have been completed for me), the most important resource(i.e., time), if spent by keeping in consideration the outcomes of our previous generations as the starting point of our seeking, then the outcome of our lifetime learning would lead to the optimum benefit for the individual in particular and the humankind in general.

If our earth makes a 100 revolutions around the sun, a whole generation is evolved and dissolved, which is a very small thing for the earth but a life time for the generation. The only thing that remains to the next generation is the " wealth of knowledge" that is generated until their previous generation.

That is the reason why modern humans can say, "we stand taller and look farther" than our previous generations.

Any way, thank you once again for considering my point. --BodduLokesh (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Blessed are the curious
who keep an open mind
and learn things new
that upset the old,
for there are always
things we never knew
or thought we knew
but just were we bold?

Kautilya3 (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Gender categorization

I'm not sure about that, honestly - see the categories under Category:Women writers, for instance. I don't see any particular difference between them and the male writers...gender is as substantial a qualifier for the one as it is for the other. And that seems to have been the operating principle thus far, at least. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:OSE, it is not proper to justify violating policies at one place because you think they are violated at another place. Moreover, the subject of "Women writers" has gone through several rounds of CfD's and you will need to look into those to find out why it is justified. If any categorisations of women writers appear to you to be unsourced, plese feel free to challenge them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Rajasthan

I have a feeling we have timelines mixed up. Al Mansurah was established by the time of Mohammad bin Qasim, I think. There were two unsuccessful expeditions before bin Qasim. Bin Qasim sent his troops to Saurashtra, and he retreated after a treaty with them. Blankinship mentions a very heavy concern of the Umayyads with Gandhara and taxing their trade to the West as a key policy objective. AshLin (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know all that much about what happened in Sindh. You can check the Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent page, which has info on this, mostly taken from Wink.

I am going to be offline for a couple of days. If it becomes necessary, please feel free to take off the "under construction" sign. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey

Kautilya,

I noticed that you said you were going to be offline for a few days. If at all possible, could you contact me through <elided>? You seem a very knowledgeable editor on many relevant subjects. Cheers, Tookminds (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tookminds:, thanks for your aprpeciation. If you would like to contact me through email, you can use the "Email User" menu item under the "User" menu. It is also not a good idea to put your email address on the web, because they get picked up by web-crawlers for business purposes. (I am not entirely offline, but my wiki-editing is going to be limited for a few days.) Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Cookie for you, from Cookie Monster! CookieMonster755 (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yummie!!! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Merge

@Kautilya3:Fine, thanks for remembering that. I've seen a similar article of such type in wiki which was merged and hence, I have porposed. If you can comment here, it would be helpful for merge or de-merge. Thanks.--Vin09 (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Vin09: The policies of Wikipedia for caste, religion, sexual orientation etc. are quite strict. We need reliable source where they identify themselves as belonging to particular affiliations. That is a tall order. So, it is not worth bothering.

Also, you don't need to "ping" me when you write on my talk page, as I get automatically notified. In general, please use pings only sparingly because they can become disruptive. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok fine, thank you. I thought you were busy working in other articles, so used ping. Anyhow thanks for the info. Cheers.--Vin09 (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Aristotle and Kant? Here we come!

It is funny to write on my own talk page, but where else do I tell a joke? So, here it goes:

“ It’s fair to say that Wikipedia has spent far more time considering the philosophical ramifications of categorization than Aristotle and Kant ever did. ”

If you had fun reading that, then come over here. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Thanks

for your thanks. Oddly, 2 hrs ago I was listening to a talk on Kautilya on BBC Radio 4. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I didn't know about it. Is this the Sunil Khilnani talk? Found it on iPlayer. Looks like a nice series. A flipside though. Kautilya didn't figure out balance of power, a serious deficiency of Indians in the long run.- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

That's the one - very good series. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, for talk page stalkers, here is the link to the talk on Panini. Hoping for Indians to regain their mastery of linguistics! - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Good Job

I just opened the Battle of Rajasthan page today in the midst of my studies. I am highly impressed/delighted by the job done there. Very good work. BTW, what does it mean - "Defeat of large expedition against Avanti"? Who is the victor? Please clear there in the table. The table is rightly cut short instead of prolonging it to 1205 AD. Again, I think the term "Indians" should be used instead of "Hindus" as India, to the Arabs, was Al-Hind (Hind being India and Hindus being Indians). :-) Ghatus (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks buddy! I am still working on it though, mainly trying to sort out the multiple expeditions of the Arabs. Unfortunately, Blankinship doesn't cover the 9th century, which is when the "decisive battle" is supposed to have taken place. I will still need to research that.

I have only worked on the section titled Campaign of Al-Junayd so far. The other sections are still the old text. Slowly getting there... -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Rakhigarhi

brother You asked for citation ,but I'm telling the first hand information as I'm the resident of rakhigarhi itself.If you want proof i can happily provide you.

@Sunillohara: Please put a signature on your messages by appending ~~~~.

Since you have just joined Wikipedia, please take time to read through the policies I have put in my welcome message, and learn how things work. You can't write from your personal knowledge on Wikipedia. You can only summarise information that appears in published sources. It might seem strange to you, but that is the only way to produce a community-generated encyclopedia. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Google Scholar

Hi Kautilya3. Do you use Firefox? In that case, there's an add-on for Google Scholar, which adds a button to the top-bar. When you select a phrase or title at a page, and you hit the button, a pop-up appears to navigate to google Scholar, witht he searched-for terms. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, thanks for the tip! I use Chrome actually (switched to it when Fiefox became too bulky for my little machines), but I might try Firefox again some time. On Chrome actually, I have a search engine defined for Google Scholar. So I type "scholar <phrase>" into the URL box. What I really need is a similar search engine for Google Books, which I don't know how to define. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Wauw, you're a crack! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Go to Google Books. Right-click within the search-box and "Add as a search engine". Changing keyword to books (or, whatever else you wish) will parallel Kautilya's setting for google scholar. Abecedare (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you are crack master! Kautilya3 (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

GK

See this talk page--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 09:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

"Pakistan-occupied Kashmir," is a term that is almost universally used in India. I think it is a rude term to use, but I also know that it is a valid term, having read Major General Akbar Khan's book. The term "Indian-occupied Kashmir" is used inside Pakistan in a tit-for-tat way, but nobody has ever produced any evidence that India "occupied" it. So, I am perfectly satisfied with the speedy deletions that have been accepted as well as those that were rejected. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You might also see G. K. Reddy, who was India's most authentic journalist when he was alive. Most of us grew up reading his front page stories in The Hindu everyday. I was amazed to read that he started his career in J&K, supported its accession to Pakistan, and then went to work in Pakistan after the Partition. This brash and foolish leftist, at that time, didn't realize that India and Pakistan were going to become enemies. Well, he witnessed Pakistan's "occupation" of Kashmir first hand and brought back to India all his evidence, which was then submitted to the United Nations by India. I would love to get my hands on what he wrote. Someday I will. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Still, you know, if I'm nominating Indian occupied Kashmir for deletion stating that we should use neutral term "Indian administered Kashmir" then as a non-biased editor I should also nominate other side too. And anyway, even if such kind of article exists still we can't use term "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" in any article, so what the use if it stays or not.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 11:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No, a non-biased editor follows reliable sources. I have given you the sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Indian sentiment vandalism

Please do not blanket remove sourced information which is relevant to the article check anti-Pakistan sentiment article which also includes Indian sources which attempt to explain the sentiments your double standards will not be tolerated. Take it to the talk page. Excipient0 (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Excipient0: Sorry, I didn't notice that you wrote here, before I wrote my comments on your talk page. Let us continue the discussion there so that everything is in one place. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Excipient0: I notice that experienced editors are also trying to control the POV editing on the anti-Pakistan sentiment page. Please don't engage in tit-for-tat editing. Please read and follow policies. If you find others not following policies, please bring it to our attention. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for cleaning up Muslim Conquests on the Indian Subcontinent.Maglorbd (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. Many thanks to you in fact for creating so much new content on that page, and also the brilliant map that you produced, which gave me a roadmap for the content on the Battle of Rajasthan page.

I have only proof-read one little section of your content so far. I will do the rest too in the next few weeks. But, overall, I think there is a bit too much detail in your sections. Would you be happy to make this into a separate article on "Arab invasion of Indian subcontinent" (or some such), so that we can write a condensed summary in the main article. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You read my mind. Most of the stuff will be shifted to "Arabs and Al Hind" once I get around to posting that and I intend to streamline "Muslim Conquests on The Indian Sub-Continent".Maglorbd (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Policy education

Dear Kautilya the new pov pusher Human3015 cannot teach me anything first of all he does not know what Synthesis/original research is and it seems you don't either so please don't tell him to guide me he will be blocked eventually as many other nationalists have been before. Excipient0 (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Barnstar for completing 5,000 neutral edits on Wikipedia. Best luck for future. Happy Wikipeding!! Thank you. Human3015 Say Hey!! • 13:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Humanist, for noticing! But, you know, these edit counts mean little. What matters is what we write, and how well we write it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Mahmud of Ghazni

Have you seen my recent changes in Mahmud of Ghazni page? I have edited in "Attitude towards religious freedom" and "Destruction of Somnath Temple" section. I would request you to do some changes in "Regional attitudes towards Mahmud's memory" section. You got the right point yesterday. Several incidents show that Somnath attack had hardy any effect on contemporary Hindu psychology. I am signing off for today.Ghatus (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. Good points and they will do for now. Eventually, we should rewrite the section based on contemporary sources. Plenty of people here know that the Raj era sources are biased and shouldn't be used. But, to rewrite, I will need to go back and re-read the Romila Thapar book. We should actually create a separate article for the Many Voices book. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Matangini Hazra

I wanted to edit the article about how she was shot dead. I found these two links. Google books

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Indias-freedom-struggle-told-through-puppets-shadow/articleshow/6744580.cms

But there are other references which mentions the same thing. I can't decide whether my references are better than the existing ones.

This is mobile version:

http://m.speakingtree.in/spiritual-blogs/seekers/self-improvement/greatest-women-freedom-fighters

C E (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi CosmicEmperor, These references are not particularly better than the existing ones. But, since the article has only 7 references, most of them inaccessible, there is no harm in adding additional ones. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Dalit, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 07:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

regarding the edits

Anjali das gupta (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey kautilya

Greetings

I am waiting for the positive response from your end regarding the edits that what is actually the bigger mistake from my end,so that I can rectify that.

Thank you Anjali das gupta (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anjali das gupta: I have responded to your query above, just below your message. Have you seen it? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Nazism sidebar

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

Regarding Lord's Birth Place

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

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

Gender test

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

Gender gap task force

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

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:India

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

Trance, hypnosis and neurological damage

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

See also [6]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, this is amazing! Try reading this paper [7]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:List of cities proper by population

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

Lists of early Hindu Muslim conflicts in Indian subcontinent source article

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

Formal mediation has been requested

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

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

Request for mediation rejected

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Early 2012 Hong Kong protests

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

Malhotra

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Error

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

It wasn't me. Apparently this edit [8] made the change. Please feel free to correct it, and add a better source as well because I couldn't access that Government document. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:European colonization of the Americas

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited K. B. Hedgewar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tricolor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joseon

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

Formal mediation has been requested

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Irreligion in Bangladesh

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

BBC Contents

Hi Kautilya3,

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

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

3RR

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

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

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

Indo-Aryan peoples

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

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

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

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

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

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

article text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

article text

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

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

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

article text

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

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

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

References

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

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

Indra's web of misrepresentations

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

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

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

Request for mediation rejected

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

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

Sir

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

Hi

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

Please comment on Talk:Hijra

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

COI editing

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

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Mizrahi Jews

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

Indra

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

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

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

De-communalising Indian history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem in the Telangana edit was that you deleted the sentence "Later the region was ruled by many Muslim rulers." Simply gone! This is presumably due to your POV that any reference to "Muslim" is "communal." Yet scholars tell us that "Muslim" or "Musalamana" at best meant a jati or an endogamous ethnic group in the Indian context [11].

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

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

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

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

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

Chandragupta Maurya

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

Let us keep this discussion on the article talk page. I will copy it there and respond. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Avestan

You're wrong. It doesn't matter if the article about Avestan language was referred to another article about indo-iranians in Wikipedia. Just because one article in wikipedia is referred to another in wikipedia, doesn't make them right. Your factually wrong. The word Iran is derived from Airya/Arya. So indo-aryan languages is the correct word and not indo-iranian. Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan didn't exist when Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit were spoken. Aryans lived west of the river Indus and the Hindus lived east of the river. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvarena (talk • contribs) 14:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

But who and what decides which editor is eventually right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvarena (talk • contribs) 16:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Then both persons who revert 3 times will get suspended right? Not just one of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvarena (talk • contribs) 16:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Haverna: The answer to the first question is simple. Whoever is working according to Wikipedia policies is "right". So I suggest that you start reading the links to policies I posted on your welcome message, especially the "Five pillars." As for the second question, I am glad that you are beginning to do calculations as to who will get blocked. Normally, neither will. But, if you think things through, you can calculate that you can't win by edit warring. So it is best not to do it. You destroy your own reputation by doing it. And, it will come back to bite you in the long run. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2015 Thalys train attack

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 Thalys train attack. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Request to take a look over my addition to Cattle in religion

I added about the Quran's Surah Al-Baqarah and sacrifice of a yellow cow by Jews in the Surah under the Islam section in the article Cattle in religion. However it might not be completely up to publishing standards. If you can please do a favor and have a look upon it and correct any mistake and reword if need be. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: I am afraid you need better sources. One of them is a 19th century "dictionary" and the other one is saying here is the verse of Quran and it is mysterious. If you can find better sources, I can help with copy editing the text to be encyclopedic. (It has to be at a high level and give real information about what the practice and situation is within Islam.) Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: As far as I know there's no problem with using an older source. I don't think there's any Wikipedia policy that forbids from using an old source and Thomas Hughes is a significanf authority on Islam. As for the "mysterious" part of other source it's about the exegesis of the verses. However I've written about the incident as it is in the verses. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Clementin-Ojha

Nice find and very interesting read. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Shramana , Jainism

The paragraph in Shramana is showing wrong information about Jainism. Every Jaina Scriptures starts as said by Gautama Ganadhar to the question asked by King Shrenika, Just like Buddhist scriptures begin as I heard, that is Ananda heard the Buddha. Like Valmiki Ramayana begins as said but Narada to Valmiki. The latest manuscript of Valmiki is after 14th century AD. Then is Valmiki Ramayana invented in after 14th century AD. The same way every Jaina scriptures is as passed by from Acharyas before. In Ancient times Jains ruled in the south. Chalukyas, Gangas, Rashtrakutas, Hoysalas, early pallavas, were all Jains. Jains don't have to fear the Brahmanas at that time. In that time the Brahmanic God's like Krishna and Shiva are in hell according to Jainism. Brahmanas knew about this at that time. About the Varna system it is always said that Kshatriyas are above Brahmanas According to Jainism. According to Hinduism Brahmanas are above Kshatriyas. Jaina point is already shown in Kalpasutra in the story of Tirthankara Mahavira. So delete that paragraph. -- Ashvawiki (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ashvawiki: Content that is well-sourced and appropriate for the topic cannot be deleted. It will never be deleted. So, please give up this idea. If you have other WP:HISTRS sources that contradict this information, then please bring them to the table, we can figure out how to give WP:DUE weightage for the conflicting views. You should never argue on the basis of WP:PRIMARY sources. You really need to read the policies on "Five pillars" before you proceed. You have been given a final warning. Please take this seriously! - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:State of Palestine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:State of Palestine. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Simplify

This is how the article was on 28 September. What you added back to the lead was also new addition, came after the edit that I have just linked. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I didn't realize that you were contesting the older stuff too. Sarah Welch has taken it out now. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Palestine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Palestine. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

DRN

A DRN request has been filed about Siachen conflict here please give your input. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Need help in editing

HI , i am swaroop , i am writing about Civil servants in India , who are serving the people ..in that flow .. i have a wrote an article on sridhar babu ..please do help me in editing and make it to wikipedia standards thanking you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sridhar_Babu_Adhanki

swaroop 11:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakthi swaroop (talk • contribs)

Talk:Ikshvaku_dynasty#Conclusion

Some post Pankaj clean up is needed in this area, I think he went ahead with page moves and merges based on his interpretation of that discussion and a lot of links have been removed as they were pointing to dabs. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, that is a lot of cleanup. I have changed Ikshvaku to point to Ikshvaku (Hinduism), which I am sure I can justify through HISTRS as the "original" mythological figure. Doncram has unlinked a lot of Ikshvaku references, which I will revert now. Doncram, please don't mind all the reverts. Thanks for all your help! - Kautilya3 (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please also take a look at copy-paste moves, I think there are some of those too. If any pages have to be moved back do the standard {{db-move}} tagging and/or ping me. —SpacemanSpiff 04:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Frank Gaffney

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Frank Gaffney. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)