Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:History of India: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Piedpiper186 (talk | contribs)
101 edits
Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Reverted 3 edits by Piedpiper186 (talk): The religious feelings issue has been asked and answered; do not repeat it again
Line 75: Line 75:
:::::::::Joshua Jonathan: You are a foreigner and you don't know these 'theories' created by our so called Indian 'historians' are more like a propaganda. There is no proof that these 'theories' are proven you think it's a fact because it's cited in Wikipedia but that DOESN'T MEAN it's a proven fact. [[User:Piedpiper186|Piedpiper186]] ([[User talk:Piedpiper186|talk]]) 08:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::Joshua Jonathan: You are a foreigner and you don't know these 'theories' created by our so called Indian 'historians' are more like a propaganda. There is no proof that these 'theories' are proven you think it's a fact because it's cited in Wikipedia but that DOESN'T MEAN it's a proven fact. [[User:Piedpiper186|Piedpiper186]] ([[User talk:Piedpiper186|talk]]) 08:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
{{archive bottom}}

== Requesting removal of a certain part in the article which hurts religious feelings ==

I am again requesting removal of a certain part in the article which hurts religious feelings of Hindus.
"Historians formerly postulated an "epic age" as the milieu of these two epic poems, but now recognize that the texts (which are both familiar with each other) went through multiple stages of development over centuries. For instance, the Mahabharata may have been based on a small-scale conflict (possibly about 1000 BCE) which was eventually "transformed into a gigantic epic war by bards and poets". There is no conclusive proof from archaeology as to whether the specific events of the Mahabharata have any historical basis.The existing texts of these epics are believed to belong to the post-Vedic age, between c. 400 BCE and 400 CE."
Wikipedia supports religious neutral POV but this part looks biased (as it confidently states that Ramayana and Mahabharata have no historical basis). Further if anyone wants to know about historical basis of Ramayana please read the book, Rama and Ayodhya by a well known historian [[Meenakshi Jain]] (2013) [[User:Piedpiper186|Piedpiper186]] ([[User talk:Piedpiper186|talk]]) 18:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:40, 26 September 2021

Template:Vital article

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 18, 2007Peer reviewReviewed

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2021

Humans did not originate in Africa, they co-originated in all countries together, and the genetics supporting the Africa theory is wrong, modern science is very wrong. Also I am personally hurt and offended by the first line in the Wikipedia. So can u please remove it? 67.175.195.151 (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, please cite reliable sources for changes you would like to suggest. CMD (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Merci, Kim Smith; James Leuck

Does anyone have access to this source cited in the article: "John Merci, Kim Smith; James Leuck (1922). "Muslim conquest and the Rajputs". The Medieval History of India pg 67–115"? Google just throws up a journal article (which seems to have copied the source from a Wikipedia article) and other Wikipedia articles including Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests and Rawe (Rajput clan) (which cites this source to support the obviously false claim that a bunch of eminent historical kings belonged to a particular caste). utcursch | talk 19:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBlame suggests that the source was inserted by an anon here. utcursch | talk 20:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2021

<a href="https://www.indianrealhistory.com/">History Of India In Detail</a>

Shaikowaisullahsiddiqui (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlock please

Yet another locked page? Whom does the status quo benefit?

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2021

In the Ochre Coloured Pottery Culture section, Change "People had domisticated Cattle, Goat, sheep, horse, Pig and dog etc." to "People had domesticated cattle, goats, sheep, horses, pigs, and dogs." 12aku (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I tidied a bit more of the section than you requested as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for removal of a certain part in the article which hurts religious feelings

Closed as a WP:FORUMy debate. Please see WP:RNPOV. Wikipedia is written as per its policies. If you want to debate the policies, please go to WP:Village pump. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am requesting for removal of a certain part in this article in Iron Age (1500 BCE to 500 BCE) > Sanskrit texts

"Historians formerly postulated an "epic age" as the milieu of these two epic poems, but now recognize that the texts (which are both familiar with each other) went through multiple stages of development over centuries. For instance, the Mahabharata may have been based on a small-scale conflict (possibly about 1000 BCE) which was eventually "transformed into a gigantic epic war by bards and poets". There is no conclusive proof from archaeology as to whether the specific events of the Mahabharata have any historical basis.[97] The existing texts of these epics are believed to belong to the post-Vedic age, between c. 400 BCE and 400 CE"

I think this part hurts religious feelings of Hindus so I am requesting removal of this part. Thank you. Piedpiper186 (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some Hindus probably, but it is supported by the vast majority of RS, so will remain. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removing correct and well-sourced info hurts my secular and scientific feelings, and goes against the basics of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a faith-manual. See also Ruchika Sharma (2017), The Mahabharata: How an oral narrative of the bards became a text of the Brahmins. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is one well cited paragraph much more important than someone's religious feelings? Are Wikipedia's rules more important than feelings of Hindus? Secularism? I am sure if something was written against Islam and Christianity in this same article (no matter how much it was cited) you would have been forced to remove it. Science? Come to my talk page and I'll tell you about historical and scientific evidence of Hindu texts. Piedpiper186 (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course it is. Do you understand what an encyclopaedia is? It's a repository of information, not a apologetic for any faith. Check out the pictures on Muhammad's page if you really want to see something that hurts certain religious people's feelings... Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well-cited info is the essence of Wikipedia. Regarding Islam, see, for exame, Talk:Islam/Archive 31#Can I delete the picture?. PS: which feeling, exactly, is hurt by these facts? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Jonathan: Really? You don't understand? It is written in the article that "Hindu texts Ramayana and Mahabharata have no historical basis" doesn't this hurts religious feelings of Hindus AND this information is cited in Wikipedia that DOESN'T mean these 'facts' are proven IRL. Piedpiper186 (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't understand which feelings are hurt, in which way, by such a statement. What I do understand is that the aim of an encyclopedia is to provide scientific knowledge and theories, not hindered by religious fundamentalism and attitudes. An aim which I fully support. If the "religious feelings" of whoever who are the measure stick to determine what to write and what not, we would be stuck in primitive societies, with never-ending religious wars. Wikipedia provides overviews of what WP:RS say about topics. If you don't like that, bad luck for you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Jonathan: You are a foreigner and you don't know these 'theories' created by our so called Indian 'historians' are more like a propaganda. There is no proof that these 'theories' are proven you think it's a fact because it's cited in Wikipedia but that DOESN'T MEAN it's a proven fact. Piedpiper186 (talk) 08:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F1046679494