This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

HI... i'm temuzion and i wanna know one thing...how can i send mail through wikipedia and if any one sent me any mail would it be saved ? Is there chatting in wikipedia? How can i check my previous mails? 202.141.98.204 12:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, first i suggest you sign up on wikipedia, it will be better for you. For emailing, you will see a link e-mail this user just below search field on the left side of any user page. If the user has email enabled, he will recieve the email.nids(♂) 12:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Welcome,_newcomers may also be helpful to you.nids(♂) 12:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for fixing the Hinduism page after some idiot wrote some nonsense there. I have been working on that page, so I appreciate your help in keeping it clean. HeBhagawan 00:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable patriot Ashfaqulla Khan is up for AfD.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:YV_VSM_23.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article certainly needs expansion, however another user had spent the time to include details of each day in the main article. I moved these to separate sub articles. It was not for me to judge whether these were needed or not. The article is unfinished as I had keft it on day 12, but I have seen no effort from any other editor to complete it. - Parthi 20:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up for deletion review. There is a cat for Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, anglican etc. politicians so I don't see why there isn't a Hindu cat.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make a comment on deletion review or the cfd.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CfD functions just like an Afd. The CfD is here.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Namaskar nids! One of the reasons why Indian language Wikipedias are so bad is because of people having trouble to write in Indic scripts. One solution which User:Bhadani has also embraced is that you can write Hindi articles in Roman letters on a subpage of your userpage. eg. Create User:nids/romanhindi on Hindi Wiki and you can start writing articles with English letters. I or someone else, can then convert it into a proper article in Devanagari. Btw, I also work on Sanskrit Wikipedia, which is in even worse shape. It is a shame that such beautiful languages aren't receiving any attention. Gizza^{Chat ©} 02:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do anything substantial on Sanskrit Wikipedia. I just add one sentence to simple articles such as "Nagpura bharata deshe eka nagaram asti!" I don't anything in detail. I know that by the way google works however, that if I keep on creating small stubs with wikilinks, those pages will come higher on a google search. I hope that more people will start contributing this way. There is only one guy there currently who is well educated in Sanskrit. His name is Nityagopal Katare. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certain users think Kancha Ilaiah can be quoted as an authority on Hinduism here: [1].Bakaman _Bakatalk

I blocked Subhash Bose was revert-warring on Atal Behari Vajpayee. Edit-warring and violation of 3RR is considered disruptive and the content is irrelevant to the enforcement of 3RR, since even if the person reverting is is putting it to the correct version, they should use discussion rather than edit warring. That's what the block is for, not for incorrect content. The block was also based on Subhash Bose's previous record which shows that he has not reformed despite being warned and blocked several times. I hope that clears it up. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 20:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You actually want people to vandalise your userpage?

WereWolf 16:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read all the policies of wikipedia, but it is still not clear to me that whether 3RR is an electric fence or does it not apply in cases of clear vandalism. I always follow 1RR rule, except in exceptional cases. Just as an example, i would like to know whether this qualifies as an revert. There was no case for content dispute, as the whole section was blanked without reason. Just after i reverted the blanking of a section, a user blanked it again. I could not revert it again as i didnt knew whether the revert rule will apply here or not.nids(♂) 17:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR doesn't apply to simple vandalism, but as you observe determining if something is vandalism or not can be tricky. In that case the initial removal does include an edit summary indicating that they are removing it because there is already a substantial article on the topic. This is of course self evident as the section includes a link to that main article, which they are also removing, so it then looks like an issue of NPOV. The best thing to do in that sort of case is to restore and try and get the editor in question to understand that such a setup is a normal part of wikipedia articles. Given the high profile nature of that article I'm sure you won't be alone in reverting such edits, so you should really need to worry about getting to 3 reverts. If the person doing the removal does, you can of course report them or you can always ask for temporary page protection at WP:RFPP --pgk 17:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For protecting the citation on Indian nationalism, those guys keep removing sourced statements though, also if they can't they just rephrase it so it loses effect. anywas. Freedom skies 19:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has some results of DNA studies of the Negroid tribes in Andaman and Nicobar Islands. [2]. One part reads :- "The questions remain, how then these so called Andamanese reached Andamans? And are there any tribes in Indian mainland which show resemblance with Andamanese and therefore shed light on the root of migration? To answer these questions, we also studied tribal population of the West coast of India. There are indeed tribes in Gujarat and Kerala which show close affinities to Andamanese Negrito tribes, both in their mtDNA haplotypes and Y-DNA halotypes (YAP+). These tribes appear to be older than the Andamanese. We have, therefore, undertaken DNA analysis of all the primitive tribes of India in collaboration with the Anthropological Survey of India (ASI). These studies may throw some light on the mystery of our own origins. In contrast to Andamanese, the Nicobarese have genetic affinities to groups widely distributed today throughout Asia; thus, the Nicobarese should presumably descend from Neolithic Agriculturists. " Haphar 22:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no not true about vegetarianism... only strict buddhists and it depends on the sect. Kennethtennyson

First on protecting the Cohen citation, then the Govt of Pak thing and now more in Indian nationalism.

Y'know, people have been providing citations and still either getting their stuff removed or getting the language in the article watered down.

Thanks for vigilantly keeping that from happening. Freedom skies 14:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'll be busy keeping an eye on my Indian martial arts article, you should try this book[3], by Stanley Wolpert himself, a citation from here should be an argument ender in any event.

Freedom skies 20:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Nobel_laureates_by_country

The list shows nationalities of the laureates, as stated at the official website of the Nobel Prize. Some laureates are listed under more than one country: for instance, if their country of birth and/or nationality differs from their country of residence. In these cases, a star (*) appears next to their name when it is listed under their birth country, and their country of birth appears in italics next to their name in all other lists

Amartya Sen, Subramanyan Chandrashekhar, and CV Raman were both born in India (or British India). Naipaul is different. You CAN say he is a person of Indian descent, but the list in question is about country, not heritage. According to [4], Naipaul was born in Trinidad. His ancestors came from India. If you want to consider him under India entry in the list, you have to add every American scientist under England, Scotland, Ireland, Germany or whatever country their ancestors came from. So, adding Naipaul under Nobel_laureates_by_country#India is incorrect. I hope you understand my logic. Thanks. --Ragib 21:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct that the star * doesn't belong in Tagore's entry there. --Ragib 22:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)\[reply]

Ha ha, thanks for noticing the ambiguity of the sentence ... read it as "You are correct in saying that". :). Thanks. --Ragib 22:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalai lama wasn't born in India, nor is he a citizen of India. How does he qualify under the India entry? --Ragib 15:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naipaul is a British citizen too. Dalai Lama isn't an Indian citizen, is he? I don't see other precedent of residency (not citizenship) in this article. Thanks. --Ragib 15:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naipaul, who is a British citizen, was born in Trinidad..

Dalai Lama is a Tibetan. Tibet is not a non-existent country. His speech topic doesn't change a single thing. As for citizenship question, he is an honorary citizen of Canada, which also doesn't count for this article. In no way I could find anything that shows he's a citizen of India. See 14th_Dalai_Lama. Thanks. --Ragib 16:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Naipaul, who is a British citizen", it does mention the citizenship clearly. If he wasn't a citizen, the sentence would have been "a British resident". For example, Arthur C. Clarke is a resident of Colombo, but not a Sri Lankan citizen. Anyway, here is another link which says it more clearly.

If (and when) Naipaul gets a Indian citizenship as well, he should be included under India. --Ragib 16:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list shows nationalities of the laureates, as stated at the official website of the Nobel Prize. Some laureates are listed under more than one country: for instance, if their country of birth and/or nationality differs from their country of residence.

The article's single criterion for inclusion is nationality. Some people have dual nationality, or have changed their nationalities, taking up the nationality of their current residency. If that were the case for Dalai Lama, i.e. if he has taken up Indian citizenship, there wouldn't be a problem. Since the article. This case is different from Mother Teresa, who did become an Indian citizen in 1962. The "residency" part applies to cases like Naipaul, who was born in Trinidad, but is resident and citizen of UK. --Ragib 16:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have files an RfC regarding Holywarriors edits to Lalu Prasad Yadav here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Politics

I am told that at least two users need to try to negotiate with holywarrior within 48 hours

(this) before it will be endorsed. I have detailed the issue and approach you for perspective regarding this matter. If you think you'd like to participate then please do drop by. Thanks.Hkelkar 00:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... I've added extensive comments to the Atheism in Hinduism deletion page and article. I believe, like you, it would be a travesty, if that article were deleted. Take care and rock on.

Oh and by the way re: Byomkesh and Rajit/Rajat Kapoor, I wasn't ever mad. Check the talk page for Byomkesh Bakshi. Thanks again. --Antorjal 05:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any problem with what Babub is suggesting?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aupmanyav (talk • contribs) .

I took issue with some of your edits of yours in the past, but by no means would I say that I "do not like you". I have no idea who you are, and I agree that there is no reason to delete the article on atheism in Hinduism. regards, dab (ᛏ) 10:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under attack on this CfD (actors and mathematicians)by "secularists" who say I am perpetrating "massacre"[5].

87.74.2.239 17:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have proposed an article for deletion. If you're interested please vote.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Students Islamic Organisation of India

Hkelkar 21:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their website looks like a propaganda front for SIMI and Lashkar. I think it's dangerous to keep the article as it stands now and tout the info as objective, is all.Hkelkar 21:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were not doing anyhting. He was fundywatching you, but he cooled off. Babub's a nice guy, don't get mad at him. Fundywatching is incessantly arguing and attacking or harrasing on an AfD. You guys were arguing over other users comments, instead of keeping it on the AfD talk page, where it probably belongs. About the nobel laureates, go ahead and create it.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They have not been withdrawn, you should express your views.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the user is a newbie, and is just clicking on the September red link thinking that he is supposed to add the messages there. So, you might think of removing the redlink from your archive box. Thanks. --Ragib 20:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR does not apply to obvious vandalism reverting (versus content disputes). Revert away! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Find a source that shows atheists are even a minute part of the Hindu population. I supported you on the AfD but I still think Atheism is much too amorphous and speculative than mainstream (Ram-Lila, Krishna-Gopi) kind of Hinduism.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cited reasons there. Can you offer a perspective (maybe on the talk page)?Also, could you put the article in your watchlist for developments (in cse you're interested, of course)? Thanks for your attention.Hkelkar 19:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article just got deleted. Wow Wikipedia sure is fast :).Hkelkar 19:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was mostly an attack on Hindus and Brahmans. Copy-Paste from Dalitstan.org mostly. Neo-Brahmanism is a fake neologism invented by Christian missionaries and touted in anti-Brahmanical propaganda. Mostly conspiracy nonsense about Brahmins taking over the world and imposing a "worldwide casteist society". Surprisingly similar in resonance and tone to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic allegations of neo-Conservatism and Jews.Glad it got axed.Hkelkar 03:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An anon Hesperophile messed up the article with a lot of nonsense and POV, confusing Ayurveda with homeopathy and adding irrelevant references demonizing a harmless and often effective practice. I have removed most edits that failed verification and tried to fix up the section somewhat. However, I could use another paid of eyes to look at it and check for unsourced or poorly sourced POV. Bear in mind that similar articles on Traditional medicines like Acupuncture or Reiki have no such bias and proper criticisms.Hkelkar 06:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand the Direct Action Day article? I'm also working on it (there was a bunch of anti-Hindu POV there which I corrected). I have 2 books that I cited there and am reading from them but I'd like your help if you can get access to them and read them for input I'd be very grateful. Thanks.Hkelkar 23:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We havent ran into each other in a long time. You want to work on G.T. Nanavati and the Nanavati commission ?Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok. I've been working on building bridges with other users, and the Do you know? sections on the front page.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you can do. Wiki is the playground of Saraswati.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your most recent post in my talk page.Hkelkar 03:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the edits made on the Delhi pillar article seemed reasonable, and maybe some of them should've been kept, instead of reverting all his edits without discrimination. Maybe you want to look at it. I don't know enought of the topic to judge his or your edits on that article though. --RF 15:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on User_talk:Rayfield#pillar..nids(♂) 06:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. --RF 20:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Jewish list have a link to the Hindu list?Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

self rv'd back.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering why you had changed the dates on the Krishna article to show 23 January 3102 BCE (in the proleptic Gregorian calendar) against the date of Feb 18th listed in the article? Is it because the article uses a different calendar format? I can't see any reference to this in the link, but maybe it's apparent to someone who knows more about calendar formats. Regards, GourangaUK 08:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No probs - I thought that was the case, but just wanted to check. Out of interest how would you identify one set of dating from another, or is it that you just know about that date (Krishna's departure) in particular? GourangaUK 08:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nidish,

I noticed that you were reverting the articles pertaining to the Gupta Empire, presumably on account of the change that was made (from "Gupta Empire Ruler" to "Gupta Emperor"). Gupta Empire ruler sounds rather clumsy, hence the change. Moreover, as they all were rulers of an empire, and from Chandra Gupta I onward, used the title Maharajadhiraja, it is not improper to apply such a title. Indeed, history books and scholars refer to these rulers as Emperors. What is that rationale behind the revert? I figure it would be better to discuss the matter rather than editing back and forth. Let me know what you think. Regards,

Devanampriya —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Devanampriya (talk • contribs) .

Nidish,

I had previously changed all of the titles for members of the Gupta Dynasty from "Gupta Empire Ruler" to "Gupta Emperor" for reasons noted above. The articles run from Chandra Gupta I to Skanda Gupta. I noticed that your username appeared in connection with reverts back to "Gupta Empire Ruler". Curiously, sockpuppet appeared in tandem with your edits, and I am not sure why. Regardless, I was just wondering why you preferred "Gupta Empire Ruler" since I believe that it would be more appropriate to title them as Gupta Emperors. I didn't want to make the changes back without checking with you first. Let me know what you think.

Regards,

Devanampriya

If this happens again I will complain to the admin for vandalism. If you have answers please comment in talk page, otherwise better you stay away from what u do not understand. Thanks--Bodhidhamma 13:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my POV-Status when you reverted the article. This could be technical error or purposeful act. Whatever it is please do not override such changes as they mean something to others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bodhidhamma (talk • contribs) .

Answered here--nids(♂) 22:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nidhish,

I wonder do you even understand the meaning of NPOV? The NPOV has to be discussed and resolved before you change the status. Just giving vague reference doesnt mean anything, the other person has to accept it.--Bodhidhamma 17:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your references nids.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's collectively file an rfA against Bodhidhamma. His presence here is disgusting.I'm ready if you are.Hkelkar 03:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your efforts on Kancha Ilaiah. I request that you put it in your watchlist as some users are trying to form a cabal so as to vandalize it(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias_in_religion#Biased_Editing_of_biographies_i.e._Kancha_Ilaiah) .Hkelkar 20:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has to look like an actual article. See G.T. Nanavati, Rana Bhagwandas, and poverty in Pakistan. I'll help you out.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, most academics accept that various early Muslims were writing down Muhammad's utterances and that at some point, these were collected and organized. They differ on how early or late this was done, and how much variation existed in the corpus of texts. Gerd Puin's work on the Sana'a manuscripts might answer many of these questions, if he EVER publishes.

As for Muslims -- the ordinary Muslim seems to me to believe that the Qur'an has existed since the beginning of the universe, that it was revealed in bits and pieces to Muhammad, IMMEDIATELY written down, and that the only textual variations that ever existed were due to different dialects of Arabic.

Muslim scholars tend to have a more reflective or even naturalistic view of these things. I think the majority view is that the Qur'an was mostly transmitted by memorization during Muhammad's lifetime and immediately afterwards, that some people were writing some of it down, and that there were some minor variations in the words that people remembered. There are a few accounts saying that the Qur'an was collected in Abu Bakr's lifetime, but most scholars say that it was Uthman who arranged for the collection and organization of the various texts now called the Qur'an. Some of the early Muslims did not like his collection and preserved their own Qur'ans where there was slightly different wording or sura order. No one says that these differences were major. However, even the hint of minor differences would be disturbing to most ordinary Muslims.

Liberal Muslims tend to see the Qur'an as more of a historical document, with rules that apply only to seventh century Arabia, as a revelation created in time and for one time, and not as an eternal divine presence.

Myself, I'd say that Muhammad saw some truths, that they were filtered through his limited knowledge and his own passions and prejudices, and that his words were collected (early) by men who made some strange decisions in the collection (in order of size rather than chronological, repetition, errors and confusions enshrined in the text). I can respect the truths and reject the rest as a human creation. I think it's a subtle betrayal of Muhammad's early vision (the experience of God as beyond any human representation and manipulation) to regard a human creation (the Qur'an) and a human being (Muhammad) as divine. That is trying to turn the infinite into something you can hold in your hand and understand completely. Zora 07:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Educated Muslims believe the second opinion you cited: revelations came piecemeal throughout Muhammad's life. Some uneducated Muslims may believe the first. But it would take some research to be sure. Zora 10:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That cite from the Qur'an doesn't say that the whole of the Qur'an was revealed in the month of Ramadan. Muslims (educated Muslims) read that passage as referring to the first sura Muhammad said that he received, a portion only of the 96th sura. Three or five verses, accounts vary. However, it is certainly possible that uneducated Muslims (illiterate villagers, say) would believe that the whole thing was "revealed" in one month. That's the sort of thing that doesn't make it into books about Islam. I'd have to read up on anthropology or travel accounts to see just what the ordinary person believed/believes in various areas.

I'm sure that you'd see these differences in any religion. A Brahmin with a couple of college degrees is going to have a different view of Hinduism than an illiterate Sudra villager from Tamil Nadu. Zora 22:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Came across this convo by accident, but let me sum it up quickly and the relation to ramadan. The first verse was revealed during the month of Ramadan the rest came over the next 23 years of his life. The prophet was reported to run through the whole quran every ramadan. The last ramadan of his life he is reported as having gone over it twice. The Qu'ran is generally beleived to have been compiled in Uthmans time. 4 major other compilations are usually noted, and differences ascribed to verbal dialectical renditions (seven are mentioned in traditions but what that means no one is sure about any more) and non comprehensivity of those collections. As an aside Uthman's reign dates to about 12 years after the death of Muhammad, so it was comparitively quickly after. Reports exist of it being primarily based off a ordered compilation kept with his wife Hafsa. The motivation for the compilation also involved a search for other memorized and written scraps and is traditionally associated with the realization that most of the hafiz were dying raising the possibile spectre of a loss of the Qu'ran by the deaths of those who had it memorized. There is tradition to read the quran in ramadan because of this being a special month. The tarawih prayers usually also incorporate the element of reciting the whole quran during the course of the month, and in some cases each night.--Tigeroo 00:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a break from the bullshit going on.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Muhammad bin-Qasim and Cheema are full of biased and nonsensical anti-Hindu POV put there primarily by User:Street Scholar. if you see his racist posts in the talk pages it is clear that he is an Islamist bigot and many of the claims made are mis-citations.Plz look at it in more detail and carefully check all "references" as many of them are false.Hkelkar 09:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AL-BAQARA (THE COW)2:65-66 says [And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."] but if you remember the story how isreali's went from Egypt to the promised land and when moses went to Sinia to get the ten commandments torah and when he came down and saw some of the isreali's dancing and singing and broke the Sabbath and when sacrificing a animal, moses burnt the golden calfand said to fear god,they laughed and moses( or god) said this words ( Be ye apes, despised and hated! )with the help of god divided the believers and non believers and the wrath of god the non believers were destroyed! and the next verse says "let this be an example for the future generations". THIS WAS SAID TO ISREALIS AT THAT TIME AND NOT TO THE JEWISH PEOPLE OF NOW.

AL-ARAF (THE HEIGHTS)7:166 "So when they took pride in that which they had been forbidden, We said unto them: Be ye apes despised and loathed!" this is a broader translation of the above verse.

Hope i am correct in translating the verses. Allah knows best' Aameen.

Mujeerkhan 3:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is this on nids talk page?Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Gobind Signh (I think) was assassinated on his way to meet Shivaji by middle age Mughal terrorists.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After Aurangzeb 's death Guru Gobind Singh had gone to Nanded to meet Bahadur Shah I, Aurangzeb's successor, in order to negotiate. He was with the Mughal camp in Nanded and he was stabbed in the chest by two muslim assasins. Initially he recovered but a few weeks later while trying out a bow his wound reopened and he died. It is not clear who ordered the assasination. The medical help and surviving a few weeks makes it seem that he had friends in the Mughal camp.But it is strange why how he dies is not mentioned on the wiki articleHaphar 08:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bodhidhamma is back, this time with a new username User:PakkaPunekar (he had it changed) and is edit-warring on History of Hinduism again.Hkelkar 01:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marx is regarded highly but Marxist in the Indian contest = pro trade union, anti U.S and capitalism ( yes they still use that word), anti economic reform, pro state control and pro state control over everything. All of these have a pretty negative connotation in my book. Though the left and the Marxist oppose right wing thoughts and philosphy, all opponents of right wing thoughts and philosophy are not left wing because of this commonality. Haphar 10:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware Romila has not written about communism,Karl Marx, Soviet Union, China, communist West Bengal and Kerala or written about socialism/trade unionism or communist state control. Do let me know if you have any information that is contrary to this. She has been in J.N.U. Which for the BJP= Marxist. The tag Marxist is given to her because she is "secular" ( called psuedo secular by the B.J.P) in her outlook. Also her views on history are mainstream and not "nationalistic". Her views tend to coincide with the larger academicians view of history and are dismissive of the "indigenous" claims of the right wing. Which is where the conflict originates from. She has been nominated to several projects/posts by the Congress when it was in power and that is a further point of issue with the BJP. As the BJP has found her secularism and anti communal stance as more "Congress" than BJP in approach, it has been opposed to her. Her works in the academic circles are highly respected and she is seen as an knowledgable authority. The right wing view does not have anyone with strong academic credentials in history supporting their point of view, hence it has been trying to discredit the "academic" historians ( vs journalistic historians such as Arun Shourie) opposed to their point of view. Haphar 14:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done both ICSE and CBSE, I did not notice a Marxist slant in the CBSE books. An anti Brit colonialsim slatn, yes ( to be expected) but there is no denouncement of capitalism or singing praise of communism. I found them balanced. Neither Shourie nor Naipaul have history as there graduation/masters subject nor is history a means of their livelihood. They may have opinions but as journalists/authors and not academic historians. As in science I would go for the scientist rather than a journalist/author covering science. Same for history.Naipaul is also an author who first pilloried India after his first visit to India. The change of heart happened when his readership in India grew to a significant majority of his book sales. Haphar 07:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The constitution is not an Historian's output. People who write the Civic books do not insert "socailist" in text books, it is there because it was "inserted" in the Indian Constitution, and not inserted by historians but by politicians. To better understand this "Marxist Historian" can you tell me what is a "Marxist historians" definition of history is? If a historian's POV is opposed to a right winger's POV it does not automatically make him/her a marxist. Haphar 14:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was in school a looong time ago- in the 80's. Do not recall "tryst with destiny". Not sure it was in the syllabus then.Overall Socialsim was a hallmark of the first 40 years of our existence. It is only from the 90's we are trying to get out of it and still have not. Only point is I do not think that the historians tagged as "Marxist" ( this was very much BJP speak)have any "leftist" leaning as much as they are opposed to the right wing. Haphar 15:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know if the chapter is "Modern World History" It would figure the "World" personalities and not Indian's, and why only Marx and Lenin ? Hitler and WW2 get a huge mention, as does Mussolini, does this make the authors Fascists too ? Where the section is on 19th and 20th Century India, India does have huge write ups ( at least when I was in school) on Raja Rammohan roy, Sir Syed Ahmed, Vivekananda, Subhash Bose, Lal, Bal and Pal etc etc. Some of which are smaler international figures than Marx or Lenin but they get more coverege ( as they should since this is India after all). I did not see the Indian history or nationalism being ignored. Yes temple demolition or killings of Hindu's is not a prominent factor, but conversions, temple destruction are mentioned as is jaziya and Aurangzeb's cruelty to non muslim's. So if the right wing wants killings and forced conversion mentioned prominently and the historian does not find "reliable sources" to quote to put in a book the historian becomes left wing ? Much as I repsect Arun Shourie for his editorial brilliance and his taking on the establishment when the media was under state control. And his great stint as a disinvestment minister. He remains a journalist first and his books are "selective" in showing evidence of his point of view rather than a balanced view. Haphar 08:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this right. An 80% majority of a population feels that there is propoganda against it ? You know the Protocol of the elders was applies to Jews in Europe where they were the minority and Christians the majority ? If a paralell has to be drawn it is in the fact that the Sangh claims that the minorities are the cause of all of India's ill's. The issues of temples being destroyed in the past is very much like reminding Christians that Christ died due to the Jews.School History books also do not mention that Pusyamitra Sungakilled Budhists and forced people to convert back to Hinduism. do not find the Sangh highlighting that. ( And if Buddhists are Hindus then why convert them back ?). Hinduism has been a very accomodating and inclusive religion for most of it's history, the Jains, now attempts to claim Buddhists and Sikhs also as Hindus is there. However those that call temselves "Buddhist" or "Sikh" do see themselves as a different religion. Some Hindu's may beleive in the Buddha or pray in a Gurudwara, but Buddhist and Sikh's see themselves as seperate. School history does mention the attack on Somnath temple. School history is history in bullet points, cover all of history in a couple of slim books a year. It does not dwell on buildings being razed. And speaking positive of Marx is as per you in this whole debate not wrong as he was a great thinker. That leaves Stalin, that would be more a matter of "politics" U.S.S.R being a close ally of India than any marxist bend of mind. Plus all the Indians mentioned above have a very positive write up too. The right wing wants to raise emotions based on religion and historians not supporting them causes them to attack the historians in an attempt to discredit them. If it was fact based then the sangh would not have needed a "Journalist" to write it's version of history, but there would have been enough real historians to support them. Haphar 09:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would trust wikipedia a lot more than Koenrad. It's a lot less controversial than Mr Elst.UCC is not propoganda. It's a demand, and the demand is loudest by the right wing. I disgree with what the Govt did in the Shah Bano case. What impacts my and the country's life more than the lack of a UCC is the lack of equality to women in Islam and the fact that most muslims live in ghetto's and are not getting a modern education. The fault is not the Sangh's and more of the community itself. But bashing them is not going to change this status. On your specific Q on my take on UCC being called Hindutva propoganda. Lack of UCC being the factor causing problems in the country is more of the propoganda. I find the Muslim Personal Law less just and extremely loaded against women and would like that to change. More than UCC one should look to make the law ensure equality to women irrespective of religion. Haphar 10:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

discussion continuing herenids(♂) 11:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Education would help in getting muslims to be more mainstream and less marginalised. Mainstream would get them out of ghetto's and seige mentality and more open to reform in law. I frankly do not agree with the term Psuedo Secularism at all. What is " Psuedo" about it ? The haj subsidy and seperate laws do not give too many concessions( more wives is more of a liability in today's world) and they are not at the cost of other religions. For instance there are no job reservations or educational reservations for minorities. Equality for all religions is the basis for the current constitution. And moving to UCC would not change this aspect of the constitution. The "secularism" the Sangh professes seems more to be in lines of "toe our line and be grateful we let you exist". I would say that the current secularism is less Psuedo than the Sangh's version.Haphar 11:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how does someone else marrying 4 times impact 99.99% of the population ? for .01% that might want a second third or a fourth marriage this is too much of effort. The fact is the Khap Panchayat's still hold up marraiges within Gotra's in Haryana and Western U.P, despite the law permitting , so there are bigger issues and concerns to battle rather than letting Muslims marry 4 times. It Does not reduce legal rights, right to freedom, right to jobs, right to education,right to property or citizenship of anyone from any other religion. If anything it reduces rights of Muslim women. I would call it Psuedo secularism if these rights are impacted by any law. And right to marry a second time is not the kind of legal/freedom that is being referred to here. Under the guise of "true secularism" many want to reduce minority rights. You might not want that but most users of the term Psuedo Secularism do.Incidentally Dharmendra did not convert. It was dirt spread when he stood for elections. Legaly he can be tried for the second marriage only if his first wife files a case. Which she chose not to. Haphar 14:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

discussion ended here--nids(♂) 18:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello !! did einstein really read bhagwat geeta ... can u plz send me the source ?

thx shravanshukla@gmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shravanshukla (talk • contribs) .

i dont know whether he actually read the bhagwadgita or not. i copied this quote from here--nids(♂) 06:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He did read the BG. It's mentioned in several of his biographies.Hkelkar 23:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hindus may claim Buddhists, but would Buddhists return the favor? Sometimes I've joked about being a "Protestant Hindu" but ... Buddhism diverged from the beliefs that eventually became what is known today as "Hinduism" more than 2000 years ago. There's certainly a deep genetic connection -- but this may be adequately explained by saying that Hinduism and Buddhism are both dharmic religions. In the same way, chimpanzees and humans are both primates, and they have many points of similarity but ... they aren't the same species.

It's more than just rejecting the Vedas, the gods, the caste system, and the treatment of women ... it's that Buddhism is an "anatman" doctrine and so far as I know, all Hindu sects believe in the "atman." Enormous difference. Zora 08:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Neo-Buddhists who attack Hindus becasue of the "Vedas, gods caste and the treatment of women" (most real Buddhists outside India don;t care about Hinduism one way or another) don't seem to extend the same courtesy to Muslims and the Koran, Allah, the Muslims Castes and their (far far faaaar worse) treatment of women (Despite the fact that their founder Ambedkar did do those things).Hkelkar 23:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over there, I was talking about the Muslim Castes as detailed in Islamic Fatwas:

See User talk:Street Scholar for the other side of the little debate.Hkelkar 17:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be adding anything to the RSS article from the recent stuff in the Talk Page? The wolves will gather there again, though.Hkelkar 23:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source from Koenraad Elst which claims that when the first wave of migrations left the Indian subcontinent (ie. split from Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Anatolian) the ones that had moved to Central Asia (such as the Sakas) had discovered the horse and sent this knowledge back to other parts of the world including their original homeland, the Indian subcontinent. I have this sourced as well so I will add it. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 00:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pl. check discussion Hinduism.Swadhyayee 16:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hinduism Project editors,

There is a controversy on the Hinduism regarding Raja Yoga. Please read the debate on the Hinduism discussion page. Your comments are requested on the Hinduism discussion page to help resolve the controversy. Thank you. HeBhagawan 15:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that and i have already commented on Hinduism talk page.nids(♂) 15:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to vote in that case. If yes, please vote here. Thanks. --Apandey 18:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a pawn reaches its eighth rank, it can be promoted to a queen, rook, bishop, or knight. See Rules of chess, promotion (chess), and underpromotion. Bubba73 (talk), 18:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of anon ips vandalizing it. Could you look into it please? I would but I'm juggling two mediation disputes and am swamped.Hkelkar 00:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment posted on Hkelkar's talk page) It does seem like the article needs a full re-write. It's not written in a very encyclopedic tone, and it still appears to not be written in a NPOV. I am considering a total re-write of the article, using various sources from the internet. I would personally request page protection, but I must abstain since I am one of the involved parties in editing the article. I also don't know whether the edits made by other users are considered vandalism or edit wars, which makes a big difference in this case. If it is indeed vandalism, then we can request page protection, but if it's edit wars, we cannot and we must try to resolve the issue. I have one major suggestion to the article that I really think would possibly downgrade all the "glorification vandalism" that has been going on lately. A "Legacy" section of the page which would indicate the views Sikhs have of Bhindranwale could possibly satisfy other editors who are only editing the article for the purpose of stating the Sikh POV of this man. Nishkid64 23:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope you are aware that Swadhyayee has taken the Hinduism page to medation [6]. In one of the comments on that page [7], he has alleged all of us (all eight people who voted against him on Raja Yoga Controversy) of sock puppetry in the form of possible friendship etc. to support each other for voting and so on. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Please express your views (if you desire so) on that page. Thanks. --Apandey 19:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are u at dce , which branch are u in? I am asking because the 3rd flr civil view got me intrested , nice pic . thanx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.176.27.85 (talk • contribs) .

Yeah.I m in EC.nids(♂) 19:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use the rollback button on your popups on content disagreements, as you did here [8] and [9]; as far as possible use it only for vandalism. A more civil atmosphere on WP is maintained by ensuring controversial pages have changes made with neutral edit summaries. Thanks! Hornplease 21:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. So you were researching through my contribs to find somewhat controversial reverts. For your information, i almost always use the revert button in case of clear vandalism. For others information, the revert to atheism in Hinduism page was done almost about 60 edits back. Anyways, good job.nids(♂) 21:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt have to search. Pretty much everything I first saw was the rollback button. I just picked one from today and one from when I scrolled to the bottom of the page. Thanks for clearing that up. Its just that I get reminded about it a lot, (check my talk page) because its easy to use it, but it pisses a lot of people off. Hornplease 22:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, You have great success ratio then. And by the way, the default setting for the contribs page is always limited to last 50 reverts. So you couldnt have just picked up one from scrolling down to the bottom of the page.nids(♂) 22:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating nonsense over and over again from seculars user who seems to think a super-majority to keep w/out conditions is irrelevant for the adding of a cat, and wants to try and remove all people from the Category:Hindu politicians cat.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all people. Just those who violate wp policy. Dont mis-state my aims, it's incivil. Hornplease 08:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He put up anti-Hindu for AfD. Please speak up.Hkelkar 00:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TerryJ-Ho (the one who put Anti-Hindu for AfD) is trying to put Hinduism in Azerbaijan up for deletion [10]. Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi nids. I'm expanding the anti-Hindu article even more and I would like to add some pictures like in the anti-Semitism article. I seem to remember an NDTV news broadcast in India during the Kargil war showing graffiti in Lahore ethched in Urdu that went "Kill the Hindu Kaffir, it's cheaper that way", or something like that. I'm looking for a pic of this so that I may add it to the anti-Hindu article and would appreciate a second pair of eyes to also look for it (online or offline). If you can spare the time then I would appreiate the help. Regards.

Hkelkar 00:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some info in Elst's scenario which details Elst's opinion on the horse in the OIT. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 07:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Diwai

This is just Seadog.M.S wishing you a very happy Diwali. Have a great day.

Happy Diwali from BostonMA ^talk 12:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And another Diwali greeting. Celebrate the victory of good over evil! Gizza^{Chat ©} 23:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you All The Best on the ocasion of the Indian festival of light, Diwali. I am sure that the light of hope, confidence, and all positive attributes shall always remain inside you – lighting your path and guiding you to attain higher and higher levels of excellence in all your endevours! All the best! --Bhadani 16:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at User talk:Hkelkar, User talk:TwoHorned, User talk:TerryJ-Ho, and User talk:BhaiSaab you will find that the latter three users are in collusion to get Hkelkar blcked to further their fantasies of sockpuppetry and to get Hindu users out of the way.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also your input would be aoppreciated on whether lists or cats should be used for caste lists on the Indian Noticeboard. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated a few users who I feel are deserving of the award.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sat siri akhal................i recently read a book on guru gobind jis life. In a chapter about guru jis last 80 days on this earth it tells you that guru ji was stabbed in the chest by two men in disguise as good men. it goes on that guru ji did recover fully and all these stories about the wound reopening are not true infact 40 days before guru ji left this earth he had fully recoverd . when it was time for guru ji 2 departure 4rm this earth he knew his time was here and said there wouls be no living guru after himself and all sikhs should follow the guru granth sahib ji he was in full mind and did not die from his wounds . if anyone knws diffrent please do let us knw.......... sat siri akhal.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.143.45.24 (talk • contribs) .

You are invited to add evidence on that page to combat falsehoods raised by users with malicious intentions toward Hkelkar.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is now closed and the results have been posted above.

• BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for one year.
• Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing under any name or anonymous ip is banned from Wikipedia for one year.
• TerryJ-Ho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a year for personal attacks, disruptive comments, edit-warring and incivility.
• BhaiSaab is placed on probation for an indefinite period. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
• Hkelkar and socks is placed on probation for an indefinite period. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
• TerryJ-Ho is placed on probation for an indefinite period. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration committee, Cowman109^Talk 06:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a vandal target. Users have been vandalizing it daily.Bakaman 00:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added to my watchlist.nids(♂) 10:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dab has created a page on the completely non-notable Indigenous Aryan Theory which (is meant to) represent the latter half of the Out of India theory. He has then proposed to split the Out of India theory page to two pages, IAT and OIT. I disagree because Indigenous Aryan theory is susceptible to deletion any time as it is completely non-notable and the OIT page is capable on its own to represent both halves of itself. Splitting information across two articles won't help their quality in this case. I have responded to Dab at Talk:Out of India theory, please express your views. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 03:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need ur help to learn edit on wikipedia. do u hv gmail id if, mine is rajroshan at gmail dot com. add it on gmail talk.

why there is no mention of terrorists attacks on jews. even on other articles like jews in India, it mentions about persecution of jews and hindus in India by Islamic organisations like Lashkar-e-Toiba, who claim hindus and jews to be enemies of islam.

i m looking for any criticism on this proposal and it must mention about terrorism in Indian subcontinent too. nids 10:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You could probably write a number of very good articles on oppression aimed at Jews.

Unfortunately, most of your allies will either be Zionists (who are provably a lot nastier and more dangerous than anything we've seen since 1945) or anti-Zionists (who are appalled that the Holocaust is used as justification for the crimes of Israel).

I'm not sure how you'll get round that one - you could start by expressing your outrage at Zionists who, whatever crimes are alleged against Israel, immediately blame the Jews. They fail to recognise that the Jews have suffered quite enough from false allegations in the last 2000 years. PalestineRemembered 23:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]