Content Dispute- the substance[edit]

User:TrangaBellam reverted the article to an old version of 2nd August [1], and made some minor modifications. I'm making a list of my objections toward's TB's proposed version [2].

  • The removal of large number of undisputed and constructive edits, because some of TB's favored content got edited out in the last month. For example, I added archival links to many references. I also made many minor changes too numerous to list. TB should change the content they disagree with, and not mass revert to an old version which is not constructive.
  • Dividing history section into a Nehru and Modi sections. I don't like this division, neither does anyone else, other than TB, as far as I can tell. I find it odd.
  • This sentence in lead: "In 2023, the sceptre was moved to the newly-constructed Parliament House by the incumbent Hindu nationalist government of Narendra Modi, who propagated an ahistorical narrative by claiming the Sengol as a symbol of the transfer of power from the British regime unto Indians." It was edited here [3], to match sources (the word anhistoric was not used in the sources), and then removed in [4]. Neither were by me, but I agree with its removal, since while Modi govt's claims were bogus, I don't think it is needed in the lead. It does feel to me as edging towards POV pushing.
  • "coverage was scarce except for a paragraph in Time and a polemical tract by C. N. Annadurai where he warned of the socio-political implications of Nehru's acceptance, arguing that among the motive of the priests was to convince the public, years thence, that they had inaugurated the new government". This clause was removed not by me but I think it is not well written and is way too long. I don't think it belongs in the history section, but I would propose moving a nicer wording of this content to the "Response" section in current version. It is also unverified that there was no other coverage.
  • The issue whether the Sengol was erroneously labelled, as "Golden Walking Stick" or "Golden Stick". TB wants to omit the "or "Golden Stick". I am not persuaded by their reasoning, since both version's have sources backing it up.
  • Adding link to the Govt of India's website on the Sengol. TB correctly says the govt's version is unreliable. However, I still think it is a reliable primary source on what the govt's version is. I also think it is useful for readers to know such a website exists.
  • "All of these details are inaccurate. There is no evidence to suggest that either Mountbatten or Rajagopalachari was involved in the process". I don't have much dispute with this except, on pure stylistic grounds I prefer my version: "These claims are inaccurate. There was no evidence found to suggest that either Mountbatten or Rajagopalachari was involved in the process". See[5]. I don't like current version: "These claims are widely considered inaccurate".
  • TB's version includes this in the History section (which got removed in early August): "Upon criticism by Indian National Congress for lacking in facts, the ruling party marshalled a collection of sources — from monographs by Perry Anderson to blogs — as evidence in support of the narrative; however, they did not support any of the claims either." I don't think it adds anything much of substance to the article, since the article states the govt version is false. But either way it needs to be rewritten in clearer style at the very least.
  • Electoral politics section. TB moved and re-wrote the electoral politics section. Removed one sentence in my preferred version: "The party is aiming to gain electoral significance in south India through its 'Look South' campaign". I can live with it removed, but don't understand why.

These are I beleive the main content disputes. My main objection is the mass reversal of constructive edits. I found that very disturbing. Jagmanst (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is issue is posted in DRN: [6] Jagmanst (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replies, point-wise:
  • I have nil objection to whatever archive-links you added etc.
  • neither does anyone else - Please link the consensus in favor of such a view; thanks. Else, the longstanding division stays for now but you might choose to seek a new consensus at a RfC.
  • but I agree with its removal, since while Modi govt's claims were bogus, I don't think it is needed in the lead. - Countless news sources (about a dozen) focus on how these claims are bunkum, being entirely manufactured by the incumbent Government. Lead is a microcosm of the body and it needs to have it. If you disagree, your version stays for now but I will take to RfC.
  • I think it is not well written - Then, write it properly than removing it outright.
  • It is also unverified that there was no other coverage. - We are not writing a legal draft and have editorial discretion to an extent. Manu Pillai notes, The very obscurity of this sengol and the absence of adequate contemporary evidence suggests it was not a key episode in 1947, but an incident on the margins.
  • I am not persuaded by their reasoning, since both version's have sources backing it up. - The last time, we discussed it, we had a consensus. You might not like it but the onus is on you to override an explicit consensus by arriving at a new consensus via RfC or otherwise.
  • Adding link to the Govt of India's website on the Sengol. - Which part of External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article in WP:EL is unclear to you?
  • I agree with you.
  • it needs to be rewritten in clearer style at the very least - Sure, go ahead.
  • Removed one sentence in my preferred version. - We ought not engage in synthesis by citing sources that pre-date the Sengol episode. But if you insist, I won't object.
TrangaBellam (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the overall, I guess we have three locus for RfC (#2, #3, #5), at most. I will wait for your reply. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response
  • There are only a handful of content matter you disagree with, so I do not understand the need to undo 60+ other edits. This is my main disagreement.
  • Can't you could just manually make 3 or 4 changes you want to the latest version? And then we can proceed to RFC on the remaining few points of disagreement?
On specific points:
  • I mentioned undisputed edits that were reverted, such as archival links. These take a lot of time, and I put it in so the content can be verified precisely, which I do care about. These 60+ edits include other issues. For e.g:
  • References not matching content, for e.g. NYT reference didn't mention prayers were chanted during installation of the Sengol. I had to find another source for that.
  • There was nothing in the article about the heads of the Adheenam at the installation.
  • Explanation of what an Adheenam is.
  • The article made I believe zero explicit mention of the Tamil origin of the sengol, which is an important aspect.
  • I removed a source because it contained the debunked govt version as fact.
  • Nehru vs Modi division: I am not seeing any consensus, explicit or otherwise, for that. 1) It got removed. 2) No one put it back in, other than you. 3) I disagree with it. I see no talk page discussion.
  • Inaccuracy of the govt narrative in the lead. Would Britannica use it in a lead? I think the main point is it is an object with religious significance now put in parliament- the somewhat farcical govt narrative, I think anyway, is a side issue. If you must, please make it short, e.g. "installed by Prime Minster Modi, after propogating a false narrative".
  • Govt website: ok I agree to put it as a footnote reference.
  • No coverage in 1947: I like the language to be precise. The accurate point is that that it was obscure for most of history after 1947. The media coverage for a few days in 1947 isn't very important (but it may have been significant at the time- it made it to the Time magazine, and we can't rule out additional domestic coverage).
  • Walking stick issue. I don't think a discussion by two editors is some sort of consensus, unless wikipedia has weird definitions for things. The discussion wasn't particularly conclusive either. There remains at least one editor (me) who isn't part of that consensus. Feel free to put it as you wish. I will consider RfC.
  • Re-writing complex language: editors need confidence these kinds of edits won't be mass reverted, due to unrelated reasons.
Summary Points for RfC
1. If you still wish to to undo the 60+ edits, which you don't object to: on whether it is justified to revert them.
2 Nehru vs Modi structure
3 Walking stick issue
4 Need to mention govt false narrative in the lead.
Though honestly, I mainly only care about 1 and to lesser extent 2. Jagmanst (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to give up on #2, #1 being never a concern of mine. So, if you have no objections to this version (copyedits are welcome but w/o removal of any text), we can start a RfC on #3 and #4. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a discussion by two editors is some sort of consensus, unless wikipedia has weird definitions for things. The discussion wasn't particularly conclusive either. There remains at least one editor (me) who isn't part of that consensus. - Yeah, t/p discussions are scarcely attended. Three in support are enough.
Would Britannica use it in a lead? - We do not seek to emulate Britannica. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response 2.
  • I am proposing another merged version. This one keeps all the minor edits, that you say you don't object to, plus all the content you added to your proposed version.
  • I removed the "walking stick" clause.
  • "The event had negligible impact on public discourse at the time" avoids the issue of whether it received significant media coverage at the time. The impact on public discourse was small, regardless of the Time article and other coverage.
  • I slightly re-wrote your two paragraphs- just for clarity purposes: The BJP marshalling evidence with blogs/academic sources, the CN Annadurai discussion.
  • I kept the electoral context section separate from 'reception'. I'm not sure it is reception. I don't have strong opinions, but prefer it this way. If you strongly feel it should go into reception, then ok.
Some content issues:
  • Amit Shah asked TN voters to vote for NDA MPs, i.e. BJP coalition MPs- to be very accurate.
  • I think Swaminathan Gurumurthy should be referred to as a Hindu nationalist, not an idealogue, because idealogue seems to be an opinionated term.
  • This will leave the two issues for CfR.
Thanks
Jagmanst (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've eddited the BJP marshalling evidence paragraph: the Scroll article mentions only the transfer of power claim, so I've re-written to emphasise just that claim. The source does mention twitter criticism by General Secretary in-charge of Communications of Congress party. It is not 100% clear whether this is his personal criticism or can be taken as view of the party. Either way, from the article, BJP received criticism from multiple sources, and hence it is more accurate to say "in response to criticism", rather than specify just Congress party's criticism as motivating the BJP's marshalled evidence. Jagmanst (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again have to Agree with Jagmanst (talk) who has made reasonable explanations with WP:RS sources. Respectfully no Disagree again with experienced editor TrangaBellam (talk) who is often undoing large WP:RS content of other editors without strong reasons, engagaing in WP:OWN. With all due respect to TB contributions, please note WP:OWN applyies here

WP: OWN:No one "owns" content (including articles or any page at Wikipedia). If you create or edit an article, other editors can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page.

No editor can claim their version only as the last good version as it violate WP:OWN, WP:TALK policies. We must resolve calmly on TALK page before large reverts. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, most of your changes were for the worse:
>>"coverage was scarce except for a paragraph in Time"
Okay. Replaced with "contemporary news-clips recorded the gift of the Sengol as a courtesy" sourced from Wire.
>>"As the Independence of India drew near"
"Just before" - no. These ceremonies have been happening for awhile. Will you be happy with a rough month/year?
>>"Sometime soon"
Some kind of chronological reference is required. The reference has, ... as they arrived at the museum from about 1948 to 1952.
>>as a 'Golden Walking Stick"
The source states, pretty clearly, "There was no mention of “walking stick” as the BJP has been claiming."
>>"accompanied by Hindu priests [..] and prayers"
Pretty weird way to write in such a way. But, no hard opinions
>>"on 5th May 2021"
Why is this date important?
>>"it"
"narrative" repeats in quick succession.
>>"Jawaharlal Nehru was asked by Lord Mountbatten about a symbol to mark transfer of power. Nehru discussed the issue with his fellow Congress leader Rajagopalachari."
Two too-short sentences. Disrupts flow.
>> "summary"
We are not providing a summary; almost, the entire narrative.
>>"ranging from monographs by academic historians to anonymous blogs"
This was meant to highlight the sheer absurditity of an evidence-dossier; this is not editorializing and indeed, the cited sources emphasise on the bizarre nature of the evidence.
>>"as evidence for their claim that the Sengol was used to represent the transfer of power from the British to Indians."
Why do we need to add such a long qualifier to the nature of the claim? This line is preceded by No evidence suggests [...] and so, to a reader, the dispute is pretty clear. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response 3
  • You had actually agreed to my copyedits, including the specific ones you undid/re-wrote [7]. But current version is ok- I prefer a bit conciser style, but its not important.
  • I had thought your preferred version was "walking stick", which is why I edited it that way. Either way it is RfC question. So ok. However, you may want to put the wire source for the "golden stick". The current reference you put is the one for the "walking stick" label.
  • I don't understand this clause: "contemporary news-clips recorded the gift of the Sengol as a courtesy". I would just remove it.
  • The date of the thuglak magazine article just helps someone who wishes to track it down (I would like it if it could be cited). But ok, leave it out.
  • The scroll source strictly is only about the claim that the sengol marked the transfer of power- it doesn't address explicitly address all the other claims. But I am ok with current version.
  • The govt website, should not be an external link since it has credibility problems. It can be a primary source for the govt's claim. We can add it to the rfc.
So RfC:
1. Explain govt had put forward a false narrative in lead.
2. Walking stick vs golden stick
3. To use govt website as primary source for govt narrative
Jagmanst (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a couple of edits- to clarify Nehru received the sengol in a private religious ceremony, and that the govt narrative was false. Jagmanst (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    >>But current version is ok- I prefer a bit conciser style, but its not important.
    Okay.
    >>I would like it if it could be cited
    I agree that it would be a good resource. Why not add as an external link?
    >>I don't understand this clause
    I will reframe it.
    >>The govt website, should not be an external link since it has credibility problems. It can be a primary source for the govt's claim.
    I think the precise opposite! But surely, this s no matter for RfC - ping a few project-regulars. Meh.
    1. 1 and #2 goes to RfC.
    TrangaBellam (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article is.... Weird?[edit]

The article is titled "Sengol", which is the word for a staff that symbolised the power of kings during the Chola Dynasty. Our article, on the other hand, talks only about the relatively new Sengol in parliament. Shouldnt there be more info included about the historical aspect of Sengol? I doubt the current one will have the same long term significance. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldnt there be more info included about the historical aspect of Sengol? - Yes; if you do find something, please add it. There is a woolly-headed attempt in such a direction but the last time I took a look, nothing was salvagable except for Vink (2015). TrangaBellam (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CapnJackSp Yes as TB points out I am working on historical Indian sceptre (Other than the Sengol installed in Parliament) - in my user-space* .
This present article has issues of too generic tile, scope, WP:recentism, likely misunderstandings* about historical, linguistic and cultural nuances and confirmation biases among both sides of the users' and topped up with underlying polarization .
  • in user space since lately my edit time is considerably reduced due to RL.
  • On likely misunderstandings I would like to write a note in separate sub-section.
Bookku (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is about the specific sceptre installed in parliament, which is significant now because it is given a central importance in the parliament. There is a good chance it is likely to remain a significant object for sometime, not least since BJP's political dominance doesn't look like waning anytime soon. However, I agree, there needs to be some section on the historical/cultural symbolism of the Sengol. I know Bookkuu has done some research on the history. The article title needs to be renamed sometime to clarify it is about the sceptre installed in parliament. Jagmanst (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe adding the definite article "The" will do here. In Tamil, "sengol" refers to a good sceptre or power in general. However, the English term "Sengol" particularly refers to the one installed in the Indian Parliament; others are referred to as sceptres as usual. So, I think changing the title to "The Sengol" will do. But per Wiki's naming convention, I think the term must then be italicized. Rasnaboy (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The Sengol" is a good suggestion - any optional suggestions may help better comparison for users.
BTW in my under construction draft Indian sceptre one can notice enough number of (English) (art and literature) academic sources referring to previous Sengols.
Actually Tamil sceptre செங்கோல் has multiple transliterations in English. S is substituted with C or Ch and K is substituted with G. So Sengol is also spelt as Senkol, Cenkol, Cengol also check for Ch. ; Talaikkol is (Chola time word).
Unfortunately most people do not take transliteration into account -also good number of books are behind paywall - and misunderstand that Sengol in English is mainly for the sceptre installed in Indian Parliament. IMO Wikipedia is encyclopedia and we avoid recentism and prefer academic sources over news sources where former is available. Bookku (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support The Sengol also, I doubt it will have much opposition. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no opposition. Good move. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam, Now we seem to have tentative agreement on scope of the article. So is it okay to update present "Short description:'Symbolic sceptre in Indian history' to your previous about "a gold sceptre installed in the Parliament of India" Bookku (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly it is gold-plated silver. Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "Golden" might then be an accurate adjective instead of "Gold" Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"These claims are inaccurate." Which ones? Dubious, yes! Inaccurate, don't think so[edit]

I have read the sources cited in the article. None of them call the Government's version "inaccurate". They call the claims dubious because there's thin evidence. There's a huge difference between calling something "inaccurate" vs "dubious". Also the word "these" is problematic? Are all the claims dubious?

I would reword the entry to say something on the lines of: X, Y and Z claims regarding the Sengol have been termed dubious by critics. Wrythemann (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They call the claims dubious - I ran a Ctrl+F for "dubious"; nothing came up. So, both of us are editorializing. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I concur. Can we re-word it something that's closer in meaning to the sources? Maybe use phrases such as some of the claims are supported by "thin evidence". Wrythemann (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This analysis by The Tribune is pretty good. I like the line "Sceptics say there is not enough evidence to prove that." Can we employ similar language? The current use of Wikipedia voice comes across as accusatory. Wrythemann (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The govt's claims that Mountabatton, Nehru and Rajagopalchari planned an elaborate religious ceremony involving the Sengol to mark the transfer of power is false. Facts are either true or false. I think there should be sufficient discretion to state the obvious conclusion, from the articles cited. Jagmanst (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it has to be dichotomous. The sources cited are not calling the claims false. They are stating that the evidence for the claims is scanty. I would rather state it to say something along the lines of "The government's assertion lacks substantial evidence." Wrythemann (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence for the claims is non-existent. I am not seeing any evidence, substantial or unsubstantial. Jagmanst (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is one account that says it word to word. That account is of shaky reliability, and other sources do not provide the same account (But dont contradict it either, just that the evidence, apart from one account, is lacking). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is more evidence for UFOs than the govt narrative. Jagmanst (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the same vein as UFOs actually. Wikipedia articles on UFOs don't call them fake or false. They point to lack of substantial evidence to support their existence.
All the reputable sources that have been cited talk about the "thin evidence" for the claims. No reputable source is calling the claims "false" or "inaccurate". Why should Wikipedia call the claims "inaccurate" in Wikipedia-voice? I am not a "Bhakt" but it baffles me that this needs to be explained. Captain Jack Sparrow's suggested wording captures the issue at hand accurately. Wrythemann (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of reliable sources have called it false, see for e.g.. It is on 'shaky reliability' in the way fairies are. Jagmanst (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an opinion piece by some SN Sahu? He's not a reputable source. I am fine with an addition that says "SN Sahu calls the claims false.": Wrythemann (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So? Can wikipedia say fairies are not real? Jagmanst (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fairies arent "shaky reliability", "Fairies are real" is well described as untrue.
In this case, it is described by most as dubious, lacking evidence, etc, not "false" or "hoax". Poor comparison. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO a better wording is "The account presented by the government has been controversial, and critics say it lacks substantial evidence." Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find this version acceptable. Wrythemann (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not. Jagmanst (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. I think you are not interested in this principle. Wrythemann (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite relevant policy regarding this:"Wikipedia aims to describe disputes". Jagmanst (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check out WP:NPOV - Wrythemann (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."
No reliable source defends the Govt narrative, so above does not apply.
Jagmanst (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where I recommended stating govts narrative as fact, smh. Wrythemann (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about the need to describe disputes is only applicable when reliable sources have a dispute. Jagmanst (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jagmanst and oppose the changes. Please revert, Jack Sparrow. TrangaBellam (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have reverted per request, but dont see why the wording is worse. "Evidence is thin on the governments claims" is more or less equivalent to "It lacks substantial evidence". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam Why do you oppose the changes? Wrythemann (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jagmanst, your edit summary is misleading - Trangabellum did not explain or respond regarding their apprehentions. Further, your only input to my comment pointing out that the current wording doesnt represent RS was that "There is more evidence for UFOs than the govt narrative". That is hardly a reasonable position to take, and definitely not the position taken by RS.
I would like you to justify your position here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already justified it. I don't think I need to keep repeating it:
1. "The govt's claims that Mountabatton, Nehru and Rajagopalchari planned an elaborate religious ceremony involving the Sengol to mark the transfer of power is false. Facts are either true or false. I think there should be sufficient discretion to state the obvious conclusion, from the articles cited."
2. "Plenty of reliable sources have called it false, see for e.g.. It is on 'shaky reliability' in the way fairies are. " There are more sources explicitly calling the govt narrative false including the director of the Hindu
3. "the need to describe disputes is only applicable when reliable sources have a dispute". There is no dispute among RS.
4. I would add, we are not obliged to present disinformation as significant viewpoint.
Jagmanst (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these count as a valid argument.
1) This is just your opinion, not that of RS, and not permissible under WP:NOR.
2) Those are opinion pieces, only useful for the opinion of the author.
3) Agreed, there is no dispute amongst RS, but there is a dispute between what we have written and what RS say. RS characterise as "dubious", "not enough proof", and we say "false".
4)We are obliged to present the prevalent discourse in reliable sources. Your opinion that The Wire report, The Hindu report are all disinformation is dubious at best.
Given these, I see no grounds to protest a revert. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Facts are not opinions. Your arguments are not valid. Jagmanst (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
? Reeks of WP:IDHT. You state opinions, I point that out, and your response is to say opinions arent facts? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this conversation ended several days ago. I am just repeating myself, and you are not getting the point- facts are not opinions. RS have debunked the govt's narrative, and say explicitely and implicitly it is false. Jagmanst (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then quote those RS, not opinion pieces, RS, stating as fact that the entirety of governments claim is wrong. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some contested aspects and misunderstandings[edit]

I am working on a draft article Indian sceptre in my personal user space that shall take time to be ready. That has helped me, to some extent, to understand various contested aspects and misunderstandings surrounding the Sengol scepters to some extent

Explanation
a) Chola times =/= Chola dynasty. Avoid to conflate term 'Chola times' with 'Chola dynasty'. b) Chola times is a very long duration c) Clear mentions of lot many Chola times inscription and orthography still may be under-reported / under studied, for needs of specific Indian sceptre related studies so avoid sitting on final judgement either.
As of today other than one inscription we do not come across direct reference about Sengol in relation to Chola Dynasty. One reference from Chola period comes is about talaikkol stake - broken from royal umbrella of a loosing king- which a Chola king subsequently presents to dancing girls who enact the event.
  • Then about second ref What TB says has point ".. Balasubrahmanyam (p. 261) notes that an inscription on the south wall of the mandapa in front of the central shrine of the Kailasanathar temple complex has Rajendra Chola I mentioned as the "Sengol-valavan" (lit. just king) among other epithets. Now, however gratuitiously I might read the source, it is impossible to determine the existence of any transfer-of-sengol tradition from the epithet. .."
  • Part of Chola period is contemporary to Sangam period so some people not fully aware of limitations of historical documentation and may have alternatively used wording 'Chola times', which is not necessarily equal to Chola Dynasty as pointed out above.
Explanation
Two possibilities; First, sceptres incl Sengol are used frequently as metaphor for transfer of power in literature and some one took euphemistic metaphor literally.
Second (lesser) possibility, common wealth nations lead by UK, used to have tradition of gifting ceremonial mace Example- Sri Lanka. So some discussion took may have taken placed in back doors but did not appear in main stream historiography. Some scope seem to exist for future research. Example- P. Subbarayan' possible role has not been reported by any media but seem to appear in a biography.

Bookku (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take this to your u/p? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good faith attempt to provide some relevant inputs to help avoid repeated edit wars from unaware users. With my completed update you may find I am on same page as yours to a good extent. Now I have collapsed additional discussion still you find those minor but relevant digression better be avoided I would be eager to co-operate. Bookku (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Golden stick and walking stick

Refs[edit]

Bookku (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories