This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan the Arab–Israeli conflict He should not be given alerts for those areas.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bob Stewart (politician) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of hereditary peers removed under the House of Lords Act 1999 on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kautilya3, this is Sameer. I've received your message about my edit on the article Zhaxigang Township. In the edit, I removed the spaces in the pinyin transliteration of the name of the township, from 'Zhā xī gǎng xiāng' into 'Zhāxīgǎng xiāng'. I didn't provide any sources then, because one of the basic rules of pinyin orthography is that spaces should be placed between words instead of syllables. So I am going to redo that edit. Thank you. Sameer (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️)

The argument he gives in edit request is supporting WP:SYNTH

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bhagwa_Love_Trap_conspiracy_theory#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_7_December_2023 2409:40E1:1E:A9A6:F597:10B:6DEB:386C (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it necessary to add ethnolinguistic identifiers in the lead sentences of historical biographies, as in Jasrat? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I think so. In historical biographies, ethnicity is a primary identifier, when it is known and is uncontested. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Chanakya,

Hope you are doing good. I have noticed a discordancy about a sentence in Ram Mandir article. There is a sentence in that article, It is located at the site of Ram Janmabhoomi, the hypothesized birthplace of Rama, a principal deity of Hinduism. Actually, it is surprising to see that in the article on city of Bethlehem, the world 'hypothized' is not used when mentioning about Jesus of Nazereth. Here is the copied sentence from that article, In the New Testament, the city is identified as the birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth. So, accordingly I tried to modify the sentence in this way, It is located at the site of Ram Janmabhoomi, the birthplace of Rama as per Valmiki Ramayana. Rama is a principal deity of Hinduism and considered as the seventh incarnation of Vishnu.^[1] However, an editor has reverted this edit. You helped me in improving the Turquoise throne article and can you do something to modify the sentence removing the word hypothized in Ram Mandir article while respecting the guidelines of Wikipedia? Thank you very much friend. Take care. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Hypothesized" is not correct. I have changed it to "believed". It cannot be stated as a fact unless there is scholarly consensus about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was made into hypothesized to avoid WP:CLOP of the BBC article and to avoid the weasel term believed. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Herald, I am afraid you are not making any sense. Hypothesized^{[by whom?]}. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) "By whom" applies equally to "believed"; certainly the belief is not universal, across all faiths and geographies. The difficulty here is also the specificity of belief; that Rama was born in Ayodhya is a non-controversial statement within Hindu doctrine, but of course this statement refers not only to Ayodhya, but to a specific ~2 acre plot of land. "Purported" or "supposed" is probably more precise here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In matters of religion, we almost always say "believed" and nobody finds it necessary to ask, who believes? We have records that the belief existed at least since the 17th century. We have testimonies saying that people set up a platform in the frontyard of the mosque and prayed to it.I don't see how terms like "purported" and "supposed" cover such practices. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In matters of religion, we almost always say "believed" and nobody finds it necessary to ask, who believes? - What? No, that's the central question of atleast a few hundred (even more?) texts on the sociology of religion. I agree with V93 that "supposed" is the best word. TrangaBellam (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't be silly! The fact that the sociologists study the believers and beliefs doesn't mean that we stop using "believe" in the context of religion. Our page on Hinduism has 64 occurrences of "belief" or "believe", Islam has 49, and Christianity tops it with 88 occurrences. And, "believe" is the word BBC is using, which is a perfectly common usage. You guys are gaslighting me! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the difference between Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic faiths is important. And, more to the point, numerous Hindus have rejected — and reject — that Ram was born at that very site; what maks their belief any less important? TrangaBellam (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's also a key difference in pages about a given faith, in which belief is implied to be within the framework of said faith, and pages about (ostensibly) history or geography, where the implication is much less clear. Lots of places - including Ayodhya itself - have religious significance to more than one set of people. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I know that "belief" in Abrahamic faiths is a much more stronger idea. But in Hinduism, with its variety of gods, myths, holy places etc., there are thousands and thousands of beliefs all around. The beliefs concerning Ayodhya, and this particular spot, are no different from the myriads of other places. Does everybody believe every one of them? Hell, no! But we don't go around saying "some Hindus believe", "a section of Hindus believe" etc. If you want to contest the nature of belief in Ayodhya, then please find some religous studies scholars who have studied Hinduism and see if they support your objections. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, if agree that this particular belief isn't shared by all Hindus, then I fail to see why we shouldn't say that; indeed, if you insist that we can generalize that belief to all Hindus, the burden to demonstrate that that's what the sources do is on you. The BBC, for instance, says "many Hindus" in the most recent article I can find [1]. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• As long as the meaning is conveyed and WP:CLOP is cleared, I'm good to go with supposed, purported or hypothesized. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Herald, copying sentences from somewhere and replacing words by synonyms is indeed what is called close paraphrasing (CLOP). Your supposed used of a synonym doesn't "avoid" WP:CLOP. It lands you into it! You are not making sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meitei constitution (disambiguation), Japanese–Meitei cultural relations (whaat?), National recognition of Meitei culture (???), and several other pages. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gateway to Southeast Asia, etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's also a Classicism in Meitei culture. Okay, this is very bizarre but I think we are near the nuke stage. TrangaBellam (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]