Talk:Bhagyalakshmi Temple/Archive 1

Neutrality of the article
Questions have been raised by some readers about its neutrality. Well whatever is written or posted over here are taken from credible sources. So why this brouhaha?? Is it because muslims are not shown as instigators and marauders as is always shown in other articles. This articles shows all point of views(both muslim, hindu and scholarly). One guy mentions in his feedback that why were hyderabadi muslims quite when the stone was replaced by Idol. This person doesn't have an idea that there were disturbances and communal tension even then. The following is what was said by a scholar. Academician Anand Raj Varma said communal tension over the temple had also evoked in the past after the stone was replaced with an idol of Lakshmi and a temporary shed built to give it the feel of a temple. "Even then, tension prevailed in the area. But it was way milder than what we are seeing now," Varma adds. All those who feel that the article is lopsided come up with credible sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irshaad86 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've toned down a sentence and removed the tag. This comment doesn't give any valid reason for tagging the article -- the article is definitely not "highly lopsided", neither does it give only "muslim point of view". utcursch | talk 19:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Surroundings
A editor had added the details of Charminar and lot of other details regarding the surroundings of Charminar which I had removed, suddenly User:Lowkeyvision reverts my edits calling them vandalism, its a different matter that he accused me of vandalism and did not care to inform me. Let me give the reason why I removed those content. This is the article of Bhagyalaxmi temple which is attached to Charminar so fine we can add what the surroundings are but what is the logic behind the addition of contents about who constructed the mosque or how. That information can be mentioned in the article of that mosque not here. It is absolutely WP:UNDUE --sarvajna (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It is an important part of history. It shows a period that the black & white view of the world ,that some people have of the world(where muslims were some kind of imperialists who didn't care about hindus), is not true. I consider it historical revisionism to take away significant contributions muslims made towards peace and harmony with the community they lived with or ruled over. History is not perfect but the good must be reported with the bad. You are taking away something from the basic core of the article, the construction of the temple itself, which can be perceived as WP:ACTIVIST.

"Muhammad Quli Qutb Shah, the 5th ruler of the Qutb Shahi dynasty, commissioned bricks to be made from the soil brought from Mecca, the holiest site of Islam, and used them in the construction of the central arch of the mosque, thus giving the mosque its name. It formed the centerpiece around which the city was planned by Muhammad Quli Qutub Shah." I would like to leave this part in at the minimum..

If you wish to remove this please also remove "On 16 November 2012, more violence broke out after the friday prayers at the Mecca Masjid. A large number of people proceeded towards Charminar after the prayers to offer 'salam'(salutation) at a religious symbol abutting the monument, but they were stopped by the police. The protesters started raising slogans against the police and demanded that restrictions be lifted. The protesters later pelted stones and attacked vehicles and shops. The police used teargas shells and baton charge to disperse the mobs. Seven people were injured during the violence." which is a recent even that is getting WP:UNDUE.

I will assume good faith and stake the claim of the revert based on difference of the importance of the construction itself. Origin of who, what, and where are important to any wiki article. (Lowkeyvision (talk))


 * What has that to do with this artcile? Qutb Shah did not build Bhagyalakshmi temple with soil from mecca and not even charminar but the mecca mosque, so please go to that article and make your edits, it is undue here. You are right about who, what and where but you are in the wrong article. Please find the correct article. The correct article is Mecca Masjid.You have still not explained why my edits were called vandalism. --sarvajna (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article about Mecca Masjid does not belong here. On second look, it doesnt belong on the temple website. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC))

Also the violence of the 16 Nov is very much related to this article, restrictions were placed around charminar due to the controversy arising out of the existence of this temple. Wikipedia is not meant to create some parallel history, if you want to do that find someother place --sarvajna (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You have tilted this article too much towards recent stuff and it is disproportionate to the history. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC))

Politics and Recetism
08:47, 1 February 2013‎ Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk | contribs)‎. . (11,293 bytes) (+2,660)‎. . (→‎Controversies: restoring most of the section,) (undo)

I had put in a lot of work to depoliticize this article and to remove recentism. You are adding a lot of detail that are based on recent events, irrelevant to the temple and divisive. Please look at the previous version again.(Lowkeyvision (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC))


 * First, please sign your posts second there is nothing wrong in adding recent events as long as we do not tilt the article towards those events, it is not possibel here as the recent events is about the controversies arising out of the structure. If we go according to your theory there should be no article about recent events on wikipedia. Should we have artcile about 2012 Delhi gang rape case ? --sarvajna (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying that the information should not be posted on wikipedia. If the 2012 Delhi gang rape case was posted all over the Women_in_India page and if we included recent controversial comments on the Women_in_India by politicians on rape on that page, it would be recentism and bias, similar to what this article is doing with respect to the temple. I am saying that issue of riots deserves a special stub. For example: "2012 Riots Over Construction" would be an appropriate stub for these issues that describe the riots, especially the last 2 paragraphs. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC))
 * I am sure it will be a stub whihc will be voted out in a AFD or voted for merger, you want a stub go ahead and create one, till then let this content be present on this page.--sarvajna (talk) 10:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There is some bias in the article with respects to how it describes the history of the temple. For example, it gives more weight to the older claims versus the new one("new version"). I had rewritten the history section to make it more fluid and give the two theories equal weight. Any critiques to the new history section I had written? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC))
 * No sir nothing at all, however this source was present in the article along with sentences like G. Niranjan, general secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee cites Bhagyalaxmi Temple at Charminar, Jagadamba and Mahankali temples at Golconda Fort as examples of religious tolerance even during the period of Muslim rulers. According to him (an anecdote shared by a member of the royal family), he recalled how the Nizam even disagreed with the proposed shifting of a temple at the time of the construction of the High Court building and let it stay inside the court complex which exists even today whihc you removed. I was thinking this would make a fine addition to the article''. --sarvajna (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it would make a good addition. Will revert only the history section to earlier and add the comments by G. Niranjan later today (Lowkeyvision (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC))
 * Lowkeyvision, you and your friend seems to keep reverting things, you stoped it after this discussion but what made you to revert me back when Bare Devil started reverting me. You can very well discuss on the talk page and if you feel that those contents should be present on another article create one as you feel the need. If you resort to such kind of vandalism I will be forced to seek an intervention by an admin and the result might not be very good. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Please Undo your last revert. I am giving you a chance to fix this. Otherwise you are in violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3RR#The_three-revert_rule. I am not reporting you to Wikipedia, but if you do not correct this and stop trying to vandalize this page you will be reported. If you want to describe the riots, make an appropriate stub for it. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC))

I have reverted the page since you didn't take the opportunity. If you continue to vandalize this page, you will be reported to wikipedia on multiple charges including WP: HOUND, WP: ACTIVIST and WP: 3RR. You have violated multiple wikipedia rules and have been given multiple warnings at this point.(Lowkeyvision (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC))
 * I do have the opportunity, I can cross 3RR to revert vandals like you, I ask you to revert the page on your own and do not resort to such cheap tricks. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * and also coming to the point of Hound and other things, please go ahead and report me, I have been watching this page and other pages since long time.--sarvajna (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reverted you again and yes I might have breached 3RR but such a blatant vandalism by you cannot be accepted. I have requested multiple time on this talk page that if you think that the controversies need separate page please go ahead and create it, till then do not try to censor thing on wikipedia. --sarvajna (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Once More
Once more editor Lowkeyvision has reverted me, he is the one who feels that there should be a separate article for controversies and surprisingly he states in the edit summary ''I am editing this page and not responsible for creating other pages. This information is not relevant here''.I request him to come on the talk page and discuss things, once again. Thanks--sarvajna (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutral POV and facts should only remain in a wiki article

 * I have started editing the article and find a lot of POV and unsourced data. Based on these sources from the article, and  I am only allowing relevant non POV stuff and removing any irrelevant claims. Kindly let me know if any of the editors disagree on the edits. -- D Big X ray   20:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * An IP vandalized the article with an interesting POV . I kind of agree with his conclusion, sadly I cannot put it until we have a valid source. -- D Big X ray  21:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Moved things around in the History section after reviewing the sources. There are 3 claims, Historians and Local resident kind of agree that it is a recent structure whereas Hindu community leaders believe that it is very old. Hindu leaders obviously have some agenda and they have given no evidence for their claims. Historian claims must be at top. followed by the claims from Hindu groups. The history section now looks balanced to me. -- D Big X ray  21:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The IP's characterisation of it as "bullshit" is absolutely right. In our terminology it is WP:FRINGE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for chipping in. While I am heavily inclined to remove it, but it will make the article unbalanced, since it has led to a lot of incidents in the area.SO the Hindu group theory should stay as a passing reference (legend ? ). I was wondering how the stone would have come on the middle of the road and now I guess the answer is from the Muslim Priest. Hussein said, too, that the temple stones were far more modern and he heard their original intent was to help keep cars from hitting the mosque’s walls. The smell of incense wafted through the air as he explained that in all of his years at the mosque, there have been minimal conflicts between the two groups of worshippers  -- D Big X ray   19:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Daily Mail
Hi, I have reverted your good faith edits, David, I believe this content is acceptable. WP:DAILYMAIL does not say that every content sourced to this should be culled. A better source tag is already there. Lets discuss on the talk page if you still have concern.--Walrus Ji (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The concern is that it's a deprecated source, therefore violates our sourcing policies.
 * WP:BURDEN - which is a hard policy, not just a guideline - states: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
 * You've re-added this content, but you have not met the burden of supplying a reliable source for it. Instead, you have supplied a deprecated source.
 * Please do not re-add deprecated content unless you have a reliable source for it, not a deprecated source - David Gerard (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Please stop edit warring over this. I have read it very carefully. You are reading the word "generally prohibited" as "Mandatorily prohibited. Worse you are enforcing this when the content is clearly in line with other reliable sources. Kindly self revert yourself. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't knowingly violate Wikipedia's sourcing policies. If the content is clearly in line with other reliable sources, then support it with those sources, not with a deprecated source. Deliberately adding or re-adding a deprecated source to Wikipedia, when you know the policy against re-adding challenged material without a reliable source, is not good editing and you should not be advocating for such behaviour - David Gerard (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , It is you who is confusing a "guideline" with a "policy" and then enforcing your misunderstanding over other editors. Please stop knowingly misrepresenting a guideline as a policy. I have explained why this content is needed in the article and I can see no clarification from you on why this should be removed. If you have anything constructive to add to this discussion, other than an orthodox and hardened assessment of what WP:DAILYMAIL is about, then I am all ears. My reading of this guideline, is that the content does not need to be necessarily removed. Kindly self revert. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have buttressed it with another source Walrus Ji (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And yet, you deliberately and knowingly re-added a deprecated source in the process, even though said deprecated source is gratuitous, and you have no actual justification for doing so against two broad general consensus findings that it should not be used - David Gerard (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You should rather spend your precious time in promoting WP:DAILYMAIL from a guideline to a policy, instead of wasting time on Article pages enforcing it as a policy when it is not. Unless you have something to say about the content of this article. This discussion is over from my side. Walrus Ji (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You have provided no justification for the gratuitous Daily Mail reference other than "I believe this content is acceptable", then "I have explained why this content is needed in the article" - so you think feeling like it's a good addition is literally all the reason you have to keep it. This is against two general RFCs saying otherwise. But if you literally refuse to justify your use of a deprecated source in any further way, that is of course up to you - David Gerard (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , now this, has restored it. What are you going to do about it  ? Walrus Ji (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed it myself. Segaton (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Quli Qutub Shah
, Times of India is not considered a reliable source. specially not for Historical claims. Also the TOI article you are linking does not say that " the temple existed most likely since the Quli Qutub Shah period" that you are adding. Please discuss on the talk page. Walrus Ji (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you are not reading the source. Source: "folklore has it that a holy stone (more like a milestone) had been laid at the same site several years ago, most likely during the Quli Qutub Shah period."
 * , your unsourced claims are not supported by the sources and Times of India is being misrepresented by you, I didn't brought the source to the article but only interpreted it correctly. Segaton (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , So you agree that the TOI source you are using as a ref does not state that temple existed since Quli Shah time. Why then are you adding this line that TEMPLE existed ..... Check your edits and self revert. Walrus Ji (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed per this edit. Segaton (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , see WP:FRINGE. The claims of Historians that you have removed without explanation. Care to explain why? Walrus Ji (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have only removed your unsourced overhyped assertions but haven't removed the claims of 'historians'. Segaton (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , you have removed a lot more. Check your edits and please explain why you have removed reliably sourced content or else the removed content will be restored back into the article. Walrus Ji (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is my edit, you can easily read that I only removed unsourced claims such as: "Historians agree that the temple was created as recently as the late 1960s", "Some local residents of Hindu community believe the temple's age to be similar to the Charminar. But no evidence has been presented for this claim." Segaton (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)