Talk:The Sengol

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


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * There is more evidence for UFOs than the govt narrative. Jagmanst (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * So? Can wikipedia say fairies are not real? Jagmanst (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I find this version acceptable. Wrythemann (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not. Jagmanst (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Please cite relevant policy regarding this:"Wikipedia aims to describe disputes". Jagmanst (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Check out WP:NPOV - Wrythemann (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "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)
 * Not sure where I recommended stating govts narrative as fact, smh. Wrythemann (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I agree with Jagmanst and oppose the changes. Please revert, Jack Sparrow. TrangaBellam (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * @TrangaBellam Why do you oppose the changes? Wrythemann (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Facts are not opinions. Your arguments are not valid. Jagmanst (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ? 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Please, we have nothing to see here. I agree with Jagmanst. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither of you have bothered to actually respond on policy beyond stating your opinions that are not aligned with WP standards.Again, I ask,Quote those RS, not opinion pieces, RS, stating as fact that the entirety of governments claim is wrong. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Requesting discussion summary: This discussion seem to have gone long enough, WP:TLDR difficult to follow, hence requesting discussion summary. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Some people are using WP:IDONTLIKEIT as justification for retaining an inaccurate representation not supported by RS. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Bookku, welcome to the discussion!
 * Here's my summary with emphasis on my perspective: We're debating how to describe the government's claims about the Sengol incident. I would like the article to state that independent reliable sources bring up the problem of "thin evidence". I don't agree with the current Wiki-voice pushing for adjectives like "inaccurate" and "false". The issue also ties into Wikipedia's neutrality rule. Jagmanst's comparison to UFOs feels a bit off-topic, and repeatedly saying "facts are not opinions" doesn't address the source-based debate. To move forward, we need to find middle ground phrasing that sticks to the sources and Wikipedia's rules. Personally, Captain Jack Sparrow's suggested version is the most balanced and an accurate summary of reliable sources. And no, there's no false balance being created here.
 * Thank you,
 * Wrythemann (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * My summary.
 * The dispute is regarding "These claims are inaccurate." sentence in article.
 * The govt's claims that Mountabatton, Nehru and Rajagopalchari planned an elaborate religious ceremony involving the Sengol to mark the transfer of power.
 * The cited sources have debunked the govt asssertion. Further, reliable experts including the director of the Hindu have called it explicitly false (not currently cited).
 * W and CJS want the article to state: "The account presented by the government has been controversial, and critics say it lacks substantial evidence."
 * They argue the cited sources that have debunked the claims don't explicitly use the word 'false' or 'inaccurate'. They dismiss other sources that do explicitly use these words, as being mere opinions of experts.
 * As an aside, their preferred version fails their own literalist criteria. None of the sources cited say the govt version is controversial, let alone use the word "controversial".
 * My view, joined by TB, is the substance of the numerous RS is sufficient to state these claims are inaccurate. At the very least it is sufficient to say the govt claims are discredited, which would be my alternative wording.
 * Jagmanst (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You have not bothered to reply to my question ; At the risk of bludgeoning, I ask againQuote those RS, not opinion pieces, RS, stating as fact that the entirety of governments claim is wrong. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In July 2023, a report commissioned by the Nieman Foundation for Journalism noted Scroll.in, The Wire and The Caravan to be among the three minority news-outlets that continue[d] to report on Modi and the BJP to hold them to account. This is not an exceptional claim having been reproduced, four years earlier, by The New Yorker. So, that necessary prelude being noted:
 * Scroll.in reports:
 * The Wire reports:
 * I do not know what else did the Government claim about the Sengol but maybe, I have missed something?
 * The Caravan reports:
 * Can we all go back to doing useful stuff? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you read my question at all?"stating as fact that the entirety of governments claim is wrong"All the sources indeed support the wording proposed, "lacks evidence". None of them says it is false, as we continue to do. You have made my point for me, for which I offer thanks. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Claims XYZ (1) lack evidence, (2) are part of an effort to manufacture a story, and (3) are dubious == Claims XYZ are incorrect. Do a RfC or whatever; stop bludgeoning. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Dubious would be an accurate label, since there is insufficient evidence. Equating dubious with false is your misreading of the sources. (2) is speculation that it may be embellishment...... which is not the same as what you are portraying it as, which is to say, you are writing in wikivoice what the source states as speculation. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Owing to a lack of response over the last month, I am reinstating the change to dubious. If any editor disagrees, they may revert and discuss but I request them to leave a ping for me when they do so. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Looking at the discussions above, my personal opinion is give discussions a break for while un til some more uninvolved experienced users drop in on their own in due course and let the later batch take the call. I understand either side of the discussion may find my suggestion difficult but in that case discussions better move over to RFC. One of the previous section too seem to have couple of RFC probabilities. All those can go together. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Owing to a lack of response over the last month, I am reinstating the change to dubious. If any editor disagrees, they may revert and discuss but I request them to leave a ping for me when they do so. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Looking at the discussions above, my personal opinion is give discussions a break for while un til some more uninvolved experienced users drop in on their own in due course and let the later batch take the call. I understand either side of the discussion may find my suggestion difficult but in that case discussions better move over to RFC. One of the previous section too seem to have couple of RFC probabilities. All those can go together. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Some contested aspects and misunderstandings
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


 * Brief suggestion: Avoid politicization and polarization, follow and stick to WP:RS. Same time some scope seem to exist for future research in some nuanced aspects hence avoid sitting on final judgements leading to confirmation biases.


 * 1) Preferably use Sangam literature times and later clear historical mentions rather than harping on word 'Chola'.
 * 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.


 * 2) I suppose insistence on mentions of 'Mount Batten' and 'Transfer of power' in this WP article is rightly waning since not supported by WP:RS.
 * 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.

&#32;Bookku   (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Can you take this to your u/p? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Golden stick and walking stick

 * 3) I have read articles in the Wire. One doubt in my mind was whether 'Golden stick' words were mentioned in register and the walking stick label was in the show case? So any chances of two different sources referring to two different thing? &#32;Bookku    (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As long as we provide an attribution, we should be good. Wrythemann (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it is important for the article to record that Nehru's side thought it was a walking stick. This should be mentioned prominently somewhere.

Refs

 * https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sengol-added-to-ceremonial-procession-to-welcome-president-to-parliament/article67797446.ece

&#32;Bookku   (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2024
The subheading "Government narrative" (added on 13:30, 15 September 2023‎) violates WP:NPOV. Should be removed. 157.44.173.9 (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It should be replaced with? Charliehdb (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 09:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The request is about removing the subheading and merging the sections into one, which is what mentioned above.--157.46.176.230 (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. M.Bitton (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2024
Would like to remove the false claims of dubious govt. narrative as theirs an RTI which proves that Lord Mountbatten had indeed said the things to Nehru and it was not indeed his walking stick. And it was an object which signified transfer of power. Umgoaway (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 09:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)