Talk:Vanitha Mathil

RSS-BJP
What do these two acronyms mean? Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Bharatiya Janata Party? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Yes, I have expanded them out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

False Citation
" Activists of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Bharatiya Janata Party reportedly tried to attack the wall in Kasargod. " This is a broken link and there are no reliable reports which would substantiate this claim. This citation or reference should be removed. Not only that, claiming this in the article is heavily politicized which doesn't have any correlation with facts.

Repeated unsourced edits
I have reverted a couple of edits. A few are the same edits ie. changing kilometres to metres. ?explanation. Whispyhistory (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarification needed
This sentence in the article has been tagged with clarification needed:

I am afraid the line of reasoning is not entirely clear. It is after all religion.

BBC's wording Lord Ayyappa is an avowed bachelor who has taken an oath of celibacy might help for understaning what is being talked about, but the gap in reasoning is still not filled.

This article in Firstpost claims that it is out of "respect" for the deity's vow of celibacy. Is that good enough? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I understand what you are saying and your links make sense to me now. The background looks more complex and the information needs clarifying if going to be included. Be careful to report history from a newspaper. Newspapers are okay for news e.g. women came together to form a human chain on 1 January 2019. That is agreed. Are there any scholarly research or literature reviews on the topic? It is recognised that one explanation of excluding women from the temple has been the temple deity, Lord Ayyappa’s vow to refrain from sexual activities. This has been interpreted as requiring women to be kept away. The discussion on "purity and pollution" is also discussed in this source. I'm looking at the article again and "traditionally" the temple appears to have barred all women and later barred those age 10-50. However, as an increasing number of women have wished to worship at the temple, authorities have had difficulty explaining the barring of women . Exclusion based on gender and the resulting group resistance is also discussed here . I need to leave it to someone who understands this, otherwise incorrect background will just be repeated. Whispyhistory (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Illogical Claim
The claim made in this page is absolutely illogical. If we consider a claimed minimum participation of 3 million women forming a human-chain of 620 KM long, it would mean there are 4838 women per Km or 4.83 women per metre. This is absolutely illogical claim. Also, there are media reports which suggests that this human chain was broken for more than 50 KM distance. Fact is, there was never a continuous/contiguous chain for more than a km. Even if consider these women are standing shoulder-to-shoulder, it's practically impossible to have 5 women standing in a metre distance. As someone who commented on my User-page, Wikipedia is not a soap box and such propaganda material have no place in Wikipedia. Such claims are baseless and defies human intelligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RamRaghubn (talk • contribs) 14:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The below statement is not verified and despite it being more than an year since the event, there had been no official statement by any other records-keeping agency in support of this claim. I am proposing to remove this claim from the article citing WP:INACCURATE policy. :
 * The article is sourced based only on Primary sources of Information and I wish to understand from the authors that how come this article is not a violation of WP:PRIMARYCARE ? Some editors are reverting my changes and tagging it as disruptive editing without commenting anythinng on the article-talk page or user-talk page for the questions posted. Is that a fair practice ? Trying to prove something as illogical is not WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. -- RamRaghubn (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is sourced based only on Primary sources of Information and I wish to understand from the authors that how come this article is not a violation of WP:PRIMARYCARE ? Some editors are reverting my changes and tagging it as disruptive editing without commenting anythinng on the article-talk page or user-talk page for the questions posted. Is that a fair practice ? Trying to prove something as illogical is not WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. -- RamRaghubn (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The article is sourced based only on Primary sources of Information and I wish to understand from you User:Tayi Arajakate that how come this article is not a violation of WP:PRIMARYCARE ? I am sure if you aren't giving me an opportunity to substantiate each of my edits before having them reverted, I will have to reach out to the WP:DR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RamRaghubn (talk • contribs) 00:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Which sources are you labelling as WP:PRIMARY? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , there are three separate articles cited from BBC News, NDTV and India Today which explicitly give the figures of "5 million", "estimated 30–50 lakh" and "around 50 lakhs" respectively, from which only the more conservative range has been used in the article. Your addition on the other hand which state that these are "speculations" or "organiser's claims" directly contradict the sources and is based on your personal analysis. You also never formatted your message properly due to which I only now received an alert.
 * WP:INACCURATE isn't a policy but a part of an essay which states that "information not attributed to a reliable source that is inaccurate beyond a reasonable doubt should be removed immediately." The line which you are suggesting removal for can also neither be considered inaccurate beyond a reasonable doubt nor is it not attributed to reliable sources. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 16:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:INACCURATE isn't a policy but a part of an essay which states that "information not attributed to a reliable source that is inaccurate beyond a reasonable doubt should be removed immediately." The line which you are suggesting removal for can also neither be considered inaccurate beyond a reasonable doubt nor is it not attributed to reliable sources. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 16:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)