User talk:Bmmanjesh

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 11:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Placenames
Please do not change the names of places in articles to different spellings to those used as our article titles, as you did at Gulbarga. We use the WP:COMMONNAME in English for our articles, not the "official" names, so changing the spelling breaks wikilinks to those articles and is confusing to our readers - thank you - Arjayay (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

It is already confusing. Kalaburagi is the commonly referred name and article title needs to be updated as well. How to change that? It's spreading misinformation and causing confusion on several parts of the articles by keeping the now defunct name.

BTW are you Wikipedia.org employee?


 * What reliable sources can you cite to show that, world-wide, it is more commonly referred to as Kalaburagi, not Gulbarga? Although only a vague indication, Kalaburagi has 1.29 million Google matches, and Gulbarga has 14.6 million matches - more than 11 times as many - Arjayay (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, to start with, all the railway stations, transit addresses refer the city and district as Kalaburagi. Name "Kalaburagi" is used in all news media, TV news channels. All the latest COVID news refer it as Kalaburagi. To use the example of Google search, if you search "Gulbarga COVID" as well as "Kalaburagi COVID" and "Kalaburagi COVID" returns relevant results. Gulbarga COVID

Kalaburagi COVID]

Wiki page for Kalaburagi Railway Station itself rightly refers to the district as "Kalaburagi" Kalaburagi Railway Station

While your observation on Google results for "Gulbarga" and "Kalaburagi" is correct, I believe more appropriate criteria would be Google News rather than generic Google Search. Because, generic google search results will fetch historic web pages as well. Here is what you'll find in Google News. "Kalaburagi" returns 119K results with lots of relevant and up-to-date news about the city/district whereas "Gulbarga" returns 24.2K results but mostly about "Gulbarga Institute of Medical Science" or few private groups which still retain "Gulbarga" in their names.

Kalaburagi Google News results: Kalaburagi Google News Search Results

Gulbarga Google News results: Gulbarga Google News Search Results

--Bmmanjesh (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We are talking about what the place is commonly known as, to our English-speaking readership, globally, not what it is referred to as, locally. I'm sure the residents of Wien, Osterreich, don't call their place of residence Vienna, Austria, but we will not be changing that in the foreseeable future. There have already been two formal proposals to move "Gulbarga" to "Kalaburagi", both of which were defeated. Given that the 10 proposals to move Bangalore to Bengaluru, have all been defeated, despite the official renaming being on 1 November 2006, might give you an idea how much of an uphill struggle you are facing, - Arjayay (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Any further discussion on talk page of the article pls. -- Bmmanjesh (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
Hello, I'm Vanamonde93. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Wire (India), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 All the edit was stating was that an article published on The Wire was called fake by Hoshiar Police. What can be a better source than the Tweet from their official account? I agree if I had quoted something The Wire claims on their own Twitter account and attribute it to them. But that's not the case... To prove that Hoshiar Police called the article on The Wire as fake, shouldn't their Tweet from official account suffice? -- Bmmanjesh (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's two issues here, that of reliability and due weight. Your edit implied that the Hoshiarpur police were correct in their assertion that this was fake news. Their twitter account is not reliable for that. Their twitter is reliable purely for their statement that it was fake; however, there the problem is of due weight; an accusation on twitter isn't weighty enough to be included on Wikipedia. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 Well my edit said "...Hoshiarpur Police called out as fake." It only implies that Police Dept called it as fake. Police department is as reliable as a news outlet, isn't it? When it comes to due weight, how exactly is it applicable here? The published article on The Wire as well as police response to it are factual. -- Bmmanjesh (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) The use of the phrase "called out" usually suggests that the person doing the calling is the one who is correct. 2) Please read WP:DUE. Not all factual information is appropriate for Wikipedia; verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Due weight needs to be demonstrated with the use of reliable secondary sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I have just reverted a massive section you added to the 2020 coronavirus lockdown in India claiming XYZ to be fake news. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to police newspapers. You can't start writing about fake news unless there are reliable sources that describe fake news problems.

There are in fact lots of such reliable sources, which you don't seem to be aware of. Please read these for a start and summarise them if you are interested. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fatima Khan, Call it a mistake, not conspiracy against India, say Muslim scholars on Tablighi Jamaat event, The Print, 8 April 2020.
 * Nishita Jha, Pranav Dixit, A Cluster Of Coronavirus Cases Can Be Traced Back To A Single Mosque And Now 200 Million Muslims Are Being Vilified, BuzzFeed News, 3 April 2020.
 * Nissim Mannathukkaren, A Communal Virus and Our Collective Irrationality, The Wire, 9 April 2020.
 * Jeffrey Gettleman, Kai Schultz, Suhasini Raj, In India, Coronavirus Fans Religious Hatred, The New York Times, 12 April 2020.
 * SC asks media to publish official version of corona developments, The Economic Times, 31 March 2020.
 * Coronavirus v. Free Speech: Modi Government Opens New Battlefront in Supreme Court, The Wire, 31 March 2020
 * The Centre Is Back to Using the Bogey of 'Fake News' to Try and Suppress Press Freedom, The Wire, 2 April 2020.
 * The Centre Is Back to Using the Bogey of 'Fake News' to Try and Suppress Press Freedom, The Wire, 2 April 2020.

I'm sorry how is this related to the section that was added in lockdown page. All of these are talking about Tablighi Jamaat whereas the section I had added was related to lockdown. I don't see the connect. - Bmmanjesh (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * One can say the same thing about everything you added: one about migrant labourers, one about food shortage etc. These are all phenomena that occur during a lockdown. Those phenomena is what we should write about, not single out individual news items as fake or non-fake. And, for your information, the above articles are not about Tablighi Jamaat, they are about the rampant Islamophobia, which has been covered in hundreds of reliable sources all over the world (eight million sources and counting). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about friend?! Where did Islamophobia come into discussion here?!... Fake news in MSM has nothing to do with Tablighis or somebody else. ABP News caused a major issue during lockdown. Scroll news called for a PIB to validate. NDTV's report had a State Govt and a Central Minister issue clarification. I believe you're letting your biases cloud your ability to make a fair judgement here. They all deserve due weight given and lockdown page is an appropriate place to capture them. Please share your thoughts on the article's talk page. Let's see what other editors say too - Bmmanjesh (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you were interested in fake news. But you are interested in mudslinging. That will not be allowed on Wikipedia, no matter how many sources you have. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Mudslinging"?! You're on a completely different tangent, friend?! First you send me unrelated links. Then level allegations of "Islamophobia" when there is nothing of that sort anywhere close to edits we're talking about. And when I explain why I feel fake news is relevant for the topic, you accuse me of mudslinging. Based on earlier discussions with you, I thought that you were a respectable individual with vast experience as Wiki editor. While editing experience comes with time, my opinion about "respectability" is changing bit by bit - Bmmanjesh (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you are the one that I started by creating a section "fake news". Did you search for sources for fake news in connection with Indian coronavirus pandemic? All editors of Wikipedia are obliged to cover the topic with WP:NPOV, which means that summarising as accurately as possible all that the reliable sources say about the topic in proportion to their preponderance. It doesn't mean put up whatever you want to put up, and claim that it is "significant".
 * Anyway, this is my last response to you on this topic. Be aware that continuing along the line you are going spells trouble. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * All references were sourced from reliable sources and citations were provided for each of them. I hope you didn't miss them. Moreover, I didn't write anything from my interpretation. I just summarized what was there in those sources Bmmanjesh (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

You have been pruned from the WikiProject India/Members list.
Hi Bmmanjesh! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at WikiProject India/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 1 year.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting WikiProject India/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)