User talk:DarkSpartan/Archive 1

Don't be so arrogant
You arrogantly wrote on my talk page that India did not EVER exist before 1947. Did you go to school and learn elementary history or are you so bigoted and ignorant from early childhood? India existed when Sparta in ancient Greece existed. You write your name as DarkSpartan but seem to know nothing about history of Sparta or India. If nothing else, see the history of India in Wikipedia itself. The period when the English (who later morphed into British after killing the last queen of Scotland) ruled India is called British Raj or British India. Indians have always remained Indians. They did not become Afghani Indians when some persons from Afghanistan ruled India. They did not become Persian Indians when some persons from Persia (now called Iran) ruled India. They did not become British Indians when the British ruled India. India has existed since pre-history. Wake up, DarkSpartan. Give up your prejudices, read history and learn to become objective.

And don't you ever try to bully other editors! Other editors may be more knowledgeable and more well-read than you (and it is evident in this case). Other editors have every right to edit. Don't tell me ever again not to edit. 16:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Rao Ravindra (talk) Ravindra Rao

And study (or at least read) Wikipedia itself
Make some effort to educate yourself. The Wikipedia article entitled "British Indian" states:

The term British Indian refers to citizens of the United Kingdom (UK) whose ancestral roots lie in India. This includes people born in the UK who are of Indian descent, and Indian-born people who have migrated to the UK.

Learn nuances of words which appear similar to ill-educated but have different meanings. "Citizen" and "subject" do not have the same meaning. When the British ruled India (which was called British Raj or British India), they called Indians "British subjects" but not "British citizens" or "British Indians". The passports issued to Indians by the British authorities in India stated "British subject" and never stated "British Indian".

Rao Ravindra (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Ravindra Rao
 * please interact civilly. You're getting close to personal attacks and there's no need.  Just discuss.    Dr Strauss   talk   20:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You should be aware that your argument is by definition incorrect, and that the Wikipedia article you quote is not factually accurate, and that everyone in the British Empire, include those in England, were 'subjects'. However by all means make you points using polite and civil talk. you are welcome to replace mentions of 'British Indian', with 'British subject' if you think it appropriate. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver  20:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Removing “moderate muslim” tag from Bangladesh
According to the CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF BANGLADESH PART I THE REPUBLIC & Section 2A. “The state religion” “The state religion of the Republic is Islam, but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in the Republic.” Bangladesh is a moderate muslim country. The information shouldn’t be removed from the wiki article. Before editing anything keep the knowledge required for the task. Hamid Yasir (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)