User talk:Dharmabhrt

Welcome!
Hello, Dharmabhrt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Ramayana does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  08:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello thank you for such a warm welcome. The statement made therein was not non-neutral.

As per Wikipedia's Rule: 'As a general rule, **do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased**. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems.'

My Answer: I have not removed any source, I have merely stated another view point and thus cannot be called non-neutral. On the other hand Wikipedia keeps undoing my edits which indicates a bias on Wikipedia's part. If quoting about a religion from the religion itself is not neutral (very much against the Wikipedia rules linked by your goodself) then quoting about dating its works in accordance with another person’s works (not based on histroical evidence and instead based on surmises and conjectures) is not neutral towards the religion.

If either of those sources instead of using words like 'perhaps' stated since the oldest manuscript is from XYZ AD we can date the work at least as far back as XYZ AD. then it was an unbiased source

Further as above bias information can be balanced with material cited to other sources. So if Wikipedia feels my statement is biased, then the statements of Robert and Vinay Lal balance it out, since they themselves not being based on scientific evidence are biased in their own subtle way.

However Let's go to Rule 2 (Specific for Religious Material), Quoting from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion - 'In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion ### draw from a religion's sacred texts### as well as from modern **archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.**

Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view can be mentioned if it can be documented by relevant, reliable sources, yet note there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as the Rev. Goodcatch) believe This and That and consider those to have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days. Certain sects who call themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists—influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work)—still believe This, but no longer believe That, and instead believe Something Else."'

My Answer: In accordance with the rule that "Their point of view can be mentioned" and the view 'Wikipedia articles on history and religion ### draw from a religion's sacred texts' (###) a statement about the religion from a text of the religion is a valid source. Thus as stated by the 24th Treta must be accepted as stated clearly above.

Further as per Rule 'Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as the Rev. Goodcatch) believe This and That and consider those to have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days' I wrote - as per Hindu Tradition ( as per Frisbeeterianism) The Ramayana is dated to the 24th Treta (As per frisbeeterianism, the belief is that XYZ incident happened in 24th Treta), which is well in accordance with the Rule.

Instead what Robert Goldman and Vinay Lal have to say. Their statements do not provide conclusive evidence as to dating the work they use terms like perhaps. If the very religion's statements about itself cannot be accepted then nor can the works of Robert and Vinay Lal who based on their surmises do not have a definitive date.

I will accept a NEUTRAL statement like Since the oldest manuscript is dated XYZ AD the work seems to be extant at least since XYZ AD.

Conclusion: From the above it is clear that my edit was in accordance with Wikipedia's neutrality policy whereas the existing statements by scholars without evidence is in fact a biased view, very much against Wikipedia Rules.

Therefore, If you want neutrality, it’s either according to both or none. If you don’t want what I added but something neutral then I’d suggest to delete the ‘dating’ section altogether.. That way neither those of the religion are affected nor those who are not. Thank you :) Dharmabhrt (talk)

@JonathanJoshua Dharmabhrt (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

3RR
Please take note of WP:3RR. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  08:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello thank you for such a warm welcome. The statement made therein was not non-neutral.

As per Wikipedia's Rule: 'As a general rule, **do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased**. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems.'

My Answer: I have not removed any source, I have merely stated another view point and thus cannot be called non-neutral. On the other hand Wikipedia keeps undoing my edits which indicates a bias on Wikipedia's part. If quoting about a religion from the religion itself is not neutral (very much against the Wikipedia rules linked by your goodself) then quoting about dating its works in accordance with another person’s works (not based on histroical evidence and instead based on surmises and conjectures) is not neutral towards the religion.

If either of those sources instead of using words like 'perhaps' stated since the oldest manuscript is from XYZ AD we can date the work at least as far back as XYZ AD. then it was an unbiased source

Further as above bias information can be balanced with material cited to other sources. So if Wikipedia feels my statement is biased, then the statements of Robert and Vinay Lal balance it out, since they themselves not being based on scientific evidence are biased in their own subtle way.

However Let's go to Rule 2 (Specific for Religious Material), Quoting from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion - 'In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion ### draw from a religion's sacred texts### as well as from modern **archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.**

Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view can be mentioned if it can be documented by relevant, reliable sources, yet note there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as the Rev. Goodcatch) believe This and That and consider those to have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days. Certain sects who call themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists—influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work)—still believe This, but no longer believe That, and instead believe Something Else."'

My Answer: In accordance with the rule that "Their point of view can be mentioned" and the view 'Wikipedia articles on history and religion ### draw from a religion's sacred texts' (###) a statement about the religion from a text of the religion is a valid source. Thus as stated by the 24th Treta must be accepted as stated clearly above.

Further as per Rule 'Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as the Rev. Goodcatch) believe This and That and consider those to have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days' I wrote - as per Hindu Tradition ( as per Frisbeeterianism) The Ramayana is dated to the 24th Treta (As per frisbeeterianism, the belief is that XYZ incident happened in 24th Treta), which is well in accordance with the Rule.

Instead what Robert Goldman and Vinay Lal have to say. Their statements do not provide conclusive evidence as to dating the work they use terms like perhaps. If the very religion's statements about itself cannot be accepted then nor can the works of Robert and Vinay Lal who based on their surmises do not have a definitive date.

I will accept a NEUTRAL statement like Since the oldest manuscript is dated XYZ AD the work seems to be extant at least since XYZ AD.

Conclusion: From the above it is clear that my edit was in accordance with Wikipedia's neutrality policy whereas the existing statements by scholars without evidence is in fact a biased view, very much against Wikipedia Rules.

Therefore, If you want neutrality, it’s either according to both or none. If you don’t want what I added but something neutral then I’d suggest to delete the ‘dating’ section altogether.. That way neither those of the religion are affected nor those who are not. Thank you :) Dharmabhrt (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Place names
Please stop changing the names of places in articles to different spellings to those used as our article titles, as you did at Allahabad district‎, Chandra Shekhar Azad, Allahabad. 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. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)