User talk:JUGAL70

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, JUGAL70, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, 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 New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: 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 Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! NotedGrant  Talk  14:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Reply Thanks for suggestions.You mentioned that one of my contribution does not confirm Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV)]]. It would be better if you specify which edit/sentence/syntax/section makes you feel that my contribution does not confirm NPOV.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

It will help me to improve.--JUGAL70 (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. NotedGrant  Talk  15:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply

I did not specify the reason, was a mistake. But removal of 3 or 4 sentences was intentional. Reason is the reference which has been cited, does not reflect in the sentences given.

Before my edit this article was totally negative. If you read old edits by Wikipedians you will find that Mayawati was married, she had affair to some Yadav etc.etc, without any reference & these lines remained for years nobody removed it. I removed it, you may call it page blanking /vandalism etc.

I entered some positive points supported by references, without these points this article is incomplete.Negative points are already there. Neutrality does not mean only negative points it should have some positive points also. --JUGAL70 (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

law of manu
Hi !

Law of manu is not from the 19th century but from the antiquity !

And there is not word as "Dalit" in Law of Manu : thank you to respect the encyclopedic style (no limited in the time) and not introduce socio-political and economic point-of-view from only two centurys ago !

Bye ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.36.87.131 (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Where is it mentioned that Manu was from 19th century?

Yes there is no word like Dalit in Manusmriti, but when writing it always preferred to write in a way that gives exact picture to reader what we are talking about.

If you read again my edit, it is clearly mentioned word 'Shudra' and 'Dalit' indicates the same social class, word Dalit was first used by Jyotirao Phule for 'Shudras' in the nineteenth century. The word "Dalit" comes from the Sanskrit language, and means "ground", "suppressed", "crushed", or "broken to pieces" ,used in the context of the oppression faced by the erstwhile "untouchable" castes of the twice-born Hindus. Gandhi's coinage of the word Harijan, translated roughly as "Children of God", to identify the former Untouchables. The terms "Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes" (SC/ST) are the official terms used in Indian government documents to identify former "untouchables" and tribes.

One of your edit (21:17, 21 February 2010) summary says" neutrality : equality is not justice, and discrimination "en soi" is not injustice : justice is not the same law for a tiger and a lamb !)" It may be your belief, but wiki requires references not your own concept.

Reversion of edit is not bad but reversion of edit by giving your own concept/belief like given for Tiger lamb etc shall not be the basis.

by the way .. thanks ,constructive comments welcome--JUGAL70 (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Manusmṛti
Thanks for your contributions to this page. Unfortunately your edits fall afoul of some fundamental wikipedia policies, namely neutral POV, no original research, reliable sourcing, and also make inappropriate use of primary sources. In some cases the added text is simply hard to parse and decipher. For these reasons your (and some other) edits have been reverted. Please take a look at the linked policies, and after that feel free to discuss any of these issues on the article talk page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply:

Thanks for comments, here is pointwise reply to your comments Afoul of neutral POV,- Disagree

[As per NPOV policy content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.]

Manusmriti’s most controversial part is discrimination against Women and Shudra, is a significant view (references given on main article).It is been burnt and condemned by different historians and social reformers all over Indai, It is considered source of gender and caste oppression in India which still exist. References published by reliable sources(including preview of online books by famous authors/historians) Section created under controversies and criticism, which indicates good faith in  putting this most important controversial part.

NOT including this section or significant view  as a part of controversy  & repeated deletion of this section/view indicates bias towards showing good an Ad like page, which violates NPOV.

No original research policy not followed: Disagree

It is not an original research. Criticism mentioned can be find out in almost all books written on Manusmariti/Ancient Indian Society, womens, (some references given on main article).

No reliable sourcing:Disagree

References of online Books by famous authors/historians given,books can be read online.

Inappropriate use of primary sources:Disagrree

Only 1 primary source(website) has been mentioned, Other references are published books from famous authors/historians references available on main page.

In the same article if you go back and check some edits about (14:58, 21 December 2005)  under section Criticism of Manu Smriti, you will find the same points, now  deleted by you, already there. Some people (they are not wikipedians) want to write an Advertisement page on Manusmriti (like a series on Hinduism already mentioned), hiding most controversial parts/views.

Wiki reader shall be given an opportunity to know all about Manusmriti including controversial views Such type of excuses for deletion of content produce biased Ad page not a wiki page. --Jugal (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Abecedare (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Manusmriti. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ''Can you verify if is your sock account ? If so, note that such use of sock accounts to edit-war on wikipedia is prohibited on wikipedia. '' Abecedare (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:JUGAL70/Untouchability in India


A tag has been placed on User:JUGAL70/Untouchability in India requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://navsarjan.org/navsarjan/dalits/WhatIsUntouchability. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Legacypac (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)