User talk:Krushanu Patki

Welcome!
Hello, Krushanu Patki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Nationalism 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: 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! Grayfell (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 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

Answering to your criticism
I am sorry but presenting an interpretation of the structure of nationalism prevalent in different countries is in accordance with the neutrality you so wish to maintain. I am happy you took notice of my point of view but it is rather immature of you to discard my edit simply because of a lesser understanding of the Indian notions of nationalism. Tracing the concepts if Rashtra or Nation is ancient Indian scriptures leads me to this interpretation. It is rather sorry that you propagate such illegitimate propaganda on the basis of your lack of knowledge. Krushanu Patki (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia, neutrality is decided by reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so you must cite sources for your changes. This is not optional. Do not add original research, even if you believe it to be obvious. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Caste, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Accepting your point
Thank you for your valuable suggestions regarding how I must operate here in Wikipedia. I will give my sources, which are albeit from a left minded liberal author's book on Hinduism. The fact remains that I do not associate myself with any political party or so, but don't you think it is unfair that ideological disputes cannot be discussed here only because of it being a tertiary source, as you call it?? We live in a world where ideological disputes and differences in opinion pave the way for scholastic activity, especially in social sciences. Shouldn't ideological opinions be taken into account here on Wikipedia?? I agree to your point on citation of sources. Please be assured that it will be henceforth done by me. Thank you. Krushanu Patki (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, either I am mistaken about what you are saying, or you are mistaken about what we are saying.
 * Ideology on Wikipedia is very complicated and sometimes messy. This, however, is something different. This is about sources.
 * Information should always be verifiable. Verifiability explains what that means. The best way to do this is by including inline citations. Please see Citing sources for how to do that. Please also see Reliable sources to understand which sources are acceptable. If reliable sources discuss an ideological dispute, please summarize those sources without adding your own opinion. Sources should be summarized from a neutral point of view, but this does not mean the sources have to be neutral. Opinions should come from experts or notable commentators, and should always be supported by reliable sources. Opinions should be handled with care, and should be attributed, so that readers know where an opinion is coming from. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 06:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Response
Ok thanks It is sufficient that you understood the premise of my concern rather than its entirety, which might have been confusing. Thanks Krushanu Patki (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)