Facts, Widely Known Truths, Reason, Logic - vs - Wiki , citations, reference requirements - wiping out India or maligning it?

Wikipedia is a widely known but known to be far less respected, indeed in private conversations of the erudite and knowledgeable known to be referred to with derision, encyclopedia on the internet. There are few rules once you join - you can edit but not without citation of a reference.  

To anyone with a little thinking it is obvious where that leads - those with infinite time on hands or paid by some agency with an agenda can create references or find suitable ones created for the purpose, and publish incorrect or false statements ad infinitum - while those with more knowledge but better occupations than falsification or war of propaganda will find the corrections being wiped off with derisive messages. 

Hence the statement I made on my talk page on wiki hoping never to come into contact with any wiki person, and also hoping better war experts with specific weapons against false propaganda will take over from here. 

Here is quoting the wiki page supposedly mine - it might cease to exist for all I know due to those that care more about citation than facts - 

............................................................................................... 

I have come to the conclusion, since the determined wipeout of my correction of mistakes on wiki and offensive messages from more than one person calling my corrections "personal opinions and original research", that it is futile my attempting to clean up incorrect or false posts on wiki; my time is more worth than hunting up references for well known facts (such as Punjabis eat fresh green chillies with Pindi Chhole, KrishnaKamal is the name passion flower is known by in India, Raja is a Sanskrit word meaning king, caste names and otherwise epithets such as Raja are used by non Hindus, Torra Khan is a Muslim name or at least of Mongol origin, Badat is not a Hindu name and in fact sounds far more west or central Asian, Darwin's theory of evolution is no surprise to Hindu or India since it is parallel to Dashaavataara, Himaalaya being raised out of oceans has been forever known in ancient Indian Hindu tradition) and certainly creating such references by publishing is even more going out of the way to establish truth against published (and therefore more respectable for those that claim it is no use reasoning with them) citations of incorrect or worse matter on wiki. My time is worth more than these fights about establishing facts with a citation war with those that won't see and don't want reason or facts.

Nevertheless all those corrections I made - (Punjabis eat fresh green chillies with Pindi Chhole, KrishnaKamal is the name passion flower is known by in India, Raja is a Sanskrit word meaning king, caste names and otherwise epithets such as Raja are used by non Hindus, Torra Khan is a Muslim name or at least of Mongol origin, Badat is not a Hindu name and in fact sounds far more west or central Asian, Darwin's theory of evolution is no surprise to Hindu or India since it is parallel to Dashaavataara, Himaalaya being raised out of oceans has been forever known in ancient Indian Hindu tradition) are facts, whoever like it or not.

I am used to a world of science that requires facts, logic, reason, and evidence, which is not the same as references and citation. I was only attempting to contribute to wiki out of a sense of giving back but shall no longer do so, and if I do see something as atrociously wrong, incorrect or false as I have previously attempted to correct on the site, I shall report it anywhere else where people know better, and shall at the very least laugh, or at best take more appropriate action (mass protest? million references from thousands of postings? creating a better encyclopedia? whatever) that others with more time are capable of doing. If in the process wiki stands ridiculed before at least a large part of the world, the fault is entirely with those that prefer citations over facts and call facts without references "personal opinions and original research".

If original research were that easy we would all be nobel prize winners in respectable sciences, but are not, not all of us, are we! As for personal opinion, I would love to take credit for any of the above, since that would be a huge addition to personal credit - but no, those are facts known for well over my lifetime, and some (Dashaavataar, Himaalaya raised out of ocean being known in Indian legends) for well over more than a few millennia.

So no, thank you but it is nor personal opinion nor original research, none of my corrections of mistakes on wiki fit in that.

If I take credit for any of that, it would be theft of intellectual property that belongs to a whole nation, on par with some of the businesses in US attempting to patent facts known to (or names belonging to) India (properties of turmeric for one, name of Basmati for another) for centuries and more.

Such theft is only suited to those with no self respect.

I am reminded of the opening of Shaw's Caesar and Cleopatra and tempted to say, bye, you citers, those that substitute references for facts and knowledge.

Welcome!

Hello, DrJGMD, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit]Unsourced opinions are better discussed on article talk pages

I've reverted two of your edits [1] and [2] because they appear more as personal opinions than content suitable for an encyclopedia article. It's best to discuss such matters on article talk pages, so editors can help determine what portions worth including in the article with proper sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ronz, I have tried to correct the passion flower page but your undoing it is coming across as an imposition of an anti Indian colonial mindset. As I explained before, when a billion or more people know something, or use a name and not another, the used name is what ought to be posted as used by them, and not some other that might have a published reference but might be wrong all the same. As for reference one can publish something and then give that reference, that does not make it correct.

It is a fact that what you call passion flower is known is known as Krishna Kamal (spelling not relevant, pronunciation is relevant in India, scripts being precise about pronunciation) or Krsxhna Kamala or Krsxhnakamal in India, and rakhi flower is an invented name, not known in the various states I am familiar with; the invention seems to be simply in order to forego mention of name of Krishna, and hence heavily biased with an agenda. If wiki caters to anti Indian bias, I am not going to fight it on wiki. Needless to say it will do wiki more harm for being opposed to truth even without anyone correcting it in any way or taking any action, just as a child not corrected for lies will be damaged by removing any spoken corrections. Dr, J. G. 05:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit]Your recent edits

 Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I keep forgetting this since it is neither my occupation nor a common practice on internet; why not introduce the simple practice on wiki of a signature being automatic? After all one does log in or is logged in before one can edit; why the need for the ~ before someone can be identified?

Also, the distinction between referencing published material versus citing well known facts or names is just that - the former can be wrong, incorrect, false, while the latter can be published and referenced but is silly to require and worse to expunge for lack of reference. Dr, J. G. 05:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit]October 2010

 Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Gilgit. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. You might well feel that what you wrote is unbiased but as long as it has no reliable sources, it is original research. Green Giant (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Green Giant (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Green Giant, if I find a wiki page saying that Russia is smaller than Mexico and correct it, and you call it a personal opinion, guess who would be wrong. What I had corrected were mistakes on pages of wiki and there was neither personal opinion nor original research, but merely extremely well known stuff. In contrast the uncorrected (or the now newly correction wiped out) version comes across as biased with an agenda pro something and anti something else. If I find where to post this for your specific attention, I shall.Dr, J. G. 05:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"It is pointless trying to reason with me using such examples. You are no different to the hundreds of misguided editors who come to Wikipedia thinking they have to defend a particular point of view. Look at your talkpage and tell me you understood why User:Ronz left that message in January? From the edits you have made, it appears you have still not understood what you are supposed to do on Wikipedia. It is irrelevant whether you or I think one thing is true and another is false. On Wikipedia, what matters is that we follow three very simple rules and some additional guidelines. For your benefit, the three rules are:

• WP:NPOV - neutral point of view
• WP:RS - reliable sources
• WP:V - verifiability

Please click on each of those links and have a good read of them. So many of your edits have been focussed on getting the "Indian point of view" across that you have lost sight of these three rules. Every time you have edited with words like this:

“

The fact of Himaalaya (and the general region thereof) being raised out of ocean is known to science and hence the rest of the world only now, but was for ever known in India, and is part of Hindu legends, as the story about churning of oceans.

”

you have expressed a personal opinion i.e. going against NPOV. You should only add such statements if you can provide a reliable source which uses these words but in so many of your edits you have failed to provide any reliable sources to back up your claims.

The bottom line is that we do not want the Indian, Pakistani, Chinese or even American point of view - we want unbiased information cited from reliable sources, without commentary from editors. Green Giant (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)"

 Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Gilgit. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. You might well feel that what you wrote is unbiased but as long as it has no reliable sources, it is original research. Green Giant (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Green Giant (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Green Giant, if I find a wiki page saying that Russia is smaller than Mexico and correct it, and you call it a personal opinion, guess who would be wrong. What I had corrected were mistakes on pages of wiki and there was neither personal opinion nor original research, but merely extremely well known stuff. In contrast the uncorrected (or the now newly correction wiped out) version comes across as biased with an agenda pro something and anti something else.

To be specific about the Gilgit page you refer to, Badat is not known as a Hindu name anywhere I heard of in over half a century (the closest name Badrutt is Swiss) while the word Badat itself is closer to West Asian; Sri or Shri is used by most Indian cultures and is not restricted to Hindu, and Hindu or Indian origin or Sanskrit names are indeed used not only by Buddhist but also by regular churchgoing Christian people and are sometimes common to Muslims names as well (Sameer, Neelam, and may more names are common to both); Raja is a word of Indian, Sanskrit origin, meaning King; the epithet Raja is indeed used in muslims of Indian origin, either as an epithet or as a name (as it was on the Gilgit page "Raja Torra Khan", Khan making it clear it is most likely a Muslim and in any case a Mongol ancestry origin person); and the whole page going on about a Hindu being cannibal is likely to offend a billion people and a nation (not that you or wiki could care less) when in reality Hindus are ridiculed mostly for being vegetarians or nearly so in most of the world, and forced to eat meat by various deceptions (you will find references in newspapers or by talking to people about this).

But if you wish to keep the offensive bits along with the incorrect, false, etcetera, only for the question of references - please keep up. I am sure there are plenty of references for all sorts of untrue things.

If I find where to post this for your specific attention, I shall post it there. Your talk page has no clear way to post a message or a reply, and wiki seems to lack a reply button.

Dr, J. G. 05:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed pointless to reason with you or anyone who has the attitude of "it does not matter what is true or known, it only matters if you can cite".

Nevertheless, both Darwin's evolution and Himaalaya being raised out of ocean are ancient legends in Hindu tradition and forever known to India, whether you like it or not. Talk to anyone in India. Dr, J. G. 06:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"You might well feel that what you wrote is unbiased but as long as it has no reliable sources, it is original research"

If original research were that cheap we would all be Einstein. Few are, and it takes more than lack of citation to claim or prove something is original research. If you were in science you might know this.

Folk knowledge, legends, commonly known facts are neither personal opinions nor original research.

Ignoring and going on wiping out what is commonly known in a nation of a billion, and continuing to insist on incorrect statements, is a stance of careless or deliberate offense.

French Culture - secular, colonial, traditional

I had read two book about Bernadette, one about her life and one about a present day journalist on a work tour of Lourdes to discover what is going on there, constructed along the lines one has come to expect from most well constructed such works - events that can be called miracles or coincidences, keeping all readers (and for films, viewers) pleased with their interpretation while keeping the author (or producer etc in case of film) out of trouble with everyone.

Life of Bernadette, the peasant girl who had visions and discovered the miraculous spring at Lourdes, is interesting for more than interest in her. She was young and innocent and pure, and so was able to perceive a vision from above directly, hear the vision and have conversations too. The then church authorities immediately went against her, suspicious of anyone with an access to Divine outside the approved channel of authority, and she suffered much including a possibility of fate such as Joan D'Arc. This she was saved, fortunately. In exchange the church had monopoly over the spring - and the town's facilities - at Lourdes.

It is interesting that she went through so much trouble due to her visions even after she found the miraculous springs, only because of a dogma that normal persons could not access heavens above and an authority, a central fixed one at that, had to certify all miracles - and now the same authority monopolises access to Lourdes, where one can only go by applying and permission from the said authority, Rome - and this continues in the so called secular nation of France, where anyone in an attire or cultural symbol other than traditional to France is likely to be treated worse than criminals (one presumes criminals get a trial, while a decent person of another culture, someone perfectly innocent too, is treated abominably) even in civil places such as airports - or even a so called French cultural centre in another country, and this is even true about people of the said other country entering the French centre in their own towns.

Such is the hubris of French culture and pride thereof, with the false badge of secular attached to cover a slave of Roman domination visible under a thin veil. Of course, when asked about secularity of certain laws a French visitor to another nation with a greater ancient tradition takes refuge in tradition of France, while the French centre silently but very unmistakably discriminates against the local traditions (and this is about those traditions that are other than any discrimination or worse against any part of humanity, for all that) and anyone supporting them to any visible extent thereby encouraging and perpetrating not only a colonial mindset but also a blatant hypocrisy.

Of course, anyone familiar with the colonial times of the empires is aware of how British kept the local cultures as they were, when it suited them - which it did quite often in that it kept the colonial power held up with help of local powers - while French attempted to impose French values, culture, et al , with little facsimile of a regard for another culture. This today continues in the French cultural centres across the globe, regardless of the country hosting those centres, regardless in more than one way.

Anyone from US (or UK) visiting France knows about the attitude in matter of short time of course, but then again there is another side. On the other hand one has met such friendly behaviour and unexpected gracious behaviour there too that one never loses the impression of charm and beauty. The secular, the sincere, the true of France is forever at war with the authoritarian, the controlling, the imposing. One hopes the better side wins, ever.

Beautiful Himaalaya, strife, illusions of freedom

Beautiful and lofty Himaalaya extends from eastern borders, of the land known forever outside the land named India - by all those that had to cross the river named Indus by those that had to cross it to get to India - to the northwest, where a desert and the river named Sindhu in India (which was distorted to Indus since Sindhu seemed difficult to pronounce if one did not speak Sanskrt and had not such clarity of pronounciation) were the boundaries of the land, until the river met the ocean that continued the borders to the other two sides.

Shaped like a diamond and famed for diamonds and other objects that signify wealth, the land produced fine cloth, fine artifacts, excellent quality metalware including household pots and weapons for armies, and more - spices, sandalwood, and anything a human might need or wish for. So those that lived there had no need to think of going anywhere else except for pure wanderlust, and even that was more than provide for by roaming in the stupendous Himaalaya and reflecting on the nature of existence till one found one's soul and was one with Divine.

Meanwhile the kingdoms within the land had schools and universities - the oldest in the world - and education of every possible sort flourished. From the testimony of those that came visiting these universities to learn, there was no slavery, not in India. With such contentment, a languor set in, poetry and philosophy and discussions being as much serious occupations as trade or agriculture or production of various objects of art and crafts.

And then came the hoards that were not satisfied with trade or learning and were far more intent on occupying the world - all the world that was then known, from borders of Pacific in Mongolia to Europe known through trade, and plunder and loot of India was a major stop on the way where some stayed on and others left to go occupy parts of Europe and war with Rome. India was never the same after the intrusion by those that would kill for conversion or simply for greed of what belonged to others, and they looted and plundered and massacred. Laws of war were moreover never followed by the intruders and women or children or old or unarmed were never safe, and freedom suffered as did education, both going indoors for protection, private rather than public unless the specific small region happened to be ruled by Indian rather than a outsider. Which to a large extent explains the divide between the various regions in these two respects - some have hardly any ancient constructions left while others have not only ancient buildings but trees thousands of years old, some have women mostly locked indoors and never stepping out in public without male protection and covering their face at sight of a stranger male while others have women walking in public for whatever need - education, work, or household chores of shopping - unafraid of men and ignoring them as indeed they are ignored in turn, security being in such careless ignoring of people.

But the north, and the northwest in particular, suffered the worst what with repeated assaults and plunders and hoardes passing through on their way in to deep in India, and Himaalaya the much beloved regions of all India in particular never recovered from the assaults that turned the routes of trade and mountains of spiritual retreats and kingdoms famed for wealth into the desolate, poor, harsh surroundings with lack of all possible needs of human civilisation, civil amenities and education and freedom of movement and freedom of worship and freedom of thought and everything achieved by the ancient civilisation of India - this region, in various pieces, occupied by nomads of the Mongolian steppes and ferocious tribes of other regions of Asia.

At that Tibet retained much of civilisation what with close contact with India in spiritual and intellectual matters and aspirations for civilisation, and Kashmir had peace at least, with some semblance of civil amenities for the rest of northwest. Until the partition demanded at literally points of knives - Calcutta had a bloodbath on what those demanding partition called "action day", called for by their leader and obediently so made to happen by his followers, before the national leaders caved in and agreed to a partition, with a separate nation for those that could not live with others, and a mainland India for those that could.

Everyone had a choice in theory. In practice, all but Muslims of Pakistan were either massacred, thrown out at knife points, or raped and kidnapped. And since this was not enough to provoke an official war, Pakistan then proceeded to occupy Kashmir, free until then. This was the attack that made the until then undecided ruler panic and ask for protection for the state from India, signing over Kashmir into being a part of India.

Pakistan occupied Kashmir is misnamed "free" by the rulers of Pakistan, which is a bit of propaganda as thin as China naming occupation of Tibet "day of freedom" and erecting monuments to the lie, while proceeding with a genocide of Tibetans. The world is going to forget Tibet was a separate country just as the world forgot that Prussia was not a part of Germany and that Prussians were people with a separate language not related to German before the crusading Germans thought it was far too much trouble to go to holy land and instead turned to the nearby lands to massacre and occupy.

And nevertheless another US benefactor of the poor of Pakistan occupied Kashmir and regions surrounding - Northwest Frontier Province (they were occupied by Pakistan with blessings of the British, but they never wished to be a part of the partition, and wished to join India, and were very angry at the British and Pakistan alike - but the British never did face them and Pakistan had no intention of conducting a survey or a poll) and Afghanistan (again, territories of various regions that were assigned to this country really belonged elsewhere, India or Central Asia which subsequently was part of Russia, but it suited British to separate Russia and India by hook or by crook and no one paid the slightest attention to dangers of China occupying regions nearby and forming a forced border with India and with Pakistan along with Afghanistan) - so the regions remained poor, occupied, neglected, and in need of benefactors who then would have to go with the formal propaganda of the rulers in order to survive in the region, calling it "free".

Lies one agrees to go with for sake of benefiting others can only benefit so far. One lie by a power occupying and executing a king of the occupied has resulted in genocide in Europe two millennia later. Lies of Pakistan and China not refuted by powers of the world have resulted in creating millions of refugees thrown out and at the very least a couple of million massacred during last century, unrecognised as much as ignored and neglected. As refugees in India they can survive, prosper, but their homelands are lost to them forever.

And yet, Mortenson calls those lands "free". Perhaps for him and his like, freedom is only that which is allowed by an intolerant faith. Thus his willingness to go with the official lie of the lands he is a benefactor to, never mind facts, never mind Truth. As long as the indoctrination suits purposes of ones life and career, eh, one with a good mission?

For the mission he has taken up is truly good, great - but an official lie accepted by such a person for whatever reason might subsequently result in another, devastatingly destructive lie in action.

And meanwhile India still holds Himaalya as region of worship, land of heavenly abode, of Gods - never mind the temporary blip of the marauding hoardes occupying the land and driving out all civilisation, impoverishing the land, spreading grief in the regions that were abode of spiritual achievements and earthly splendour. For what is a millennium in a long history of an ancient land? A mere blip.