Talk:Āryāvarta

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 17:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: It has been discovered that this book:
*Gupta, Om. Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Gyan Publishing House, 2006. , 9788182053892. 
Contains significant amounts of material plagiarized from Wikipedia articles. (Some other books from the same publisher also have this problem). There is no practical way of determining which material came from Wikipedia, and which came from other sources. Further, widespread plagiarism is an indication of poor scholarship. For those reasons, and according to Wikipedia policy, WP:CIRCULAR, I will deleting all citations to the book. However I will not delete the material that cites it, as there's no indication that the material is inaccurate. For more background, see WP:RSN#Circular references: Gyan Publishing and ISHA Books, or the archive it goes there.   Will Beback  talk   22:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok but why have you deleted ref from book written by Bijay Chandra Mazumdar ? Rajkris (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh

message: A user has reverted this source found at this location:
http://books.google.com/books?id=am3XAAAAMAAJ&q=Aryavarta+Cyrus+the+Great&dq=Aryavarta+Cyrus+the+Great&hl=en&ei=2NYTTsLzJOrf0QHU9rn4CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ
Unfortuantely the source does not show the entire text in this link. You can find a snippet view on this location:
http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=Aryavarta+Cyrus+the+Great&btnG=Search+Books
I like a general consensus on how people feel on this? I am going to go back and make a slight alteration stating that "Some soruces argue." Let me know how u feel. Thank you Dr. Persi (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your source do not say it is Cyrus who gave that name.Rajkris (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I read a bit on this and could not find anymore than the source above on this. My aformentioned source DOES state the point however it is only one source and from what I have read in the literature it is not widely accepted. No matter that portion about Cyrus the Great would not be mentioned unless I find a more robust source. However I have added new content which you have also reverted. Why? This content has nothing to do with Cyrus the Great and is basically an expansion on the article itself. Maybe you were to hasty to revert it? I have reverted the version to the link itself. Please read it and you can actually click on it and go to the page for that content on Google books. How is that? 
Also I have a request. Please assume good faith and avoid confrontation. I am only interested in the article and we are all trying to better its quality so lets work together instead? Thanks Dr. Persi (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

text:  Then i advise you to rewrite your sentence according to what is written in your ref. The ref says it is 19th century theory. This theory is no longer accepted by scholars.Rajkris (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, rewritten. How about this? Dr. Persi (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Better than before.Rajkris (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Also I read the source, it says nothing that this view point is wrong, but that it is "old." Also I tried to find a "modern" view on what the origin of Aryavarta is and aside from stating the same poitns that is in the article not much formulated. What can you do with limited sources? Dr. Persi (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: Rajkris you seem to know a lot about Aryavarta so why are you not providing the sources? Why is there two citation needed tags? Why not replace them with applicable sources?
Here are some ideas but I really have little clue ont he general topic (as far as it concerns Modern India and such) so here are some suggestions:
http://books.google.com/books?id=aLh_0iJDs4sC&pg=PA175&dq=Aryavarta++Pata%C3%B1jali's+Mah%C4%81bh%C4%81%E1%B9%A3ya&hl=en&ei=r-4UTqWqHYnfgQfb9bT-BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=efaOR_-YsIcC&pg=PA220&dq=Aryavarta++Pata%C3%B1jali's+Mah%C4%81bh%C4%81%E1%B9%A3ya&hl=en&ei=r-4UTqWqHYnfgQfb9bT-BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Dr. Persi (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just too busy... I will check your refs. Thanks you.Rajkris (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Needed

message: If you wish to add a new section to an article, that section needs to be sourced, and those sources need to follow the basic rules for sourcing, if either of those rules are violated, it is usually valid to remove that section, if you wish to fix a poor section, you can copy it into your sandbox page and work on it there. However, if a section does fit the Wikipedia rules for sourcing, it does not require consensus to add, regardless of how large it is. Finally, the person adding something being a sock account is not a valid reason to remove to addition if said addition was valid in the first place. If you wish to argue about this further, do it in the replies to this topic, not in the history of the article itself. Hexifi (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon further investigation it has come to my attention that the person who is using the sock account has been banned from editing the English Wikipedia, in which case it is valid to remove said person's edits regardless of the sourcing within them. Hexifi (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you trying to educate? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not anyone in particular, just anyone who hasn't been down in the weeds while this has been happening and may be thinking of intervening in the article, and was looking for some sort of guide for which parts of the history are following the rules or not. I probably should have made that clear in the original post. Obviously some parts of that post were just a mistake as to what was actually going down on my part, so it is probably best to just remove or archive it. At the end of the day it shouldn't much matter now that it has the auto-confirmed restriction. Hexifi (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are we keeping this? Shouldn't we remove it per WP:BANREVERT WP:DENY? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the "Political history" section that I made at the bottom is fine. There seems to have been a revival of the "aryavarta" term during the early medieval times. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The past few days here have been a mess, we need to clarify some things