User talk:Kautilya3

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan the Arab–Israeli conflict He should not be given alerts for those areas.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

Hi Kautilya, hope all is well with you. Nice to see our paths cross once again. I made few edits in the 2025 Pahalgam attack page and would seek your help in improving the quality of this edits. For example, I have made an edit about reactions in Kashmir but there were issues raised by other editors about original research and unreliable source. I would appreciate if you can do something about it. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bsskchaitanya, I had put the Original Research template on that section last night. I suggest you reduce the excessive citations to start with, and then rephrase sentences in accordance with what the sources say. There is no need to have 6 or 7 citations for single sentences. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to this discussion

https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/pahalgam-attack-probe-agencies-indentify-fifteen-local-kashmiris-who-helped-terrorists/amp_articleshow/120662335.cms

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/15-local-cadres-helped-pahalgam-attackers-probe/articleshow/120655474.cms 2409:40C1:1:7820:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3 For God's sake, please stop acting like an authority on what is considered Islamist terrorism, what is Hindutva, and what constitutes 'normal' Muslim militancy. People were not killed because they were non-Kashmiri—they were killed because they were non-Muslim. Muslim non-Kashmiris were spared. Even an African Muslim would have been spared. The fear of demographic change is itself rooted in religion. Recite the Kalma, and they will accept you with open arms and legs, no matter where you are from (unless racism runs deep). This mindset and the actions associated with it stem from Islamic theology. If you don’t know much about it, it’s better not to act unnecessarily smart everywhere. This is the very prototype of Islamic terrorism. I wonder what world you live in. And RS is not obliged to explain why it called a terrorist attack 'Islamic terrorism,' especially when it’s a given.

Also, it doesn’t matter if an organization is X but calls itself Y. Even the settler colonialism narrative can’t gain as much traction here as in the Israel-Gaza case, because this is essentially the same race versus the same race, divided by religion—unless 'settler colonialism' here is being used as a subtle implication of Hindu colonialism. 2409:40C1:56:2EF1:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3 After analyzing the discussions on the Pahalgam attack and the India-Pakistan conflict pages, some things are becoming clearer and clearer. I have dealt with at least four editors with a pro-Pakistan point of view on that talk page in the past. But i have dealt with them on Hinduism-related pages, whether it's about some verses in the Vedas, pushing the "Hindutva as fascism" narrative, demonizing the Ram Mandir, whitewashing serious crimes by Indian Muslims, or relentlessly glorifying the Indian National Congress etc.

I've lost count of how many times I've had to intervene, fight alone and correct pages. It's not unbelievable, but it is deeply concerning how these individuals are motivated, alert, and outnumber people like me by at least 10 to 1. I used to think they were Indian Muslims or atleast marxists, and I genuinely tried to understand their point of view—what serious issues might drive them to push such narratives.

But after seeing their stance on the Pahalgam attack and the India-Pakistan conflict, I’m shocked. I sincerely hope I’m wrong and that they are actually Pakistanis. Because if not, this is seriously concerning.

You are doing good work. Never been prouder-Fair and balanced. 2409:40C1:1B:6A98:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and Regards, Chandan Ck17840 (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.. The section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ecrusized_and_unilateral_changes Soni (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Dispute Resolution noticeboard, at this thread. Thanks. Wikipedious1 (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved editor, the entire "Background" section, especially the paragraph about "settler colonialism" is clearly WP:SYNTH. I don't see how any of those sources have anything to do with the Pahalgam attack. It is improper editorial synthesis constituting original research. I couldn't find any article covering the attacks tying the cause or the background to "colonialism". Rackaballa (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Settler Colonialism? talk page discussion Wikipedious1 (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no SYNTH when that point is almost verbatim stated by several sources. Wikipedious1 (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the RUSI, Small Wars Journal and Breaking Defense articles in the Analysis section, their links are in the India Pak 2025 conflict talk page. They are neutral and RS sources with reputable authors, they are just not put up their as they say India had a upper hand, which some biased editors don't want to put. Hope you put it. Thanks and Regards, fellow wikipedian Truthprevails999 (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Kautilya3, have to looked upon these 3 articles that I've sent you. I see no reason why they can't be included in the Analysis section. What's your thought on it? Truthprevails999 (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the Washington Post article citing Dr. Walter Ladwig has been removed from the Analysis section, May I know the reason/your thought regarding it. If it was by a mistake when you were merging paragraphs, kindly restore it. Thank you. Truthprevails999 (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have a dedicated paragraph for Walter Ladwig, whatever he said needs to go there. If you think it is needed, you can add it there. Can we put all the discussions on the talk page of the article? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that your revert on Zomi Re-unification Organisation (to Zomi Revolutionary Army) is not entirely wrong, but it was the original name for Zo Reunification Organization, as my redirect. ZRO/ZRA was created much later. See:

https://www.timesofmizoram.com/2017/07/zomi-reunification-organization-zoro.html

https://www.imphaltimes.com/articles/ethnic-churning-chikumi-style/

https://www.etribaltribune.com/index.php/volume-6/mv6i1/hill-politics-and-political-movements-among-the-zo-tribes-in-north-east-india (for scholarly work) Chhandama (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will make it a disambiguation page. Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chhandama, this claim appears to be inaccurate. I have found the original resolution forming ZORO, and it mentions the name as Zo Re-unification Organisation.^[1] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I even found a direct news source from that time.^[2] I am afraid the Zomis generate a lot of self-serving propaganda. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey; this is not about any edit you made. Also, I'm not asking you to edit on my behalf or anything similar (I don't have extended-protected access so it could seem that way). I just have a question for an experienced editor. Since you talked on my page before and also seem familiar with the article in question, I'm asking you.

In 2025 India–Pakistan conflict's infobox, [1] is used as a "third-party" source for the claim that 5 Indian aircraft were shot down. However, when this article talks about the Indian jets, it directly links back to [2], which is just reporting Pakistani claims.

It also includes the clarification "Statements and views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the authors and do not imply endorsement by Harvard University, the Harvard Kennedy School, or the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs."

So, my question is if this actually counts as a "third-party" source for this claim or not? Thanks for your time. Anantanni22 (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow, I hadn't even checked the author. Thanks, good to know! Anantanni22 (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In future, please raise all article-related issues on the article talk page. You can ping me if you need my input. In contentious topics, we need to be more careful than the normal editing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I actually couldn't have raised it on the talk page because it is also locked to extended confirmed users. Probably fair; I'm not yet familiar enough with Wikipedia policies to edit contentious topics. I will keep this in mind for other articles. Anantanni22 (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.theaustraliatoday.com.au/indias-strategic-decimation-of-pakistan-resets-global-geo-political-military-matrix-despite-legacy-media-propaganda/

Before all these claims were rejected because admins says they are from Indian media. But now this is reported by a neutral media The Australiatoday SO this should be added. Australia Today is a neutral media and every news published by them will be fully verified by the cheif editors of Australia today before publishing. 157.51.213.56 (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

in This page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict

Significant changes made today. Have a look. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How come you left me this warning for a single revert but made no warning for other 2 editors who made the reverts over the same content?

You should avoid making these types of edits altogether. Once an editor is alerted, you don't have to remind them again of the AC/DS.

Take some time to read WP:BATTLE. It is not the first time you are showing a battleground mentality and failing to assume good faith in recent days.[3] Orientls (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You made a deletion, and when reverted, did it again. I don't see any effort to seek WP:CONSENSUS in the intervening period. I am sorry if you did make such effort but I missed it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is still a *single* revert. Yes I have made the effort to initiate a talk page discussion [4], and several users had already commented there. Orientls (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]