User talk:ISKapoor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, ISKapoor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  DaGizza Chat (c) 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Hinduism WikiProject

Hi ISKapoor, I've seen that most of your edits on Wikipedia are Hinduism related. There is a project on Hinduism here, where people improve information together. You may consider joining. Thanks GizzaChat © 05:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Changes made on Brahmin

Dear Kapoor, I have noticed the changes that you had made on Brahmin communities. But you left too many red links there, and destroyed a number of existing blue links. You haven't provided any reference for ur classification pancha dravid, pancha gauda. You worked out your mere logic that Pancha must refer to five. Dont make such changes without discussion with wiki administrators. Aanannd Pranav Sharma

I have restored the list of Brahmin communities that was deleted by someone by creating a separate page.
The Pancha Gauda and Pancha Dravida classification is classic, it is given in all the books on history of Brahmin communities, for example in Brahmanitpatti Martanda.
Pancha indeed means five in Sanskrit, however each of the five includes several communities.--ISKapoor 22:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply: I admit the fact that the Pancha Gauda and Pancha Dravida classification is classic. But when the anon.(?) user made to arrange the Brahmin communities under five groups in each case, he left too many red links there. He couldn't group the caste names under such heads. Is such a grouping acceptable? Comment on my talk page or in Brahmin discussion page Aanand Pranav Sharma 19:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kapoor

Hello, Iskapoor, I noticed you did some work on the Kapoor article. I have just a general question: If the family was founded by Sangam Rai of Kotli in Punjab in 1657, does this mean that the last name Kapoor is used for the first time that year and that all people who are Kapoors draw from the same lineage, meaning: have Sangam Rai as their great-great-great-grandfather? Are all those Bollywood-Kapoors related? Or am I misunderstanding things? Maybe that would be worth mentioning in the article too. Best regards, Plumcouch 19:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Plumcouch:

The name Kapoor must have been much older than 1657. Sangam Rai only started the Burdwan dynasty.

Majority of the Bollywood-Kapoors are descendants of Prithviraj Kapoor. Some like Shahid Kapur are not.

The Bollywood-Kapoors are not directly related to the dynasty started by Sangam Rai. However the two families may have been connected some time prior to 1657.

Thanks a lot. And thanks for expanding the Kapoor article. I learnt a lot! :) Regards, --Plumcouch 21:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Help

Hi ISKapoor, I never knew a page on Anti-Brahmanism! I already find the Brahmanism strange and dfficult to understand. I also don't live in America so I have no idea about the FOSA. Sorry about that. Rather than bringing me into the edit conflict, it would be best to go the WP:MC and ask someone who has no Hindu bias or Anti-Hnidu bias on anything. GizzaChat © 22:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

Fasten 21:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Mehra

Hi ISKapoor, i must disagree on your assumption that Mehra is a sanskrit name, I think it is a Persian name from the Mogul empire as it is widespread there in Iran eg. Mehrabad(city) and mehrabad Airport. What do you think. reply to lonewo1f66@hotmail.com

Note that Sanskrit Mihir (as in Varahamihira) and Avestan Mihr are cognate. Common Sanskrit form is Mitra however Mihir is also used in Sanskrit. The word means Sun. --ISKapoor 01:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Brahmanism case

Please go to User:Jbolden1517/anti-Brahmanism

__________________________

I notice you logged in yesterday. Could you please at least respond letting me know if you are refusing mediation. We have an open case which you are part of and I think its only fair that I get some sort of status from you. jbolden1517Talk 15:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

____________________________________________

Thanks for the message. The mediation group I'm part of is the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. You can go to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases and see all the cases they are involved in. If you want to see some closed cases Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Closed Cases 3.

As far as the concern about eloquence don't worry about it. I'm not an arbitrator you don't have to argue your case successfully. Ultimately you have to agree to everything that comes out of the mediation process. All I can do is help you and Anirvan produce the best article possible. As soon as you want the Cabal process to stop it stops. So here is what I want to know:

  1. Do you want help in working this out?
  2. If so are you willing to do this via email for a little while (that allows both of you to speak privately).
  3. If so can you email me and we'll get started (that's my preference)
  4. If you don't want to do this by email but do want mediation than I'll set up a talk page for you and I to do this (i can also do it on or off site).

To email me go to my user page and then his the "E-mail this user" item which is on the far left. I'm also going to email you again. jbolden1517Talk 05:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urgent Request

Dear ISKapoor

I would like to bring something to your attention (a proposed deletion of a wikipedia article) and would like to request your help. I am

I have seen some of your contributions, and I think you might have a good understanding of the issues involved. Please look at the article: India_Basher and views about its proposed deltion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/India_Basher. I am hoping to save the article.

I believe that those supporting deletion of the article are not familiar with the subject. With your knowledge of India and its interaction with the world, you can probably make an informed decision about value of the article, and its accuracy. I will appreciate if you can share your thoughts at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/India_Basher.

You can my my contributions to Wikipedia at Special:Contributions/Cardreader

.--Cardreader 22:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aanand again - on the issue of Brahmin communities

Dear Kapoor, I appreciate your attempt to classify entire brahmins in India. However while you are making subgroups in Brahmin communities, too many errors are occuring.. Is such a classification possible? I know that there are Gouda brahmins in Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu.. In most of these places the Gouda-Saraswat Brahmins occupies a major place in the Brahmin community. You may argue that thay are migrants.. But according to the current status, they are a part of these lands and they are speakers of native languages. Put your comments about this issue on my talk page.. As far as the classification made on the Tamil and Kerala Brahmins, it is not acceptable. You put those two under same title, Dravida Brahmins.. But they donot form a group of common tradition. These two groups of brahmins are very distinct in their culture and rituals. You have to revice these topics also.. Expecting reasonable and acceptable changes.. Aanand Pranav Sharma 12:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed the classification is not quite straightforward. I am consulting ब्राह्मणोत्पत्तिमार्तण्ड, जातिभास्कर and other texts to resilve some of the questions. The Saraswata in South India are indeed classified as Panch Gauda. I have seen a map where they are shown as Panch Gauda. Ultimately all the Brahmins are descendants of the same rishis.
Incidentally the person who placed the Tamil and Kerala brahmins in the same group, is not me, however I believe that it is the accepted classification. Historically the Namboothris are connected with Tulu region, however other Kerala brahmins (Kerala Iyers) are connected with Tamilnadu.--ISKapoor 22:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One more problem

Dear kapoor, the Choodakaranam is defined in the Brahmin article and in the Pushpaka Brahmin article differently. I found that the ritual section is included in the Brahmin page by you. Make the idea clear and before creating a new page, go for a search concerning that issues. Aanand Pranav Sharma 19:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it was contributed by someone else.--ISKapoor 23:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism

Links for Wikipedians interested in Hindu content

--D-Boy 17:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Hinduism always seem to be under fire.--D-Boy 04:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Indian

Why doesn't British Indian have it's own article? There's many other Indian disapora articles around.--D-Boy 04:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Castes and Tribes of the Punjab

Hi. I am asking your opinion on this festering dispute that has developed between myself and Satbir Singh since the past few days.

The facts of the matter are like this:

I created a template called Castes and Tribes of the Punjab with a view to studying the caste and tribal groups that exist in what was the ancient Punjab region (Punjab (Pakistan), Punjab (India), Haryana and Himachal Pradesh). My intention, unlike any Ibbetsons, Todds or Cunninghams was to study these groups from a purely anthropological perspective sans any controversy so that people visiting this portal would get to know about the huge mosaic that my province (I am a Punjabi) is.

I started with a few groups. But soon enough the groups began to increase. For the sake of brevity, I grouped them under Categories. As the template evolved, I learnt not to name any category speculatively.

The final categories were:

Brahmin groups. Dalit groups. Jat clans. Khatris and other groups. Rajput clans. Shaikhs and other groups. Tarkhans and other groups. Others (groups to which i could not attribute any specific status). In the last (Others), I also included groups such as Kamboj, Khasa, Ahir and Gujjar. However, Satbir Singh separated them and bunched them under a new category called "Surviving Ancient Kshatriya Tribes".

Since that day, a revert war has been on between the two of us. According to Satbir, these groups such as the Ahirs (the ancient Abhiras), the Gujjars (Gurjaras), the Khas (the Khasas), the Kamboj (Kambojas) and Yadav (Yadavas) are ancient Kshatriya tribes mentioned in a number of ancient Sanskrit texts.

My own personal opinion is that all this is true. However, some points must be noted:

The Varna System is a topic subject to a lot of controversy and dispute. I have been noticing this in recent weeks. Pages such as Khatri, Rajput, Kayastha and Bhumihar have been vandalised because many people don't agree with the Varna status of these groups. If the Ahirs, the Gujjars, the Khasaa, the Kambojas and the Yadavas are Kshatriya groups, then so are the Rajputs, Jats, Khatris, Tarkhans et al. I did not create a category entitled "Kshatriya groups" in the first place because I knew I was treading on soft ground. All the above mentioned castes claim Kshatriya status. But we all know, how disputable these claims are. The rigmarole that is the Varna System is known to us all. For example, the Jats, who in the Vedic and Mythological periods were workers should be placed in the Shudra Category under the Varna System. But many Jats clans consider themselves the equal and perhaps the superior of Rajputs as adhrents of Kshatriya Dharma. My own caste, the Khatris and related groups such as Aroras claim Kshatriya status. But we have seen on the Khatri page as to what became of that claim. Ahirs, Gujjars and Yadavs are considered to be OBCs in most Indian states inspite of their being the descendants of ancient Abhiras, Gurjaras and Yadus. There is a controversy raging on the Yadav page presently if I am not wrong, on the status of the caste. Taking all these points into consideration and being aware of the fact that there are users (say Sanjay Mohan and Holywarrior, who have caused great disputes on various caste pages, I proposed categories such as "Kambojs and related groups" (Kamboj, Kamboja, Kamboh and Khasa) and "Gujjars and realted groups" (Ahirs, Gujjars, Dhangars and Bakarwals). But Satbir Singh and another user named Sze cavalry01 objected to it. They returned to "Ancient Kshatriya Tribes". I did a little compromise by making it "Ancient Warrior Tribes", which I later realised would also be POV. Therefore, I changed it to just "Ancient Tribes" - A completely unspeculative term.

However, Satbir Singh does not agree. He calls it a "gross suppression of known historical facts", "a crime against history" and "a political agenda" and has termed me a "Vandal". I have put forward my points. But both of us are yet to agree.

I have fighting a revert war with him for almost a week now. Have a look at the template's history page and Satbir Singh's talk page to get a complete idea of the whole fracas.

This fight has become downright silly. I surely don't expect myself to spend my time, money and energy on such a silly matter. And I am sure neither does the other party.

As of now, Administrator Shresth has protected the page on my request. He has also asked that the dispute be discussed on the talk page of the template and a consensus be reached. Yourself and anybody else you know who has an interest in the Punjab, please come and express your opinion on the talk page.

Regards. Rajatjghai 05:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Kapoor

Sir, Regarding the Burdwan (Zamindari) page and its name: it is only to a few people that the family (because of community affiliations) is more important than the political entity. This is not the case generally; it is perfectly normal and logical for the name of the page to be the name of the political entity, not of the family or its title. I did not cite this in my edit summary so as not to provoke an issue, but I see that there is no help to it. I do understand that you have an emotional attachment for the page, due to the Kapoor connection, but maybe you could also appreciate that I have written every word of the page as it now stands; that must be the earnest of my good intentions.

Now that we are at it, let me mention other issues: please try and understand that statements like "he remained a traditional Khatri, with the women of his household remaining away from the glitter and decadance of the movie industry. That changed when his grandson Randhir Kapoor married a movie star Babita in 1971. Prithviraj Kapoor would not have approved of the life-style of his great grand daughters." is simply not encyclopaedic and cannot be accepted on Wikipedia. Your other revertions, as I have mentioned on that talk-page, result in the duplication of information regarding Prithviraj Kapoor over several pages (Prithviraj Kapoor, Kapoor and also Kapoor Family (film)). This is again absurd, wasteful and contrary to policy. Is it really the case that you are unable to see the sense even in that point? Prominent links from the Kapoor page take people to the Zamindari and film-family page, but today, once again, you have reverted to long and POV summaries of those pages on the DAB page! Not only that, but the most prominent part of the summary is a listing of people who received patronage from that landlord family! None of which people are Kapoors! -- I would say that a long list of Kapoors achievers would better impress readers, and also not be misleading. I am also unable to rationalize your previous blind revertion of my work, for instance here.

In view of all this, and of your disregard for the edit-explanations I provided on the Kapoor talk-page, it is more than a little droll for you to accuse me of vandalism. I had liked some of your efforts on the Brahmin page and elsewhere and had imagined that you are a well-meaning, perhaps elderly gentleman and had therefore overlooked all these issues, assuming good faith. It is unfortunate that you fail to extend me the same courtesy. Please excuse my harshness if any and please be more understanding in future of other peoples' edits, especially when they are explicitly explained on the talk-page. Regards, ImpuMozhi 00:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America edits

Hi ISKapoor. You clearly have strong feelings about the contents of the FeTNA article. Would you mind responding at Talk:Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America#Edits, September 12? Thank you. Anirvan 02:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abu Musa al-Hindi

I dunno about the move. His passport name is clearly Dhiren Barot, under which he was prosecuted. Besides, there are so many aliases - al-hindi, al-britani, something else... Are you sure about that? - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Anti-Brahmanism, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

[edit] Religious conversion and terrorism

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Religious conversion and terrorism, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.PelleSmith 01:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Religious conversion and terrorism

An editor has nominated Religious conversion and terrorism, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious conversion and terrorism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. PelleSmith 12:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not canvas in order to votestack.

Please do not engage in WP:CANVAS in order to influence the votes on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious conversion and terrorism. You will notice that I notified everyone who had edited the entry in question, and cross-posted only at Islamist terrorism because I had weeks prior put the suggested merge tag there thus making the AfD more than relevant. By cross-posting at all of the entries for known Islamist terrorists you have been able to reach an intended audience without directly using their talk pages. In essence this is no less WP:CANVAS than going directly to their talk pages. Please do not canvas.PelleSmith 18:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please uncategorize your sandbox

ISKapoor,

Currently, because your copy paste job of an older version of the former "Religious conversion and terrorism" entry exists in your sandbox said sandbox shows up under three separate categories when one browses. Please de-categorize the sandbox while you work on materials there. Thanks.PelleSmith 04:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

I thought you might be interested in this exchange I had with User:PelleSmith.

I brought up a concern I had over on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. [1]

And I brought up a concern with the closing administrator. I told them I was thinking of asking for a deletion review, because I think PelleSmith's editing was inappropriate, and left contributors to the article with a mistaken idea of whther the article was unreferenced.

Cheers! — Geo Swan 17:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raja Dhillu

Regarding your comment in Delhi talk page, I feel the statement should be removed. I have commented in the talk page. Please see.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secret Circular of the Brahmin Samaj of Balaghat

Jeffrey pops in and out so may not see this for a little while. Sure you can recreate it, as long as you establish its notability and provide references. It's only the old version that's gone & there's nothing preventing you from starting it again. If you want to use some of the old text, however, you'll have to ask an admin to restore it & to copy the text to your sandbox or some other user page so you can work on it. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see he's done that for you. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Great, hope it works out fine. Let me know if you need any help. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 07:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Khalistanollars.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Khalistanollars.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Zakir Naik

I would like to add that the section on Zakir Naik's page regarded his views on Non-Muslims has been removed as it was a distorted view of him which seemed more like your own outlook. This was not removed by myself but another wikipedian and rightly so. -->User:Aisha uk [[2]] —Preceding comment was added at 15:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Illegal Bangladeshis living in India

I have nominated Illegal Bangladeshis living in India, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illegal Bangladeshis living in India. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zakir Naik

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Zakir Naik. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zakir Naik

I though I must congratulate you on your efforts to give the article on Zakir Naik a proper un-biased view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherlock holmes 666 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)