Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chedorlaomer (talk | contribs) at 21:21, 9 October 2008 (→Original research: may be superficial). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hi, I removed the following text that you added... "According to Niccolao Manucci Rajaram and his men dragged out the bones of Akbar, threw them angrily into fire and burnt them. "

I checked this book but I was unable to locate any such incident on the page number you mentioned. Please edit the text again if I have missed something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsbuttar (talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, More random musing, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• 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 Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Chedorlaomer (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Original research

WP:No original research asks that we "take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."

At Akbar the Great you reintroduced information about the Nazis, but the source (Crumpacker) does not in any way relate the Nazis to Akbar, so I ask that you, in accordance with the rules, "not go beyond what is expressed in the sources" because "you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article."

I hope that you understand this and that this will suffice to resolve the dispute. Chedorlaomer (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've brought up this issue at the No original research noticeboard Misplaced Pages:No_original_research/noticeboard#Akbar_the_Great. Chedorlaomer (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with Nazis is Original research. --GDibyendu (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I definitely understand the comparison you were trying to make but since you "pointed out the similarity of treatment of Hindoos and Jews" without any source making this comparison, it violates the original research rules, regardless of how reasonable such a comparison may seem to the editor. I might venture to disavow such a comparison because Muslim societies would generally have different reason for dress codes than the Nazis (issues of ritual purity, &c), but my say is of little importance as well unless a source makes the same claim. In the end, we have to keep original comparisons out of the articles, and stick to those claims directly made by the sources themselves. I hope you understand my argument here. Chedorlaomer (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

On the basic level, we cannot include anything unless the source directly relates it the article's topic. That's just the rule against no original research; there is no good way around it. Personally, I think that with complex issues like dress code phenomena across many different times, places, and contexts, mere 💕 editors are not qualified to make connections that are best left for real academics. Sometimes these distinctions were made in Muslim societies to help Muslim maintain ritual purity since they generally held non-believers in contempt (since Islam was thought of as much more enlightened and correct), but the Nazi treatment of Jews was entirely geared towards persecution; as you might say, it was for "easy targeting." The "similarity" between the two practices may well be only superficial. But again, I'm not claiming expertise, so I offer this reasoning hoping that it might be helpful. Even if my reasoning about the issue itself is incorrect, we are still faced with the No Original Research rule, which does not support inclusion of the Nazi item, regardless of whether or not the comparison may seem correct to us. I hope that this makes some sense to you. Chedorlaomer (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR violation on Akbar the great

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Akbar the Great. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Deepak D'Souza 11:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Niccolao Manucci, Storia Mogor, Published by John Murray in 1907, 319th page