| Revision as of 22:52, 19 March 2008 editSethie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,043 edits hey there← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:07, 23 March 2008 edit undoRueben lys (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers11,527 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| If you remember, I was very much interested in working with you ON the Sahaj Marg article (as opposed to deleting it) with you and I am still am. With a few more sources and not giving ] to controversy, an article is probably possible. ] (]) 22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC) | If you remember, I was very much interested in working with you ON the Sahaj Marg article (as opposed to deleting it) with you and I am still am. With a few more sources and not giving ] to controversy, an article is probably possible. ] (]) 22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ==Re;Tagging ]== | |||
| If you ''did'' read the entire page, you will have noticed the '']'' section which is linked in the introductory word (not even sentence, but ''word''). It explains why and how the term "Hindu" came to be used and linked to the conspiracy. For the sake of clarity, I will quote it here | |||
| {{Cquote|The term Hindu was used commonly in opprobrium in America to identify Indians regardless of religion. Likewise, conspiracy was also a negative term. The term Hindu Conspiracy was used by the government to actively discredit the Indian revolutionaries.}} | |||
| The references 102 and 147 are from Joan Jensen's paper in the February 1979 issue of the ] (Jensen, Joan M (1979), The "Hindu Conspiracy": A Reassessment. The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 48, No. 1. (Feb., 1979), pp. 65-83, University of California Press, ISSN 0030-8684). In the article she explicitly explains why and how it was called the "Hindu-German Conspiracy",even why the term conspiracy came to be used, and also explains why it is a misnomer to describe the event. | |||
| Pardon me for assuming then that you did ''not'' read the entire page, not least a whole section that addresses your concerns. May I request you not to engage in such taggings.] (] '''·''' ]) 20:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:07, 23 March 2008
Thanks and....
Thank you for the changes to your userpage. :) I like this current version much better.
If you remember, I was very much interested in working with you ON the Sahaj Marg article (as opposed to deleting it) with you and I am still am. With a few more sources and not giving WP:UNDUE to controversy, an article is probably possible. Sethie (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Re;Tagging Hindu-German Conspiracy
If you did read the entire page, you will have noticed the Note on the name section which is linked in the introductory word (not even sentence, but word). It explains why and how the term "Hindu" came to be used and linked to the conspiracy. For the sake of clarity, I will quote it here
| “ | The term Hindu was used commonly in opprobrium in America to identify Indians regardless of religion. Likewise, conspiracy was also a negative term. The term Hindu Conspiracy was used by the government to actively discredit the Indian revolutionaries. | ” |
The references 102 and 147 are from Joan Jensen's paper in the February 1979 issue of the Pacific Historical Review (Jensen, Joan M (1979), The "Hindu Conspiracy": A Reassessment. The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 48, No. 1. (Feb., 1979), pp. 65-83, University of California Press, ISSN 0030-8684). In the article she explicitly explains why and how it was called the "Hindu-German Conspiracy",even why the term conspiracy came to be used, and also explains why it is a misnomer to describe the event.
Pardon me for assuming then that you did not read the entire page, not least a whole section that addresses your concerns. May I request you not to engage in such taggings.] (] · ]) 20:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)