Misplaced Pages

User talk:Terabar

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Terabar (talk | contribs) at 07:29, 3 March 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:29, 3 March 2016 by Terabar (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Archive

Hi Terabar. I've added MiszaBot to your talkpage, which archives old treads automatically. I've created User talk:Terabar/Archive 1, moved your removed treads to there, including the ones you wanted to erase. It's highly recommanded to keep those treads! Other editors may want to know what kind of trouble you run into; removing them gives the impression you've got something to hide. In the end, it's better to be honest. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User: Joshua Jonathan! I am glad that you added that automatic bot. I have 3 questions for you. Please answer as you see fit.
Of course I'm spying on you! It's called "talk page stalker." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I took a look at the article; honestly, you run yourself into unnecessary trouble over there. Both sources don't mention 300,00 (converts). The copy-vio argument is a stupid argument; it was clearly presented as a quote. The only objection could be that you find it WP:UNDUE, as Human3015 argued. And then, still, others may find it informative. Take care; there are better reasons to get blocked than this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

User: Joshua Jonathan, thanks for guiding me that it could be WP:UNDUE. As far as 30,000 (Thirty Thousand) converts are concerned,if you put two more zeroes then it becomes 3,00,00,00 (Thirty Lakh). That's what one of the sources from the 1st leading newspaper in India, Times of India says. I even mentioned that on article's talkpage.

  • Times of India says that 30 lakh Dalits converted to Buddhism in year 2006.
See 30 lakh Dalits convert to Buddhism
  • The Hindu says that more than 1 Lakh Dalits embraced Buddhism in year 2007.
See One lakh people convert to Buddhism

These two newspapers are the leading newspapers in India. You can verify that even on their respective Misplaced Pages articles. I have pasted some of it below. Misplaced Pages describes Times of India newspaper as

  • "According to the Indian Readership Survey (IRS) 2012, the Times of India is the most widely read English newspaper in India with a readership of 7.643 million. This ranks the Times of India as the top English daily in India by readership."
  • Its official website can be seen here Times of India

Misplaced Pages describes The Hindu newspaper as

  • "It is the second most circulated English-language newspaper in India, with average qualifying sales of 1.39 million copies (as of December 2013). According to the Indian Readership Survey in 2012, it was the third most widely read English newspaper in India (after the Times of India and Hindustan Times), with a readership of 2.2 million people."
  • Its official website can be seen here The Hindu

Will you now please help me Joshua as you helped me earlier? Terabar (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

So, one lakh is 100,000 (western digits)? Which means that 30 lakh is 3,000,000 (western digits)? And 1 lakh is 100,000 (western digits)? Pfooo... Aren't here other sources than these two newspapers? Scholarly sources? ~~
Thanks for replying Joshua! There has to be a book written after year 2006 and 2007 to find some scholarly sources. Most of the books are written on that subject before that year. But some of it are of-course written after 2006. For example this one. . But still this one too cites the source from newspaper, The Hindu which is one of the leading newspaper in India. You can check that for yourself. We can mention both the things on the article as it is from the finest sources in the country. What do you think? Terabar (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be wise not to push too hard on this. It wasn't worth a block. The more interesting question is: why are these numbers relevant? If you only mention "30,000" (or 300,000 or 3,000,000) it's just another instance of "mine is bigger than yours." What's the value of that? Better find good sources, which also provide a context, to make it worth mentioning. Bets regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)