Talk:Somnath temple

False assertions

User:Jedi3 is asserting false reasons and is getting involved in edit war. However as I don't want to I have reverted myself for now [1]. The reasons given by him are fairly trivial. He claims quotes by fictional authors are important. How? He never explains.

He also keeps telling to shift it to Disputed or Misattributed (basically they are same as there is a dispute regarding about wrong attribution in all of them). However, those sections are only for quotes that actually are disputed or misattributed. See Wikipedia: Misattributed and Template:Remove. His quote is not disputed or misattributed.

In addition, the removal of quotes is allowed with an edit summary and should "almost always" be moved to talk page. His assertion that quotes can't be removed is false. Though it wasn't me who originally removed them, I am monitoring Jedi3 and reverting his disruptive actions. Instead of edit-warring everywhere and making things up, I suggest he read the rules. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You did not move the quote to the talkpage as required and as explained to you several times by several people (also on your talkpage). If you do not move it, the deletion can be reverted for this reason alone.

Additionally, for this article, this quote is relevant and important. The quote comes from a very influential novel (first detective novel), and the main plot device is the moonstone, whose origin and final destination is Somnath temple. So the novel's description of Somnath is very relevant for this article. You are also mistaken in your belief that fiction books cannot be quoted.--Jedi3 (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 I am only reverting your edits. That principal of moving to talk page doesn't apply here as my real intention is stopping your disruptive edits. But I started this page to avoid edit war. It doesn't matter if the novel is famous or not or if the author is famous. Is the quote even itself famous? There are a thousand of "influential novels" talking about many historical people or places, for example Caesar, Napoleon, Waterloo, Gettysburg etc

Why should your addition be treated as special. If we do this, thousands of fictional quotes can be added everywhere. There is no moonstone of Somnath. It is fiction. We cannot add just about anything someone made up. In short this also concerns with notability and relevance to the topic. And as you said the real topic is "The Moonstone". Somnath is not the real topic. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You are making it sound like the quote is random, it is not. The quote is about Somnath and therefore relevant. Yes, many English books may talk about Waterloo, but how many English classics talk about Somnath? The book and the "moonstone" is also known as the Diamond of Somnath Temple. --Jedi3 (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 Your quote is random and not notable. Everything someone says it is not notable. The real subject in your quote is the moonstone's origins. Also the link you claimed [2], "The Diamond of Somnath Temple" is not the real title by Collins. You have made a desparate effort that it is known as such. It seems actually made up by additional author or editor - Boman H. Mehta. Read this link, it clearly says it is an "edited and abridged version" of the "The Moonstone" in 1958, much later than Collins. Just because it talks about Somnath briefly doesn't mean it should be here. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Also I see only 1 person on my talkpage and repeating the same thing everywhere else, that is you. Do also care to read the rules I left at your own talk page before informing me. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User:DanielTom also told you the same thing on Tipu Sultan about not deleting quotes altogether without moving them, which I'm sure you remember. --Jedi3 (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 DanielTom was referring to another editor who removed a quote regarding inscription on Tipu Sultan's sword claiming the quote was not his saying. He only said "the quote should not be removed", not "no quote should not be removed". He only referred to the inscription whoch was claimed as Tipu's sayings. Do not twist statements of others and making bad faith allegations.

Disputed or Misattributed only belongs to dsputed or misattributed quotes. Per Template:Remove misattributed quotes should be shifted to misattributed. Same is with Wikipedia:Misattributed. No explicit policy on disputed, but quotes that aren't disputed shouldn't be called "Disputed" as it will be an unsourced claim. Your quote is not disputed or misattributed.

Read the rules and follow them instead of making excuses that someone said this or that and making up your own rules of what can be removed or not. The real rules already exist and clarify conditions to add or remove quotes. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed quote

I have removed a non-notable quote about which Jedi3 is making poor-excuses. I'm moving it here. Everything someone says is not notable. Whether "The Moonstone" is the only book talking about Somnath, I do not know. But that is not a factor for notability. The factor is clearly detailed in WQ:Q#Notability of author or work factor "Notability of the author is not required for a quote to be included in a page on a theme. It is the quote itself that must be notable."

Also Jedi3 has been falsely misrepresenting comments of others and calling for his quotes to be shifted to "Disputed" or "Misattributed". However, he clearly knows his quotes are not disputed or misattributed about who said them. Template:Remove and Wikiquote:Misattribution,clearly say it is talking about quotes misattributed to someone. Similar policy should be followed on disputed. Calling something as disputed or misattributed when it is not is an unsourced edit, and unsourced edits are liable to be removed under WQ:SAU.

• At that date, the Mohammedan conqueror, Mahmoud of Ghizni, crossed India; seized on the holy city of Somnauth; and stripped of its treasures the famous temple, which had stood for centuries--the shrine of Hindoo pilgrimage, and the wonder of the Eastern world. Of all the deities worshipped in the temple, the moon-god alone escaped the rapacity of the conquering Mohammedans. Preserved by three Brahmins, the inviolate deity, bearing the Yellow Diamond in its forehead, was removed by night, and was transported to the second of the sacred cities of India--the city of Benares.
  • THE MOONSTONE, A Romance by Wilkie Collins

MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I still disagree that the quote is not memorable and relevant. Your linked article states that a poignant quote can be included, and I'd say an influential English novel calling Somnath the wonder of the Eastern world is poignant and memorable. Your judgement was already completely wrong in all the Deletion discussions you nominated, which makes me doubt your judgement for such cases.

I will add the quote back but make it shorter. If you still disagree, I will ask for a second opinion. --Jedi3 (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 You may disagree all you want, but someone stating something doesn't make it notable administrator. But whose judgment is wrong when you have the problem in following the rules? The quote itself must be notable. WQ:Q#Notability of author or work factor clearly says "It is the quote itself that must be notable."

Seek second opinion if you want, preferably an administrator who knows the rules and can inform you. But rules remain the same. Follow the rules, if you break them again you should be blocked. Also don't lie again as you did about the title of the much later abridged version being an original alternate title of The Moonstone. There is no space for false claims here. I am not here to bother about your opinion on "my judgments", only rules. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You quote WQ:Q#Notability of author or work factor, but have you read it? It is about the notability for a page on a person or a work, not for a particular quote. The next paragraph defines notable as including poignant or witty quotes. As I said before, an influential English novel calling Somnath the wonder of the Eastern world is a poignant quote. --Jedi3 (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you even read it yourself? The full statement is: "It is the quote itself that must be notable. Thus, a particularly poignant or witty quote may be included even if the identity of the author is unknown." It clearly says the quote must be notable. It does not say anywhere that quote need not be notable. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary defines notable as "Worthy of attention or notice; remarkable". The link at WQ:Q#Notability of author or work factor defines it as a "a particularly poignant or witty quote". You have not explained why the quote in question is not a poignant or a witty quote. As I said before, an influential English novel calling Somnath the wonder of the Eastern world is a poignant quote. --Jedi3 (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Only read this: "A person may in fact be highly notable for reasons unrelated to authorship of quotes, and yet never say a single thing worth quoting." There is no rule that it should be there even if not notable. As I said earlier, everything someone says is not notable. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and the next sentence says that a notable baseball player may not be notable for quotes, but a poet or a pundit like Wilkie is. All that this says is that people that are only notable for things unrelated to quotes, like a notable baseball player, should not have their own pages on wikiquote. --Jedi3 (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually it says he may be notable but make no notable quotes, but there are players like Yogi Berra who make memorable quotes. It doesn't say anything about author or work, simply talks about the quote being memorable, "unless that baseball player is someone like Yogi Berra, known for memorable comments". Template:Fame similarly says notable quote from notable author or wok, not any quote. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Template Fame is for quotes from non-notable people who don't even a wikipedia article. Many people have added quotes from themselves or from their friends, the template is used for such cases. Wilkie however is clearly notable, and a writer of influential works is clearly also known for memorable comments. --Jedi3 (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It actually says: "Wikiquote exists for the collecting of notable quotations of famous people and famous works". MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

...not for the posting of quotations of people not yet famous in some field Why don't you quote the full sentence? Of course Wilkie is famous in some field, or not? Your edit summary makes no sense at all, notable is defined as including poignant or witty quotes, so you need to prove that the quote is not poignant or witty. --Jedi3 (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you quote it yourself and at the same time stop making up your own claims? I'm only highlighting the condition it lays down for the quote to be notable: "...Wikiquote exists for the collecting of notable quotations of famous people and famous works...". Also "...not for the posting of quotations of people not yet famous in some field" Does it say quote anything from a famous person or famous work? Your "quote" doesn't even fall into the definition of poignant or witty. That's it. Oh and that "poignant or witty" you're repeating actually point-blank lays a condition "It is the quote itself that must be notable." Full statements? Is your quote notable? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same points without having proven that the quote is not poignant or witty. What you are quoting only regards the question whether an article on a subject can be created, or the case where editors create pages for quotes about themselves or their friends. But this is irrelevant to this quote. --Jedi3 (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Your the one repeating. You just need a dictionary to know what even poignant or witty is. There is no rule of poignant or witty without them being notable. Neither your quote falls within a mile of being poignant or witty. What I'm quoting actually says Wikiquote exists for notable quotations. Same criteria is repeated elsewhere. Also your "poignant and witty" was from this: "It is the quote itself that must be notable. Thus, a particularly poignant or witty quote may be included even if the identity of the author is unknown." The condition is laid there - it must be notable. The "quote" is not even poignant or witty, forget being notable. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

With your latest edit summary "Rules don't require consensus" I think I finally understand where (at least one) of your misunderstandings comes from. Let me explain it to you. You were quoting guidelines, not "rules". Your edit summary makes me think you meant rules of law, as in law or policy, but you were quoting WQ guidelines, guidelines, which must be evaluated on a case by case basis with consensus. The other problem is that you have not given any proof for any of your claims! My claims can be easily verified. You don't need access to a library to verify that Wilkie is famous and notable in some field (and has a wikipedia article), and even though I agree with you that Wilkie is not an expert on India or Indian history, you have to take into account that the quote itself comes from a notable publication, Wilkie is also pundit or writer, the quote is verifiably sourced, and the quote is witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, memorable, novel, original, informative or poignant. So most of the guidelines are checked. It is not required that 100 percent of the guidelines are checked.

Unfortunately your edit summary also seems to show a mentality that is opposed to consensus and collaboration. But wikiquote requires collaboration and consensus building and also requires respecting different views. I have already attempted collaboration with you and have modified and shortened the quote. But the shortened quote is still relevant to this article, and I have explained to you that the quote is memorable and poignant because it describes Somnath as the Wonder of the Eastern world. Please never again delete quotes from an article that was created or expanded just a short while ago (articles need some time of work until all the copyediting is done) and (as has been told to you many times) always move quotes to the talkpage that you want to remove. I have in the past hours created and expanded quite many articles and will need some time to reorganize, move, or copyedit the new quotes. --Jedi3 (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not opposed to consensus. What I'm opposed to is using it as an excuse to break rules. have been in many discussions and consensus but they don't break the rules. Based on your claims multiple disruptive editors could team up and do what they want if we gave precedence to their opinions and there will be no point in having any rules.

Also poignant - "evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret". Witty - "showing or characterized by quick and inventive verbal humor." Your quote is not even near to what you claimed it to be. Regardless the guidelines dictate it must be notable. I don't understand how anyone allowed you to do what you want when you don't know the basic meaning of words. Please take as much time legitimately required so your articles meet the rules and be careful in future. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You have not given any proof that it is not notable. Are you a specialist in English literature who has read the Wilkie Collins bibliography and can judge it? There is no single guideline to establish notability, it has to judged on a case by case basis. As the guidelines say, it is very difficult and very subjective determination to say that one quote is "quotable". It is easy to establish in case an editor creates a page for quotes about themselves or their friends, but not in cases such as this one. A quote can be notable because it is "particulary poignant or witty", and coming "from a pundit or poet". In this particular case I have argued it meets it because Wilkie is famous and notable in some field (and has a wikipedia article), Wilkie is also a pundit or writer, the quote is verifiably sourced, and the quote meets at least one of these conditions: it is particulary witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, memorable, novel, original, informative or poignant. So most of the guidelines are checked. It is not required that 100 percent of the guidelines are checked. I stand by my argument that is a particularly memorable and poignant quote because the quote describes Somnath as the wonder of the Eastern world. --Jedi3 (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It's from the Oxford dictionary, you should have checked the dictionary yourself when you said to me about it. Poignant - "evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret". Witty - "showing or characterized by quick and inventive verbal humor." It doesn't fit within the definition. What is poignant or witty here? Calling it wonder doesn't have anything to do with it. I am not an expert, but I can read. When multiple pages and rules say that the quote itself must be notable, you want to make up your own rules? This is not your personal website, nor it allows to do whatever you want. Besides there is no such rule or guideline like quote can be notable because it is "particular poignant or witty". You haven't proved anything about notability and are only making up about "poignant or witty". Neither it was much quoted. If you don't know basic meanings of them, then you shouldn't edit. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Poignant and witty is listed as one of the criteria, see "Where the author is highly notable, the inclusion of less literate statements by that author may be justified. Where the speaker is of little notability, we seek the witty, the pithy, the wise, the eloquent, and the poignant expressions." However, oft-quoted is not as itself listed as mandatory or defined, and would be difficult for you to define anyway since you have already admitted that you are not a specialist neither on English literature nor on Wilkie Collins. I stand by my argument that is a particularly memorable and poignant quote because the quote describes Somnath as the wonder of the Eastern world. You can call that pithy or eloquent also, if you don't like the word poignant, but in any case it is memorable. --Jedi3 (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

When I say "oft-quoted" I'm referring to WQ:WQ criteria. Poignant and witty is not a criteria. The actual statment is about the notability of the quote, ""It is the quote itself that must be notable. Thus, a particularly poignant or witty quote may be included even if the identity of the author is unknown."

Also here's the dictionary definition: Poignant - "evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret". Witty - "showing or characterized by quick and inventive verbal humor." What poignant or witty? Have you even read whatvit means before making claims? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

"When I say "oft-quoted" I'm referring to WQ:WQ criteria." Again, this is not policy page or a guideline page. And where do you see oft-quoted in that page?? " Poignant and witty is not a criteria. " It is one of the criteria at the guidelines page. "The actual statment is about the notability of the quote, ""It is the quote itself that must be notable. Thus, a particularly poignant or witty quote may be included even if the identity of the author is unknown." Here you go, particularly poignant or witty quote may be one of the criteria. "Also here's the dictionary definition: Poignant - "evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret". Witty - "showing or characterized by quick and inventive verbal humor." What poignant or witty? " You are repeating yourself. The guidelines also include the criteria "eloquent" as valid. --Jedi3 (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

"Again, this is not policy page or a guideline page. And where do you see oft-quoted in that page?" The relevance of the quote is said so clearly in WQ:WQ. Or is oft-quoted not relevant? Also it is actually what Wikiquote is itself. So please stop making it up it isn't a policy or guideline.

It is actually you who is repeating the same thing about poignant or witty. Making the same baseless claims again and again. I'm only pointing out the definition and how your quote doesn't even fall in their domain. There is nothing about, "eloquent", "witty" or "poignant" as criteria. Nor it claims you can add simply based on it. The only criteria is again - "It is the quote itself that must be notable." MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

"The relevance of the quote is said so clearly in WQ:WQ. Or is oft-quoted not relevant? No it is not. The word oft quoted is not found on that page, and for a reason, it would be impossible to define, especially since you admit you are not a specialist. " Also it is actually what Wikiquote is itself. So please stop making it up it isn't a policy or guideline." It is not a policy and it is not even a guideline!!! So please stop referring to it with false claims. "It is actually you who is repeating the same thing about poignant or witty. Making the same baseless claims again and again. I'm only pointing out the definition and how your quote doesn't even fall in their domain. There is nothing about, "eloquent", "witty" or "poignant" as criteria. Nor it claims you can add simply based on it. The only criteria is again - "It is the quote itself that must be notable." Yes, and there are many critiria for notable, among them particularly poignant or witty or eloquent quotes. You can find these words listed in the guidelines (oft quoted is not listed because it is impossible to prove), but particulary poignant is one of the criteria: "Is the quote itself particularly witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant?" "Is the quote itself unusually pithy, witty, wise, eloquent, or poignant?" "Notability of the author is not required for a quote to be included in a page on a theme. It is the quote itself that must be notable. Thus, a particularly poignant or witty quote may be included even if the identity of the author is unknown. " "Where the author is highly notable, the inclusion of less literate statements by that author may be justified. Where the speaker is of little notability, we seek the witty, the pithy, the wise, the eloquent, and the poignant expressions." You see I just quoted it FOUR times from the guidelines page. --Jedi3 (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no claim there that once it is witty, poignant eloquent etc that you can add what you want. Regardless, it doesn't even fall within the definition. But it does clearly says "The quote itself must be notable." It does say must. Try reading it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself without reading what I wrote. It is notable because it describes Somnath in vivid detail which means the quote is memorable. Not only that it is calling Somnath the wonder of the Eastern world which is notable as it is a particularly eloquent quote which is one of the criteria for notability in the guideline. An influential English novel describing an exotic place (for English people) like Somnath in vivid detail means the quote is memorable. ---Jedi3 (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

What is this exotic? Simply call it something and be done? Is it notable? Is it relevant? Most of all, ehat you earlier were repeating about was that it was from Wilkie Collins so it kust be added, but now you have switched positions. It is clear you are running round and round with same disproved theory, only to jump to the next when your claims are proved false. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Second censored quote

• “The Mlechchha (asura) stone breakers climbed up the shikhar of the Temple and began to rain blows on the stone idols on all three sides by their hammers, the stone pieces falling all around. They loosened every joint of the Temple building, and then began to break the different layers (thara) and the sculptured elephants and horses carved on them by incessant blows of their hammers. Then, amidst loud and vulgar clamour, they began to apply force from both the sides to uproot the massive idol by means of wooden beams and iron crowbars”

−

• • (Kanhadade Prabandha, Canto I, vss. 94-96).

Article Discussion page	Number of censored quotes	MonsterHunter32 moved censored quotes to talk?	MonsterHunter32 gave full reasoning for deletions on talk?	Current status
* Talk:Aurangzeb	Almost 40 quotes.	The quotes added on 23 March were NOT moved to talk. The previously added quotes were added to talk.	Reasoning for ONE quote (Will Durant quote) given, but no consensus achieved. Comments from other editors about the Will Durant quote needed.	MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for each of the rest of the DELETED quotes on the talkpage. Comments from other editors about the Will Durant quote needed. Please see discussion at Talk:India#Summary_table.
* Talk:Somnath temple	2 quotes.	Started deleting quote on 7 January, moved ONE quote to talk on 21 January. Second quote not moved to talk by MH32.	Reasoning given for ONE quote, but no consensus achieved. Second DELETED quote needs reasoning. Comments from other editors needed.	MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for the second DELETED quote on the talkpage. Comments from other editors about the Wilkie Collins quote needed. Please see discussion at Talk:India#Summary_table.
* Talk:Swami Vivekananda	1 quote.	No. He refused to move it to talk despite being asked many times.	No reasoning given on talk.	MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for the DELETED quote on the talkpage.
* Talk:Historical negationism	1 quote.	No. He refused to move it to talk despite being asked many times.	No reasoning given on talk.	MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for the censored quote on the talkpage.
* Talk:Slavery in India	3 quotes.	No. He refused to move the censored quotes to talk despite being asked many times.	No reasoning given on talk.	MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for each of the DELETED quotes on the talkpage.
* Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim	About 15 quotes.	No. He refused to move the censored quotes to talk despite being asked many times.	No reasoning given on talk.	MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for each of the DELETED quotes on the talkpage.
* Talk:Malabar rebellion	1 quote.	No. He refused to move it to talk despite being asked many times.	No reasoning given on talk.	MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for the censored quote on the talkpage.

Somnath temple information

My mind is saying that you will tell me that 2409:4081:E0D:FE38:3DA4:F053:A170:DD27 16:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)