User talk:TeaToasst

Welcome TeaToasst!

Thank you for taking the time to review the edits and provide guidance. I would like to clarify my actions and concerns in one place so the discussion remains transparent and policy-based. My edits were made entirely in good faith with the intention of improving verifiability and accurately reflecting reliable sources. During the ongoing authorship discussion, I spent considerable time locating archival and release-era documentation rather than relying on modern platform summaries. In particular, I added the Discogs archival release record (https://www.discogs.com/release/13532246-Nusrat-Fateh-Ali-Khan-Sanson-Ki-Mala-Pe⁠�), which documents credits taken from original commercial releases such as CDs and vinyl records. In the Tracklist credits of that release, the lyrics are explicitly attributed to Tufail Hoshiarpuri, meaning that at the time the qawwali was officially released, the industry credit already recognized Tufail Hoshiarpuri as the lyricist. My intention was only to ensure that the article text accurately summarized what this cited archival source itself states. I also added supporting literary archival documentation preserved through South Asia Commons (https://southasiacommons.net/artifacts/4611793/soch-mala/5436060/?hl=en-GB⁠�), which records the ghazal within Tufail Hoshiarpuri’s poetry collection Soch Mala. These archival sources represent preserved literary documentation from the pre-digital period, where works were often written long before publication and later catalogued in archives. Therefore, the publication timeline should not be interpreted as contradicting authorship attribution. My concern is that although these references remain cited, the surrounding wording has been altered in a way that no longer reflects the information explicitly contained in the sources. I am not attempting to introduce interpretation or promote any viewpoint; rather, I am trying to align the article wording with verifiable archival and release-era evidence, consistent with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Additionally, newer edits appear to rely on platform listings such as Apple Music, which primarily reflect modern digital distribution metadata and may vary depending on catalog aggregation. While such platforms document availability, they do not independently establish original literary authorship when contemporaneous archival and release credits already exist. For this reason, I believe release-time credits and literary archives should carry appropriate weight when describing attribution. I understand that this is a disputed topic, and I am not seeking to engage in edit warring. A Third Opinion request is already active, and I am fully willing to wait for neutral input so consensus can be reached collaboratively. I respectfully request guidance on how the sourced information can remain represented in a neutral manner that faithfully reflects the cited archival evidence. My goal is simply to improve the article using reliable sources and work constructively with other editors. Thank you for your time and assistance. CiteArchitect (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View) & Significant Views: Wikipedia policy requires representing all significant views published by reliable sources. Since The Times of India, T-Series, and Universal Music Group explicitly attribute the work to Mirabai, this is a significant viewpoint that must be included alongside Tufail Hoshiarpuri to remain neutral.

WP:V (Verifiability) of Industry Metadata: Songwriting credits are legally documented in the music industry. Official metadata from global distributors (Apple Music, Universal Music India) serves as a verifiable third-party record of dual authorship (Hoshiarpuri/Mirabai). Excluding this record ignores the "verifiable reality" of the song's current legal and commercial status.

The "Meera-Corpus" Precedence: Scholarly work by John Stratton Hawley (Oxford University Press) notes that Mirabai’s poetry is an "open tradition." Attributing it solely to a 20th-century poet suggests the themes and lyrics originated then, which contradicts historical records of the Bhakti metaphors (e.g., the "rosary of breath") that existed centuries prior to the publication of Soch Mala.

Cultural and Generic Categorization: The song is widely performed as a Bhajan (devotional hymn), a genre fundamentally linked to Mirabai. Labeling it exclusively as a 20th-century ghazal creates a "Genre Mismatch" that fails to explain why it is performed in temples and devotional settings across the subcontinent.

Completeness of the "Soch Mala" Reference: While Tufail Hoshiarpuri "fixed" the arrangement in Soch Mala, the lyrics themselves utilize traditional padas. Acknowledge the dual authorship reflects the historical process of a modern poet arranging folk/devotional material into a formal literary structure. Dmc51 (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Dmc51 Thank you for presenting your reasoning. I would like to respond respectfully from a policy-based perspective so that the discussion remains aligned with Wikipedia’s sourcing standards.

Regarding WP:NPOV and significant views, neutrality requires representing viewpoints in proportion to the strength and reliability of sources (WP:UNDUE). Media reports or distribution metadata may reflect popular or commercial attribution, but authorship in Wikipedia must be based on sources that explicitly analyze or verify literary authorship. At present, archival literary documentation and release-era credits attribute the ghazal text to Tufail Hoshiarpuri, whereas the cited media sources mention Mirabai primarily as a cultural or devotional association rather than providing manuscript-level or scholarly verification of authorship of this specific text. Therefore, the viewpoints are not equivalent in evidentiary weight.

Concerning WP:V and industry metadata, streaming platforms such as Apple Music or distributor listings primarily represent modern catalog metadata and aggregation practices. Wikipedia policy distinguishes between availability metadata and independent reliable sourcing. Such platforms do not independently establish literary authorship unless supported by secondary scholarly analysis. In contrast, contemporaneous release credits and literary archival publications represent attribution made at or near the time of publication, which carries stronger evidentiary value for authorship claims.

With respect to the reference to John Stratton Hawley and the concept of Mirabai’s "open tradition," acknowledging a broader devotional tradition does not automatically attribute specific later compositions to Mirabai. WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH prohibit editors from extending general scholarly observations about Bhakti traditions to conclude authorship of a particular modern text unless reliable sources explicitly make that connection.

Regarding genre and cultural performance, the fact that a composition is performed as a bhajan or within devotional settings does not determine authorship. Musical genre, thematic symbolism, or devotional usage cannot substitute for documented literary attribution. Many qawwalis and ghazals employ shared Bhakti or Sufi metaphors without implying historical authorship by earlier saints.

Finally, the suggestion of "dual authorship" requires explicit reliable sources directly describing such collaborative or derivative authorship. Wikipedia cannot infer dual authorship based on thematic similarity or tradition alone. If reliable scholarly sources explicitly state that the lyrics are a traditional Mirabai pada later arranged by Tufail Hoshiarpuri, such sources should be presented directly. Until then, assigning dual authorship would risk WP:SYNTH by combining independent ideas not stated together in sources.

I remain open to consensus and welcome additional scholarly sources that explicitly analyze the authorship of this specific text. My intention is only to ensure that attribution reflects verifiable documentation rather than inference, consistent with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV.

Thank you. CiteArchitect (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@CiteArchitect@Dmc51, I have no opinion on the content itself. I reverted only to stop the revert war. Please discuss this matter on the relevant article's talk page, Kindly move this discussion to the article's talk page so that it remains transparent.

Please do not continue reverting each other's edits. Per Wikipedia policy, content disputes must be resolved through discussion and consensus, not repeated reverts. Continued edit-warring may lead to administrative action under the three-revert rule (WP:3RR), which has already been breached.

If the issue cannot be resolved through discussion, you may seek dispute resolution through WP:DRN or request a third opinion at WP:3O. TeaToasst (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@CiteArchitect it seems you are using AI to draft messages. Please note that all contributions must be written in your own words. TeaToasst (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I would like to clarify that I only use AI tools for minor grammatical correction and language polishing. All edits, arguments, and references added by me are based on my own understanding, manual research, and independently verified sources.

I carefully review every statement before posting and take full responsibility for my contributions in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing. The sources and references I added were located and checked by me personally after considerable research effort.

My intention is to improve clarity and maintain neutrality, not to automate or outsource editorial judgment. I am contributing here in good faith and remain open to discussion and consensus with other editors. CiteArchitect (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I would like to clarify that any AI assistance I used was only to improve grammar and readability, with the intention of improving the article, not disrupting or damaging it in any way. All edits were made in good faith to enhance sourcing, clarity, and neutrality.

At this point, I will step back from further editing or clarification on this matter and leave the discussion to other editors and the ongoing dispute-resolution process.

Thank you to everyone for the discussion and assistance. CiteArchitect (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I kindly request that you please take another look at the page once, especially how the references are currently written. At the moment, some references are duplicated and the actual point supported by the cited sources is not clearly reflected in the text.

Even if the attribution issue is still under discussion and cannot yet be fully verified or concluded, at least the references themselves can be formatted correctly and aligned with what the sources actually state. The edit made by the other user added citations, but the supported content from those references has not been properly explained in the article.

I have spent significant time locating and adding archival sources in good faith, so I request that this work not be lost. Please review the references once and help ensure they are accurately represented, even if no final opinion is taken yet on the dispute.

Thank you. CiteArchitect (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

May I know why you reverted the edits? they were constructive Mufti Abrar Aziz (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Choto Katra is the page Mufti Abrar Aziz (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

my bad. Sorry Mufti Abrar Aziz (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I was taking notes on my computer about the citations I removed and can share them on the article's talk page if you want. Unstirredshading23 (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Would it be all right if I continue cleaning up the citations? If I'm violating a policy or guideline, please let me know. Alternatively, if you'd prefer that I share my notes regarding the citations I'm removing, please mention that on the article's talk page. Unstirredshading23 (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I am about to make an edit where I have primarily removed incorrectly cited XLS files. Please verify. Unstirredshading23 (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, @Unstirredshading23 If a reference doesn't support a claim, you're welcome to clean it up. Removing dead links or poor formatting is helpful, but please be careful not to delete verifiable information along with the source. If a fact is true but the citation is bad, it's better to add a ^{[citation needed ]} tag or find a better source instead of removing the content entirely. TeaToasst (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for the input. I'll continue the cleanup. Unstirredshading23 (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Just wanted to thank you for your criticism on the edit I made to the Ronald F Maxwell Wikipedia page. I made sure to include citations and proper etiquette upon my rewrite of said edit. (I made an actual account afterwards which is why this is from a different account lol) BigDawgCleetus (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It is proven beyond doubt that purananuru irrespective of its antiquity talks about Vedas and Yajnas. The citation given here is sangam translations by Vaidehi Herbert website which is a reliable one only. Manuneedhicholan (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello @Manuneedhicholan, Regarding your addition to Purananuru While I understand that the website you mentioned: Vaidehi Herbert's Sangam Tamil site but it is considered a self-published source under Wikipedia's WP:SPS policy. TeaToasst (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Please feel free to re-add the information with a secondary reference. TeaToasst (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hey, just letting you know you accidentally reinstated a previous vandalised revision which I have reverted to the last good revision. Aydo h8 ^{[what have I done now?]} 14:47, 1 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think misclick on my end. TeaToasst (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

thanks for the cleanup! TeaToasst (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s).

When copying within Wikipedia, at a minimum, give attribution in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied }} template on the talk pages of the source and destination.

Please add attribution if no one has done so yet. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. MCE89 (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I also want to note that copying the page history of U. N. Mehta to the title Uttambhai Nathalal Mehta just a month after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U. N. Mehta ended in a consensus to redirect seems a lot like an attempt to bypass that consensus. Please do not try to restore the page again unless you have found new sources demonstrating that the subject is notable. MCE89 (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Noted. I'll ensure I follow consensus and proper attribution moving forward. Thanks for the Information. TeaToasst (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Could you let me know why you reverted the edits (other than the ECR) ? They were intended to be constructive. It was not vandalism, was reliably sourced, did not contain original research, and was NPOV-compliant. JamesMdp1.0 (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Regardless of intent, this topic falls under WP:ECR (Extended Confirmed Restriction) for South Asian caste and religion. Policy requires users to have at least 500 edits and 30 days of tenure to contribute to these pages. This is a bright-line rule to ensure stability in sensitive topic areas. Please reach the required edit count before contributing further to this article. TeaToasst (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello,

Your recent edits to Chera dynasty add random Jain temple images and remove inline citations. Per WP and WP, images must be directly relevant and not give disproportionate weight. Also, removing citations without replacement conflicts with WP.

If you have reliable sources (mainstream academic references in high quality journals or published books by reputed publishers) showing a significant connection between Jainism and the Cheras, please propose them on the Talk page so we can reach consensus.

Thanks. JamesMdp1.0 (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]