User talk:Toshi2k2

February 2021

Hello, I'm Binksternet. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Nazi symbolism seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nazi symbolism; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Toshi2k2. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. This is disruptive, there's a long standing consensus to call the swastika used by the Nazis a swastika and it is the name most commonly used in English reliable sources. Note the warning above about good faith - just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a racist. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the arguments I have presented below. The point that only 'English' sources incorrectly use the term swastika to refer to what the Nazis called the Hakenkreuz is factually correct. I have reflected this in my edit (using both the terms). However, there is extreme resistance from the editors here - which seem predominantly white American males who do not seem to have proper knowledge of either the Nazi movement or Indic cultures. I have pointed out the fact that there is no historical evidence of Nazis using the term Swastika to refer to their symbol, and the term SWASTIKA refers to a Indic symbol named in Sankrit language. Therefore, any reference to the nazi symbol which the nazi party referred to as the Hakenkreuz (but has become famous in the white and English speaking world as swastika) needs to be disambiguated from the original 'Swastika'.

And blocking someone for pointing out the facts is a pretty fascist thing to do. Quite appropriate given this is a discussion on Nazi symbology. Facts remain facts irrespective of whether you don't know or care about them. If you can't prove that the Nazis used the term Sanskrit term 'swastika' and the Hakenkreuz is actually the original Swastika, you cannot use the term 'The Swastika' without disambiguation from the actual Swastika.

You can mention (as I did) that English authors (in confusion or ignorance or both) used the term 'Swastika' for the German term 'Hakenkreuz' however there is no evidence of any Nazi document doing the same.

The present article is not neutral and is ignorant and Hinduphobic in its present form. I'd wait, in good faith, for a day for the esteemed editors to make the article actually neutral by referring to the above facts or bring to notice any evidence on the contrary. If no actions are taken, I will edit the article to reflect more facts about Nazi symbology and its disambiguation from the original Swastika. If that results in a edit ban, I can only think it of as a fascist action to silence contrary but factual opinions. Toshi2k2 (talk)

You might be surprised to find that a concern for historical accuracy is what is driving me and Doug Weller, not racism or Hinduphobia. And it is not "fascist" for Wikipedia to protect itself from disruption. Wikipedia is a charitable organization interested in world knowledge, not an ultra-nationalist group interested in quashing another group. Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised at the fact that Wikipedia - an organization that I have been donating to, for a number of years now - has so many 'editors' who seem to harp upon seeing the history from their skewed point of view. Your arguments all boil down to the fact that mostly white American men have used the word 'Swastika' to refer to the Nazi symbol and thus we will refer to it as such without any historic relevance. Seems very 'white nationalist' and racist point of view to me.

I have asked you for evidence regarding Nazi usage of the Sanskrit term 'Swastika' as well as any evidence which shows that the Nazi symbol was directly influenced by the original Swastika symbol. I haven't received any such evidence.

What you are doing here is an effort to rewrite history and not stating facts - something the white man has done throughout history. The facts are (and I keep repeating this) -

1. Nazis never referred to their symbol as the Swastika. It was only referred to as the Hakenkreuz.

2. English (American) authors starting referring to the Hakenkreuz as the Swastika. Why? - we can only speculate at this point at the reason being either ignorance or racism.

3. Swastika is a Sanskrit language noun which refers to a very specific symbol and this definition has held up for more than 5000 years.

Therefore, we cannot refer the Nazi symbol as 'The Swastika'. We need to add to the article that it was referred to as the Hakenkreuz by the Germans and only in English literature did the word Swastika appear. Then, we need to disambiguate it from the original swastika to avoid confusion.

I'd appreciate that any further discussion with me would involve evidence (As asked) or at least with someone possessing knowledge regarding Nazi symbology and Indic cultures. Toshi2k2 (talk)

I'd add that I'll wait for a day for anyone here to provide me with evidence contrary to the facts I introduced. If there is no such evidence presented by then, I will edit the article accordingly (you are welcome to suggest edits to make it clearer and better) and any reverts or edit bans following that will only reflect a fascist usage of power. I am still open to discussion but please move beyond 'because old white men said so ...' argument. Toshi2k2 (talk)

It's clear that you understand that some 90 years have passed with English-speaking literature using the term swastika to refer to the Nazi symbol. 90 years with a lot of English-language literature using term swastika for the Nazi symbol. You know this to be true. What you are asking for is a change to that long-standing practice. Wikipedia is not the place to ask for new change.

If a new campaign was initiated on a global basis to change the English-speaking term for the Nazi symbol from swastika to hakenkreuz, Wikipedia would describe the effort. We would tell the reader about the history of the two terms, and about the new effort. But such an effort has not been initiated. Only a few authors have proposed that kind of change, and these authors have not seen widespread acceptance of their ideas. With your username Toshi2k2, you might already know about Toshikazu Kenjitsu Nakagaki who wrote the 2017–18 book The Buddhist Swastika and Hitler's Cross: Rescuing a Symbol of Peace from the Forces of Hate ISBN 9781611729337. Nakagaki has been interviewed by the New Yorker magazine, Japan Times newspaper and more, but the effort to change the English word to hakenkreuz has not gained traction. Media outlets are not changing their terminology guidelines, and dictionaries are not redefining the terms. Wikipedia follows the media; Wikipedia does not lead the media. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we have agreed on the fact that its only white men have misrepresented the symbol - we can move on from that.

Wikipedia is a collection of facts and not the personal mouthpiece of the American literary society. The present article does not reflect that fact that the symbol was originally called 'The Hakenkreuz'. There is no mention of the historical fact of translation of the Hakenkreuz as the Swastika by American authors. There is no mention of disambiguation of this symbol with the original Swastika symbol (which needs to be done here to clarify the symbology). That's what needed.

And the fact that the effort to change the English word (referring to Nazi symbol) to hakenkreuz has not gained traction is because of people like you who refuse to include all the facts and just choose to write selective ones. The job is to include all the facts clearly - and not just which you deem sufficient or important. Toshi2k2 (talk)

Swastika or hakenkreuz

Hi. I don't think any of my edits were wrong or even not neutral. The usage of the word Swastika (noun) should be disambiguated from the original Swastika to avoid confusion. Swastika is a sanskrit word and refers to only one symbol. It is not a hooked cross and the meaning of the word doesn't refer to it either. Any similar shapes are to be referred to as Swastika-like and not the Swastika. Adolf Hitler does not refer to the Nazi symbol in his autobiography as 'Swastika' but rather as the 'hooked cross' in German (2nd edition Chapter 7). The subsequent reference post the WWII, to the nazi symbol as Swastika has been done primarily by Western historians with no regard or knowledge about either Hindu traditions or the Swastika itself.

Without adding this knowledge to the article, the article is not neutral and reflects Hinduphobia and disrespect to the Hindu Swastika symbol by referring to the nazi hooked cross symbol as 'the swastika' Toshi2k2 (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler used both terms in his book Mein Kampf; both hakenkreuz and swastika. They are used interchangeably by Hitler. From that point forward, the English word for the symbol was swastika, while the German word was either hakenkreuz or swastika. There is nothing different about the symbol when calling it one name or the other name. It's all the same symbol. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did leave a message above explaining why the edits are neutral, more informative and helpful. I haven't received any reply on the same and thus figured that either my comment has been ignored or the comment has been accepted and thus the edits were reverted. Please let me know how and why my edits are not neutral and why the current usage of the term 'the swastika' (without proper disambiguation) not Hinduphobic and disrespectful to Hinduism.

You are incorrect. Hitler never used the term Swastika or Swastik in his original autobiography which is in German. Please cite accordingly. I repeat - there is no mention of the term Swastika in his original autobiography. The word Swastika is noun and only exists in a single language - Sanskrit. It is a noun and does not translate to Hakenkreuz. The word Swastika does not mean hooked cross. It is noun, which is 5000+ years old and hasn't changed. And you stressing on the fact that it means the same as hakenkreuz reflects on the ignorance and disrespect that Western scholars have displayed regarding Oriental traditions and cultures for centuries - even regarding this matter. If you do not have an exact reference (from the original Mein Kampf of usage of the term Swastika) please do not make claims as such.

There is nothing different about the symbol when calling it one name or the other name. It's all the same symbol. - Such an ignorant and disrespectful comment. Your usage of the term 'the swastika' translates into hate crimes against Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, etc. in the real world. It doesn't affect you, obviously. Please revert back the edits in case you are unable to find the appropriate references. Please do not double down on things either without doing proper research in future. Hopefully, this ends the edit war. I can't block you from editing but please do your research in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toshi2k2 (talk • contribs)

After Hitler gained power in 1933, The Jewish Review wrote in 1934: "A fitting comcomitant of Mein Kampf is the sign which the Nazis have chosen for their emblem–the swastika or Hakenkreuz, in so far as it bears the significance which they put on it."

In 1960, William L. Shirer published The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which says on page 43: "The hooked cross—the hakenkreuz—of the swastika, borrowed though it was from more ancient times..." Shirer uses hakenkreuz and swastika in this section of the book to describe the exact same symbol. Shirer says it is found in ancient China, Egypt, Troy and India. All the same symbol, of course with different meanings for each locale.

Professor Bernard Thomas Mees of the University of Tasmania wrote a book called The Science of the Swastika. In it, he describes how Heinrich Schliemann found the same symbol in Troy as he had seen among Hindu people, and that this connection was how the swastika was embraced by the Völkisch movement in Germany, and how it came to represent Aryan people in Germany, that is, the Western idea that German racial purity was somehow connected to Aryan history of Iran and Turkey. Guido von List wrote in 1907 that the Indian swastika was the same as Germanic-Aryan runes, and he said the swastika held occult power. This greatly promoted the German fascination with the swastika as a symbol of past greatness. A lot of German historians were studying the swastika in the 1920s. One of the influential papers was by Erwin Richter in 1931, titled "The swastika as guide to Old Germanic culture" (Hakenkreuz als Führer zu altgermanischer Kultur: Ein Beitrag zur germanischen Wiederentdeckung). Richter connected the Indian swastika with symbols from such far-flung cultures as Old Germanic brooches and Scottish dances.

So it's all the same symbol, despite the different languages involved, despite the different meanings of the symbol. In English, the word is always swastika. Binksternet (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for quoting from - 'The science of the swastika Bernard Thomas Mees (2008)' - a person who has never been to India or had any education in Indic studies. Just a typical non POC American scholar commenting - without knowledge - on matters that he doesn't fully understand. This is a matter of concern that I've touched above as well. By happen chance, did you actually look into all the other references? I will and let you know how more you have misquoted here.

Mr. Mees himself, albeit mistakenly quotes that the Germans never referred to the symbol as the 'swastika' - In fact the term (swastika) itself is of Indian derivation, although in German it is instead called Hakenkreuz, 'the hooked cross', a calque on the description croix gamme (gamma cross or gammadion) favored by the nineteenth-century French orientalists. Mr. Mees is pretty wrong here referring to the 'Indian' derivation - its of 'Sanskrit' derivation and not 'Indian' - there was no concept of 'India' at the onset of Sanskrit, but like most Western 'scholars', Mr. Mees is ignorant of the same. As, Mr. Meeks quote - the origin of nazi Hakenkreuz studies date back to his find of similar symbol in Troy. There is no evidence of Nazis referring to the Hakenkreuz symbol as 'The Swastika' .

Also, please stop misquoting. The part about Heinrich Schliemann reads - Yet when Schliemann discovered symbols identical to Hindu swastikas ..... - this is Mr. Mees' own opinion and not that from any publication or report by Schliemann.

Also, the part about Richter reads - .. to follow Hitler, the paper infact aims to be a serious empirical study, discovering the swastika or its arms in the designs of Old Germanic brooches, decorations as spirals and meanders, military salutes and even Scottish dancing... There is no mention of Hindu (not Indian, btw) swastika in this reference like you mention above (and frankly even if it was, this paper tries to connect everything even remotely similar to the Hakenkreuz).

It is clear, even from this flawed, questionably researched book that the Nazis themselves never referred to their symbol as the swastika. Their motivation for the symbol did not come from the Hindu swastika (it came from the hooked cross/ gammadiol cross symbol found in Troy and everything else was just an obscure extrapolation at best) either. They did try to come up theories trying to connect their symbol with everything - from oldest civilizations in the world to old Germanic traditions - ranging from Africa to Europe. However, I am yet to find any reference to the Hindu Swastika (in any kind of Nazi literature or report) to be the inspiration for the Nazi Hakenkreuz. The only references come from Western 'scholars' who are poorly educated on matters of Indic culture and history. It is only after the war did Western authors and historians actively start referring to the symbol as 'the Swastika' - which is frankly very ignorant and disrespectful but understandable given how people of color and their culture has been treated by the white man throughout history.

Quoting the Nazi Hakenkreuz as 'The Swastika' is incorrect, disrespectful, confusing and encourages Hinduphobia. 'The Swastika' is a Hindu/Buddhist/Jain, etc. symbol. We need to disambiguate the Nazi Hakenkreuz from 'The Swastika' actively (we may add the term 'Nazi Swastika' as clearly American authors and historians have made it popular, to help it disambiguate its meaning from the original 'the swastika'). Toshi2k2 (talk)

If you have issues with the book written by Professor Bernard Thomas Mees, write your own rebuttal and have it published. On Wikipedia, we have a policy of accepting university professors as high quality sources unless they have been contradicted by other high level writers.

Your wish to redefine the swastika for the English language is a case of historic revisionism and negationism. You have a steep uphill battle, fighting against almost every English language source published since 1930. Only a few outliers agree with you. These outliers are outweighed by the mass of mainstream literature. Binksternet (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly did not proof anything to the contrary for the following point - There is no evidence of Nazis referring to the Hakenkreuz symbol as 'The Swastika' .

As for Mr Mees, I'll take it up with him, but him using the word Indian instead of Hindu is just a common historical fact - a fact that apparently escapes the common American person.

You have a steep uphill battle, fighting against almost every English language source published since 1930. - I am and this is exactly my point - only English (mostly American) authors referred to the hakenkreuz as 'the swastika' out of pure ignorance. Using the term The Swastika as reference to the Hakenkreuz is ignorant and incorrect to the original historical reference. Additionally, 'swastika' is not an English word - it is a Sanskrit noun and a very specific noun at that - it refers to a single symbol specifically. Continuing to use this reference in the present form (which in turn incites hate crimes and physical and psychological violence against Hindus, Buddhists, etc. in the USA and Europe) is akin to the demonization of the 'Star of David' symbol by the Islamic caliphates and the Nazis against the Jewish population. I'd still suggest using the word Hakenkreuz in the text and using the term Nazi swastika to refer to usage of word Swastika by American authors in the post war world. Adding links to disambiguate the Hakenkreuz symbol from the actual 'The Swastika' would also help.

The bottom line is - You are referring to the Nazi Hakenkreuz as 'The Swastika' and while the white population of the planet may unfortunately know it as that, it is incorrect as 'The Swastika' is a different symbol altogether which predates Nazis or any Western civilization by thousands of years. And about half of the population of this planet does not refer to the Hakenkreuz as the Swastika. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toshi2k2 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is here to summarize the literature for the reader. It is NOT here to correct historical injustices. The explanation of that idea can be seen at WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And Nobody is asking you to do that. Wikipedia is not here to act as personal mouthpiece of American authors either. Here are the historical facts that this article needs to reflect-

1. There is no evidence of Nazis referring to the Hakenkreuz symbol as 'The Swastika' and there is no evidence of it being motivated or being the same as the original Hindu swastika.

2. Only English (primarily American) translation, post war referred to the Hakenkreuz as the Swastika.

3. The Swastika is a Sanskrit word and refers to a very specific type of symbol which is not the Hakenkreuz.

In order to present this, we can refer to the symbol as the Hakenkreuz and mention it as the 'Nazi Swastika' as well and add add a link to disambiguate it from the original Swastika symbol. This would be a good enough explanation of the differences between the swastika and the hakenkreuz and explain the Nazi symbology as well.

Since, I've received no reply as of yet, I will edit the article as such to reflect the following - usage of the term hakenkreuz by the Germans as reference to the Nazi symbol, usage of word Nazi Swastika in Post War English literature and also disambiguation of this Nazi symbol from the original 'Swastika'. I think this is a pretty fair and historically justified addition and any opposition to this can only come from a racist standpoint. Toshi2k2 (talk)

Please sign your posts

It's very difficult to follow the dialogue above, and to understand who says what, since you neither sign your posts nor indent in the standard way. I've signed the comments above for you — I hope I got it right. You're welcome. Bishonen | tålk 17:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry,I'm new to this. Thank you! Toshi2k2

Blocked

You have been blocked for two weeks for your lack of respect for and personal attacks against the editors who attempt to discuss with you on this page, accusing them of hate crimes and of encouraging Hinduphobia, and stating that any opposition to your edits "can only come from a racist standpoint". Also for your bullish edit warring at Nazi symbolism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 20:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Toshi2k2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I still haven't received any evidence or justification regarding the facts that I have mentioned. Blocking me as mentioned is a pretty fascist use of power - since none of you could even provide proper evidence. I don't want to believe that any of the editors come from a racist standpoint and I still believe that everyone here will do the logically and factually correct thing. But, all I have received in terms of evidence and justification is 'what Wikipedia probably stands for' and what white scholars wrote is correct even if it contradicts the original evidence/document. Blocking someone for pointing out your fascist usage of power is pretty un-Wiki like in my viewpoint. Also, fix the article according to the facts that I mentioned or else go and study about Nazi symbolism and Indic cultures and spare me the bullish comments next time. Its good that you gave yourself 2 weeks to research this topic - please find some evidence to contradict my factual points mentioned above. If you cannot, please edit the article accordingly - or else I will.

As for the bullish edit warring, I wasn't aware of anyone reverting the edits while I was writing them. Since it was my first edit I thought I'd messed something up. Only after reading the message from the first editor did I realize that he reverted back the edits. So, there hasn't been any 'warring' from my end. But, the utter lack of respect by the editors and the rude and forceful way of mentioning (over and over again) that the Swastika and Hakenkreuz is the same symbol without evidence showed me that they aren't exactly impartial. Misquoting evidence and diverting when confronted by actual facts shows the 'standpoint' the editors are coming from.

I haven't accused anyone of hate crimes, but I do need to remind the 'editors' here that misrepresentation of information or even withholding partial information can in some contexts lead to hate crimes against a part of society (as has happened in this case). However, since the editors in question do not belong to the community which suffers due to their error in providing the proper factual information - they do not feel any kind of responsibility. Well, you should, from here forth understand, that for every assault or hate crime done on a Hindu/Buddhist/Jain by people confused about the Swastika symbol - you all are also responsible for the same.

Also, I don't have any respect for people who misquote research articles and books to fit their opinion as has happened above. Shame.

Decline reason:

This request only confirms that the block was correct. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

TrangaBellam (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Toshi2k2, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Toshi2k2, good luck, and have fun. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse Invitation

Hello! Toshi2k2, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 09:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sweeping attacks such as accusations of "hinduphobia" against other editors and scholars, egregious Hindutva promotion. That's not being here to create an encyclopedia. Bishonen | tålk 09:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Egregrious Hindutva promotion - where is the evidence for that? Also, how come Hindutva is considered a problematic concept? - I pointed out Hinduphobic edits (with references) and the response is to ban me. This is a prime example of systematic bias. Shame. Also, sweeping attacks against scholars? My comments were neither sweeping nor attacks. Unfortunately, a few among us have no appetite to learn opinions beyond their own. If you can refute any of my comments, do that, If you can't, edit the article. This isn't autocracy - stop with your authoritarian blocking and bullying. Toshi2k2 09:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC).

One recent quote from you should do it, since you want evidence: "It's amazing to see the gall of Jonathan, TrangaBellam and Vanamonde of using a quote from known Hinduphobes as the definition of Hinduphobia. Its like asking Neo-Nazis to define Antisemitism. All of the quoted so-called "scholars" actually supported/organized the recent 'Dismantling Hindutva' conference which was largely condemned by Hindu organizations around the globe and has been largely considered Hinduphobic. Its absolutely idiotic to include any definition (on a page regarding hinduphobia) from people whose work has been largely recognised as Hinduphobic by various Hindu organisations." The typography, with Hinduphobes in italics and Hindu organisations in bold, is your own. It's almost as if you were trying to make my point for me. Bishonen | tålk 12:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Can't really understand your point here - you are making a point that since I used italics and bold characters, I am peddling Hindutva? - which is a very weird and illogical connection. Do you understand what I was trying to say here? Terms like "Hinduism should be dismantled" have been quoted in the said Conference. The scholars listed in the discussion actually discussed dismantling a religion(Hinduism in this case) - that is a good enough evidence needed to show that the quoted scholar group is heavily biased against Hinduism in general. Discussing and preaching dismantling/destruction of a religion based upon their renditions of illogical fear - is what would be termed an example of Hinduphobia. Toshi2k2 13:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC).

I am afraid that the very determination of good-enough nature of any evidence violates our policy on original research. Multiple groups (incl. Hindus for Human Rights) have spoken in favor of the conference and against HAF's strong-arm tactics; the latter does not have any monopoly to being a Hindu organization. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Condemnation of the so-called Dismantling Hindutva Conference isn't limited to HAF - a large number of organisations and scholars spoke out against its biased and political nature. I referenced HAF since it is a quite prominent organisation globally. Additionally, I'm unsure which HHR you are referring to? - Are you referring to the original one - which was created in UK couple of decades ago? In which case, there is no such declaration by them. If you are talking about the newly formed HHR which largely seems to be a political organisation focused on Anti-BJP activities and is fighting a lawsuit against the HAF, then any statement from this organisation is clearly biased, given its conflict of interest. Its astounding that we'd refer to a fledgling, biased political entity as reliable source. I am unsure about what tactics of HAF you are referring to and the discussion about it is moot anyways. The point is - the conference itself showed its heavily biased anti-Hinduism nature by discussing topics like "Dismantling of Hinduism" - which is a plain fact. And despite this strong evidence for the biased nature of the said scholars who organised/took part in this conference - you quoted their definition of Hinduphobia in the article - which doesn't actually make any logical sense. Toshi2k2 (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you cannot engage in original research on Wikipedia. What HHR seems to you is irrelevant; not to mention that the lawsuit was filed by HAF, long after HHR has offered support for the Conference. We depend on peer-reviewed scholarship published by academic presses in all controversial areas and if they are biased, we will reflect the bias. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Organisations like Coalition of Hindus of North America (CoHNA) and prominent people like Ohio State Senator Niraj Antani also condemned the Conference. For example, a quote from CoHNA's statement is as follows - “This conference paints Hindus disproportionately and falsely as purveyors of extremism, actively denies the genocide of Hindu people, and most troublingly, labels those who disagree as “Hindutva” which the conference organisers define as Hindu extremism,”. And this is exactly what you all did. I'm not sure what agenda you have or what ideology you follow, but this statement defines you all as well.Toshi2k2 (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have no clue about how scientific research actually works and the problems with the current peer review system. But, you can continue your little fascist rule on this little forum. You have been proven wrong and yet you continue to peddle your stupid opinions of hateful, biased entities and people. You barely know anything, or have the shame to actually research and read. Fascists personified.Toshi2k2 (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Toshi2k2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1. Hinduphobic Editors and Scholars - I haven't called out any editors in the recent discussion as Hinduphobic, though I did mention them being biased, since they have edited the article with a definition provided from a group of academics who have been called out for being involved in Hinduphobic activities (for e.g. calling for dismantling of 'Hinduism') by Hindu organisations (and many scholars) worldwide. I believe (and have pointed out) that the opinion of Hindus and their organizations should be considered more viable in an article about Anti-Hindu Sentiment as compared to using opinions and definitions from people arguably (publicly) known for anti-Hindu propaganda 2. I commented on the content ("idiotic to include..") as is mentioned in Wikipedia:No personal attacks. However, if the comment seems ambiguous and ill-placed, I can edit it to be more clearly pointing towards the content (the definition of hinduphobia) and will try to be clearer in future edits 3. The definition of Hindutva on Wikipedia is debatable as is clear from its Talk page and is again reflective of some inherent bias in Wikipedia. Despite clear explanations, certain senior editors have not included the general (original) definition of Hindutva which is more than a century old but have equated it to fascism and terror organizations despite no evidence for the same (which is very new, political and biased iterpretation). Additionally, I haven't done any 'Hindutva' promotion (and there is no evidence for it) as is being claimed in ,my blocking message.

Decline reason:

Posts like this, this, this, and this make me believe that you do not seem to be here to foster a collaborative editing environment and work with others to build an encyclopaedia. The fact that you continue to display this hostile attitude in this very unblock discussion makes it clear that this block continues to be necessary to prevent disruption. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Talk page access revoked

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

--Blablubbs (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]