User talk:TeaToasst

Welcome TeaToasst!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 51,872,162 registered editors!

Hello, TeaToasst. Welcome to Wikipedia!

I'm FULBERT, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

To help get you started, you may find these useful: The Five Pillars (fundamental principles) of Wikipedia Introduction to Wikipedia (and Editing) Writing a New Article Teahouse: Ask a Question

When editing, follow the 3 Core Content Policies: 1. Neutral point of view: represent significant views fairly 2. Verifiability: claims should cite reliable, published sources 3. No original research: no originality; reference published sources Always cite Independent and Reliable sources for all claims you make when editing.

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

Sincerely, FULBERT (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)

Discussion on reverted authorship content

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

Misrepresentation of sources

Hello, several of your edits appeared on my watchlist, and a cursory look suggests that there are several problems with your sourcing. A few examples:

• Bhoja
  • You used Willis 2011 to claim that Bhoja was a follower of Jainism. The source does not support anything like that, and in fact, explicitly declares: "Merutuṅga was, of course, writing some two hundred and fifty years after Bhoja and was an advocate of the Jain cause, so his account could be dismissed as a distortion of the facts."
  • You cited Johan Levillain (2021) and Bhojaprabandha without any specific page numbers to claim that "Historical and contemporary sources indicate that King Bhoja had strong Jain affiliations and the works of contemporary monks and scholars indicate that he was a Jain." The sources do not seem to support this.
  • You cited D. B. Diskalkar (1960) to claim that "Bhoja's court included several prominent Jain monks and scholars, such as Merutunga...". The source does not say anything like this: Bhoja lived in the 11th century, Merutunga in the 14th century.
• Shilabhattarika
  • Again, you added a bunch of sources, many of them without any specific page numbers.
  • A quick search of Paul Dundas' book doesn't result in any mention of Shilabhattarika.
  • P.B. Desai (1957) pages 167-168 don't mention her either.
• Someshvara III
  • You cited Desai, pp. 167–168 to claim that "Someshvara III continued the Western Chalukya tradition of royal patronage of Jainism". However, those pages don't mention any such thing.
  • You cited Saletore 1938 pp. 66–69 to claim that "Digambara Jainism remained influential at court during this period" and specified the subject's religion as Jainism in the infobox. However, those pages do not support this assertion.
• Tailapa II
  • You cited Desai, pp. 167–168 to state that "Tailapa II was a follower of Jainism", but the pages don't even mention Tailapa.

I'm not the only person to have noticed these problems: as an example, here, पाटलिपुत्र undid your edits on the Hathibada Ghosundi inscriptions for similar reasons.

Please go through WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. utcursch | talk 13:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

The information was added based on those sources, however, I may not have included the exact page numbers. I will recheck the books and update the citations with the correct page references. TeaToasst (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

References have been corrected. The content is drawn from multiple reliable sources; the previous removal relied solely on PB Desai. However, I made an error by citing only page 167 for all information, which has now been fixed. Full reading of PB Desai is necessary to understand the background, and additional cited sources also support the content. TeaToasst (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but your changes are not satisfactory at all, and border on fake references. I just had a look at Bhoja, and from a cursory look:

• Willis 2011 doesn't say that Bhoja's religion was Jainism, and in fact, dismisses Merutunga as unreliable (like most other historians)
• Ganga Prasad Yadava 1982, p. 18. doesn't say anything about 104 Jain temples
• Levillain, Johan (2021): You haven't cited any page number, and a cursory reading
• Bhojaprabandlha: no specific page number; but even if the source supports this, the text is a primary source by a writer who is dismissed as unreliable by multiple historians
• Bronkhorst, Johannes: Again no page number, but the book doesn't state that "there is no contemporary evidence supporting this"; Parama-Bhattaraka is a common title found among all sorts of Indian kings

Have a look at WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Citing sources. And please don't restore your additions unless you have actually checked if the references support the content you are adding. utcursch | talk 14:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Spent nearly half an hour verifying sources for your edit on Tailapa II:

• Desai, pp.210-212: Does not state anything about Tailapa II being a follower of Jainism. Page 210 states that his name (as Taila II) occurs in genealogical lists.
• Desai, pp.219-222: No mention of Tailapa II
• Desai, pp.221-223: Does not mention anything about Tailapa's patroange of Jainism. Talks about prominent Jaina monastic orders based on epigraphic evidence.
• Desai, pp.167–168: Talks about "Jaina church of South India" in general, and their reformist trends. No mention of Tailapa or his dynasty.

It is possible that Tailapa and/or other kings of his dynasty followed and/or patronized Jainism. But your citations do not support the content that you're adding to the Wikipedia articles.

Unfortunately, I'll have to spend more time going through your edits that appear in my watchlist, because now I've little faith in your ability or willingness to cite sources properly. utcursch | talk 14:28, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:BURDEN - fix your citations before restoring your content. If you continue to add fake references and engage in edit warring, you will end up getting blocked. utcursch | talk 14:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, the information is supported by multiple books. The removal appears to rely only on PB Desai without considering the other cited references. Please review all the sources before reverting. TeaToasst (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I did check other sources as well (Bhoja, for example). They either don't support the content or are incomplete. The fact that you re-added Desai with updated page numbers (even after being called out for fake references) diminishes one's trust in you. Please do not simply reinstate your additions unless they are compliant with WP:V and WP:RS. utcursch | talk 15:02, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Here we go again. Spent half an hour reading pages from Saletore and Desai while reviewing your edits to Someshvara III:

• Saletore, B. A. (1938). Medieval Jainism, pp.66–69: Talks about Hoysalas, no mention of Someshvara III or Chalukyas
• Desai, pp.210-212: No mention of Someshvara III continuing the Western Chalukya tradition of royal patronage of Jainism. The pages describe the dynasty's inscriptions and genealogy. Page 212 states that Pottalakere appears to have been one of the strategic headquarters of the Chalukya dynasty, and that the Jain author Brahmashiva and two Virashaiva saints were associated with this place.
• Desai, pp.221–223: Mentions monastic orders, but makes no mention of their patronage by Someshvara III or other Chalukya rulers.
• Desai, pp.167–168: Talks about "Jaina church of South India" in general, and their reformist trends. No mention of Someshvara or his dynasty.

At this point, it's pretty obvious that you're just making up sources. If you continue to do this, you'll end up getting blocked. utcursch | talk 15:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The content you restored itself misrepresents the source, the entire religion section of Bhoja is misleading. TeaToasst (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Unjustified removal by UTCURSCH! TeaToasst (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Which particular part is "misleading" or "misrepresents the source"? Please present a specific example.

Oh, and I had a look at another of your edits: Kharavela. You cited two sources to assert that in the Hathigumpha inscription, "Kharavela appears to be directly addressing Aśoka by proclaiming that he destroyed the Mauryan power in Magadha", and that the inscription "serves as a political and religious statement asserting Kharavela's victory and the restoration of Jain ideals". Neither of these sources talk about an address to Ashoka, the desctruction of Mauryan power, or the inscription being a religious statement signifying a 'restoration of Jain ideals':

• Paul Dundas / Patrick Olivelle (2006) p. 392
• Hampa Nāgrājayya (1999), p. 10

You cited Paul Dundas (2003) p. 113 to assert that the inscription "mentions the word Ahimsa (non-violence) repeatedly". That page makes no such assertion, and neither does rest of the book (or any other book for that matter). It's just something you made up!

Until now, I was assuming good faith, thinking that you may have confused page numbers. But as I go through your edits, it's becoming increasingly obvious that you are more focused on glorifying your faith than on building an encyclopedia with verifiable facts. It's a waste of your time because your edits will ultimately be undone, and it's a waste of time for others who have to spent hours reading the cited sources only to find that they don't support the content added. Perhaps a personal blog is a better suited avenue for what you are trying to accomplish. utcursch | talk 17:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The inscription is from a hill opposite the Hathigumpha inscription and mentions a similar account that Kharavela defeated the last Mauryan king and brought back a Jain idol.

That is what the source says, not my interpretation. TeaToasst (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I also spent some time looking at your contributions. There's no need to mention everything - it's enough to see how you narrate and write your point of view.

• Bhoja
  • S. Venkatesh, p. 161. - "Historical evidence suggests that Bhoja was a devotee of Shiva. His writings qualify Shiva as "Jagadguru" ("World teacher")," (misrepresentation of source)

"his inscriptions begin with verses praising Shiva". (which inscription?)

• • Ganga Prasad Yadav p. 12.- "his court poet Dhanapala convinced the king to give up Vedic animal sacrifices.".
  • Ganga Prasad Yadav, p. 13 - "The poet also openly ridiculed Bhoja's other religious beliefs, including his worship of Kamadeva-Rati and cow" The source does not mention anything of the sort; I have the same book.
  • Ballala [1] Louis H. Gray- "a Brahmin named Govinda calls Bhoja a Vaishnavite". (again fake ref)
  • Rehman Ali, p. 38 - "It is possible that Bhoja patronized other faiths despite being a Shaivite." source does not mention anything of the sort.

The religion section is totally misleading. TeaToasst (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Prola II
  • [2]
  • D.B.V. Pratap 1981, p. 696 - [3] - "Prola II was a Shaivite" the cited page does not even mention Prola as a Shaivite
  • D.B.V. Pratap 1981, p. 696 [4] - "His queen was also a Shaivite, and installed an image of Jalandara Bhairava - an aspect of Shiva - on a hill north-west of Inugurthy". (There is nothing of the sort on this page). TeaToasst (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)