User Talk: TeaToasst

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

<h2 style="margin:20px 0 0 0;border-color:#aae1ff;border-style:solid;border-width:1px 1px 0 1px;padding:5px 5px 0 5px;background-color:#f3f3f3;text-align:center;border-radius: 10px 10px 0 0;">Welcome TeaToasst!</h2>
<div style="border-color:#aae1ff;border-style:solid;border-width:0 1px 1px 1px;font-size:120%;padding:0 5px 5px 5px;background-color:#f3f3f3;text-align:center;">Now that you've joined Wikipedia ↗, there are {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} registered editors!</div>

<div style="border:1px solid #aae1ff;padding:5px;text-align:left;background-color:#f3f3f3;margin-top:5px;">Hello, TeaToasst. Welcome ↗ to Wikipedia!<br>
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.

{|width="100%" style="background-color:#fff;width:100%;border:1px solid #aae1ff;"
|-
|width="50%"|To help get you started, you may find these useful:
: File:Farm-Fresh apple.png ↗ The Five Pillars (fundamental principles) of Wikipedia ↗
: File:Farm-Fresh kids.png ↗ Introduction to Wikipedia (and Editing) ↗
: File:Farm-Fresh_page_add.png ↗ Writing a New Article ↗
: File:Farm-Fresh question.png ↗ Teahouse: Ask a Question ↗<br>
|width="50%"|When editing, follow the 3 Core Content Policies ↗:
: File:Farm-Fresh balance.png ↗ 1. Neutral point of view ↗: represent significant views fairly
: File:Farm-Fresh magnifier.png ↗ 2. Verifiability ↗: claims should cite ''reliable'', published sources
: File:Farm-Fresh modify suspended account page.png ↗ 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 22px|link=Wikipedia:Signatures|class=skin-invert ↗ button on the edit toolbar ↗ or by typing four tildes ↗ <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature ↗, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp ↗.<br>
</div>

<div style="border:1px solid #aae1ff;padding:5px;background-color:#f3f3f3;text-align:center;margin:5px 0 20px 0;border-radius: 0 0 10px 10px;">
Sincerely, FULBERT (talk) <small>13:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)</small>   <span class="plainlinks"><small>[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FULBERT&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:WelcomeVisual/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]</small></span></div>

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)

Reversion of my edit

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

:Choto Katra ↗ is the page Mufti Abrar Aziz (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
::my bad. Sorry Mufti Abrar Aziz (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you

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)

Purananuru

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)

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