User talk:Jagjit Karan

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

FDW777 (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jagjit Karan I’ve reverted your recent edit because it effectively blanked and redirected a long-standing article without prior discussion. Please be aware that such actions — especially when they remove stable, sourced content — may be viewed as vandalism or disruptive editing.

Buddhists has a valid encyclopedic scope, focusing on the adherents of the religion — their demographics, social identity, and cultural diversity — which is distinct from the doctrinal and historical focus of Buddhism. This is also consistent with similar articles like Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and Sikhs.

In the future, please discuss significant changes like redirects or merges on the talk page first to achieve consensus before editing. Wikipedia works best when we collaborate and follow established community guidelines. Rick Joseph (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, I don't think Buddhists have as much of a scope as Christians, Muslims and Hindus here. Jains and Zoroastrians do not have any article, instead are a redirect to Jainism and Zoroastrianism. I'm definitely not going to argue on this right now, it's fine to reinstate the article but you have drastically changed the Buddhist population to 500 million out of nowhere. Most of the sources you've cited are not opening for me as well. I may discuss regarding the Buddhist population later on sometime. Jagjit Karan (talk) 10:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jagjit Karan

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that consistency across religion-related pages is important. Given that other major faiths have standalone overview articles, keeping this one aligns with WP:CONSISTENCY and helps provide readers with a clear, sourced summary in one place.

The population figure can certainly be refined — it was based on the general 480–520 million range cited by sources such as Pew Research Center and World Religion Database, but if you have better or more accessible references, please feel free to update them per WP:V and WP:RS.

I completely support further discussion under WP:CONSENSUS and appreciate your openness to revisiting the data. Following WP:BRD, edits and reliable sourcing from multiple editors will only strengthen the article. Your contributions are very welcome here. Rick Joseph (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Your editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. That means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Instead of reverting edits, please stop editing the page and discuss on the talk page to create a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a Third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you break the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if it looks like you intend to continue reverting. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)