![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
@ AmritasyaPutra: This morning, I found a bunch of edits you did to the text Vanamonde93 and I contributed. I have problems with them.
On the whole, I find that your edits this morning to our text are entirely counterproductive. I am minded to revert all of them. Uday Reddy ( talk) 00:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@ AmritasyaPutra: I don't understand what that response means. And, I would like to formally state that you are starting another edit war.
So I would like to ask you to stop editing our text. If you continue in this fashion, I am minded to go the Administrators and ask that you be debarred from editing this page. Uday Reddy ( talk) 11:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You can't just copy words from a news article to Wikipedia and expect them to mean the same thing. A news article is expected to be as specific as possible and attribute views to sources. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We are expected to be as general possible and avoid unnecessary detail. So, if you mention any piece of detail such as "Balmukund Pandey" claimed/explained/stated or whatever, you are raising an alarm. You are implying that this may not actually be a fact, it is somebody's private view. Note that you also copied "first element", as if you are listing a bunch of elements. This kind of a cut-and-paste job is no good for Wikipedia. Vanamonde93 and I don't have any choice but to junk everything you did and go back to the old version. If you want to be productive, you better tell us what your concerns are and allow us to take them into account. Uday Reddy ( talk) 17:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Just sharing some statements I found quite amusing:
a What is your objection to this edit? It is from a secondary reliable source, namely Times of India. See these articles for example which follows similar style UNICEF, AIDA International, ActionAid. Objectives are implicitly 'stated'. Do you have objection to the source or the grammar or style? -- AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Stating my views for the record, per Uday Reddy's suggestion.
1) The Reliability of Berti is not in question, and so this blanking is unacceptable.
2) this version, which Uday Reddy and myself support, has no OR whatsoever. Specifically, the "Ideology" section is an accurate paraphrasing of the source, and the relevant discussion demonstrates this. AmritasyaPutra has been insisting that anything short of lifting the source text is OR, which is not a policy based position. I would also point out that they took an earlier debate was taken to ORN by AmritasyaPutra, where they were told it was not OR.
3) Amritasya's version of the "ideology" section gave the impression that the items mentioned there were isolated incidents and not part of a general philosophy. This had actually been sorted out (more or less) prior to Bladesmulti's blanking.
4) This discussion more or less established the need for the qualifier "stated" before mentioning the objective of the organisation. A couple of weeks later, Amritasya removes it again, in an apparent case of tit-for-tat removal.
5) Finally, this was a typical example of canvassing. Blades was uninvolved prior to that, but has been involved in a similarly heated discussion along with User:Kautilya3, Amritasya, and myself as a peripheral party at Talk:Praveen Togadia, where Blades and Amritasya were agreeing. The POV issue there is identical as well. All in all, Blades is not a neutral party. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 14:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Finally, I posted at INB before Blades made his wholesale removal; until that point, the use of the source, at least, was not questioned. So, if there is no response at INB within the next 24 hours, I will be posting to DRN. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 14:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This sections is specifically for this. Nevertheless my concise response:
In my opinion, the editor that first contributes the text has priority. An editor that comes afterwards can raise issues/objections, but cannot have his preferred text replace the original just as a matter of will. He/she can edit the text, but if the original editor reverts it, he/she has to come back to discussion and try to generate a consensus. In this case, User:Vanamonde93 wrote the original text on 15 August. By then, he had read the 2 academic articles cited here and formed an educated opinion. User:AmritasyaPutra wanted to replace it by his own text, but never articulated clear objections to the original text. He simply replaced the text and expected Vanamonde93 to discuss and compromise.
As for the isse mentioned at the top of this section, the word "stated" was inserted after prior discussion because AmritasyaPutra forced Vanamonde93 to use the organisation's own words. Those words are misleading because "national perspective" simply means something pertaining to the whole country, as opposed to a "local" or "regional" perspective. (The organisation is not good at English. It writes its documents in Hindi and translates them into English. We can't reproduce those words on Wikipedia without proper sifting.) The correct terminology is "nationalist perspective", which are the words used in the newspapers. "Nationalist" requires qualification because there isn't simply one form of "nationalism." So, Vanamonde93 used "Hindu nationalist" and credited Berti for the terminology. Nobody in their right mind would argue that the organisation is not Hindu nationalist. But AmritasyaPutra did. He also did not want Berti mentioned, at least not in the lead. So, a compromise was agreed. Now AmritasyaPutra wants to remove the organisation as the source of the words, even though it is their words.
This page is in a logjam. Millions of bytes of discussion need to take place to agree on a single word! This is not productive. I have advised Vanamonde93 to go for arbitration, which I hope he will do. Uday Reddy ( talk) 20:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I actually had PDF of this journal, I must say that the journal is completely senseless and Daniela Berti fails to provide references for the opinions she was making. Her new story starts with Kullu like everytime, but she seems to have been distorted from the number of events or perspectives that the organization has notably acknowledged, you cannot tell who she is actually talking about. We cannot use this author as source who is far away from any scholarly publication or even JSTOR. In fact, it is not even important to add any section about their ideas or aims. The remaining refs that are pointing to Daniela will be probably replaced. If you want to contribute, write about the organization and notable views. Nothing like we have to professionalize some organization. Bladesmulti ( talk) 02:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Uday Reddy you can stop giving mindless weight to a SPS. It has still not been addressed that how there was any need to mention this unreliable author who fails to provide reference for own material. Bladesmulti ( talk) 05:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
If this journal was favorable to Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana and published by University of Florence, you would be probably discarding it as a non notable university. A polemic cannot be a source. Just like Richard Dawkins cannot be used as source for Islam, and here problems are much bigger because you are wanting to use this non notable polemic as source for just everything about this organization, although the author provides no reference for particular information. Bladesmulti ( talk) 16:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
You heard of these publishers anywhere else? And even if that is not a point anymore, there is no other way to confirm if her theories about Kullu have the reference, lets leave that too. I just read the whole PDF once again, here the theories were kept one sided, misrepresented, and adding to both lead and subsection apparently made it look like Berti is representing this organization than anyone else. "and spread from there to the rest of Asia" is not supported by any of her publication. Also the source on lead is being misrepresented, it needs to be changed, source is not supporting the last line as Berti never talked about British. Bladesmulti ( talk) 02:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
@ AmritasyaPutra: This morning, I found a bunch of edits you did to the text Vanamonde93 and I contributed. I have problems with them.
On the whole, I find that your edits this morning to our text are entirely counterproductive. I am minded to revert all of them. Uday Reddy ( talk) 00:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@ AmritasyaPutra: I don't understand what that response means. And, I would like to formally state that you are starting another edit war.
So I would like to ask you to stop editing our text. If you continue in this fashion, I am minded to go the Administrators and ask that you be debarred from editing this page. Uday Reddy ( talk) 11:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You can't just copy words from a news article to Wikipedia and expect them to mean the same thing. A news article is expected to be as specific as possible and attribute views to sources. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We are expected to be as general possible and avoid unnecessary detail. So, if you mention any piece of detail such as "Balmukund Pandey" claimed/explained/stated or whatever, you are raising an alarm. You are implying that this may not actually be a fact, it is somebody's private view. Note that you also copied "first element", as if you are listing a bunch of elements. This kind of a cut-and-paste job is no good for Wikipedia. Vanamonde93 and I don't have any choice but to junk everything you did and go back to the old version. If you want to be productive, you better tell us what your concerns are and allow us to take them into account. Uday Reddy ( talk) 17:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Just sharing some statements I found quite amusing:
a What is your objection to this edit? It is from a secondary reliable source, namely Times of India. See these articles for example which follows similar style UNICEF, AIDA International, ActionAid. Objectives are implicitly 'stated'. Do you have objection to the source or the grammar or style? -- AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Stating my views for the record, per Uday Reddy's suggestion.
1) The Reliability of Berti is not in question, and so this blanking is unacceptable.
2) this version, which Uday Reddy and myself support, has no OR whatsoever. Specifically, the "Ideology" section is an accurate paraphrasing of the source, and the relevant discussion demonstrates this. AmritasyaPutra has been insisting that anything short of lifting the source text is OR, which is not a policy based position. I would also point out that they took an earlier debate was taken to ORN by AmritasyaPutra, where they were told it was not OR.
3) Amritasya's version of the "ideology" section gave the impression that the items mentioned there were isolated incidents and not part of a general philosophy. This had actually been sorted out (more or less) prior to Bladesmulti's blanking.
4) This discussion more or less established the need for the qualifier "stated" before mentioning the objective of the organisation. A couple of weeks later, Amritasya removes it again, in an apparent case of tit-for-tat removal.
5) Finally, this was a typical example of canvassing. Blades was uninvolved prior to that, but has been involved in a similarly heated discussion along with User:Kautilya3, Amritasya, and myself as a peripheral party at Talk:Praveen Togadia, where Blades and Amritasya were agreeing. The POV issue there is identical as well. All in all, Blades is not a neutral party. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 14:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Finally, I posted at INB before Blades made his wholesale removal; until that point, the use of the source, at least, was not questioned. So, if there is no response at INB within the next 24 hours, I will be posting to DRN. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 14:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This sections is specifically for this. Nevertheless my concise response:
In my opinion, the editor that first contributes the text has priority. An editor that comes afterwards can raise issues/objections, but cannot have his preferred text replace the original just as a matter of will. He/she can edit the text, but if the original editor reverts it, he/she has to come back to discussion and try to generate a consensus. In this case, User:Vanamonde93 wrote the original text on 15 August. By then, he had read the 2 academic articles cited here and formed an educated opinion. User:AmritasyaPutra wanted to replace it by his own text, but never articulated clear objections to the original text. He simply replaced the text and expected Vanamonde93 to discuss and compromise.
As for the isse mentioned at the top of this section, the word "stated" was inserted after prior discussion because AmritasyaPutra forced Vanamonde93 to use the organisation's own words. Those words are misleading because "national perspective" simply means something pertaining to the whole country, as opposed to a "local" or "regional" perspective. (The organisation is not good at English. It writes its documents in Hindi and translates them into English. We can't reproduce those words on Wikipedia without proper sifting.) The correct terminology is "nationalist perspective", which are the words used in the newspapers. "Nationalist" requires qualification because there isn't simply one form of "nationalism." So, Vanamonde93 used "Hindu nationalist" and credited Berti for the terminology. Nobody in their right mind would argue that the organisation is not Hindu nationalist. But AmritasyaPutra did. He also did not want Berti mentioned, at least not in the lead. So, a compromise was agreed. Now AmritasyaPutra wants to remove the organisation as the source of the words, even though it is their words.
This page is in a logjam. Millions of bytes of discussion need to take place to agree on a single word! This is not productive. I have advised Vanamonde93 to go for arbitration, which I hope he will do. Uday Reddy ( talk) 20:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I actually had PDF of this journal, I must say that the journal is completely senseless and Daniela Berti fails to provide references for the opinions she was making. Her new story starts with Kullu like everytime, but she seems to have been distorted from the number of events or perspectives that the organization has notably acknowledged, you cannot tell who she is actually talking about. We cannot use this author as source who is far away from any scholarly publication or even JSTOR. In fact, it is not even important to add any section about their ideas or aims. The remaining refs that are pointing to Daniela will be probably replaced. If you want to contribute, write about the organization and notable views. Nothing like we have to professionalize some organization. Bladesmulti ( talk) 02:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Uday Reddy you can stop giving mindless weight to a SPS. It has still not been addressed that how there was any need to mention this unreliable author who fails to provide reference for own material. Bladesmulti ( talk) 05:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
If this journal was favorable to Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana and published by University of Florence, you would be probably discarding it as a non notable university. A polemic cannot be a source. Just like Richard Dawkins cannot be used as source for Islam, and here problems are much bigger because you are wanting to use this non notable polemic as source for just everything about this organization, although the author provides no reference for particular information. Bladesmulti ( talk) 16:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
You heard of these publishers anywhere else? And even if that is not a point anymore, there is no other way to confirm if her theories about Kullu have the reference, lets leave that too. I just read the whole PDF once again, here the theories were kept one sided, misrepresented, and adding to both lead and subsection apparently made it look like Berti is representing this organization than anyone else. "and spread from there to the rest of Asia" is not supported by any of her publication. Also the source on lead is being misrepresented, it needs to be changed, source is not supporting the last line as Berti never talked about British. Bladesmulti ( talk) 02:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)