This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sudheendra Kulkarni article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sitush what is the difference between the reflist style you deleted and the simpler one now. Actually the earlier one was generated automatically by a little gadget I used. [1] Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 13:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Re: linking the word "Indian". Per WP:OVERLINK we do not usually link major countries etc. It doesn't matter if "Indian" is a phrasing style in India, as your weird edit summary of a few minutes ago seems to say. This is English Wikipedia and Indian-English does not supplant general style guidelines even though it is an acceptable alternative for spellings, choice of words etc. The phrasing and the style are separate issues and you cannot conflate them. You either unlink "Indian" or you shuffle things around. I tried to do both and you objected to both. Your choice, but either way there should not be a link there.
Yes, there are "occasional exceptions". This is not one of them because you claim that there will be confusion with Native Americans but in fact in the very next sentence you link to an educational institution in India with the word "Indian" in its title & I think we can assume people have some common sense. There is no logic to your position and the fact that you are carrying on this type of argument over 10 - 15 different articles, all related to some sort of perception that India-related articles are somehow damaged here, is just stacking up towards some action being taken. There are already some considerable concerns being floated around, as you are aware, and you are also aware that some of your more extreme breaches have already been halted (eg: using the wrong forum for a discussion). You can only go on doing this for so long before you will find yourself in bother. Why risk it? If you are blocked then you are excluded from the "critical mass" that you desire to see. Or, put another way, you will have shot yourself in the foot. - Sitush ( talk) 16:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no need to wikilink India. The context is made clear immediately. There is no way this person will be mistaken for Native American. Ladyof Shalott 16:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
All that is in the first paragraph. I don't know how stupid you think Americans are, but if someone can't tell from the above that the article is talking about a person from India rather than a Native American, than adding a wikilink isn't going to help. The End. Ladyof Shalott 13:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
(od)Well won't you have a look at Ganga please? And perhaps see why Ganga would be such a disaster for Americans, as claimed there. Then perhaps you could come back here. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 18:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
We presently cite "Sudheendra Kulkarni - 'Finding your Passion'". Student Alumni Relations Cell, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay. Retrieved 2011-07-21.. That is a deadlink and it is not at Wayback. It looks probable that the content was removed at sarc-iitb, where the trail now appears to end at http://www.sarc-iitb.org/interaction.php.
My concern that that the publisher is a voluntary organisation that appears to be run by students. While there appears to be little that might be considered controversial in the statements attributed to this source, surely we can do better than this? - Sitush ( talk) 07:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Please can someone explain why:
I fear that we are once again getting involved in the pedantry that was demonstrated in the thread above. - Sitush ( talk) 08:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
This is regarding edits made by user:Sitush and above.
( edit conflict):(1)"The electoral defeat of his mentor, Advani, had effectively ended his role with the party and he had also become disenchanted with the influence exerted by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh on party decision-making" (a)This statement is false - Advani wasn't defeated. (b)The cited article doesn't mention that "Advani was Kulkarni's mentor" so that is misrepresentation of source it merely express an opinion that "he (Kulkarni) owed his rise in the party to (Advani)"(c)the mention of RSS is thus "In June, he publicly blamed the RSS, the party’s ideological parent, for making a “strong leader” like Advani look weak and helpless. It was the first step towards snapping ties with the BJP in search of other avenues." Which is nothing but Hindustan Times' judgement of the events and has to be mentioned so and not the wp:OR and wp:SYNTHESIS indulged above. (2)The above edits have to be explained or will be modified to faithfully represent the source quoted. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 09:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I am concerned with this Outlook article because it has the appearance of being a political gossip column. I think that we have other sources which mention his strategy role, so can we replace this? - Sitush ( talk) 09:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The adjective "card-carrying" implies more than what is stated in the source Yogesh Khandke ( talk · contribs) has quoted from. The source, an article in the newspaper The Hindu merely says, "one-time CPI(M) card holder." "Card-carrying," according to the OED means "Having a membership card of a specified organization, freq. a political party (esp. the Communist Party); (hence) designating a loyal, dedicated member of such an organization. Latterly, "card-carrying" is also being used figuratively, as in "every card-carrying mystery buff should read this book." None of these implications are present in the source. I have accordingly removed "card-carrying." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 09:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
“ | In "card-carrying," then, we had a modifier willing and able to make its way into the general language but carrying political baggage labeled explosive. When modifying a nonpolitical noun, card-carrying redneck, card-carrying genius, card-carrying member of the baby-boom generation - it meant authentic, unmistakable, almost rootin'-tootin' ; but when used in any ideological setting, it had old leftist overtones that resonated. That meant, to avoid offense or smear, the modifier could be used only with a rightist noun. The socialist left and the card-carrying capitalists will find it equally objectionable, wrote The Economist in 1975; that magazine also liked to identify William Simon as a card-carrying capitalist, which the then-Secretary of the Treasury could only find flattering. In 1983, Senator Jake Garn, Republican of Utah, proudly proclaimed himself a card-carrying conservative. When used that way, with a right-leaning noun, the modifier could not be considered objectionable; it meant only authentic, and its baggage was nullified or reflected a nicely oxymoronic irony. But people in politics remembered the Communist history of the word and were careful not to apply it to a left-leaning noun. A card-carrying hawk offended nobody, but a card-carrying dove was an insult. A card-carrying capitalist was a salute, but a card-carrying liberal was a slur. | ” |
Do you have a reliable source stating that it isn't pejorative in India? Until then, best not to wax on here about your private notions of Indian English. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 07:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sudheendra Kulkarni article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sitush what is the difference between the reflist style you deleted and the simpler one now. Actually the earlier one was generated automatically by a little gadget I used. [1] Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 13:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Re: linking the word "Indian". Per WP:OVERLINK we do not usually link major countries etc. It doesn't matter if "Indian" is a phrasing style in India, as your weird edit summary of a few minutes ago seems to say. This is English Wikipedia and Indian-English does not supplant general style guidelines even though it is an acceptable alternative for spellings, choice of words etc. The phrasing and the style are separate issues and you cannot conflate them. You either unlink "Indian" or you shuffle things around. I tried to do both and you objected to both. Your choice, but either way there should not be a link there.
Yes, there are "occasional exceptions". This is not one of them because you claim that there will be confusion with Native Americans but in fact in the very next sentence you link to an educational institution in India with the word "Indian" in its title & I think we can assume people have some common sense. There is no logic to your position and the fact that you are carrying on this type of argument over 10 - 15 different articles, all related to some sort of perception that India-related articles are somehow damaged here, is just stacking up towards some action being taken. There are already some considerable concerns being floated around, as you are aware, and you are also aware that some of your more extreme breaches have already been halted (eg: using the wrong forum for a discussion). You can only go on doing this for so long before you will find yourself in bother. Why risk it? If you are blocked then you are excluded from the "critical mass" that you desire to see. Or, put another way, you will have shot yourself in the foot. - Sitush ( talk) 16:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no need to wikilink India. The context is made clear immediately. There is no way this person will be mistaken for Native American. Ladyof Shalott 16:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
All that is in the first paragraph. I don't know how stupid you think Americans are, but if someone can't tell from the above that the article is talking about a person from India rather than a Native American, than adding a wikilink isn't going to help. The End. Ladyof Shalott 13:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
(od)Well won't you have a look at Ganga please? And perhaps see why Ganga would be such a disaster for Americans, as claimed there. Then perhaps you could come back here. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 18:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
We presently cite "Sudheendra Kulkarni - 'Finding your Passion'". Student Alumni Relations Cell, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay. Retrieved 2011-07-21.. That is a deadlink and it is not at Wayback. It looks probable that the content was removed at sarc-iitb, where the trail now appears to end at http://www.sarc-iitb.org/interaction.php.
My concern that that the publisher is a voluntary organisation that appears to be run by students. While there appears to be little that might be considered controversial in the statements attributed to this source, surely we can do better than this? - Sitush ( talk) 07:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Please can someone explain why:
I fear that we are once again getting involved in the pedantry that was demonstrated in the thread above. - Sitush ( talk) 08:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
This is regarding edits made by user:Sitush and above.
( edit conflict):(1)"The electoral defeat of his mentor, Advani, had effectively ended his role with the party and he had also become disenchanted with the influence exerted by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh on party decision-making" (a)This statement is false - Advani wasn't defeated. (b)The cited article doesn't mention that "Advani was Kulkarni's mentor" so that is misrepresentation of source it merely express an opinion that "he (Kulkarni) owed his rise in the party to (Advani)"(c)the mention of RSS is thus "In June, he publicly blamed the RSS, the party’s ideological parent, for making a “strong leader” like Advani look weak and helpless. It was the first step towards snapping ties with the BJP in search of other avenues." Which is nothing but Hindustan Times' judgement of the events and has to be mentioned so and not the wp:OR and wp:SYNTHESIS indulged above. (2)The above edits have to be explained or will be modified to faithfully represent the source quoted. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 09:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I am concerned with this Outlook article because it has the appearance of being a political gossip column. I think that we have other sources which mention his strategy role, so can we replace this? - Sitush ( talk) 09:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The adjective "card-carrying" implies more than what is stated in the source Yogesh Khandke ( talk · contribs) has quoted from. The source, an article in the newspaper The Hindu merely says, "one-time CPI(M) card holder." "Card-carrying," according to the OED means "Having a membership card of a specified organization, freq. a political party (esp. the Communist Party); (hence) designating a loyal, dedicated member of such an organization. Latterly, "card-carrying" is also being used figuratively, as in "every card-carrying mystery buff should read this book." None of these implications are present in the source. I have accordingly removed "card-carrying." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 09:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
“ | In "card-carrying," then, we had a modifier willing and able to make its way into the general language but carrying political baggage labeled explosive. When modifying a nonpolitical noun, card-carrying redneck, card-carrying genius, card-carrying member of the baby-boom generation - it meant authentic, unmistakable, almost rootin'-tootin' ; but when used in any ideological setting, it had old leftist overtones that resonated. That meant, to avoid offense or smear, the modifier could be used only with a rightist noun. The socialist left and the card-carrying capitalists will find it equally objectionable, wrote The Economist in 1975; that magazine also liked to identify William Simon as a card-carrying capitalist, which the then-Secretary of the Treasury could only find flattering. In 1983, Senator Jake Garn, Republican of Utah, proudly proclaimed himself a card-carrying conservative. When used that way, with a right-leaning noun, the modifier could not be considered objectionable; it meant only authentic, and its baggage was nullified or reflected a nicely oxymoronic irony. But people in politics remembered the Communist history of the word and were careful not to apply it to a left-leaning noun. A card-carrying hawk offended nobody, but a card-carrying dove was an insult. A card-carrying capitalist was a salute, but a card-carrying liberal was a slur. | ” |
Do you have a reliable source stating that it isn't pejorative in India? Until then, best not to wax on here about your private notions of Indian English. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 07:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)