![]() | 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 |
It "is the single largest organization in the field of education as of 2007". What does that even mean? Most students? Most institutions? Most money? Most teachers? Obviously, this needs a reference so we can know what it even means. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, the entire text of the article is POV, probably lifted from the Organisation web site or some magazine verbatim. There is no point in copyediting any of it. We need to find reliable secondary sources and create new content. Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The philosophy etc section is a copyvio from here. Not attempting to deal with it myself, because the tag is still in place. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 21:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
It's more than likely that the rest is from the website, too. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 21:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
If the connection to the RSS is removed as part of a copy-edit, that would be the most ridiculous copy-edit I have ever seen. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 14:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
who is indulging in PAs now? My first post here merely said that the link to the RSS should not be removed. Now you added it, so I thanked you. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 21:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there a principle that the first sentence of the lede has to be from the primary source, and the second sentence from a secondary sentence? If so, where can I find it? Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
My preferred style of citing books is to use "ref=harv" in a Bibliography section that lists all the books. Then each citation can be written using "sfn" as {{sfn|Jafrelot|2011|p=193}}, which is short and nice without cluttering the main text. It is also nice to the reader who doesn't need to see the same book occurring 10 times in the References list with different page numbers.
In the Bibliography sections, I tend to list the books by the alphabet order of the author's last name.
Any comments? Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I am making a clean start, and there is a lot to say here. First of all, User:AmritasyaPutra's first revert [1] was on the grounds that my Bibliography entries were "irrelevant". I hold that he is wrong about that. All those articles and books I mentioned do discuss Vidya Bharati. Secondly, I don't agree that WP:CITEVAR applies here, because we are rebuilding this page from scratch. It is not an "established" page. However, I am happy to debate the choice of the right reference format. I am also happy to give him "priority" because he started working on this page first and did a lot of admirable clean-up. However, I would like a proper discussion to take place.
Here are the issues I see:
Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok. I have converted the references back to the reflist format. There is indeed increased clutter of page numbers. But I think it is not overwhelming (yet). Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
So, this edit at 14 september 2014 changed the reference style from inline to sfn, and this edit at 16 september changed it to - what's it called? I think it looks awful!
Personally I prefer sfn; it gives a very good overview of sources, and is very handsome when you're editing.
Regarding the change of style: I agree with AmritasyaPutra that it should have been discussed first. Ah, it's a great topic for disputes... I've had a few too, in my Wiki-career. Are you finished already discussing? ;)
Best to all of you, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I have changed the references back to sfn format. Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I am unable to find out who this woman is. The reference book (Religious political parties and their welfare work: Relations between the RSS, the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Vidya Bharati Schools in India) linked in the article doesn't seem to introduce the author. Do we know anything about her credentials? Lets sort this thing first and then we will look at the statements taken from her article as reference. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 13:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
It is listed in book stores with "University of Birmingham" as the publisher, e.g., [5]. So, officially it is a book. Unofficially, I can say that this kind of a publication is part of commissioned research projects by aid agencies, where somebody is contracted to do field research to collect source material and provide the basis for further analysis by the core research team. Their reports are made available normally to the agencies themselves or, in this case, to the wider academic community as source material that they can base their research on. I would use such a source only for factual information, not analysis. Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I am treating it with a fistful of salt: for facts, not analysis. However, User:Dharmadhyaksha is saying that even the facts might be questionable because they might be obtained from "ABC people." (I suppose he means the members/officials of the organisation.) I have been looking for corroboration from other sources for some of the wild claims. So, stay tuned. Kautilya3 ( talk) 07:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Recently, some editors have changed the spelling of the name in the lead to "Vidya Bharti." It is true that the organisation's web site spells the name that way. However, on Google Books, "Vidya Bharti" gives about 300 hits whereas "Vidya Bharati" gives more than 3,000. So it seems a preponderance of the reliable sources use the old spelling. I suggest that we retain that. (The official spelling will be in Hindi/Dev Nagari anyway. This is just a question of how it is transliterated in English.) - Kautilya3 ( talk) 02:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
It has been proposed that Saraswati Shishu Mandir be merged into Vidya Bharati. I agree with the proposal, as they seem to be about the same organization. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 04:11, 6 July 2017 (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 |
It "is the single largest organization in the field of education as of 2007". What does that even mean? Most students? Most institutions? Most money? Most teachers? Obviously, this needs a reference so we can know what it even means. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, the entire text of the article is POV, probably lifted from the Organisation web site or some magazine verbatim. There is no point in copyediting any of it. We need to find reliable secondary sources and create new content. Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The philosophy etc section is a copyvio from here. Not attempting to deal with it myself, because the tag is still in place. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 21:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
It's more than likely that the rest is from the website, too. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 21:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
If the connection to the RSS is removed as part of a copy-edit, that would be the most ridiculous copy-edit I have ever seen. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 14:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
who is indulging in PAs now? My first post here merely said that the link to the RSS should not be removed. Now you added it, so I thanked you. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 21:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there a principle that the first sentence of the lede has to be from the primary source, and the second sentence from a secondary sentence? If so, where can I find it? Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
My preferred style of citing books is to use "ref=harv" in a Bibliography section that lists all the books. Then each citation can be written using "sfn" as {{sfn|Jafrelot|2011|p=193}}, which is short and nice without cluttering the main text. It is also nice to the reader who doesn't need to see the same book occurring 10 times in the References list with different page numbers.
In the Bibliography sections, I tend to list the books by the alphabet order of the author's last name.
Any comments? Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I am making a clean start, and there is a lot to say here. First of all, User:AmritasyaPutra's first revert [1] was on the grounds that my Bibliography entries were "irrelevant". I hold that he is wrong about that. All those articles and books I mentioned do discuss Vidya Bharati. Secondly, I don't agree that WP:CITEVAR applies here, because we are rebuilding this page from scratch. It is not an "established" page. However, I am happy to debate the choice of the right reference format. I am also happy to give him "priority" because he started working on this page first and did a lot of admirable clean-up. However, I would like a proper discussion to take place.
Here are the issues I see:
Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok. I have converted the references back to the reflist format. There is indeed increased clutter of page numbers. But I think it is not overwhelming (yet). Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
So, this edit at 14 september 2014 changed the reference style from inline to sfn, and this edit at 16 september changed it to - what's it called? I think it looks awful!
Personally I prefer sfn; it gives a very good overview of sources, and is very handsome when you're editing.
Regarding the change of style: I agree with AmritasyaPutra that it should have been discussed first. Ah, it's a great topic for disputes... I've had a few too, in my Wiki-career. Are you finished already discussing? ;)
Best to all of you, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I have changed the references back to sfn format. Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I am unable to find out who this woman is. The reference book (Religious political parties and their welfare work: Relations between the RSS, the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Vidya Bharati Schools in India) linked in the article doesn't seem to introduce the author. Do we know anything about her credentials? Lets sort this thing first and then we will look at the statements taken from her article as reference. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 13:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
It is listed in book stores with "University of Birmingham" as the publisher, e.g., [5]. So, officially it is a book. Unofficially, I can say that this kind of a publication is part of commissioned research projects by aid agencies, where somebody is contracted to do field research to collect source material and provide the basis for further analysis by the core research team. Their reports are made available normally to the agencies themselves or, in this case, to the wider academic community as source material that they can base their research on. I would use such a source only for factual information, not analysis. Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I am treating it with a fistful of salt: for facts, not analysis. However, User:Dharmadhyaksha is saying that even the facts might be questionable because they might be obtained from "ABC people." (I suppose he means the members/officials of the organisation.) I have been looking for corroboration from other sources for some of the wild claims. So, stay tuned. Kautilya3 ( talk) 07:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Recently, some editors have changed the spelling of the name in the lead to "Vidya Bharti." It is true that the organisation's web site spells the name that way. However, on Google Books, "Vidya Bharti" gives about 300 hits whereas "Vidya Bharati" gives more than 3,000. So it seems a preponderance of the reliable sources use the old spelling. I suggest that we retain that. (The official spelling will be in Hindi/Dev Nagari anyway. This is just a question of how it is transliterated in English.) - Kautilya3 ( talk) 02:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
It has been proposed that Saraswati Shishu Mandir be merged into Vidya Bharati. I agree with the proposal, as they seem to be about the same organization. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 04:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)