| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | [[{{{article}}}]] ([[Talk:{{{article}}}|Talk page]]) |
| Status | {{{status}}} |
| Request date | 13:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | Unknown |
| Comment | Issues seem to be either resolved or died down. Article is now an FA. |
Where's the dispute?
What's the dispute?
There are scripts next to the article name which don't belong to the ethnicity of the person. According WP biography standards the articles should be conservative. So my position is to use only the script of the person's ethnicity, since other languages mislead the reader. Rajnikanth could be thought of Tamil origin, which is wrong and misleading. The initial discussion of the issue regarding Adi Shankara can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adi_Shankara#No_need_of_Devanagari
Of course it is worth mentioning, that almost all biographies have the person's ethnicities language only, for instance A. R. Rahman or Aishwarya Rai -- Leadcorrector ( talk) 16:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
To begin with, English is there, let it be followed by language of state or ethnicity the person belongs, and/or does most of his/her work, and Hindi if the person is popular through India! And yes! Just because an Urdu script is in
Rekha's names, no one would confuse her to be a Muslim, the article is there to clarify the fact! --
Ekabhishek (
talk) 09:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is in my view a liberal stand, and i don't support it. Sorry. Many people don't read the whole article, just want to know what kind of ethnicity they belong. -- Leadcorrector ( talk) 20:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- At Talk:Adi Shankara, seven editors support the inclusion of Devanagari, none oppose. There's no case here, since consensus is clear. Leadcorrector is mistaken in thinking that the language connotes the ethnicity of the subject, which is clearly not the case on Wikipedia. Priyanath talk 20:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please, you can't give Salman Rushdie 200 transliterations, just because he published books in those languages. I don't think, that I'm in any way wrong in my thinking. There is infact no consensus, just a couple of people with certain interests. In your case it would be a pan-Hindu association of people. Should we give A R Rahman an arabic transiliteration because he is a muslim? Look at TinuCheran's vote: "All languages of India? :)". Isn't it ironic and ridiculous? -- Leadcorrector ( talk) 20:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone(admin) close this case? Consensus has been reached - C21K talk 18:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are you sure?
diff This is a serious problem in my opinion. Special interests taking over Indian related articles. --
Leadcorrector (
talk) 16:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- If this is going across multiple articles, I suggest this be brought to WP:ANI or some other forum. We're overstretched, there's no doubt about it. I'll reopen, but I don't think it's terribly likely it will be picked up in any punctual matter that the parties will find agreeable. Xavexgoem ( talk) 16:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Are you sure?
diff This is a serious problem in my opinion. Special interests taking over Indian related articles. --
Leadcorrector (
talk) 16:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Been open for two months now. Is mediation still needed here? -- Kanonkas : Talk 12:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Article | [[{{{article}}}]] ([[Talk:{{{article}}}|Talk page]]) |
| Status | {{{status}}} |
| Request date | 13:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | Unknown |
| Comment | Issues seem to be either resolved or died down. Article is now an FA. |
Where's the dispute?
What's the dispute?
There are scripts next to the article name which don't belong to the ethnicity of the person. According WP biography standards the articles should be conservative. So my position is to use only the script of the person's ethnicity, since other languages mislead the reader. Rajnikanth could be thought of Tamil origin, which is wrong and misleading. The initial discussion of the issue regarding Adi Shankara can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adi_Shankara#No_need_of_Devanagari
Of course it is worth mentioning, that almost all biographies have the person's ethnicities language only, for instance A. R. Rahman or Aishwarya Rai -- Leadcorrector ( talk) 16:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
To begin with, English is there, let it be followed by language of state or ethnicity the person belongs, and/or does most of his/her work, and Hindi if the person is popular through India! And yes! Just because an Urdu script is in
Rekha's names, no one would confuse her to be a Muslim, the article is there to clarify the fact! --
Ekabhishek (
talk) 09:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is in my view a liberal stand, and i don't support it. Sorry. Many people don't read the whole article, just want to know what kind of ethnicity they belong. -- Leadcorrector ( talk) 20:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- At Talk:Adi Shankara, seven editors support the inclusion of Devanagari, none oppose. There's no case here, since consensus is clear. Leadcorrector is mistaken in thinking that the language connotes the ethnicity of the subject, which is clearly not the case on Wikipedia. Priyanath talk 20:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please, you can't give Salman Rushdie 200 transliterations, just because he published books in those languages. I don't think, that I'm in any way wrong in my thinking. There is infact no consensus, just a couple of people with certain interests. In your case it would be a pan-Hindu association of people. Should we give A R Rahman an arabic transiliteration because he is a muslim? Look at TinuCheran's vote: "All languages of India? :)". Isn't it ironic and ridiculous? -- Leadcorrector ( talk) 20:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone(admin) close this case? Consensus has been reached - C21K talk 18:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are you sure?
diff This is a serious problem in my opinion. Special interests taking over Indian related articles. --
Leadcorrector (
talk) 16:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- If this is going across multiple articles, I suggest this be brought to WP:ANI or some other forum. We're overstretched, there's no doubt about it. I'll reopen, but I don't think it's terribly likely it will be picked up in any punctual matter that the parties will find agreeable. Xavexgoem ( talk) 16:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Are you sure?
diff This is a serious problem in my opinion. Special interests taking over Indian related articles. --
Leadcorrector (
talk) 16:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Been open for two months now. Is mediation still needed here? -- Kanonkas : Talk 12:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)