User talk:Qwyrxian: Difference between revisions
→Help!: ty |
|||
Line 439: | Line 439: | ||
Yikes, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khatri&diff=532892502&oldid=524412673 this is pov pushing] but the article is semi-protected and I can do nothing about it.--[[Special:Contributions/2.219.218.79|2.219.218.79]] ([[User talk:2.219.218.79|talk]]) 07:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC) |
Yikes, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khatri&diff=532892502&oldid=524412673 this is pov pushing] but the article is semi-protected and I can do nothing about it.--[[Special:Contributions/2.219.218.79|2.219.218.79]] ([[User talk:2.219.218.79|talk]]) 07:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
:Got it. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian#top|talk]]) 07:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC) |
:Got it. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian#top|talk]]) 07:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
::ta. I am dreading what my watchlist is going to look like!--[[Special:Contributions/2.219.218.79|2.219.218.79]] ([[User talk:2.219.218.79|talk]]) 18:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== ANI thread == |
== ANI thread == |
Revision as of 18:02, 20 February 2013
Talk page archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 |
Cinema of Andhra Pradesh DRN
Please comment, your input will be greatly appreciated. RTPking (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
THE DRN has been archived, without a resolution by bot. Whats the next step that can be taken? RTPking (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Mediation is probably the next best step, if you Vesantry will agree to it. Alternatively, if you just want outside opinions, you could start an WP:RfC. If you want to do the latter, I suggest making a draft first, because it's very important that the initial RfC be neutral, and it's often very difficult for people to do, especially on their first try. In fact, I'd be willing to write the RfC text on behalf of the both of you. So, first, do you personally prefer Mediation or an RfC? Then we can see what Vesantry wants. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I would prefer an RFC, thereby everyone knows rather than just me and Vensatry, It will be the best as not just me and Vensatry but other are also involved. RTPking (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I've asked Vensatry if s/he minds if I draft the RfC wording. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please initiate the RFC as per your convenient time. RTPking (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- The RFC draft is fair and acceptable to me. RTPking (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- How long is the rfc to be kept open and would it be concluded based on comments ? Vensatry does not want to participate in the RFC for some reason... — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTPking (talk • contribs) 18:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- RfC's generally run for at least 30 days. Vensatry's participation is basically irrelevant—if consensus comes down for one side or another, then you both have to follow it. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- How long is the rfc to be kept open and would it be concluded based on comments ? Vensatry does not want to participate in the RFC for some reason... — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTPking (talk • contribs) 18:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Martin Bashir article edits
It is getting a little frustrating trying to edit this man's "bio", since you keep removing everything. Martin cites himself as being a far left leaning liberal, but you remove that. He is cited, on Wikipedia, as using disingenuous methods to "get the drop" On his interviewees, but you remove that, he openly admits- on air during his broadcasts that he believes it is his place to ruin the conservatives/republicans and the TeaParty in particular, but you remove every article link detailing that message. So far, you have done everything possible to make sure that no one knows who he is, what he does, his tactics, his history or his beliefs. It would appear that you, acting as Wikipedia, are trying to make sure nothing negative ( though completely truthful) is said about him. I have attempted to insert no "commentary" or "opinion" as you claim- only facts, in evidence, as offered at Wikipedia or bonafide news organizations.
I think someone with less obvious bias should be called upon as a referee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlinsscience (talk • contribs) 17:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you can provide a reliable source that says that he is a "far left leaning liberal", you can add that to the article, with attribution. In that case, we could even use his own words (per WP:BLPSPS), but you'll still need a specific citation (like, if it's a show, then you need the show name, the original air date, and, ideally, a time marker). If you can provide a reliable source that says his tactics are aggressive or tricky or whatever, you can probably add that to the article, though we'd need a very high quality source for such a claim. We must have those sources, though--this is how Wikipedia works. You can't just watch a show and make your own judgment about his opinions or tactics.
- As for someone neutral...I don't think you could get any more neutral than myself. I don't have the first idea who Martin Bashir is. Without checking the article, I don't even know what country he's from (since you mention the tea party above, I assume it's the US). I've never heard his show. I'm trying to make the article conform to Wikipedia policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Indented line
"If you can provide a reliable source that says his tactics are aggressive or tricky or whatever, you can probably add that to the article, though we'd need a very high quality source for such a claim. ". Like i said, "he is cited ON WIKIPEDIA" as using those tactics already at the TV show's entry. Furthermore, a reference to his tactics is cited there from a NY Times article. I am simply trying tout together a picture of the man on his personal page, from a variety of disparate WIKIPEDIA pages. In one instance (that you removed) I cited an external link that contained 15 separate articles, each referenced, detailing his actions. NewsMax is as bonafide a source as the NY Times.
As for your claim to be unbiased, well, your actions would say otherwise. Whether or not you know who Martin Bashir is, is not the concern; it is your removal of anything that would "appear negative" regarding his ultra left wing ideology. Everyone knows that Wikipedia is a left-leaning organization, but it matters not to me- I'm simply trying to describe the man the way he describes himself. I'll make one more attempt before just giving up, though, I would offer that these sorts of shenanigans are exactly why no institution of higher learning allows citations of "the wiki" in course work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlinsscience (talk • contribs) 23:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, and I don't do this often, but, bullshit. I know quite a number of university professors that encourage their students to use Wikipedia. None of them allow Wikipedia to be used as a reference in academic writing, but that's because no decent college professor would ever allow any encyclopedia to be used as a reference in an academic paper--academics are supposed to site secondary and primary sources. The rejection of Wikipedia has nothing to do with an alleged left-wing bias, it has to do with the fact that it's a tertiary source, an aggregation in extreme summary style of much more detailed sources. Instead, many college professors recommend that students use Wikipedia as a good starting point for research, and then delve into the references to find more information. Furthermore, we have had hundreds of college professors actually partner with Wikipedia to have students edit! So take your anti-left wing crap and go post it on a biased forum somewhere.
- As for the "source" you added, from their About page, "Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias." That is a clear statement of partisanship, and shows that their goal is not neutral, reliable reporting, but pushing an agenda. Thus, they do not meet WP:RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Indented line. And there we have it- you described yourself and Wikipedia quite clearly for all of us with your use of profanity and obvious bias; your rhetorical outburst betrays your previous anti-bias pronouncement. What you see as "anti- left wing crap" is, in fact, actual quotes, video and audio of the ACTIONS of the man. They were not opinions or agenda driven observations, they were actual recordings of ACTION. You just do not like the source, which is funny because over half of America distrusts the Ny Times and Washington Post (PEW Research poll, November 08, 2012)- which you allow.
As for the rest of your rambling diatribe: keep telling yourself that Wiki is a respected source and that no university allows encyclopedia references... That is a complete absurdity and we both know it. I am a university professor, and you couldn't be further from the truth. Encyclopedic references are specifically allowed within the context of general information. But it matters not as my exercise was mere fabrication.
This whole episode was a performance, in public, to explain to 3 of my students why they received failing grades on a project where they used the Wiki as a source. I couldn't care any less about Martin Bashir; he's just another extremist talking head, no different than Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh or Rachel Maddow. He was selected for the example because he was the guy on the TV when the students came in my office to make their case. Our University excludes Wikipedia exclusively due to it's abject inaccuracy on practically every subject where "general consensus" holds a particular bias. My initial examples were the subjects of: race, religion, political affiliation, perceived bias, climate change and economic recovery. We randomly selected four of the categories and designed the experiment to provide an accurate result. In every category, each of us attempted to insert ACTION (defined as the actual events) into the wiki page corresponding to the category, from a referenced source, but from a source with perceived bias against the general consensus bias. All of the links and verbiage were approved by the dept. and student advisory board, and, determined to be entirely accurate. Those were the rules... Had any two been successful, they would have gotten a "B" on their project. All four failed. Luckily for them, I am kind and gave them 25 extra credit points for this "test" so their project grades didn't kill them (academically).
Our standards and practices board ruled, "Wikipedia is entirely for entertainment purposes and serves only to reinforce the views of the general consensus." Due to that ruling, Our University physics dept. has renewed it's exclusion of Wikipedia as a source to be cited on anything- graded or not. Thank you for your assistance; my work here is complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlinsscience (talk • contribs) 18:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Fascinating. Luckily, as a college professor myself, I intend to not only tell students to read Wikipedia, but intend to conduct future classes that involve editing Wikipedia. And I still would never allow them to cite it. And if you (or other professors at your college) allow your students to cite, say, Encyclopedia Brittanica, then I feel bad for your students that you're doing them such a disservice. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources (actually, the best are quaternary sources, because they look mainly to tertiary sources like review articles to find the scholarly consensus on subjects)—they are intentionally broad and missing key details that a scholar actually needs to know. They generally don't show the breadth scholarly disagreement, which, of course, is where the real academic interest is.
- Furthermore, what I find really fascinating is that what your "experiment" proved is that Wikipedia actually works. We excluded the attempt to provide a non-neutral statement about a living person without any references, and we required only the highest quality references in the article. No scholar would accept newsbusters as a source in a paper; a scholar trying to publish an article relying on that type of info would have their manuscript rejected in an instant (unless they were writing about the pseudo-news/entertainment industry). So, in fact, what you showed is that, at least sometimes, Wikipedia gets it right by requiring very high standards. The fact that half of America distrusts something means nothing: only 49% of people in the US think global warming is caused by human activity, and yet the consensus among scientists, scientific review boards, and national academies is something like 99%. Now, I'm not saying NYT is infallible, but at least it attempts to report accurately, unlike the newsbusters website you used. But, of course, if you really want to play that game, as of 2010, NBC reported that 53% of Americans use Wikipedia regularly. So, you know. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Ysfan
Would you mind asking Ysfan if he would remove his TP restrcition from me? I would like to explain my actions and intent going forward. Perhaps we can get him to work colloboratlivly if he understands. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 00:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- For the moment, I don't think it would help. Ysfan is clearly not in a happy place right now, and I don't think s/he is ready to hear what you have to say in good faith. I think we should first wait and see what happens after her/his block expires. If the behavior from there is even and acceptable, then it might indicate that s/he is ready to listen. In the meanwhile, keep editing as normal. While where you edit is up to you, I personally recommend not going out of your way to find pages that Ysfan is editing on. Plenty of other editors should be watching Ysfan now, so there's no real worry of a major problem erupting (that can't be quickly contained). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- All righty then. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 07:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC) - I've been following the conversation and I think it's best I just avoid this altogether. My presence will only provke him further. I'm taking the article off my watchlist and hope you will keep an eye on things. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 18:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- All righty then. little green rosetta(talk)
Hello Qwyrxian ,
I d like to draw your attention to the issue of seeming contradiction of British Colonial sources such as Ibbetson being considered reliable sources or not .
For instance two articles in question being Janjua and Baid . On the Janjua article page your edit 9 February 2013 you Undid revision 537272837 by 93.97.120.135 (talk) please see the talk page: do not add sources that do not meet WP:RS deleting citations of Ibbetson and District Gazetteer of British Colonial sources . On the Talk:Janjua page in your edit 9 February 2013 states Removed addition: no, they don't meet RS you elaborate "You can't just assert that they are reliable. If they are reprints of the 19th century British colonial writings, they're 90% or higher to not meet WP:RS. Almost none of those authors actually did the fact-checking and editorial judging required by our standards."'
However please refer to your edit on my talk page section Proposed deletion of Baid which you initiated . And on the article Baid you proposed for deletion. Several sources were added including 4 British Colonial including Ibbetson by other experienced editors .In your edit thereafter of 6 April 2012 you repaired a spelling mistake for a quote from Ibbetson stating (Undid revision 485685075 by 117.198.231.52 (talk) we need to use the spelling in the sources. Based on these addition of reliable sources in Dec 2011. 7th Dec 2011 prod was removed with the addition of sources , which included Ibbetson and 2 other British Colonial sources .
Please elaborate why according to you as an admin is Denzil Ibbetson a valid source for one article and not for another .Thank you for your response .Intothefire (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I'll say that on Baid, I didn't review the sources at all. In fact, I didn't even remember the article at all until you brought it up. When I reverted in April 2012, I just reverted because there was a change a quote, which is basically always wrong.
- However, having said that, while I don't understand why Ibbetson would be reliable, Sitush is generally much better at sources than me, so I guess I have to trust him. I'll self-revert on Janjua. We do, however, need the full publication information, if you'd be willing to add it. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not trawling through the diffs above and if you check out ITF's history then you'll probably understand why (aside from the obvious personal issue of which you are aware). Ibbetson is not reliable, period. In fact, I seem to recall that he self-admitted this: he was extremely frustrated with the inaccuracies of the Raj census system etc upon which he based his works. It is worth remembering that he was among the group of people - Rose, Risley, Thurston etc - who were officially tasked with writing surveys about stuff they knew little about and who were reliant on a very small number of native speakers to act as translators etc. They're probably a bit better than Tod - they did try to do things systematically, for example, even though they chose scientific racism as their method - but reliable they are not.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I've just reviewed Baid because it intrigued me. The point made in that discussion was that some people clearly recognised a community or communities that used the name, even though there were apparent disagreements regarding who they are/were. As I said in the PROD discussion on ITF's page, I've added some sources. It remains a mess, and it is clear that there are far more uses for the term than were initially noted,, but there may be a chance to salvage this if you are willing to do some digging. In fact, there is the potential for two or three articles here, plus a disambiguation page. The article was worded accordingly. My only regret is not having gone back to do any significant to it in the intervening period. I'd hope that the Raj sources could be removed, and I regret that ITF never bothered to do anything further with it even when I'd dug up some modern sources that could be further mined for info. Sorry, ITF, but this is just another instance of you cherry-picking old stuff to make an out-of-context point.
I've reverted at Janjua: that addition was merely an excuse for puffery, of little substance and without any obvious support from modern sources.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Qwyrxian , my query to you as an admin remains unanswered , its important ,because this contradiction of British Colonial sources is rife on articles in Wikipedia . Surely the contradictory validity or non-validity extended by you an admin to a source cannot be justified on the grounds of discretion of "a " particular editor in this case someone you trust Sitush , because the contradictory usage is being applied by Sitush himself .
In the , Baid article you improved the spelling on an Ibbetson sourced content inserted by Sitush on 7th December 2011 which itself was immediately preceded by your own edit on the same day 7th Deember 2011 proposing deletion .Conversely in the Janjua article you deleted the Ibbetson source do not add sources that do not meet WP:RS) .After my above comment to you then you self reverted and put back Ibbetson and another British Colonial source . In Sitush's post above he states "Ibbetson is not valid , period" although he has himself added Ibbetson in the Baid article .In the Janjua article Sitush has now ( I am presuming that 2.219.218.79 IS Sitush) reverted your reintroduction of Ibbetson , in the edit summary he states "Undid revision 537377769 by Qwyrxian (talk) no need to self-rv: the removal was fine" . Surely These are severe contradictions , I do not believe Wikepedia extends such discretionary privilege to any admin or editor for contradictory actions concerning terming a source valid or in valid , because then it is patently unfair on other editors . There are just too many such instances including in articles where you are also intervening/editing . Thanks for your response .Intothefire (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)- See, the thing is, no one source is universally good or bad. In my experience, the colonial sources are generally bad on caste subjects. Thus, I generally remove them; I don't have access to the books themselves, and thus err on the side of caution by removing info of dubious quality. Sitush, on the other hand, generally has access to the actual books, and thus can look into them in more detail. I generally trust his evaluations. However, in this specific case, the solution is easy: I've removed 2 sources on Baid, and tagged a third as of dubious reliability. Since the latter focuses on a subject directly within the person's field of expertise (medical issues), it may be of value. However, if someone else wants to remove it, they may. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ibbetson is not Rose, although Rose did write some stuff using elements of Ibbetson's researches. As with William Crooke, Rose tended more to the folklore aspect of ethnology than to scientific racism.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Qwyrxian , for a source to be considered suitable /unsuitable it needs to abide by Wikipedia policy over and above an editor, group of editors - discretion . More importantly an admin's unflinching and tacit trust on an editor or editors discretionary (and contradictory treatment) usage of sources severely undermines not only neutrality but balance . An admin is expected to bring an even observance and an advanced level of watchfulness .A singular watchfulness in one instance and general nonchalance in an other is bad . The principal I have highlighted here with regard to Janjua/Baid therefore is both related to and transcends the two articles or one Ibbetson/Crooke . Further according to you as an admin and your stated views with regard to British Colonial sources ....you have tagged Crooke as dubious as well as let the reference remain . Therefore please clarify -Is Crooke a valid (though dubious) source for other articles ? Is Crooke is a valid (but dubious ) source on medical opinions ? , does Crooke fall in the category of a bad Colonial source ? or this is a grey area ? . I am taking reference here to the reference provided by Sitush which you have let remain . Since Sitush provided this naturally he finds this a valid source. Crooke is used on various other articles as well . Intothefire (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know if Crooke is reliable in this instance. I'd have to actually be able to read the source. Please don't expect that we can make an absolute rule that says "Colonial sources are always/never acceptable". As I said above, in this case, Crooke is speaking upon his specific area of specialty--medicine. He's not talking about caste/varna status, he's not pontificating and Indian history, and he's not declaring one group warriors and the other group peasants. He's making a claim about the medicine practiced by the Baid. It may be that he is reliable for this claim. I'm not sure. If you think he's not reliable in this instance, remove the source and information linked to it. If you're not sure, and want further input, ask at WP:RSN (I'd appreciate a courtesy notification). Contrary to popular belief, I don't know everything; nor, in fact, could I, since decisions are made by consensus. In fact, for that matter, if you think the Ibbetson is reliable on Janjua, take the matter to WP:RSN. You're welcome to get a consensus to show me that I'm wrong.
- One final note, though: I do trust some editors more than others. This is based on my experience working with those editors. But I also argue with Sitush. I think he's wrong about requiring self-identification for caste identity in BLPs for example; I disagreed so much I started two wide discussions about it. Even though consensus seems to support his version (mostly), I still think he's wrong. But if I see Sitush arguing with another editor about the quality of a source, my betting money is on Sitush, because as far as I know, his analyses are consistently held up at WP:RSN. As an analogy, if I'm unsure about copyright issues, I ask User:Moonriddengirl, and I implicitly trust her answer, because she's well known as the encyclopedia's number one expert on the matter. Is it unfair of me to trust her over some new editor who claims she doesn't understand copyright? No, it's good sense. I'd still listen to the other editor, and be willing to let them pursue dispute resolution (just as you or another editor is welcome to do wrt to either of thee articles), but absent compelling evidence to the contrary, odds are much more in Sitush's favor than most new editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Which editor or groups of editors you would trust more or support is entirely your prerogative , but if you practice inconsistency vis a vis actions with different editors as an admin is concerning . Which is exactly the point I started with , about the seeming contradiction of British Colonial sources such as Ibbetson being considered reliable sources in some articles and unreliable in others . Similar Colonial sources are used for example in article Kurmi where you have participated ,for instance .....surely you cannot be held responsible for the introduction of such sources by other experienced editors ....but such sources are freely used by some experienced editors with no objections raised and forceful objections raised as in the recent case of Janjua . It doesn't bode well . Intothefire (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- One final note, though: I do trust some editors more than others. This is based on my experience working with those editors. But I also argue with Sitush. I think he's wrong about requiring self-identification for caste identity in BLPs for example; I disagreed so much I started two wide discussions about it. Even though consensus seems to support his version (mostly), I still think he's wrong. But if I see Sitush arguing with another editor about the quality of a source, my betting money is on Sitush, because as far as I know, his analyses are consistently held up at WP:RSN. As an analogy, if I'm unsure about copyright issues, I ask User:Moonriddengirl, and I implicitly trust her answer, because she's well known as the encyclopedia's number one expert on the matter. Is it unfair of me to trust her over some new editor who claims she doesn't understand copyright? No, it's good sense. I'd still listen to the other editor, and be willing to let them pursue dispute resolution (just as you or another editor is welcome to do wrt to either of thee articles), but absent compelling evidence to the contrary, odds are much more in Sitush's favor than most new editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know if Crooke is reliable in this instance. I'd have to actually be able to read the source. Please don't expect that we can make an absolute rule that says "Colonial sources are always/never acceptable". As I said above, in this case, Crooke is speaking upon his specific area of specialty--medicine. He's not talking about caste/varna status, he's not pontificating and Indian history, and he's not declaring one group warriors and the other group peasants. He's making a claim about the medicine practiced by the Baid. It may be that he is reliable for this claim. I'm not sure. If you think he's not reliable in this instance, remove the source and information linked to it. If you're not sure, and want further input, ask at WP:RSN (I'd appreciate a courtesy notification). Contrary to popular belief, I don't know everything; nor, in fact, could I, since decisions are made by consensus. In fact, for that matter, if you think the Ibbetson is reliable on Janjua, take the matter to WP:RSN. You're welcome to get a consensus to show me that I'm wrong.
- Qwyrxian , for a source to be considered suitable /unsuitable it needs to abide by Wikipedia policy over and above an editor, group of editors - discretion . More importantly an admin's unflinching and tacit trust on an editor or editors discretionary (and contradictory treatment) usage of sources severely undermines not only neutrality but balance . An admin is expected to bring an even observance and an advanced level of watchfulness .A singular watchfulness in one instance and general nonchalance in an other is bad . The principal I have highlighted here with regard to Janjua/Baid therefore is both related to and transcends the two articles or one Ibbetson/Crooke . Further according to you as an admin and your stated views with regard to British Colonial sources ....you have tagged Crooke as dubious as well as let the reference remain . Therefore please clarify -Is Crooke a valid (though dubious) source for other articles ? Is Crooke is a valid (but dubious ) source on medical opinions ? , does Crooke fall in the category of a bad Colonial source ? or this is a grey area ? . I am taking reference here to the reference provided by Sitush which you have let remain . Since Sitush provided this naturally he finds this a valid source. Crooke is used on various other articles as well . Intothefire (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ibbetson is not Rose, although Rose did write some stuff using elements of Ibbetson's researches. As with William Crooke, Rose tended more to the folklore aspect of ethnology than to scientific racism.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- See, the thing is, no one source is universally good or bad. In my experience, the colonial sources are generally bad on caste subjects. Thus, I generally remove them; I don't have access to the books themselves, and thus err on the side of caution by removing info of dubious quality. Sitush, on the other hand, generally has access to the actual books, and thus can look into them in more detail. I generally trust his evaluations. However, in this specific case, the solution is easy: I've removed 2 sources on Baid, and tagged a third as of dubious reliability. Since the latter focuses on a subject directly within the person's field of expertise (medical issues), it may be of value. However, if someone else wants to remove it, they may. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Qwyrxian , my query to you as an admin remains unanswered , its important ,because this contradiction of British Colonial sources is rife on articles in Wikipedia . Surely the contradictory validity or non-validity extended by you an admin to a source cannot be justified on the grounds of discretion of "a " particular editor in this case someone you trust Sitush , because the contradictory usage is being applied by Sitush himself .
- Ok, I've just reviewed Baid because it intrigued me. The point made in that discussion was that some people clearly recognised a community or communities that used the name, even though there were apparent disagreements regarding who they are/were. As I said in the PROD discussion on ITF's page, I've added some sources. It remains a mess, and it is clear that there are far more uses for the term than were initially noted,, but there may be a chance to salvage this if you are willing to do some digging. In fact, there is the potential for two or three articles here, plus a disambiguation page. The article was worded accordingly. My only regret is not having gone back to do any significant to it in the intervening period. I'd hope that the Raj sources could be removed, and I regret that ITF never bothered to do anything further with it even when I'd dug up some modern sources that could be further mined for info. Sorry, ITF, but this is just another instance of you cherry-picking old stuff to make an out-of-context point.
- I'm not trawling through the diffs above and if you check out ITF's history then you'll probably understand why (aside from the obvious personal issue of which you are aware). Ibbetson is not reliable, period. In fact, I seem to recall that he self-admitted this: he was extremely frustrated with the inaccuracies of the Raj census system etc upon which he based his works. It is worth remembering that he was among the group of people - Rose, Risley, Thurston etc - who were officially tasked with writing surveys about stuff they knew little about and who were reliant on a very small number of native speakers to act as translators etc. They're probably a bit better than Tod - they did try to do things systematically, for example, even though they chose scientific racism as their method - but reliable they are not.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to tell you. In all honesty, on a very large number of the articles I edit, I look at or look for only a few things, handle specific types of disputes, etc. Only in special cases to I actually look at the exact details of all edits, sources, etc. If there are specific problems on Kurmi, raise the on the talk page, or even boldly start removing problematic sources. That particular article isn't even on my watchlist any more, though I do feel like it was in the past. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added Hari7478 (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Posted links to three sources in the article's talk page, and it could be easily understood by anyone, even by those without subject knowledge. It's short and well explained. Please analyze it. It won't take much time. Hari7478 (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
AVI report and other issues
Qwyrxian, i looked at the AVI report by Hari7478. Had posted a message to Scottywong and Sitush on it; but deleted it since i did not want to make it tougher for the admin (i understand how tough it already is). All the same, the report and the reason given by Hari7478 is offensive. I also find his message to Scottywong misrepresenting the situation and saying offensive things upsetting. Am also surprised no one has taken Hari7478 to task for the reason he gave (ie., This AIV report was not filed with the intention of blocking the other user). Perhaps Hari7478 wanted to evade answering on the 4 issues or wanted me blocked before i cud file the arbitration. I would like to know does wiki have a policy against filing false reports of vandalism? Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
- While AIV was the wrong place to report, the explanation on his talk cleared up the problem: it was acceptable for him to ask for those edit summaries to be removed--I can still see them, and they were personal attacks and wholly unacceptable. Hari should have asked an admin directly to remove the edit summaries, but WP is a weird place and it's not very obvious to know where to go to get something done, like having an edit summary suppressed. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Am not able to see the edit summary. Was it the one where i said, he did not reply on ANI page hence deleted? Not sure in what way it amounts to personal attacks? Please clarify. As such, not able to understand this allegation of me doing personal attacks. I thot it is something Hari7478 is resorting to coz he wanted to evade answering. Did not think "ignorant" and "meandering" amounts to personal attacks. As already said on my talk page, if i am ignorant about something, wud happily accept/say so (it wud be a matter of fact; not something to make an issue out of). Hence, going all around the topic without addressing specific issues is out of question (wud never contribute to an article proper if i cannot understand the subject/sources). I thot blogs and forums are places for prejudices (which anyone may have), not articles proper on wiki. I find Hari7478's comments on me (on his talk page) very offensive -- the kind that hits below the belt and misrepresents stuff so he can get away with misquoting. Especially when his, is the real vandalism (since he refused to answer on mediation, talk page, ANI; and yet kept putting/reverting his misquoted sentences on the page). Anyways, may i know if wiki has a policy against filing false reports of vandalism ? Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
- I swear you are tempting me to break the rules and block you myself. If you go into your preferences and enable email, I will email you the summary, but I will not repeat it on wiki. There is no doubt it violated WP:CIVIL, and I think most admins would say it broke WP:NPA. And calling someone a vandal, when they are not (see WP:VANDAL), is another personal attack. Hari isn't trying to make Wikipedia worse or spam (the definition of a vandal). Even if Hari is POV pushing, that's not vandalism. His comments about your edit summary are fully deserved. You probably would have been blocked for them if an admin had spotted them when you made them, but it was already 4 or so days later and you had been blocked for edit warring, so another block would just be punitive. And then, here, calling someone ignorant is not necessarily an attack, but it is certainly a violation of WP:CIVIL.
- Seriously, if this is all bothering you so much, just walk away for awhile. Wiki is not worth being stressed over, unless your already an addict like me. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Figured out which edit summary finally. Also figured out it was the reason why BWilkins left the msg on my talk page. From my opinion, what i said was reality of the situation. As for vandalism, i was not making wikipedia worse or spam either, and yet had repeated reports of vandalism filed against me by Hari7478 (and so they were certainly false reports of vandalism). Anyways, since the 4 issues are now sorted on the Iyengar article, no point going back to old issues. I thank you for the assistance in cleaning up the article and look forward to your continued involvement. Thank you.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
- Am not able to see the edit summary. Was it the one where i said, he did not reply on ANI page hence deleted? Not sure in what way it amounts to personal attacks? Please clarify. As such, not able to understand this allegation of me doing personal attacks. I thot it is something Hari7478 is resorting to coz he wanted to evade answering. Did not think "ignorant" and "meandering" amounts to personal attacks. As already said on my talk page, if i am ignorant about something, wud happily accept/say so (it wud be a matter of fact; not something to make an issue out of). Hence, going all around the topic without addressing specific issues is out of question (wud never contribute to an article proper if i cannot understand the subject/sources). I thot blogs and forums are places for prejudices (which anyone may have), not articles proper on wiki. I find Hari7478's comments on me (on his talk page) very offensive -- the kind that hits below the belt and misrepresents stuff so he can get away with misquoting. Especially when his, is the real vandalism (since he refused to answer on mediation, talk page, ANI; and yet kept putting/reverting his misquoted sentences on the page). Anyways, may i know if wiki has a policy against filing false reports of vandalism ? Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
Geoliteka
hello! I am not sure this is the right place to write, but i could not find relevant pages sorry. Could you please kindly explain why you haevg removed links to GEOLITEKA (http://geoliteka.weebly.com/) - former Im Books from pages re. Tamar Injia, Ali and Nino - Literary Robbery! etc. Thank you in advance for your explanation. Irene — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.73.31.45 (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Because Wikipedia's guideline on external links is very strict. You can read the policy at WP:EL. In this case, the key is that nothing on that page, or on any of the linked pages that I could see, mention the Ali and Nino-Literary Robbery! book. If the book had a separate page on the Geoliteka site, and if that page contained unique information that for some reason we couldn't put in the article itself, then we might link to it. But we don't link to the publisher just because they are the publisher. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Qwyrxian, Thank you for reference. I read policy, incorporated within the text my notes and I would appreciate further explanation on the topic:
1) citation from WP:EL policy: “Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. SORRY DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS ONE, WILL BE HAPPY TO USE THEM ONLY OUTSIDE OF ARTICLE IN THE FUTURE. 2) citation from WP:EL policy: “Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy”. MY LINK DRIVES READER TO THE PLACE WHERE S/HE CAN ACTUALLY FIND THE BOOK “ALI AND NINO – LITERARY ROBBERY!” (THIS IS ACTUALLY THE ONLY PLACE ON THE WEB WHERE IT IS AVAILABLE). THIS SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF WIKI POLICY (SEE QUOTING FROM WIKI POLICY IN QUOTATION MARKS): LINK “INCLUDES FURTHER RESEARCH THAT IS ACCURATE AND ON-TOPIC, INFORMATION THAT COULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE ARTICLE FOR REASONS SUCH AS .... AMOUNT OF DETAIL” 3) citation from WP:EL policy: “Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any”. SO FAR, http://geoliteka.weebly.com/index.html IS THE ONLY OFFICIAL WEBSITE ON THE SUBJECT – ROBBERY OF ROBAKIDZE’S WORK ‘SNAKE’S SKIN’ BY AUTHOR OF ‘ALI AND NINO’ (WHOEVER S/HE WAS). THIS IS THE A SINGLE VIRTUAL SPACE, WHERE READER CAN FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE SUBJECT BY READING THE BOOK “ALI AND NINO – LITERARY ROBBERY!”. 4) citation from WP:EL policy: "An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following: 1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. 2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable. I SATISFY BOTH REQUIREMENTS: 1) I AN AUTHOR/CREATOR OF ARTICLES “ALI AND NINO – LITERARY ROBBERY!”, “TAMAR INJIA”, AND “SNAKE’S SKIN”. 2) THE LINKED WEBSITE WAS CREATED SOLELY FOR PROMOTING THE DISCOVERY OF PROF. INJIA. HOWEVER, OVER TIME OUR INTERESTS GOT WIDER AND WE ADDED OTHER TRANSLATED WORKD OF GEORGIAN WRITERS. STILL, WE ARE FOCUDING ON WORKS OD ROBAKIDZE AND SECOND EDITION OF THE BOOK “ALI AND NINO – LITERARY ROBBERY!” IS IN PROGRESS (PLEASE READ LAST PARA AT THIS PAGE: http://geoliteka.weebly.com/alinino---literary-robbery.html) THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR CLARIFICATIONS AND HELP. IRENE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.73.31.45 (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Your comments help clarify that, in fact, this link can definitely not be used anywhere you have added it. The only legitimate place that a link of that type would be allowed would be if there were a Wikipedia article for Geoliteka. That "official page" thing is for companies, people, organizations, and the like. But there isn't even a page for the Ali and Nino book on your website! So it very much cannot be linked. Please do not re-add it. Furthermore, people should pretty much never add links to companies or organizations with which they have a conflict of interest. If you continue to attempt to add that link as you have been, I may have to request that your account be blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Sources
Hello. While i agree with Sitush on the possibilities of POV edits and cherry picking on genetics across articles on Indian castes, this secondary source [1] seems to give a short & clear summary of a "comparative study done with the results of two primary sources"(menitoned as source:7 in the talk page). It says "all individuals examined among Vadagalai ayangar brahmins were rhd positive while other populations showed a low frequency of the D allele. The similarity in the frequency of rhesus-d genes in india and pakistan can be attributed to the common history of the people." I'm sorry about re-posting it here, again. This seems to be a clear circumstance where the author/genealogist of the secondary source seems to arrived at a conclusion. But is there anything else that needs to be sorted out, regarding this specific source? Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, so what do you want to add? Something like "According to a genetic study conducted in Pakistan, members of the Vadagalai probably share a common ancestry with people living in Faisalabad, Pakistan"? That seems to be what the study says. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Something like this - "According to a genetic study, Vadagalai iyengars showed similarities in the frequencies of Rhesus genes with the people of Faislabad, Pakistan, probably sharing a common ancestry with them". Actually, it's a secondary source that analyzes two primary genetic studies(one of them conducted in India and the other in Pakistan). Also, i think the data regarding the details comes first and then the info' on the probable common ancestry follows(for a better understanding). Hari7478 (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the first thing we'd have to change is the statement, because what you (and I previously) wrote isn't actually true. We don't actually know from the study that the blood was a sample of residents of Faisalabad. All we know is that they had a thousand or so samples from the area. But unless we knew that those were randomized samples (which they very much appear not to be, since they're taken from blood donations, which is necessarily a skewed population), we would need to change it to say "with some of the residents of Faisalabad, Pakistan". Okay, now that that's established...what encyclopedic value does this information have? It tells us close to nothing definitive about either group. It doesn't tell us who started where, whether one is descended from the other or whether they shared a common ancestor, it doesn't tell us if that ancestry was in the last couple of decades or from ten thousand years ago. It seems to me to be trivial at best, and misleading at worst. Thus, I cannot see the value of this inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, all humans share a common ancestry (as do all species - humans share a common ancestry with cabbages, for example). So something that just says two groups of people might have a common ancestry, without saying anything more about when that common ancestry might have been, actually says nothing at all. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the first thing we'd have to change is the statement, because what you (and I previously) wrote isn't actually true. We don't actually know from the study that the blood was a sample of residents of Faisalabad. All we know is that they had a thousand or so samples from the area. But unless we knew that those were randomized samples (which they very much appear not to be, since they're taken from blood donations, which is necessarily a skewed population), we would need to change it to say "with some of the residents of Faisalabad, Pakistan". Okay, now that that's established...what encyclopedic value does this information have? It tells us close to nothing definitive about either group. It doesn't tell us who started where, whether one is descended from the other or whether they shared a common ancestor, it doesn't tell us if that ancestry was in the last couple of decades or from ten thousand years ago. It seems to me to be trivial at best, and misleading at worst. Thus, I cannot see the value of this inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Something like this - "According to a genetic study, Vadagalai iyengars showed similarities in the frequencies of Rhesus genes with the people of Faislabad, Pakistan, probably sharing a common ancestry with them". Actually, it's a secondary source that analyzes two primary genetic studies(one of them conducted in India and the other in Pakistan). Also, i think the data regarding the details comes first and then the info' on the probable common ancestry follows(for a better understanding). Hari7478 (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Qwyrxian, i agree. Anything that could be done about this? - [2] - I've posted a link to the exact page. As mentioned before, both Vadakalais(alternatively spelled as as vadahalai) & Thenkalais(mispelled as tengalai) are mentioned as Indo-Hittite(List of allele frequencies). According to the article Indo-hittite is the same as Indo-European. There seems to be general explanation on the origins of all Indo-Hittite/Indo-Europeans. In case we can't come up with anything, is there a way i could refer this to someone(preferably an admin with knowledge on such studies)? Hari7478 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
To Qwyrxian
Qwyrxian, not sure if can talk here. Just hoping to put 2 things for folks in the right perspective:
(1) Rhesus factor:
RHD gene has several alleles on it and the region continues to be explored. If there is one or two copies of RHD gene intact, then it results in D positive (D+) phenotype. Deletion of entire RHD causes D negative (D-) phenotype. Since D- is common in Europeans and rarely, if ever, found in Asians, hence it is dubbed European D negative phenotype. There are also partial D alleles and weak D alleles; often again associated with Europeans but also found in China and other places. As more populations get tested in future, we'll know better.
D+ antigen is very common across all populations; as you can see here; and across all clines (or 'ethnic groups' if you may so call them), for example: this one. Linking D+ to only Europeans or to European origin is a very wild speculative job with absolutely no scientific basis. If all Vadakalai samples (in the said paper) and some Faisalabad residents are D+ it cannot mean they are European / Aryan / Indo-Aryan. On the contrary D+ is commonest in Asians and Blacks. Some feel as a population gets closer to Caucasian, RHD gene deletion (i.e., D- phenotype) may get frequent (see for example this). However, since alleles on RHD keep getting explored, we never know what may be found tomorrow. Even the european partial D alleles were found/described as recently as 2002.
2) Indo-Hittite:
This pertains to linguistics but will try. It is generally thought the Indo-Hittite (aka Indo-Anatolian) branch broke off from the Proto-Indo-European (PIE). What constitutes PIE is complex. If you can note from this chart the Hittite branch is not associated with the Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan and Vedic Sanskrit. Instead, the Hittite branch separated out much earlier. There are no clues yet if Indo-Hittite can be associated, if at all, with the Indo-Aryan.
In the said book above, Cavalli-Sforza also mentions the Indo-Anatolian branch got extinct. But not many things in linguistics are resolved yet. The book explores the origin of Indo-Europeans and Anatolia is suggested by many linguists . Anyways, Cavalli-Sforza accepts the hypotheses of Renfrew (p.265); i.e., agricultural expansion resulted in diffusion of 3 linguistic families (from Anatolia region) -- Dravidian towards Pakistan and India, Indo-European towards Europe, and Afro-Asiatic towards North Africa and Arabia.
Now a lot depends on when did Indo-Anatolian branch off. IMO it also remains open to investigation where did proto-dravidian linguistic group originate or come from. Until these things are resolved, am seriously not sure how Indo-hittite can be linked to whatever is considered 'Aryan'; especially since Hittite is not associated with Indo-Aryan and Vedic Sanskrit. Since Hittite broke off earlier, it could mean something else too (IMO there are links to altaic shamanism / shramanism and whatever is considered zoarashtrian, agamic and non-vedic; but that's only a wild personal speculation though). Also, from a linguistic POV, what is considered only Aryan but not Dravidian can get contentious.
However, i leave this to the admin to discuss and decide. I can only say, since these issues are not resolved yet, it is not right to make conclusions as yet.
Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
Msg
Hi Qwyrxian,
Found a theory by S.S Mishra linking Indo-Hittite to Middle-Indo-Aryan (MIA). Mishra proposes Sanskrit is older than Hittite. Additionally, Mishra's work (edited by Bryant and Patton) proposes India as the original home of Indo-Aryans, with an outbound theory (of Indo-Aryans going to Anatolia). Not sure if any of Mishra's theories are acceptable to linguists. At least for now the reverse of Mishra's theory, i.e., movement from Anatolia region into India is supported by genetic evidence.
Then again, if Indo-Hittie is linked to Middle-Indo-Aryan (prakrits), it leads to contentious issues. It is questionable why Indo-Hittie is not linked to Old Indo-Aryan (OIA). Could it mean a situation (war like or otherwise), where 'native' speakers of other languages were absorbed into the Indo-Aryan fold by the OIA (?) and/or their 'intermingling' gave rise to MIA? Then again, MIA is associated with Jain religion (and agamic religions are not explored properly yet). So possibilities are galore.
Kindly note, am not a linguist and am wholly ignorant about the subject. Just mentioned what I found (in the book), and my doubts -- I cud be entirely wrong in my understanding though.
Anyways, since linguistic theories (including the dravidian origin conundrum) are not resolved yet, I'd say it is hasty to link any group with a tag (Aryan or otherwise) just bcoz they belong to a particular 'caste' in present time. Maybe a good idea to skip mentioning such tags on wiki articles. However, the admin is in a better position to decide based on other possible evidence. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
- Don't tell me, tell the talk page of the article. Sitush (he's the one editing as an IP, becuase he's not using his normal computer) is doing much more of the content work right now, plus Hari should have the chance to chime in, too. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK. I'd say better to have Sitush and someone knowledgeable in linguistics chiming in. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
- The description on Indo-Hittite varies across sources, hence linking one study to another and arriving at a conclusion is WP:SYNTH. We have to just stick to what that source says about these nomenclatures. Here are a few examples.
- The people of Turkey are linguistically Altaic. The Turkish culture & the language were established in Anatoila(present day's Turkey) by the Gokturks who emigrated from Central Asia(Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan). However, genetic studies indicate that Turkish people(people of Turkey) are rather "Turkized Anatolians" with hardly any "Central Asian/Turkic/altaic" admixture. The altaic classification is just linguistic, while ethnically "the people of Turkey" are of the European diaspora, sharing a common ancestry with their neighbours, Greeks. So, the Turkish(of Turkey) and the Turkic(central asian - turkmen,Uzbeks,etc) are not ethnically related to another.
- Today's African-Americans in the U.S. are English speakers and most of them don't speak another tongue. Ethnically, they're the farthest from Caucasians(U.S. census classification of whites).
- All i'm trying to say is, the two(genetics & linguistics) are not always related, unless the source explicitly mentions "ethno-linguistics". According to that source, the authors equate Indo-Hittite to Indo-European. Under the "list of allele frequencies" most(but not all) southern-indian brahmins are mentioned under Indo-Hittite. This could possibly mean their ethnic origins(while their ancestors' tongue during the migratory periods could have been different, like the examples mentioned above, as we all are aware of the popularly held belief ab't brahmins.) - Again, some pages are not available for viewing, hence I may not know what exactly has been discussed by the authors. Because the terminology "Indo-European" has been used in different fields(ethnic origins alone, linguistics alone, ethno-linguistics). Whatever it may be, we simply stick to the source contents and not come up with our own conclusions. So we need to involve a few admins with subject knowledge as it's possible we could be totally wrong. However, arriving at a conclusion by merging/blending different sources or using "own research" can't be the way. Whatever it may be, i'm resting myself from these discussions for some time and focussing on the other sections of the article, since most of them are unsourced, and on the other artices.
- About the studies on rhesus antigens - you may be right, but when the authors of a secondary source arrive at a conclusion(although that specific study on rhesus antigens need not necessarily indicate a thing regarding their ancestries, like you said) any user may still include it based on "reliable verifiabilty"(a secondary source that combines two studies, and its authors arriving at a conclusion). However, i'm not including it in the article considering the reasons mentioned by Qwyrxian. I guess we can put it to rest, as i won't be bringing it up again. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- As I said to Mayasutra, please discuss this on the article's talk page. While I know that all three of you (Hari7478, Mayasutra, and Sitush) are watching this page, it's better to have the discussion there so that it's stored in the article's talk page archives for future reference. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- The description on Indo-Hittite varies across sources, hence linking one study to another and arriving at a conclusion is WP:SYNTH. We have to just stick to what that source says about these nomenclatures. Here are a few examples.
- OK. I'd say better to have Sitush and someone knowledgeable in linguistics chiming in. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
- Qwyrxian, Am consulting a linguist and will be able to add more on this. Please advise how to move this discussion to Iyengar talk page? To Hari7478 -- as regards rhesus antigen, i am right -- go ask any geneticist. What Reddy et al said in the paper and what i said is exactly the same. But you do not seem to understand. It is apparent you just do not know the basics and hence do not understand the paper. Anyways, You cannot use the paper to claim Vadakalai Iyengars are Indo-Aryans, Europeans or whatever else you please, or those who migrated from North India or different from Thenkalais or any other blah blah, which the paper neither says, conveys nor implies. Period. You are able to get away on wiki because Reddy et al is not going to sue you for misquoting them on wiki (coz many ppl pass off BS here). --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
- Hari7478, Indo-European does not automatically mean Indo-Aryan. The term Indo-Aryan refers to a very specific linguistic group. Whether Indo-Hittie can be associated with Indo-Aryan is the key point. AFAIK it is currently under investigation. As regards Cavalli-Sforza, you are completely off the track. If you cannot make sense of his book, i have a suggestion for you. Think of days when humans roamed jungles and lived in caves. The first brahmin was a non-brahmin. Hope that helps. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Peacedove.svg/70px-Peacedove.svg.png)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "India".
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 10:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC) No doubt you are watching, but to make sure, [3] and [4]. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
RSSDoes this makes any sense, this guy is asking me to disprove his bogus source. He is being illogical, how do you expect someone to resolve a dispute with this person?--sarvajna (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Thanks!Thank you Qwyrxian for working with me on the DJ Earworm page. I have made a large edit with all of the things I said (finding citations, removing content that could not be verified). I hope to get to the rest of the page in the coming days before the block is lifted. Two quick things. After I made my large edit, I noticed the lock image was not appearing on the page. I don't think I touched anything regarding the block template, but if you have a sec to just take a look, that would be much appreciated. Also, as I have suspected that the IPs who previously made the edits warranting the block is using sock puppetry and multiple IPs, if they happen to come back, do you have any suggestions of how I can go about handeling the situation? Again thank you for your help. Cheers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
RSNJust wanted to add that the book quoted is named Global Terrorism. The chapter is titled “Religious Justification for Terrorism." On page 75 it states: “Extreme views have also appeared within Hinduism, and religiously motivated violence has resulted. Violent defenders of the Hindu culture go back to the 1920s when the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS - National Patriotia Organization) began training paramilitaries. An RSS member assasinated Mohandas Gandhi because he was willing to compromise with non Hindus on the new state of India(Juergensmeyer 2000:95).” I do not want to edit the page because as you have stated, it is improper to do so. Can you please update the name of the book to actual title(Global Terrorism)? Also, your time is sincerely appreciated (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC))
page protectionHi Qwyrxian ,Why dont you protect Murder 3 yourself.---zeeyanketu talk to me 06:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
1M4U by kucingbiru13Dear Mr Qwyrxian, thank you for your advice and help. I really appreciate it. I'm new to wikipedia and still trying to learn the ropes. I will try my best to contribute to wikipedia. Thank You again. God Bless.Kucingbiru13 (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC) The Hunger PainsHey, Qwyrxian. I saw your little scuffle with that user in The Hunger Pains. I've read the article, and I agree with you: It IS too excessive, but that doesn't mean that you need to delete THAT much of it. I mean, 100~200 words maybe, but that's just going too far. Besides, cut him some slack. He doesn't even have an account, and it must have taken him a while to create that article. Think about it. Thanks,The Triple M (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Suggestions for a New ArticleHey, Qwyrxian. I'm going to try and write a new article here in Wikipedia, but I can't come up with a good topic that hasn't been done yet. You're an admin, so do you have any suggestions? Thanks,The Triple M (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
DRNSorry, it was my fault. I thought that you lost interest in article after you didn't comment in the discussion. Cossde (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
This user keeps editing Mukkulathor & other related pages without any references. Can you have a look on him & make him understand how to work on Wikipedia ? Rajkris (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
user:Intoronto1125 possible IP sockQwyrxian, I have come to you as the original blocking admin, and also because I'm not entirely sure how to deal with a suspected IP sock as in the few sock investigations I have read the ips never seem to be confirmed or not (also it might meet the duck test). The Ip in question is user:76.64.228.218. This edit on a talk page about "field hockey" or "hockey" on a Pan American Games page is one of the reasons that Intoronto was indef blocked (see a Dec 15 2012 discussion here). Additionally, the IP's edits are on the same topics as Intoronto (specifically focused on Canada, (ice) hockey and multievent sporting competitions). Finally, the IP has reached 3 reversions, in three hours, on Ice hockey again over the issue of whether it should be referred to as hockey or ice hockey: One, Two and Three (I gave a warning, but only after the three above had been done) and the IP geolocates to Toronto. If notifying you as an admin isn't the correct step, please let me know what is. Ravendrop 07:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC) My edit summariesHi there, I will be more specific in my edit summaries from now on. I guess I've been doing a high volume of editing recently and my summaries haven't been as descriptive as they need to be. Thanks for the message - duly noted. Regards, TheSuave 16:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC) ShankysupercoolI have started a discussion at WP:ANI#Shankysupercool which concerns a sockpuppet investigation you recently participated in. Your participation there is welcome. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Sumanch![]() Message added 20:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. NPOV on an article and unfair treatment due to IP addressHi [Qwyrxian], Regarding the page Murder of Travis Alexander; the page states "murder" as a fact despite an ongoing trail that is trying to determine the circumstances surrounding the death. The accused admits killing the victim but maintains it was self defence. Since manslaughter is a probable outcome of the case; it is not NPOV to state "murder" as a fact at this time. On the talk page we have been discussing this matter and the general consensus was up in the air but more were in favour of "death of..." than "murder of...". However, one user BabbaQ disagrees and has constantly been unable to support his position with any arguments besides saying that it should remain as "murder of.." because of a previous consensus. He then contacted an Admin requesting that the page be semi-protected due to "IP addresses editing against consensus". The admin protected the page and I feel that this is unfair as it is just because I do not have a user account, as there is not an ongoing risk of vandalism by other ip addresses. The protection was wholly against me. I cannot see how having "murder of.." stated as a fact, and then going on to say that Jodi did kill him (which she admits doing) doesn't lead to the reader making the obvious conclusion that she murdered him. But this is not yet a fact as the trial is ongoing and Jodi maintains a position of self defence. Surely this is even a violation of "Biography of living person." Anyway, I don't see why BabbaQ's position is favoured just because he has an account. I have posted this on the Admin noticeboard aswell, would just like to know your opinion also as you seemed very fair and level-headed when we interacted before! Thanks, 87.232.1.48 (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Clarification needed regarding a minor difference of opinion in interpreting a few sources -- Iyengar articleIn the main article the IP(Sitush) has included a line under common origins - "all three of them(Nathamuni, Ramanuja & Nammalvar) are tamils", for which he has provided a citation(pg 65, 80, 84 of the source). However, pages 65 & 84 do not say anything about them being tamils, while pg.80 is not available for viewing. See here:[5].
intoronto1125I don't know the right way to go about it, but I believe that user intoronto1125, who was indefinately blocked by you, is using an ip address 76.64.228.218. Might be a coincidence, sorry if I am wasting your time.18abruce (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
MakarandgQwyrxian and TheSuave, thanks for correcting my errors on the subject. As u may have noticed i am a new user to wiki and currently not very much acquaint with it conventions. so may have caused the disturbance like u have mentioned. About t matter i want to say that i (though Indian resident) not trying to malign the presidents repo. but the impartial info and praise given is the matter of my concern (the same source has other point of view also) her foreign visits after reading the stuff u have mentioned, its not that much sensational as per wiki norms but the fact that the 'telegram and its copies r burnt' is something unusual and should be cited without criticism ( i am not sure will it be applicable as per ur norms or not...?) about a dead man's clemency I understand that the firstly inserted criticism part was not fully sourced but after ur changes i had only mentioned that she had given clemency to a that guy with the sufficient reliable source and without any partial point of view ( i think it is necessary to mention that) apart from the subject i like to mention that i am very much impressed by the efficiency and effectiveness shown to better wiki shown by people like u.. Makarandg (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC) other matters U have given sources to the controversy line but when the data from same source is added to the wiki pages its been removed (her son and husbands liaison along with other details which are in presidential election where it has nothing to do with it) Makarandg (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC) the INC countered ... Shekhawat... illegally acquiring land why insert details of Bhairon singh shekhawat in pratibha patil-shekhatwat bio Makarandg (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I am totally agree with u on her foreign trip issue( i've mentioned earlier also) But not satisfied with ur position on her clemency decision. (her decision to give 35 clemency is historic. isn't it imp to understand her preparedness to give a decision like that from historic point of view. If your stand is like u r writing her biography and that u will only mention the stuff from her point of view and not the the third party outside without getting personal point of view. Isn't it imp to mention She also told a Muslim congregation that the veil was introduced to "protect their women from Mughal invaders", a comment she later retracted. or The dour and conservative Mrs Patil, who according to one newspaper won a beauty contest in 1962, has been described, among other things, by critics as a "national embarrassment" and a person who is "not exactly the most overwhelming, accomplished or charismatic" candidate from [1] HOPE U'LL UNDERSTAND MY POINT OF VIEW Makarandg (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Both Master of Computer Applications and Master of Science in Information Tecnology are DifferentYes Both Master of Computer Applications and Master of Science in Information Tecnology are Different because Master of Science in Information Tecnology is a 2 year masters degree and Master of Computer Applications is 3 years masters degree. Proof--- http://www.ibmr.org/pune-university-mca.htm (Master of Computer Applications) http://www.daiict.ac.in/daiict/admissions/msit.html (Master of Science in Information Technology) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdsajjadhs (talk • contribs) 14:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Mdsajjadhs 14:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
RequestHi. Can you kindly review Palar Blast article created by me; whether the incident is notable, for a separate article? Thank you.Rayabhari (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC) PLEASE DELETE MY USER PAGEPLEASE DELETE MY USER PAGE Deleted7Username 16:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
He's continuing to make unsourced edits. He made this change ([11]), acknowledging on his talk page that he couldn't even read the source that he was allegedly fixing the information from. And then I thought all was well, since he apologized and reverted his edit. Then about an hour after making the reversion, he made this edit. That page had other issues as well, as an IP editor had come in and added a bunch of unsourced information which I also removed. At this point, I think it's clear that he is not going to heed advice to slow down in editing or get a mentor / ask question before making edits. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Reference deskGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Talk back![]() Message added 10:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Sue PerkinsActually revisions do not make the article worse at all, and its not flowery language at all its correct terminology to use. As an ongoing article about a living person using such terminology as continues and long standing are wholly appropriate. If you actually look at the article it lacks any real citations, in the main body, uses very poor structure. On the friend and creative partner issue go and have a look online and you will find that those terms very appropriate to use and are used frequently to describe the nature of a professional and personal relationship. There is also every need to use correct terminology like Re-Commissioned instead of just merely highlighting a series has a third or fourth series. Use of such words actually make the article a better more professional read. Another example "Periodically" instead of "on occasions" those changes actually structure the article better and make it flow for the reader, as it was very disjointed. Also you stated about Neutral point of view issue, if you can demonstrate that for example a statement such as "Perkins successful television series." With for instance viewing figures from BARB or critically acclaimed reviews and offset it with other reviews of a more negative nature. The NPOV issues are wholly addressed in line with the policy. Thank you for your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchhousefantatic (talk • contribs)
Great Job
Page protectionHi, The article Madurai_Nayak_Dynasty has got vandalized left and right. Sentences provided verbatim from sources under references are changed. The vandalism comes from two or three people, who IMO are posting under different IPs from different places. The most frequent alteration they make is to change the word Balija into Kamma everywhere in the article (including sources). But the recent vandalism from User:Narayana Samy Nayak takes the cake -- he deleted entire sections from the article. The vandalism has come frequently from the following IPs: 101.62.33.222, 101.63.193.131, 183.90.103.163, 183.90.103.147, 183.90.103.132, 183.90.103.182, 65.255.37.213, 2.50.19.198 and 125.17.145.49. This has been going on for far too long, at least since the past 2 years. Kindly view the edit logs. It is difficult to track changes each time. Even the dates and years are changed without providing references. This page definitely needs to be protected so that only editors who previously worked on the article can edit it. Please enforce page protection. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
Help!Yikes, this is pov pushing but the article is semi-protected and I can do nothing about it.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
ANI threadThe ANI thread is getting a bit long. Also, two editors who frequently support Msoamu have (along with him) launched what amounts to about half a dozen personal attacks on me across several talk pages over the past two days or so. Do you have any ideas how the ANI thread could be closed out and we can move on? Or about the behavior which I am currently facing? I'd like to say it doesn't bother me personally, but more than one of these attacks have accused me of supporting violent extremism (yes, deleting articles about topics they like equates to violent extremism) and comments like that could have real life ramifications should I ever be outed. I don't think any of it fits the criteria for an RfC though, as it hasn't reached that point I guess. Any advice would be much appreciated. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
A Barnstar For You
|