Talk:Invading the Sacred: Difference between revisions
Mvineetmenon (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
:::: @{{u|Qwertyus}}, Okay. Fair enough. Would you stop disruptive deletion if "quotes" are used instead of declarative style? I'm saying this because there isn't a single sentence in the proposed edit which is anyone's personal opinion but Rajiv Malhotra's along with certain other authors like Krishnan Ramaswamy, Aditi Banerjee et. al. which are of course cited. [[User:Mvineetmenon|Mvineetmenon]] ([[User talk:Mvineetmenon|talk]]) 11:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC) |
:::: @{{u|Qwertyus}}, Okay. Fair enough. Would you stop disruptive deletion if "quotes" are used instead of declarative style? I'm saying this because there isn't a single sentence in the proposed edit which is anyone's personal opinion but Rajiv Malhotra's along with certain other authors like Krishnan Ramaswamy, Aditi Banerjee et. al. which are of course cited. [[User:Mvineetmenon|Mvineetmenon]] ([[User talk:Mvineetmenon|talk]]) 11:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::::I feel no need to answer a loaded question. [[User:Qwertyus|Q<small>VVERTYVS</small>]] <small>([[User talk:Qwertyus|hm?]])</small> 10:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC) |
:::::I feel no need to answer a loaded question. [[User:Qwertyus|Q<small>VVERTYVS</small>]] <small>([[User talk:Qwertyus|hm?]])</small> 10:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::::: Okay.. Then, let's start the edit process and you can, instead of mass deletion suggest changes. I'll wait for this lock to expire or request reduction in protection of this page. [[User:Mvineetmenon|Mvineetmenon]] ([[User talk:Mvineetmenon|talk]]) 11:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Apropos to the above discussion, the following points are clear (in my opinion, strictly) |
Apropos to the above discussion, the following points are clear (in my opinion, strictly) |
Revision as of 11:31, 28 July 2015
Books Start‑class | |||||||
|
Hinduism Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
India: Literature Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Comments
Can someone tell me what the point of this is? — goethean ॐ
NPOV
The reasons for indicating "neutrality of the article is disputed" have not been indicated. The article is about the views expressed in the book. These are not the views of contributors personally. The book certainly is thought provoking and takes strong stance on some issues. Suitable references, tags etc have been provided. It is requested that the rationale of putting this tag may be debated before taking a unilateral stance.
Adiagr (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Adiagr
- Then they should be presented as quotes, not facts, and WP:UNDUE should be adhered to. If libel such as
Although a variety of intellectuals had offered diverse critiques of RISA, Rajiv Malhotra, as a prominent public intellectual, and an ‘outsider’ to the academia, became the main target of a vicious defamation campaign by the RISA cartel.
- really appears in the book, then it can be cited if relevant. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The editing duly said the opinions in verbatim with proper references. There is no reason that it can be misunderstood. Please point the specific issues rather than generalizing through one example. Help us to make it better. Searchpow (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Unilaterally deleting everything without a talk and generating a tag without discussion is not a good way to proceed. Get back to specifics, quotes and verbatim are used interchangeably in the literature and they are perfectly alright. State your reasons for neutrality with proper arguments. Searchpow (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
After the talk discussion has started, Qwertyus has deleted the entire article. is this fair? On one hand you say that do not remove the tag and then Qwertyus deletes the entire article, even while discussion is on. This is completely one sided and unfair. He has given only one instance and has not read the book. We will improve the content steadily, but to delete it altogether is completely unfair.
Adiagr (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Adiagr
This is the Wikipedia page of book, which means that it will contain summary or synopsis about the book. Your view about opinion or facts do not carry weight here since the book is itself is an opinion. Your point would have been valid if the edit was regarding something titled as "Hinduphobia" or "Anti-Hinduism." The neutrality tag initiator should be neutral itself, as pointed by Adiagr. Searchpow (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I would like to give an example from section III. "In response to the serious biases pointed out by scholars (Section 1), the American academia (especially the RISA scholars) and media tried to hijack the discussion as an 'attack' on scholars and 'threat' to academic freedom in America and this is summarized in chapters 18-21."
Here it is clearly mentioned "summarized in chapters 18-21" of book. Similarly other passages have also been indicated. Adiagr (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is presenting the views expressed in the book as facts. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Qwertyus This page is about a book, right. The right thing to do here is to present what the book is about and what it states. Mvineetmenon (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- But not with the authors' words presented as facts, without explicit attribution of polemical statements. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@Qwertyus Can you explain how this is understood as facts? Please refrain from edit wars. Have some meaningful discussion and maintain academic culture rather than sabotaging the work and painting it with one color. Searchpow (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The best thing to do would be just state in the article that the whole synopsis of the book is written from the point of view of the authors. Once the reader clearly knows that the entire synopsis is the authors' opinion there is no question of dispute. This way Wikipedia authentically presents in front of the reader what the book says at the same time absolving itself from not being neutral. NRK (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- That wouldn't solve the problem. It would still just repeat some rather libelous statements/rhetorical tricks, and it would be WP:UNDUE.
- For the record, the passage I cited above is one problem with the text. Another is the use of a first name only to refer to Wendy Doniger, a habit of the authors of this (controversial) book already identified by Taylor as "a device that seems simultaneously to patronise and trivialise the authors." We don't need to repeat that here. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- QVVERTYVS, I also disagree with your edits. Please move on.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Qwertyus, In that case, let the edits happen and then we can work on maintaining neutrality. You are unnecessarily blocking growth of this already malnourished article. Don't delete en-mass. If you have problem with any specific lines of words, replace them suitably. Mvineetmenon (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Especially in the case of WP:BLP violations, removing then re-inserting when the issue is resolved is the proper procedure. I removed the entire summary because it is truly full of NPOV violations:
Chapters 6-8 continue to expose the Hinduphobic work of the RISA and their distortions in the name of study of Indic traditions
Prof. Somnath Bhattacharya [...], being a professional psychotherapist, fluent in Bengali, practitioner of Indian religion and philosophy, and familiar with the primary texts quoted in the Kripal's work, is uniquely qualified to assess Kripal's work
- Note that the given source for this is Kripal's book!
In response to the serious biases pointed out by scholars (Section 1), the American academia (especially the RISA scholars) and media tried to hijack the discussion as an 'attack' on scholars and 'threat' to academic freedom in America and this is summarized in chapters 18-21. This non-academic response ultimately succeeded in diverting the focus away from re-evaluating Hinduism studies objectively.
- This is no longer just summarizing a book. This is praising it and asserting its correctness. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- In the quoted text, where is the praise? Where has any assertion been made by the contributor? You are repeatedly assuming (primarily because you have not read the book) that contributors are "modifying / praising/ asserting" content to highlight the book. The point is that the book itself takes a direct and forthright stand and contributors have tried to summarize that. If the book says - Bill had treated Sam very unfairly; how do you expect the contributor to convey this idea? Should the contributor say Bill was nice to Sam? Adiagr (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Qwertyus, Try to understand that in a book which is acerbic about RISA scholarship and other western indologists, there are bound to be references where the author would like to express his displeasure of them. The suggested edits aren't modifying, altering the POV of the book. You can differ about the said book, and that's your right. But as I have said before. This article is to explain the POV as expressed in book. For eg. Would you, just for the sake of argument alter the article about Marx's Das Kapital if you are a capitalist? Mvineetmenon (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Good example. Looking at Capital, Volume I, we see that "Marx discusses", "Marx explains", "Marx examines" and literal quotes are in quotation marks — even though this book is has no WP:BLP issues. It adheres, at least for the most part, to WP:ASSERT: "When a statement is a fact [...] it should be asserted using Wikipedia's own voice without in-text attribution" (and Wikipedia's voice is neutral, not acerbic) vs. "When a statement is an opinion [...] it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion". Do chapters 6–8 speak of "the Hinduphobic work of the RISA"? Is the "expose" bit a literal quote? Then it should be in quote marks or otherwise directly attributed to the source. Please re-read the parts of the article I just cited in the context of previous versions of the article. There, it is Wikipedia asserting that the authors "expose" this and that, and that they are "uniquely qualified" to do so. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Point made in last 2 lines noted and this guideline could have been given when this talk started. Article would have been improved without any nasty exchange. Instead, a unilateral action of deleting entire content was taken, even when the discussion was going on. Was the "Capital-Volume I" write-up perfect when it was first posted? Wiki articles improve steadily but to assume that all persons have a "motive", is quite incorrect.
This is what QVVERTYVS (hm?) wrote on my Talk page:
- "Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Invading the Sacred."
- This could have been posted on this talk page? What was the need to post it on My personal page? Further the contention is completely wrong. He assumed that I am giving a "commentary", without even reading a bit about the book. In particular my opposition was to a blatant removal of content, majority of which was correctly attributed.
- Now I hope we conclude this discussion and allow users to add content that is true to the spirit of book, while addressing the guidelines given in this discussion. Adiagr (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- I contest the claim to correct attribution, and I've given specific examples of the problem above. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Qwertyus, Okay. Fair enough. Would you stop disruptive deletion if "quotes" are used instead of declarative style? I'm saying this because there isn't a single sentence in the proposed edit which is anyone's personal opinion but Rajiv Malhotra's along with certain other authors like Krishnan Ramaswamy, Aditi Banerjee et. al. which are of course cited. Mvineetmenon (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- I feel no need to answer a loaded question. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay.. Then, let's start the edit process and you can, instead of mass deletion suggest changes. I'll wait for this lock to expire or request reduction in protection of this page. Mvineetmenon (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- I feel no need to answer a loaded question. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Qwertyus, Okay. Fair enough. Would you stop disruptive deletion if "quotes" are used instead of declarative style? I'm saying this because there isn't a single sentence in the proposed edit which is anyone's personal opinion but Rajiv Malhotra's along with certain other authors like Krishnan Ramaswamy, Aditi Banerjee et. al. which are of course cited. Mvineetmenon (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Apropos to the above discussion, the following points are clear (in my opinion, strictly)
* It is clear that the content can not be posted in the present format. * Quotations marks and NPOV issues need to be addressed. * Deletion of the entire content is equally unfair.
In view of above conclusions, I propose that the edit lock should be removed and Qwertyus may lead the editing (with due discussion) to organically grow the content of the page so that the visitors of the page get detailed and NPOV about the book. Lastly, it would be good that contributors have read the book (at least once). I trust that all of us have a common aim to make this Wiki article a more informed, a more neutral and more comprehensive piece of text so that a potential reader of this book can make an intelligent decision to read this book or not. Searchpow (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- QVVERTYVS (hm?) was extremely active and prompt when the page was to be blocked/ content was to be deleted. Why no response to Mvineetmenon or Searchpow even after almost 20 hrs? Adiagr (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
tag removed
The tag that called it pseudo-academic borderline nonsense was removed. Please justify before addition. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Start-Class Book articles
- WikiProject Books articles
- Start-Class Hinduism articles
- Low-importance Hinduism articles
- Start-Class India articles
- Low-importance India articles
- Start-Class India articles of Low-importance
- Start-Class Indian literature articles
- Unknown-importance Indian literature articles
- Start-Class Indian literature articles of Unknown-importance
- WikiProject Indian literature articles
- WikiProject India articles