Talk:Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana

BISS is not commonly used

In this revert vanamonde93 insists it is present in the references, I cannot find it. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I was careless, I thought you referred to the ABISY abbrv. I have removed BISS. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not the first time either. May I request you to not revert in a hurry. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 16:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Objective of the organization in the opening sentence of the lead

Jyoti, you just hit 4 reverts, self-revert now or I'll see you at AN3. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Jyoti, last chance. Self-revert now. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are five diff where you have reverted me five times within last 1h. You put a warning on my talk page after my fourth edit. See the timestamps in you ANI appeal. You waiting two minutes to file an ANI: [1], [2], [3], [4] ,[5]. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Reverts count towards 3RR only if they are non-consecutive. One of them (the quotes) looks like two thanks to an edit conflict; which is why I have not counted it for you, either. I am on three; you are on four. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to go by the letter of A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert? Lets actually talk about the content, I will repeat what I have written in edit summary, I gave reliable sources for it: should the opening statement of an organization not tell its stated objective directly insead of presenting someone's opinion as the objective in wikipedia voice? I will be glad to expand if you want more clarity to understand my viewpoint. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You still removed content sourced to a university publication. And no, we need not give its own stated objective, certainly not without framing it as such. Finally, you still seem to have trouble understanding WP:BURDEN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand burden clause, I added three reference. To take it to WP:RSN because you have deleted it and insist that it is unreliable is not part of WP:BURDEN. You claimed it is by VHP in your edit comment. Which clearly shows you had wrong information. Do you dispute that? Lets get back to the content. Do you want to completely ignore their mission statement on their website too? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You say you want to discuss it? Fine, but not when you are sitting on a version created by violating policy. Self-revert the lead, and I will remove my report. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That does not hinder discussion in my opinion. I explained I have not violated burden, and I stand by it. About sitting on some version, if I may be blunt, with no offence, you are gaming the system because you are equally guilty of edit warring. Your warning notice on my talk page is after my fourth edit. Lets keep our statements to the disputed content (as the opening statement of the article).--AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Then we are at impasse, and we can wait for the outcome of the report, even if those are symmetrical blocks. If you think you can bully me into discussing by removing a scholarly source 4 times, you are mistaken. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I did not remove any reference. I have added three references. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear both, calm down please. I have been enjoying both of your edits. I don't know why there was need for any reverts. Reverts make it hard for some third party like me to understand what has been done. So, please use them sparingly and discuss the issues here so that we can all learn from you. Uday Reddy (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you're right, you did not; but you did remove content sourced to a peer reviewed journal, and then reverted four times to keep your version. Self-revert (or let Uday Reddy revert; not particular). But I will not discuss any content with you, when you sit on a version backed by four reverts; because that would be like playing nice to the schoolyard bully after he has taken your money. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the last edit of User:AmritasyaPutra (nice name!). When I came to this page a few weeks ago, the lead sentence said "with the objective of rewriting history from a national perspective". User:Vanamonde93 changed it to "Hindu nationalist perspective," which I thought was perfectly fine. If Hindu nationalists are proud of what they do, they shouldn't be touchy about being called so. If they want to claim that they are perfectly neutral and scientific, well, only cuckoos will believe that! Organiser is also clearly a Sangh publication, not a mainstream newspaper. So, it can't be used except to state a POV. The POV in this case is stated in the immediately next sentence. So, I don't see the problem. I will put back the citation to The Hindu article, which was already on my To-Do list in any case. Uday Reddy (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Uday Reddy! User:Vanamonde93 I prefer User:AmritasyaPutra, strictly! --AmritasyaPutra✍ 16:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Uday Reddy, Jyoti; Okay, now we can discuss this like civilised people. Due thanks, Reddy. Here is my main point; a google scholar search, as well as a college search engine I have access to, but I will not reveal which, and I dunno if you will take that at face value shows that Berti is the only scholar who has significantly studied this organisation. Therefore, WP:DUE would indicate that her views must be included, and indeed must form the basis for out reading. Now, Jyoti/Amritasya has added three sources. Let me take them one by one;

1) The Organiser (newspaper) is an organ of the RSS, as its own website admits. Therefore, it is effectively an SPS in this case. However, it can be reliable as a mouthpiece of the RSS, to express the view of the RSS itself, if we should decide that is necessary.

2) The second source is "The Hindu", which is perfectly reliable. But here is what it says, and I quote "Mr. Kataria asked the historians of Akhil Bharatiya Itihaas Sankalan Yojana -- who have taken up the task of rewriting ancient Indian history -- to research and highlight the message of human welfare and inculcate among the history students a respect for the ancient Indian civilisation." This is far less detail than in any of the others, and it contradicts neither my version nor Jyoti's.

3) Finally, the ABISY's own website. This is obviously an SPS, and so reliable for statements like "the ABISY says XYZ," but for nothing else.

So this leaves us with the following; the only source reliable enough to present in Wikipedia's voice is Berti, and I believe my reading of Berti is correct. If, in addition to her view, you wish to include the ABISY's own version of its mission with proper attribution, I will be fine with that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, as Reddy says the lead currently reports the view of the ABISY as well; if Amritasya wishes to tweak that, and attribute it to the ABISY, I am willing to work through that. Also, can we get rid of that silly "page needed" tag at the bottom? Perhaps Uday Reddy could deal with it; I do not intend to touch the article page for the next 24 hours. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The objective of the organization in the first opening sentence should be same as what the organization says. Their website is the best reference for it. Also, Organiser having an association with RSS does not make it unreliable by default. WP:SELFSOURCE. Berti's interpretation comes next, and that too with attribution, not in Wikipedia voice unless it is the common interpretation. Your version is not in line with the version of The Hindu newspaper either. "Page needed", is better than "not in reference", it shouldn't be a challenge for a reader to verify something. I have at no point indicated that I want even 1 of the 11 reference of Berti removed. All of them are there.--AmritasyaPutra✍ 13:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Kindly put back "The Hindu" reference, all of us unanimously accepted that one and yet it remains deleted? Berti also defines RSS as a militant organization but that is not how the opening sentence of the RSS article reads. you having found only one journal article (one of which is self published sort of, not university journal) does not by default imply that it is the most authoritative and comprehensive content on the subject. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 13:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no flaming hurry to replace the Hindu ref, as it adds nothing; if Reddy were to add it, I have no objection. I am not going to touch the article page for 24 hours, I suggest you do not, either. Also, please find me a policy which says that the objective of an organisation must present its stated objective in WIkipedia's voice? Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

lol. Focus is content, if you have no objection to Reddy adding it I can add it after some time too. He himself said he will add it but he forgot, so it was a reminder! Common sense is the answer. What an organization's objective-is is taken from the organization's statements. What others infer about it is what-others-infer-about-it. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you deliberately being dense? Adolf Hitler's stated objective was world peace, and he started a war that killed sixty million. By your logic the Nazi party page would contain "world peace" as its objective in Wikipedia's voice, and that is patently ridiculous. WP:RS and WP:NPOV dictate that an outside secondary source is better, and a scholarly source even more so. "Commonsense" by itself holds no weight here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Mind your words, you are being derogatory repeatedly! Are you so dense that you will compare this example with your example of Adolf Hitler? Use common sense. I have three reference, I am not talking without reference. From a reputed newspaper, a magazine and the organization's website, and all three are aligned. Even if you claim that every author in Organiser is by default the organizations secret agent -- it is perfectly reliable even then per WP:SELFSOURCE. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you really mean Nazi party's mission was world peace... in any reference at all, any? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Show me a quote from the Hindu which contradicts my version of the text. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Show me a quote from the Hindu which contradicts my version of the text. I have stuck to my guns from the first edit. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

My 2 cents There is nothing wrong in adding the objectives of the organization, I don't think there is a need to attribute it to the organizations website. I don't think it is required to write "ABISY says that its objective is so and so". For example check this article American Historical Association. The orgs own website is used as a source and the article doesn't say according to AHA its objective is so and so. If someone feels that the organization is not meeting its said objective and you have a reliable source for that you can mention it after the objective. -sarvajna (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have to show you any such, because I am fine with adding the source. I am not using the source to contradict your text; Berti contradicts your text. You tried to use the Hindu to change my text, and so you need to provide the quote. I have been saying all along that the Hindu quote supports both variants, and so cannot be used to choose. sarvajna, read WP:OSE. I did not create the AHA page, and I am not responsible for what is put on it. In this case, the most reliable source we have, and the only scholarly one, contradicts the org's statement; ergo, using that statement raises NPOV issues. I have provided policies to support this, namely WP:RS and WP:SPS. Do you have a policy which says using the organisation's mission statement is acceptable? And do not cite WP:SPS back at me; Berti shows quite clearly that the website violates point one of that policy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you just say you are fine with adding The Hindu And it does not contradict with my version of the text? Your mere insistence is not sufficient. WP:SPS with Organization's website is just fine here. Organiser is directly related to RSS not ABISY. That does not make it either unreliable or SPS (you made all-sweeping claims). I think I will stop at this. You are merely rehashing. I am not discarding any reference. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No, of course it does not. All the Hindu says in its own voice is that ABISY is engaged in re-writing history (I already pasted a quote above). Both your version and mine say that. The SPS I was referring to was the website, as you know damn well; but the ABISY and the Organiser are both subsidies of the RSS, making it unreliable. WP:SPS says self-published sources are acceptable "so long as they are not unduly self-serving." Berti proves that in this case, it is unduly self-serving, and Reddy has also told you as much. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I still don't see what the problem is. The current wording is in no way inconsistent with what is on the website of ABISY. The very front page says they want to rewrite history. And, the scheme page (mission.htm) lists 5 guiding principles two of which say they want to eliminate distortions introduced by colonial writing or whatever. So, there is nothing controversial here! Even the Times of India article that I cited says pretty much the same thing (see the last paragraph). The sentence of yours that I ended up deleting wants to describe the objectives using what I would call "spiel" on their web site. User:Vanamonde93 hasn't objected to it being mentioned, but he doesn't want to replace the original wording, which he only modified by putting the word "Hindu". Please feel free to add it back in, perhaps lower down in the text rather than the lede. There is very little detail in the rest of the article. The most important bit that our article still fails to explain is why this project is called "history collection". What is being collected and how? Uday Reddy (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

MHHH. Tell that to the redoubtable Amritasya. Putting the entire spiel in the lead would certainly be Undue, but putting it in the body with proper attribution is fine. That is what msot of the ideology section is anyway. As for "collection;" IMO there are several different ways of translating the name, and the one I used was simply the one from the source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Uday Reddy You think both my version and Vanamonde93's one word version is correct, okay, thanks. Vanamonde93, Another user Sarvajna also gave you advise. You have also explicitly agreed my version does not contradict The Hindu. And, oh oh, it is referenced to TOI and The Hindu only not to Berti, so I can align content with those two sources, and from the above discussion I see Uday Reddy and Sarvajna have no objection to that. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 02:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 don't use WP:OSE wherever you like, it is mostly used in the deletion discussion, while creating articles of similar nature it is a general practice to take another article as reference. You mostly need to use Common Sense here (not in a uncivil way, do read it), comparing Nazi with this org is where you can use OSE. Also SPS says that Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves.... (you can read the whole thing there). The objectives of the organization can only be defined by the organization not by anyone else. Like I said above if the organization is not doing what they defined in the "objectives" we should mention it only after we mention the objectives. Also lets write what each version here on talk page, it will be useful if someother editor comes and takes a look. -sarvajna (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Sarvajna, that quote of SPS is remarkably misleading. The whole quote is "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, [] so long as the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim (emphasis mine). You have conveniently ignored this part of the policy.

Also, I did not compare this org with the Nazis; I gave the Nazi's as a prime example of why using an organisation's mission statement in Wikipedia's voice is problematic. Specifically, they claim to be "scientific" and so forth, while Berti shows that their approach ignores Indian cultural diversity when it suits them, making their claim hollow. And are you seriously proposing that we ignore the only reliable source we have on the subject? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You are again ignoring the point that Organization's objectives is Organization's-objectives!

1. Have you found any reference at all that Nazi party's mission was world peace? If you are giving an example, mean it.

2. The Hindu And TOI is also not reliable? Only your inferential one word`er attributed to a 30 page article is reliable?

3. Here is what Berti has written: As far as the intention of the abisy leaders is concerned, what seems to be new, however, is the intermingling of three factors: (1) establishing the localpan-Indian equivalence in a systematic way and within what is presented as a “scientific research project”; (2) putting this project at the service of the ideology of Hindu nationalism; (3) involving in this research project not only the largest number of local intellectuals, but also people from different circles of society. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 06:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The next sentence already explains the organization's point of view. What additional information are you saying has been left out? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, looks like you are misreading my statements on purpose. I 'never said that we should ignore Berti, we need that source. Like AmritasyaPutra quoted above,"Organization's objectives is Organization's-objectives". if Berti says that "their approach ignores Indian cultural diversity when it suits them" do mention it. It only shows that the organization is moving away from their defined objectives or whatever it is. My point was that Berti cannot state the objectives of a Organization of which she was neither a founder or a co-founder. She has commented on the Org's work, very well write that in the article. That doesn't change the defined objectives of the Org. I will give you an example to make it simple (there might be some factual errors), India's constitution aims at eradicating the caste system, however the government policies are no where near it, now that doesn't change the constitution, it would still remain same and the text of constitution can be used to cite the aims. Similarly, this Organization in question might not be meeting its objectives which we can very well mention with the help of sources but that doesn't change the defined objectives unless the Organization decides to change it. -sarvajna (talk) 06:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, Read this section heading to stay on topic. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 06:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Obviously. I am not disputing that; what I am disputing is the suggestion that we do it without attribution, ie in Wikipedia's voice. I have repeated this many times over; I am perfectly fine with saying "The stated objective of ABISY is XYZ;" indeed, the third lead sentence that I wrote, does exactly that. If you want more detail, then you can add it in the ideology section, with proper attribution. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Can't help smiling. Okay, I will do what this section header says as you have no objection to it... except that I will use "with an objective of..." or something similar. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 07:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

NOT what the section header says; I said in the ideology section. And I have no objection to adding it, but if you replace something referenced to Berti, I will have objections. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, I don't care what language you use; but Wikipedia's voice has to say "the organisation says this" and not "the organisation does this." Attribution. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I think it might be best if you posted your version here, that way we avoid another edit war. 24 hours haven't passed yet. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I am under no obligation to continue discussion indefinitely. I will do what we agreed here. I will use the agreed upon reliable reference of The Hindu and TOI when adding content, I will not remove any sourced existing content but stick to sources as close as possible. Like Sarvajna and Uday Reddy also said the Organizations objective can be presented as it is stated by them. The analysis of Berti is also represented. I never suggested the organization does part so don't digress yet again. I will add it in the lead section like this section discusses and three editors agree. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 09:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Easy way out and the most logical one is to credit both the sources; the organization and Daniela Berti. Its lack of commonsense to exclude either of the two views, especially when there are no multiple views as such contrasting each other. Its also wrong to portray either of the view as Wikipedia's/neutral view. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes User:Dharmadhyaksha I have already agreed to that explicitly. I said so in very clear measured words and even gave what I intend to write above. I am not using the Organiser reference for that at all. I explicitly said that I will use The Hindu and TOI to which all the four editors agree. I never said I want to write Organization does so and so. I never removed any reference. I am only talking about the Objective of the organization as this section title reads. I agree with your words in its entirety. And that is what we have already agreed upon. I will attribute ABISY objective to itself and Berti's opinion to her. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 12:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Attribute the objective to the ABISY. I really do not see why such as attribution might be a problem. - Sitush (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Why attribute the objectives to the organization, it is very much understood that the organization defines its own objectives. We can just write "ABISY was started with an objective to do so and so.." For example this article doesn't do that. Objectives != What they do or have done. -sarvajna (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I would go with this suggestion: "ABISY was started with an objective to do so and so.." this sentence does make it clear enough that it is mere self-set objectives of the organization by itself. Your opinion Uday Reddy? I pinged Uday only because he has been involved from the beginning Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for any organisation and we are under no obligation to reproduce whatever they might say on their web sites. Our objective is merely to compile and present the knowledge that is in society to lay readers in an easily accessible manner. Of course, we don't want to treat the organisation unfairly in the process. So, we should give their views a reasonable amount of space, without necessarily agreeing or disagreeing. Having said that, I agree with User:Vanamonde93 that the best place to put this is in the Ideology section. I don't have any objection to a sentence that starts with "ABISY was started with an objective...". But stylistically, it doesn't make sense to me, because we are not discussing the history. Neither are we saying that their objectives have changed since they started. So, I don't see why "starting" is being emphasized. On the whole, my feeling is that we are wasting too much energy on propaganda without focusing on the substance. I am still at a loss as to what "history compilation" means. Uday Reddy (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece, no one is reproducing whatever they say. We are just stating their objectives. What they want to do or why the organization was established. It is like using the date when the organization was established from their website. Nothing wrong at all. Objectives cannot be part of the Ideology section either. If you feel that the term "starting" is not right you can use "established with an objective to do so and so". -sarvajna (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Uday Reddy, if your objection is only with style you can propose another one. Yes, we should expand on their modus operandi also so that "history compilation" is explained. Let us address that too (in a separate section). It is common practice that the opening of an article will introduce the reader to the intended set aim or motto of the organization. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 16:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Page needed to verify content.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Content: ABISY attempts to give the journal a scientific character. However, this stated aim has been used to exclude viewpoints and local histories that contradict the organisation's Hindu nationalist ideology. in Publications section. I have access to the reference, it has page numbers and I cannot find this. Vanamonde93 reverted the tag saying It's a journal article, go read it. If you haven't access, that is not my problem. I mentioned that I have access to it but I cannot find it. Vanamonde93 insists on removing it and asked help from another editor to deal with it. It should not be a challenge for a reader to verify a content. I am inclined to remove it if I cannot verify it despite having the reference article at hand. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 02:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

May be he paraphrased it, after all Vanamonde93 cites so many policy he should be very much aware of WP:V -sarvajna (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are most likely correct here. And I also do think so. But I have two reasons to pursue this: once before also he insisted on not given the exact reference and he ended up changing the content himself much later after a long drawn discussion where he conceded that he got confused and it was not in the reference. His response here has been similarly impolite and I think he can do better than merely deleting the tag, the request is not unreasonable in my view. I am okay to wait for a month for a response. In the referenced article this publication is discussed on page 14-15, and I think the paraphrasing (unless Vanamonde93 intends another location) is inaccurate. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 03:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If it won't work I will fix it. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 07:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, May I draw your attention to this section? Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 13:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You first give me a month, then suddenly change your mind and demand a page now now now? In any case, page provided, here is the quote. "The emphasis on what is “true” or “scientifically proven” also characterises Thakur Ram Singh’s discourse on local history — the main domain of abisy’s research activity. In his declarations, in fact, Thakur Ram Singh is explicit about the fact that not every local history is worth studying and documenting, but only those facts which have a “historical basis” and which are in accordance with abisy’s ideology." Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I said exactly this: May I draw your attention to this section? Thanks. Not one word more. Mind your tone. That quote does not support the content. If that is what you are using to support the content it is synthesis. I will align the content with your quote. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, this quote is on page 14, not 12. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That was one hell of a paraphrasing I say -sarvajna (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Totally aside from this discussion, I wanted to share this, I am literally laughing and rolling on the floor, Berti writes: Thakur Ram Singh is a 92-year-old man who has dedicated his life to instigating and propagating nationalistic feelings. And mind you this is not the only place where she instigates the reader! lol! --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. What part of the sentence is not supported by the quote? The "Hindu nationalist" adjective is the only part that is not; and that is in the title of the paper, for god's sake. Uday Reddy, Dharmadhaksha, Sitush, you seeing this? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear other editors (apart from Uday Reddy, Dharmadhaksha, and Sitush too), while you give your feedback for this instance, could you also check two more instance where I say synthesis has been done in the immediately following section. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Page 12 is correct; it is the page of the original text that matters, not the page of the pdf. People have access in different ways, so sticking to the original page number is the only way to prevent confusion. Again, if you will insist on posting in the middle of a discussion, then you can hardly expect people to see everything you say. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Look at the timestamps in this section, they are in series. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe Vanamonde93's paraphrase is faithful to the source. There is a bit of "synthesis" in moving from including what is in line with the ideology to excluding what contradicts the ideology, but there is no logical difference between the two statements. It will be a good idea for everybody to read WP:SYNTHNOT. Synthesis by itself is not prohibited. Only synthesis that constitutes Original Research is prohibited. In this particular case, there is no original research involved. Uday Reddy (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Uday Reddy, is Thakur Ram Singh ABISY? Is WP:STICKTOSOURCE relevant? Why is "historical basis" argument ignored? How is "abisy’s ideology" substituted with "organisation's Hindu nationalist ideology", why not stick to the source? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 18:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I believe Thakur Ram Singh is/has been the life blood of ABISY. The version of the article in June had a lot of information about this. I believe it was written by somebody who had intimate knowledge of ABISY. Unfortunately, User:Vanamonde93 cleaned most of it away, presumably because he couldn't find the sources for all that information. Is the ABISY's ideology "Hindu nationalist ideology"? My honest answer is NO. ABISY's ideology is much more narrow than the Hindu nationalist ideology. When Savarkar and Golwalkar defined "Hindu nationalism", "Hindu" meant ethnic Indian. Savarkar and Golwalkar included tribal and folk religions within their "Hindu" sphere. ABISY, on the other hand, wants "Hindu" to mean Vedic and Puranic Hinduism. So, they are a lot more sectarian than Savarkar and Golwalkar. Calling them "Hindu nationalist" is overly generous. Uday Reddy (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

well if there are no sources available nothing much can be done. With all due respect, your belief of life and blood thing of this organization is irrelevant unless we have a source. So let us stick to the source. -sarvajna (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sarvajna: We don't need any further sources. The fact that Thakur Ram Singh served as the President of ABISY is enough to identify the references to the two in the source. Uday Reddy (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Reddyuday: fyi Thankur Ram Singh died 4 years back. You yourself dismissed the second synthesis with My honest answer is NO. And you do not have a source. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 02:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been pinged in a message from Vanamonde above. I'd already briefly commented prior to that. I'm sorry but I really cannot devote the time to this right now - anything involving the RSS etc usually ends up being a row between those who clearly support their ends and everyone else who supports Wikipedia's (perhaps hopeless) attempt to be neutral. My mother has being diagnosed with a terminal illness this week and I, too, am yet again unwell ... and my promised hospital operation has been moved further into the future because of the pretty dire funding status of the NHS. You're going to have to sort this one out without me but I may pop in from time to time. My suspicion is that this will need some sort of resolution at WP:DRN or similar because there are some familiar names involved in the discussion and they are not all neutral. - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for not assuming good faith and for commenting on the contributors and not the content. -sarvajna (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: And, this article was 7 years back. So, what is your point? Do you have any evidence that indicates that ABISY has changed its ideology from Thakur Ram Singh's days? Regarding My honest answer is NO. Indeed, if User:Vanamonde93 had to choose a more honest label, he would have needed to call it a "religious fundamentalist" ideology instead. I don't believe that that would have made you any happier. Labeling it "Hindu nationalist" is generous. Uday Reddy (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have reference go ahead. Have you? An organisations ideology is written down not inferred from he said this and she said that by a Wikipedia editor. You don't have to be generous here, just follow policies. sticktosource. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I had made edit and Vanamonde93 edited on top of it, the text now reads: The former head of ABISY, Thakur Ram Singh said that not every local history is worth studying and documenting, but only those facts which have a “historical basis” and which are in accordance with organization’s ideology. This is faithful to the source and eliminates the original research done previously by Vanamonde93. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not "edit on top of it;" I edited a different section after you did, that does not indicate that I was okay with this version. We do not know what Thakur Ram Singh said. All we have is Berti's interpretation of it, which is reliable. And the sentence is phrased in such a way as to make abundantly clear that he represents ABISY, and this is not his personal dictum. And "Hindu nationalist" is in the title of the paper. STICKTOSOURCE mandates that if we use Berti to describe ideology, it is described as Hindu Nationalist (and as User:Reddyuday says, that is generous. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Apology, I agree you did not edit on top of it, I misread diffs. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, you have put this:

ABISY attempts to give the journal a scientific character. However, this stated aim has been used to exclude viewpoints and local histories that contradict the organisation's Hindu nationalist ideology.

from this:

The emphasis on what is “true” or “scientifically proven” also characterises Thakur Ram Singh’s discourse on local history — the main domain of abisy’s research activity. In his declarations, in fact, Thakur Ram Singh is explicit about the fact that not every local history is worth studying and documenting, but only those facts which have a “historical basis” and which are in accordance with abisy’s ideology.

while I had paraphrased as (which you have reverted to your version yet again):

The former head of ABISY, Thakur Ram Singh said that not every local history is worth studying and documenting, but only those facts which have a “historical basis” and which are in accordance with organization’s ideology.

Your wording is original research, there is one more editor who strongly thinks so. I made clear statements why I think so, for which you have been making original assertions instead of giving reference (that is why I claim it is original research in the first place). Can you provide clear reference to support your assertions? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

And there is one who agrees with me, so that is irrelevant. Let us take this fragment by fragment, and if that does not work, then I am posting to DRN. So. Here goes;

1) first fragment (only. We'll deal with the others in a minute). "ABISY attempts to give the journal a scientific character." Do you have any problems with this? Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

He agreed partially and did not provide any reference either. No need to rehash, read above and back up your assertions with reference. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned on WP:ORN and pinged all involved party. I would request not-involved editors be given chance to comment. Vanamonde93, you have the fair right to add anything to it that I failed to carry from here. I have tried to stay neutral and present all information there. I shall close the discussion here. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page needed to verify the first sentence of the Ideology section.

Content: The ideology of the ABISY is based on the belief that India was once a uniformly Hindu country, and that distortion by Western historians has created a false impression of cultural diversity. Page needed to verify, I have both reference and I can't find it. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Quote from page seventeen, once again identical in meaning to the sentence in the text: one of the main issues in the ABISY's programme is to show that Aryans have not come from the outside but were the original inhabitants of India.This fits in with denouncing the thesis of an Aryan invasion as a distortion of Indian history strategically provoked by Westerners. In the ABISY vision of history, regional or tribal diversities are considered to be a sort of screen behind which this 'Aryan' past may be disclosed. Indian diversities are thus superficial, since at grassroots level they may be linked to one unique(Hindu) culture which is the one handed down by Sanskrit texts... Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This quote does not support the content. The author also carefully used thus. To take only two glaring OR: How did one of the main issues in the ABISY's programme become The ideology of the ABISY is based on the belief? How did Aryans have not come from the outside but were the original inhabitants of India become India was once a uniformly Hindu country? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 For the other two instance (out of three including this one) where you eventually provided the page number and supporting quote, you failed to defend your original research and quietly conceded to the corrective edits. Would you care to respond to this one please? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 12:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

AmritasyaPutra please go ahead and change it, the main issue cannot be the ideology. I am just surprised at the way the whole thing is paraphrased. -sarvajna (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done --AmritasyaPutra✍ 13:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

And I have tweaked it. If you dislike it being ideology, then live with it being called a belief. The Aryan thing is covered in the next sentence anyhow. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 you have entirely changed the content and added a reference and stitched together a new twist, you call this tweak?--AmritasyaPutra✍ 13:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I have not entirely changed the content. The previous sentence was unacceptable to you as a first sentence; but stylistically, the first sentence should be the general one. Therefore, I added another, which does the job because it sticks exactly to the source (so theoretically should be acceptable to you) but is general, and so is acceptable to me. Then, my original first sentence became the second, except that instead of "ideology," it only says "belief," which is compatible with "main point;" I also changed "uniform" (my paraphrasing) to "unique" (from the source). Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Where did the 'first sentence' thing come in? When did I say that? That was just a reference to find the sentence -- exactly that much! And you have a lot of what should be acceptable to me. After reverting a second time against talk page you are giving this tweak`ed explanation? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You said nothing about a first sentence; but you did say that translating from "main point" to "ideology" was going too far. Therefore, I paraphrased it to "belief" instead, because that is milder, less general. The stylistic point was my own; you need a framework to fit isolated beliefs in. Saying their ideology was based on the distorted history worked as a framework; "Hindutva" is far more general, so less ideal, but it still works, and it is 100% from the source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Help me understand this the "main point" is not ideology but its is "belief"?. Also I am not sure whether it is correct to equate "Out of India theory" to "Aryans have not come from the outside but were the original inhabitants". I feel that they just want to disprove the migration and invasion theory. Why don't we just quote the source directly in quotes? I think that is acceptable. -sarvajna (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, 100% from the source? No - That is what two editors have clearly told you and you merely relocate the original research back with newer twist! And you reverted twice before giving even this explanation! --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that the source does not support "The main leaders of the organisation have been described as having a Hindutva ideology.?" Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Dude, stick to the content under discussion here, this is what you just now prepend`ed. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

First, I proposed that on a different section, and you responded by closing the section. Second, DO NOT make assumptions about the gender of a user; it is remarkably offensive when I have made 100 percent sure that I never mentioned it myself; and especially considering the fact that you were ready to claim outing at the drop of a hat earlier on. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

What is this new sudden nonsensical outrage over your gender now? I have addressed you as 'he' in this page itself earlier too. If you don't want simply suggest so at least once. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That is not the issue; you assumed I was male, and that is a problem, regardless of when you first did it, because I never said it was okay to do so. Cut it out. "going off into a fit" I see. What was your reaction when I referred to your old username? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Almighty! Dear, your objection duly noted! Let me repeat again without any addressing qualifier: stick to the content under discussion in this section. Btw, I believe/d 'Dude' is generic(Please don't start a discussion on this here).--AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Dude" is non-generic. "dudette" is female, except it is rarely used. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(Seriously, you people turn these discussion into anything. ) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that -- I will be careful in future. I want the discussion on the content dispute to continue. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 04:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed OR as per the view of two editors here. Vanamonde93, please gather consensus in talk page to justify the OR before insertion, you have already reverted twice previously without giving explanation. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 05:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see "two editors". I only see you as having objected to it. In any case, "consensus" is not based on numbers but rather on the arguments presented. The sentence that you have deleted is clearly a summary of the first paragraph of the Section II in the source (except for the reference to "Western historians", which I have seen mentioned in other places). So, it is wrong to call it OR. I think you have reverted it prematurely without concluding the discussion. Uday Reddy (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I have indeed provided an explanation; it just did not satisfy you. As Uday Reddy also says, it is essentially a summary of that section of the source. You objected to this being used to describe a general ideology; so it is now used to describe a specific belief. What precisely is the problem? Merely insisting that it is OR does not make it so. What part of my version is unsupported by the source? Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I have undone the revert repeated third time without explanation. Quoting the question from above, which has not been addressed: How did Aryans have not come from the outside but were the original inhabitants of India become India was once a uniformly Hindu country? Any specific reason on reverting my version blindly, it is based on the same source, what is your objection to that? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 12:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It was re-introduced a fourth time earlier today on some other pretext I have reverted it. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 02:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Re-inserted a fifth time here. Reverted. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 16:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Re-inserted a sixth time ...still without any response here. Reverted. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No direct response has been provided to the very specific questions asked by sarvajna and me here except a summarily it is right. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

"Indian diversities are thus superficial, since at grassroots level they may be linked to one unique(Hindu) culture" this is the quote from the source; taken along with the rest of the paragraph for context, it is an accurate paraphrasing. Uday Reddy, you seeing this? Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, as I said on the 28th August, everything in your sentence except for the "Western distortions" is from Berti, and the mention of Western distortions can be found everywhere including the organisation's web site. So, I see no problem with anything. I have no idea what AmritasyaPutra's problem is because he never explains it. The best I can make out is that he wants the words from the sources to be copied verbatim just like he does. But that is almost never appropriate. We have already spent way too much effort on this page. The debates are 10-20 times the size of the page itself. This is not a productive way to go. The best thing to do may be to go to the arbitration committee and get him barred from editing this page. Uday Reddy (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

IMHO they do not add up to India was once a uniformly Hindu country it is not conveyed by the source. I and another edtior had disagreed to that long stretched interpretation. And both of us asked very specific questions. I see from comments that sarvajna and Dharmadhyaksha have also been ridiculed on this page for not agreeing to your views. And you have repeated the threat of banning three times on this page itself (earlier in this section). I do see you two teaming up here and constantly commenting on user conduct rather than content -- that is why they are long. You are free to take this to the arbitration committee, repeated threats are not appreciated. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

One more request for verification

And this one also: One of the primary activities of the ABISY is to attempt to scientifically prove that folk traditions across India have been derived from Hindu beliefs. Page needed to verify, I have the reference and I can't find it. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

And again. Is this tagging getting pointy or what? It was a four page article. The quote: The work of ABISY leaders will be indeed “to decipher” these bharthas (often just some snippets of them), and to reveal their similarity with Sanskrit texts, by focusing on specific words or expressions. This would reveal the Sanskrit identity of the village gods. For example, the bhartha of Katrusi Narayan Bhalayan of the Tarapur region is said to correspond to a passage from the Bhagvat Dasham Skanda, which allows them to identify this god with the (‘pan-Indian’) god Skanda." (Italics in original). Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you really not see that the content is not supported by this quote? Do you not understand synthesis? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Your saying it doesn't make it so; what part of the text is unsupported? And respond at the bottom of the page for god's sake, else you will simply be ignored. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"primary activity of ABISY" (are you so naive?), and "folk traditions" (again, are you so naive?). Ignore if you please, it is your personal choice. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 18:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I had made edit and Vanamonde93 edited on top of it, the text now reads: Daniela Berti states that one of the objectives of ABISY leaders is to use snippets of local texts to make a connection to Sanskrit texts to reveal the Sanskrit identity of village gods. Which is much closer to the source compared to the super-duper original research done by Vanamonde93. I am not 'exactly' for this but much improved! --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

About the reference, Berti, Daniela (October 2006)

Quote from their website: Indian Folklife publishes original and unpublished research papers. It lists 215 names under Editorial Team! I can't find much about this SPS. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a low-cost online research journal. There is nothing fishy about it. The author is on the editorial team. But, usually, when a member of the editorial board submits an article, the charge for reviewing/editing it is given to another member of the board. Conflict of interest is absolutely prohibited. So, no worries there. (Personally, I am glad that there are plenty of Indians on the board. I am wary of western authors publishing in western journals without the benefit of review by Indian researchers. A lot of myths get propagated that way. That is not the case here.) Uday Reddy (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I have no objection in using it with due care and weight. There is not much info about it and it is not a University publication or of notable reputation. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 18:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Uday Reddy, Both the English and Hindi website of the organization says it was formed in 1978-79. 1, 2. But the article, based on this sources says 1973. I will rectify this. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 03:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done This only increases the doubt on the quality of this source. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Source misreading?

this source says exactly what User:Reddyuday claims it to say. The title is "coming soon from Modi sarkar," which takes care of the Modi and BJP part; and then in the body,

"Rao's elevation is the first of the many NDA decisions that will determine who will lead India's top research, educational and cultural institutions."

Where the "Rao" in question is indubitably Yellapragada Sudershan Rao, referred to in the first line of the article, as is his new post;

"The new chairperson of the Indian Council of Historical Research, Yellapragada Sudershan Rao has..."

I am seeing absolutely no problem with this; and I cannot understand what objections jyoti might have. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Reread this and this. Last warning. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It was careless, perhaps; not outing. You should read the linked policy yourself.

1) Past usernames are not personal information.

2) Your past username is still widely available publicly on Wikipedia, including as a redirect to your current one; or a "what links here" from your userpage will show it. It is also scattered over ANI history and what not. Therefore, again not outing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

And of course, no response to the content issue raised, because you can make none. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 Jyoti was never my username. I have already warned you directly twice. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Who appoints the chairperson of ICHR? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the HRD minister. Vanamonde93, I am not sure whether you are doing it on purpose or not. An editor changes his/her name because they feel that they might be harassed in one way or other. If the editor has asked you not to use their REAL name you should not use the real name. Rather than apologizing , you just defend your act of revealing the users real name shows that you want to harass the user. STOP DOING IT AT ONCE -sarvajna (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Vanamonde93, I hope you will oblige. Uday Reddy (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Everybody, please do read WP:SYNTHNOT. Synthesis is not prohibited. Almost everything we do here is synthesis. If synthesis were prohibited, we could not write anything. It is only synthesis that represents "original research" that is prohibited. My original wording "appointed by the BJP Government headed by Narendra Modi" was perfectly fine. It is all factual information. There is no original research anywhere. I added another source only to point out that that little bit of "synthesis" that I did can also be found everywhere. So, you are barking up the wrong tree! Uday Reddy (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

(I haven't started barking yet!) So Uday, where should your synthesis and factual information stop? Should we reframe the statement to "appointed by the BJP, the ruling political party of India which has association with RSS, the voluntary group termed as "militant" by many western scholars and was banned for alleged involvement in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. The "controversial" leader of BJP, Narendra Modi, once alleged for running the Gujarat riots that massacred Muslims, heads the BJP government."? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Dharmadhyaksha, the firstpost article says "government;" AFAIK it is the HRD minister, like Uday Reddy says. So where is the issue? Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha, don't go off the deep end, for god's sake. The factual synth may or may not have been a problem earlier, but that is more or less irrelevant, because a new source has been given. The source makes a reference to the government, as well as to the prime minister. Do you believe including those two names is then unreasonable? If so, what do you propose? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Does the article really mention Modi? Or does it simply use his name in the title, maybe because it trends a lot? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha, perhaps that's the case; I can well believe it, given how cynical I am about the Indian media. But regardless of why they said it, they did say it. And they also explicitly say it is by the current government. So are we to second guess they're motives, and leave out stuff they did explicitly say? Is it unreasonable to mention the administration that an appointment was made under? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, its unreasonable to mention a person rather than the post, especially when its mentioned in passing (or not even that) and especially when the media is notorious in such instances. Also, there is no clear reference on how Modi, or even the PM, is connected with the appointment. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I very much agree with Dharmadhyaksha, past appointments were done by the goverment and the future appintments will also be done by the goverment. What is the need to mention Modi here or any other politicain? -sarvajna (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The opinion of the author is abundantly clear; they are suggesting that the Modi government is going to appoing RSS affiliated individuals to posts such as this one. We are not even mentioning the obvious inference, that it is to further Sangh ideology; we are simply making it clear that it was not the previous Congress government, nor the 1999 NDA government, which made the appointment. We are making absolutely no insinuations in the article. If the appointment itself is notable enough to mention, then the relevant details should be included. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It is the goverment of the day that appointed some person. Why the goverment did that or what you call a obvious inference can be taken at the current goverment's page if there is one. This page is not about the Indian goverment or Modi Sarkar's work and appointments.A person from ABISY was appointed by the Indian goverment, that is the fact which we need to write. We are not wrting an opinion piece here, this is an encyclopedia -sarvajna (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It is very evident from the article, that it is the party in power that is being commented upon, and not the "Indian government" in the abstract. Most such appointments get no mention in the papers; this one got at least two, and one of them an opinion piece. It is 100% factually accurate. I really cannot see why this debate needs go on so long. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You didn't answer how Modi directly is connected here. That's why the discussion is going on so long. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It is relevant, because the article essentially claims that "Modi sarkar" is responsible for the appointment. It does not mention the minister, else I would have used that instead. We do not have an "administration of Narendra Modi" article as many governments have; ergo, the next best thing, which is BJP (or NDA; not particular. One follows the letter, the other the spirit) government led by Narendra Modi. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Ohkay! You don't want to answer it nor understand it. Will re-remove it now. Take it to BLP noticeboard if you want it in the article or present a clear source which explicitly says of Modi's involvement in the appointment. Not everything the government does should be linked with one single person. If such was the case many leaders of nation's biographies would be filled with such trivia. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. I was among the editors favoring the removal of a lot of similar junk from the Modi page. This is not the Modi page. Of course BLP applies; but all we are saying is that his government appointed somebody, so there is no BLP violation. The author of the article thinks it important to link the appointment to the political views of the government; we cannot pretend that link does not exist. Since you are being obdurate, I have stuck to saying NDA government, which I hope you have no objection to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black -sarvajna (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not making a concession here. Narendra Modi has been voted to power by some 200 million Indians to lead the Government, not to hide behind the screens. If the HRD Minister made an announcement herself or took responsibility for the appointment, then we would attribute it to her. Otherwise, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is the "Modi government" that made the appointment. I will revert the edit and add other info, once the present frantic editing cools down. Uday Reddy (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No one is asking for any concession here, this is not a forum to discuss why Modi was elected so I will not get into that. The current wording is something that is acceptable, I will revert you whenever you try to impose your view here. -sarvajna (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

QUOTE
"Take it to BLP noticeboard if you want it in the article or present a clear source which explicitly says of Modi's involvement in the appointment."
UNQUOTE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I am gladdened by the enthusiasm of all of you to protect the reputation of Narendra Modi by disassociating him from the actions of his own Government. So, then, where were you when the 2002 Gujarat riots page branded him as a racist and Nazi sympathiser and I was battling it in the BLP NOtice board? Uday Reddy (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

What has anything that happened on other pages got to do with this? You shouldn't be editing in revenge or to make a point. (I know you aren't editing in revenge as such and even if you were, this isn't a worthy revenge at all. Aim higher if you want to.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

How does it matter that we were not involved in other pages? It is always a god time to start and good time to stop Not that it matters, you can check the archives to know whether Dharamdhyaksha and I were involved or not -sarvajna (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It shows that your concern for Narendra Modi's reputation is fake. Uday Reddy (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no concern for his reputation. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, that disinterest is also fake, as the above discussion clearly shows. But I have news for you: I have great concern for Narendra Modi's reputation. I hope the facts come out as to how this stupid appointment has happened, and I will be the first person to change the wording here as soon as such facts become available. Uday Reddy (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

(Assume what pleases you! But keep those assumptions to yourself and don't spread them around.) I wouldn't object adding even Mother Teresa's name if you have a clear fact backing it up. But such speculations and guessworks are suited best for sensational blogs and twitter posts but not encyclopedias. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The new source gives the reference to Modi you have been asking for: Currently, the PM is keeping the RSS happy by giving it control over cultural and educational bodies. The Indian Council for Historical Research (ICHR) has already gone to a Parivar man. More such appointments will follow. Uday Reddy (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a lousy opinion piece. Have raised that issue on the on-going BLPN discussion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Claim that name refers to old username which was changed 2 months ago and never used on this 2 day old page

Extended content

User:AmritasyaPutra, I will not use your old username if you wish; but if you try to tell me that it wasn't your username, that's hardly credible, given that I interacted with you prior to your name switch. I could prove it if I chose, because the redirects and page histories exist; but you seem to find references to those offensive, so I will refrain. If you do insist on accusing me of outing, though (which is a rather serious accusation) I will provide those. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Vanamonde93 Outing is a rule -- follow it. Jyoti was never my username -- prove me wrong. If you repeat I will charge you with outing. Period. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 05:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Easily done; User:Jyoti.mickey redirects to your userpage, and the note left on the redirect page says that it was left there when the page was moved; and the page history shows the details of the move, where the admin who moved it says "Jyoti.mickey was moved to Amritasya.Putra." QED. More importantly, even if this page is somehow an elaborate hoax, it is still available universally on Wikipedia, and therefore posting information from it does not constitute outing. If you want further evidence, this link shows that User Talk:Jyoti.mickey redirects to your talk page, and this shows that your old signature is scattered across Wikipedia. Therefore, I am posting absolutely nothing new here. Now if you will insist that "Jyoti" and "Jyoti.mickey" are entirely distinct names, and that having the latter as your username still means referring to you by the former is outing, then go ahead and post on the relevant noticeboard. If you were so opposed to your signature being seen, you could have replaced it once it changed; you didn't do that, for reasons best known to yourself. TLDR; I was careless in calling you by your previous username (which I have interacted with more than your current one) and for that I apologise; but that is all I am guilty of, and the proof is above for anybody interested. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC) So User:Jyoti.mickey is Jyoti, Eh? You used "Jyoti" with no link. You bet I will report outing if you repeat. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 05:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC) If you believe you can get me blocked for outing for using "Jyoti" to mean "Jyoti.mickey" then go ahead and report me. I did apologise for being careless; instead of being satisfied with that, you begin wikilawyering again and try to claim I've been doing something far more serious. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC) If You try again using "Jyoti" to mean "Jyoti.mickey" innocently in a discussion where only AmritasyaPutra username exists despite having got two explicit direct warnings I bet you will be banned. My last word on this. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 05:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC) For the records: Vanamonde93 has also used [[User:AmritasyaPutra|Jyoti]] multiple times. This page is two days old and User:Jyoti.mickey never interacted here. After a rename the old username is released. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 07:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Since Vanamonde93 has appologized it should end the matter. Just another word, whenever the user change his/her name there will be a redirect that doesn't mean you tell the whole world what the previous username was. It defeats the whole purpose of changing the user name. You need not dig the evidence of old username. Let us end this here, I am sure AmritasyaPutra has all the rights to take any person to ANI for outing. -sarvajna (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Agreed. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Image

The image currently uploaded is excellent, but its copyright status is rather dodgy, to say the least. AmritasyaPutra, I suggest you do something about that (or anybody, really, its just that they uploaded this). According to the banner currently on the image page, it's likely to be deleted after a week, and that leaves us where we started. I'd try and fix it, but I know squat about copyright issues, which is why I steer clear of uploading to commons. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 07:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Berti, Daniela

Just sharing some statements I found quite amusing:

• Thakur Ram Singh is a 92-year-old man who has dedicated his life to instigating and propagating nationalistic feelings.
• Another centralising element of the abisy is also the copyright name used in most publications (books, reviews or booklets). Some of these publications are dedicated to exposing the ideology which is behind abisy, its purposes, its methodology and its main projects. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot more, but in the end of whole journal. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Quotation marks

@AmritasyaPutra: I see you removing quotation marks in existing text, referring to some policy. What do you have against quotation marks? Uday Reddy (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Uday Reddy, Can you please give the diff link and quote the edit summary for it? Cheers. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 13:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: It was in 2 edits done by you this morning: here and here. I have also seen you do it in various other places over the last month or so, but I never understood what the problem is. Uday Reddy (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If you could paste the edit summary, you will know why. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 02:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary says "Remove emphasis by editor. See wp:quote and wp:editorializing," which is false. You didn't remove emphasis. You removed quotation marks. Uday Reddy (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

AmritasyaPutra's edits

@AmritasyaPutra: This morning, I found a bunch of edits you did to the text Vanamonde93 and I contributed. I have problems with them.

1. My text said: The organisation also aims to "brainwash" the Indian historians... Your text says: Balmukund Pandey, organising secretary of ABISY, in an interview in 2014 claimed that the first element was to get historians change their worldview, and "brainwash them" to think about history through an Indian lens. First of all, your text is more verbose, without adding any information. That is ok. We can live with that. But you are also distorting the meaning. The source says: Explaining their mode of functioning, Pandey said that the first element .... Your text is a distortion, because it makes it appear that it was Balmukund Pandey's private view. But the source says clearly that he was explaining [the organisation's] mode of functioning. So, I don't agree with this change of wording. Moreover, this wasn't an "interview". He was just speaking to a reporter. He didn't "claim". He explained. And, why is 2014 important? Did he imply that their methods will be different in 2015? After all said and done, why change anything at all? What was wrong with my text?
2. You also merged the two paragraphs. I don't see why. The two paragraphs were dealing with entirely different aspects of the ideology.
3. You had another edit where you added to Vanamonde93's text the words "in Kullu". Once again this is a distortion because it implies that whatever she is reporting is only valid for Kullu. But, you know, from Berti (2007) that she has study ABISY's methods in general and related it to what she observed in Kullu. So, this specificity is uncalled for.

On the whole, I find that your edits this morning to our text are entirely counterproductive. I am minded to revert all of them. Uday Reddy (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I have carried out a partial revert. The edits that I have examined since my last revert add a lot of material that is redundant, or irrelevant. Also, (and this is a more serious problem) they show an inability to understand any but a most literal understanding of the source material. This is a competence issue at best, and a tendentiousness/neutrality issue at worst. The author of the text, in this case Berti, uses specific instances to illustrate general points; AmritasyaPutra cannot seem to understand this point, and instead flings around accusations of OR. It wouldn't hurt to note that after bringing up this, and related, issues at various other places, they have been told that they are in the wrong multiple times, but still persist in identical arguments elsewhere. this, this, and this are illustrative, although Uday Reddy already knows that, having been involved in several of those discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

All 6-7 edits of mine were blindly reverted which were spread across 4 days with descriptive edit summary and discussion on talk page. Much beyond what is pointed out here. I assume it was by mistake. I will undo it and edit as per the suggestions made by Uday here. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 02:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have addressed the first two concerns by making it a separate paragraph and removing '2014' and 'interview' and using 'explained' instead of 'claimed'.
• The 'Kulu' thing is specific to that context, I read the entire article and she makes that particular study explicitly in the context of Kullu. I have not qualified all her works in the context of Kullu as you suggest. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 02:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It was most certainly not an error, or a "blind" revert; all you have done is to insist that what I wrote was OR, even after ORN proved you wrong on one point. You added redundant material, and you keep insisting that no explanation was provided, even though the same text has been explained to you since a week ago or more. If this is not tendentiousness, I do not know what is; if you think it is OR, take it to the noticeboard, my explanations evidently do not seem to do you any good. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you have got different sections mixed up. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 07:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: I don't understand what that response means. And, I would like to formally state that you are starting another edit war.

1. If we contribute some text and you would like to change it, then the onus is on you to explain why the change is needed and how your text improves the matters. You are doing no such thing. You are simply changing the text to suit your tastes, and maintaining that your taste is better than ours. When we raise issues, you don't respond or respond only partially, and go back and undo the reverts to reinstate your preferred text before a consensus is reached. You claimed above that you have taken care of my objections. But the references to Balmukund Pandey and Kullu are still there, which I said were distortions of the sources.
2. You are not reading the sources. You have admitted yesterday after several weeks of edit warring, that you have just managed to read one source out of the two that Vanamonde93 has cited. You haven't yet read the other source. Yet you consider yourself qualified to change Vanamonde93's text. A wikipedia editor is expected to read several sources and develop a thorough understanding of the subject before summarizing it in a Wikipedia article. Your strategy is merely to pick up random sentences from various sources and reproduce them in Wikipedia without any understanding. This makes for poor quality articles and, when you edit our text, seriously degrades its quality.

So I would like to ask you to stop editing our text. If you continue in this fashion, I am minded to go the Administrators and ask that you be debarred from editing this page. Uday Reddy (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You had clearly said you can live with Balmukund Pandey, no? I addressed each objection and responded for Kullu too! I have read both source, please desist. See this to understand why I said Vanamonde93 mixed up sections. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I have only said that I can live with certain amount of verbosity. But any mention of Balmukund Pandey by name in the Wikipedia article implies that you are describing a private view rather than the organisation view. And any mention of Kullu by name implies that the statements only apply to Kullu. So, these are both still distortions. You haven't said till now that you have read Berti (2007). I don't believe you have. If you did, you would know that she has written about the general methods of ABISY and used Kullu for an in-depth study. So, mentioning Kullu is a distortion. Uday Reddy (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me, what exactly were you agreeing on -- Only thing that is retained is Balmukund Pandey! Why so particular about removing the name? Did he not say it? Every interview of every official of ABISY is not ABISY's official statement. If you are so particular about removing it, fine, I don't want to argue over it! I have read both reference, please desist. I explained my edit in specific detail and responded on Kullu also in detail. Please check WP:AOTE. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 12:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is very straightforward; that by attributing the statement to a single individual, you are implying that it had nothing to do with the organisation, which is misrepresenting the source, because the source uses a specific statement to illustrate a general point. A summary should therefore contain the general point, and your edits are completely obscuring this. Your statement that " Every interview of every official of ABISY is not ABISY's official statement." would be true, if we were using the interview as a source. We are not; we are using a secondary source of impeccable reliability, which uses the statement as an example of the official view. Therefore, pretending it is not is very much source misrepresentation, and as I said above, a competence issue at best. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

And I merely mimicked the source of impeccable reliability! Anyways, Like we discussed above about the 'stated' objectives of an organization in the opening statement, do you hold the same standard about the 'stated' objectives here? I will updateBalmukund Pandey, organising secretary of ABISY, explained that the first element... myself after getting your views on usage of 'stated'. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You're still not getting the point; if you wish to summarize the source (and you do, because otherwise you would have to paraphrase all of the relevant material from Berti) then you cannot mimic any old part of it; academic writing does not work that way. You have to understand and shorten entire paragraphs of text; not doing so is a misrepresentation.

The example you have given is utterly irrelevant; the source was already summarised there, the question was about attribution. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Balmukund Pandey, organising secretary of ABISY, explained that the first element... is from HT not Berti. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 04:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Makes no difference; the same concept applies, albeit at a slightly lower level. Also, for a person who got remarkably annoyed when I moved your talk page comments, you shift mine around very easily. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you clearly give me your views on usage of 'stated' please? Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 06:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You can't just copy words from a news article to Wikipedia and expect them to mean the same thing. A news article is expected to be as specific as possible and attribute views to sources. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We are expected to be as general possible and avoid unnecessary detail. So, if you mention any piece of detail such as "Balmukund Pandey" claimed/explained/stated or whatever, you are raising an alarm. You are implying that this may not actually be a fact, it is somebody's private view. Note that you also copied "first element", as if you are listing a bunch of elements. This kind of a cut-and-paste job is no good for Wikipedia. Vanamonde93 and I don't have any choice but to junk everything you did and go back to the old version. If you want to be productive, you better tell us what your concerns are and allow us to take them into account. Uday Reddy (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I am saying of 'stated' as used in the opening statement which was discussed in great length in this talk page and you and Vanamonde93 said that 'stated' is the only acceptable word. Shall we not apply same standards at both place? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 07:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Your failure to understand this is rather worrying. "Stated" in that case was necessary, because it was from a primary source, ABISY itself. In this case, it is a statement use by a secondary source to illustrate a point. Because of the nature of the source, the situation is different. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite opposite. The Times of India is not a primary source and the reference is not from ABISY itself. HT, here, is quoting someone from ABISY itself. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If a quotation is used purely by itself, it is essentially a primary source. What does TOI have to do with anything? Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: I couldn't make head or tail of what you said. But User:Vanamonde93 is absolutely right this is not primary source speaking by itself, but filtered through a secondary source. So, these statements can be written in Wikipedia voice. Anyway, we have debated this long enough. I reworded the paragraph so that it doesn't have the distortions your text had.

And I have reverted to our version of the upper paragraph, because all AmritasyaPutra added was bad grammar and a rehashing of the next sentence (which they still do not seem to realise). Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think Uday Reddy forgot to sign his comments. I appreciate his edits, I have no problems with them. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 16:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, good. I deliberatively took out the wikilink for Balmukund Pandy, who doesn't seem to be a notable person to have a WP page for himself. Daniela Berti also probably falls in the same category. I didn't touch the "Kullu" issue in my edits because I haven't had enough time to think about what is the right thing to do. Uday Reddy (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And I have removed Kullu, for essentially the same reason; it is a distortion, unless it is presented as "ABISY ideology, as exemplified in Kullu, ..." or something like that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93's edits

What is your objection to this edit? It is from a secondary reliable source, namely Times of India. See these articles for example which follows similar style UNICEF, AIDA International, ActionAid. Objectives are implicitly 'stated'. Do you have objection to the source or the grammar or style? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This issue was debated for days on this talk page, at the end of which the "stated" qualification was inserted. If you are still going to debate that, take it to the appropriate forum. TOI attributes the objective; so should we. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

So your objection is with the source.

It is in TOI voice. The earlier debate was around "Organiser", that and the website of the organization has been removed, although they noted the same objective. And I gave example of three other articles that follow similar style. You may take it to whichever appropriate forum you so desire if you do not wish to discuss here. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As clear a case of canvassing as there ever was. What is more ridiculous, is that after an enormous discussion where the need for the word "stated" was established, you simply waited for that discussion to get old and then removed it again. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 you say I am canvassing by this? Please explain. The discussion was continued in recent previous section too. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 07:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on source Daniela Berti

I actually had PDF of this journal, I must say that the journal is completely senseless and Daniela Berti fails to provide references for the opinions she was making. Her new story starts with Kullu like everytime, but she seems to have been distorted from the number of events or perspectives that the organization has notably acknowledged, you cannot tell who she is actually talking about. We cannot use this author as source who is far away from any scholarly publication or even JSTOR. In fact, it is not even important to add any section about their ideas or aims. The remaining refs that are pointing to Daniela will be probably replaced. If you want to contribute, write about the organization and notable views. Nothing like we have to professionalize some organization. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as raised in this, and this section and uday reddy himself also casts doubt on the notability of the author. Vanamonde93 said her views must be included, and indeed must form the basis for our reading. Amyways, I am afraid they will first revert and then discuss (and in that process deliberately re-introduce other disputed content). --AmritasyaPutra✍ 04:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, are you kidding me? Did you really completely blank an academic source? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: Your editing is completely improper. A source is required to be "reliable" as per WP:RS, not "notable." Academic writing which goes through a rigorous reviewing process is the highest quality source for Wikipedia. Please read WP:RS. You should self-revert whatever material you have removed. This is extremely important. Uday Reddy (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)