Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 158: Line 158:
::{{u|Ugog Nizdast}}, i have no objection to whatever format of discussion is adopted about this RfC. As regards the WP:QUOTEFARM concern, the correct approach is to transform the quotes by paraphrasing and summarizing rather than deleting the material altogether. Some of the quotes may be given as footnotes rather than in the main article. Some may be truncated, some may be retained. But this massive deletion of clearly significant content ( the Nehru and Science section for instance) in one shot is clearly unacceptable. [[User:Soham321|Soham321]] ([[User talk:Soham321|talk]]) 06:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
::{{u|Ugog Nizdast}}, i have no objection to whatever format of discussion is adopted about this RfC. As regards the WP:QUOTEFARM concern, the correct approach is to transform the quotes by paraphrasing and summarizing rather than deleting the material altogether. Some of the quotes may be given as footnotes rather than in the main article. Some may be truncated, some may be retained. But this massive deletion of clearly significant content ( the Nehru and Science section for instance) in one shot is clearly unacceptable. [[User:Soham321|Soham321]] ([[User talk:Soham321|talk]]) 06:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
:::I think we're on the same page here. This issue is far more complex than "yes, put them back" or "no, remove them entirely". All those sections seem to excessively rely [[WP:QUOTEFARM|just on quotes]]. On style and format, they should follow [[WP:USEPROSE]] and would most of them even get their own separate section say if it became a FA? and how would they be mentioned? Are they referenced adequately for it? This leads to a bigger issues of this page which I don't think we can solve in one-shot, nor is it concerned with specifically to those diffs (rather than those topics in general); so we should focus on each at once. Without doing much digging, FWIK, there has to be at minimal something about his views on science but question the relevance of specific issues like Cow protection and Spiritualism in India, the rest have at least a mention in the present revision. [[User:Ugog Nizdast|Ugog Nizdast]] ([[User talk:Ugog Nizdast|talk]]) 07:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
:::I think we're on the same page here. This issue is far more complex than "yes, put them back" or "no, remove them entirely". All those sections seem to excessively rely [[WP:QUOTEFARM|just on quotes]]. On style and format, they should follow [[WP:USEPROSE]] and would most of them even get their own separate section say if it became a FA? and how would they be mentioned? Are they referenced adequately for it? This leads to a bigger issues of this page which I don't think we can solve in one-shot, nor is it concerned with specifically to those diffs (rather than those topics in general); so we should focus on each at once. Without doing much digging, FWIK, there has to be at minimal something about his views on science but question the relevance of specific issues like Cow protection and Spiritualism in India, the rest have at least a mention in the present revision. [[User:Ugog Nizdast|Ugog Nizdast]] ([[User talk:Ugog Nizdast|talk]]) 07:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
::::One obvious solution is to allow the Support and Oppose voting to take place and if the removed content is deemed significant it can be re-inserted into the main article and then editors working on the article can convert the direct quotes into prose by paraphrasing or summarizing or retaining the quotes as footnotes or retaining the quotes in the main article. Some of the material can be removed through condensing the content. Another solution is more time consuming: we do a voting on each and every section that was deleted to determine whether it should be re-inserted into the main article. Step by step, one by one. I am not as worried about QUOTEFARM as you are. What is more important to me is whether the quotes contain meaningful, relevant, significant and encyclopedic information. If they do they can be easily transformed into prose or retained as footnote. Note also that it is acceptable to use long quotations in WP articles. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau#Appreciation_and_influence here] for instance. Of course, over quoting should be avoided. [[User:Soham321|Soham321]] ([[User talk:Soham321|talk]]) 07:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:17, 29 December 2016

Template:Vital article

Template:0.7 set nominee


Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2015

115.241.104.42 (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Jawaharlal Nehru. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These all look good. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jawaharlal Nehru. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2016


Xykopitsberg21392 (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC) He never stood for total independence of India, the reality is he and gandi was asking for dominion status. He was never a good person and moreover he is not Hindu... India got independence just because of bhagat Singh,rajguru, sukhdrv , chandrashekhar Azad, and many more.. People don't know the reality of India independence[reply]

 Not done. You need to specify the actual changes you wish to make (eg "remove xxxx and add yyyy") and provide reliable sources to support the change. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC notification

On 23 July, 2015, large chunks of this article were deleted. See diff1 and diff2. The deleted content included the following sections:

  • On Caste system, and Caste based reservations (chunks of this section deleted)
  • Religion (chunks of this section deleted)
  • Budhism
  • On Cow Protection
  • On Spiritualism in India
  • Secular State
  • Views on communalism
  • Nehru and Science
  • Nehru as a person
  • Nehru and Patel
  • On Communism, Fascism, and Hindu Right-wing Communalism in India

Other changes were made to reduce the neutrality of the article. For instance, the words "According to a Times of India editorial, Nehru left behind a disputed legacy, being "either adored or reviled for India's progress or lack of it." were changed to "Nehru, thus, left behind a disputed legacy, being "either adored or reviled for India's progress or lack of it." These words have exactly one source to back them up which is a Times of India editorial. So the previous version was clearly better and not the changed version (which exists till date).

This page has been subjected to vandalism which has generated a lot of publicity in India: Link While vandalism certainly needs to be reverted the quality of the material in the article also needs to be borne in mind. Additionally It has been argued that there is a political campaign in India to erase the legacy of Nehru. See Link2. So great care needs to be extended to this page to protect it not just from vandalism but also from insertion of any bias (which reduces neutrality) and removal of any content that portrays Nehru in a positive light.

Also, what makes the large scale deletions (refer to diffs given above) curious is that the person who carried them out (refer to diffs given above) is being accused of sock puppetry on his talk page (see also his block log). I don't have the energy and stamina to have a prolonged discussion to re-insert all this disputed content into the main article. What I intend to do is to start an RfC on this issue, and let others weigh in. I thought it best to leave a preliminary comment here before i start the actual RfC (in another 1 or 2 days).Soham321 (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on inclusion of previously deleted content

On 23 July, 2015, large chunks of this article were deleted. See diff1 and diff2. The deleted content included the following sections:

  • On Caste system, and Caste based reservations (chunks of this section deleted)
  • Religion (chunks of this section deleted)
  • Budhism
  • On Cow Protection
  • On Spiritualism in India
  • Secular State
  • Views on communalism
  • Nehru and Science
  • Nehru as a person
  • Nehru and Patel
  • On Communism, Fascism, and Hindu Right-wing Communalism in India

Other changes were made to reduce the neutrality of the article. For instance, the words "According to a Times of India editorial, Nehru left behind a disputed legacy, being "either adored or reviled for India's progress or lack of it." were changed to "Nehru, thus, left behind a disputed legacy, being "either adored or reviled for India's progress or lack of it." These words have exactly one source to back them up which is a Times of India editorial. So the previous version was clearly better and not the changed version (which exists till date).

Also, what makes the large scale deletions (refer to diffs given above) curious is that the person who carried them out (refer to diffs given above) has been blocked for socking in the past and is again being accused of socking. I am pinging this editor so that he is aware of the outcome of the RfC: D4iNa4

This RfC is being initiated to determine whether the removed content should be re-inserted into the main article. Please vote Support to accept my proposal to re-insert the deleted material or Oppose to maintain the status quo.Soham321 (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before commenting on the content, I'm putting a disclaimer about the format of this rfc. This shouldn't be a poll format per WP:NOTVOTE, such formats are only suitable for straightforward yes/no questions, rare ones where majority votes actually matter or just straw polls. Let's default to the usual single threaded discussion from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting. Additionally, from what is proposed, given the scale of it in terms of content and topic-wise, even separate section for straw polling would not be wise and would distract us from main issues of it--given that most of the content is failing on initial inspection. It's mainly WP:QUOTEFARM concerns. That being said, I'll note that the article isn't in the best of shape currently as well and there is some content I think can be salvaged from those diffs. We should focus our discussion on that content. I'll elaborate more in my subsequent comment. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ugog Nizdast, i have no objection to whatever format of discussion is adopted about this RfC. As regards the WP:QUOTEFARM concern, the correct approach is to transform the quotes by paraphrasing and summarizing rather than deleting the material altogether. Some of the quotes may be given as footnotes rather than in the main article. Some may be truncated, some may be retained. But this massive deletion of clearly significant content ( the Nehru and Science section for instance) in one shot is clearly unacceptable. Soham321 (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're on the same page here. This issue is far more complex than "yes, put them back" or "no, remove them entirely". All those sections seem to excessively rely just on quotes. On style and format, they should follow WP:USEPROSE and would most of them even get their own separate section say if it became a FA? and how would they be mentioned? Are they referenced adequately for it? This leads to a bigger issues of this page which I don't think we can solve in one-shot, nor is it concerned with specifically to those diffs (rather than those topics in general); so we should focus on each at once. Without doing much digging, FWIK, there has to be at minimal something about his views on science but question the relevance of specific issues like Cow protection and Spiritualism in India, the rest have at least a mention in the present revision. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One obvious solution is to allow the Support and Oppose voting to take place and if the removed content is deemed significant it can be re-inserted into the main article and then editors working on the article can convert the direct quotes into prose by paraphrasing or summarizing or retaining the quotes as footnotes or retaining the quotes in the main article. Some of the material can be removed through condensing the content. Another solution is more time consuming: we do a voting on each and every section that was deleted to determine whether it should be re-inserted into the main article. Step by step, one by one. I am not as worried about QUOTEFARM as you are. What is more important to me is whether the quotes contain meaningful, relevant, significant and encyclopedic information. If they do they can be easily transformed into prose or retained as footnote. Note also that it is acceptable to use long quotations in WP articles. See here for instance. Of course, over quoting should be avoided. Soham321 (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jawaharlal_Nehru&oldid=757180820"