Talk:Agnivesh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject India (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Quotations[edit]

I remove the stand-alone quotation section from the article. While it's only an essay, WP:QUOTE provides a good summary, especially WP:QUOTEFARM. Providing quotations without context often violates WP:NPOV and is not very useful to the reader. We can quote people as needed, but we should 1) prefer to quote secondary sources, not Agnivesh's own words except where his words are absolutely critical, and 2) only when the actual quote captures something that a paraphrase cannot. I'm putting the quotations I removed into a collapse box here in case anyone feels like copying them over to Wikiquote.

Removed quotation section
  • Karma does not mean karmakand.[1]
  • "The unique spiritual genius of India breeds a composite culture of harmony and mutual respect. For the world order to be one of peace and justice, for the global village to be a theatre of right livelihood, it is imperative that a new and proactive spiritual vision commensurate to the challenges of the emerging world order be enunciated without delay.[2]
  • "Globalisation is the glorification of greed as god." (2003)[3]
  • "The Hijackers Of Hinduism: Hindutva is pseudo-Hinduism. It can triumph only by hijacking and degrading our religion. The stormtroopers of Hindutva, of course, want to look like Hindus. It is like terrorists wearing army uniforms while attacking an army camp. (2003)[4]
  • "Ideology of Hindutva is Sheer Fascism: Some 7,000 children die in India daily, mainly due to poverty, which is caused by a skewed and totally inhuman notion of ’development’ propagated by Indian and Western elites. Is this not a form of terrorism also? In some senses, it is a worse form of terrorism, not only because it is of a far greater magnitude but also because it causes prolonged pain and suffering to its victims, unlike those who die in an instant in a terrorist attack. We better suffer terrorist attacks from Pakistan than push out the agenda of development being formed by Indian and Western elites. Is this not also a form of terrorism? Is not casteism in Hinduism and Islam a form of terrorism?" (2008)[5]

Criticism section[edit]

Okay, that section is gone. But before anyone panics, please note that a large portion of the information was retained, but distributed throughout the article. WP:NPOV says that we generally prefer to integrate criticism in context within the rest of the article, not as a stand-alone section. In this case, that definitely makes sense, because the criticism was about several different issues: some, his social activism, others, his religion. I did keep some of the info out, because not all of it actually met WP:DUE, and some of it wasn't even criticism. For example, we can't take a claim that Ragnivesh made and then call it controversial without a secondary source that says that someone else found it controversial. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed that you're removing criticism of Agnivesh with various arguments. This is not fair. Trying to remove the wrongdoings by removing the content is not fair. It will violate NPOV by not including information related to him.Politicalpandit (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The phone call video[edit]

So far, all I'm seeing are second-rate news stories, none of which definitely state the identity of the other speaker, or that can even testify to the authenticity of the video. WP:BLP says that we do not put in gossip or negative claims that have not been supported by reliable sources. Please wait to add this information until we get better sources and a clearer understanding of what happened. Don't forget that Wikipedia is not a news service--we don't have to get the story immediately after it breaks. Until we are certain that the sources are good and that this story has lasting value, it should not be in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

This article is not up to date. Request admin to keep it current or allow edit for other users.

I have added reference from Hindu June 1 in which Agnivesh calls USA terrorist number one

http://www.hindu.com/2008/06/01/stories/2008060159940800.htm

Please rewrite the last sentence from the first paragraph - "Recently by double crossing Anna, he has proven himself to be a first grade harami and a political pawn. Shame!" Suggestion - "Recently, he has been in the news for allegedly double crossing Anna. There have been reports(refer link to news channel article and youtube video) suggesting that he was in talks with the Indian government undermining the cause and means used by Anna Hazare."

16:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 16:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.191.35.22 (talk)

Okay, first, the article is semi-protected, meaning anyone with an account more than 4 days old and w/10 edits can add information. Second, that sentence mentioned is out already. Third, please see the section above: wikipedia is not supposed to be updated every single minute. We need lasting, durable information, and we need sources that are very clear and strong for negative claims about living people. Lastly, that article (about Agnivesh's words" is just that--his own words; we don't report every single thing every person said. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
What is wrong with you? Why you try to justify Agnivesh, by not including what he said. If he has shown hatred towards the U.S, what's wrong in having it in the article? And why are you preventing it from being there?Politicalpandit (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The US= terrorist #1 is in the article; look in the last paragraph of Agnivesh#Social activism. That's why I didn't mention it before, sorry. Does that satisfy your concerns? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kartks, 5 September 2011[edit]

Agnivesh took part in protests for bringing in Jan Lokpal (Ombudsman) bill in the Indian Parliament along with the anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare. However, he later left the team of protesters led by Anna Hazare, claiming that he was humiliated by others. A few days after this incident, a video showing Agnivesh as a Government "mole" was circulated in the Indian media and youtube, where Agnivesh was shown speaking to a purported minister and calling the anti-corruption crusaders as "arrogant". Kartks (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? and if you do I believe you should now be autoconfirmed and able to make the edit yourself. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Agnivesh a "mole" of the corrupt Government of India[edit]

Agnivesh took part in the anti-corruption protests in India in August 2011. Later, he voluntarily stopped the protests, claiming that other protesters humiliated him. A couple of days later, a video showing Agnivesh speaking to a purported minister of Govt. of India was circulated in the Indian media and the internet. Agnivesh claimed innocence, saying that the video was doctored. This information is being witheld by the author of the post, and he has kept the article in "protected" status, thereby not allowing others to modify the article.

Do you have a source for this? and if you do I believe you should now be autoconfirmed and able to make the edit yourself. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sonia Gandhi?[edit]

The second paragraph of the 'Politics' section reads:

(Redacted)

Not only is the entire paragraph unsourced and quite ridiculous, but also clearly not NPOV, and bordering on libellous. As such, I am removing the entire passage. If someone can find sources to support some of the less humourous claims, then I invite them to restore that information.

--WhyteCypress 21:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

References[edit]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

AgniveshSwami Agnivesh – The article was originally created under Swami Agnivesh and moved to present title in August 2011 per WP:HONORIFIC. But I am afraid those guidelines are overridden by WP:COMMONNAME as the subject is almost always mentioned with prefix Swami. I personally have not seen him being refereed without it anywhere other then on Wikipedia. I see it as an uncontroversial move but assume that some people may have other views.

  • Some of the sources : TheHindu, FirstPost, Hindustan Times, Times of India, BBC, CNN IBN Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 04:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per WP:Honorific: Phyllis G. Jestice Holy People of the World 2004 "(1939 C.E.–) Hindu religious leader,renunciant Agnivesh,a Hindu religious leader and Indian social activist, was born Vepa Shyam Rao on September 21, 1939,in Shakti..." ...it is used a lot with Swami but not always, and honorifics are one area where if there aren't always used then we don't count how often they are used. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment That book uses the mix of Swami Agnivesh and Agnivesh. (for ex: the next para on the same page.)--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 05:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes several books use both in the same text, but doesn't that indicate that it doesn't have to always be used? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I see those sources rather as unreliable due a non-uniform style. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 17:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Seems more to be just normal first mention, second mention, third mention. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
But neither does WP:COMMONNAME say "always be used". It says "most commonly used". We have many books which refer Swami Vivekanand as just Vivekanand on many instances. I consider that just a style of writing where monotonous way of calling XY as XY is avoided by using X or Y at some times. Just like how we, most of the times, use last names in our articles to refer to the subject once the full name is used in lead or other places. Doesn’t mean the last name on its own identifies the subject. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
@Iio, the book you cite, first use Agnivesh, then switch to Swami Agnivesh, back to Agnivesh, again Swami Agnivesh. It is hardly following a set guidelines, thus not reliable to establish which name to use.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 08:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
That's exactly my point. That however doesn't make the book unreliable, in English (as Hindi) we quite often say "Sir John Brown...........John Brown............John Brown" In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we are both seeing the same thing but from different angles and drawing different interpretations. That book mentions Swami Vivekananda also without Swami most of the time, but WP article is hosted with Swami honorific. Even if for a moment we accept that source as reliable, it is rare to find subject of this MR mentioned without Swami. . --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 10:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have to echo In ictu oculi's comments. This is a case that clear falls under the scope of WP:HONORIFIC. If this was a name that was widely known in the English world than I might be of a different opinion, but this name is no so widely known (thus common) to deviate from WP:HONORIFIC.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Can you present any other source ? The book Iio cite does not follow a consistent pattern. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 08:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
A Google Book search on ["Agnivesh" -"Swami Agnivesh"] will pick up similar books. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I had tried that before starting this RM and just did again now. Some books this search picks (other then books about some other agnivesh) again mentions him both with and without Swami. But again, that is MOS similar to WP. I.e. first mention of full name (XY) and then use Y everywhere else.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 10:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, en.wp uses WP:COMMONNAME in title, then WP:FULLNAME in lead, then WP:COMMONNAME in article body. except for when WP:COMMONNAME has a honorific, when we remove the WP:HONORIFIC even if it is common unless absolutely essential for comprehension. We are not a religious source. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The following search results in Google books produced a fair number of sources, somewhere around 3200 hits, that do not employ the honorific consistently or at all: Agnivesh -Swami in English [1]. There is certainly usage for both terms so the title as it currently exists is not a fabrication hence why I'm inclined to believe it should stay where it is. .--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The first book result of this google search Averting the Apocalypse: Social Movements in India Today uses "Swami Agnivesh" on page 317 and later on on page 400 refers to him as Agnivesh, which is why it features in this search result. Such searches are hardly conclusive. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
They are by no means meant to be conclusive in the same manner as a Common name determination. It is simply to demonstrate that the name is commonly written without the honorific and that the honorific is applied inconsistently. The fact that you would see both in the same source is a demonstration of that inconsistency.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As per arguments made by others and in line with policy. Imc (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Agnivesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Agnivesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)