Talk:Lok Biradari Prakalp
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lok Biradari Prakalp article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject India||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
"Non-complementary comments on the Lok Briadari Prakalp"
"Marathi Manus a blog alleges ..." Anybody's allegations are not worth putting on a wiki page, the allegations must be by a notable individual or organization or printed in WP:RS newspaper etc. The blog does not establish it's notability, also is not a WP:RS. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- The reason to put the allegations in the LBP page is to give the article a balance. The person who is operating the blog lives in Aheri, near the project, we can have an exception here, please read the blog, it is not vindictive. The statement deserves to be there. Wikirules are to be followed in the spirit. Not like a machine. Also it would have been better if you had discussed before, deletion. That is civility as we were in touch any way. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wild swipes made at a district do, complementary statements do, uncomplimentary don't. Not fair. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I have again removed the section since it relies on a blog, which is not considered WP:RS. This is basic wikipedia policy, which cannot be contravened in order to provide, so-called, balance. Either find some criticism from a reliable source, or don't include it; there is no third option. Abecedare (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Imagine X has a grudge against Y, so X writes a blog alleging Y's institution is corrupt. That does not mean that X's allegations are accurate or represent popular sentiment. If say X was a notable social worker or individual or a notable NGO, then the allegations can be included. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I had suggested that the blog be read, the writer has no grudge, the blog compliments the activities of the LBP. Please check for yourself. I too have no grudge, I myself have been to LBP, I have read the three books written by the Vilas Manohar. I have a copy of the wonderful CD Aranyatil Prakashwata, I request guests to my house, who have the time to spend the 45 mins that the CD is long, to watch it. I have had personal interaction with Prakashbahu. What we need is a multi-dimensional description of an organisation. I found this blog while doing a Google search, it was the only one that has a few negative lines written about the project. That itself makes the blog notable. Moreover the blog states that the LBP school is excellent but should be open not just to the Madia but to Dalits too.
There are a million lines on wikipedia without citations, some go around with the  tag for years. As responsible editors and not vandals, I hope that you who have removed the above insertions, would please put them back, the reference perhaps is not wikistandard, please find one instead of just taking the text you do not like off, this is in the interests of Wikipedia, if the reference is bad let it carry a  tag. Please.
Please check the author tag of this article it says Wikipedia Contributers, and not Yogesh Khandke. Every one of us owns authorship, I have found something, I have put it in the article, the reference is not good, you find a reference which is good enough and not just remove what is written like a vandal. That is team work. Moreover it is a bad idea and prejudice to only target what one does not like. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yogesh, I don't claim that the blog is criticizing LBP out of personal pique (I think Redtigerxyz too was raising that hypothetical only to explain the general principal that motivates wikipedia policy), or that you are adding this information to wikipedia in bad faith. However the fact, which we all agree on, remains that the blog is not upto the required standard and therefore by long-standing and well-established wikipedia policy, its opinion should not be on the LBP page.
- I agree that many wikipedia pages contain unsourced, dubious and even blatantly false claims; but that is not, and should not be, the standard by which we make editorial decisions. Of course, we should ideally search for sources ourselves, before deleting article content; and I did search on Google but didn't locate anything useful yet. See WP:V, or ,  to see why leaving in unsourced, or poorly sourced information is bad practice. Abecedare (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- To clarify, Vilas Manohar is NOT the X in the hypothetical example, the point I wanted to make is the person is not notable, "I found this blog while doing a Google search, it was the only one that has a few negative lines written about the project. That itself makes the blog notable" Sorry to disagree but that does not make it notable, if the criticism by Vilas Manohar is covered by say, Times of India or a reputable local daily like Maharashtra Times, Lokasatta or Samna then the criticism can be considered to be from a WP:RS.--Redtigerxyz Talk 04:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Vithoba a FA status article carries an internal link to hero stone, which carries reference to a blog http://www.kamat.com/database/content/hero-stones/index.htm, rules are to be interpreted by how they are practiced. Is Kamat a peer reviewed source? Kamat is full of hearsay and opinions. If something is good for a FA article it must be so for one that is just beginning its life. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) (comment moved here from Alumni section. Abecedare (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- A few points:
- Please place comments in the appropriate section so that the discussion can be followed easily by any redaer now or in the future.
- Discuss any issues you may have with the Kamat reference at Talk:Hero stone. The site is not used as a reference in this or the Vithoba article.
- Unless someone produces a reliable source for criticism of LBP, there is nothing more to discuss on the topic.
- Abecedare (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted illustrious alumni to illustrious Madia Gond alumni, as that is what they are, Digant, Arti too are alumni of the school, but they are not on the list as they are not Madia Gond, the logic is that Digant did not become a doctor because of the opportunity the school provided, but the school opened doors to the Madia. I hope what I wish to communicate is clear. The other Madia achievers are there in the image, please if you can read put them on the list. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Took me a minute but I understand what you mean now! :)
- By the way, the information is contained not only in the picture, but also on the LBP website, which says, "Dr.Kanna Madavi, Dr.Pandurang Pungati, Dr.Komti Durwa, Dr.Sudhakar Wachami the Madia Gond tribal boys from the area completed their schooling at Hemalkasa. Dr. Digant and Aniket sons of Prakash and Mandakini, also completed their schooling at Hemalkasa."
- Abecedare (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Of course there are the doctors and other names in the list of alumni on the LBP website. When I wrote Dignat and Arti, I meant Digant and Arti and not Aniket, Arti is Prakashbahu's daughter and she is a nurse. I do not know why you feel that I assumed X is Vilas Manohar, I thought X was Remteke the writer of the blog Marathi Manus, or perhaps myself. I wonder where Vilas Manohar came in the picture? Why would he be critical about the project he served all his life. If he has made adverse comments though, they should be here too, however I am not aware of them. Glad that you have tried search, there is so little on the LBP or on Prakash bhau, except the same story repeated over and over, which is there because of the Ramon Magsaysay award. I have written to Marathi Manus to help us with the references. In the mean time I strongly suggest we have the section back. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
All the references should be cited using an identical citation tag, I have used the tags but find them a little confusing at times, will somebody help in displaying all the references using an appropriate tag. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Linking of official site
This is a minor point but ...
- WP:ELYES says that "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." (emphasis added).
- But User:Yogesh Khandke doesn't "agree the page you cited states that the official website should be linked."
If Wikipedia articles about any organization etc., should link to the subject's official site means that it should be displayed as an external link, then I am wrong, the sarcasm and cockiness in which this thing is put forward points to the fact that I may have to eat my words. But I remember reading somewhere (wiki) that External References is a bad style, I may however be wrong. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yogesh, my post was not intended to be sarcastic or cocky; only to state the facts as clearly and succinctly as possible. Since we agree on the reading of WP:ELYES, we can readd the link and consider this issue resolved. Abecedare (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
What wp:ELYES says
External links section If an article has external links, the standard format is to place them in a bulleted list under a primary heading at the end of the article. External links should identify the link and briefly summarize the website's contents and why the website is relevant to the article. The heading should be "External links" (plural) even if there is only a single link listed. If several external links are listed and the subject of the article is a living person, organization, web service, or otherwise has an official website, it is normal practice to place the link to that site at the top of the list (if it is not already in an appropriate infobox).