Jump to content

User talk:183.83.147.61

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 2020

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Battle of Khanwa, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Alivardi (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alivardi: Thank you for this intro. Coming to the point, I believe you did make an error at the page on the Battle of Khanwa. Articles are made neutral by inserting different points of view from all sides. There are many such sources on that article praising Babur and quoting him. The text you removed contained a Rajput viewpoint, and was well-sourced. By removing it, you removed useful content. What's wrong in a source praising a side's valour? There are many such sources on wikipedia, e.g. Roman history articles where Livy, Plutarch etc. praise Roman gallantry. 183.83.147.61 (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the requirements of Wikipedia's neutrality policy is the use of nonjudgmental language, which includes not presenting a point-of-view that sympathises with a subject. This does not mean that we don't record a subject's successes, but rather that we don't word it in a way which unnecessarily flatters them. This includes such vague complementary language as "gallantry", "chivalrous" and "hero" as had been used in the Battle of Khanwa.
However, this is all beside the fact that the primary reason I had reverted the content, as I had stated twice in my edit summaries, was that an extensive quote on a completely separate conflict is irrelevant in that article. Please see WP:ROC for further discussion on the need to keep article content focused on its subject.
Alivardi (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alivardi: It was describing the skirmishes before the battle - they were definitely relevant to it, and do not seem to run afoul of WP:ROC. Also, complimentary language is acceptable if it is a quote from a source, and is done for both sides - many are present in the article for the Mughal side. 183.83.147.61 (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes are allowed if they serve a clear purpose. However, this one instead gives an extensive explanation of a completely separate conflict. Yes, earlier relevant battles should be mentioned, but only as a quick overview. Anything else would be more appropriate for a separate article. What does this bloated and fawning quote contribute to the article that cannot be easily achieved with a sentence or two in normal text?
Alivardi (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alivardi: It was only a couple of sentences, in addition to a couple more non-quoted sentences. Not much, it was quite brief. 183.83.147.61 (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Five sentences, so a paragraph. Plus the other four non-quoted sentences.
Alivardi (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alivardi: Still quite brief. Wikipedia is an expanding project, and good content is always welcome. Are there any other issues to re-adding it? 183.83.147.61 (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an expanding project, and good content is always welcome Of course...in a separate article. You are always welcome to create one.
Alivardi (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alivardi: Now, that is too small for a separate article. And is brief enough to fit in this article - which it is associated with. What is wrong in re-enlarging the present article? 183.83.147.61 (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand why you've reverted the edit again. Imposing your preferred view on the article while we're still in the middle of discussing it is not going to help lead to a mutually-agreed consensus (see WP:BRD). Especially when you're also accusing me of stonewalling, which it seems you've misunderstood.
Alivardi (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alivardi: I bear no ill-will towards you. What I meant was that you were reverting a point that multiple users had tried to insert (not exactly stonewalling, but roughly there). I did not do it with any accusatory intent towards you; if it offended you, I'm sorry.
Coming to the point, what is left to discuss? Let's see a summary of the arguments so far:
  • Violates WP:NPOV: It doesn't. To achieve NPOV, multiple points of view have to be inserted. Many points favouring Babur exist; this is a well-sourced one from the Rajput point of view, praising the Rajputs, just like Livy's and Tacitus' praises of Romans often exist on WP:HISTORY articles.
  • Not related to the article: It described the skirmishes before the battle. Pre-battle maneuvers and skirmishes are an important part of any battle.
  • Too big: No, it is not. It's only a paragraph. On the other hand, a large section (probably even a majority) of articles on battles cover pre-battle moves and encounters, along with praises of both sides, in far more detail than this.
  • Separate article required: No. It is far too small for an article, and would end up being one of the worst stubs. Besides, it is not an independent event - it is closely tied to this battle.
  • Bloated and fawning: No. It is just praise from an academic source. If this is "bloated and fawning", I dread to think of what label Ctesias and Plutarch would get - and yet, both are regularly quoted on wikipedia. This paragraph, on the other hand, is more moderate than even Livy.
    • So that's that. Since you ask, I'll not go to the edit page until we settle it here - but we should, surely, settle it here. 183.83.147.61 (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alivardi: Do continue the discussion - it is important. 183.83.147.61 (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It will take me time to write an appropriate response to this message and, unlike other edits, it is not something I can do whilst eating breakfast. I'm currently at work and I'll respond when I get the chance. I'm asking you to have the same patience with me which I had with the timing of your own replies. Thank you.
    Alivardi (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Violates WP:NPOV The neutrality policy doesn't require opposite parties to be equally praised; it requires us to use neutral language for all sides. You've previously said that the article praises Babur in a similar way to the edit in question, but beyond noting his methods of achieving victory, I do not see what you are referring to. What happens in other articles should not be taken as examples, for unless they are among the featured, they are just as fallible to such issues as we are discussing.
    • Not related to the article I do not believe I've ever said this. I only stated that this level of detail is irrelevant.
    • Too big I want to point out that a total of five conflicts were mentioned in that section. Why does this particular skirmish need to take up nearly half the space?
    • Separate article required I did not say that a new article was required, nor did I mean that the content be simply copy-and-pasted into it. You are free to create this hypothetical article if you wish and expand it as much as you see fit.
    • Bloated and fawning Addressed above. For the record, we are very careful citing such ancient writers as Plutarch and Levy here as per WP:AGE MATTERS.
    I'm going to copy-and-paste our discussion to the Battle of Khanwa talk page and request that you post your reply there. Content discussions are usually done on the talk page of the article in question so as to give interested editors the opportunity to weigh in. Honestly, I should have done this much earlier.
    Alivardi (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alivardi: Good idea. 183.83.147.61 (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:183.83.147.61&oldid=963011723"