User talk:Gulguley

Welcome!

Hello, Gulguley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Please sign your comments with four tildes (see above) - it makes it easier to follow the chain of discussion. RHB 00:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RHB thanks for the message and the helpful pointers. I will read up on these links. Best regards. Gulguley (<:-}= 00:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jaswant Singh Khalra

I have replied to your concerns here Jaswant Singh Khalra. Cheers Lethaniol 14:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaswant Singh Khalra

Your remarks here are neither helpful nor backed by any Wikipedia policy. I suggest you take a few minutes to read the introductory links provided to you in the welcome message from RHB, as well as WP:OWN. No one needs permission or qualifications to edit pages or voice opinions on content.

As for your statement itself, your concerns were already answered in my reply to A. S. Aulakh. This is a matter of proper scholarly citation, not of right and wrong. Wikipedia policy requires all potentially biased statements to have inline citations from reliable sources. This requirement applies to each and every article on Wikipedia, and statements that can not be sourced may be removed. Kafziel ^Talk 16:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty International researchers are a good start for reliable citations, and we should let these references be there until something better can be cited. One of the problems of the issue of human rights in India is that there is a huge lack of research and documentation. I'm sure you'll agree that the Wikipedia entries evolve in terms of quality of content. My principal criticism of the discussion on this article is that the it is being singled out and subjected to scholarly level of quality and references by people who do not have even a basic familiarity with the subject. Gulguley (<:-}= 16:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not references. Those are external links. Each contentious statement (such as that the arrests were "illegal" and that the prisoners were "innocent") must be specifically cited with inline citations. Footnotes, if you will. If you're not familiar with our syntax, please familiarize yourself.

Please spare me the nitpicking between external links vs. references. The citations are already there. (example: the first reference is a PDF version of a published book). The details in the referenced sources are based on researched and documented evidence, including witness statements. This is standard stuff for anyone doing scholarly research on human rights (which is an area inherently at a disadvantage in terms of research and documentation because governments actively obstruct such work; try getting a visa to India for research on human rights). Now, I realize the formatting of references sections could be improved, and it would greatly help if you and other critics would look at the linked references, and correct the formatting. Gulguley (<:-}= 17:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between external links and references is not nitpicking. An external links section is just a list of links that requires readers to guess which link might support which statement. Citations back up specific statements with specific sources, and are required by policy, as shown in the link I gave you above.

I have no obligation to spend my time sorting through all those links to try to find what was said where. That's the obligation of the person or persons who added the information. It's really no concern of mine whether the content is properly cited or whether it is deleted. Either one is fine with me, and deleting it is much easier. Kafziel ^Talk 17:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said, people do not need a basic familiarity with the subject. This has nothing to do with the subject, and the article is not being singled out. I participate in these discussions every day, in countless articles. Kafziel ^Talk 17:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Please point me to some of these discussions. Gulguley (<:-}= 17:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't accept the fact that my only interest is in ensuring that Wikipedia:Verifiability is upheld, then that's your loss. Assuming that there's some kind of conspiracy against you or your cause is only going to lead to more problems here. I suggest you get over that idea. To be quite honest, I've never heard of this guy and I don't really care what he did or didn't do. So I have no interest in getting rid of it any more than I am interested in keeping it. I'm completely ambivalent about the subject himself. All I care about is that the statements that were identified by other editors are either properly sourced or removed. Kafziel ^Talk 17:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]