User talk:Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas/Archive 11
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
|
I am busy in Real Life. Email me for anything urgent. I may not be able to contribute to Wikipedia at least for some time, since I have to devote my time for a lot of activities including shifting to my new place of work at Chennai |
|
Archives |
|---|
|
Sorted by Category Sorted by Date Old Account New Account |
ISBN
With due respect to you, I am astonished that you "find it hard to believe that Indian books do not carry ISBN numbers." THis is called as Cultural Divide, where in you are not able to accept that there is a world outside your country. By the way, even Bible did not have an ISBN number when it was published for 19 centuries in 200 languages till the 20th century. I am not talking about one word or one article alone, but I am worried, that most of the Wikipedians do not understand other cultures, other countries or other languages. In India we have Medical Colleges (not medical schools). We are not permitted to have an article about "Medical Colleges". Instead the article on Medical College automatically redirects to Medical School. I get a reply that there is "nothing called as Medical College". The truth is that the administrator is NOT AWARE of the concept of Medical College. WHen he does not know anything he automatically assumes that it does not exist. What to say about this. In this regard, (I am sorry to say) I find the users from the so called developed American and European nations who are so adamant and do not even believe that there is a world where there are drinks other than cola, and dress other than shirts. The same with ISBN :) :-) Doctor Bruno 18:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please explain this then
- http://www.isbn.org/standards/home/isbn/international/group_agencies_info.asp
- There is an isbn agency in india, but india does not use ISBN #s on books? Curious. Mike (T C)
19:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I never said that "INDIA does not use ISBN #s on books" . That was a misinterpretation. Please be kind enough to read my posts and see. I told that "95 % of Indian books do not have ISBN." Also books published before 1980 do not have ISBN. Only a very few percent of Indian books (that too technical books) have ISBN. I don't know how I can explain this to you. This is a fact. How can 'I' explain. You have to ask the publishers. I am glad that you are "curious" and not "astonished". Curiosity is the beginning of learning. I have written 6 medical books. Only 5 of those have ISBN. 3 publishers got the ISBN Numbers. The other publisher did not get the number. What can I do. Doctor Bruno 12:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Apologies for butting into this conversation. Given that ISBNs are universal in the west, I see why you're skeptical. Nevertheless, I assure you that it is still common practice for books to be ISBN-less in India. ISBNs are common (though not universal) in English-language publications, but are quite rare in vernacular publications. You can verify this yourself if you like by going over to the British Library's Public Catalogue, and running a search on "purananuru" (a classical text on which there've been quite a few Tamil academic works written recently). If you look at the ten or so post-1990 Tamil-language publications from all the results the search throws up, you'll see that only two of them have an ISBN listed. The results are more or less the same for any other Tamil term one looks up - and these, being books the British Library thought important enough to acquire, actually come from the better publishers, who're obviously more likely to acquire ISBNs than smaller publishers. -- Arvind 15:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to offer my knowledge of the subject. After reading this discussion, I went to my bookshelf to check. My copy of Srimad Bhagavatam, published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai, has no ISBN that I am able to find. It is a hardbound book with strong pages, a stiched binding, and a plastic dust cover. This same book can no doubt be found on many bookshelves in India. Surprisingly, however, I noticed that some of the books in my posession, also printed in India, which were of much lower quality had ISBN numbers. I'm not sure why that should be the case, but it is. Anyway, I hope that my observations may be of use to someone. Sincerely, --BostonMA 12:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- That indian books dont have ISBN numbers is the most ridiculous thing i have heard in a long while. If someone is trying to hide behind such a claim and push some POV, i request the admins and other wikipedians to put it down with an iron fist. I am Indian and have worked in Indian libraries full of books by indian authors and i know it for a fact that any book authored by someone worth his salt has an ISBN. I havent come across any book that has been written by a reputed author and published by a publisher with some standing that doesnt have an ISBN. If someone is making that claim, sorry to say...he/she's just plain lying.67.164.5.90 03:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- This is factually incorrect. Many books by reputed authors in India do, in fact, lack ISBNs. For example, one of the standard commentaries on the law of arbitration in India is Bhachawat, Justice R.S., Law of Arbitration and Conciliation (3rd edition, Wadhwa & Co., Delhi: 1999). It does not have an ISBN. This book is authoritative despite the absence of an ISBN: it was written by a judge of the Supreme Court, for heaven's sake! I'm happy to provide photos of the relevant pages of the book if you don't believe me, but you don't have to take my word for it. Search for terms in Indian languages on the British library's public catalgoue [1], and you'll see how many of the recently-published books in native languages lack ISBNs. This obviously doesn't mean that any book is worth citing - a lot of what is published in India, particularly on ancient history, is utter rot. But the presence or absence of an ISBN is *not* a good way of separating the reliable from the unreliable. -- Arvind 08:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Blogs and source
With reference to this I would like to point to you that many websites in India use the Blog Platform for maintaing and they are not "Blogs" in the term you mean. For example see here http://www.first-test-series.com/ That site too is designed with Blogger but is not a blog. I am not arguing that the source you edited is a valid one or a reliable one. (Please don't misunderstand me) I am just pointing out to you that not everything that may look like a Blog is actually a blog. Thanks for your time. This is just a general comment and not against your edit. Doctor Bruno 10:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- There are 2 things violated from your sources. One is that blog can never be a reliable source, because its reliability cannot be verified. Unless if the blog is officially run by the subject in interest. Quoted from WP:RS:
Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking.
...
A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own name or known pen-name and not anonymously.
- And I don't think that your case falls into the exception. The second one is that friendster, a social networking website, is not allowed as a source. If you don't have reliable sources about a fact, then don't assert it. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 10:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your message on my talk page. That is not at all needed. Especially the words your sources or your case. It was not my blog. I did not add that link. I was not asking you to replace it. I was not arguing for that blog. Your message tells me that you have misunderstood my first message. Please read my message. I have told more than once that my message is not supporting that blog or against your edit. It was a general observation. If you had not understand that (the message above), it is probably my fault of not being to explain to you !!!!. I regret my poor communication skills I was not able to convey that in the first message itself!!!!. Regards. Doctor Bruno 10:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- You wrote in my user talk: "What I was telling is that NOT ALL BLOGS(or sites that look like blog) ARE NON RELIABLE." Yes, there is a reliable blog. Their acceptance as reliable source in WP is very limited to the official blog written by the subject in interest. Don't worry, I've checked all blog links before I removed them.
- And you wrote also previously: "For example see here http://www.first-test-series.com/. That site too is designed with Blogger but is not a blog." The site is clearly a blog and worse that it is a commercial blog. I'm more than happy to eliminate that kind of link in WP.
With reference to your message The site is clearly a blog and worse that it is a commercial blog That is DEFINITELY a commercial site, but it is NOT A BLOG. You seem to have some confusion over what is a blog and what is not a blog. This was exactly why I posted the message in the first place. Please note that http://www.first-test-series.com/ (while a commercial site) can in no way be called as a blog. You can ask the opinion of others. (Not that I am going to link from that site) I just gave an example to illustrate that not all sites designed with blogger are blogs. The question is not whether that is reliable or not. The question is not whether that is a commercial site or not. The question is whether that is a blog or not. http://www.first-test-series.com/ is not a blog. Similar sites are not blog. This is just to tell you that not all sites that look like blog to you are really blogs. You still seem to be confused. I am sure that my communications skills are to be improved as I am unable to tell you WHAT IS NOT A BLOG even after this example. Doctor Bruno 14:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- What I am confused is your repeated statements: blog is not a blog ????? You gave me an example of definitely a blog. Yet, you didn't tell me why the example that you gave is not a blog. Tell me why? — Indon (reply) — 14:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I never told blog is not a blog. Also I never told whether the site you edited was not a blog. I was just cautioning you that there are many sites which may look like blog, but are not blogs. I only told that http://www.first-test-series.com (for example) is not a blog, but http://www.aftermbbs.com/updates/ (for example) is a blog. As per Blog, A blog is a website where entries are made in journal style and displayed in a reverse chronological order. As per Webster blog is a Web site that contains an online personal journal with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer . Now you Compare the above two sites. You do not have the reverse chronological order (you do not have any chronological order for that matter) in the first example. See that there are no dates in the http://www.first-test-series.com It is just like any other web site. Dates and Timestamp are the most important criteria for a blog. Now compare http://www.targetpg.org and http://www.first-test-series.com and you will see that they are similar. The only difference is that the former is developed by Front Page and the later by Blogger. The former is hosted at the own domain and the later is hosted at Blogspot, but they are NOT BLOGS. Now compare http://www.aftermbbs.com/updates/ with http://medicolegal.blogspot.com/ The first is hosted at the own server and the second site is hosted at Blogspot. But both are blogs. So the Server or the Platform used does not determine whether a site is Blog or not. In the same way, even http://www.nellaimedicos.org/bruno/ is a Blog, inspite of the fact it is not made by Blogger platform and inspite of the fact that it is not hosted in Blogspot. Hope I have made things clear. Any doubts, please ask and I can try to explain more. I regret my poor command and language and communication for not being able to explain to you in the first instance Doctor Bruno 17:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't care whether a blog that looks similar like a blog is a blog or not. I do care that a source is reliable or not, whether it is a lookalike blog, or lookalike social networking site, or lookalike commercial site. — Indon (reply) — 17:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Google hits must not be taken as a sole yardstick in Asian related AfD's. Newspapers of Vernacular Languages may have millions of readership. For example, in India every state has its own language. There are more than 20 widely speaking native languages in India. But the news reports from the newspapers of such languages are not available in google search.Take the case of Malayala Manorama Newspaper. Currently this Malayalam language newspaper has a readership of over 9 million, with a circulation base of over 1.4 million copies according to Audit Beureu of Circulations. Manorama is one of the India's largest selling and most widely read news paper. There are more than 50 such newspapers in India. News reports from such dailies are not available in google eventhough it have millions of readership. But news reports from English dailies with 1000 or 2000 copies are available in google search. It is really misleading...Isn't it...? In this context of notability tests based on google hits may be a worthless, foolish effort. In such circumstances we must consider the words of native wikipedians with more importance. May I know ur valuable opinion ……? Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 05:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have been telling this for months Doctor Bruno 12:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)