Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:28, 18 August 2014

BISS is not commonly used

In this revert vanamonde93 insists it is present in the references, I cannot find it. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I was careless, I thought you referred to the ABISY abbrv. I have removed BISS. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Objective of the organization in the opening sentence of the lead

Jyoti, you just hit 4 reverts, self-revert now or I'll see you at AN3. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Jyoti, last chance. Self-revert now. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are five diff where you have reverted me five times within last 1h. You put a warning on my talk page after my fourth edit. See the timestamps in you ANI appeal. You waiting two minutes to file an ANI: , , , ,. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Reverts count towards 3RR only if they are non-consecutive. One of them (the quotes) looks like two thanks to an edit conflict; which is why I have not counted it for you, either. I am on three; you are on four. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to go by the letter of A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert? Lets actually talk about the content, I will repeat what I have written in edit summary, I gave reliable sources for it: should the opening statement of an organization not tell its stated objective directly insead of presenting someone's opinion as the objective in[REDACTED] voice? I will be glad to expand if you want more clarity to understand my viewpoint. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You still removed content sourced to a university publication. And no, we need not give its own stated objective, certainly not without framing it as such. Finally, you still seem to have trouble understanding WP:BURDEN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand burden clause, I added three reference. To take it to WP:RSN because you have deleted it and insist that it is unreliable is not part of WP:BURDEN. You claimed it is by VHP in your edit comment. Which clearly shows you had wrong information. Do you dispute that? Lets get back to the content. Do you want to completely ignore their mission statement on their website too? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You say you want to discuss it? Fine, but not when you are sitting on a version created by violating policy. Self-revert the lead, and I will remove my report. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That does not hinder discussion in my opinion. I explained I have not violated burden, and I stand by it. About sitting on some version, if I may be blunt, with no offence, you are gaming the system because you are equally guilty of edit warring. Your warning notice on my talk page is after my fourth edit. Lets keep our statements to the disputed content (as the opening statement of the article).--AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Then we are at impasse, and we can wait for the outcome of the report, even if those are symmetrical blocks. If you think you can bully me into discussing by removing a scholarly source 4 times, you are mistaken. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I did not remove any reference. I have added three references. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear both, calm down please. I have been enjoying both of your edits. I don't know why there was need for any reverts. Reverts make it hard for some third party like me to understand what has been done. So, please use them sparingly and discuss the issues here so that we can all learn from you. Uday Reddy (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you're right, you did not; but you did remove content sourced to a peer reviewed journal, and then reverted four times to keep your version. Self-revert (or let Uday Reddy revert; not particular). But I will not discuss any content with you, when you sit on a version backed by four reverts; because that would be like playing nice to the schoolyard bully after he has taken your money. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the last edit of User:AmritasyaPutra (nice name!). When I came to this page a few weeks ago, the lead sentence said "with the objective of rewriting history from a national perspective". User:Vanamonde93 changed it to "Hindu nationalist perspective," which I thought was perfectly fine. If Hindu nationalists are proud of what they do, they shouldn't be touchy about being called so. If they want to claim that they are perfectly neutral and scientific, well, only cuckoos will believe that! Organiser is also clearly a Sangh publication, not a mainstream newspaper. So, it can't be used except to state a POV. The POV in this case is stated in the immediately next sentence. So, I don't see the problem. I will put back the citation to The Hindu article, which was already on my To-Do list in any case. Uday Reddy (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Uday Reddy, Jyoti; Okay, now we can discuss this like civilised people. Due thanks, Reddy. Here is my main point; a google scholar search, as well as a college search engine I have access to, but I will not reveal which, and I dunno if you will take that at face value shows that Berti is the only scholar who has significantly studied this organisation. Therefore, WP:DUE would indicate that her views must be included, and indeed must form the basis for out reading. Now, Jyoti/Amritasya has added three sources. Let me take them one by one;

1) The Organiser (newspaper) is an organ of the RSS, as its own website admits. Therefore, it is effectively an SPS in this case. However, it can be reliable as a mouthpiece of the RSS, to express the view of the RSS itself, if we should decide that is necessary.

2) The second source is "The Hindu", which is perfectly reliable. But here is what it says, and I quote "Mr. Kataria asked the historians of Akhil Bharatiya Itihaas Sankalan Yojana -- who have taken up the task of rewriting ancient Indian history -- to research and highlight the message of human welfare and inculcate among the history students a respect for the ancient Indian civilisation." This is far less detail than in any of the others, and it contradicts neither my version nor Jyoti's.

3) Finally, the ABISY's own website. This is obviously an SPS, and so reliable for statements like "the ABISY says XYZ," but for nothing else.

So this leaves us with the following; the only source reliable enough to present in Misplaced Pages's voice is Berti, and I believe my reading of Berti is correct. If, in addition to her view, you wish to include the ABISY's own version of its mission with proper attribution, I will be fine with that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, as Reddy says the lead currently reports the view of the ABISY as well; if Amritasya wishes to tweak that, and attribute it to the ABISY, I am willing to work through that. Also, can we get rid of that silly "page needed" tag at the bottom? Perhaps Uday Reddy could deal with it; I do not intend to touch the article page for the next 24 hours. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The objective of the organization in the first opening sentence should be same as what the organization says. Their website is the best reference for it. Also, Organiser having an association with RSS does not make it unreliable by default. WP:SELFSOURCE. Berti's interpretation comes next, and that too with attribution, not in Misplaced Pages voice unless it is the common interpretation. Your version is not in line with the version of The Hindu newspaper either. "Page needed", is better than "not in reference", it shouldn't be a challenge for a reader to verify something. I have at no point indicated that I want even 1 of the 11 reference of Berti removed. All of them are there.--AmritasyaPutra✍ 13:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Kindly put back "The Hindu" reference, all of us unanimously accepted that one and yet it remains deleted? Berti also defines RSS as a militant organization but that is not how the opening sentence of the RSS article reads. you having found only one journal article (one of which is self published sort of, not university journal) does not by default imply that it is the most authoritative and comprehensive content on the subject. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 13:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no flaming hurry to replace the Hindu ref, as it adds nothing; if Reddy were to add it, I have no objection. I am not going to touch the article page for 24 hours, I suggest you do not, either. Also, please find me a policy which says that the objective of an organisation must present its stated objective in WIkipedia's voice? Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

lol. Focus is content, if you have no objection to Reddy adding it I can add it after some time too. He himself said he will add it but he forgot, so it was a reminder! Common sense is the answer. What an organization's objective-is is taken from the organization's statements. What others infer about it is what-others-infer-about-it. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you deliberately being dense? Adolf Hitler's stated objective was world peace, and he started a war that killed sixty million. By your logic the Nazi party page would contain "world peace" as its objective in Misplaced Pages's voice, and that is patently ridiculous. WP:RS and WP:NPOV dictate that an outside secondary source is better, and a scholarly source even more so. "Commonsense" by itself holds no weight here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)