Jump to content

Talk:Nirmala College, Muvattupuzha

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

File:Nirmala college.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Nirmala college.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nirmala College Llibrary & Reserch Centre.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Nirmala College Llibrary & Reserch Centre.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Nirmala College Llibrary & Reserch Centre.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

[edit]

The section is too detailed and WP:UNDUE. The page is on a college, and one lone incident can't take up so much space, however controversial it may be. The issue needs to be summarised more succinctly. Please look at WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, which describe these common phenomena.

Also, After the incident have happened,the Muslim community have apologized for the incident.Also State SFI president have clarified they are not involved in the protests.The user @അദ്വൈതൻ is not allowing anyone to put both these sentences in the article.The user അദ്വൈതൻ seems to want to present the Muslim community in a bad light without revealing the complete details. They are credible sources that for the both these sources. Please discuss this in talk page and reach a consensus before revertingTmanthara (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @Tmanthara. The section is overly detailed and reads more like news than an encyclopaedic entry. The entire incident should be condensed to 2-3 sentences or removed altogether. It is a minor event that gained attention due to politicization and does not add any significant encyclopaedic value to the article about a decades-old educational institution. - The9Man Talk 06:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True! I believe Wikipedia is not a newspaper.Content needed to be presented in a encyclopaedic tone.It should be as as much neutral as possible and story has to be presented from both the angles. Tmanthara (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The9Man this institution is managed by the same Catholic diocese as the Newman College, Thodupuzha which was infamous for the dismembering of its professor's wrist by members of an Islamic organisation(which was banned only recently) by accusing him of blasphemy, and the incident of dismembering occurred in Muvattupuzha. Though as of now this particular controversy isn't at all directly connected with the aforementioned incident, the diocese(Church run institution), the place and it's former background naturally lead to significant coverage from National media even before the mainstream State media took the issue.(demands by Muslim college students for veil in India are already international news, so their demands attracts significant news coverage)
And about this controversy, it is first time in this a decades-old educational institution. and also first time in Kerala such a demand (separate prayer space for Namaz within the campus) is raised by (female students of)particular community in another community run institution, and this demand will garner significant news coverage sans any politicization, leading the college authorities to organise a press meet for this issue. Considering the demand and socio-religious background, this controversy has significant encyclopaedic value. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tmanthara reply to this Muslim community have apologized for the incident. Also State SFI president have clarified they are not involved in the protests.The user @അദ്വൈതൻ is not allowing anyone to put both these sentences in the article.
The current version and the version when I first[1] added the controversy section includes the line

Criticized for their partaking, the SFI State Secretary clarified that their organization was not involved in any protests occurred in College.

The reaction of local Mahal committee wasn't available with reliable sources when I added the section(that news appeared in national English newspapers in 30 July), which you added later along with significant altering and removing content from the existing version as you can see here[2] which made me to undo altogether. So your accusation against me not letting anyone include this is futile(provided time, I could have included but you didn't stopped and reverted following mine).
The user അദ്വൈതൻ seems to want to present the Muslim community in a bad light without revealing the complete details. The students already made them in the bad light when they made this outrageous demand in the first place and even with the Mahal committee's response(apologies in your terms), the protesting students seemed to be in that same opinion when the New Indian Express met them for their response here[3]. Here the protesting students are denying that they demanded separate prayer space for Namaz but duly signed request(in Malayalam) by the female students was later released(which is available across social media such as mallu_intellectual[4] Instagram platform) which straight away refutes their claim. Anyway it isn't me who is making anyone in bad light and it isn't any Wikipedia editors duty to cover up anyone's bad light if that's the reality. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly when the state SFI president and district MSF president themselves have already clarified that they were not at all involved in the incident, you should have removed 4th line in the controversy section which accuses the involvement of those 2 political parties.Firstly writing something and then writing contradicting statements will create confusion among readers.
Secondly, I have not denied the inclusion of the section or the encyclopaedic value of the section. What I told is since it is 75 year old college, and one lone incident can't take up so much space of approximately 20 percent of the entire article , however controversial it may be. The issue needs to be summarised more succinctly. This is in guidelines with WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE.We can’t write Wikipedia like a newspaper.Please understand that.
Thirdly if you wanted to include Mahal committee’s apology, you would have only partially reverted my edit.I have clearly wrote in edit summary that one of the reason I am reverting your edit is because you have not included the apology from Muslim clergy.But anyway I am happy we have reached consensus in the inclusion of apology from the Muslim community in the section.Thanks a lot for that!
Finally,Sorry if you feel I am rude but the complaint was raised by just 3 female students in an institute where at least 100 Muslims study. When I wrote number 3, you reverted it.Writing an article with an intent to overgeneralise this to the entire community and non-inclusion of apology in the article is the definition of stereotyping and Islamophobia whether you deny it or not.@അദ്വൈതൻ Tmanthara (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RECENTISM is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Also this section is neither WP:ROUTINE nor a Original reporting and has significant historical basis(as I elaborated in my previous replies, or just say what made the College to hold a press conference for their internal matter first time in its history, if it was a petty issue it wouldn't have garnered this much attention in the first place to hold a press conference) for the inclusion in encyclopaedia sans cutting out. WP:DUE is for within an issue and I have given equal weightage for every side which is also the reason for the section's length.
Firstly when the state SFI president and district MSF president themselves have already clarified that they were not at all involved in the incident, you should have removed 4th line in the controversy section which accuses the involvement of those 2 political parties.Firstly writing something and then writing contradicting statements will create confusion among readers it is not me being contradictory, it is the MSF and SFI that seemed to be contradictory here. The MSFs amd SFIs district representatives(if I remember it correctly) themselves given their statements to news outlets supporting the demand before its State representatives denied their partaking. Denied or not it has been recorded with reliable sources and it is not upto to the Wikipedia editor to decide which is the truth on their behalf by choosing one over the other.
The number three(number of female students) in the citations[5]&[6] is available from only a statement by the students' union and not as a figure reported by the news sources or from the statements of respective official authorities of college. Therefore unless other reliable sources are available who are reporting the number of female students or has statements from college authorities, these citations[7]&[8] cannot bear the count of female students, hence removed.(the scope of inclusion of that figure with just these two sources is possible by phrasing the line as according to "that" students' union three female students… )
Wikipedia doesn't do censoring to the content for the matter in may lead to Islamophobia or blasphemy.
And for your information it upto the students to apologise for this issue and not the Mahal committee, if verily an apology matters. With New Indian Express reporting (latest of the issue as I mentioned in my earlier reply), it is explicit those students involved in the protest are not in a mood to apology, even blatantly lying that they haven't demanded separate space. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RECENTISM is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Also this section is neither WP:ROUTINE nor a Original reporting and has significant historical basis(as I elaborated in my previous replies, or just say what made the College to hold a press conference for their internal matter first time in its history, if it was a petty issue it wouldn't have garnered this much attention in the first place to hold a press conference) for the inclusion in encyclopaedia sans cutting out. WP:DUE is for within an issue and I have given equal weightage for every side which is also the reason for the section's length.

You want to enforce your ideas on this article which is not at all acceptable.If you want to understand what I meant by “Wikipedia is not a newspaper” ,than simply be a propaganda tool, please read Wikipedia featured articles and good articles.

The number three(number of female students) in the citations[9]&[10] is available from only a statement by the students' union and not as a figure reported by the news sources or from the statements of respective official authorities of college. Therefore unless other reliable sources are available who are reporting the number of female students or has statements from college authorities, these citations[11]&[12] cannot bear the count of female students, hence removed.(the scope of inclusion of that figure with just these two sources is possible by phrasing the line as according to "that" students' union three female students… )

Please listen to press conference of Principal.You will understand.Also read the request letter circulating in social media that you yourself have provided in your previous reply as proof.

And for your information it upto the students to apologise for this issue and not the Mahal committee, if verily an apology matters. With New Indian Express reporting (latest of the issue as I mentioned in my earlier reply), it is explicit those students involved in the protest are not in a mood to apology, even blatantly lying that they haven't demanded separate space

They have denied it because of over sensitisation of the issues.I believe it’s common sense to understand that at least. They have never told they are don’t feel apologetic to what they did.So you can’t never say they don’t feel sorry for it.Also that doesn’t give you right not to include Muslim clergy’s apology.Since you have agreed to include that fact now atleast let’s close debate on this point here.

it is not me being contradictory, it is the MSF and SFI that seemed to be contradictory here. The MSFs amd SFIs district representatives(if I remember it correctly) themselves given their statements to news outlets supporting the demand before its State representatives denied their partaking. Denied or not it has been recorded with reliable sources and it is not upto to the Wikipedia editor to decide which is the truth on their behalf by choosing one over the other

It’s just like saying Modi and BJP is responsible for all the illegal activities any of the 10 lakh plus BJP workers does.The state president of the political party have came out and told they are not involved.There is video evidence for that.As for your claim , other than some claims from right leaning newspapers there is no evidence.Can you provide me with video evidence of SFI involvement? I bet you cannot.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmanthara (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nirmala_College,_Muvattupuzha&oldid=1238788062"