Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 79
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
Dispute overview
A user (Zoltan Bukovszky) insists that the personal titles of various people be included in lists of state leaders. I have contended that this information constitutes biographical information which is beyond the scope of the articles, as well as being confusing and making some parts of the list difficult to read. Other user ignores my points and continues belligerent reverts of my edits.
Issue has carried over into "List of current heads of state and government" and more recently flared up again in "List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence".
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office#Personal titles
Recent edits on List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence
User talk:Farolif#Sir, Dame and Sheikh Forgot abt this discussion, too - in which Zoltan admitted that the personal titles are unnecessary as well ("...they are prime minister or emir nevertheless...").
This is a misrepresentation (or misunderstanding, at the very least) of what I said there, as the point I was making was that the inclusion of titles creates no confusion - contrary to your claim. ZBukov (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
How do you think we can help?
Explain scope and stay on topic to other user.
Summary of dispute by Zoltan Bukovszky
Farolif came up with the idea that the inclusion of 'Sir', 'Dame' and 'Sheikh' in front of people's names is 'irrelevant', 'confusing', 'out of scope' or 'biographical information' and mass-deleted them from the article. He is ignoring the fact that this is how those people are routinely mentioned in the UN list of heads of state and government (http://www.un.int/protocol/documents/Hspmfm.pdf), the countries' government webpages and most Google searches for their names. And he keeps mass reverting it whenever I restore them. If that is the way those people are called than - in my opinion - it cannot be regarded either as irrelevant or out of scope, it isn't confusing since the names are links to the articles about them, and as for the 'biographical information' argument since these titles are used as part of the names, it's completely dissimilar to their date of birth being being put put next to the name, for instance. Therefore to me Farolif's staunch determination to to delete them constitue an unreasonable loss of valid and relevant encyclopedic content. ZBukov (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office discussion
Nobody is asking to see the UN protocol list or the respective leaders' government websites. ZBukov seems to be mixing up "names" with *forms of address*, the latter of which includes titles, while "names" do not. Also, every instance of a personal title used on these pages requires a separate Wikilink to direct someone to the article about the person (ex. - Sir Frederick Ballantyne|Frederick Ballantyne) - which is not the same thing as Zbukov's claim that "the names are links to the articles about them". Farolif (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- "Nobody is asking to see"? What kind of argument is this? :) If the Governor-General of Saint Lucia is Dame Pearlette Louisy (as evidenced by the above and many other sources like www.rulers.org, www.worldstatesmen.org, the London Gazette (http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/56198/notices/1002/all=pearlette+louisy), Archontology (http://www.archontology.org/nations/st_lucia/00_1979_td_gg.php) rendering the fact undisputed) then why would your unacknowledged personal dislike or some unexplained, nonexistent confusion be relevant enough to say otherwise (only wishing to see Pearlette Louisy)? And what is this argument about requiring a separate Wikilink? They were there, before you started painstakingly deleting them! ZBukov (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- No, I don't think I was deleting the Wikilinks; they've been intact through this whole ordeal. The name of the GG of St. Lucia is Pearlette Louisy, who is also styled as 'Dame'. The rest of your diatribe is sheer speculation and assumption that these various external sources apply to the issue at hand. Farolif (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry to have to diappoint you, but 'Dame' and the other words in question are not styles, in the Dame Pearlette's case her style is 'Her Excellency' which no-one wants to put into these articles - but that's merely a side-note. So to stick to the Saint Lucia case, all of the following sources name the Governor-General of Saint Lucia as 'Dame Pearlette Louisy': the Government of Saint Lucia (http://www.stlucia.gov.lc/profile/her-excellency-dame-pearlette-louisy), the United Nations, http://www.rulers.org/ruls1.html#saint_lucia, http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Saint_Lucia.htmlhttp://www.archontology.org/nations/st_lucia/00_1979_td_gg.php, to name the most evident ones. So you are saying that all this is irrelevant, right? And you have still failed to explain the confusion which you think this might cause. Would you please be so kind as to finally expound? ZBukov (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well, in the case of the List of current heads of state and government, a person could read the office as "Governor-General Dame" if you leave her title dangling on. And her 'Dame' title is shown on her WP article, which does not require same title to link to it - Pearlette Louisy - therefore nullifying all of your myriad sources as being critical to the issue at hand. Farolif (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- If this is the confusion you fear than please rename the Prime Minister of Bangladesh to prevent people from thinking that "Prime Minister Sheikh" is a title... It doesn't seem reasonable to hide facts to make up for a lack of minimal intelligence and/or knowledge about the topic one is reading about: moving the mouse over the link reveals in an instant that 'Governor-General' and 'Dame Pearlette Louisy' are links to two separate Wikipedia articles and the boundary between them is not between the words 'Dame' and 'Pearlette'... And anyway this argument is only applicable to one of the two articles from which you keep mass-deleting information, as the names and positions aren't right next to each other in the List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office article. I'm relieved to note that you appear to have stopped deleting information from this latter article. ZBukov (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- So now you suggest a task (changing another person's name) that is not only unnecessary here, but totally beyond the control of a WP editor. Brilliant; or, to borrow one of your phrases - "What kind of argument is this?" Wouldn't it be simpler to remove the titles so that a reader's mind is not required to be constantly flipping between "title", "not a title", "title", "not a title", etc? And you're also assuming that everyone who reads a Wikipedia article actually has a mouse to "mouse over" a line and read the preview bar (which they also might not have on whatever device they're using). Though I'm glad to hear I've given some respite to your life by my self-imposed moratorium on editing the List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office page - on which, by the way, you are so far the singular minority in favor of keeping the titles. Farolif (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- The rhetorical device I used in calling on you to rename Sheikh Hasina is called irony. The two people possibly in point, your sole ammunition for the 'confusion' claim, are Sheikh Hasina and Prince Johnson (I can't think of any other off the top of my head). Sheikh and prince are universally known words as titles, and I believe an incomparably smaller percentage of humanity will be erudite enough to be aware of these as being names in some cultures. Therefore even with the titles omitted from the article, most people will perceive them to be a person named Hasina and titled Sheikh, and one called Johnson of royal heritage. So you will hardly be able to prevent the 'constant flipping' of their minds... And as I said, if the reader is interested, they can always visit the relevant article for more information. As for the talk page and the question of minority, there was a single other person contributing to the debate between yourself and me, and he opined in favour of keeping the titles but deleting the Sirs and Dames, so that was a 'yes' and a 'no' to both of us. Interpreting that as supporting your side sounds like desperate cherry-picking. But your self-imposed moratorium is laudable regardless whether it resulted from seeing the untenability of the 'confusion' claim in light of the article's format, or from fatigue. ZBukov (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- No, that still wasn't irony. Irony would have been if through some great feat I successfully changed Sheikh Hasina's name, and the new name still caused confusion to people, or did not achieve the initial goal of satisfying the person who charged me with such a task. You are also ignoring the opposite problem caused by recognizing "Sheikh" and "Prince" as names - including them as titles can confuse some people to think that Khalifa's first name is "Prince", or Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani's first name is "Sheikh". True, there's no way to phrase a foreign name so that every single person will read it as only a name 100% of the time and not interpret part of it as a title. I suppose we should be thankful no state leaders are named "Don" or "Duke", although we do have currently have a "Baron" :o. But I would say it drastically reduces the chances of such confusion when we don't mix the two by having "Sheikh"s as person's titles in the same list as people with the name "Sheikh".
- The only desperation here is from the person dredging up UN protocol lists time and time again along with multiple external sources without explaining how any of it helps the article or resolve the issue at hand, the person trying to explain how a reader can avoid confusion by using technical means they might not have at their disposal, the person trying to discredit their opponent by pointing out alternate definitions of their opponent's word-choice. And the only fatigue I feel comes from dealing with a person who persistently proves themselves incapable of thinking critically about a problem. Farolif (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, please, if anyone could explain why a reader would expect to see the personal titles of leaders on these pages in question, I'd appreciate their insight. Farolif (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not that familiar with DRN but I have strong doubts this is what is meant by 'Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary' or 'Do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread. - this is not the article talk page' . I would note despite this lengthy discussion, there is still no opening statement by Farolif. If this was intended to be such it was presented wrongly, which of course probably isn't a good reason to have a long discussion involving only extant editors. Nil Einne (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, please, if anyone could explain why a reader would expect to see the personal titles of leaders on these pages in question, I'd appreciate their insight. Farolif (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, it seems discussion has been rather quiet here. Is this still in need of assistance? If so, please let us know ASAP. Steven Zhang (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'll speak up to say it still does need assistance. I, for one, just got tired of repeating the same points over and over again without either Zoltan's properly addressing them nor any volunteer involvement. Farolif (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Turkish people
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Cavann (talk · contribs)
- Yalens (talk · contribs)
- Proudbolsahye (talk · contribs)
- Athenean (talk · contribs)
- TU-nor (talk · contribs)
- Jingiby (talk · contribs)
- Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
2 issues. First is the wording of a sentence in the lead. Second is about adding or removing information in the "Prehistory, Ancient era and Early Middle Ages" section. Based on journal articles [1] (5 of em here) and other ones like [2], and on secondary sources [3] (very reliable [4]), I have suggested a compromise wording here [5]. However, other editors suggested adding UNSOURCED statements not backed by any of studies [6]. So, the first issue is what this sentence in the lead should be: "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times.j[›][71][72][73] Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups,[68]k[›][74][75][76] but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples." Second issue is adding these relevant reliably sourced material (or similar wording) in "Prehistory, Ancient era and Early Middle Ages" section. [7]
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Extensive talks here: Talk:Turkish people. Most recent discussion is here: Talk:Turkish_people#So_what.27s_the_reason.3F
How do you think we can help?
Offer us an opinion with respect to Wiki policies, especially Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:OR
Summary of dispute by Yalens
First of all I’d say the key to this for me is sources. At the moment right now the side in favor of mentioning Turkish people primarily descend from natives that the invaders assimilated has a host sources on its side. However, various editors, as some have openly stated on the talk page, disagree with the theory and at least one thinks it is a nationalist concoction (I don’t buy this: Turkish nationalism actually prefers descent from Central Asians- exactly what is being refuted by this study- and not only are the sources varied but the author of one of the studies is Armenian, thus for obvious reasons unlikely to be trying to support that ideology, but whatever).
It’s been claimed that the sources are “controversial”. For the most part, they are actually quite usable academic sources and I have yet to see sources criticizing any of them with regards to this topic. They have also brought up two sources that supposedly “tell a different story”, but neither actually counters the theory. Furthermore, it has been claimed that the studies are “cherrypicked”. I don’t buy this either, as genetic studies are not (yet) huge in number, and the bulk of studies on Turks that cover this topic are already included. They still haven’t produced a paper refuting the elite dominance-cultural assimilation theory.
With all that having been said, some of the complaints are actually legitimate in my mind. For example, the mass inclusion of heavily cited material in the lead. I think compromise is possible, and most editors from both sides have made attempts at this. But the discussion often gets caught up in logistics and attempts to negotiate the whole page at once. There’s also a tendency to argue about things that both sides actually agree on. I personally support compromises such as this one ([[8]]. --Yalens (talk) 03:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Proudbolsahye
First off, the way this dispute was filed through this DRN is unacceptable on the grounds that alternative propositions are nowhere to be found in the Dispute overview. I don't feel that the dispute in its entirety is properly addressed and the nomination in itself promotes one side of the argument. If this is how this issue is attempted to be "resolved" and if the Dispute overview is worded in this manner, I highly doubt the resolution board will reach any plausible conclusion. In addition to this, you claim without any sort of context, that I proposed leaving the sentence unsourced, which I felt as a sort of attack against me with the caps locks. On the other hand, I specifically pointed out that WP:WHYCITE suggests that sources in the lead are often discouraged, which leaves us to do some explaining in regards to individual genetic studies and their conclusions in another part of the article. Regardless of that fact, I am not going to contribute to such a noticeboard until ALL viewpoints and propositions are properly addressed in the Dispute overview. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Athenean
Rather than a problem of "sources vs. no sources", as Cavann puts it, the issue here is that sources are being misused and misinterpreted, as well as WP:UNDUE. Many of the sources provided by Cavann do not actually back the very strongly nativist wording that he suggests [9] (see the last sentence of the removed part). Another problem is the repetition of the same material throughout the article for effect, for example a sentence that is clearly about genetics in the history section (see previous diff). Some sources, such as Antonio Arnaiz-Villena are controversial, yet they are inserted multiple times throughout the article, including the lede. Cavann insists on a very strong wording, that the modern Turkish population are the direct, lineal descendants of Bronze Ages populations, even though the literature is in agreement that the demographic and genetic history of the Anatolian landbridge is extraordinarily complex and the situation is not that clear and simple. There is a lot of WP:IDHT in the talkpage, which makes this issue very hard to resolve. Athenean (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by TU-nor
I'm out traveling with only sporadic Internet connection, so I will not take much part in this discussion. Just a comment: My concern has been to try to find some middle ground. I suggested striking out one word, and the response from some editors was: Yes, we like this. Someone else said that it made things even worse. To meet this last response, I thereafter suggested to change one word. The response (from one of the editors that liked my first suggestion) was that this was completely unacceptable. With that kind of reactions, there is not much hope of building a consensus. I'll come back to this discussion if I can, but if not, I just hope that some of the editors take a short pause to try to understand what the other editors are saying. --T*U (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Jingiby
Summary of dispute by Antidiskriminator
I don't think the dispute has been presented in an objective and neutral manner by editor who filed it here. Its not about well sourced compromise vs. unsourced position of other editors. It would be against WP:NPOV to give undue weight to some controversial genetic studies by presenting them in the lede. This edit (diff) explains why. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- In the above link I pointed to 2008 work written by Pamela Kyle Crossley which explains why it is (still) impossible to support extraordinary claims about the past of the modern social constructions like nations with genetic studies of the past:
- Genetic studies of the past are controversial ("Critics of Cavalli-Sforza's work have increased in recent years, and critics of new gene studies of the past have always been active...")
- Genetic studies of the past have circular reasoning issue because they contradict themselves.
- They first emphasized that there is no scientific basis for the concept of the nationality (races...) and that genetic differences between people within the same nationality are bigger than between different nationalities.
- Then they used "social constructions" like nations to make conclusions beyond what anthropologists and cultural historians have already surmised.
- It is obvious that compromise proposal has not been accepted so the "Thracian Turks" hypothesis should not be presented in the lede of this article but in its genetics section and (if it is really important and notable) in separate article about Genetic Studies on Turkish People like in case of genetic studies of Arabs, Jews, Serbs, Sinhalese or Sri Lankan Tamils.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Yerevanci
Antidiskriminator makes a very good point. I'd like to add that Cavann does not provide the alternative arguments or proposals that Athenean and Proudbolsahye put forth. This looks like another attempt by him to push his POV. All the sources that he gives to back up the theory that modern Turks primarily descend from Ancient Anatolians are problematic (e.g. that author of a few sources has been involved in several controversies). That theory is only supported by selective articles, which we generally call WP:CHERRYPICKING. Athenean's proposal is much more balanced and better reflects the situation without favoring one conclusion of the study of another. More importantly, this discussion will get us nowhere with such a dispute overview as this one. --Երևանցի talk 23:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Alexikoua
I've tried to make a number of specific proposals concerning several sections of the article. What's disruptive in this case and I've noticed that very soon, is the extreme wp:own activity by Cavann. Endlessly reverting various edits by other users, even ones that finally accepts as reasonable (like the Hittite map case in Prehistory section, although after a couple of rvs). In general I agree with Athenean's proposal, since the present form of the article suffers from wp:synth and wp:or, especially the introductory parts need to be fixed in order to get rid of conclusions that are not based on reliable material.Alexikoua (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Turkish people discussion
Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am neither taking nor opening this filing for discussion at this time, but want to comment about the objections that this is not properly filed. If you feel that the issues were not properly presented by the listing editor, you have (at least) two choices: (1) If you feel that dispute resolution would be helpful you can set out what you feel the proper issues should be and a volunteer will consider expanding the listing or (2) you can simply decline to participate here (participation in dispute resolution is never mandatory). Merely objecting to the way the listing editor presented the matter will be taken to be #2 unless you do #1, and if significant participants in the dispute decline to participate then this request will probably be closed. Remember that DRN isn't a courtroom that will make a binding judgment, but is only a forum for assistance with negotiation and/or neutral third party nonbinding evaluation, nothing more. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Antidiscriminator's response perfectly exemplifies why we need mediation. S/he seems to think some random comment by Pamela Kyle Crossley (who is a historian) invalidates all reliable life-sciences sources, such as Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's books and newer journal articles. That is why we need assistance with respect to WP:verifiability and WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Cavann (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- I should also say I liked TU-nor's compromise offer. Cavann (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Does this still need our assistance? Steven Zhang (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Steamtown, U.S.A.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Discussion has gone stale and filer not responding to suggestions Hasteur (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Photo of Azerbaijanis in Gyumri
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Consensus is to not restore image at this time. Underlying Armenia/Azerbaijan issues complicate this for leaning to not-include Hasteur (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
occupational health psychology
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Referring to WP:ANI to deal with conduct issues and to launch a RFC on the talk page to establish a consensus Hasteur (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Acid Rap
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | This is now clearly primarily a conduct dispute. DRN does not handle such disputes. Consider ANI or RFC/U for conduct disputes. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Shraddha Kapoor
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Pending in other forums, including RSN and Third Opinion. Per our guidelines, DRN is inappropriate for matters pending in other forums. Feel free to relist if processes there do not resolve the issues. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Saib Tabrizi
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No extensive talk page discussion as required by the guidelines. All forms of content dispute resolution require some degree of talk page discussion before requesting DR. If the other editor will not discuss, consider the suggestions made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Council on American–Islamic Relations
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No extensive talk page discussion as required by the guidelines. All forms of content dispute resolution require some degree of talk page discussion before requesting DR. If the other editor will not discuss, consider the suggestions made here. Hasteur (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Electric Current
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No recent extensive talk page discussion as required by the guidelines. All forms of content dispute resolution require some degree of talk page discussion before requesting DR. If the other editor will not discuss, consider the suggestions made here. Hasteur (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Demographics of New York City
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
Estimate of languages spoken in New York City. 1. Last September I replaced a sentence in the opening paragraph in the above article that stated as many as 800 languages were spoken, making NYC the most linguistically diverse city in the world. The original sentence was cited to a piece in the New York Times of 2010, where the figure of 800 was attributed to "some experts". I replaced the sentence with an estimate of 200, citing the current New York City Department of Planning webpage. 2. My revision was reverted by 173.63.176.93 in Dec 2012, and a new citation added, to the website of the Endangered Language Alliance, which also features the estimate of 800 languages, again attributed to "some experts". 3. After explaining my motives and inviting input in Talk, I replaced the 800 figure with 200 on 4 Sep this year. It was reverted by Castncoot, who also reverted my language edit of another section of this article earlier the same day. 4. After discussion, I suggested a compromise sentence which included both figures, with citations, on 11 Sept. This was initially accepted by Castncoot, but criticised (although not rejected) by 173.63.176.93. Castncoot then returned to his original position and stated that he considered the original '800' sentence "the truth". 5. After posting an appeal for consensus, with no replies, I posted an intention to replace the sentence in the article with the compromise version, and that I would seek mediation here if it was reverted. I did so yesterday. 6. It was then reverted by 173.63.176.93.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have posted requests on Bervies, 98.113.136.78, Castncoot and 173.63.176.93's Talk pages requesting them to look at the article Talk page.
How do you think we can help?
Read the Talk page "800 Languages?" section, and offer impartial advice, which I for one will accept without question.
Summary of dispute by 173.63.176.93
Nobody agrees with Robocon's sentence but he won't accept it. Continue on the discussion page, please. Does castncoot even know that robocon is pulling people into this?173.63.176.93 (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Castncoot
I'm sorry, I've been busy and continue to be busy in real life. But briefly for now, I'm afraid Robocon1 has grossly misrepresented my viewpoint, more so on the actual article's Talk page than here. I initially expressed tolerance for his position out of exasperation (because he had already sent me 3 or 4 messages to my own User Talk page); then it was a whopping total of only 7 hours before I realized that his position did not correctly represent the material at hand and that I should not be pressured by him into accepting content which I absolutely do not believe to represent the correct course.
The article's Talk page summarizes the argument nicely; therefore, it's not worth repeating here. Castncoot (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Prosfilaes
The sources being pushed by Castncoot are not all that reliable. Any good source for a statement like 800 languages should come with descriptions of what they mean by "languages spoken in" and list of languages, like any peer-reviewed work would demand. Numbers that we don't know how they were created are always problematic. "Making it the most linguistically diverse city in the world" in the article is even a misquote of the New York Times article being pushed, which says "It is the capital of language density in the world", turning an figurative statement into a definitive one. An edit that names sources[12] was summarily reverted for one that treats 800 languages as if that were a universally accepted number.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Demographics of New York City discussion
Continue on the discussion page, please.173.63.176.93 (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, could you please explain how "some experts" qualifies as a reliable source over the cities own statements? This is a difference that is a factor of 4. While the US government is in partial shutdown the census information is offline... complicating this mess. But even simple searches relay that the number of languages used in the USA is 311.[13] This by reverse association says that 311 languages are in use, so 800 cannot be in New York City alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
B. R. Ambedkar
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Premknutsford25 (talk · contribs)
- Qwyrxian (talk · contribs)
- Sitush (talk · contribs)
- Blueyarn (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
I would like to contribute to this article with following authentic information, If anyone having any concern with this article, please discuss , so that we can contribute the article as per Wikipedia policy.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
talk page, discussed there , tried to improve the article to match the wikipedia policy.
How do you think we can help?
Neutral experience administrator can guide to solve this dispute , we are trying to match the wikipedia policy.
Summary of dispute by Qwyrxian
As long as the above editor is willing to contribute civilly, without casting aspersions on myself and other editors, I'm willing to continue the discussion. We may as well do so here. But I am not interested in a discussion if it's going to include insults and insinuations that I'm part of some sort of meatpuppet cadre, as the OP has already implied. Also, we need to notify the other people who've already contributed to the discussion (I know Sitush did, I'll have to check if there were more). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Premknutsford
thanks Fordx12. Please see the talk page of Ambedkar with Number 46 'Request to add sections to article'. I tried my level best to match wikipedia policy to contribute, After getting some valuable suggestion from users, I updated the draft. But without proper study some user taking excuse of the article. About meatpuppet , no body's name were mentioned who was involved in meatpuppet, it's upto one's own thinking. No comment on this. I updated this draft with reliable sources as well. Not able to understand the (centric point of) some user. Requesting all time ,neutral point of USERS. I like to invite one more user called @Blueyarn: who was also involved. Thanks Premknutsford25 (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Please find the details about the updated draft that I was contributing.
'I would like to contribute to this article with following authentic information, If anyone having any concern with this article, please discuss , so that we can contribute the article as per Wikipedia policy.'
updated draft request to add sections to article I'm collapsing this to keep the talk page easier to read.
|
|---|
Role in Economic PlanningA leading economist Narendra Jadhav[1][2][3] said that,“Ambedkar is the highest educated Indian economist of all times.”[4][5][6][7]. "He was the first Indian who had done Ph.D. in economics from outside the country."[8] Ambedkar contributed on post war economic development plan of India is considerably very high and profound particularly in field of humanity, equality, social justice along with economic planning, water resource and electric power development.[9] Member of Planning commission and National advisory council asserted that, Ambedkar made special provision for the finance commission every five years in the Constitution. Finance commissions of India refer "Evolution of Provincial Finances in British India" for all the reports, which was Ambedkar's Ph.D Dissertation at Columbia University.[10][11][12]
Role in water resource and power planning“In 1942-46 he(Ambedkar) created for the first time a department of power at the national level. The present Central Electricity Authority owes its existence to Dr. Ambedkar”. [13] Ambedkar, the then member-in charge of power and work in the Viceroy’s cabinet, and under his leadership water resource and power planning was formulated. In 1945, under the chairmanship of B. R. Ambedkar, the then Member of Labour,[14] Government of India established two technical organization which were known as 1) Central Waterways, Irrigation and Navigation commission and 2) Central Technical power Board, today it is known as Central water commission and Central Electricity Authority respectively.[15] [16][17][18][19] “Ambedkar advocated, the concept of 'River Valley Authority' to manage the Inter-state river valley projects.” Under his leadership Government adopted a resolution to set up the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) which is based on Tennessee Valley Corporation (TVC) in march 1948. [20] Ambedkar hoped that “waged work in modern industry” [22] would help to liberate the depressed class from their rural poverty and his intent for promoting such Inter-state river valley project will offer opportunity for the generation of cheap hydro-electric power, This project set the foundation for other project such as Bhakra Nangal, Damodar Valley, Mahanadi, Sone and Tungabhadra river projects. "[23] Contribution of these projects to Indian economy is substantial and gives strength to Indian economy. In recent ,It has been observed that ,National Water Policy (2001) draft is based on inter basin transfer of water which was suggested by Ambedkar around 50 yrs ago. [24]
|
- Sorry, when I came back, I posted to the article's talk page rather than here; I'll repeat them here, because on the talk page, Premknutsford and I don't seem to be getting anywhere between just the two of us. I have two major concerns with the above draft.
- The first section, talking about Jadhav's opinion about Ambedkar's qualifications as an economist are, really, just that--Jadhav's opinion. Now, I accept that Jadhav is a fairly respected economist in India, important enough to have a WP article. Nonetheless, I don't believe his opinion is important enough to meet WP:UNDUE and be included as a major section in this article. As far as I can tell, while that opinion has been repeated in a number of Indian newspapers, no other economist (or other academic) has stated agreement with that opinion. That means it's still just the opinion of a single academic. And since it's really a statement of opinion (not fact), it's really inappropriate, I believe, to overemphasize it. I don't believe it should be in the article at all, but, if others think it deserves some mention, it should be embedded somewhere else in the article as a single sentence backed by a single reference, to make sure that it doesn't break WP:UNDUE.
- The article by Abraham does not meet WP:RS for the statements which Premknutsford wishes to use it. Abraham was a government bureaucrat. Yes, he was involved with aspects of the government along with Ambedkar. But that does not mean that he is has the level of expertise (or independence) needed to make judgments about Ambedkar. Furthermore, if you look at the excerpts of the book that are available (if you can see them via Google Books), the book is very clearly an autobiographical piece, written in first person, reflecting Abraham's judgment, not something drawn together as an independent researcher. Perhaps there are some things for which this book could be considered an RS, but not what Premknutsford has used. I don't know if this matter can be really dealt with here, or if it might be better at WP:RSN. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
B. R. Ambedkar discussion
Hi, I am your DRN volunteer for this discussion. A few things to remember. First, avoid typing with emotions involved. Take a moment, breathe, walk away and do something else and then come back. Second, stick to the facts and avoid accusing anyone of anything unless there is evidence to back it up. If there is evidence, please seek the proper notice boards for such a thing. Before we begin, it would be nice for Sitush to make comment, since he/she has been mentioned. I dropped a ping on Sitush's talk page. Until then, please make sure to state what the specific dispute is in a concise manner so that we can begin with a clean slate here instead of continuing a complicated long thread from another place.Fordx12 (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, this is just a second test to see if the bot works to "open" this case Fordx12 (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Quick note: I'll be off WP for about 48 hours from now, sorry. definitely willing to continue from then. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
@Qwyrxian: you don't believe one person opinion, but in wikipedia, such a reference is in most of the articles and acceptable as the claiming person is widely recognize in that subject. your centric view won't allow you to recognize it. who bother about your opinion? as leading economist opinion is considerable not yours. We are writing article to match WP policy not to satisfy opinion of administrator. We clearly mentioned a statement of leading economist as per WP policy. If you like to verify the degree and honor received by Ambedkar, please take a look at it. Again on Abraham, see teahouse discuss as well, this book can be consider as reliable source. About Prathipati Abraham. Experience administrator also said that , that book can be treat as reliable sources. https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=damming-the-mahanadi-river-the-emergence-of-multi-purpose-river-valley-development-in-india-dsouza.pdf&site=253 this url also support Prathipati Abraham. Authors is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. This is well enough to meet WP policy. If you are talking about independent research please visit http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4412892?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21102736221167 , This journal is published by Economic and Political Weekly. As people around the world use WP as a source of information. We need to present it in systematic and clear way by making "Role in X ". It's your way of thinking not allowing to see truth. sorry nobody can help you, it's only you to help yourself to accept the truth. sorry to say but Most of the time you proved to be wrong because of your centric view .Sorry if looks rude on your opinion.Premknutsford25 (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- I moved the discussion under the last summary for organizational purposes.
- Okay, let's see if I got this straight. Correct me if I have the "facts" of the dispute incorrect. Qwyrxian wants to add the collapsed information to the current article, but Permknustford doesn't believe that Jahdav's opinion as an economist is notable enough to meet the requirements of WP:UNDUE. Permknutsford also feels that Abraham's opinions should not be written in such a way that they seem to be "factual" or based on some sort of research/researcher's opinion. Qwyrxian says that Abraham's book is reliable, as others have noted elsewhere. Permknutsford just doesn't feel that it can be used as an "experts" opinion to give value judgments like a newscaster can say who's the best Football player in the world (soccer).
- Now here's one thing I noticed about Abraham. Yes, he has an article on an academic journal, but I am not sure on what capacity he is included in there. Is it the opinion of an individual who is experienced in dealing with economists? Is it as a PhD who is writing a paper based on his research? If he is not an "economic expert" is his opinion as a political leader important in India? If the governor of the USA state of Florida names someone as being the best Anthropologist, his opinion carries weight due to his influence in the public and is noteworthy enough. Is it enough to say that said person IS the best anthropologist or that he is considered the best? Absolutely not. So it depends on how you write it. So that's my main question about Abraham, how notable is he?
- Is Jahdav a leading economist in the region? If so, that makes him notable enough to mention. But WP:UNDUE does imply that you can't make it out like if it is the opinion to be believed above other opinions. So one person, notable, in the fields believes he's that good. And another socially notable person feels that Ambedkar is the best. Is that still enough to say that people, and thus the research from secondary sources, state that he is considered to be the best at this or that? What I mean is that every book claims to be a "best seller" the problem is that logically not every book can be the best seller.
- Please provide your input and point out any of my mistakes, if I made any. Also, please note that I am not dealing with any of the accusations. Let's keep those away from this page. It's not a good idea to assume that "meat puppeting" is going on without actual behavioral evidence WP:AGF. Fordx12 (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- You've got the positions reversed: Premknutsford supports adding this information, and I oppose. But the rest is basically correct. Let me focus in on just Jahadav: in earlier drafts, Premknutsford made it more sound like Ambedkar "is" the best educated economist, and one thing I do appreciate is that the newest version is much more clear that this is just Jahadav's opinion. What I am asserting is that we can't just fill up a biographical article with random opinions of random people (even if they are notable). WP:UNDUE says that we should only include opinions with due reference to how important the opinion is in the real world. And, basically, unless we can show that this opinion is held by more than one person, it basically falls under WP:FRINGE, which says we don't mention it at all. But even if we could agree that it deserves at least some mention (something I'm willing to consider), it cannot be highlighted in the way Premknutsford wants. Premknutsford is essentially engaging in hagiography--trying to find things to praise Ambdekar for. Well, Ambedkar is a praiseworthy fellow, but we need to not go out of our way to find everything that he might have done that might be "good", and need to instead focus only on the major aspects of his work. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
@Fordx12: @Qwyrxian: @Blueyarn: Yes, I am supporting to add this information as per WP policy. First Jadhav is Leading and notable Economist, to prove this, some link was also provided. If we study the degree and honor received by any INDIAN on economics which support Jadhav claim. Again this is not something you are praising , This is something you are contributing valuable information. Only centric view can see as a praise, but neutral view say some information. About Abraham, Abraham is not economist, he is expert in Energy and power sector. He held highly responsible post on Energy and power sector. His expertise on Energy sector can't be ignorable. Please read below mini biography of Abraham.
Mini Biography of Abraham. I'm collapsing this to keep the talk page easier to read.
|
|---|
|
Mr. Prathipati Abraham Rao, IAS (Retd.), served as Secretary in the Ministry of Power, Government of India. Mr. Rao served as the Chairman and Managing Director of Maharashtra State Textile Corporation. Mr. Rao served for 35 years in the Indian Administrative Services, where he held a number of executive positions with the Central and State Governments such as Chairman of Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Commissioner of Industries, GoAP. He worked in various capacities as the Secretary Municipal Administration, Housing and Urban Development, Government of Andhra Pradesh. He served as Secretary to the Maharashta State Electricity Board and Secretary to the Energy Department of Government of Maharashtra. Mr. Rao served as Joint Secretary of Industries Department, Government of Maharashtra, Iron & Steel Controller, Ministry of Steel, Government of India. He served as Managing Director of Investment Corporation of Andhra Pradesh, Environmental & Energy Department Additional Secretary and Special Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, Secretary, Ministry of Power, Government of India. He was instrumental in the formulation and finalization of the Common Minimum National Plan for Power (CMNPP). He serves as Chairman of the Advisory Board at Amplus Infrastructure Developers Private Ltd. He served as the Chairman of Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. from February 1989 to July 1991. He serves as an Independent Director of NCC Infrastructure Holdings Limited. Mr. Rao has been an Independent Director of Orient Green Power Company Limited since March 27, 2010. He serves as a Non Executive Independent Director at TAJGVK Hotels & Resorts Limited and served as its Additional Director since April 30, 2009. He has been a Director of NCC Limited since January 11, 2006. He serves as Non-Executive & Independent Director of Lanco Infratech Limited and served as its Additional Independent Director since June 16, 2006. He serves as Director of Future Polyesters Limited. Mr. Rao serves as a Director of Jindal Power Company. He has been a Director of JSW Energy Ltd since October 20, 2003. Mr. Rao has been a Director of Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited since January 11, 2006. He serves as a Director of Futura Polyster Limited, Flex Middle East FZE, Vijay Electricals Limited, Himalayan Green Energy Private Limited and Green Infrastructure Private Limited. He has been a Director of GVK Power and Infrastructure Company Limited since September 10, 2005. He serves as a Director of Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. He serves as a Non-Executive Independent Director at Visaka Industries Limited. He serves as a Director of Lanco Power Limited. He served as an Additional Director of Taj GVK Hotels and Resorts Ltd., since April 30, 2009. Mr. Rao served as an Independent Non-Executive Director of Uflex Ltd. from October 30, 2003 to June 29, 2010. Mr. Rao served as a Non-Executive Director of PTC India Limited from June 1, 2004 to September 28, 2011. Mr. Rao served as a Non-Executive Director of Futura Polyesters Limited until September 8, 2008 and PTC India Financial Services Limited from June 4, 2007 to September 28, 2011. He was awarded the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation fellowship to study the promotion of industries with a special emphasis on export oriented industries in Europe. He authored a book on the power sector reforms with a focus on distribution in 2003. Mr. Rao holds a Bachelor's degree in Arts from Andhra University, a Master's degree in Arts from the Andhra University and a Diploma in Systems Management from Bajaj Institute, Mumbai. |
Few more clarification 1) A leading economist Narendra Jadhav[25][26][27] said that,“Ambedkar is the highest educated Indian economist of all times.”[28][29][30][31]. Users can verify this statement. you will come to know that Jadhav is a notable , leading economist and the statement he has given regarding the field of expertise subject is important. Again to verify the claim of that notable,leading economist , we can clearly see that the degree and honor received by Ambedkar support the claim. This is not something we are praising but something we are reveling the truth. In today world, WP is consider to be the source of information. It bad to limit the article on only one aspect as the contribution to nation and humanity is highly important and no one should ignore such contribution. It is we to present it , in understandable, systematic and clear way. 2)About the reliability of Abraham is not under doubt as he was expert and notable in the field of Energy and Power. Always remember that, WP is the source of information to the world, We are here to share the authentic and real information to world for there knowledge and nobody can stop us. Thanks Premknutsford25 (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Fordx12:Following is the summery of discussion.
- Narendra Jadhav leading educationist, eminent economist and Policy maker, well known social scientist and best-selling author. Prime minister of India has called him “a role model for the disempowered millions in India”. [14]
- He has served as Principal Adviser and Chief Economist in Reserve Bank of India, Chief Economic Counsellor for Afghanistan and Advisor to the Government of Ethiopia. He is one of the notable economists in the world. He has published several books on Ambedkar and Economics [15].
- Qwyrxian opposed the claim by such notable economist in “Role in Economic Planning” section whereas Permknutsford supports the claim.
- Prathipati Abraham is Non-Executive Independent Director of Gvk Power and Infrastructure Ltd. As a member of Indian Administrative Service he served in capacities at the Centre and State Governments. He is the Former Secretary Ministry of Power, Govt. of India. He held responsible executive positions in Centre and State Governments. He functioned as Chairman, Maharashtra State Electricity Board and he was the first Chairman of the State Electricity Board in the country. He was a United Nations Industrial Development Organisation Fellow on Industrial Development. He retired as Member, Union Public Service Commission. [16]. . He has published few research articles and academic books.
- Qwyrxian opposed the claim by Former Secretary Ministry of Power, Govt. of India in “Role in water resource and power planning” section whereas Permknutsford supports the claim.
- “worldhistoryconnected is not a reliable source” was claimed by Qwyrxian. Whereas worldhistoryconnected is a reliable source. (WHC is free worldwide. It is published by the University of Illinois Press, and its institutional home is Hawaii Pacific University).
- The claim was researched by Permknutsford. After a week Qwyrxian climed that it is reliable source. (BR Ambedkar talk page)
- After looking at above sources Narendra Jadhav, Prathipati Abraham and worldhistoryconnected can be added back. They are reliable sources.Blueyarn (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Blueyarn, I need to clarify something here, because both you and Premknutsford are making a common mistake: just because we have information, and that information is in a source that meets our definition of a "reliable source" does not mean that we automatically add the information to Wikipedia. That is, WP:V does not say "All information which is verifiable shall be included in Wikipedia". Rather, it's setting a minimum standard: "Only information which is verifiable shall be included in Wikipedia." There are other policies at play here, and specifically I'm arguing that including the Jadhav info violates WP:NPOV (the subpart WP:UNDUE), because it is nothing more than one person's opinions. You need to show more than "it's a reliable source". I'm not disputing, for instance, that ToI and the other newspapers that printed his opinion are "reliable". You need to show that this opinion is an important enough aspect of Ambedkar's greater life story that it deserves mention here. If we establish that it does (again, I'm not yet settled on this point), then we need to show how important it is: i.e., how much emphasis we should give it. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- After looking at above sources Narendra Jadhav, Prathipati Abraham and worldhistoryconnected can be added back. They are reliable sources.Blueyarn (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
@Blueyarn:@Fordx12: as we can see that the Qwyrxian having centric view and doesn't recognize the truth. He is opposing because he has to oppose. Most of the thing Qwyrxian stating is totally wrong. I think such user might harm WP to abstain the people to share their authentic and reliable knowledge to the world. Please suggest the administrator to add this valuable authentic information which is based on WP policy. If we add this, centric person may delete this with poor excuse, need to take some concrete action. Appealing to administrator to find the solution to stay away centric view people. Thanks Premknutsford25 (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Premknutsford25, I'm going to ask you one last time, politely: please stop the personal attacks. If you do not, I will have to withdraw my participation here; I simply cannot waste my time engaging with someone who doesn't Please also stop try to assert the truth, which 1) you don't have an exclusive claim to, and 2) has almost nothing whatsoever with what Wikipedia does. Again, I am not disputing that Jadhav claims that Ambedkhar is the most educated economist or whatever the exact words were. I believe this is true, and I believe you have verified it in reliable sources. Instead, I am disputing that this point is simply not important enough, because it is nothing more than a single person's opinion, and you haven't shown me any evidence (that I remember) to the contrary. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Qwyrxian, Please stop your centric view. Please try to be neutral. Neutral point of person is highly welcome not central point of view person. It is quite evident that , you are opposing because you have to oppose, such attitude is harmful to WP. Please change your centric view and try to be neutral all time. your neutral view will be highly appreciated and welcome. 1) About Exclusive claim. Now read carefully.
Dr.AMBEDKAR (1891-1956)
B.A., M.A., M.Sc., D.Sc., Ph.D., L.L.D., D.Litt., Barrister-at-Law.
B.A.(Bombay University) Bachelor of Arts,
MA.(Columbia university) Master Of Arts,
M.Sc.( London School of Economics) Master Of Science,
Ph.D. (Columbia University) Doctor of philosophy ,
D.Sc.( London School of Economics) Doctor of Science ,
L.L.D.(Columbia University) Doctor of Laws ,
D.Litt.( Osmania University) Doctor of Literature,
Barrister-at-Law (Gray's Inn, London) law qualification for a lawyer in royal court of England.
Inter 1909,Elphinstone College,Bombay Persian and English
B.A, 1912 Jan, Elphinstone College, Bombay, University of Bombay, Economics & Political Science
M.A 2-6-1915 Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University, New York, Main-Economics
Ancillaries-Sociology, History Philosophy, Anthropology, Politics
Ph.D 1917 Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University, New York, 'The National Divident of India - A Historical and Analytical Study'
M.Sc 1921 June London School of Economics, London 'Provincial Decentralization of Imperial Finance in British India'
Barrister-at- Law 30-9-1920 Gray's Inn, London Law
D.Sc 1923 Nov London School of Economics, London 'The Problem of the Rupee - Its origin and its solution' was accepted for the degree of D.Sc. (Economics).
L.L.D (Honoris Causa) 5-6-1952 Columbia University, New York For HIS achievements, Leadership and authoring the constitution of India
D.Litt (Honoris Causa) 12-1-1953 Osmania University, Hyderabad For HIS achievements, Leadership and writing the constitution of India.
Qwyrxian most of the time we found out that, you say without proper knowledge . your attitude and approach is very wrong. which is very dangerous for WP. As such attitude, you are abstaining people to share their valuable, authentic , reliable information in line with WP policy. you need to change yourself. About JADHAV claim, study that statement properly. Sorry, if look rude on you. Premknutsford25 (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
DRN Coordinator's note: I am the current coordinator here at DRN. @Premknutsford25: You have been asked several times to stop making personal remarks about other editors. Such comments are not permitted here at DRN. Do not say anything about another editors biases, motives, knowledge, attitude, approach, COI, bias, or other personal characteristics. If you continue to do so, your edits here may be deleted or this filing may be closed without resolution pursuant to this policy. Please limit your remarks here to content, not editors. If you wish to pursue conduct complaints, the right place to do it is at ANI or at RFC/U, not here. (While this note is particularly directed at Premknutsford25, it applies equally to all other parties to this dispute, of course.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry I've been busy these past few days. Permknutsford25, I don't think accusing anyone of anything helps here. This is about looking at the content and trying to come to a compromise. You speak about harmful attitudes to WP, well, making harsh accusations like that is not conductive to a helpful and productive atmosphere.
Allow me to weigh in my opinion. I think the information should be included but within reason. This article is about one man, therefore you need multiple sources, meaning more than just two, to assert things. Otherwise Wikipedia just becomes a PR firm for any one individual. That's where undue weight comes into play. However, they are reliable sources as in it is confirmed that someone of worth and knowledge of the subject matter has indeed published said information.
Are all parties willing to craft a shorter version of the desired edit (that uses less quotes and opinion words) based on the sources provided? This would be a much shorter and concise section, no more than a paragraph, that only has objective descriptions. Such as "Jadhav, a leading economist [a citation would be needed for this claim], says that Ambedkar is a very intelligent economist and one of the first to obtain a PhD outside of India" then move on to name where that PhD came from in another sentence. Then in two or three sentences summarize his role in water, resource, and power planning. If anyone wants more details they can always refer to the sources, or perhaps someone can create an article that deals with some of Ambedkar's projects. Does this sound like a good compromise? I am just posting an Idea. Fordx12 (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
@Fordx12:, @Blueyarn: some user having objection to the statement said by jadhav , they want not to include this statement and that statement was , " A leading economist Narendra Jadhav[32][33][34] said that,“Ambedkar is the highest educated Indian economist of all times.”[35][36][37][38].", if you observe this statement, we can easily see that, we provided citation to the claim to whether jadhav is leading economist or not ? This citation says that, jadhav is leading economist. As per WP policy if we are coping any statement as it is, we have to enclosed that statement on "". we did it, so that, that statement became, A leading economist JADHAV said, that, "Ambedkar is the highest educated Indian economist of all times." Again, to find the fact about this claim, when we research about the degree, honors and contribution of Ambedkar as a economist, we found out that, he (Ambedkar) did, (B.A, M.A, M.SC, D.SC, PH.D) in economic and when compare to this education with other prominent economist of INDIA, like Amartya sen - (B.A.,M.A., Ph.D), Narendra Jadhav -(B.Sc, M.A, Ph.d) ,Jagdish Bhagwati - (B.A, Ph.d),Meghnad Desai - (B.A.,M.A.,Ph.D),Montek Singh Ahluwalia - (B.A.,M.A.,M.Phil). so the claim made by Naredra Jadhav is true, and we are mentioning here because, people around world and INDIA, used WP as source of information, we are trying to provide them true and authentic information with reliable sources. One more thing. the statement we are providing on WP is "A leading economist JADHAV said that, "Ambedkar is the highest educated Indian economist of all times." If you see, this statement adhere with the WP policy, if you have any concern with this ,please discuss, as we need to provide true and reliable information to the world. And about the statement "He (Ambedkar) was the first Indian who had done Ph.D. in economics from outside the country." is not statement made by Jadhav, This statement was published in IEA NEWSLETTER The Indian Economic Association(IEA). Again about this Newsletter, it is independently research by Indian Economic Association and can be treat as reliable source. So please treat "A leading economist JADHAV said that, "Ambedkar is the highest educated Indian economist of all times." is the statement made by Jadhav and another statement "He (Ambedkar) was the first Indian who had done Ph.D. in economics from outside the country." made by Indian Economic Association. Thanks Premknutsford25 (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Fordx12:, @Blueyarn: If you both agree with above explanation, we can add the draft to the main article and then close this dispute. Thanks Premknutsford25 (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I want to clarify. The following sentence, "A leading economist JADHAV said that, "Ambedkar is the highest educated Indian economist of all times." shouldn't be used. Saying "Highest educated...of all times" is highly opinionated and not suitable and runs straight into WP:NOV and WP:UNDUE issues, even if quoting someone. It's an issue of wieght to quote just one economist making that specific claim. What I proposed was to say something like: "Economist Jadhav has said that Ambedkar is a highly intelligent economist (cite). He took part in <insert projects here and cite them> and is one of the first Indians to get a PhD outside of India (cite). Administrator of <insert title> Abraham believes that Ambedkar is <insert very short and concise opinion> (cite)." This is after all a proposal for a compromise. It's short, it's not misleading, and it provides the information Permknutsford25 wants without blowing things out of proportion to thus alleviate the concerns shared by others. So is this a fair proposal? If not, we could consider other options. Please comment Fordx12 (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks @Fordx12:for quick and valuable response. Please see the updated draft after applying your suggestion, In below draft, I tried to correct the disputed line. As other thing in the articles having no objection as explanation was provided. Please go through the draft, I added some citation from research paper to support the contribution on post war economic .., once @Fordx12: and @Blueyarn: is happy with this draft, i will add the updated draft to main article. Thanks Premknutsford25 (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
updated draft request to add sections to article I'm collapsing this to keep the talk page easier to read.
|
|---|
|
(==Role in Economic Planning == A leading economist Narendra Jadhav[39][40][41] claim that Ambedkar is highly intelligent economist having highest qualification among Indian economist. [42][43][44][45]. "He was the first Indian who had done Ph.D. in economics from outside the country."[8] Ambedkar contributed on post war economic development plan of India is considerably high and profound particularly in field of humanity, equality, social justice , woman empowerment along with economic planning, water resource, and electric power development.[9][46] Member of Planning commission and National advisory council claim that, Ambedkar made special provision for the finance commission every five years in the Constitution and Finance commissions of India refer "Evolution of Provincial Finances in British India" for all the reports, which was Ambedkar's Ph.D Dissertation at Columbia University.[47][48][49]
Role in water resource and power planning“In 1942-46 he(Ambedkar) created for the first time a department of power at the national level. The present Central Electricity Authority owes its existence to Dr. Ambedkar”. [50] Ambedkar, the then member-in charge of power and work in the Viceroy’s cabinet, and under his leadership water resource and power planning was formulated. In 1945, under the chairmanship of B. R. Ambedkar, the then Member of Labour,[51] Government of India established two technical organization which were known as 1) Central Waterways, Irrigation and Navigation commission and 2) Central Technical power Board, today it is known as Central water commission and Central Electricity Authority respectively.[52] [53][54][18][19] “Ambedkar advocated, the concept of 'River Valley Authority' to manage the Inter-state river valley projects.” Under his leadership Government adopted a resolution to set up the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) which is based on Tennessee Valley Corporation (TVC) in march 1948. [20] Ambedkar hoped that “waged work in modern industry” [55] would help to liberate the depressed class from their rural poverty and his intent for promoting such Inter-state river valley project will offer opportunity for the generation of cheap hydro-electric power, This project set the foundation for other project such as Bhakra Nangal, Damodar Valley, Mahanadi, Sone and Tungabhadra river projects. "[23] Contribution of these projects to Indian economy is substantial and gives strength to Indian economy. In recent ,It has been observed that ,National Water Policy (2001) draft is based on inter basin transfer of water which was suggested by Ambedkar around 50 yrs ago. [24]
|
- @Fordx12: Nobel laureate Sen also made similar claim "Ambedkar is my Father in Economics.....His contribution in the field of economics is marvelous and will be remembered forever..!" [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._R._Ambedkar#Role_in_the_formation_of_Reserve_Bank_of_India ]. In short many other economists made similar claims. Above is fair proposal. Premknutsford25's contribution should be edited again.Blueyarn (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Premknutsford25:
- The section "Role in Economic Planning" has two quotes and one important sentence. This is incomplete section. There are lot many research articles published on his economic work. Gold rate. exchange rate, economic development, Brtish economy etc. this was his economic work. You should edit it well from [ http://www.ssmrae.com/admin/images/fd35f634ca18de28948a10a1c5af368c.pdf ]. And update
- Remove over citing. for example, Narendra Jadhav has 3 citations. Keep only one citation of government. This is same for above many sentences. And same for "Role in water resource and power planning" section. Keep effective and quality citations.
- Dont quote sentences like " "He was the first Indian who had done Ph.D. in economics from outside the country."" Such sentences should be edited.Blueyarn (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding specifically Jadhav, I'd be willing to accept a sentence added to the B. R. Ambedkar#Higher education section, probably as the very last sentence, which said something like "Narendra Jadhav, a leading Indian economist, has said that Ambedkar was "the highest educated Indian economist of all times (full ref [17])." I don't think that any more is reasonable. Sen's words are basically meaningless, and while they might arguably be appropriate on his page, if there's some sort of "Influences" section, it doesn't belong here. And, to be clear, I do not believe this deserves a section of its own, as that's pretty much a solid WP:UNDUE violation.
- I still strongly object to Abraham, and would not be willing to entertain the matter until we saw a solid decision at WP:RSN that it met WP:RS for this specific information (note that I am very specifically saying "for this information"--I'm not question generally reliability, only his reliability to make these types of judgments about Ambedkar). Once we have that, then we can consider the matter of WP:UNDUE and how much of Abraham's ideas are worth referencing.
- Obviously, there's a lot more to consider (several other sections proposed by Premknutsford), but it seems easier to me to see if we have consensus on this point first. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ugh...I didn't realize that totally inappropriate quote from Sen is already in the article. Well, I guess we have to add that to the list of things to discuss.
- Also, to the DRN volunteers--can either I or you add a notice to the article's talk page stating that there is a discussion going on here, just in case there are other people watchlisting the article who might have some useful input. Or would that be a problem per WP:CANVAS? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Coordinator's note: I have just removed the last two edits made in this discussion (this one and this one) because they discussed conduct. Please feel free to restore them, but only after removing all comments about other editors' conduct or characteristics. Restoring them without editing them or continuing to make remarks about other editors will cause this listing to be closed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Fordx12:@Blueyarn:@Qwyrxian: After having consensus on JADHAV sentence we will add the Jadhav claim, I am strongly taking objection on Qwyrxian opinion. I strongly support to have a separate section . After study i found out that ,there are several research paper available to show the work done by ambedkar on various issue like Land reform, Agriculture development, Economic development, Energy and power sector contribution, View on Taxation, India's currency problem,contribution to Woman empowerment . Any one can find this research paper on this link, ((http://www.ssmrae.com/admin/images/fd35f634ca18de28948a10a1c5af368c.pdf, http://www.dalitstudies.org.in/wp/0904.pdf ,http://164.100.47.134/plibrary/ebooks/DR%20Ambedkar/%28sno24%29Ambedkar1.pdf, http://www.ssmrae.com/admin/images/7d5370343c544b144b6e6a691c7c2745.pdf, http://www.euroasiapub.org/IJRESS/July2013/3.pdf , http://www.ssmrae.com/admin/images/86838e6b69cd679371984c267b8faad7.pdf, http://www.ambedkar.org/research/DRAmbedkarsviewsonAgricultureIncomeTax.pdf, http://www.ijser.org/researchpaper%5CAmbedkars-Notion-of-Social-Justice-A-Different-Perspective.pdf and many more. so we will have Separate section for this as contribution (Land reform, Agriculture development, Economic development, Energy and power sector contribution, View on Taxation, India's currency problem} to these area Which is highly considerable , but we will provide the contribution in short and systematic way which will be under WP policy. But for now, we add this under discussion short draft then we can work on other section (Needless to say that, Every contribution must adhere to WP policy).
About Abraham, as provided already, Abraham claim was also supported by GOVT of INDIA. Please find all the supported link to Abraham claim . http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=14444 ,http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol9p30a.htm, http://www.mail-archive.com/zestcaste@yahoogroups.com/msg02253.html, day by day Abraham claim is supported, at recent event in Nagpur on 13 oct 2013, Union Agriculture Minister of INDIA, Sharad pawar also support the Abraham claim in front of millions people and also at convocation ceremony in some reputed universities, http://dnasyndication.com/dna/dna_english_news_and_features/Pawar-lauds-Ambedkars-role-as-power-minister/DNPUN58730, [56][57] [58][59][18] http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport/v2b3-6.htm, http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/8.2/br_laichas.html,http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/44E5.%20Dr.%20Ambedkar%20As%20The%20Member%20of%20Ex.Gov.Gen.Council%20QA.htm,
All claim made by Qwyrxian can be consider as meaningless. Let me clear you, Amartya sen is Nobel prize winner economist having INDIA's highest award and very highly respected as for as economist is concern in the world, who admitted that, he (Amartya sen) learnt lot of things from Ambedkar. I very strongly suggest to add this updated draft to the main article as it adhere to WP policy. Once i receive the okay from majority of the user, i will add the updated draft. Thanks Premknutsford25 (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Premknutsford, I could respond to quite a number of your points, but would it be possible to focus on one thing at a time? If you really want, we can simultaneously handle multiple disputes, but personally I've always found it easier to work step by step, gaining consensus (or not) for each part.
- If so, let's continue to focus on Jadhav. The reason why this shouldn't have a separate section is that Jadhav's quotation focuses on Ambedkar's education--not on what he "did" as an economist, but on how well-educated he was as an economist. Thus, it belongs in the Education section, not as a separate section.
- If not (if you want to try to handle everything at once), we should probably make separate subsections and lay out each of the problems. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- yes agree, first we will add this under discussion draft to main article then we will work on other section. First Jadhav, Jadhav claim about Ambedkar education but, if we observe the statement , it say that ,Ambedkar is highest educated Indian 'economist' of all times. As we see Jadhav had point out Ambedkar as a Economist, see we consider to add this claim of a leading economist in Economic section. As you know that, Economic section should deals with Economic contribution so we need to add about Ambedkar Economic qualification. as after this sentence we reveal the contribution of this economic scholar to INDIA and humanity. we try to start this Economic section with Ambedkar economic qualification then focus on the work done by him (and we kept the contribution as minimum as possible as contribution to the Nation and humanity is very highly appreciated ).
Second , Abhraham, As provided link, we can see that, Govt of INDIA, Some state Govt , as well as Union minister of INDIA along with other reliable books also support the claim made by Abhraham and Govt of INDIA has also said the same thing which Abhraham claim. so we provided the true picture here about the statement written by taking reference from Abhraham. All the statement proved to be true and authentic, so no need to play with it.
Third, Amartya sen is nobel prize winner economist who also having INDIA'S highest civilian award, is a notable person.
@Fordx12:@Blueyarn:@Qwyrxian: I strongly believe that, without wasting much more time (as we spend very good time) we should add the updated draft to the main article so that we can work on other section. As among four of us, (if three user out of four of us) say 'no' for addition of this article as a separate section , i will not add , otherwise, it will be consider as, majority is okay to add this information. Thanks @Fordx12:@Blueyarn:@Qwyrxian: ....Premknutsford25 (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Fordx12:Following is the summery of discussion.
- "Narendra Jadhav, a leading Indian economist,[ http://planningcommission.nic.in/aboutus/history/index.php?about=narendra.htm ] has said that Ambedkar was "the highest educated Indian economist of all times [18])." should be in B. R. Ambedkar#Higher education section
- It should be added in the education section as it is about Ambedkar's Education Lets finish discussion about Jadhav now. This proposal is agreed by all.
- @Fordx12:Following is the summery of discussion.
- worldhistoryconnected is the reliable source. This discussion is also finished. This proposal is agreed by all.
- What you have to say about Abraham ? I agree Abraham as a reliable citation [ http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=14444 ], [ http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol9p30a.htm ].Blueyarn (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Premknutsford25:
- The section "Role in Economic Planning" should be created. [ http://www.ssmrae.com/admin/images/fd35f634ca18de28948a10a1c5af368c.pdf ], [ http://www.ssmrae.com/admin/images/7d5370343c544b144b6e6a691c7c2745.pdf ], [ http://www.ambedkar.org/research/DRAmbedkarsviewsonAgricultureIncomeTax.pdf ]and update in the article.
- The section "Role in Land Reform and Agricultural Development" should be created. [ http://www.euroasiapub.org/IJRESS/July2013/3.pdf ], [ http://www.ssmrae.com/admin/images/86838e6b69cd679371984c267b8faad7.pdf ] and update in the article.
- [ http://164.100.47.134/plibrary/ebooks/DR%20Ambedkar/%28sno24%29Ambedkar1.pdf ] this is about life and important
- Other citations should be added in various sections
- 'Dont quote sentences like "' "He was the first Indian who had done Ph.D. in economics from outside the country."" Such sentences should be edited.Blueyarn (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Premknutsford25:
We should wait for a response from WP:RSN regarding Abraham before we move on. Qwyrxian does have legitimate concerns. Is the above from WP:RSN?. @@Qwyrxian: I would like to see if you could consent to an RfC on content once the final draft of the compromise is finished. That way you can ask other editors about some of your concerns regarding weight. I don't thing the page should be edited until concensus is reached by all parties involved. Does this seem fair? I don't like the idea of "Four out of Five" vote, it can still easily become another dispute where one out of five editors (or whatever total) feels like they are being ganged up on. There is no need to rush to edit any article unless there are pressing issues related to things like BLP. Are the above bullet points posted by Blueyarn agreed by all parties? Any objections?Fordx12 (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- No time today, but quickly: 1) Prem, please stop saying that we need to add the draft to the article. I have major objections to various parts. The whole point of DR is to get consensus, not just keep saying "i'm right, now let me put this in." 2) Fordx12, I will agree to an RfC, but would like to make sure we draft it together here first. I've had bad experiences with non-neutral RfC's before, and would hate to have to halt a running RfC because it started badly. Also, I don't think we're quite ready for an RfC, as we're already starting to find points of agreement, so we should get those locked in first, if it turns out we fundamentally disagree then rfc on everything will be needed. 3) At the moment, I believe we've agreed to talk only about Jadhav, so let's do just that. I believe the only question pending right now is where to put it. Could we, perhaps, agree to put it into the education section for now, and then later once we decide if we even need an econ section (I'm actually hoping we don't, and hoping, in fact, to make a major consolidation on already existing sections in the article), then consider moving it there later? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Fordx12:,@Blueyarn:,@Qwyrxian:, Not agree with Qwyrxian at all, 1) About JADHAV, Agree with Blueyarn. 2) Abraham , experience administrator also said that, the sources as reliable again(can verify in teahouse), to support the claim of Abraham as per WP policy, As provided earlier the url, which also support the Abraham claim. Govt of India also strongly support the Abraham claim, Union Minister of India also said the same thing which Abraham claim, citation also provided for that (As the claim made be Abraham was related to Govt of India). If someone has to oppose because he has to oppose then , nobody can help that person. This updated draft is written as per WP policy. Rather that questioning political way , we can work in more sensible way. i strongly believe that discussion should be result oriented not political. Thanks Premknutsford25 (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Fordx12:,@Blueyarn:,@Qwyrxian:, Please read the below latest updated draft and discuss on this latest updated draft at this point only, then will we work on other section. This draft fully adhere to WP policy. Request to talk about this draft only, please ignore previous draft as the improvement is applied to this latest draft, After carefully reading and verification of citation. you all will find the draft, you all wanted. As agree Jadhav claim will go to Education section. so moved that part from this draft, About Abraham, other reliable claim of Abraham, lots of other reliable source are also provided to support that particular statement. Please note that, only Abraham claim is not there. you will find some very authentic government portal along with reliable books citation also provided. In short, Abhraham, Govt of India, State Govt and reliable books citation is provided as per WP policy.
Latest updated draft after getting valuable suggestion from administrator. request to add sections to article I'm collapsing this to keep the talk page easier to read.
|
|---|
|
(==Role in Economic Planning == Ambedkar is the First Indian to complete the Ph.d in Economics from outside of the homecountry.[8] He contributed a great deal to the formulation of India's post-war economic development plan in general, particularly in field of humanity, equality, social justice , woman empowerment along with economic planning , water resource, and electric power development.[9][46][60] Member of Planning commission and National advisory council claim that, Ambedkar made special provision for the finance commission every five years in the Constitution and Finance commissions of India refer "Evolution of Provincial Finances in British India" for all the reports, which was Ambedkar's Ph.D Dissertation at Columbia University.[61][62][63]
Role in water resource and power planning“In 1942-46 he(Ambedkar) created for the first time a department of power at the national level. The present Central Electricity Authority owes its existence to Dr. Ambedkar”. [64] Ambedkar, the then member-in charge of power and work in the Viceroy’s cabinet, and under his leadership water resource and power planning was formulated. In 1945, under the chairmanship of B. R. Ambedkar, the then Member of Labour,[65] Government of India established two technical organization which were known as 1) Central Waterways, Irrigation and Navigation commission and 2) Central Technical power Board, today it is known as Central water commission and Central Electricity Authority respectively.[66][67][68][69][18][19]
|
Premknutsford25 (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Seriously, I almost don't know what to say here--the first sentence of that draft is such a ridiculous WP:NPOV violation that I can't be bothered to read any further. There is no case where we would ever, ever, ever have a sentence stating in Wikipedia's voice that someone's contributions "can be consider[ed] very important and profound particularly in field[s] of...." It is fairly evident that you either don't understand or don't accept our policies. I'm going to leave this draft alone, ask you to re-read WP:NPOV, then go back and look at the entire draft and see how to change not only that sentence but also ensure the rest of the draft also conforms to policies. This draft is not even a place to start. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
@Qwyrxian: you can read it again. some typing mistake corrected. First while reading, i hope everyone will read in neutral point of view then we will talk about policies . Thanks Premknutsford25 (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Fordx12:I have edited and added [19] Role in Economic Planning section without Jadhav and Abraham citations.
- "Narendra Jadhav, a leading Indian economist,[ http://planningcommission.nic.in/aboutus/history/index.php?about=narendra.htm ] has said that Ambedkar was "the highest educated Indian economist of all times [20])." should be in B. R. Ambedkar#Higher education section
- It should be added in the education section as it is about Ambedkar's Education Can we finish this discussion about Jadhav now. This proposal is agreed by all.
- What you have to say about Abraham ? what are your comments on Abraham ? I agree Abraham as a reliable citation [ http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=14444 ], [ http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol9p30a.htm ].
- @Fordx12:, @Qwyrxian: and @Premknutsford25:
- 1) Do you agree Jadahv's quote in education section? (Answer in YES or NO)
- 2) Do you agree worldhistoryconnected is reliable citation? (Answer in YES or NO)
- 3) Do you agree Abraham as reliable citation ? (Answer in YES or NO)'
- Lets sort out this disputeBlueyarn (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- 1) Yes, we can add it immediately to the education section and I think there are no objections.
- 2) It depends on what you are trying to verify with it. No source is reliable for everything. I'll have to get to that when I review the rest of Prem's draft.
- 3) No. And those 2 government sources you sited are useless for us, because they're both WP:PRIMARY documents.
- I'll try to review the draft today or tomorrow, but no promises. I have to handle my watchlist quickly today and then go back to real life. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
1)YES, I agree on Jadhav quote in education section.
2) YES ,I agree worldhistory is reliable citation, as we use to support the statement written in the latest updated draft related to worldhistory remarks.
3)YES, both of these govt portal provide strong support to the abraham claim, there is few more reliable sources which support Abraham claim , please have a look at ,[23], http://dnasyndication.com/dna/dna_english_news_and_features/Pawar-lauds-Ambedkars-role-as-power-minister/DNPUN58730,[20] , http://www.vigyanprasar.gov.in/scientists/saha/sahanew.htm. Please take a note that, not only Abraham claim the role of Ambedkar in Water and Energy development but also other reliable books and reliable article and news (as mentioned the latest updated draft) mentioned the Role played by Ambedkar in Water and Energy development. Premknutsford25 (talk) 09:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Qwyrxian:, @Premknutsford25:I have edited and added [21] Role in Economic Planning section without Jadhav and Abraham citations.
- I have added quote by Jadhav as agreed by all.Blueyarn (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Premknutsford25: How many times everyone should tell you about copyright violations? Your drafts has few copyright. Read Wikipedia policies of WP:COPYRIGHT.
- Remove over citing. Draft "Role in water resource and power planning" section again. Keep effective and quality citations.
- Dont quote sentences like “Ambedkar advocated, the concept of 'River Valley Authority' to manage the Inter-state river valley projects.” or “waged work in modern industry”. Such sentences should be edited.Blueyarn (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- My apologies to the other participants. Based on the last several days and looking forward to my real life commitments for the next several weeks, I don't think I'm going to be able to constructively contribute to this discussion. While I'll still have some time to commit to Wikipedia, it's going to be in smaller chunks and focus on simpler things; I'm not going to have the time needed to look carefully at the sources and analyze, which I believe is necessary for me to be useful here. Consider me as having withdrawn from this dispute, and feel free to proceed however you think best. At some point, I'd love to come back to this article and completely overhaul it (the entire organizational structure is flawed, in my opinion) but that's many months away at best. Best of luck and sorry if my partial involvement made this take longer than necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The Early Show
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Talk page discussion was opened today. Please refer back to the article's talk page (or to the suggested Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television) and come to a stalemate first. All forms of content dispute resolution require some degree of talk page discussion before requesting DR. If the other editor will not discuss, consider the suggestions made here. Hasteur (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Orthodox Christianity in Taiwan
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Discussion is referred back to article's talk page at this time as a consensus is forming. Hasteur (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
References
- ^ http://ihe.britishcouncil.org/going-global/speakers/dr-narendra-jadhav
- ^ http://planningcommission.nic.in/aboutus/history/index.php?about=narendra.htm
- ^ http://www.kiss.ac.in/news/nov11.html
- ^ http://www.thehindu.com/books/books-authors/words-that-were/article4750471.ece
- ^ http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/1320520/report-ambedkar-was-most-educated-economist-of-india-narendra-jadhav
- ^ http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/timeline/graphics/txt_zelliot1991.html
- ^ http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_education_degrees_are_there_with_dr_B_R_Ambedkar
- ^ a b c IEA NEWSLETTER The Indian Economic Association(IEA) (PDF). IEA publications,2013. May,2013. p. 10.
{{cite book}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) Cite error: The named reference "Econom1" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). - ^ a b c Socio-economic and political vision of Dr.B.R. Ambedkar. Concept Publishing Company pvt ltd. 2010. p. 174. ISBN 818069674-X. Cite error: The named reference "Econom2" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/constituent/vol9p9.html
- ^ http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/timeline/graphics/txt_zelliot1991.html
- ^ http://www.thehindu.com/books/books-authors/words-that-were/article4750471.ece
- ^ http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=14444
- ^ http://www.navratnanews.com/Hirakud/Hirakud%20Index.htm
- ^ http://www.nuaodisha.com/TouristPlaces.aspx
- ^ http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/44E5.%20Dr.%20Ambedkar%20As%20The%20Member%20of%20Ex.Gov.Gen.Council%20QA.htm
- ^ http://suniv.ac.in/page.php?page=nearby-places-to-visit
- ^ a b c d From powerless village to union power secretary:Memoirs of an IAS Officer. Concept Publishing Company(P) Ltd. 2009. p. 328. ISBN 81-8069-555-7. Cite error: The named reference "Econom3" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ a b c Indian Economic and social Histroy Review. SAGE Publications. 2009. p. 88.
- ^ a b c d Geographical Thought of Doctor B.R. Ambedkar. Gautam Book Center. 2009. p. 98. ISBN 978-81-87733-88-1.
- ^ a b c From powerless village to union power secretary:Memoirs of an IAS Officer. Concept Publishing Company(P) Ltd. 2009. p. 328. ISBN 81-8069-555-7.
- ^ http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/8.2/br_laichas.html
- ^ a b c d Indian Economic and social Histroy Review. SAGE Publications. 2009. p. 88.
- ^ a b c From powerless village to union power secretary:Memoirs of an IAS Officer. Concept Publishing Company(P) Ltd. 2009. pp. 328–329. ISBN 81-8069-555-7.
- ^ http://ihe.britishcouncil.org/going-global/speakers/dr-narendra-jadhav
- ^ http://planningcommission.nic.in/aboutus/history/index.php?about=narendra.htm
- ^ http://www.kiss.ac.in/news/nov11.html
- ^ http://www.thehindu.com/books/books-authors/words-that-were/article4750471.ece
- ^ http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/1320520/report-ambedkar-was-most-educated-economist-of-india-narendra-jadhav
- ^ http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/timeline/graphics/txt_zelliot1991.html
- ^ http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_education_degrees_are_there_with_dr_B_R_Ambedkar
- ^ http://ihe.britishcouncil.org/going-global/speakers/dr-narendra-jadhav
- ^ http://planningcommission.nic.in/aboutus/history/index.php?about=narendra.htm
- ^ http://www.kiss.ac.in/news/nov11.html
- ^ http://www.thehindu.com/books/books-authors/words-that-were/article4750471.ece
- ^ http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/1320520/report-ambedkar-was-most-educated-economist-of-india-narendra-jadhav
- ^ http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/timeline/graphics/txt_zelliot1991.html
- ^ http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_education_degrees_are_there_with_dr_B_R_Ambedkar
- ^ http://ihe.britishcouncil.org/going-global/speakers/dr-narendra-jadhav
- ^ http://planningcommission.nic.in/aboutus/history/index.php?about=narendra.htm
- ^ http://www.kiss.ac.in/news/nov11.html
- ^ http://www.thehindu.com/books/books-authors/words-that-were/article4750471.ece
- ^ http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/1320520/report-ambedkar-was-most-educated-economist-of-india-narendra-jadhav
- ^ http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/timeline/graphics/txt_zelliot1991.html
- ^ http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_education_degrees_are_there_with_dr_B_R_Ambedkar
- ^ a b Impact of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's thoughts on Indian Economy, Research Paper (PDF). International Indexed & Refereed Research Journal. March,2013. pp. 1–4.
{{cite book}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/constituent/vol9p9.html
- ^ http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/timeline/graphics/txt_zelliot1991.html
- ^ http://www.thehindu.com/books/books-authors/words-that-were/article4750471.ece
- ^ http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=14444
- ^ http://www.navratnanews.com/Hirakud/Hirakud%20Index.htm
- ^ http://www.nuaodisha.com/TouristPlaces.aspx
- ^ http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/44E5.%20Dr.%20Ambedkar%20As%20The%20Member%20of%20Ex.Gov.Gen.Council%20QA.htm
- ^ http://suniv.ac.in/page.php?page=nearby-places-to-visit
- ^ http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/8.2/br_laichas.html
- ^ Water Resource Management, Thrust and challenges. sarup and sons. 2006. p. 129. ISBN 8176256439.
- ^ http://www.nuaodisha.com/TouristPlaces.aspx
- ^ http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/44E5.%20Dr.%20Ambedkar%20As%20The%20Member%20of%20Ex.Gov.Gen.Council%20QA.htm
- ^ http://suniv.ac.in/page.php?page=nearby-places-to-visit
- ^ http://www.thehindubusinessline.in/life/2002/08/12/stories/2002081200210400.htm
- ^ http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/constituent/vol9p9.html
- ^ http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/timeline/graphics/txt_zelliot1991.html
- ^ http://www.thehindu.com/books/books-authors/words-that-were/article4750471.ece
- ^ http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=14444
- ^ http://www.navratnanews.com/Hirakud/Hirakud%20Index.htm
- ^ <http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol9p30a.htm
- ^ http://dnasyndication.com/dna/dna_english_news_and_features/Pawar-lauds-Ambedkars-role-as-power-minister/DNPUN58730
- ^ http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/44E5.%20Dr.%20Ambedkar%20As%20The%20Member%20of%20Ex.Gov.Gen.Council%20QA.htm
- ^ http://suniv.ac.in/page.php?page=nearby-places-to-visit
- ^ http://www.vigyanprasar.gov.in/scientists/saha/sahanew.htm
- ^ http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/8.2/br_laichas.html
- ^ http://dnasyndication.com/dna/dna_english_news_and_features/Pawar-lauds-Ambedkars-role-as-power-minister/DNPUN58730
- ^ http://dnasyndication.com/dna/dna_english_news_and_features/Pawar-lauds-Ambedkars-role-as-power-minister/DNPUN58730