Talk:Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
"Castes in India" article
[edit]Copy-pasted from User talk:Ranjithsutari for further reference. Shivashree (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I will copy here what I wrote at WP:REFUND (because discussions from that notice-board get archived quite soon, and the links may be useful to you) and add some advice.
I have restored the article into your user space at User:Ranjithsutari/Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development where you can work on it. When you think it is ready, you might consider asking for comments by posting a message at WP:Requests for feedback. Before moving it back to the main encyclopedia, you should get permission from user Kurykh (talk · contribs), the administrator who closed the deletion discussion. If he does not agree, you can go to WP:Deletion review.
At present the article says nothing about the document - only that it was presented as a paper and then published as a book - with a link to the complete text. This is almost using Wikipedia as a way of publishing it; but one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies is that it publishes WP:No original research.
The article should give a brief summary of what the book says, but what is most needed is to establish notability by references to comment about the book by people independent of it and its author and publisher. Has it been reviewed, or been cited by others? See WP:BK. The point of the notability policy is that Wikipedia editors do not make value judgements about whether a subject is important or significant; we simply ask, have other people, independent of the subject, found it important and significant enough to comment on? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I am very Thankful for you precious advice. I hope very soon this article will find a place in Wikipedia. Regards,--Ranjithsutari (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Ranjit: Good work going at User:Ranjithsutari/Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development. Keep it up. I have fixed a few wikilinks in the article and made some minor copyedits. This presentation is an important book for research and study of caste system in many universities and academic programs. This sentence seems a bit ambiguous; can we re-frame it with avoiding the dubious words with some firm reference? This article is cited by many scholars several times and it is certainly an important document for the researchers of the subject. You can find some scholars who cited this book here and here. Sincerely, Shivashree (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- also have a look at this article Analysing and ethnicising caste to eradicate it more effectively by Christophe Jaffrelot. Shivashree (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Once again "Castes in India"
[edit]Hi Ranjith: I really appreciate your efforts contributing to Babasaheb-related articles, but I am afraid that the Castes in India article is not going in a correct direction. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia and not a collection of original sources or quotations (see WP:QUOTE). If you want to publish the complete paper, you can copy paste it on wikisource (I believe it's already there). As it is published in 1917, it is in public domain in USA where Wikipedia server is based. If you just want to quote just some excerpts, you may do it on Wikiquotes, which was almost no information about Babasaheb. On Wikipedia, we write about the things, not the things themselves. I do not want to discourage you, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we must keep it such. Please let me know your thoughts. Shivashree (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Shivashree, I am very thankful for your appreciations. I'm presenting this article to give some space for complex points raised by Babasheb. In regard to its complexity it might not be possible to present it in others view. I hope this article is not presenting the complete source itself. I understand the mechanism of Wikipedia:Copy-paste. I hope this article will meet the WP:BK guidelines. Any further suggestions are requested on my works.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- This article certainly meets notability guidelines, I am not questioning it at all. As you may have noticed I myself had started this article a couple of years ago, but it was deleted then as I was a very infrequent editor at that time and could not take part in the deletion discussion. What I am concerned about is the structure of the article. The book itself becomes a primary source when we are writing about the same book. We should base our article more on secondary and tertiary sources rather than primary. WP:PRIMARY states that Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. The book is important enough that we can find enough secondary sources to make our article at least a good one. Also, the words like "I", etc. does not look good in encyclopedic content. You can get some help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article. We must be more cautious because this article was deleted once and we will need to get permission from the deleting administrator before moving it to mainspace. Sincerely, Shivashree (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Shivashree, I hope this article is ready to move into Wikipedia Mainspace, I know this is not yet absolutely finished, but I hope when it will be moved, more editors will improve this article. I don't think this article is complete based upon primary source. However, it is surprising to note that most of the secondary sources reproduced this complete or partial book content same as itself, not even changing any punctuations marks. How interesting it is?--Ranjithsutari (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's ready to move. It needs some work to be done yet, but let it be open to the Wikipedia community to do. You just ask the deleting administrator before making a move to have a look at the article. I am quite busy nowadays in my professional life and not able to find much time to work on larger projects. Thanks for retrieving this article from the deletion.
- Hi Shivashree, I hope this article is ready to move into Wikipedia Mainspace, I know this is not yet absolutely finished, but I hope when it will be moved, more editors will improve this article. I don't think this article is complete based upon primary source. However, it is surprising to note that most of the secondary sources reproduced this complete or partial book content same as itself, not even changing any punctuations marks. How interesting it is?--Ranjithsutari (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- This article certainly meets notability guidelines, I am not questioning it at all. As you may have noticed I myself had started this article a couple of years ago, but it was deleted then as I was a very infrequent editor at that time and could not take part in the deletion discussion. What I am concerned about is the structure of the article. The book itself becomes a primary source when we are writing about the same book. We should base our article more on secondary and tertiary sources rather than primary. WP:PRIMARY states that Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. The book is important enough that we can find enough secondary sources to make our article at least a good one. Also, the words like "I", etc. does not look good in encyclopedic content. You can get some help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article. We must be more cautious because this article was deleted once and we will need to get permission from the deleting administrator before moving it to mainspace. Sincerely, Shivashree (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
P.s. I am copy-pasting this whole discussion to the article talk page to make it available for those who might be interested in the work you did before bringing this article to mainspace. Shivashree (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)