Talk:Kamarupa of Bhaskaravarman

Article is just a copy/paste job?

I was attempting to convert some of the ridiculously long quotations in this article/text wall to {{quote}}s, but it seemed virtually impossible to do so, because I couldn't tell where the quotations started and ended (even with quotation marks.) The article also seemed impossible to improve, because it was written in such a weighted style, "Abhoga, replied almost bashfully with profound respect". On a lark, I picked a random phrase from that section ("The messenger was followed by a long train") and ran it through Google Books, which gave a result from Early history of Kāmarupa by Kanak Lal Barua. I picked another phrase, "Yuan Chwang came to India with the object of studying Buddhistic lore" and got a hit on the same book. I checked the first phrase again, ("Abhoga, replied almost bashfully with profound respect") and got the same book, but also this other one from 1897. So maybe the book is not protected by copyright anymore, but A) this article needs massive improvement and B) I'm fairly certain the community doesn't allow massive copy/paste jobs like this to suffice as an article, especially with such a flowery and unencylopedic tone. I'm proposing deletion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing from public domain work. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 20:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This 1933 book is now in public domain. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 20:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the response. What I see is not "close paraphrasing", but the entire inclusion of extensive passages. Further, the tone of the article does not adhere to a neutral point of view and attempts to describe the subject with an air of authority that is clearly biased. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it may have other issues but tagging with copypaste template indicates its copyright violation which is not a issue here. Feel free to tag for other issues. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 20:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The copypaste template indicates that the source possibly runs afoul of copyright, but doesn't state that implicitly. In my estimation, this is complete copypasting with nothing original having been contributed. On that basis, I believe I can, and should, restore the copypaste template. The remedy to clarify any copyright issues is to attribute free license properly. And still, the entirely of this article cannot be based on copied material. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any book older than sixty years is copyleft in India. As far i know there is no restriction in freely copying from such sources in Wikipedia. Please consult an admin, if consensus is there to use copypaste template in this case, i have no problem. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 07:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no dispute about the source being in the public domain, so we needn't quibble over that. The problem I have is that the source, (which is virtually the only voice for the subject matter,) is so heavily and indiscriminately copied and pasted that any meaning or useful information is diluted. How can the average reader discern actual facts about the Kamarupa Kingdom under the rule of Bhaskar Varman when the source material is written in such a flowery style, with such a specific attitude, and no efforts have been made to pare useful scholarly information away from the unsubstantiated drivel of legend? It's as if someone wrote an article on Moses using the Bible as a reference, or using the diary of a Moses fan as a reference. Where are the conflicting voices of scholars? Where is the neutral point of view or the establishment of notability? Where are the independent sources that are reporting on this subject? Oh, and where are the paragraph breaks? And where do the quotations really begin and end? There is so much quoting-- gigantic quotes, no less-- that it is virtually impossible to figure out which parts are legend, and which parts (if any) are objective synthesis of the facts. It's just wordswordswordswords. The casual reader will need a royal SHOVEL named Abhoga to dig through this article. (Ba-da-boom!) I believe the article should be deleted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will improve this article e.g quotes etc. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 09:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes of different scholars are included here to show that subject is as per community, not just voice of a single author. Which are seen as legends were actually based on Kamarupa Inscriptions and other ancient works. Such as Abhoga is an royal umbrella, passing on as heritage for centuries to generation to generation, with a mythology attached to it. Author gives facts as well as myths attached to subject. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 09:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cyphoidbomb that this article is very difficult to improve. I suggest the "informative" portions of this page be merged with Bhaskar Varman, and a redirect is left in its place. Chaipau (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]