Talk:Sri Chaitanya Educational Institutions

Topic of Unreferenced Citations

Hello there. I have been mentioned by @BoyTheKingCanDance for mentioning unreferenced citations. While I have replied to him on the talk page I will mention it once more.

If you find any part of my article containing unreferenced citations feel free to call me out in the talk page before deleting it unnecessarily.

Here is what I replied on my talk page:

Hello @BoyTheKingCanDance, thankyou for your input. But I have used several verifiable news sources such as The Hindu, The Times of India, India Today, etc. All of them are very reputable news agencies and are cited in several articles of wikipedia. I do not see how any of them are not "reliable"

Only the history page is based on the institution's own website as no 3rd party covered it (except some news videos, but I did not cite them as they are not reliable according to wikipedia's standard.

I request you to check and proofread my sources and my article and I request you to not delete anything but rather reply me back with the parts of the article you do not thing include a credible source in the talk page. I can assure all the content I have written comes from a reputable third party source well established in Indian news space and used in several other wiki articles. Please see the sources a little more carefully.

I also did not understand your motive to remove the infobox.

• so when I see a page like this with a large amount of unreferenced information

Please mention any line where I used unreferenced information. I have cited all information with reliable sources.

With regards.

PS: Please mention the "unreferenced info" I have used before deleting a huge part of my article

Rasalghul1711 (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

In regards to WP:CRITICISM

WP:CRITICISM states that:

If significant views include negative criticism of the article subject published in reliable sources, then they should be incorporated into the article content in an appropriate and neutral way.

The suicide case was covered extensively in the country by several news channels and not mentioning it simply because of it being "negative" is absurd.

Often it is best to integrate the negative criticism into the article: negative information is woven throughout the article in the appropriate topical sections

I agree with this point but it must be noted that for this specific article; it cannot be integrated into the main article as the suicide case was a major event and should be given a separate sub-section.

For a specific controversy that is broadly covered in reliable sources. Various positions, whether pro or contra, are given due weight as supported by the sources. The topic of the controversy is best named in the section title (when there are distinct groups of controversies, the section title can be "Controversies", with subsection titles indicating what these are about).

As mentioned in the article, I have reasonably mentioned the sub-section detailing the case.

Great care should be taken that the section is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of complaints

Due to this I have removed the subsection "Other cases of corporal punishment"

And as par WP:Controversy

For a specific controversy regarding the topic, when such topic takes a prominent place in the reliable sources on the topic.

Avoid mixed bag section titles like "Controversies" without it being clear in the section title (or in the titles of the subsections of such section) what these controversies are about.

I have therefore replaced the controversy section detailing exactly what the case is about.

As mentioned already, this case was covered by several news outlets and simply not mentioning it because it attracts "negative attention" itself makes Wikipedia look like an unreliable source.

Rasalghul1711 (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)