User talk:I.Mahesh/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Ratnahastin (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin Hey, I’m trying to wrap my head around how much weight we need to give to names and party affiliations in India TV article. Can’t we just point out the bias as reported by specific news outlets? Plus, I think we should mention the sources when adding controversial statements. According to Wikipedia’s guideline WP:ASSERT, when a statement is an opinion or subject to dispute, it should be attributed to the person or group holding that opinion. For instance, we would say, 'John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre.' We wouldn’t write, 'John Doe is the best baseball player.' The inclusion of opinions should align with weight policy and be backed up with reliable sources that verify both the opinion and who holds it. I.Mahesh (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Attribution is not needed because multiple reliable sources confirm the information in question. Ratnahastin (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin I get that multiple sources can strengthen an argument, but I only see one reliable source cited in the article. Wouldn't it be better to attribute controversial opinions to specific outlets, especially if they're pivotal to the narrative? It adds clarity and context to the claims. Also, it aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines on ensuring that subjective statements are properly attributed. If there are indeed multiple reliable sources confirming the information, could you please add those to the article? This would help provide a more comprehensive view and reinforce the claims being made. Thanks! I.Mahesh (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

There are more sources for supporting the same[1] as such rewording is not needed unless you can find a source that refutes the information. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin I understand your point, but the only source I found apart from The Caravan is Clarion India, which seems to be used in less than 20 articles on Wikipedia and appears to lack the necessary authenticity. Moreover, the website states: Clarion India is not responsible for views and claims expressed by contributors and for reports sourced by other media networks and news agencies. They do not necessarily represent or reflect the editorial policy of the publication. This suggests that it operates more as a crowd-sourced platform, which can impact its reliability. If you have additional reliable sources that support the claim about India TV, could you please share those? It's essential for our article to be backed by well-established references, especially when discussing potential biases. Thanks! I.Mahesh (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, it appears to be common information[2][3][4] thus I am not sure why you are disputing it. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin I appreciate your insights! However, when I search for reliable sources, I only find references to Clarion and Caravan, with Clarion often referred to as Caravan Daily, which raises concerns about its reliability. Given this context, it seems crucial to rely on more established publications. Therefore, I believe we should consider including citations from reputable sources like The Japan Times and The Hindu Frontline to substantiate the claims in the article. I'm not trying to dispute your points but rather seeking clarity on this matter. I.Mahesh (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin, when I read the BBC and CNN articles, I noticed that while they were criticized for taking sides, this was not mentioned in the lead but rather in a separate criticism section. Why aren't we adopting a similar approach for Indian outlets? Could you clarify my doubt on why we choose to place the data related to bias on the Lead itself? I.Mahesh (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Canvassing on wikimediaindia-l

Please don't. If you do want to attract attention, please use a more neutrally worded message next time. Sohom (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta Agreed; I discussed this with Valereee, and I also believe that asking the community to help formalize a guideline based on an already-established consensus is different from canvassing for support on an undecided matter. For example, if consensus has already been reached to remove a specific term from similar pages, then encouraging the community to build a guideline around it would simply help maintain consistency across articles and reduce repetitive discussions. Isn’t canvassing about seeking support for a specific viewpoint? In this case, there’s no viewpoint being promoted, just an effort to implement an existing consensus as a guideline.

mvJ I.Mahesh (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

(cc @Valereee since they were mentioned) I'm unsure if you discussed the exact text of the message with them, but I don't think the message you sent in the mailing list is as neutrally worded as you might be thinking. My advise on this matter would be to stick to the verbatim text of the {{please see}} template going forward if you do want to gain participations from offwiki forums. Sohom (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta:, my initial email to the community was as follows:

Hello

Regarding the recent discussions at Talk:2024_Kolkata_rape_and_murder#RfC:_Name_of_victim, a consensus has been reached to avoid naming the victim on the page. Following this discussion, a new topic has been opened at Wikipedia talk of Style/India-related articles to create a guideline that rules out naming victims based on specified criteria.

However, progress cannot proceed further because there was no participation from the Indian community, although the discussion was opened on 21st September, and even after a request was made on the WikiProject India Noticeboard. Inputs from interested users are encouraged so that rules and regulations can be drafted in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, considering cultural norms within our country.

Since sending this message, the participation in discussions has remained effectively zero. Even in my recent discussion at Notice board for India Related Topics, none from India participated.

It's becoming clear that there’s no interest here. When we could have worked together to make Wikipedia more aligned with Indian legal and cultural norms, the response was silence. But now, the discussion has shifted to accusations of canvassing rather than addressing the underlying need for consistency on this topic. Without real support, I don’t see how we can avoid ongoing debates with media or courts over our content, much less build a Wikipedia that respects the nuances of our cultural landscape. We have already been to court twice on this topic, I don't see next one being as easy as before. I.Mahesh (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I would just suggest not including the last line going forward since it implies that you want folks to support a particular outcome. Sohom (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta Thank you. I understand your point, and I’ll make sure to avoid language that might imply steering towards a particular outcome in future messages.

My aim was just to encourage wider input from the community to help formalize an already-established consensus, if they are against the guideline, it would be helpful to know Why?. This would help us maintain a consistent approach across similar cases and reduce the need for repeated discussions. I.Mahesh (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

{{self-whale}} I think I may have let the current events in India influence my tone, so I’ll be stepping back from discussions on this topic going forward. I.Mahesh (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I.Mahesh. I know you consider consistency from article to article important, but many editors think taking things on a case-by-case basis is a better approach than creating more policy. I suspect that even if the Indian community were interested in placing details of Indian law into Wikipedia policy, much of the broader community would object. Valereee (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The string of events started from this talkpage, nevertheless, lets stick to case by case approach only for now. I.Mahesh (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)