Talk:4th BRICS summit

Hindi title

Per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS this is not valid to simply add original research claims. the title is first wrong, as it is BRICS and so is "...states' fourth ministerial meetings". IF need be "BRICS betak" would be better. at any rate, unliek the other BRIC states english is the first/working languge and no need to give prominence to hindi alone. (similar to net years south africa summit)Lihaas (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Your conclusions are pretty much incorrect in certain cases. Firstly, India's premier language is still officially Hindi; English was allowed an important status. The Hindi title should be kept, in line with the other summit articles. In fact, the line was a direct Hindi translation of the same sentence used in every summit article, so I don't see the problem. Sorry, but Hindi is prominent and that sort of logic is utter nonsense. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple languages and english is a working language. (the beureaucrats and other civil servants from the northeast and south dont speak hindi). Ive already pointed out "should be kept in line with other articles" is not an arguement per guideline above. At any rate, wheres the wording from this coming from? its pure OR at the moment. and youre not discussing the issue vs. just saying "your wrong and the logic is crap". theres no pt arguing and ive made no intention to do so. im simply stating the wording which needs discussion, or at least a source, and that "because other articles have it" is not a reason to keep.Lihaas (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

From what I can gather from your comment, what you say about bureaucrats does not change the Constitution's working. Hindi is the official language as per the Constitution, with English being given a secondary importance status. That is the real thing, and what you say also falls under WP:OR. I am sorry to say but WP:OSE cannot be used in such a rigorous manner; this problem of over-using OSE has come up before and frankly it does not solve problems. I am willing to consider a different sentence for the Hindi title but the Hindi title is a must, whatever be the sentence. Yes, unfortunately your logic is nonsensical as I have just stated above; your reason provided is not correct and falls under OR. No point arguing? Sorry but I am not bound to listen to you all the time and you cannot order me to listen to you and follow you; get off the high horse and get your tone right, understood? I will not take any sort of haughty talk from an editor. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you dont resort to NPA attacks and discuss this content. Why is it a must to include? Where has it been used? I havent seen any official or media usage of the hindi term (not sure what the hindi channels are calling it). WP is not bound by the constitution of india.

Further Who the heck is ordering you to do anything? "get off the high horse and get your tone right, understood?" this is a blatant incivil way to discuss what ive politley asked...what tone is rude? that i made a general comment and invited you to discuss? Dont understand what is "haughty talk from an editor". im asking again the issue of the wording. if you care to do so, discuss it. im also querying the notability of the translation itself, as is my right, and cited my opinion of why such an arguement doesnt work. ive mentioned nothing whatsoever about you nor did i lecture you (as per your talk page comment to "order" me to clean my talk page. This started in so civil a manner i have no idea how it went awry???Lihaas (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, ive also made a suggested alternative that for some reason was ignored to say im attacking and on my high horse? You said youre open to suggesting changed but have not discussed the issue at all. 1. discussion was the notability (which for some reason personally pissed you off, had no intent and dont know why. maybe it was a national defense reaction, i dont know), 2. the suggested alternative is listed above. with other suggestions invited for discussion. Bearing in mind that the first incarnation was completely wrong because it is not a BRIC summit as i suggested above as South Africa adds an S. nor was there any reasn for th elong winded hindi "translation" that was readded without reason. just cause most people dont reasd hindi doesntmean we can add our own OR (and to cite the other articles NONE mention "states' minsterial meeting"

For non-Hindi readers the readded undiscussed per BRD edit reads: "BRIC deshon ke netaon ki chauthi betak" (silent-ish n's when the last letter of the words) which translates as "BRIC countries' (grammar) ministers' (grammar) fourth summit/meeting" (also note south africas missing acronym)Lihaas (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what are those grammar tags in your post for? The summit belongs to the ministers who in turn belong to the countries, so both "countries'" and "ministers'" are both properly plural possessives. --Khajidha (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Prepositions and whathaveyou.

That also OR/Synthesis as the title which is being translated doesnt mention anything of the sort, nor dos the official name anywhere mention it as such...nor does the past precedent cited above show this.Lihaas (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The simplest solution to this :- add the Hindi of "4th BRICS Summit". That's it. चौथा ब्रिक्स सम्मेलन. Choutha BRICS sammelan. That should do it, and yes the Hindi channels are referring to it as such. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thats a fair compromise. What was with betak above though? Though im not sure about adding 4th as the article title is not as such, it has the year. BUT can you cite some Hindi channel on that use? (then well translate it to mention fourth as the title doesnt)

Ive  Done the restoration and hopefully the issue is closed. Just tagged as per here to get the hindi media sourceLihaas (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Aaj Tak reports it as BRICS sammelan (it comes as BRIX, but you now why). So I guess we can use that. Here is the link :- ब्रिक्स सम्मेलन का स्वागत करता है अमेरिका. I think adding "2012" will not be a problem. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem with that as other aticles dont have years. but if we do it can we add hindi numerals?Lihaas (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we can add Hindi numerals. I am trying to find sources which state 2012 BRICS summit or something like that. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is a source calling the meeting as "चौथी ब्रिक्स शिखर बैठक" - Fourth BRICS Summit/Meeting. I think we can use this. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Weve already got a source that consistent with other years so lets stick with that. Aaj Tak is malso a more RS.Lihaas (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Minor Edit - 3:48, 30 March 2012

The 03:48, 30 March 2012 edit was a minor one in which "The summit's main goal was discussing the creation of a development bank," became "The summit's main goal was discussing the creation of a development bank." Further article revision concerning diction will be made tomorrow on my part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John M. DiNucci (talk • contribs)

Tibet protests

Excuse me? Why has this section's content been so drastically reduced? Saying that Tibetan protests are not notable to the summit is like saying that one can clap with one hand; half of the limelight was on the protesters. I won't revert the entire article back but I am going to put back the deleted content and, if necessary, make tweaks so that the section looks good. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That was one sentence not drastic reduction. I meant the protests in Tibert are not relevant to this as theyve been going on for years and not in relation to the BRICS summit. Conversely the notable reactions related to this are the ones in Delhi by the Tibetans. If there are other bits removed (i just de-wikilinked) then thats apart from me. Ah! you mean this, then i agree. That needs consensus to move. i wholly support your restoratin. We can also accomodate and add his sourced content to the originalLihaas (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

True, only the gist of the event was needed. I agree, we don't need the whole speech said by the SWC, but the fact that they did say something should be there. As of now the section looks pretty good. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I added back a shortened version of the quote. feel free to shorten further. Though the comment was not in reaction to china's statement as much as to the media statement (the passage mentions a state official just above so it was deceptive)Lihaas (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Agenda vs. conclusions

Some nice edits and additions but i had an issue with this move. The common issues/discussions section is more for agenda based issues that were to be discussed, the section in question involved something that was signed and agreed to more concretely, so i think its better in the conclusions sections.

Further ][1][2][3][4][5]. All add good info, but im concerned the vagueness/analysts noted were not notable enough, and im sure not involved in the discussions, to be listed in a manner suggesting their notability for the project getting under way. It could be valuable, im not denying hat, but perhaps as academic and other reactions in the reaction subsection or as one view at the end of this section instead of spreading out.Lihaas (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Your edits are being reverted with immediate effect. You practically deleted half the section. It is given in the reference that the people are analysts from international institutions, hence they are notable. I cannot write the names of the institutions because some of them are very long. Refrain from blatantly removing content like this. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Besides, let me remind you that we do not question notability of people, we only question notability of sources. Al Jazeera is a highly reliable source and hence, if the analyst views are taken up by Al Jazeera, it means that the analysts are notable; international newspapers don't use analyses from any Tom, Dick or Harry. So your reason to remove the content is incorrect. If you have any problem with added content, discuss here first before deleting. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Dude, pelase calmly discuss instead of saying things lile "Your edits are being reverted with immediate effect". the names mentioned dont say anythign other that they are analysts...some things just vaguely mentions "analysts said" which is not notabble. BTW- WP does question ntoable people so that is not true, every one is not notable enough to be cited because this is not wikinews. Just cause an analyst view is taken up by an RS does not mean its encyclopaedic. Im again asking to discuss content on the pseicifc issues. That said im not going to war over the content.Lihaas (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Good, then better you don't remove half of the content I add into the article. And sorry but no, we look for RS and that's pretty much that. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

We also dont give vague comments. You discuss the content and dont make threats. Youre already on probation for civility. If the person is not notable he doesnt get added, there is a notable criteria that you we dont cite any analysts from a fringe outlet.

You were also on 3rr here: [6][7][8][9]

Then there is more warring: [10][11], culminating with an edit summary like this, sorry but you cant dictate terms to others.

And as youve refused to discuss this over almost 4 weeks it seems theres not arguement to cite their notability.(Lihaas (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)).