Talk:Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

BISS is not commonly used

In this revert vanamonde93 insists it is present in the references, I cannot find it. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I was careless, I thought you referred to the ABISY abbrv. I have removed BISS. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not the first time either. May I request you to not revert in a hurry. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 16:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Objective of the organization in the opening sentence of the lead

Jyoti, you just hit 4 reverts, self-revert now or I'll see you at AN3. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Jyoti, last chance. Self-revert now. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are five diff where you have reverted me five times within last 1h. You put a warning on my talk page after my fourth edit. See the timestamps in you ANI appeal. You waiting two minutes to file an ANI: [1], [2], [3], [4] ,[5]. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Reverts count towards 3RR only if they are non-consecutive. One of them (the quotes) looks like two thanks to an edit conflict; which is why I have not counted it for you, either. I am on three; you are on four. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to go by the letter of A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert? Lets actually talk about the content, I will repeat what I have written in edit summary, I gave reliable sources for it: should the opening statement of an organization not tell its stated objective directly insead of presenting someone's opinion as the objective in wikipedia voice? I will be glad to expand if you want more clarity to understand my viewpoint. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You still removed content sourced to a university publication. And no, we need not give its own stated objective, certainly not without framing it as such. Finally, you still seem to have trouble understanding WP:BURDEN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand burden clause, I added three reference. To take it to WP:RSN because you have deleted it and insist that it is unreliable is not part of WP:BURDEN. You claimed it is by VHP in your edit comment. Which clearly shows you had wrong information. Do you dispute that? Lets get back to the content. Do you want to completely ignore their mission statement on their website too? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You say you want to discuss it? Fine, but not when you are sitting on a version created by violating policy. Self-revert the lead, and I will remove my report. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That does not hinder discussion in my opinion. I explained I have not violated burden, and I stand by it. About sitting on some version, if I may be blunt, with no offence, you are gaming the system because you are equally guilty of edit warring. Your warning notice on my talk page is after my fourth edit. Lets keep our statements to the disputed content (as the opening statement of the article).--AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Then we are at impasse, and we can wait for the outcome of the report, even if those are symmetrical blocks. If you think you can bully me into discussing by removing a scholarly source 4 times, you are mistaken. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I did not remove any reference. I have added three references. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear both, calm down please. I have been enjoying both of your edits. I don't know why there was need for any reverts. Reverts make it hard for some third party like me to understand what has been done. So, please use them sparingly and discuss the issues here so that we can all learn from you. Uday Reddy (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you're right, you did not; but you did remove content sourced to a peer reviewed journal, and then reverted four times to keep your version. Self-revert (or let Uday Reddy revert; not particular). But I will not discuss any content with you, when you sit on a version backed by four reverts; because that would be like playing nice to the schoolyard bully after he has taken your money. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the last edit of User:AmritasyaPutra (nice name!). When I came to this page a few weeks ago, the lead sentence said "with the objective of rewriting history from a national perspective". User:Vanamonde93 changed it to "Hindu nationalist perspective," which I thought was perfectly fine. If Hindu nationalists are proud of what they do, they shouldn't be touchy about being called so. If they want to claim that they are perfectly neutral and scientific, well, only cuckoos will believe that! Organiser is also clearly a Sangh publication, not a mainstream newspaper. So, it can't be used except to state a POV. The POV in this case is stated in the immediately next sentence. So, I don't see the problem. I will put back the citation to The Hindu article, which was already on my To-Do list in any case. Uday Reddy (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Uday Reddy! User:Vanamonde93 I prefer User:AmritasyaPutra, strictly! --AmritasyaPutra✍ 16:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Uday Reddy, Jyoti; Okay, now we can discuss this like civilised people. Due thanks, Reddy. Here is my main point; a google scholar search, as well as a college search engine I have access to, but I will not reveal which, and I dunno if you will take that at face value shows that Berti is the only scholar who has significantly studied this organisation. Therefore, WP:DUE would indicate that her views must be included, and indeed must form the basis for out reading. Now, Jyoti/Amritasya has added three sources. Let me take them one by one;

1) The Organiser (newspaper) is an organ of the RSS, as its own website admits. Therefore, it is effectively an SPS in this case. However, it can be reliable as a mouthpiece of the RSS, to express the view of the RSS itself, if we should decide that is necessary.

2) The second source is "The Hindu", which is perfectly reliable. But here is what it says, and I quote "Mr. Kataria asked the historians of Akhil Bharatiya Itihaas Sankalan Yojana -- who have taken up the task of rewriting ancient Indian history -- to research and highlight the message of human welfare and inculcate among the history students a respect for the ancient Indian civilisation." This is far less detail than in any of the others, and it contradicts neither my version nor Jyoti's.

3) Finally, the ABISY's own website. This is obviously an SPS, and so reliable for statements like "the ABISY says XYZ," but for nothing else.

So this leaves us with the following; the only source reliable enough to present in Wikipedia's voice is Berti, and I believe my reading of Berti is correct. If, in addition to her view, you wish to include the ABISY's own version of its mission with proper attribution, I will be fine with that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, as Reddy says the lead currently reports the view of the ABISY as well; if Amritasya wishes to tweak that, and attribute it to the ABISY, I am willing to work through that. Also, can we get rid of that silly "page needed" tag at the bottom? Perhaps Uday Reddy could deal with it; I do not intend to touch the article page for the next 24 hours. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The objective of the organization in the first opening sentence should be same as what the organization says. Their website is the best reference for it. Also, Organiser having an association with RSS does not make it unreliable by default. WP:SELFSOURCE. Berti's interpretation comes next, and that too with attribution, not in Wikipedia voice unless it is the common interpretation. Your version is not in line with the version of The Hindu newspaper either. "Page needed", is better than "not in reference", it shouldn't be a challenge for a reader to verify something. I have at no point indicated that I want even 1 of the 11 reference of Berti removed. All of them are there.--AmritasyaPutra✍ 13:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Kindly put back "The Hindu" reference, all of us unanimously accepted that one and yet it remains deleted? Berti also defines RSS as a militant organization but that is not how the opening sentence of the RSS article reads. you having found only one journal article (one of which is self published sort of, not university journal) does not by default imply that it is the most authoritative and comprehensive content on the subject. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 13:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no flaming hurry to replace the Hindu ref, as it adds nothing; if Reddy were to add it, I have no objection. I am not going to touch the article page for 24 hours, I suggest you do not, either. Also, please find me a policy which says that the objective of an organisation must present its stated objective in WIkipedia's voice? Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

lol. Focus is content, if you have no objection to Reddy adding it I can add it after some time too. He himself said he will add it but he forgot, so it was a reminder! Common sense is the answer. What an organization's objective-is is taken from the organization's statements. What others infer about it is what-others-infer-about-it. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you deliberately being dense? Adolf Hitler's stated objective was world peace, and he started a war that killed sixty million. By your logic the Nazi party page would contain "world peace" as its objective in Wikipedia's voice, and that is patently ridiculous. WP:RS and WP:NPOV dictate that an outside secondary source is better, and a scholarly source even more so. "Commonsense" by itself holds no weight here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Mind your words, you are being derogatory repeatedly! Are you so dense that you will compare this example with your example of Adolf Hitler? Use common sense. I have three reference, I am not talking without reference. From a reputed newspaper, a magazine and the organization's website, and all three are aligned. Even if you claim that every author in Organiser is by default the organizations secret agent -- it is perfectly reliable even then per WP:SELFSOURCE. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you really mean Nazi party's mission was world peace... in any reference at all, any? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Show me a quote from the Hindu which contradicts my version of the text. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Show me a quote from the Hindu which contradicts my version of the text. I have stuck to my guns from the first edit. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

My 2 cents There is nothing wrong in adding the objectives of the organization, I don't think there is a need to attribute it to the organizations website. I don't think it is required to write "ABISY says that its objective is so and so". For example check this article American Historical Association. The orgs own website is used as a source and the article doesn't say according to AHA its objective is so and so. If someone feels that the organization is not meeting its said objective and you have a reliable source for that you can mention it after the objective. -sarvajna (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have to show you any such, because I am fine with adding the source. I am not using the source to contradict your text; Berti contradicts your text. You tried to use the Hindu to change my text, and so you need to provide the quote. I have been saying all along that the Hindu quote supports both variants, and so cannot be used to choose. sarvajna, read WP:OSE. I did not create the AHA page, and I am not responsible for what is put on it. In this case, the most reliable source we have, and the only scholarly one, contradicts the org's statement; ergo, using that statement raises NPOV issues. I have provided policies to support this, namely WP:RS and WP:SPS. Do you have a policy which says using the organisation's mission statement is acceptable? And do not cite WP:SPS back at me; Berti shows quite clearly that the website violates point one of that policy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you just say you are fine with adding The Hindu And it does not contradict with my version of the text? Your mere insistence is not sufficient. WP:SPS with Organization's website is just fine here. Organiser is directly related to RSS not ABISY. That does not make it either unreliable or SPS (you made all-sweeping claims). I think I will stop at this. You are merely rehashing. I am not discarding any reference. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No, of course it does not. All the Hindu says in its own voice is that ABISY is engaged in re-writing history (I already pasted a quote above). Both your version and mine say that. The SPS I was referring to was the website, as you know damn well; but the ABISY and the Organiser are both subsidies of the RSS, making it unreliable. WP:SPS says self-published sources are acceptable "so long as they are not unduly self-serving." Berti proves that in this case, it is unduly self-serving, and Reddy has also told you as much. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I still don't see what the problem is. The current wording is in no way inconsistent with what is on the website of ABISY. The very front page says they want to rewrite history. And, the scheme page (mission.htm) lists 5 guiding principles two of which say they want to eliminate distortions introduced by colonial writing or whatever. So, there is nothing controversial here! Even the Times of India article that I cited says pretty much the same thing (see the last paragraph). The sentence of yours that I ended up deleting wants to describe the objectives using what I would call "spiel" on their web site. User:Vanamonde93 hasn't objected to it being mentioned, but he doesn't want to replace the original wording, which he only modified by putting the word "Hindu". Please feel free to add it back in, perhaps lower down in the text rather than the lede. There is very little detail in the rest of the article. The most important bit that our article still fails to explain is why this project is called "history collection". What is being collected and how? Uday Reddy (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

MHHH. Tell that to the redoubtable Amritasya. Putting the entire spiel in the lead would certainly be Undue, but putting it in the body with proper attribution is fine. That is what msot of the ideology section is anyway. As for "collection;" IMO there are several different ways of translating the name, and the one I used was simply the one from the source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Uday Reddy You think both my version and Vanamonde93's one word version is correct, okay, thanks. Vanamonde93, Another user Sarvajna also gave you advise. You have also explicitly agreed my version does not contradict The Hindu. And, oh oh, it is referenced to TOI and The Hindu only not to Berti, so I can align content with those two sources, and from the above discussion I see Uday Reddy and Sarvajna have no objection to that. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 02:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 don't use WP:OSE wherever you like, it is mostly used in the deletion discussion, while creating articles of similar nature it is a general practice to take another article as reference. You mostly need to use Common Sense here (not in a uncivil way, do read it), comparing Nazi with this org is where you can use OSE. Also SPS says that Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves.... (you can read the whole thing there). The objectives of the organization can only be defined by the organization not by anyone else. Like I said above if the organization is not doing what they defined in the "objectives" we should mention it only after we mention the objectives. Also lets write what each version here on talk page, it will be useful if someother editor comes and takes a look. -sarvajna (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Sarvajna, that quote of SPS is remarkably misleading. The whole quote is "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, [] so long as the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim (emphasis mine). You have conveniently ignored this part of the policy.

Also, I did not compare this org with the Nazis; I gave the Nazi's as a prime example of why using an organisation's mission statement in Wikipedia's voice is problematic. Specifically, they claim to be "scientific" and so forth, while Berti shows that their approach ignores Indian cultural diversity when it suits them, making their claim hollow. And are you seriously proposing that we ignore the only reliable source we have on the subject? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You are again ignoring the point that Organization's objectives is Organization's-objectives!

1. Have you found any reference at all that Nazi party's mission was world peace? If you are giving an example, mean it.

2. The Hindu And TOI is also not reliable? Only your inferential one word`er attributed to a 30 page article is reliable?

3. Here is what Berti has written: As far as the intention of the abisy leaders is concerned, what seems to be new, however, is the intermingling of three factors: (1) establishing the localpan-Indian equivalence in a systematic way and within what is presented as a “scientific research project”; (2) putting this project at the service of the ideology of Hindu nationalism; (3) involving in this research project not only the largest number of local intellectuals, but also people from different circles of society. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 06:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The next sentence already explains the organization's point of view. What additional information are you saying has been left out? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, looks like you are misreading my statements on purpose. I 'never said that we should ignore Berti, we need that source. Like AmritasyaPutra quoted above,"Organization's objectives is Organization's-objectives". if Berti says that "their approach ignores Indian cultural diversity when it suits them" do mention it. It only shows that the organization is moving away from their defined objectives or whatever it is. My point was that Berti cannot state the objectives of a Organization of which she was neither a founder or a co-founder. She has commented on the Org's work, very well write that in the article. That doesn't change the defined objectives of the Org. I will give you an example to make it simple (there might be some factual errors), India's constitution aims at eradicating the caste system, however the government policies are no where near it, now that doesn't change the constitution, it would still remain same and the text of constitution can be used to cite the aims. Similarly, this Organization in question might not be meeting its objectives which we can very well mention with the help of sources but that doesn't change the defined objectives unless the Organization decides to change it. -sarvajna (talk) 06:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, Read this section heading to stay on topic. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 06:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Obviously. I am not disputing that; what I am disputing is the suggestion that we do it without attribution, ie in Wikipedia's voice. I have repeated this many times over; I am perfectly fine with saying "The stated objective of ABISY is XYZ;" indeed, the third lead sentence that I wrote, does exactly that. If you want more detail, then you can add it in the ideology section, with proper attribution. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Can't help smiling. Okay, I will do what this section header says as you have no objection to it... except that I will use "with an objective of..." or something similar. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 07:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

NOT what the section header says; I said in the ideology section. And I have no objection to adding it, but if you replace something referenced to Berti, I will have objections. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, I don't care what language you use; but Wikipedia's voice has to say "the organisation says this" and not "the organisation does this." Attribution. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I think it might be best if you posted your version here, that way we avoid another edit war. 24 hours haven't passed yet. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I am under no obligation to continue discussion indefinitely. I will do what we agreed here. I will use the agreed upon reliable reference of The Hindu and TOI when adding content, I will not remove any sourced existing content but stick to sources as close as possible. Like Sarvajna and Uday Reddy also said the Organizations objective can be presented as it is stated by them. The analysis of Berti is also represented. I never suggested the organization does part so don't digress yet again. I will add it in the lead section like this section discusses and three editors agree. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 09:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Easy way out and the most logical one is to credit both the sources; the organization and Daniela Berti. Its lack of commonsense to exclude either of the two views, especially when there are no multiple views as such contrasting each other. Its also wrong to portray either of the view as Wikipedia's/neutral view. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes User:Dharmadhyaksha I have already agreed to that explicitly. I said so in very clear measured words and even gave what I intend to write above. I am not using the Organiser reference for that at all. I explicitly said that I will use The Hindu and TOI to which all the four editors agree. I never said I want to write Organization does so and so. I never removed any reference. I am only talking about the Objective of the organization as this section title reads. I agree with your words in its entirety. And that is what we have already agreed upon. I will attribute ABISY objective to itself and Berti's opinion to her. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 12:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Attribute the objective to the ABISY. I really do not see why such as attribution might be a problem. - Sitush (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Why attribute the objectives to the organization, it is very much understood that the organization defines its own objectives. We can just write "ABISY was started with an objective to do so and so.." For example this article doesn't do that. Objectives != What they do or have done. -sarvajna (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I would go with this suggestion: "ABISY was started with an objective to do so and so.." this sentence does make it clear enough that it is mere self-set objectives of the organization by itself. Your opinion Uday Reddy? I pinged Uday only because he has been involved from the beginning Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for any organisation and we are under no obligation to reproduce whatever they might say on their web sites. Our objective is merely to compile and present the knowledge that is in society to lay readers in an easily accessible manner. Of course, we don't want to treat the organisation unfairly in the process. So, we should give their views a reasonable amount of space, without necessarily agreeing or disagreeing. Having said that, I agree with User:Vanamonde93 that the best place to put this is in the Ideology section. I don't have any objection to a sentence that starts with "ABISY was started with an objective...". But stylistically, it doesn't make sense to me, because we are not discussing the history. Neither are we saying that their objectives have changed since they started. So, I don't see why "starting" is being emphasized. On the whole, my feeling is that we are wasting too much energy on propaganda without focusing on the substance. I am still at a loss as to what "history compilation" means. Uday Reddy (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece, no one is reproducing whatever they say. We are just stating their objectives. What they want to do or why the organization was established. It is like using the date when the organization was established from their website. Nothing wrong at all. Objectives cannot be part of the Ideology section either. If you feel that the term "starting" is not right you can use "established with an objective to do so and so". -sarvajna (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Uday Reddy, if your objection is only with style you can propose another one. Yes, we should expand on their modus operandi also so that "history compilation" is explained. Let us address that too (in a separate section). It is common practice that the opening of an article will introduce the reader to the intended set aim or motto of the organization. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 16:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Image

The image currently uploaded is excellent, but its copyright status is rather dodgy, to say the least. AmritasyaPutra, I suggest you do something about that (or anybody, really, its just that they uploaded this). According to the banner currently on the image page, it's likely to be deleted after a week, and that leaves us where we started. I'd try and fix it, but I know squat about copyright issues, which is why I steer clear of uploading to commons. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 07:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Claim that name refers to old username which was changed 2 months ago and never used on this 2 day old page

Extended content

User:AmritasyaPutra, I will not use your old username if you wish; but if you try to tell me that it wasn't your username, that's hardly credible, given that I interacted with you prior to your name switch. I could prove it if I chose, because the redirects and page histories exist; but you seem to find references to those offensive, so I will refrain. If you do insist on accusing me of outing, though (which is a rather serious accusation) I will provide those. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Vanamonde93 Outing is a rule -- follow it. Jyoti was never my username -- prove me wrong. If you repeat I will charge you with outing. Period. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 05:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Easily done; User:Jyoti.mickey redirects to your userpage, and the note left on the redirect page says that it was left there when the page was moved; and the page history shows the details of the move, where the admin who moved it says "Jyoti.mickey was moved to Amritasya.Putra." QED. More importantly, even if this page is somehow an elaborate hoax, it is still available universally on Wikipedia, and therefore posting information from it does not constitute outing. If you want further evidence, this link shows that User Talk:Jyoti.mickey redirects to your talk page, and this shows that your old signature is scattered across Wikipedia. Therefore, I am posting absolutely nothing new here. Now if you will insist that "Jyoti" and "Jyoti.mickey" are entirely distinct names, and that having the latter as your username still means referring to you by the former is outing, then go ahead and post on the relevant noticeboard. If you were so opposed to your signature being seen, you could have replaced it once it changed; you didn't do that, for reasons best known to yourself. TLDR; I was careless in calling you by your previous username (which I have interacted with more than your current one) and for that I apologise; but that is all I am guilty of, and the proof is above for anybody interested. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC) So User:Jyoti.mickey is Jyoti, Eh? You used "Jyoti" with no link. You bet I will report outing if you repeat. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 05:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC) If you believe you can get me blocked for outing for using "Jyoti" to mean "Jyoti.mickey" then go ahead and report me. I did apologise for being careless; instead of being satisfied with that, you begin wikilawyering again and try to claim I've been doing something far more serious. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC) If You try again using "Jyoti" to mean "Jyoti.mickey" innocently in a discussion where only AmritasyaPutra username exists despite having got two explicit direct warnings I bet you will be banned. My last word on this. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 05:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC) For the records: Vanamonde93 has also used [[User:AmritasyaPutra|Jyoti]] multiple times. This page is two days old and User:Jyoti.mickey never interacted here. After a rename the old username is released. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 07:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Since Vanamonde93 has appologized it should end the matter. Just another word, whenever the user change his/her name there will be a redirect that doesn't mean you tell the whole world what the previous username was. It defeats the whole purpose of changing the user name. You need not dig the evidence of old username. Let us end this here, I am sure AmritasyaPutra has all the rights to take any person to ANI for outing. -sarvajna (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Agreed. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

About the reference, Berti, Daniela (October 2006)

Quote from their website: Indian Folklife publishes original and unpublished research papers. It lists 215 names under Editorial Team! I can't find much about this SPS. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a low-cost online research journal. There is nothing fishy about it. The author is on the editorial team. But, usually, when a member of the editorial board submits an article, the charge for reviewing/editing it is given to another member of the board. Conflict of interest is absolutely prohibited. So, no worries there. (Personally, I am glad that there are plenty of Indians on the board. I am wary of western authors publishing in western journals without the benefit of review by Indian researchers. A lot of myths get propagated that way. That is not the case here.) Uday Reddy (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I have no objection in using it with due care and weight. There is not much info about it and it is not a University publication or of notable reputation. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 18:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Uday Reddy, Both the English and Hindi website of the organization says it was formed in 1978-79. 1, 2. But the article, based on this sources says 1973. I will rectify this. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 03:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done This only increases the doubt on the quality of this source. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

One more request for verification

And this one also: One of the primary activities of the ABISY is to attempt to scientifically prove that folk traditions across India have been derived from Hindu beliefs. Page needed to verify, I have the reference and I can't find it. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

And again. Is this tagging getting pointy or what? It was a four page article. The quote: The work of ABISY leaders will be indeed “to decipher” these bharthas (often just some snippets of them), and to reveal their similarity with Sanskrit texts, by focusing on specific words or expressions. This would reveal the Sanskrit identity of the village gods. For example, the bhartha of Katrusi Narayan Bhalayan of the Tarapur region is said to correspond to a passage from the Bhagvat Dasham Skanda, which allows them to identify this god with the (‘pan-Indian’) god Skanda." (Italics in original). Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you really not see that the content is not supported by this quote? Do you not understand synthesis? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Your saying it doesn't make it so; what part of the text is unsupported? And respond at the bottom of the page for god's sake, else you will simply be ignored. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"primary activity of ABISY" (are you so naive?), and "folk traditions" (again, are you so naive?). Ignore if you please, it is your personal choice. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 18:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I had made edit and Vanamonde93 edited on top of it, the text now reads: Daniela Berti states that one of the objectives of ABISY leaders is to use snippets of local texts to make a connection to Sanskrit texts to reveal the Sanskrit identity of village gods. Which is much closer to the source compared to the super-duper original research done by Vanamonde93. I am not 'exactly' for this but much improved! --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)