Talk:International Association of Sanskrit Studies

Redirect

The IASS exist primarily to organise the World Sanskrit Conference. It does not do a tremendous amount of other stuff, in indeed anything. Therefore, and especially given the brevity of both this article and it close relation, it would make more sense to merge the contents of this into a section at World Sanskrit Conference and create a redirect from here to there. In the event that the IASS develops into a body with broader scope, the merged section could always be forked. The only potential fly in the ointment is the concept of a "deemed university" - I am unsure of the significance of this, although I note that there is an alternate and seemingly up-to-date official website here which uses a governmental domain name. - Sitush (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. The IASS has stand alone notability per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That is not an argument against merging with a redirect. - Sitush (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Notable enough to have a stand alone article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That is the same argument, and it has the same apparent answer: the IASS (according to itself) exists solely to organise the WSC and therefore the two are for all intents and purposes synonymous. Are you going to keep repeating yourself?

I've given a hint of a possible way to avoid a redirect: a "deemed university" might raise this to another level, and subsequently (see below) I've found that there does seem to be some sort of journal produced periodically. - Sitush (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Solely is different from mainly. The conference is its main endeavour not its only one. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to engage in pedantry. Now, please could you explain what the other ones are in practice and why after a period of six months they still do not appear in the article? Its constitutional purpose is extensive but its practical purpose is very limited in scope. (Constitutional is "The Association, so created, has for its purpose to promote, diversify, intensify and coordinate Sanskrit Studies in all the countries of the world; to maintain contacts with the organising committee of the International Congresses of Asian and North African Studies; to organise international conferences of Sanskrit studies; to promote scholarly publication of Sanskrit-based studies; to establish and foster relations with national associations of Sanskrit studies.") We deal in reality, not legalese which, as with most articles of association etc, are deliberately kept broad in scope. - Sitush (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop finding faults, start researching, I've not banned others from editing the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you've just displayed tendencies of ownership with your attempts to stop me from improving it - even on basic technical issues - via reverts/deletions etc. Aside from the research that I have presented here, I'm working on World Sanskrit Conference also and you'll see that the two go hand-in-hand. - Sitush (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

They are obviously related, Regarding ownership, no interest was shown in the last six months, and then there is a flurry of activity after I put back categories someone had removed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Related almost to the point of incest. Regarding activity, well, I have a big-ish watchlist and that triggers a fair amount of what I do. Indeed, the thing is so big that I seem to spend most of my time on fixing things and not as much as I would like on developing things. A rethink might be in order, but not until I decide whether ArbCom is likely to be a sensible institution next year. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I am beginning to query the notability of this body. Aside from mentions in relation to the WSC, it doesn't seem to amount to much. Where are the independent sources that discuss it other than in connection with (and usually as a passing mention for) the WSC? - Sitush (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Occasional

Occasional is a weasel word and the reader ought to know who used it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Utter bollocks. - Sitush (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Website

How is the word "communicates" useful? Isn't it stating the obvious, "A car runs on its wheels". The source says " "to disseminate information about its activities and has established a web site where basic information about the IASS may be found", in other words the website provides basic information about IASS, is that the same it being a medium of communication? Isn't it a little undue, the way it is mentioned? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

God knows. I was just fixing your earlier poor micro-quoting. If you;d rather say "operates a website" or something similar then feel free. Personally, I'm not even convinced of the merits of mentioning the website, except in the external links section.

Sometimes, you see, I do actually try to accommodate what you have written even when I doubt the utility of it. It is the constant use of micro-quoting rather than paraphrasing and the numerous, regular small errors that you make that tends to dismay me: you have been here long enough, I would have thought, to surmount that. One (to me) really irritating example was your use of the "language" parameter of a citation yesterday to say that the source was in English. Was it strictly speaking incorrect? Possibly not, but you are well aware that we do not usually use that parameter on the English Wikipedia when the source is itself in English. To be honest, it seemed like another example of your subtle pedantry when it comes to pushing your various Indic/Hindutva etc agenda - which agenda, of course, have repeatedly been identified at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Why have you removed the newsletter bit? I never mentioned removing that and, given the presumed academic nature of the IASS, I would imagine that the newsletter might actually have some "academic journal" basis. I do not know this for sure because, unlike the website, I have not seen it. But it seems to be a reasonable premise and I suspect that your removal is intended to get round your complaint in the preceding section. - Sitush (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hold on for some time, we'll get both of them back, but we'll present them better. You are free to put it back but with more substance in it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Stop insinuating! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No idea what you are referring to here, sorry. However, if you remove with the intention of reinstating in a better form then why not do so now instead of wandering off to all sorts of other articles and venues as you have done? - Sitush (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• What business do you have telling me what to do and what not to do? As I wrote above, you are free to contribute positively to the article, policies allow all of us to do so. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, one of the IASS websites makes it clear that the newsletter forms part of their journal. It is the journal that is published occasionally. See here and here. It looks to me as if they are trying to develop the former domain as their new home on the web: a fair bit of it is under construction and they refer to some (but not all) of their previous domains. The "publications" section of the assumed new domain currently does not have the content from indologica.com, and the latter has not been updated since 2010. A pretty shambolic state of affairs, actually, but there we go. - Sitush (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You are free to put them back the way you like, nothing is cast in concrete here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR. I'll leave well alone for a day. Just a self-revert by you would be a start, but the article is not high profile, 24 hours is not a long time, & I can sort it all out then. Assuming that I'm editing at all then - I am on and off at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

University status

I've removed Category:Deemed Universities in India and Category:Sanskrit Universities in India. Although a version of the IASS website hosted on an abandoned domain does refer to it as a deemed university, the current website does not and they are not listed as being such by the UGC (see the list here). Similarly, I can see nothing on the current website to indicate that the IASS claims/is entitled to Sanskrit university status. - Sitush (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sitush's recent edits

(1) Sections have been created as nucleus around which the article they would grow, just as you (Sitush) left a red link in another related context. (2) Sitush please share the rule that indicates senior office bearers of an organisation have to be notable for them to be mentioned in its article. (3) Why do you (Sitush) write the meaningless "membership open to all", in place of membership is formed of "national associations" ? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yuo are referring to World Sanskrit Conference, where I reinstated a redlink after you removed it. A redlink is not a section, and redlinks are specifically accepted if there is a reasonable likelihood that an article will be created in future. As is evidenced by my additions in the Further Reading section of World Sanskrit Conference, there is scope for such an article.
• In the case of your skimpy sections, you should have grown them. Let's put it this way, there is scant capability to do so in this instance without even more reliance on a self-published source, and you have a habit of creating these minuscule sections across numerous articles, often written in stilted prose that amounts to little more than a list.
• Since the micro-section of office-bearers was indeed a list in prose form, WP:NLIST might interest you. Create articles about the people to test their notability, then there may be an argument for listing them here. That is fairly standard practice. Redlinked people in lists is not standard practice.
• Your micro-section concerning membership was wrong. Membership is open to everyone, as the list of subscriptions reveals, and there was a much simpler way to say this than was provided by your tortuous version.
• Honestly, you should know stuff like this by now because it is far from being the first time that such issues have been mentioned to you. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

(1) Regarding sections, your claim "there is scant capability" is just that "your claim", there has to be time given, although I must confess that I am not too attached to all of them. (2) NLIST is completely irrelevant, it is about inclusion of someone to a list, for example a list of alumni. Come up with a good reason or put them back. (3) "membership is open to all" is completely meaningless, what is it meant to inform? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

NLIST is completely relevant: a list in prose form is still a list. It seems that you now accept some of the sections were unnecessary etc, but which of them do you still plan to expand? I agree that "membership is open to all" is rather meaningless. Nonetheless, it is correct and so the choice becomes one of "do we include anything about membership or nothing?" I favour nothing, which is why I didn't bother adding it until you created that ridiculous micro-section, ie: I was yet again trying to accommodate your whims. - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe that this version, complete with its grammatical and factual errors, is better than the present version? - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(1) Ridiculous... whims... well go on. (2) NLIST isn't relevant. Give it another read. It is about inclusion in a list, say "Notable alumni of xxx college", here we inform who the general secretary of the organisation is, and write about who the presidents were. NLIST would be applicable if we create a section called "Notable members", then notability has to precede inclusion. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I know what NLIST says and you are relying on the bit about lists of headmasters etc. I could kind of go along with that but this body is itself of dubious notability, let alone its past presidents, and it is self-evident that - as is your common practice - you are just trying to inflate the size of an article for the hell of it. - Sitush (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have brought out three points of disagreement, they are there above, if you consider small sections less elegant, I won't argue on that, I have a similar aversion to red links. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"Dubious", is that your "whim" ? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop insinuating about an editor's editing motivations.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Redlinks is a red herring and you should know it because I explained and linked to an article about them. It is not my opinion re: short sections that matters - there is consensus in WP:MOS. "Dubious" is not my whim: I've given an explanation for it above and I am awaiting some response to it (no rush). As so often, you are winding things up without seemingly getting your facts right first. As so often, it is taking on the appearance of someone arguing just for the sake of it. Take me to ANI again if you want. - Sitush (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Red links in my opinion are completely useless. So apart from vulgar slang you are good at taunting and baiting too. It reminds me, what is the difference between OED[1] and Oxford Dictionaries[2]? Getting back to red links, did my statement sound like I was trying to trade small sections for red links? No, don't worry, I am not too fussy about that, though I abhor red links you can have as many of them as you want, and remove all the small sections that you find inelegant. I don't make issues of tastes. Since you asked, your edit with the summary "grammar" was useful. Now what do you want me to do about that? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

What do I want you to do about what? I don't understand, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Won't you kindly explain the difference between OED and Oxford dictionaries? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Read the "about" pages of the websites that you link. What on earth has this got to do with improving the article? - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You know the context of this question. The question is perfectly relevant. Articles can be I proved improved only when editors interact with each other in a collegial environment. Thanks! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I give up arguing with you here. It is a fucking waste of time given that you seem now to agree with everything I did, barring some obscure point about unnamed sections that you remain "attached to" but will not identify in order that we may progress. Now look that up in any dictionary of your choosing. - Sitush (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You can foul mouth as long as the community tolerates your vulgarity and as long as you have the support of benevolent admins who misrepresent facts. To summarise:

• My opinion is that naming senior functionaries is very relevant. For that we need to put Soni's name back and we need a a section for former presidents. I have looked at NLIST it is irrelevant as I have explained above, so if there is a policy against mentioning senior office-bearers please share the link here, or let us put them back in the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk)