User talk:Authentickle/Chitpavan
The article in its current form (June 07th ) imho reeks envy/subtle slander. i.e. i am casting doubt over the neutrality of the article's tone. (although the content might be fine). The content has been presented in sections where it is distorting the article's neutrality/non-offensive posture.
Suggest removing/moving-to-another section: 1) "There are no references to the Chitpavans in any of the ancient, medieval or modern Hindu scriptures such as the Itihasas, Puranas, Bhagvad Gita, Upanishads, etc. This is a strong indication that the Chitpavans have origins and roots outside of India and that they were the very last group of migrants to arrive in Konakan. Multiple DNA analyses on specimens of Chitpawan community members confirm this[2] suggesting a non-Hindu, Turko-Iranian origin[3]"
2) I believe we should have a separate section for criticism against the community, which i believe is plenty.
3) I would suggest fallback/revert to the state of the article on 11th May, disregarding the changes made from june 4th onwards.
Looking forward to opinions about these 3 points, and looking forward to editing in a 'civilized manner' conforming to Wikipedia norms & etiquettes (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars)
Thanks,
Hi, your edits to Chitpavan, e.g. here, violate all three of our content policies, and have been removed. You can read the policies at Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Basically they mean that if you want to add that material, or any other, you need high-quality reliable sources—academic social anthropologists or historians, for example—for each of the points you want to make. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
1) let me step back a bit and say a bit about marketing, PR, etc. Members of a community want to portray themselves in the best possible light - why ? practical reasons that people's opinions about them are shaped by what is out there.
2) Of course, each community has competitors (people having power interests), and as such want the same community to be portayed in a bad-light.
3) Which opinion prevails ? Wikipedia's norms say that "neutrality" prevails i.e. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/NPOV. By this i mean that the article should have a 'balanced' treatment of all the viewpoints. Of course this by itself is not enough, i.e. as such, it matters to the people in the community how their community is portrayed i.e. different sections of the article have different importance. There are 3 players here -- community members, competitors and neutral observers. I think that in purview of good PR, the community members should have the first say, but it is very important that the competitors opinions be presented (for NPOV).
4) As i see it, you have vested interests in saying that the community is based outside of india etc. (reason: politics) Are you willing/suggesting/wishing to disregard all contributions of this community in the last 1000 years ? Also genetically, the community has genes from INDIA as well. Kindly do not disregard that. Also remember that caste and race are different things.
5) Of course, i am not saying that we should not consider your POV, just that we should move your POV to the criticisms section, because as i see it -- you are still NOT being neutral . You are hinting subtly that these folks are outside of india, and yet amongst the highest caste groups -- how can that be...etc. IMHO a statement that is not what the community wants in the opening statement. e.g. when one talks about the US, one does not say in the opening statement that this is the only country to have used the nuclear bomb -- sure that may be true, but it is not that important to merit being in the opening statment.
6) Plus you are adding no new info (except making political statements) - all genetic links are already present in the genetics section of the article (before your changes) (including the stuff you are saying -- links with Turks, Iranians, Greeks, Jews etc.)
I suggest not accepting any of your changes (or suggest adding a criticisms section, which will satisfy you as well as NPOV)
--171.70.222.55 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Kanishkajoshi/171.70.222.55 - My response is here [[1]] Authentickle (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)