Talk:Constanzo Beschi

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constanzo Beschi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100118155900/http://www.pondyarchdiocese.org.in/konankuppam.htm to http://www.pondyarchdiocese.org.in/konankuppam.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopaedia

The Catholic Encyclopaedia is over 100 years old and is known to be unreliable in many respects. It has been discussed on numerous occasions at WP:RSN and, while it is not completely useless, it has two big flaws when it comes to history. The first is that it is an avowedly partisan work and the second is that its research does not meet with modern standards of historiography.

I think we should not use it in this article. We only very rarely allow sources from the Raj era in India-related stuff and surely if this chap is as notable as is made out in our article then there will be more modern discussions of his life etc. See WP:HISTRS for some basic background to this.

As an aside, the same issues also apply to some of the sources that are listed but not actually cited. And the tag noting the problem with that has been in place since 2008. This article is going to end up being stubbed unless it is sorted out very soon. - Sitush (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Tamilnation

The Tamilnation website has a somewhat chequered history on Wikipedia. Much of its content has been disputed over the years, with arguments ranging from there being no obvious editorial control through to outright pov-pushing ethnic bias. We probably should look elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Vikatan

I cannot read the Vikatan source but I would be wary of it. The thing appears to be a general news site/magazine and we're using it to support statements about linguistics that really should require an academic source, especially when we're making extraordinary claims such as of him being the first to do this, that or the other. There have been many edit wars on Wikipedia over the years because of issues involving the Tamil language, so top class sources would seem to be a prerequisite. - Sitush (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible sources

These are examples of the type of sources that we should be using.

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]

Plus, of course, stuff at academic repositories such as JSTOR. - Sitush (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Subjective opinions in removing content

'and surely if this chap is as notable as is made out in our article' - Referring to Beschi as 'this chap' clearly indicates complete ignorance about this esteemed Tamil scholar and his works. That Constantine Beschi introduced the tittle in Tamil consonants and changed the way long Tamil vowels were written is an accepted fact by Tamil scholars. People who are unsure should read 'Thonnool Vilakkam' book by the respected Veeramamunivar published in 1891 where he introduced the changes; instead of lazily and ignorantly calling credible sources that provide correct information as 'dubious'! --Ophelia S (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR. We are not allowed to deduce from primary sources, which is what you are asking us to do by suggesting we read Beschi's book. Reading that will not tell us whether someone else did something before he did - we would need to read everything else ever written before it, which is well beyond the scope of Wikipedia contributors and it why we rely on reliable independent secondary sources. As I have tried to explain in sections above, for matters such as linguistics it is usually preferable to seek academic sources. - Sitush (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't need to read Beschi's book as we are not allowed to deduce from primary sources. But Wikipedia allows the primary source to be mentioned in the article, and you cannot remove it, which you are repeatedly doing. It is up to the other readers to deduce what they want after referring to the source. Here is another link to an academic website of the Govt of Tamilnadu quoting the same from Beschi's book. http://www.tamilvu.org/ta/courses-degree-a051-a0513-html-a051353-9965 So stop removing credible sources in a page about a PERSON giving reasons applicable to LINGUISTICS. --Ophelia S (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we can put the book in a "Publications" section (some articles call it "Works" or "Bibliography" etc). But we usually should not cite it as a source even if we mention it in the body text. I am not sure what you are trying to prove with this link. For example, we do not usually cite/link to student's web pages, nor to any source that has not had some sort of editorial oversight. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule but this is unlikely to be one of those. - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

If quoting primary source is an issue, then this here - http://tamildigitallibrary.in/book-detail.php?id=jZY9lup2kZl6TuXGlZQdjZMeluQy&tag=%E0%AE%A4%E0%AF%8A%E0%AE%A9%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%A9%E0%AF%82%E0%AE%B2%E0%AF%8D%20%E0%AE%B5%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%B3%E0%AE%95%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D is a secondary source. It is Veeramamunivar's Thonnool Vilakkam, a book explained by Srinivasa Ragavacharya, and published in 1891. Plus all over Wikipedia, there are articles on linguistics quoting English newspapers such as The Hindu, The Times of India, etc. So why is it a problem to quote respected regional newspapers such as Dinakaran, DinaThanthi, etc. which publish more content about the local language and in the local language? Plus, if primary source is an issue, where do you want me to mention it? Under Footnotes, References, or Further reading???

Wikipedia is a work in progress, will never be completed and will always have problems precisely because pretty much anyone can edit the thing - every expert, every fruitloop, everyone in between those two extremes. It is impossible to monitor over five million articles and, arguably, Wikipedia has become a victim of its own success. That something is done at one article is not always justification for doing the same at other articles or, as one saying has it, "two wrongs do not make a right". I think we can all agree that, unlike say noting the career statistics of a cricket player, linguistics is an academic subject. As such, we really should be preferring academic sources and really, really should not be using newspapers etc (which, after all, are merely reporting stuff that we should be able to source directly).

I realise that all of this may bemuse you because you appear to be a new contributor and it is often a confusing place. While challenging things here, as in life in general, is often a great way to learn, there does come a point where you have to accept the received wisdom. Very few of us are in the mould of Gallileo. - Sitush (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all, there is no rule in Wikipedia not to quote primary sources. Readers can compare the primary source with what is mentioned in the article and arrive at a conclusion for themselves.

"something is done at one article is not always justification for doing the same at other articles" - so basically you are applying YOUR subjective biased view to not accept a source in this particular article.

"Very few of us are in the mould of Gallileo" - that is quite obvious you aren't in his mould considering Galileo is spelt with one L and not a double LL! :)

I have quoted the primary source.

I had also given secondary sources of several credible Tamil newspapers and magazines quoting Veeramamunivar made changes to the way certain Tamil vowels and consonants were written.

[12] is a link to a Tamil Nadu govt-run academic website where scholars with doctorates in Tamil Literature have quoted Veeramamunivar's contribution to changes in Tamil vowels and consonants.

Now I am again giving a secondary academic source - Thonnool Vilakkam book written by Subramanian, published 1978, pages 25-26 - clearly talking about Veeramamunivar's contribution to changes in Tamil vowels and consonants.

I wonder if you can even read Tamil, which greatly questions your ability to qualify these sources. So after all these sources, if you still want to question their credibility and make a mockery of yourself, please go ahead. Thank you. --Ophelia S (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

A tip for you: being aggressive is not the way to make friends nor even conduct discussions here. Both at this article and that for Tamil language you are dealing with people who have a vast experience of Wikipedia's ways. None of us are always right, including you, but the chances of us understanding Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and generally accepted norms somewhat better than a person who has only recently begun editing here are, of course, much greater. And when it is three such people then you're going to have to be mindful also of the information at WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is not a vote-counting exercise but nonetheless it is highly significant. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not taking any sides here and just simply clearing doubts in this discussion, it is quite sad to see that you can't understand a simple thing which anyone could understand. The other party is clearly trying to argue that if a website endorsed by the government of Tamil Nadu and written by someone credible (முனைவர் means doctorate, you don't seem to understand Tamil) uses that source, it should be credible. You could take some philosophy lessons to better understand how lines of reasoning and arguments work. 2406:3003:2006:2640:ACB2:41D:C856:6B4E (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I see you have made some edits to the Infobox. Thank you. I understand some of my statements have come across so, but it was not my intention to be aggressive. You first posted "all of this may bemuse you because you appear to be a new contributor". You making emotional assumptions about my bemusement was unwarranted and irrelevant to the discussion here.

Also, all your inputs revolve around the logic of 'We are more experienced. Thou shalt not contradict us' ("does come a point where you have to accept the received wisdom"(?), "chances of us understanding Wikipedia's policies...somewhat better than a person..."). I respect the fact that you have more experience here, but that does not by default make your views correct. Your previous comments make it clear you have certain assumptions about the 'The Catholic Encyclopedia', Tamilnation website, "Raj-era stuff", etc. So your edits on Wikipedia are based on these assumptions. While these are your subjective views, these are not Wikipedia's views. So I don't need to subscribe to your views when quoting sources. Also, when you have been operating on Wikipedia for years with certain views and new editors like me contribute with a new point of view, it may be difficult for you to consider it, but that doesn't make my view incorrect. For instance, I understand you have certain views about primary sources. But Wikipedia accepts credible primary sources, and you cannot outright reject a source just because it is 'primary'.

And Tamil grammar is an area where not much current research material is available. Almost all Tamil grammar books available today are based on the ancient Nannool and Thonnool only, but in today's simple prose. They present only what is relevant for today's usage. So to talk about the changes introduced in the language in the 18th century, there are only one or two old books for reference. These are old books with missing cover pages in libraries, so don't expect ISBN numbers to be quoted. Thankfully, one or two of these books have been digitally uploaded. So tagging these treasured books as a dubious source is highly disrespectful; but tagging it as 'dubious' or 'more citation needed' is your choice. As and when new researches are done, others can add those sources to Wikipedia. Right now, I can provide only the available sources. Readers can compare and arrive at their conclusions. --Ophelia S (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You are sort-of correct that I have assumptions about the various sources mentioned above. Those assumptions, however, are based on the consensus of the community. They are not held solely by me and WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. You can seek to change consensus but you cannot over-ride it without such change. It doesn't look like you are going to get much input here regarding those sources, although I note that SpacemanSpiff has been challenging your use of some of them for the same points you have made at Tamil language. Thus, if you wish to seek change I think you would be best advised to raise the issue(s) at our Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where a wider range of people may comment. Please read the instructions at the top of that page carefully.

My comments about bemusement etc are based on experience. If they do not apply to you then so be it but new users often do appreciate the empathy. - Sitush (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)