Talk:Invading the Sacred

Comments

Can someone tell me what the point of this is? — goethean ॐ 03:14, 15 August 2010

tag removed

The tag that called it pseudo-academic borderline nonsense was removed. Please justify before addition. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

The reasons for indicating "neutrality of the article is disputed" have not been indicated. The article is about the views expressed in the book. These are not the views of contributors personally. The book certainly is thought provoking and takes strong stance on some issues. Suitable references, tags etc have been provided. It is requested that the rationale of putting this tag may be debated before taking a unilateral stance.

Adiagr (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Adiagr

Then they should be presented as quotes, not facts, and WP:UNDUE should be adhered to. If libel such as

"Although a variety of intellectuals had offered diverse critiques of RISA, Rajiv Malhotra, as a prominent public intellectual, and an ‘outsider’ to the academia, became the main target of a vicious defamation campaign by the RISA cartel."

really appears in the book, then it can be cited if relevant. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The editing duly said the opinions in verbatim with proper references. There is no reason that it can be misunderstood. Please point the specific issues rather than generalizing through one example. Help us to make it better. Searchpow (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Unilaterally deleting everything without a talk and generating a tag without discussion is not a good way to proceed. Get back to specifics, quotes and verbatim are used interchangeably in the literature and they are perfectly alright. State your reasons for neutrality with proper arguments. Searchpow (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

After the talk discussion has started, Qwertyus has deleted the entire article. is this fair? On one hand you say that do not remove the tag and then Qwertyus deletes the entire article, even while discussion is on. This is completely one sided and unfair. He has given only one instance and has not read the book. We will improve the content steadily, but to delete it altogether is completely unfair. Adiagr (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Adiagr

This is the Wikipedia page of book, which means that it will contain summary or synopsis about the book. Your view about opinion or facts do not carry weight here since the book is itself is an opinion. Your point would have been valid if the edit was regarding something titled as "Hinduphobia" or "Anti-Hinduism." The neutrality tag initiator should be neutral itself, as pointed by Adiagr. Searchpow (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like to give an example from section III. "In response to the serious biases pointed out by scholars (Section 1), the American academia (especially the RISA scholars) and media tried to hijack the discussion as an 'attack' on scholars and 'threat' to academic freedom in America and this is summarized in chapters 18-21."

Here it is clearly mentioned "summarized in chapters 18-21" of book. Similarly other passages have also been indicated. Adiagr (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This is presenting the views expressed in the book as facts. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Qwertyus This page is about a book, right. The right thing to do here is to present what the book is about and what it states. Mvineetmenon (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

But not with the authors' words presented as facts, without explicit attribution of polemical statements. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Qwertyus Can you explain how this is understood as facts? Please refrain from edit wars. Have some meaningful discussion and maintain academic culture rather than sabotaging the work and painting it with one color. Searchpow (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be just state in the article that the whole synopsis of the book is written from the point of view of the authors. Once the reader clearly knows that the entire synopsis is the authors' opinion there is no question of dispute. This way Wikipedia authentically presents in front of the reader what the book says at the same time absolving itself from not being neutral. NRK (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That wouldn't solve the problem. It would still just repeat some rather libelous statements/rhetorical tricks, and it would be WP:UNDUE.

For the record, the passage I cited above is one problem with the text. Another is the use of a first name only to refer to Wendy Doniger, a habit of the authors of this (controversial) book already identified by Taylor as "a device that seems simultaneously to patronise and trivialise the authors." We don't need to repeat that here. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

QVVERTYVS, I also disagree with your edits. Please move on.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Qwertyus, In that case, let the edits happen and then we can work on maintaining neutrality. You are unnecessarily blocking growth of this already malnourished article. Don't delete en-mass. If you have problem with any specific lines of words, replace them suitably. Mvineetmenon (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Especially in the case of WP:BLP violations, removing then re-inserting when the issue is resolved is the proper procedure. I removed the entire summary because it is truly full of NPOV violations:

• Chapters 6-8 continue to expose the Hinduphobic work of the RISA and their distortions in the name of study of Indic traditions

• Prof. Somnath Bhattacharya [...], being a professional psychotherapist, fluent in Bengali, practitioner of Indian religion and philosophy, and familiar with the primary texts quoted in the Kripal's work, is uniquely qualified to assess Kripal's work

Note that the given source for this is Kripal's book!

• In response to the serious biases pointed out by scholars (Section 1), the American academia (especially the RISA scholars) and media tried to hijack the discussion as an 'attack' on scholars and 'threat' to academic freedom in America and this is summarized in chapters 18-21. This non-academic response ultimately succeeded in diverting the focus away from re-evaluating Hinduism studies objectively.

This is no longer just summarizing a book. This is praising it and asserting its correctness. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

In the quoted text, where is the praise? Where has any assertion been made by the contributor? You are repeatedly assuming (primarily because you have not read the book) that contributors are "modifying / praising/ asserting" content to highlight the book. The point is that the book itself takes a direct and forthright stand and contributors have tried to summarize that. If the book says - Bill had treated Sam very unfairly; how do you expect the contributor to convey this idea? Should the contributor say Bill was nice to Sam? Adiagr (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Qwertyus, Try to understand that in a book which is acerbic about RISA scholarship and other western indologists, there are bound to be references where the author would like to express his displeasure of them. The suggested edits aren't modifying, altering the POV of the book. You can differ about the said book, and that's your right. But as I have said before. This article is to explain the POV as expressed in book. For eg. Would you, just for the sake of argument alter the article about Marx's Das Kapital if you are a capitalist? Mvineetmenon (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Good example. Looking at Capital, Volume I, we see that "Marx discusses", "Marx explains", "Marx examines" and literal quotes are in quotation marks — even though this book is has no WP:BLP issues. It adheres, at least for the most part, to WP:ASSERT: "When a statement is a fact [...] it should be asserted using Wikipedia's own voice without in-text attribution" (and Wikipedia's voice is neutral, not acerbic) vs. "When a statement is an opinion [...] it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion". Do chapters 6–8 speak of "the Hinduphobic work of the RISA"? Is the "expose" bit a literal quote? Then it should be in quote marks or otherwise directly attributed to the source. Please re-read the parts of the article I just cited in the context of previous versions of the article. There, it is Wikipedia asserting that the authors "expose" this and that, and that they are "uniquely qualified" to do so. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Point made in last 2 lines noted and this guideline could have been given when this talk started. Article would have been improved without any nasty exchange. Instead, a unilateral action of deleting entire content was taken, even when the discussion was going on. Was the "Capital-Volume I" write-up perfect when it was first posted? Wiki articles improve steadily but to assume that all persons have a "motive", is quite incorrect.

This is what QVVERTYVS (hm?) wrote on my Talk page:

"Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Invading the Sacred."

This could have been posted on this talk page? What was the need to post it on My personal page? Further the contention is completely wrong. He assumed that I am giving a "commentary", without even reading a bit about the book. In particular my opposition was to a blatant removal of content, majority of which was correctly attributed.

Now I hope we conclude this discussion and allow users to add content that is true to the spirit of book, while addressing the guidelines given in this discussion. Adiagr (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I contest the claim to correct attribution, and I've given specific examples of the problem above. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Qwertyus, Okay. Fair enough. Would you stop disruptive deletion if "quotes" are used instead of declarative style? I'm saying this because there isn't a single sentence in the proposed edit which is anyone's personal opinion but Rajiv Malhotra's along with certain other authors like Krishnan Ramaswamy, Aditi Banerjee et. al. which are of course cited. Mvineetmenon (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I feel no need to answer a loaded question. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay.. Then, let's start the edit process and you can, instead of mass deletion suggest changes. I'll wait for this lock to expire or request reduction in protection of this page. Mvineetmenon (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Apropos to the above discussion, the following points are clear (in my opinion, strictly)

* It is clear that the content can not be posted in the present format.
* Quotations marks and NPOV issues need to be addressed.
* Deletion of the entire content is equally unfair. 

In view of above conclusions, I propose that the edit lock should be removed and Qwertyus may lead the editing (with due discussion) to organically grow the content of the page so that the visitors of the page get detailed and NPOV about the book. Lastly, it would be good that contributors have read the book (at least once). I trust that all of us have a common aim to make this Wiki article a more informed, a more neutral and more comprehensive piece of text so that a potential reader of this book can make an intelligent decision to read this book or not. Searchpow (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been checking claims against the original book and I stand by my original assessment. Most of the claims do occur in the book, but they have simply been copied here and are presented as facts (e.g., the "vicious defamation campaign" bit). Repeating them without hedging has the effect of presenting them as facts, whether that was the intention or not.

I'll compile a list of secondary sources, below, that can be used for a better article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I am amazed at this brazenness and casual approach. First QVVERTYVS (hm?) will delete the article and THEN he will condescend to read the book. Great!!!

Fellows, he concedes that most of the comments that were written do occur in the book, then why was it deleted in first place? Then he says that "They have been presented as facts" --> who decides that?? This is completely partisan approach. All of us have agreed that editing could have been improved and "quotes" can be improved. I would like to make a official complaint of this person and his biased conduct. This is pure and simple approach of silencing a view that is against your ideology. Others may kindly advise how to report this user, who considers himself as a "saviour" of Wikipedia. he takes drastic actions like blanket deletion (that too repeatedly) without verifying facts. This is serious stuff.

I would also like to point out one more slyness. When I pointed out that he is not replying to queries (whereas he was extremely prompt in deleting), He replies ABOVE comments of Searchpow and myself. This is deliberate misleading, because readers usually do not see time-stamp. Even if reply was to user Mvineetmenon, it could have been posted below our comments. Adiagr (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: "who decides that": the NPOV noticeboard would be the natural place to start. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

(hm?) Thanks for the additional sources you have pointed out. You stand by your original assessments, I respect that you are entitled to hold your view. You can take sides in the debate but then at the same time can not claim to be neutral.

Proof (for the claim of taking sides): We start with your first entry of the additional sources:

• Deshmukh, Smita (30 June 2007). "East fights back 'sacrilege' by West". Daily News and Analysis. Good secondary source for the role Rajiv Malhotra played in compiling this book. Biased toward the "Hindu/Indian/Eastern" viewpoint.

Question here: How do you decided that this article is "biased" when the content of the article says

"The book kicks off a new trend in literature – countering ideas and thoughts on Indian culture, especially Hinduism, by academic papers by Indian authors."

I agree that it is a point of view of the author of how she receives the book, but how can we label that it is a biased point of view until one is not taking sides.

The very fact that it takes a point of view without reviewing the actual book means it's biased, in my view. That's not a problem in and of itself (news sources typically have some kind of bias). I propose citing this article as positive reception. Note that I also pointed out potential sources of bias in the other two sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit the description to positive reception and remove 'biased' from it. Searchpow (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I will refrain (of course) from expressing an opinion in the article, but I will not change my opinion on your command. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Next consider your fourth additional resource:

• "Book review: Hinduism pundits or Hindu baiters?". Hindustan Times. 7 July 2014. Highly favorable review.

Again your comment that it is highly favorable review seems to suggest that you are taking sides as shown in previous example (I am not quoting again the article for brevity).

It's simply my summary of the source: it is a favorable review, isn't it? I don't see how I'm taking sides here. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It is again a positive reception of the book. It doesn't seem to be "highly favourable". Searchpow (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your remark. What distinction do you see between a positive review and a favourable one? (Maybe this is some nuance of English that I'm missing, I'm not a native speaker.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing wrong in holding a point of view and I respect your stand but what I detest that you can not call yourself neutral at the same time. I will discuss your additional resource 2nd and 3rd after your reply of this comment.

I would like to discuss the whole book, point by point, section by section and chapter by chapter. Searchpow (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

See inline responses. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

See inline re-responses. Please state your position about edit lock, we need to develop consensus. The discussion should carry on, I am in favor of reviewing each and every line of this article. I propose to do away with edit lock. Searchpow (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm very concerned about Adiagr's and DharmoRakshati's stance toward citing negative commentary and I'd like the block to remain in place so I can take this whole matter to the NPOV noticeboard. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It is bit rich on the part QVVERTYVS (hm?) to claim neutrality and cite Martha Nussbaum's book. The blog , was mentioned by Martha Nussbaum as the starting point of a "war" by "the Hindu right" against American scholars. Present book is about such authors only. Risa-Lila I (along with Riss Lila II was finally compiled as the present book "Invading the Sacred. I am adding these two in Additional Sources for balance. Adiagr (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

References

I don't fully see your point. You want the article to only present the point of the authors? Is it forbidden to cite Nussbaum? That would go against WP:BALANCE. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Completely disagree. Who are you, as in a person to comment about a book? This article is about a book and not not supposed to be a commentary. Qwertyus is unnecessarily trying to create trouble. Please refrain from doing malicious edits just because you don't like Rajiv Malhotra or his ideology. DharmoRakshati (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not the article; this is the talk page where we may discuss which sources are appropriate for which purposes. I'm not expressing an opinion about the book, and I don't recall saying I don't like Malhotra. Also, please abstain from personal attacks. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I cite the following discussion as an example of double standards of Qwertyus:

Searchpow says: "Again your comment that it is highly favorable review seems to suggest that you are taking sides as shown in previous example"

Then Qwertyus mentions: "It's simply my summary of the source: it is a favorable review, isn't it? I don't see how I'm taking sides here."

So Qwertyus can write summary, other users can't. Why? This is precisely the point contributors are making. They are also writing a summary of the book. But it is blasphemy when anyone other than Qwertyus does it.

Adiagr (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

And you too should abstain from personal attacks. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit locks, please reply, I am asking this question repeatedly? Searchpow (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I answered that question, above. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I will urge all the members to refrain from personal attacks. It should be unblocked once the users comes on board to discuss. Do not take matter further, we can resolve it through discussion. Please remove the edit block on the condition that sabotaging the work is not permissible and all of us should refrain from personal attacks. Agree Qwertyus? Searchpow (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Qwertyus I have only mentioned inconsistencies in your own stance. Blatant deletion of article, even when issues were being discussed, was started by you. It is clear that it suits you (Qwertyus) to keep the edit lock. Continuation of edit lock will be sheer injustice and against the basic idea of wikipedia. Counter references / views and edits are welcome. What is wrong is blatant deletion without even reading the book. Adiagr (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, then I have no more objection to lifting the block, please file a request. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFUP Thank you Qwertyus for agreeing for the consensus. Initiated request for un-protection. I will again appeal all the users to not get involved in an edit war, try and create a conducive atmosphere for fruitful discussion. No personal attacks. Searchpow (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Additional sources

Some additional sources about this book:

• Deshmukh, Smita (30 June 2007). "East fights back 'sacrilege' by West". Daily News and Analysis. Good secondary source for the role Rajiv Malhotra played in compiling this book. Seems biased toward the book authors' viewpoint.
• Taylor, McComas (2011). "Mythology Wars: The Indian Diaspora, Wendy's Children and the Struggle for the Hindu Past" (PDF). Asian Studies Review. 35: 149–168. Critical assessment of several parts of the book; puts it into some perspective. Note: journal is affiliated with the AAS.
• Nussbaum, Martha C. (2009). The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India's Future. Harvard University Press. pp. 246 ff. ISBN 978-0-674-03059-6. Retrieved 25 May 2013. Discusses the "Wendy's Children" thing. Doesn't mention Invading the Sacred directly, but does reference the articles by Malhotra that it is based on. It seems like Nussbaum is a friend of Doniger's.
• "Book review: Hinduism pundits or Hindu baiters?". Hindustan Times. 7 July 2014. Highly favorable review.
• Rajiv Malhotra. "RISA Lila - 1: Wendy's Child Syndrome".
• Rajiv Malhotra. "RISA Lila - 2 - Limp Scholarship And Demonology". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Commentary on sources is my own, intended for assessing sources, not for direct use in the article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

not sure what to make of your comment: "It seems like Nussbaum is a friend of Doniger's." They are professional colleagues in the same field, so of course they know each other, and are presumably at least cordial. Are you implying something more? Clocke (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Clocke: Please check the passage I linked to. At some point Nussbaum starts making some rather personal (IMHO) comments about Doniger's physique and character (when discussing perceived personal attacks). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I see no comments about Doniger's "physique." Doniger naturally comes up in this context because her character has been consistently impugned by doctrinaire Hindutva ideologues. Clocke (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't find the quote right now — maybe I misremember. Anyway, I'm not objecting to the source in any way, I'm just warning that it's not a neutral outsider's observation. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Relevance of authors' claims?

Authors of the book claim that it "gave birth to and incubated a solid opposition to" the "Freudian psychoanalytical critiques of Hinduism", that was being "propagated by "western academia"

What is the relevance of the authors' own opinion of their book? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I think author's own opinion may or may not be stated in the impact of the book. Moreover, Rajiv Malhotra is not the author of this book, rather his foundation seems to be funded the study. We can keep this in other section. I would like to hear from the person who added this particular sentence in this particular section before arriving to a decision. Searchpow (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The Phrase "Authors of the book claim" was not added by me, but I retained it because the references that I added were from Indra's Net, written by Rajiv Malhotra. Since present book (ITS) contains ideas of Rajiv Malhotra, I thought it better not to remove this phrase. Anyway, I have removed it now.

Adiagr (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If this is Malhotra's opinion, it should be stated as such. He is the funder, so he's not a third-party source. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference of Indra's net is already given, and it is authored by Rajiv Malhotra. Btw, do you feel that it would be better to put a third party view in "impact of the book"?

Adiagr (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This needs inline attribution. I just put one in. I still feel that the quote is out of place; if there really was an extensive debate, then we should be able to cite a lot of works, and we wouldn't need Malhotra's assessment at all. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Removing this line. I agree. I will cite some third party assessments. Adiagr (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Re-editing after the truce

The NPOV warning is removed and it is justified since the 'dispute is resolved'. Before initiating any such action, please discuss here, we all are here to find an amicable solution. Searchpow (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The new section is being editing with due care for the NPOV. If anyone find any objection in that then please discuss with specifics in this talk page. Removal and editing will be extensively discussed. Searchpow (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The main objection about this page by one of the user was:

"Then they should be presented as quotes, not facts, and WP:UNDUE should be adhered to. "

I hope the editors, this time, do take care of the above fact. Also, we should not encourage edit wars and personal attacks. Searchpow (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference clarification

"The section further cites sources to mention that this myth generated varying degree of “otherness”[8] towards “Native Americans (and later the Blacks and Mexicans)" and that "Whites had the right to reshape this wilderness as they saw fit"."

Reference [8], need to be clarified. Searchpow (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference [8] is contained in the para of section III of Invading the Sacred. It is necessary to explain the meaning & context of "otherness" and therefore this reference was given. Please read this line together with the preceding line and therefore importance of giving this reference willl hopefully be clear. This explanation can be brought in the main article itself, but it will make the sentence wordy.

Adiagr (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Accusations

I am totally unaware and unconnected with User:Searchpow. I request that a detailed investigation regarding ip address may be done so that such messages are not posted.Adiagr (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You're kidding? You were blocked for sock-puppetry, you were notified of the sockpuppet-investigation, and now you request a detailed investigation? Your reputation is not harmed by such messages; your reputation is harmed by the reason of those messages, namely your own behavior. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Let detailed investigation report come out. I am well within my right to request a review. I hope an administrator notes your tone and tenor.Adiagr (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adiagr/Archive. It's in the messagebox, and was on your talkpage, before you removed the block-notice, including your rejected unblock-request. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I know you are itching for an argument. By the way issue is that whether the investigation was conclusive. Let facts come out. Adiagr (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Joshua Jonathan Refer comments at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ponyo. He has admitted that investigations were not conclusive and has modified his report.Adiagr (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

From Ponyo's comment at User talk:Ponyo#Unfair Tagging based on your investigations: "I stand by my results at the SPI that if the other accounts are not you, that it is likely a group of editors acting in concert with each other." Ponyo made one edit at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adiagr, where he wrote "These are all very  Likely the same user, or a group of closely related editors." No modifications have been made there by Ponyo. So, I think that you're a WP:SPA with a WP:COI, and trying to deceive other editors. With other words: WP:NOTHERE. Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@ User:Joshua Jonathan May I ask why have you conveniently omitted last line of Ponyo which states: "I note that the accounts in the SPI were tagged as confirmed, which was incorrect, and I have fixed that ". Adiagr (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@ User:Joshua Jonathan I plan to proceed complaint against this statement of yours that "So, I think that you're a WP:SPA with a WP:COI, and trying to deceive other editors". You have been a experienced editor and therefore I ask you to review your comments and not to use baseless allegations without conclusive proofs.Adiagr (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you're right; I hadn't noticed that line. Note, though, that Ponyo has not modified his report; he has corrected the tags at the user-pages of the involved accounts. It also doesn't change his comment "These are all very  Likely the same user, or a group of closely related editors." You know what, I'll correct the messageboxes at this page. Take care, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I've stiked the comments by blocked accounts Searchpow, DharmoRakshati and Mvineetmenon, and removed the messageboxes, per User talk:Ponyo#Unfair Tagging based on your investigations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment

I assess this article to C class. I agree with the cleanup tag that this goes too much into details about the book's contents with the Synopsis section. I feel the section may have to be trimmed down by as much as 50 percent. The article sections can be reorganised per these recommendations. Really recommend addressing these concerns if it has be ready and pass its GA review smoothly.

More points:

• Section I [Chapters 1-10]: what are external links doing in the article itself? see WP:EL for more information.
  • Because it goes into such details, there are too many quotations from the book too. It needs to be summarised.
• Reception section
  • No need to devote subsections to individual reviews. It could be condensed into smaller paras instead. Be wary about excessive quotations.
• After the content reorganised better, redo the lead section per WP:LEADLENGTH. A lead section doesn't need citations usually since it merely summarises the rest of the article. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks user:Ugog. Will try to modify as suggested. Adiagr (talk) 07:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments/sources

For self-use. ∯WBG^converse 19:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)