Talk:Malayalam Encyclopedia

NPOV edit by User:Cruxit

I believe your edits to Malayalam Britannica are in violation of WP:NPOV and need to be redone. I believe they will also require significant supporting sources as well. Lawyer2b 03:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Attention Lawyer2b!

The published book can be purchased and the arguments verified. If you don't know Malayalam language and verify the facts, please don't edit this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:59.91.253.168 (talk • contribs)

• 1) According to official policy, the burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain, so it is appropriate that you do the work of providing sources for your edit rather than expecting other editors to verify claims you make.
• 2) While helpful, I don't believe it is necessary for someone to know any other language besides English in order to edit any article in the English version of wikipedia.
• 3) A simple reading of the book, even if it contained all the glaring mistakes you claim, does not permit the work to be described as you would like; to wit, that it is "idiotic" and that "exceptional idiots" were employed in its translation. Please read WP:NPOV to understand why.
• 4) That notwithstanding, assuming it does contain the gross factual errors you claim and had a verdict rendered against it in a "consumer dispute forum", can you just cite some verifying sources?
• 5) Assuming you are User:Cruxit, can you explain why you removed the mention and source I did cite regarding an award it apparently received? Lawyer2b 05:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Cruxit answers. It was not my aim to shift the burden of evidence to other eitors' shoulders. I was referring to a published reference. Anyone can check it and verify if the points I raised were genuine. That is the only method plausible. I hope the burden of evidence doesn't necessitate physically producing the volumes at your home. Scanned image of Theodore Pappas' preface mentioned in the article could be posted, if the pubishers don't object. In the case of this article, knowledge of Malayalam is necessary to controvert the points in the article. You were not doing language editing. You wanted this article to be edited out. A simple reading is enough to call a lie a lie. The Pappas preface claims the referene has 28,000 entries. It hardly has 25,000. If a translator or writer writes that footpath (the entry is *natapatha* which means footpath in Malayalam) is a place where aeroplanes land they well deserve to be called idiots. In another article seaplanes are said to land *under* water. Unfortuanately, the courts in Inda are not online yet. The verdict was passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum of Kottayam District in Kerala State. You can request a copy of the verdict frm there. A few television channels and website carried the news of the verdict. They don't seem to maintain their archive for long. About the link of the reference getting an award. It is a "fact". The behind- the- scenes nexus between the local publisher and the publishers' association is an obscene story hardly worth mentioning. The award was for production (the physical aspect alone. The link was removed when I copied and pasted the earlier version.

• 1) Cruxit, I appreciate the response. Would you also do me the favor of signing your talk page edits with the standard ~~~~ ? It just makes it easier to know who edited what.
• 2) As I mentioned above, I believe there are two issues with the material you want to include in the article: its actual wording (which is not according to WP:NPOV) and its need for supporting sources.
• 3) Let's talk about the wording first. You're probably right...a transalator/writer that writes that a footpath is where aeroplanes land probably deserves to be called an idiot...just not on wikipedia. You are obviously an intelligent person who apparently can speak at least two languages. I really would appreciate it if you would read WP:NPOV as it is official policy which I am sure you will find addresses this issue directly. I will go ahead and remove all material in the article I believe violates this policy. If you disagree, please don't add it back, but rather discuss it on this talk page.
• 4) There is much material you want to include that requires some sort of citation which I will tag with a {{Citation needed}} . Please take a look at each one by one and see if there is a published source you can provide. I'm not requesting you provide hard copies of anything, I simply want wikipedia's policies for citing dources and verifiability to be followed. In the case of a court decision at least cite the court and the date the verdict was rendered in the article. If an encyclopedia put out by as reputable a company as Britannica was as bad as you say and actually had a court judgement against it, I would think some newspaper or journal somewhere reported the story and can back up your claims. Lawyer2b 14:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 13:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malayalam Encyclopedia. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20060115095834/http://in.news.yahoo.com:80/040810/43/2fffq.html to http://in.news.yahoo.com/040810/43/2fffq.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)