| Revision as of 02:56, 17 January 2009 editFowler&fowler (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers62,979 edits →Kingdom of Mysore FAR← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:57, 17 January 2009 edit undoFowler&fowler (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers62,979 editsm →Kingdom of Mysore FARNext edit → | ||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
| *1 (b) It is poorly cited: it cites two or three unremarkable sources, at least one of which is written by a historian with publicly stated Hindu nationalist sympathies; the sources show up nowhere on Google scholar. Meanwhile all the ] (which incidentally is one of the most worked over topics in early-modern and modern Indian history) are ignored. | *1 (b) It is poorly cited: it cites two or three unremarkable sources, at least one of which is written by a historian with publicly stated Hindu nationalist sympathies; the sources show up nowhere on Google scholar. Meanwhile all the ] (which incidentally is one of the most worked over topics in early-modern and modern Indian history) are ignored. | ||
| *1 (c) It is not comprehensive. It creates a partial history of Mysore and can't seem to decide if it is about the dynasty (the Wodeyars) or about a state. See, for example, my ] for a more balanced dynamic history. | *1 (c) It is not comprehensive. It creates a partial history of Mysore and can't seem to decide if it is about the dynasty (the Wodeyars) or about a state. See, for example, my ] for a more balanced dynamic history. | ||
| *1 (d) it is a biased, revisionist history of Mysore, which glorifies a defunct dynasty of Hindu rulers, and minimizes the contributions of both the Muslim sultans (Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan) and of the British. Furthermore, it glorifies a princely state into a "Kingdom," when all the others (some older than Mysore) are called states, for example, ], ]. Until their hand was forced, the primary authors were trying to get away with calling Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan the "de facto" rulers, in order that the Wodeyars could be shown to have ruled uninterruptedly from 1399 to 1947. To put it bluntly, it is one of the most blatant Hindu nationalist snow jobs I've seen on Misplaced Pages. Read the version (from November 2007?) that passed the FAC and you'll realize what sort of garbage can become an FA. They weren't even calling it a princely state then; I did that in March of 2008. | *1 (d) it is a biased, revisionist history of Mysore, which glorifies a defunct dynasty of Hindu rulers, and minimizes the contributions of both the Muslim sultans (Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan) and of the British. Furthermore, it glorifies a princely state by turning it into a "Kingdom," when all the others (some older than Mysore) are called states, for example, ], ]. Until their hand was forced, the primary authors were trying to get away with calling Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan the "de facto" rulers, in order that the Wodeyars could be shown to have ruled uninterruptedly from 1399 to 1947. To put it bluntly, it is one of the most blatant Hindu nationalist snow jobs I've seen on Misplaced Pages. Read the version (from November 2007?) that passed the FAC and you'll realize what sort of garbage can become an FA. They weren't even calling it a princely state then; I did that in March of 2008. | ||
| Please see ] (sections 1.2 to 1.8) for a more detailed critique and please ask me any questions you have. This is not a content dispute. It is sort of the equivalent of having the Mishra dude write the ] page and then turning it into an FA. It's that bad. ]] 02:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC) | Please see ] (sections 1.2 to 1.8) for a more detailed critique and please ask me any questions you have. This is not a content dispute. It is sort of the equivalent of having the Mishra dude write the ] page and then turning it into an FA. It's that bad. ]] 02:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:57, 17 January 2009
 Archives |
|
Patton
Mr Park, would you like to complete the third party opinion that you began a day or two ago please. Frankly I am beginning to get sickened by the whole affair and how it seems impossible to get resolution of a simple matter like this.BillMaddock (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I thought I had finished giving it! I'll take a look a little later this morning. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 14:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
You're invited!
|
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).
We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Misplaced Pages Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Misplaced Pages Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
confused editor
I believe your confusing yourself with what POK means its a pov term used by Indians unless its removed i wont stop editing IOK pages got that86.158.237.94 (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- We generally try to use names that are neutral as well as names that are commonly accepted. That policy is generally a good one because, particularly in disputed situations, any name at all will clash with someone or the other's world view and, without application of that policy, the article will be in an endless naming war. We have to have a functional encyclopedia so it is best to accept that and move on. You may, of course, open a discussion on the article talk page. Since you are well-informed on the situation in Kashmir, perhaps there are other ways in which you can make articles on that subject better. That will be much appreciated! Thanks for taking the trouble to edit wikipedia. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 12:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages Signpost, January 10, 2009
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 20:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Arundhati Roy, again
Hey Regent's Park, it's happening all over again--unreferenced smears called "media criticisms." You tagged them, in what I think was a genuine attempt at diplomacy and tact in the spirit of cooperation, rather than deleting them. I applaud you for your patience. I left a note on the talk page, and I may have been more polemic than I should have--but it's trying on one's patience. Do you think at some point more protective measures need to be taken? Kind regards, Drmies (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I was planning in swinging by in a day to delete the text if no WP:RS were added. Technically, the material should be deleted immediately per WP:BLP. I'll delete it later tonight and let's see what happens. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 23:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Good work. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Kingdom of Mysore FAR
Hi there, Well, my position is that Kingdom of Mysore violates three Featured article criteria. These are:
- 1 (b) It is poorly cited: it cites two or three unremarkable sources, at least one of which is written by a historian with publicly stated Hindu nationalist sympathies; the sources show up nowhere on Google scholar. Meanwhile all the scholars who have worked on Mysore (which incidentally is one of the most worked over topics in early-modern and modern Indian history) are ignored.
- 1 (c) It is not comprehensive. It creates a partial history of Mysore and can't seem to decide if it is about the dynasty (the Wodeyars) or about a state. See, for example, my History of Mysore and Coorg, 1565–1760 for a more balanced dynamic history.
- 1 (d) it is a biased, revisionist history of Mysore, which glorifies a defunct dynasty of Hindu rulers, and minimizes the contributions of both the Muslim sultans (Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan) and of the British. Furthermore, it glorifies a princely state by turning it into a "Kingdom," when all the others (some older than Mysore) are called states, for example, Hyderabad State, Kashmir and Jammu (princely state). Until their hand was forced, the primary authors were trying to get away with calling Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan the "de facto" rulers, in order that the Wodeyars could be shown to have ruled uninterruptedly from 1399 to 1947. To put it bluntly, it is one of the most blatant Hindu nationalist snow jobs I've seen on Misplaced Pages. Read the version (from November 2007?) that passed the FAC and you'll realize what sort of garbage can become an FA. They weren't even calling it a princely state then; I did that in March of 2008.
Please see user:Fowler&fowler/Kingdom of Mysore FAR (sections 1.2 to 1.8) for a more detailed critique and please ask me any questions you have. This is not a content dispute. It is sort of the equivalent of having the Mishra dude write the Indian rebellion of 1857 page and then turning it into an FA. It's that bad. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)