Talk:Sudheendra Kulkarni

References

Sitush what is the difference between the reflist style you deleted and the simpler one now. Actually the earlier one was generated automatically by a little gadget I used.[1]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a lot, but I find it easier for when lists become long. It seems to format as multiple columns very simply, especially if you adjust it to {{reflist|colwidth=30em}} I also find it easier if you are using footnotes as well as citations, as at Lohara dynasty. Of course, this article may never reach a point where it matters but plan ahead ... - Sitush (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

... and I have misunderstood. Clicked on your link after replying, because I saw the "reflist" bit. There are numerous ways of citing. The template way is pretty comprehensive - take a look at my user page and you'll see some examples + a link to the documentation. It soon becomes ingrained in your head & you need not refer to the things again.

OTOH, I also use a cite/bibliography style, as on the Lohara article. It reduces the amount of clutter in the edit window and also makes the page smaller, so at least in theory it should load a little faster. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking

Re: linking the word "Indian". Per WP:OVERLINK we do not usually link major countries etc. It doesn't matter if "Indian" is a phrasing style in India, as your weird edit summary of a few minutes ago seems to say. This is English Wikipedia and Indian-English does not supplant general style guidelines even though it is an acceptable alternative for spellings, choice of words etc. The phrasing and the style are separate issues and you cannot conflate them. You either unlink "Indian" or you shuffle things around. I tried to do both and you objected to both. Your choice, but either way there should not be a link there.

Yes, there are "occasional exceptions". This is not one of them because you claim that there will be confusion with Native Americans but in fact in the very next sentence you link to an educational institution in India with the word "Indian" in its title & I think we can assume people have some common sense. There is no logic to your position and the fact that you are carrying on this type of argument over 10 - 15 different articles, all related to some sort of perception that India-related articles are somehow damaged here, is just stacking up towards some action being taken. There are already some considerable concerns being floated around, as you are aware, and you are also aware that some of your more extreme breaches have already been halted (eg: using the wrong forum for a discussion). You can only go on doing this for so long before you will find yourself in bother. Why risk it? If you are blocked then you are excluded from the "critical mass" that you desire to see. Or, put another way, you will have shot yourself in the foot. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)Don't people in the GangaxGanges debate make arguments like (a)Ganga is Hindi (b)Ganga sounds like weed. We can never take commonsense for granted.(2)Don't bother about me, why not go and start another sock inquiry or the like against me. All the best. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Some people really have comprehension problems. Here means on Wikipedia, (1)Wangari Muta Maathai is a Kenyan... (2)Mark Freuder Knopfler is a British... (3)James Douglas "Jim" Morrison was an American... All randomn names.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You have missed the point completely, and perhaps deliberately. Indian unlinked is ok; Indian linked is not. Don't worry about it - I'll get the thing fixed. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What else does "It doesn't matter if "Indian" is a phrasing style in India, as your weird edit summary...", mean? And it was said in addition to overlink. Do you think editors suffer amnesia and go partially blind after some time? You are free to edit war.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to wikilink India. The context is made clear immediately. There is no way this person will be mistaken for Native American. LadyofShalott 16:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you then account for Ganga being confused for a weed? And Google search with region on USA is not so sure.[2]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ladyof are you sure you are not indulging in providing cover fire in this edit war Sitush is engaged in here?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I form my own opinions. Sitush did let me know of this discussion, but if I did not agree with him, I would not have said/done what I did. A google search is irrelevant. Context is what matters, and the context of this article makes it entirely clear that the nation of India is the sense of "Indian" that applies, not any other. LadyofShalott 17:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)Sitush is hounding me, he has by his own admission no knowledge of the subject, yet he jumped here, he is edit warring, you are covering up for him, it is not a display of good faith. Would you have come here naturally? Please undo your revert as a matter of good faith. (2)Did you check out the argument that Ganga sounds like weed to Americans so the river cannot be named so despite the whole world favouring its use? It seems Americans whose pleasure is very important here are a confusable people, just check the what the Indian nation leads to, if Ganga is confusing, this stuff would stump the average American bloke[3], QED let the link remain.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

?? The article does not say "Indian nation". Furthermore, if you Google "Indian", well, guess what comes up? - Sitush (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What is [2] above then??? Don't you look before you leap??Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it and as LoS said, it is irrelevant. Aside from her point, the article does not use the phrase "Indian man". Just get over it, please. - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sudheendra is an Indian man, check out image search for him.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I never said that he was not. Now move on, please. No more from me on this issue so you will be talking to yourself. - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I made no reply to the Ganga/ganja point because it has nothing to do with this article or any edit I have made anywhere. It is not mentioned here and is therefore irrelevant. LadyofShalott 22:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It is relevant mam, the argument against Ganga is that it is a very confusing word for Americans, they think it is ganja, wouldn't Indian be infinitely more confusing?? As ghits demonstrate. Please reply??? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the talk page of Sudheendra Kulkarni, an article that does not mention Ganga, Ganges, ganja, or marijuana. Nor does it mention gangrene, gang violence, or a googolplex. That is why none of those topics are relevant to this discussion. LadyofShalott 04:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem mam is that you are not assuming good faith, when a bloke says so there perhaps is a connection, a few clicks at the right place would explain the whole thing.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The commonality is American comprehension, what Ganga and Indian would convey to a common American.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Sudheendra Kulkarni is an Indian politician and columnist. He is an alumnus of the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay"
• " activist for the Communist Party of India (Marxist)."
• "such initiatives as Delhi–Lahore Bus and India Shining"
• " helped former Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee"

All that is in the first paragraph. I don't know how stupid you think Americans are, but if someone can't tell from the above that the article is talking about a person from India rather than a Native American, than adding a wikilink isn't going to help. The End. LadyofShalott 13:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)Well won't you have a look at Ganga please? And perhaps see why Ganga would be such a disaster for Americans, as claimed there. Then perhaps you could come back here.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have read through the discussion at the talk page for that article, and I decline to join that conversation at this time. I have said (and said again) all I feel is needed here. LadyofShalott 18:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, there is nothing on fire, take your time, check the archives of the Ganga talk page please, there has been a long discussion, check this out too[4], then come back here, perhaps then you may appreciate why. So long mam, and no hard feelings.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Check this diff too, and then perhaps drop a line, some day.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

SARC-IITB source

We presently cite "Sudheendra Kulkarni - 'Finding your Passion'". Student Alumni Relations Cell, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay. Retrieved 2011-07-21.. That is a deadlink and it is not at Wayback. It looks probable that the content was removed at sarc-iitb, where the trail now appears to end at http://www.sarc-iitb.org/interaction.php.

My concern that that the publisher is a voluntary organisation that appears to be run by students. While there appears to be little that might be considered controversial in the statements attributed to this source, surely we can do better than this? - Sitush (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent back and forth

Please can someone explain why:

• "card-carrying" is significant, per this edit summary
• why it is not necessary to know when he worked for Blitz, per this very confusing summary
• what is "bad" about the prose, per this
• what is significant about "judicial", per the same summary

I fear that we are once again getting involved in the pedantry that was demonstrated in the thread above. - Sitush (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This is regarding edits made by user:Sitush and above.

1. There was no editing done him since 24 July 2011, he started editing on 28 May 2012 after I edited the page. Which looks like hounding.
2. This suspicion (hounding) is strengthened by the general lack of constructive edits. (Apart from pointing out that one link was not good and was dead - which was immediately heeded by me and replaced by other links).
3. His ignorance of terms like "card carrying communist"[5] "judicial custody"[6] (not a wp:RS but an attempt to bring forward the different terms) should not force them to be removed from the article, as he is doing.
4. He is pushing a line like " In 2011, Kulkarni was remanded in custody for a period and In November of that year was released on bail" which has punctuation errors and are vague, "in 2011" does that not warrant a "when" tag?
5. is to denote that a period mentioned is ambiguous. The exact statement is "The time period in the vicinity of this tag is ambiguous". Here we have many instances about which information is not available, for example when Kulkarni was born, when he joined school at Athani, when he passed from school, when he joined IITB, when he joined CPI(M), when he left it, similarly the article doesn't inform when he joined Blitz and when he left it. Do we want the article to be full of tags? On the other hand he removes information which gives specific dates eg. dates of arrest and release. What is the justification? Do we desire vague statements regarding a living person's arrest and release on bail, he disallows quotations from the judge granting bail explaining the reason he granted bail. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Re #5: the point is, his connection with Blitz seems somehow to be connected with his ideological Damasene moment, so having a vague comment about working for the paper and placing it out of chronological sequence is weird. Some sort of indication of when he worked for the thing is useful. I've partially fixed it, although I am not wonderfully happy about the source that I have introduced. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

On custody: There are various types of custodies. You would like to read CrPC for details. In police custody, police own the custody of the person and are free to interrogate. Whereas in judicial custody, the magistrate owns the custody and police are mere physical holders of the person. (Magistrate cant keep all people in his home.) Also CrPC gives right to common person (non-judicial, non-police) to take an offender in custody in certain offences. In short, type of custody varies and hence matters! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

CrPC does not seem to mention judicial custody, so I have reinstated using the less-than-perfect eponymous article. I still do not really understand what the heck difference it makes - he was legally detained, period - but I'll live with it. - Sitush (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I meant the actual CrPC. Not its Wikipedia article.
The difference won't matter to you, but surely would matter to Mr. Kulkarni. If you actually have the information on what type of custody it was, why remove it? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Because it appeared to be trivial, it has no context (link etc to explain the difference), and so on. Newspapers etc often use filler phrases and they also use what we would term weasel or peacock words, such as the "card-carrying" thing: one is either a member or one is not, etc. I am far from being an ignorant person: if I cannot understand the significance then the chances are either that it really is not significant or the article needs amending in order to explain it. The applies to phrases, such as "Congress-led UPA government", which would have been utterly meaningless to a very large number of readers. I find it quite amusing, really, given that in the past there have been discussions involving YK and the alleged US- & UK-centricity of Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well... there is no compulsion on you to understand the whole world. If you fail to understand political terms like Congress-led UPA or legal terms like judicial custody, leave them alone; especially when you have sources that say so and other editors object its removal. Other readers might very well be understanding this. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I linked the Congress-UPA thing. I still think that the judicial custody issue was vague but it is better now than it was, thanks to my intervention and your explanation. No thanks to Yogesh, alas, who just warred over it. There is far more involved in writing a good encyclopaedic article than stringing together series of miniature quotations etc.

Abritrary break

(edit conflict):(1)"The electoral defeat of his mentor, Advani, had effectively ended his role with the party and he had also become disenchanted with the influence exerted by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh on party decision-making" (a)This statement is false - Advani wasn't defeated. (b)The cited article doesn't mention that "Advani was Kulkarni's mentor" so that is misrepresentation of source it merely express an opinion that "he (Kulkarni) owed his rise in the party to (Advani)"(c)the mention of RSS is thus "In June, he publicly blamed the RSS, the party’s ideological parent, for making a “strong leader” like Advani look weak and helpless. It was the first step towards snapping ties with the BJP in search of other avenues." Which is nothing but Hindustan Times' judgement of the events and has to be mentioned so and not the wp:OR and wp:SYNTHESIS indulged above. (2)The above edits have to be explained or will be modified to faithfully represent the source quoted.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've split this into its own section, since it does not relate to the recent warring issue. India Today mention the RSS thing also. I have clarified the Advani statement re: defeat. If you can think of a better word than "mentor" then that is fine, but let's not have yet another minuscule quotation from a news source. This article has read like a list (including of "X said", "Y said" etc) and I am trying my best to resolve issues such as this. We can write prose with style, although I realise from numerous past interactions that you are one of many who find this difficult. WP:SYNTHESIS does not apply, by the way, since only one source is used for the "mentor" point and it is impossible to synthesise a single source. - Sitush (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Cash for votes though topical gives undue importance to one incident in a 32 year career. If mention of his remand to judicial custody is given details need to be given, including reasons for granting of bail. So relevant information which was deleted need to be inserted. Also internal link to judicial custody is ambiguous, see link no 6 above for details. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There has been a synthesis (like wp:SYNTHESIS) of discrete statements in one source to create the statement The electoral defeat suffered by the party, led by Advani, had effectively ended his role with the party and he had also become disenchanted with the influence exerted by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh on party decision-making. Actually the whole thing is also wp:UNDUE. If we mention one opinion why he left in 2009, we should have details on why he joined back too. Which would be unnecessary for an encyclopaedic article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You need to re-read WP:SYNTHESIS. You seem to be having exactly the same problem understanding it now as you have had on previous occasions, including at WP:DRN. Similarly, regarding OR, DUE etc. Several people have tried to explain the synthesis thing to you over a period of many months, including myself, but there is a limit to how many ways one can say the same thing: you cannot breach wP:SYNTHESIS if you are using a single source. If you have any information in reliable sources regarding other notable events, such as why he re-joined, then that is fine ... but we do not usually exclude one thing merely because, for example, we unable to source another. - Sitush (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Outlook article

I am concerned with this Outlook article because it has the appearance of being a political gossip column. I think that we have other sources which mention his strategy role, so can we replace this? - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

card-carrying

The adjective "card-carrying" implies more than what is stated in the source Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs) has quoted from. The source, an article in the newspaper The Hindu merely says, "one-time CPI(M) card holder." "Card-carrying," according to the OED means "Having a membership card of a specified organization, freq. a political party (esp. the Communist Party); (hence) designating a loyal, dedicated member of such an organization. Latterly, "card-carrying" is also being used figuratively, as in "every card-carrying mystery buff should read this book." None of these implications are present in the source. I have accordingly removed "card-carrying." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Provide evidence that it is pejorative in the context used or withdraw the allegation. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I do tend to agree with Fowler's take on the issue, but in any event I have previously explained that it is inappropriate here. It is one of many examples of you "short quoting" to get a pet word or phrase in there, usually to the detriment of someone or something but without adding anything of encyclopedic value. In fact, in this instance "card-carrying" might be considered weaseling. We all know that you will likely find it difficult to be neutral when it comes to writing about Communists etc, given the events late last year that were spattered all over the newspapers/YouTube etc, as well as mentioned on Jimbo's page and at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Khandke, I know what I'm talking about, and here's William Safire backing me up in the New York Times, "On Language" column of September 18, 1988:

“ In "card-carrying," then, we had a modifier willing and able to make its way into the general language but carrying political baggage labeled explosive. When modifying a nonpolitical noun, card-carrying redneck, card-carrying genius, card-carrying member of the baby-boom generation - it meant authentic, unmistakable, almost rootin'-tootin' ; but when used in any ideological setting, it had old leftist overtones that resonated. That meant, to avoid offense or smear, the modifier could be used only with a rightist noun. The socialist left and the card-carrying capitalists will find it equally objectionable, wrote The Economist in 1975; that magazine also liked to identify William Simon as a card-carrying capitalist, which the then-Secretary of the Treasury could only find flattering. In 1983, Senator Jake Garn, Republican of Utah, proudly proclaimed himself a card-carrying conservative. When used that way, with a right-leaning noun, the modifier could not be considered objectionable; it meant only authentic, and its baggage was nullified or reflected a nicely oxymoronic irony. But people in politics remembered the Communist history of the word and were careful not to apply it to a left-leaning noun. A card-carrying hawk offended nobody, but a card-carrying dove was an insult. A card-carrying capitalist was a salute, but a card-carrying liberal was a slur. ”

In other words, Mr. Khandke, even if your source had used the adjective, "card-carrying," and in this case it had not, you are not at liberty to use it in an encyclopedia. It is pejorative when applied to the ideological left, and consequently unencyclopedic. Next time, Mr. Khandke, use less officious language when you are clueless about something. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(1)Thank you for your hard work Fowler & Fowler(I would gladly use Mister, but I'm not sure whether it is used as a honorific prefix to an internet user name), you have widened my horizons related to the nuances of American English and political idiom. (2)Having said that, I am disappointed by your lack of understanding/ignoring of important subtleties: That the above usage is clearly limited to the American political context, and also is the view? of the commentator you have quoted, America (USA) has a history of difficulty with Communism, the cold war, Vietnam, Cuba (including numerous attempts by the American state to murder Castro), McCarthyism etc. (examples not in chronological order) (2a) Having said that Webster (the online version I've cited at ANI) doesn't consider it pejorative, neither does OED quoted by you. So its pejorative connotations are not mainstream. (3)On the other hand, India has seen no hatred of Communism, India describes itself as "Socialist" in its preamble. India had the first democratically elected Communist government in the world (Kerala) (4)The quote is taken from "The Hindu" described as left-leaning, would it use it pejoratively? (5)I would give a related example: fellow traveller - where the article informs that its usage is pejorative in US, in India, it isn't. (5)Please understand that terms used here are those used in Indian English - so words could have a different meanings from other dialects of English. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"Card-carrying," Mr. Khandke, is an expression of "American English," born and raised in that English. It is useless in an international encyclopedia to attempt tediously to spin other the meanings of a word based on original research. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't challenge you Fowler&Fowler to provide evidence that "Card carrying" is an American expression, because the etymology is irrelevant. I would give one example "oversight" is used in the US in the sense of "oversee" as in "overseer", whereas in India it means to "overlook" that is to miss. The "English language" was born in England, yet "gas" in England is different from "gas" in the United States. "In my mother tongue there is a saying "dialect changes every 18 kos" "Card carrying" isn't pejorative in India. Period. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

On the "original research" allegation: The meaning of "card carrying" is given in OED and Webster with no indication of its pejorative connotation, your allegation that it is "pejorative" is reasonably Fringe and Undue, especially in the context of the dialect in which this article is written viz. Indian English. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source stating that it isn't pejorative in India? Until then, best not to wax on here about your private notions of Indian English. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The sheer obduracy is saddening. A dictionary uses qualifiers like "Slang" or "pejorative" or "informal", "obsolete", "military" to qualify such words. All other words are normal by default. I found an English x Hindi dictionary which translates it as "panjikrut" or registered. If it had a pejorative meaning in the Indian context it would be mentioned.[7] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You are grasping at straws. A dictionary might mention slang, but it mentions pejorative only when it is vulgarly offensive. Besides, there is no dictionary of Indian English. Until one such is published, and more importantly recognized internationally, you can keep peddling private thoughts and conjectures here, but I won't be engaging you. This discussion is over. You have nothing new to say. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

PS As for you vacuous conjecture about "oversight," which of these nearly 700 recent Indian newspaper stories use "oversight" in that manner? This is not the place for private musings. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)