Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Nagaland workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Nagaland or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag TALK2ME 10:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Completed copy edit. The article seems to be mostly about language, rather than the tribe...? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
The lead section of this article has WP:NPOV issues. The phrase "playing a major role in the fight for integration" is loaded, as it implies that the fight is a good thing. This, in and of itself, wouldn't be so bad except that it's totally unsourced. I suggest that the lead be rewritten to be more neutral, and that this information be sourced and elaborated upon elsewhere in the article. (Why would a lay person care about this fight? What is the fight? etc.) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
- See, for example, "Insurgency Movement in Manipur" page 18 and following in Encyclopaedia of North-East India: Manipur by Hamlet Bareh. Basically, the Naga are a oppressed indigenous minority on both sides of the border. The natural resources of the area (timber, hydropower, etc.) are exploited for the benefit of others and the destruction of the way-of-life of the Naga people. Should we care? I don't think that that is an appropriate question for an encyclopedia editor. That others care and publish about it makes it notable. Some people care because many of the Naga are now Christians between the Hindu of India, the Muslims of Bangladesh and the Buddhists of Burma. --Bejnar (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
- If this struggle is documented in reliable sources and is notable, then of course it should be included. However, currently there are no citations to show that a struggle has been documented. Even if everybody knows that there's a struggle—which I don't think is the case here, at least not globally—it still needs to be documented via references. As for "should we care," that's another way of saying: is it notable? There's no context for the struggle given to establish its notability. That some people care does not make the thing notable; somewhere on the planet, there's someone who cares about any thing you care to imagine. Besides being sourced and being notable, though, an engaging encyclopedia article will explain why it's notable—why someone who knows nothing about these people might care about their struggle. That would come as a natural part of a well-written, balanced, neutral article. I'm not saying that the article or the text should be deleted! I'm just pointing out how it needs to improve to move forward.
- As far as NPOV, the lead should factually describe any conflict these people are involved in, but it should not cast them as heroes or demons in that conflict. The current phrasing comes close to that line.
- The reference you posted looks interesting, and hopefully someone with access to the full text can look through it and expand the article. The Google Books version is restricted and missing pages, which makes it difficult to use. It also seems to be more of an ethnography than an explanation of the struggle you describe. More sources would definitely help; a trip to a good university library might help. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
