Talk:Free Press of India

Citation style
Is it ok if I change the citation style for this article? Given that we are using a few sources but extensively, a short style would seem more appropriate and would certainly make the edit box easier to read. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Biased non-neutral presentation of subject
"Free Press of India was an Indian anti-colonial news agency founded in the 1920s by Swaminathan Sadanand, during the period of British colonial rule over India. Beset by dubious business acumen from the outset, and there was no scientific proof of whether Indians went to Europe first or the other way round.to those who financed it, the agency failed to obtain substantial support from Indian news media but survived for a decade." - This will be edited when I have time/ when it is possible to do so. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. The article is incomplete but is impeccably sourced. If you want to propose alternate sources then feel free, but the current content stays. At present there is absolutely nothing in the article to substantiate your "... and there was no scientific proof of whether Indians went to Europe first or the other way round.to those who financed it" - it is out of place even within the sentence, let alone within the article as a whole, of which the lead section is intended to be a summary. I am on record, umpteen times, as being not great at writing lead sections. That failure on my part does not justify the POV pushing on your part. - Sitush (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologise for my sloppiness. The part and there was no scientific proof of whether Indians went to Europe first or the other way round., was a copy paste accident, you see I have many windows open and use notepad to type, it was because of that. I have used "anti-colonial" for nationalist as the former is more accurate, I have used "colonial India" for "British Raj", as English is better than non-English. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be an edit war which I cannot indulge in. Hope the reverting editor takes a look at this revert, and reverts his revert. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I have practically no WP:AGF now with regard to what you do here. You have pulled this type of stunt many times before and while, sure, I make a lot of mistakes also, this sort of stuff is actually pretty typical of your methodology. "Anti-colonial"/"colonial India" vs "British Raj"/"Indian independence movement" etc. Well, we have articles for the Raj and the movement, which always helps a reader. Although I admit that a link to the latter should have been provided. We probably do have an article about colonialism, but it will be less specific. Honestly, I am no fan of the Raj but this incessant pov pushing against historic Euro-American colonialism has to stop. I do not see you doing it on articles relating to the Netherlands, Spain or Portugal, for example. I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "English is better than non-English". - Sitush (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Colonial India is an English word, "British Raj", unless the reader knows what Raj a Sanskrit based word means could be the name of a rock group, so an English word is better than a non-English word. Simple and universally understood. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is linked. This is not Simple Wikipedia. It is also a specific term and it is, I feel, a well-known term. The Sanskrit language is a complete red herring: there are many words and phrases in the English language that are in common use but have their origins elsewhere. In fact, although I am not a philologist, my suspicion is that the majority of the modern day language originates from others. And that is not counting loan words etc. Can I link the use of "nationalist" to Indian independence movement, or a section thereof? Or maybe we can agree on a phrase that actually includes that term? The problem being, of course, that the IIM has a very long history. - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you meant Indian independence movement, no I disagree, there is no need to introduce ambiguous words and then qualify them with internal links, there is no need to use a non-English word, when an English equivalent is available. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine. We disagree. Therefore, we wait for further input. - Sitush (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Clutter of references
The long list of references needs to be rearranged, so that we have only the unique references displayed and the page numbers denoted by annotation in the article, neater. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See the thread above and feel free to respond there. There is no point in opening another thread. - Sitush (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)