Talk:Santha Bhaskar

Deletion of adequately referenced text
In the article, I've provided multiple references to show that Bhaskar's work incorporates elements of Thai, Malay, and Chinese dance and music into Indian classical dance. For instance, this source (Cited in the article and referred in the main body) says "Her dance and choreographic practices are rooted in classical Indian dance practices, but shaped by Singapore's multicultural society." Similarly, this source (also cited in the article) describes as a "multicultural pioneer" also including details of Chinese, Thai and Malay references. As these sources were extensively discussed and cited in the main body, I summarised the position in the lede with the following sentence: "Her work is known for incorporating elements of Thai, Chinese, and Malay dance, music, and culture into Indian classical dance." It has been deleted as "unreferenced" despite having sufficient sources (User:GorgeCustersSabre). My understanding is that per Lead provides that the Lead should "summarize the most important points" and further, that "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations". I would like to restore the sentence, as it is adequately cited and sourced, and follows WP:Lead. - Naushervan (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You and I disagree on this, dear friend Naushervan, so let's now wait to see what a third editor might say. Be patient and wait for that. Best wishes, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and yes, I hope we can build consensus on how to go ahead. I would be grateful to know your reasons for disagreement, as this would enable others to also consider both points of view. - Naushervan (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not dogmatic on the issue, dear Naushervan, and won't edit war if you revert me even now. I merely thought the statement was not substantiated in the article, as you believe it was. A third set of eyes will help. I never mind if the consensus goes against me. Very kind regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, dear Naushervan, I've self-reverted. Your explanation above was convincing. Thanks for being respecftul and a good editor. Best wishes, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I appreciate your co-operation and civility as well. Best wishes! - Naushervan (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)