Talk:The Lost River

Notability
Is this book notable? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   14:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I don't see any other reviews other than the cryptic review cited on the page. We could make a proposal to merge it into the Michel Danino page. I don't see why it needs a page of its own. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merged, per WP:BOLD.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I have provided several other reviews of the book which were published including reputable journal Current Science. I hope this settles the issue.Indoscope (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Good job, well done.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   21:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Attribution
The description of the contents is based on reviews. This should be clear, so I've attributed them. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   10:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NB: Google Scholar gives 7 (seven) citations.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And here's another review.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As of now, Google scholar gives 8 citations: 6 blog posts, 1 published paper and 1 draft paper. (I wish Google Scholar knew what is meant by "scholar".) Apparently, some of these blog posts have appeared in a magazine called Pragati which is self-described as a "National Interest Magazine." So much for citations! Kautilya3 (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Danino, Kazanas & mainstream scholarship
A pity you removed these informative notes. They are mainstream scholarship, in contrast to Kazanas. So, that's not POV-pushing. But for the sake of peace, I'll leave it here, for the moment. best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   11:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear Joshua Jonathan, the scholars you quote may have a view but that view belongs in places where their theories are being represented. This wiki is about the book by Danino. There is no mention of what Kazanas, of B. B. Lal or xyz thinks about what is mentioned in Danino's book unless they have written a review which can then be mentioned in the review section. Otherwise if we keep inserting notes about what so and so person has said about so and thing mentioned in the book then that equates to the editor doing the book review and that's OR.Indoscope (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, a Wiki page is not meant to be an advertisement. If a book's ideas are contradicted by reliable sources, a discussion of that belongs in here. You chose to recreate this page dedicated to the book. So, everything to do with the book (including its ideas) belongs in here. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear Kautilya, at no point has it been stated that it has to be advertisement. I don't know why you are drawing that inference. We should add criticism/appreciation of the book in the reviews section with appropriate reference. If there is a critical review of this book by Witzel or Flood who are being quoted in the note by Joshua then it certainly belongs in the review section. Interspersing what other scholars have to say about some topic/statement mentioned about the book in contents section as a note is highly unusual and smells like editor writing a book review him/her self rather then simply presenting the contents of the book.Indoscope (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If the book merely reports research results on the Saraswati river that would be fine. But it is also drawing inferences about the chronology of Vedic period etc., which contradict the established view. So, it falls under WP:FRINGE. The Wikipedia policies say that we need to report the level of acceptance of such ideas by the scholarly community. The word "advertisement" is also used there, if you notice. Not reporting the level of acceptance would constitute advertisement in my view. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh spare me your definition of fringe. Galileo was fringe as per your definition. Read 'Main Stream Model'. If there are any criticism/reviews of the book they should go in the review section not by sabotaging the contents section. Please read WikiProject_Books. Indoscope (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, if we were writing Wikipedia in Galileo's time, his theories would have been labelled fringe theories, based on the prevailing prevailing scientific reception at that time. Wikipedia is not the place to decide scientific debates. We only report the debates as accurately as possible so that people can find out about them. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Title of that section should be Synopsis, and the attribution should be like According to Witzel.. in the notes. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Some part did not existed in the page 256 of Danino's book that was provided here. It only suggested 6 names and 3 names of western archaeologists/scholars who just refrained from dating. I just inserted concurring views. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * User talk:Bladesmulti appreciate your entering this discussion about how to improve the article. But please read WikiProject_Books. It clearly gives the standards to follow when writing an article about a book. The critical reviews go in Analysis or Reception section not in Content/Summary section.
 * "Analysis — bolster or refute the arguments made in the book. Did any reviewers expand on the book's ideas or, alternatively, refute the ideas? Did the reviewers find the thesis was supported by the evidence presented in the book? This can compare or contrast approaches used by other authors/works. This should not be an opinionated section; this should be neutral reporting and analysis."
 * "Reception — quote the opinions of book reviewers. This section should contain a balanced reflection of the reviews. Providing balance is sometimes difficult because some reviews are more critical than others; some reviews may simply state "this book is great" while others may provide detailed analysis about what made the book good/bad. Because this section involves opinions it should be heavy with quotes and citiations."
 * If we start adding notes to every argument being made in the book with what others have to say about it then it is simply trying to trivialize the book and smells of Original Research. Editors are not supposed to engage in that. Quote book reviews rather than research on what someone had to say about some point in book and insert it as "notes" that is equqvalent to writing a book review yourself. Since you have returned those notes I hope you understand the argument and we can all improve the article in the right way. Those notes should be removed. I hope you understand the reasons why I am saying so and will remove them. Thank you.Indoscope (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can support removing those notes on these bases, but I also think that we should remove the additional quote of Danino(simplest and most natural...) Bladesmulti (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree here with Indoscope... Regarding the reviews: no critical comments will be found, since this book is, from a scholarly point of view, not noticeable. No need to remove the quote; one of the reviewers also noted that Danino does not draw this conclusion himself. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   14:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'd love to see a synopsis, with the "arguments" for the identification of the Sarasvati with Ghaggar-Hakkra.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not clear to me what you are agreeing with. Are you saying that the level of acceptance of the ideas in the book need not be described (in contravention of WP:FRINGE)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs)


 * No, that a synopsis is a synopsis. There's no quotes or info from Michaels etc. in that book. Regarding the "level of acceptance": I'd have to read WP:FRINGE again. If there were any critical reviews, I'd love to quote them. There ain't; the book is simply ignored by scholars.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * To the extent that a fringe theory is raised in an article it MUST comply with WP guidelines and policy. The applicable guidelines/policy include WP:FRINGE, WP:PROFRINGE, WP:ONEWAY, WP:COATRACK and WP:DUE. It should be noted that DUE is WP:POLICY and no project guidelines may be interpreted in a manner that contradicts it. In the event of a direct conflict, policy trumps guidelines. Regards the topic at hand I quote the following....

"'Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack.'" -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ad Orientem, it is not a fringe theory because it is not explained as one by any. Book discusses some of the content that would fall under EXCEPTIONAL, although it is written under the synopsis and its reviews are not actually arguing such content. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is a general consensus that the subject is mainstream, or at least cannot be fairly described as Fringe, then the the applicable guidelines would likely be the project's. But WP:DUE and WP:COATRACK still apply and care needs to be taken to ensure that the article is not being used as a vehicle for advancing controversial opinions without any contradiction. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is the main point, while discussing mainstream we cannot use this book. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Synopsis
The guidance given is: ''Summary/Content — report on the content of the book and how it is organized. This can include any thesis and major illustrative examples. Do not try to re-organize the content, just summarize and report it. How can the synopsis start with the most controversial statement of the book that occurs on page 256, "Danino places the composition of the Vedas in the third millennium BCE, a century earlier than the conventional dates''"? The book is supposed to be about a river!

The review in Current Science has a good summary of the book. Ideally, this section would give a condensed version of that summary. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

COATRACK
This article appears to be a WP:COATRACK for the promotion of controversial and arguably FRINGE theories. It needs a major rewrite to comply with WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No issue with removing synopsis. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with your view. The article appears to be about a book, but its main purpose seems to be to sell a revisionist chronology of the Vedic period. The accepted chronology is 1700-1100 BC, and this page wants to push it back to the 3rd millennium BC. Should we AfD it? Kautilya3 (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it should be merged to Michael Danino's main page. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support such a merger.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The question is, are there enough mainstream reviews for the book to pass GNG and warrant a stand alone article? If yes, then we probably should try to fix it if possible, unless it is so FUBAR that we should just blow it up and start over. Honestly, in it's current form there is very little I would keep, or even merge. I am seriously thinking it might be best to stub the article pending a major rewrite. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Pages can be written per your tips on a userdraft as well. Merge is not a delete, any user or can borrow content from the page' history whenever they would go for a stand alone article or copy it to some other page. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the merge done by was exactly right. There is not enough notability to this book to warrant its own article. (There is just one scholarly review of the book by an environmental scientist. It unfortunately stayed off all the controversial bits.) Kautilya3 (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I am OK with a merge and redirect, although I stress again that there is VERY little in this article that belongs anywhere on the project. I would confine any merger to a few sentences noting he wrote the book and the subject is highly controversial. References for the controversy should be easily obtained from the appropriate WP article and or the RfC mentioned in the FTN discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it can be as short as 2 liners. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I think we have a rough consensus in favor of a merge and redirect on this basis. Feel free to make it happen. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the old merge . We can reinstate it and make this page a redirect. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable with that since it discusses his theories explicitly without acknowledging they are highly controversial. The wording makes them sound mainstream. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just reinstated the old versions, which were reverted by User:Indoscope. We can work on the wording if need be, but I think the version there is more or less fine. It is agreed by scholars that the Saraswati river of the Vedic times was most likely Ghaggar-Hakra, and that it supported the Indus Valley Civilization. The controversial bit is claiming that Vedic times were in fact part of the Indus Valley Civilization. That part has been left out. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm OK. I may tweak it a little later. Unfortunately the real world is invading my Friday morning and demanding attention. All in all though I think the issue is pretty much resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So, here's my little pee too: merge. No notable reviews.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I missed the rest of the party when I was eating my fries and watched a movie. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   19:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ad Orientem, Kautilya3,User:Joshua Jonathan,User:Maunus Wow! So much hate for one book that you want to see disappear. In spite of all the notability concerns addressed a couple of editors still go ahead and make the article about it disappear. Unfortunately your lack of process smell like bad faith editing. If you intend to merge the article then bring a formal merge proposal. Merging. and give enough time for discussion.Indoscope (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@ The article was merged and redirected after a careful examination and discussion by a significant body of experienced editors. There was an overwhelming consensus that the article failed GNG and was a COATRACK being used to promote controversial and FRINGE theories. Your accusation of bad faith is, to put it mildly, inappropriate. However, if you disagree you can take the matter to WP:ANI. Just beware of the WP:boomerang. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ad Orientem An ANI already exists Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive871. You are mistaken in believing that the topic of this book is fringe. Several scholars right from 19th century have worked on this topic of search for the dry river Sarasvati. While Sarasvati relates to the Indigenous Aryan postulate the reason why the question of Indigesm of Vedic people is not a fringe topic is detailed by me in Talk:Vedic_period and Talk:Indigenous_Aryans. I have all along been advocating WP:BALANCE. Unfortunately the behaviour of the so called experienced editors that you seem to quote has been anything but Balanced. If this continues then I am afraid the neutrality and reliability of Wikipedia itself will be in question. Indoscope (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)