User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 43

Reliable Sources in articles Janjua and Baid
Hello Qwyrxian , I d like to draw your attention to the issue of seeming contradiction of  British Colonial sources such as Ibbetson being considered reliable sources or not. For instance two articles in question being  Janjua and Baid. On the Janjua article page your edit 9 February 2013 you Undid revision 537272837 by 93.97.120.135 (talk) please see the talk page: do not add sources that do not meet WP:RS deleting citations of Ibbetson and District Gazetteer of British Colonial sources. On the Talk:Janjua page in your edit 9 February 2013 states ‎Removed addition:  no, they don't meet RS you elaborate ''"You can't just assert that they are reliable. If they are reprints of the 19th century British colonial writings, they're 90% or higher to not meet WP:RS. Almost none of those authors actually did the fact-checking and editorial judging required by our standards."' However please refer to your edit on my talk page section Proposed deletion of Baid which you initiated. And on the article Baid you proposed for deletion. Several sources were added  including 4 British Colonial including  Ibbetson  by other experienced editors .In your edit thereafter of 6 April 2012 you repaired a spelling mistake for a quote from Ibbetson stating (Undid revision 485685075 by 117.198.231.52 (talk) we need to use the spelling in the sources. Based on these addition of reliable sources in Dec 2011. 7th Dec 2011 prod was removed with the addition of sources, which included Ibbetson and 2 other British Colonial sources . Please elaborate why according to you as an admin  is Denzil Ibbetson  a valid source for one article and not for another .Thank you for your response .Intothefire (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll say that on Baid, I didn't review the sources at all. In fact, I didn't even remember the article at all until you brought it up. When I reverted in April 2012, I just reverted because there was a change a quote, which is basically always wrong.
 * However, having said that, while I don't understand why Ibbetson would be reliable, Sitush is generally much better at sources than me, so I guess I have to trust him. I'll self-revert on Janjua. We do, however, need the full publication information, if you'd be willing to add it. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not trawling through the diffs above and if you check out ITF's history then you'll probably understand why (aside from the obvious personal issue of which you are aware). Ibbetson is not reliable, period. In fact, I seem to recall that he self-admitted this: he was extremely frustrated with the inaccuracies of the Raj census system etc upon which he based his works. It is worth remembering that he was among the group of people - Rose, Risley, Thurston etc - who were officially tasked with writing surveys about stuff they knew little about and who were reliant on a very small number of native speakers to act as translators etc. They're probably a bit better than Tod - they did try to do things systematically, for example, even though they chose scientific racism as their method - but reliable they are not.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've just reviewed Baid because it intrigued me. The point made in that discussion was that some people clearly recognised a community or communities that used the name, even though there were apparent disagreements regarding who they are/were. As I said in the PROD discussion on ITF's page, I've added some sources. It remains a mess, and it is clear that there are far more uses for the term than were initially noted,, but there may be a chance to salvage this if you are willing to do some digging. In fact, there is the potential for two or three articles here, plus a disambiguation page. The article was worded accordingly. My only regret is not having gone back to do any significant to it in the intervening period. I'd hope that the Raj sources could be removed, and I regret that ITF never bothered to do anything further with it even when I'd dug up some modern sources that could be further mined for info. Sorry, ITF, but this is just another instance of you cherry-picking old stuff to make an out-of-context point. I've reverted at Janjua: that addition was merely an excuse for puffery, of little substance and without any obvious support from modern sources.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian, my query to you as an admin remains unanswered , its important ,because this contradiction of British Colonial sources   is rife on articles in Wikipedia . Surely the contradictory validity or non-validity  extended by you an admin to a source  cannot be justified on the grounds of discretion of  "a " particular  editor in this case someone you trust Sitush , because the contradictory usage is being applied by Sitush himself . In the  ,  Baid article  you  improved the spelling on an Ibbetson sourced content inserted by Sitush  on 7th December 2011 which itself was immediately preceded by your own edit on the same day 7th Deember 2011 proposing deletion .Conversely  in the Janjua article you deleted the Ibbetson source do not add sources that do not meet WP:RS) .After my above comment to you  then you self reverted and put back Ibbetson and another British Colonial source . In Sitush's post above he states  "Ibbetson is not valid , period" although he has himself added  Ibbetson  in the Baid article .In the Janjua article Sitush has now ( I am presuming that 2.219.218.79 IS Sitush) reverted your reintroduction of Ibbetson , in the edit summary he states "Undid revision 537377769 by Qwyrxian (talk) no need to self-rv: the removal was fine"'' . Surely These are severe contradictions , I do not believe Wikepedia extends such discretionary  privilege to any  admin or editor for  contradictory actions concerning terming a source valid or in valid , because then it is patently unfair on other editors . There are just too many such instances including in articles where you are also intervening/editing . Thanks for your response .Intothefire (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See, the thing is, no one source is universally good or bad. In my experience, the colonial sources are generally bad on caste subjects. Thus, I generally remove them; I don't have access to the books themselves, and thus err on the side of caution by removing info of dubious quality. Sitush, on the other hand, generally has access to the actual books, and thus can look into them in more detail. I generally trust his evaluations. However, in this specific case, the solution is easy: I've removed 2 sources on Baid, and tagged a third as of dubious reliability. Since the latter focuses on a subject directly within the person's field of expertise (medical issues), it may be of value. However, if someone else wants to remove it, they may. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ibbetson is not Rose, although Rose did write some stuff using elements of Ibbetson's researches. As with William Crooke, Rose tended more to the folklore aspect of ethnology than to scientific racism.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian, for a source to be considered suitable /unsuitable  it needs to abide by  Wikipedia policy over and above   an editor, group of editors - discretion . More importantly   an admin's unflinching and tacit  trust on an  editor or editors discretionary (and contradictory treatment) usage of sources  severely undermines not only neutrality but balance .  An admin is expected to bring an even observance and an   advanced level of watchfulness .A singular  watchfulness in one instance and general nonchalance in an other is bad .  The principal I have highlighted here with regard to Janjua/Baid  therefore  is both related to and transcends the two articles or one Ibbetson/Crooke . Further according to you as an admin and your stated views with regard to British Colonial sources ....you have tagged Crooke as dubious as well as let the reference remain . Therefore please clarify -Is Crooke  a valid (though dubious) source for other articles ? Is Crooke is a valid (but dubious ) source on medical opinions ? , does Crooke fall in the category of a bad Colonial source ? or this is a grey area ? . I am taking reference here to the reference provided by Sitush which you have let remain . Since Sitush provided this naturally he finds this a valid source. Crooke is used on various other articles as well . Intothefire (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if Crooke is reliable in this instance. I'd have to actually be able to read the source. Please don't expect that we can make an absolute rule that says "Colonial sources are always/never acceptable". As I said above, in this case, Crooke is speaking upon his specific area of specialty--medicine. He's not talking about caste/varna status, he's not pontificating and Indian history, and he's not declaring one group warriors and the other group peasants. He's making a claim about the medicine practiced by the Baid. It may be that he is reliable for this claim. I'm not sure. If you think he's not reliable in this instance, remove the source and information linked to it. If you're not sure, and want further input, ask at WP:RSN (I'd appreciate a courtesy notification). Contrary to popular belief, I don't know everything; nor, in fact, could I, since decisions are made by consensus. In fact, for that matter, if you think the Ibbetson is reliable on Janjua, take the matter to WP:RSN. You're welcome to get a consensus to show me that I'm wrong.
 * One final note, though: I do trust some editors more than others. This is based on my experience working with those editors. But I also argue with Sitush. I think he's wrong about requiring self-identification for caste identity in BLPs for example; I disagreed so much I started two wide discussions about it. Even though consensus seems to support his version (mostly), I still think he's wrong. But if I see Sitush arguing with another editor about the quality of a source, my betting money is on Sitush, because as far as I know, his analyses are consistently held up at WP:RSN. As an analogy, if I'm unsure about copyright issues, I ask User:Moonriddengirl, and I implicitly trust her answer, because she's well known as the encyclopedia's number one expert on the matter. Is it unfair of me to trust her over some new editor who claims she doesn't understand copyright? No, it's good sense. I'd still listen to the other editor, and be willing to let them pursue dispute resolution (just as you or another editor is welcome to do wrt to either of thee articles), but absent compelling evidence to the contrary, odds are much more in Sitush's favor than most new editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Which editor or groups of editors you would trust more or support  is entirely your prerogative, but if you  practice  inconsistency vis a vis actions with different editors as an admin is concerning . Which is exactly the point I started with , about the  seeming  contradiction of  British Colonial sources such as Ibbetson being considered reliable sources in some articles and  unreliable in others . Similar Colonial sources are used for example in article Kurmi where you have participated ,for instance .....surely you cannot be held  responsible for the introduction of such sources by other experienced editors  ....but such sources are freely used by some experienced editors  with no objections raised and forceful objections raised as in the recent case of Janjua . It doesn't bode well . Intothefire (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to tell you. In all honesty, on a very large number of the articles I edit, I look at or look for only a few things, handle specific types of disputes, etc. Only in special cases to I actually look at the exact details of all edits, sources, etc. If there are specific problems on Kurmi, raise the on the talk page, or even boldly start removing problematic sources. That particular article isn't even on my watchlist any more, though I do feel like it was in the past. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Posted links to three sources in the article's talk page, and it could be easily understood by anyone, even by those without subject knowledge. It's short and well explained. Please analyze it. It won't take much time. Hari7478 (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

AVI report and other issues
Qwyrxian, i looked at the AVI report by Hari7478. Had posted a message to Scottywong and Sitush on it; but deleted it since i did not want to make it tougher for the admin (i understand how tough it already is). All the same, the report and the reason given by Hari7478 is offensive. I also find his message to Scottywong misrepresenting the situation and saying offensive things upsetting. Am also surprised no one has taken Hari7478 to task for the reason he gave (ie., This AIV report was not filed with the intention of blocking the other user). Perhaps Hari7478 wanted to evade answering on the 4 issues or wanted me blocked before i cud file the arbitration. I would like to know does wiki have a policy against filing false reports of vandalism? Thanks. --Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
 * While AIV was the wrong place to report, the explanation on his talk cleared up the problem: it was acceptable for him to ask for those edit summaries to be removed--I can still see them, and they were personal attacks and wholly unacceptable. Hari should have asked an admin directly to remove the edit summaries, but WP is a weird place and it's not very obvious to know where to go to get something done, like having an edit summary suppressed. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Am not able to see the edit summary. Was it the one where i said, he did not reply on ANI page hence deleted? Not sure in what way it amounts to personal attacks? Please clarify. As such, not able to understand this allegation of me doing personal attacks. I thot it is something Hari7478 is resorting to coz he wanted to evade answering. Did not think "ignorant" and "meandering" amounts to personal attacks. As already said on my talk page, if i am ignorant about something, wud happily accept/say so (it wud be a matter of fact; not something to make an issue out of). Hence, going all around the topic without addressing specific issues is out of question (wud never contribute to an article proper if i cannot understand the subject/sources). I thot blogs and forums are places for prejudices (which anyone may have), not articles proper on wiki. I find Hari7478's comments on me (on his talk page) very offensive -- the kind that hits below the belt and misrepresents stuff so he can get away with misquoting. Especially when his, is the real vandalism (since he refused to answer on mediation, talk page, ANI; and yet kept putting/reverting his misquoted sentences on the page). Anyways, may i know if wiki has a policy against filing false reports of vandalism ? Thanks. --Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
 * I swear you are tempting me to break the rules and block you myself. If you go into your preferences and enable email, I will email you the summary, but I will not repeat it on wiki. There is no doubt it violated WP:CIVIL, and I think most admins would say it broke WP:NPA. And calling someone a vandal, when they are not (see WP:VANDAL), is another personal attack. Hari isn't trying to make Wikipedia worse or spam (the definition of a vandal). Even if Hari is POV pushing, that's not vandalism. His comments about your edit summary are fully deserved. You probably would have been blocked for them if an admin had spotted them when you made them, but it was already 4 or so days later and you had been blocked for edit warring, so another block would just be punitive. And then, here, calling someone ignorant is not necessarily an attack, but it is certainly a violation of WP:CIVIL.
 * Seriously, if this is all bothering you so much, just walk away for awhile. Wiki is not worth being stressed over, unless your already an addict like me. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Figured out which edit summary finally. Also figured out it was the reason why BWilkins left the msg on my talk page. From my opinion, what i said was reality of the situation. As for vandalism, i was not making wikipedia worse or spam either, and yet had repeated reports of vandalism filed against me by Hari7478 (and so they were certainly false reports of vandalism). Anyways, since the 4 issues are now sorted on the Iyengar article, no point going back to old issues. I thank you for the assistance in cleaning up the article and look forward to your continued involvement. Thank you.--Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "India". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 10:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No doubt you are watching, but to make sure, and. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! A DRN volunteer has already closed the request. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ysfan
Would you mind asking Ysfan if he would remove his TP restrcition from me? I would like to explain my actions and intent going forward. Perhaps we can get him to work colloboratlivly if he understands. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 00:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For the moment, I don't think it would help. Ysfan is clearly not in a happy place right now, and I don't think s/he is ready to hear what you have to say in good faith. I think we should first wait and see what happens after her/his block expires. If the behavior from there is even and acceptable, then it might indicate that s/he is ready to listen. In the meanwhile, keep editing as normal. While where you edit is up to you, I personally recommend not going out of your way to find pages that Ysfan is editing on. Plenty of other editors should be watching Ysfan now, so there's no real worry of a major problem erupting (that can't be quickly contained). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All righty then.  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 07:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been following the conversation and I think it's best I just avoid this altogether. My presence will only provke him further.  I'm taking the article off my watchlist and hope you will keep an eye on things.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 18:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you Qwyrxian for working with me on the DJ Earworm page. I have made a large edit with all of the things I said (finding citations, removing content that could not be verified). I hope to get to the rest of the page in the coming days before the block is lifted. Two quick things. After I made my large edit, I noticed the lock image was not appearing on the page. I don't think I touched anything regarding the block template, but if you have a sec to just take a look, that would be much appreciated. Also, as I have suspected that the IPs who previously made the edits warranting the block is using sock puppetry and multiple IPs, if they happen to come back, do you have any suggestions of how I can go about handeling the situation? Again thank you for your help. Cheers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll check the lock symbol after this. On the IP, did they ever edit with a named account? If not, there's not much point in investigating sock puppetry, because there wouldn't be much we could learn. In fact, that wouldn't even necessarily be sock puppetry, because most people's IPs change without their control; for some people, it changes almost every time they connect to the internet. However, is this problem spread across more than one page? If it's just a few pages, using semi-protection is the easiest route. If it's a lot of pages, we can consider range blocks, but that's quite difficult and rarely effective anyway. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge, based on what I've seen from this page, the edits have all been IP. I am not sure if they are editing other pages, but then again, it would be hard to know if they are using many different IP addresses. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

RSS
Does this makes any sense, this guy is asking me to disprove his bogus source. He is being illogical, how do you expect someone to resolve a dispute with this person?--sarvajna (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * His claim makes sense to me. The group is described in a book about terrorism, in a chapter about religious terrorism, and is described as using violence to advance a religious agenda, including the training of paramilitaries. You don't need a sentence that explicitly says "RSS was a terrorist organization". There probably isn't one, because otherwise the author would have to say a thousand times in one book, "Group A is a terrorist organization....Group C is a terrorist organization." While it would be great if we could see the whole page, even the snippet you can see seems pretty clear to me.
 * Why do you think it's a bogus source? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that we need not look at what is written, just a mention of the Organization under the topic religious terrorism is enough?. The snippet view says violent defenders of Hindu culture go back to 1920s when the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh(RSS - National Patriotism Organization) began training paramilitaries. RSS being a paramilitary organization is already menioned in the article and there is no dispute about it. The dispute is about RSS being a terrorist oraganization, should we not look at sources that explicitly say that RSS is spreadin terror?--sarvajna (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The source does say that it's a terrorist organization. Are you telling me that if you bought a book called Soup recipes, and page five had a recipe for minestrone, but the recipe didn't have the word "soup" in it, that you would think that the recipe is for a dinner dish that isn't soup? Yes, we need to be true to sources, but I don't see how you can read that to mean anything other than them falling under the books broader definition. Are there other examples from that book of groups being mentioned, with labels of violence, but we know that the author explicitly means for them not to be considered terrorists? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I wrote this on the article's talk page and writing the same here,Although the probability is low but what if the book has praised RSS, what if the book says that RSS is a victim of malicious propoganda in those other pages that we are not able to see. We would need more than one sentence to decide on what has been written about RSS in that book. --sarvajna (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is what the book says on page number 75, no where it says that RSS is indulging in terrorism Extreme views have also appeared within Hinduism, and religiously motivated violence has resulted. Violent defenders of the Hindu culture go back to the 1920s when the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS - National Patriotia Organization) began training paramilitaries. An RSS member assasinated Mohandas Gandhi because he was willing to compromise with non Hindus on the new state of India(Juergensmeyer 2000:95). There have been Hindu grous and political parties that have sought to have Hindu practices(Hindutva) incorporated into national law since a large majority of the polpulation of India is Hindu. The bharatiya janata party that promotes Hindu practices has become the largest religious and nationalist movement in the world (Juergensmeyer 1996:6). While the party moderated its use of Hindu themes in the election campaign of 1998, it did not offer any real assurances to the religious minorities of increased tolerance(Chandra 1999:65-6). They feel that the members of the minority religions should be reabsorbed into the Hindu community (Greenwat 2001: 91). These efforts correspond to the attempts by Muslims to have the Sharia as the basis of national law or of groups in the United states to have Christian principles more directly incoreporated into... I can send you the screen shots if you want.--sarvajna (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * hey I am really fed up of that person, can you just intervene as an admin. First he gets some source, I tell him that the Onus is on him to prove that its the correct source he says that I should open a DRN. He claims that he has the copy/access of the book when I ask him to quote the sentences he refuses and asks me to open a DRN if I have any issues. He says that because the book is about terrorism and the chapter is about religious terrorism he refuses to consider the text of the book and says facts are facts(whatever it means). the guy defies all the logic. Can you just check the talk page once?--sarvajna (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

RSN
Just wanted to add that the book quoted is named Global Terrorism. The chapter is titled “Religious Justification for Terrorism." On page 75 it states: “Extreme views have also appeared within Hinduism, and religiously motivated violence has resulted. Violent defenders of the Hindu culture go back to the 1920s when the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS - National Patriotia Organization) began training paramilitaries. An RSS member assasinated Mohandas Gandhi because he was willing to compromise with non Hindus on the new state of India(Juergensmeyer 2000:95).” I do not want to edit the page because as you have stated, it is improper to do so. Can you please update the name of the book to actual title(Global Terrorism)?

Also, your time is sincerely appreciated (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC))


 * Thanks for letting me know; I got confused about which of the two books this was coming from. I've fixed it now and added the second quotation. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You have quoted the same thing twice, first the whole paragraph and second just the first few lines of the paragraph.--sarvajna (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

page protection
Hi Qwyrxian ,Why dont you protect Murder 3 yourself. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 06:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Because I have been editing the page, and while most of my edits have been to remove vandalism, some of them were issues of editorial judgment, such as removing the external links and the "review" that I don't believe meets WP:RS. As such, it could be argued that I'm WP:INVOLVED (if you're not familiar with that policy, it says, in short, that admins need to avoid any appearance of using administrative tools to win a content dispute). I figured that there's no particular harm in letting another admin take a look. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

1M4U by kucingbiru13
Dear Mr Qwyrxian, thank you for your advice and help. I really appreciate it. I'm new to wikipedia and still trying to learn the ropes. I will try my best to contribute to wikipedia. Thank You again. God Bless.Kucingbiru13 (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The Hunger Pains
Hey, Qwyrxian. I saw your little scuffle with that user in The Hunger Pains. I've read the article, and I agree with you: It IS too excessive, but that doesn't mean that you need to delete THAT much of it. I mean, 100~200 words maybe, but that's just going too far. Besides, cut him some slack. He doesn't even have an account, and it must have taken him a while to create that article. Think about it. Thanks,The Triple M (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is, he's the only one who can cut it down. I haven't read the book (or the original it's modeled on), so there's absolutely no way for me to do it myself. It is unfortunate, but it's better to have no plot than one like that. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Good point. It IS unorganized, and it does need some fixing. If he's too stubborn...well, I don't know. Did you try talking to him on his talk page?The Triple M (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. By any chance, have you read the book? Because the IP's just put it up again. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for a New Article
Hey, Qwyrxian. I'm going to try and write a new article here in Wikipedia, but I can't come up with a good topic that hasn't been done yet. You're an admin, so do you have any suggestions? Thanks,The Triple M (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally, I suggest not even thinking about new topics. Wikipedia has over 4 millions articles, and basically all of them need improvement. Every "normal" topic has already been covered, and most of the ones that haven't (that are legitimate topics for articles) are so obscure that they need highly specialized knowledge. In my 7 years here, with my very large number of edits, while I have completely overhauled a number of articles, in some cases rewriting everything from the ground up, I have only actually "created" two completely new articles (Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage and Women's Image Network Awards).
 * If you are looking for something to do, try taking a look at Category:Wikipedia backlog. If you feel like working on referencing, for example, there's over 230,000 articles tagged as having no references, with hundreds of thousands more needing additional ones. If you want to improve the quality of writing, you could try Category:Wikipedia articles requiring style editing. Or if you just want to work on simple mechanical things, there's categories for articles needing grammar or technical cleanup.
 * But if you really want to look for topics that someone thinks should be on Wikipedia but aren't, there's a user submitted list at WP:Requested articles. Do note that just because a reader thought that an article should exist, doesn't necessarily mean it should (for notability reasons, usually, or else because and article might be better treated as a section of another article).
 * Sorry that I sound like kind-of a downer. But this is, in fact, my sincerely held belief: the Wikipedia is far far more in need of improving than expanding. And new users are always better off improving, because there are so many technical details and rules associated with getting a new article to stick, that it can become pretty discouraging to try. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

To Qwyrxian
Qwyrxian, not sure if can talk here. Just hoping to put 2 things for folks in the right perspective:

(1) Rhesus factor: RHD gene has several alleles on it and the region continues to be explored. If there is one or two copies of RHD gene intact, then it results in D positive (D+) phenotype. Deletion of entire RHD causes D negative (D-) phenotype. Since D- is common in Europeans and rarely, if ever, found in Asians, hence it is dubbed European D negative phenotype. There are also partial D alleles and weak D alleles; often again associated with Europeans but also found in China and other places. As more populations get tested in future, we'll know better.

D+ antigen is very common across all populations; as you can see here; and across all clines (or 'ethnic groups' if you may so call them), for example: this one. Linking D+ to only Europeans or to European origin is a very wild speculative job with absolutely no scientific basis. If all Vadakalai samples (in the said paper) and some Faisalabad residents are D+ it cannot mean they are European / Aryan / Indo-Aryan. On the contrary D+ is commonest in Asians and Blacks. Some feel as a population gets closer to Caucasian, RHD gene deletion (i.e., D- phenotype) may get frequent (see for example this). However, since alleles on RHD keep getting explored, we never know what may be found tomorrow. Even the european partial D alleles were found/described as recently as 2002.

2) Indo-Hittite: This pertains to linguistics but will try. It is generally thought the Indo-Hittite (aka Indo-Anatolian) branch broke off from the Proto-Indo-European (PIE). What constitutes PIE is complex. If you can note from this chart the Hittite branch is not associated with the Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan and Vedic Sanskrit. Instead, the Hittite branch separated out much earlier. There are no clues yet if Indo-Hittite can be associated, if at all, with the Indo-Aryan.

In the said book above, Cavalli-Sforza also mentions the Indo-Anatolian branch got extinct. But not many things in linguistics are resolved yet. The book explores the origin of Indo-Europeans and Anatolia is suggested by many linguists. Anyways, Cavalli-Sforza accepts the hypotheses of Renfrew (p.265); i.e., agricultural expansion resulted in diffusion of 3 linguistic families (from Anatolia region) -- Dravidian towards Pakistan and India, Indo-European towards Europe, and Afro-Asiatic towards North Africa and Arabia.

Now a lot depends on when did Indo-Anatolian branch off. IMO it also remains open to investigation where did proto-dravidian linguistic group originate or come from. Until these things are resolved, am seriously not sure how Indo-hittite can be linked to whatever is considered 'Aryan'; especially since Hittite is not associated with Indo-Aryan and Vedic Sanskrit. Since Hittite broke off earlier, it could mean something else too (IMO there are links to altaic shamanism / shramanism and whatever is considered zoarashtrian, agamic and non-vedic; but that's only a wild personal speculation though). Also, from a linguistic POV, what is considered only Aryan but not Dravidian can get contentious.

However, i leave this to the admin to discuss and decide. I can only say, since these issues are not resolved yet, it is not right to make conclusions as yet.

Thanks.--Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Msg
Hi Qwyrxian,

Found a theory by S.S Mishra linking Indo-Hittite to Middle-Indo-Aryan (MIA). Mishra proposes Sanskrit is older than Hittite. Additionally, Mishra's work (edited by Bryant and Patton) proposes India as the original home of Indo-Aryans, with an outbound theory (of Indo-Aryans going to Anatolia). Not sure if any of Mishra's theories are acceptable to linguists. At least for now the reverse of Mishra's theory, i.e., movement from Anatolia region into India is supported by genetic evidence.

Then again, if Indo-Hittie is linked to Middle-Indo-Aryan (prakrits), it leads to contentious issues. It is questionable why Indo-Hittie is not linked to Old Indo-Aryan (OIA). Could it mean a situation (war like or otherwise), where 'native' speakers of other languages were absorbed into the Indo-Aryan fold by the OIA (?) and/or their 'intermingling' gave rise to MIA? Then again, MIA is associated with Jain religion (and agamic religions are not explored properly yet). So possibilities are galore.

Kindly note, am not a linguist and am wholly ignorant about the subject. Just mentioned what I found (in the book), and my doubts -- I cud be entirely wrong in my understanding though.

Anyways, since linguistic theories (including the dravidian origin conundrum) are not resolved yet, I'd say it is hasty to link any group with a tag (Aryan or otherwise) just bcoz they belong to a particular 'caste' in present time. Maybe a good idea to skip mentioning such tags on wiki articles. However, the admin is in a better position to decide based on other possible evidence. Thanks. --Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
 * Don't tell me, tell the talk page of the article. Sitush (he's the one editing as an IP, becuase he's not using his normal computer) is doing much more of the content work right now, plus Hari should have the chance to chime in, too. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I'd say better to have Sitush and someone knowledgeable in linguistics chiming in. Thanks.--Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
 * The description on Indo-Hittite varies across sources, hence linking one study to another and arriving at a conclusion is WP:SYNTH. We have to just stick to what that source says about these nomenclatures. Here are a few examples.
 * The people of Turkey are linguistically Altaic. The Turkish culture & the language were established in Anatoila(present day's Turkey) by the Gokturks who emigrated from Central Asia(Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan). However, genetic studies indicate that Turkish people(people of Turkey) are rather "Turkized Anatolians" with hardly any "Central Asian/Turkic/altaic" admixture. The altaic classification is just linguistic, while ethnically "the people of Turkey" are of the European diaspora, sharing a common ancestry with their neighbours, Greeks. So, the Turkish(of Turkey) and the Turkic(central asian - turkmen,Uzbeks,etc) are not ethnically related to another.
 * Today's African-Americans in the U.S. are English speakers and most of them don't speak another tongue. Ethnically, they're the farthest from Caucasians(U.S. census classification of whites).
 * All i'm trying to say is, the two(genetics & linguistics) are not always related, unless the source explicitly mentions "ethno-linguistics". According to that source, the authors equate Indo-Hittite to Indo-European. Under the "list of allele frequencies" most(but not all) southern-indian brahmins are mentioned under Indo-Hittite. This could possibly mean their ethnic origins(while their ancestors' tongue during the migratory periods could have been different, like the examples mentioned above, as we all are aware of the popularly held belief ab't brahmins.) - Again, some pages are not available for viewing, hence I may not know what exactly has been discussed by the authors. Because the terminology "Indo-European" has been used in different fields(ethnic origins alone, linguistics alone, ethno-linguistics). Whatever it may be, we simply stick to the source contents and not come up with our own conclusions. So we need to involve a few admins with subject knowledge as it's possible we could be totally wrong. However, arriving at a conclusion by merging/blending different sources or using "own research" can't be the way. Whatever it may be, i'm resting myself from these discussions for some time and focussing on the other sections of the article, since most of them are unsourced, and on the other artices.
 * About the studies on rhesus antigens - you may be right, but when the authors of a secondary source arrive at a conclusion(although that specific study on rhesus antigens need not necessarily indicate a thing regarding their ancestries, like you said) any user may still include it based on "reliable verifiabilty"(a secondary source that combines two studies, and its authors arriving at a conclusion). However, i'm not including it in the article considering the reasons mentioned by Qwyrxian. I guess we can put it to rest, as i won't be bringing it up again. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said to Mayasutra, please discuss this on the article's talk page. While I know that all three of you (Hari7478, Mayasutra, and Sitush) are watching this page, it's better to have the discussion there so that it's stored in the article's talk page archives for future reference. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Qwyrxian, Am consulting a linguist and will be able to add more on this. Please advise how to move this discussion to Iyengar talk page? To Hari7478 -- as regards rhesus antigen, i am right -- go ask any geneticist. What Reddy et al said in the paper and what i said is exactly the same. But you do not seem to understand. It is apparent you just do not know the basics and hence do not understand the paper. Anyways, You cannot use the paper to claim Vadakalai Iyengars are Indo-Aryans, Europeans or whatever else you please, or those who migrated from North India or different from Thenkalais or any other blah blah, which the paper neither says, conveys nor implies. Period. You are able to get away on wiki because Reddy et al is not going to sue you for misquoting them on wiki (coz many ppl pass off BS here). --Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra


 * Hari7478, Indo-European does not automatically mean Indo-Aryan. The term Indo-Aryan refers to a very specific linguistic group. Whether Indo-Hittie can be associated with Indo-Aryan is the key point. AFAIK it is currently under investigation. As regards Cavalli-Sforza, you are completely off the track. If you cannot make sense of his book, i have a suggestion for you. Think of days when humans roamed jungles and lived in caves. The first brahmin was a non-brahmin. Hope that helps. --Mayasutra &#91;&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61;&#93; (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

DRN
Sorry, it was my fault. I thought that you lost interest in article after you didn't comment in the discussion. Cossde (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's still on my watchlist; I just didn't know about the DRN. Not sure if I could have actually helped, but I would have tried. I really wish we could resolve the name problem, because it's just so irritating, not just on that article, but on all the other Sri Lankan colleges... Qwyrxian (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am open for suggestions, in fact I'm taking those in CT Cooper's assessment on Royal College, Colombo. But it seems that as soon as I start editing the sockpuppet attacks start. I feel this may have less to do with the schools and more to do with me. Cossde (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was notified by a bot. According to the DRN "rules", I don't think people can post their comments until a DRN volunteer has approved the case. In this instance, as in many, the case was turned down by such a volunteer. I find it to be a very messy system and in all cases where I have been involved it has produced no result of any great wort, basically just throwing it all back to the talk pages.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Weird, I don't remember a bot notice; maybe I did get one and thought it was for one of the other DRN's I'm involved in. Basically, the system is:
 * Someone opens the request, listing other editors who are involved.
 * Those other editors must post an initial statement (in effect, there needs to be some evidence that there's actually people willing to try to resolve the problem). They aren't supposed to argue in those posts, but just post their position or willingness to continue.
 * If a DRN volunteer thinks she/he can help, and the dispute fits the DRN criteria, then it gets opened and the discussion can continue.
 * As for the actual dispute in question...first, Cossde, it's great that you asked for an article assessment and are responding to those concerns. Even if the name problem can't be sorted out, at least the rest of the article will improve. Thanks for dong those edits. As for the names...I think that, first of all, all of those articles need to be indefinitely semi-protected. The next time an IP editor decides to make a change, someone (I'll do it if I see it) should request the indefinite protection at WP:RFPP. At that point...I think it's up to obi2canibe if he wants to pursue it further. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

user:Intoronto1125 possible IP sock
Qwyrxian,

I have come to you as the original blocking admin, and also because I'm not entirely sure how to deal with a suspected IP sock as in the few sock investigations I have read the ips never seem to be confirmed or not (also it might meet the duck test). The Ip in question is user:76.64.228.218. This edit on a talk page about "field hockey" or "hockey" on a Pan American Games page is one of the reasons that Intoronto was indef blocked (see a Dec 15 2012 discussion here). Additionally, the IP's edits are on the same topics as Intoronto (specifically focused on Canada, (ice) hockey and multievent sporting competitions). Finally, the IP has reached 3 reversions, in three hours, on Ice hockey again over the issue of whether it should be referred to as hockey or ice hockey: One, Two and Three (I gave a warning, but only after the three above had been done) and the IP geolocates to Toronto. If notifying you as an admin isn't the correct step, please let me know what is. Ravendrop 07:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

My edit summaries
Hi there, I will be more specific in my edit summaries from now on. I guess I've been doing a high volume of editing recently and my summaries haven't been as descriptive as they need to be. Thanks for the message - duly noted.

Regards, The  Suave  16:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

User: PRASATIS
This user keeps editing Mukkulathor & other related pages without any references. Can you have a look on him & make him understand how to work on Wikipedia ? Rajkris (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've left a note and done some tidying. (I might be home next week, btw, and then will have a watchlist rather than being a perpetual stalker!).--2.219.218.79 (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (that's Sitush, in case you didn't know, Rajkris). I actually had both editing windows open to start a note, but then had to go away to handle some chores; thanks for handling that. What Sitush has done is basically the same thing I would have done, except that I wouldn't have left the caste-sanctions warning at the same time as the first handwrittten message. But the fact that there is a personal, direct message clearly written by a human is one of the keys. A lot of people just ignore templated messages or bot messages, because we're kind-of trained in real life to ignore those types of automated communications. So in a case like this, I think it's really important, Rajkris, to at least once attempt to communicate with the person in your own words--politely, calmly, etc. Don't get me wrong--I use a lot of templated warnings. But in a case like this, where I don't think the user is intentionally being disruptive and instead just doesn't understand or know our rules, I think it's almost always worth taking at least one shot on trying to directly communicate with them. If they ignore it (or don't see it--some people literally don't pay attention to the orange "You've got new messages" notice), then sometimes a block will eventually be needed to try to force communication. But I think that trying at least once is a good plan.
 * I'll watchlist the user's talk page, and two of the article pages, but if you see something that needs administrative attention and I don't notice, feel free to drop me another note (either of you). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if you remove the caste notice & tweak my words to reflect that. It does seem a bit contradictory to apologise for templates and then, erm, template. But it is late here and I am off to bed.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's just a different approach--it's not wrong, just different. And I must fully admit that if you were to track my own actions, I jump around all the time in terms of when I template and when I don't. Here, I figured that with several of us watching, if it took an extra round of "Okay, we tried to explain nicely, now I have to template you" before we did the "Okay, next time it's a block", there wouldn't be much harm. But it's totally a judgment call. Get some rest. And hope you can go home soon! Qwyrxian (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok.Rajkris (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Shankysupercool
I have started a discussion at WP:ANI which concerns a sockpuppet investigation you recently participated in. Your participation there is welcome. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

NPOV on an article and unfair treatment due to IP address
Hi [Qwyrxian],

Regarding the page Murder of Travis Alexander; the page states "murder" as a fact despite an ongoing trail that is trying to determine the circumstances surrounding the death. The accused admits killing the victim but maintains it was self defence. Since manslaughter is a probable outcome of the case; it is not NPOV to state "murder" as a fact at this time.

On the talk page we have been discussing this matter and the general consensus was up in the air but more were in favour of "death of..." than "murder of...". However, one user BabbaQ disagrees and has constantly been unable to support his position with any arguments besides saying that it should remain as "murder of.." because of a previous consensus.

He then contacted an Admin requesting that the page be semi-protected due to "IP addresses editing against consensus". The admin protected the page and I feel that this is unfair as it is just because I do not have a user account, as there is not an ongoing risk of vandalism by other ip addresses. The protection was wholly against me. I cannot see how having "murder of.." stated as a fact, and then going on to say that Jodi did kill him (which she admits doing) doesn't lead to the reader making the obvious conclusion that she murdered him. But this is not yet a fact as the trial is ongoing and Jodi maintains a position of self defence. Surely this is even a violation of "Biography of living person."

Anyway, I don't see why BabbaQ's position is favoured just because he has an account. I have posted this on the Admin noticeboard aswell, would just like to know your opinion also as you seemed very fair and level-headed when we interacted before!

Thanks, 87.232.1.48 (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You dont need to POV-push anymore. A good compromize has been made in Killing of.. Hope you can find some peace now as it seems to be such a huge deal.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As BabbaQ mentioned above, the other Admins also saw that we should not write the article presuming a particular outcome and stating it as current fact; so the whole thing has been resolved! Thanks anyway! 87.232.1.48 (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the admins saw that either Death of.. suggested by the IP nor Murder of.. was correct but Killing of.. which I agree on. Good decision. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies, at the moment I don't have the interest/time to get involved with another dispute on a topic I've never heard of. But I'm glad that there was a solution. One note, though, to the IP and BabbaQ: admins don't decide content. They don't get to look at a dispute and say, "Well, we're choosing Side A because it's better." Admins are just editors who can do a few extra things like protect pages and block users. Generally, try to solve problems through dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

intoronto1125
I don't know the right way to go about it, but I believe that user intoronto1125, who was indefinately blocked by you, is using an ip address 76.64.228.218. Might be a coincidence, sorry if I am wasting your time.18abruce (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, not a coincidence; after looking carefully through the contributions history, there is no doubt that that IP is Intoronto1125. If another new IP or user pops up again on the same topic that you think is/may be Intoronto1125, feel free to let me know again; there's too many articles for me to add to my watchlist, so I'll have to rely upon involved editors to alert me if needed. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do, we have very similar interests, and he can't seem to help himself from being combative on the same issues over and over again.18abruce (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Both Master of Computer Applications and Master of Science in Information Tecnology are Different
Yes Both Master of Computer Applications and Master of Science in Information Tecnology are Different because Master of Science in Information Tecnology is a 2 year masters degree and Master of Computer Applications is 3 years masters degree.

Proof--- http://www.ibmr.org/pune-university-mca.htm (Master of Computer Applications)

http://www.daiict.ac.in/daiict/admissions/msit.html (Master of Science in Information Technology) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdsajjadhs (talk • contribs) 14:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Mdsajjadhs 14:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, a careful look has me agreeing. But please be patient. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Request
Hi. Can you kindly review Palar Blast article created by me; whether the incident is notable, for a separate article? Thank you.Rayabhari (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Makarandg
Qwyrxian and TheSuave, thanks for correcting my errors on the subject. As u may have noticed i am a new user to wiki and currently not very much acquaint with it conventions. so may have caused the disturbance like u have mentioned. About t matter i want to say that i (though Indian resident) not trying to malign the presidents repo. but the impartial info and praise given is the matter of my concern (the same source has other point of view also)

her foreign visits  after reading the stuff u have mentioned, its not that much sensational as per wiki norms but the fact that the 'telegram and its copies r burnt' is something unusual and should be cited without criticism ( i am not sure will it be applicable as per ur norms or not...?)

about a dead man's clemency  I understand that the firstly inserted criticism part was not fully sourced but after ur changes i had only mentioned that she had given clemency to a that guy with the sufficient reliable source and without any partial point of view ( i think it is necessary to mention that)

apart from the subject i like to mention that i am very much impressed by the efficiency and effectiveness shown to better wiki shown by people like u.. Makarandg (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

other matters U have given sources to the controversy line but when the data from same source is added to the wiki pages its been removed (her son and husbands liaison along with other details which are in presidential election where it has nothing to do with it) Makarandg (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC) the INC countered ... Shekhawat... illegally acquiring land why insert details of Bhairon singh shekhawat in pratibha patil-shekhatwat bio Makarandg (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing. You keep trying to add that information to the "Controveries" section. But the sources you are providing don't say that these things are controversies. At all. For example, it seems obvious to me that Patil should be using more money for foreign travel...that it should be a matter of praise, not controversy. It's a clear demonstration that India is now a world power. So unless you can produce a source saying that this is actually a controversy, it can't go into the controversy section. Then, the next question is, if it's not verifiably a controversy, can it just be added as a fact somewhere else in the article? For that, my feeling is no, because it just seems WP:UNDUE—that is, it doesn't seem importat enough to her overall biography. Basically the same thing holds true for the clemency issue. See, when you think about what to put into a Wikipedia biography, what you want to ask yourself, usually, is not "What's being talked about in the news right now?" but instead, "What will be important to historians who look back on this person ten years later?"  Qwyrxian (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I am totally agree with u on her foreign trip issue( i've mentioned earlier also) But not satisfied with ur position on her clemency decision. (her decision to give 35 clemency is historic. isn't it imp to understand her preparedness to give a decision like that from historic point of view. If your stand is like u r writing her biography and that u will only mention the stuff from her point of view and not the the third party outside without getting personal point of view.

Isn't it imp to mention She also told a Muslim congregation that the veil was introduced to "protect their women from Mughal invaders", a comment she later retracted. or The dour and conservative Mrs Patil, who according to one newspaper won a beauty contest in 1962, has been described, among other things, by critics as a "national embarrassment" and a person who is "not exactly the most overwhelming, accomplished or charismatic" candidate from HOPE U'LL UNDERSTAND MY POINT OF VIEW Makarandg (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Starting from the end, the fact that her political opponents say negative things about her is not worth including in her bio...that's just politics. The veil comment is just a random, throwaway comment, certainly not something of lasting importance. Just because something was in a newspaper does not mean it has lasting encyclopedic value.
 * The one point that could have merit is the clemency issue, given that this is a record. I'll raise the matter at the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)