User talk:Writ Keeper/sandbox archive

Comments
The second paragraph is a problem, because it has no sources to support its primary claim. That paragraph claims that "The source of the criticism leveled against the Sanatan Sanstha is X." It provides a source that says that X is a policy of Sanatan Sanstha, but it does not provide any sources that indicate that this is the primary reason they are criticized. Furthermore, I'm not certain that Life positive qualifies as a relevant source in this case. They are a spiritual organization, not (as far as I can see) directly affiliated with SS, so I'm not sure why their opinion on SS's teaches meets WP:UNDUE.

I removed the ENS source and Hindustantimes from the last sentence of the first paragraph, because bothonly talks about the bombings, and doesn't say anything about a backlash or call to ban the group.

In fact, when I look at the rest of those references, I don't think the stand up to WP:DUE. Communalism Combat is a publication of Sabrang Communications & Publishing, which is an advocacy group, not a neutral publisher. The next paragraph proves that Gatade is a "left wing radical columnist and activist". hindujagruti.org is not a reliable source. I removed 2 sources that didn't in any way talk about a call for a ban on the organization. The only legitimate source left is the Indian Express source, which will significantly rewriting that sentence to make it sound much less dramatic than it does.

And, when I look before that, Source #2 is also not neutral.

Once again, I'm back to seeing very little direct connection in reliable sources between the group and these bombings. Yes, I accept that it seems likely that the 6 people probably acted either directly on orders of the group, or simply internalized their teachings and interpretted them in a particularly egregious way...but almost none of the sources actually say that. Instead, what I see is a group of opinion writers from a very narrow POV all calling for banning the organization...but only a small amount of actual mainstream opposition. As such, including such an extensive criticism section appears to violate WP:UNDUE overall.

I've got to run now, but maybe I can try to cobble something together based on the sources that are legitimate. It looks like LeadSongDog put some more sources on the article's talk page, which I'll try to look at when I get time. I may get to this tonight, but, my apologies, if I don't, it may be several days until I get to it because I may not have time this weekend. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the overall sense that I got from it; my goal in putting this draft together was to leave as much of the text unchanged as possible, as a starting point. I agree with Qwyr that the more I look at it, the more it seems undue emphasis to have this section.  Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that it was fairly obvious from both the text and the citation that Communalism Combat was simply conveying a political viewpoint. Did the text give you the impression of being a statement of objective fact? If so, I'd be happy to see it reworded to make it more transparent. But NPOV does not mean that viewpoints should be excised from articles, only that they should be handled in a manner which neutrally reflects the balance found in sources. The article certainly should tell the pro- and con-SS sides of the story. Using primary sources to state the positions of their authors is exactly the intention of wp:PSTS. We should state their positions, and attribute them correctly to them. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Only if the opinions meet WP:UNDUE. For example, you don't see criticisms of from the American Communist Party in Presidency of Barrack Obama. If the only people crying foul about this group are a narrow group of self-proclaimed radical leftists, then I'm not sure that any of the criticism belongs, except for that one point raised by a government party. It is a common misconception that NPOV means we're supposed to represent pro and con sides, or represent them equally.  Now, if there is some evidence that this opinion is more widely held, or that for some reason in this case the specific position is held to be highly important, then including it is fine. But we're not here to present a bunch of opinions about organizations; we're here to provide, primarily, factual information about them and their actions. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the parallel, perhaps because Indian politics has so many more factions the US. Do we excise Israeli sources from articles about Palestinian politics? Scottish Nationalist sources from articles about UK politicians? Anyhow, have a look at the collection of articles about SS that Times of India has done to get a sense of whether this is a fringe concept. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * After reviewing more of the documents, the only thing I believe we can possibly include in the article is something like this:


 * In 2008, six members of Sanatan Sanstha were arrested for planting bombs outside of an auditorium in Thane, Vashi.(ref) In 2011, two of the accused were found guilty and sentenced to ten years incarceration. As a result of these blasts and greater concerns that the organization promotes violence, the Maharashta government has sought to ban the organization, and has pressed the case for a ban to the central government as well. A central government investigation of the group is ongoing, and NIA officers raided the organization's headquarters in October 2011.


 * I believe that that adequately covers the issue, does not go into excessive detail, and leaves out all of the commentary (another ref or two may be plausible). In reference to your earlier question, no, we do not excise Israeli sources from articles on Palestinian politics. We do, however (as far as I know) excise the commentary of radical Israeli political parties or writers from articles on Palestinian politics, or, well, anywhere. Again, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be a collection of opinions "balanced" so that all sides get a say.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For whatever it's worth, I agree with Qwyrxian. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In the absence of further discussion, I'm moving this version into the article. I really feel that what's in there now is at best an NPOV violation and possibly even a BLP violation. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll keep this subpage up for a few days longer, and then request to delete it if nobody has any objections. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

hijacking sandbox for script testing Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)