Talk:Gandhi Information Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Copyright The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from {{{source}}}. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to license this material under the GNU Free Documentation License, and evidence of this has been lodged with the Wikimedia PR department, under OTRS ticket number {{{otrs}}}.

This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia Open Ticket Request System (OTRS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en at wikimedia dot org. Do not use this template to claim permission.


I do hold copyright for the Gandhi Information Center webpage http://home.snafu.de/mkgandhi/ It is granted. I sent the webpage. So, what to do next? Christian Bartolf (Chair)

Followed up. --Ngb ?!? 12:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] MANIFESTO AGAINST CONSCRIPTION AND THE MILITARY SYSTEM

I took this out of the page, I think it needs it's own page and the manifesto itself should be moved to wikisource. Andreww 06:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

MANIFESTO AGAINST CONSCRIPTION AND THE MILITARY SYSTEM

 ~snipped by Foofy for clarity~
Is there supposed to be a copyright notice on that in the article text? -- Foofy 13:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore this reads more like an ad or a mirror of the site than an encyclopedia article. I will patch things up today. -- Foofy 14:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

I basically rewrote the article from scratch, based on the tidbits I could find on the internet. The old article was messy, and there was no need for the entire manifesto (though Wikisource is a good place for it!). I think things are a lot more informative now, hopefully somebody can smooth my choppy English.

The copyright on the two original manifestos is unclear, so I'm not sure if they can be put in Wikisource. Interestingly, the third manifest is based on the first two, so where does that leave its copyright status? :P Of course nobody would really care given the nature of the documents, but it is strange to think about. -- Foofy 16:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

They are both at least 75 years old, so I would have thought that they were now in the public domain (but INAL). I have added the "propper" wikisource link and done a bit of cleaning of the page layout. Andreww 09:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
That's what I thought! I must have misread public domain. I've made more edits, basically just re-adding tidbits of information that had been lost and removing ones that had been repeated. Hopefully this isn't seen as destructive, since all the same information is there (just not twice, like in the first and last paragraphs of the manifesto section had been.)
Err, and sorry about the anti-conscription link. I had just moved it, not changed it, though I thought it made more sense because in context it was "anti." :) - Foofy 20:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manifesto named twice

Anonymous: do you have any good reason for putting the name of the manifesto twice in such a rediculously short section? It just seems redundant. Though I will concede on the lowercase and quotation of the title, since that is apparently the proper form for short articles. -- Foofy 13:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

The intro has gotten a bit convoluted, needs some simple reworking. Also, according to their website, "Satyagraha was the title under which the Gandhi Information Center has recently published information for its members." So why does it say they have published with that name since 1994? If anybody could clear this up? --Foofy 12:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody has responded, I'm going to go ahead and make these changes to reflect the information provided on the website. --Foofy 08:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I recently added a notability tag since there are no third party references that provide reliable sources to verify any claim in this article or show that the center is of sufficient importance to merit an encyclopedia article. The tag was removed without comment and without addressing its concerns. I've readded the tag, but if it is removed again wihtout appropriate changes, or the concerns are not addressed in a reasonable time frame I will feel obliged to propose the article for deletion. -- Siobhan Hansa 20:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks SiobanHansa, for patrolling wikipedia for inappropriate content. I do disagree with you in this case, however. The center has published works and has filed a release of copyright with wikipedia commons for the content of the works. There are relevant references to the center in reputable websites when doing a quick google search, from the Danish Peace Academy and Spokesman Books. I have been working with this new wikipedia editor to educate him on wikipedia policies. A quick look at the history pages for some of his contributions prior to you adding this tag will demonstrate that I have been reverting his external site references from many articles. My advice to him was to keep his references only in articles that directly discuss them (this one). He is a little distraught now, after following my advice, to see that you are recommending deletion of this article. I also realize that he has been placing links in the 'see also' sections of numerous articles for his wikicommons book. I have explained to him why this is not allowed. Please consider leaving this article as it is.

Jerry lavoie 23:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jerry. The references you have added to the article are either trivial (like the spokesmanbooks.com link which just shows them as one member of a large directory) or connected to the center in some way (for instance the Danish Peace Academy, Peacemaking and draftresistance.org links are all letters or press releases written by Christian Bartolf). These don't show notability. I looked through the pages brought up be a Google search, but couldn't find significant commentary on the organization by independent third parties. On articles that manifesto and Gandhi Information Center external and internal links have been removed, there have not been any regular editors protesting that it is a well known and important resource in the movement. This leads me to think that, though it is obviously important to Mr Bartolf, it is not necessarily an appropriate subject for an article for Wikipedia. I have asked for evidence that this organization is significant, that doesn't seem unreasonable. The notability tag seemed the best approach. I'm happy to simply use the talk page instead, but I do believe this issue needs to be addressed. -- Siobhan Hansa 12:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] GHITS

I agree that the evidence seems to demonstrate that most of the references found for the subject of this article are contained within self-created press releases and other cooperating websites that appear to be in the network of this movement. While each reference, taken as a stand-alone source can rather easily be dismissed for reasons you note, the sheer volume of them seems significant. This reasoning for inclusion is perhaps not directly stated in the notability policy, but it does state that each article is its own unique case and should be considered accordingly. I believe the following to be true:

  • including this article will prove beneficial to readers interested in this movement,
  • this article is likely to be cited as a reference by a press agency in the future
  • the article, if maintained in a strictly NPOV, is not spam
  • the subject of the article has potential to become historically significant
  • the subject of this article is unique and topically-focussed enough that inclusion of this article is not likely to create a precedent which editors of clearly non-notable articles will attempt to use to bolster their arguments on AfD's.

[Check Google hits] [Check Google hits - alternative spelling of center as centre]

Jerry lavoie 19:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I see this differently.
You say you believe the center has the potential to become historically significant - and I say once the center is historically significant it will be a great subject for an article. At the moment it seems to be just one of hundreds of thousands of organizations that exist to provide an aura of legitimacy for a person who is not currently widely listened to. In looking at this article I've also started to investigate the Christian Bartolf article, and I see the same thing there. He does not appear to be a particularly significant academic or author. From what I can find he contributed to some more more widely respected work as in his earlier days but has not found much success on his own. (This is just what I can find out from the comfort of my armchair, there's plenty of room for me to be wrong, but there is no evidence of real notability in any article).
Google hits are all well and good (although at about 1,000 it's not exactly evidence of a hugely well known organization, especially given how self-promotional Bartolf clearly is), but without non-promotional mentions of the center, how can we write an NPOV article? This is especially important if, as you believe, the article is likely to be cited as a reference by a press agency. The idea that Wikipedia would be used to corroborate what is essentially self-promotion seems more like a reason for removing the article than keeping it.
When I look at this article and its history I see promotion but no real addition to knowledge - how is this center important in the peace movement? How do we know dignitaries have signed the manifesto? Or that prominent authors, artists, scientists, and Nobel Laureates are members (and what does it mean to be a member of the center)?
If we can write a reliably sourced article on this organization I might well think differently. That's what I'm really looking for. But at the moment this is basically a press release for the organization. An uncritical repetition of the center's claims is not appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Siobhan Hansa 15:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with SiobhanHansa about this. -Will Beback · † · 19:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not know if this 2004 article is sufficiently reliable for your purpose: https://www.jungewelt.de/loginFailed.php?ref=/2004/09-29/020.php But you cannot blame our Center for the ignorance and indifference of mass media. All journalists are welcome to investigate and report ... I just returned back from the international Gandhi conference in New Delhi where I participated: http://www.satyagrahaconference.com/ Chrbartolf 07:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Chrbartolf

That looks more along the lines of what we need. I can't get to the actual article (and I'd have to rely on translation software anyway). Can you tell us a bit about it (looks like an interview with you), how long it is and what it covers in relation to the center etc.?
More independent coverage would be good. Publications don't have to be national news but they should be widely respected in their field, not simply small fringe publications. We're not "blaming" the center for lack of press coverage. We're simply saying if the press isn't interested, you're not so significant for our purposes. Wikipedia is not the place to promote a movement that can't get attention in other ways. -- Siobhan Hansa 12:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hundreds of libraries keep the books I edited. You should simply consider the fact that there are book authors with academic degrees who do not envisage academic careers. This is why your success criteria are not universally applicable. Chrbartolf 07:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Chrbartolf

Our criteria are about notability not success. They aren't universally applicable, which is why I've taken a significant amount of time to try to find information that supports keeping the article. But self-promotion is NOT an appropriate basis for an article and so far self-promotional mentions have been the foundation of this article. (We should take the discussion about the Christian Bartolf article to that talk page rather than muddy this discussion. Sorry for bringing it up here.). -- Siobhan Hansa 12:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Gandhi Information Center has a different level of notability than Christian Bartolf. It would depend to a large degree on how many other people are associated with it, and how much independent press coverage it gets. Many prominent academics are involved in consulting firms, small journals, or other non-university organizations. Even when an author is notable their imprint may not be. In this case of GIS, I don't see any mention of how many full-time employees it has, how many scholars, etc. -Will Beback · † · 08:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Gandhi Information Center (according to the wbsite and the facts) keeps more than 120 members worldwide, among them notable Nobel Peace Laureates, e.g. Adolfo Perez Esquivel from Argentine. That is why there should be no more worries about this in terms of notability. Chrbartolf 10:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Chrbartolf

We can see that GIC claims to have prominent members. But what does it mean to be a member? And where does is this membership corroborated by an independent source that can be expected to have applied some rigor to their fact checking? If prominent people are members and GIC is a significant organization, surely a few of them will have mentioned this at some point some where in the press or even on their own websites? -- Siobhan Hansa 12:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Again you err - why should they? Is there any standard? Ask them if you want to investigate - start with Mr. Esquivel who I mentioned. In addition, there are membership cards as signed documents. Why do you not send someone from your Wikipedia editor staff along to me as responsible representative or a journalist? Your perception of the reality is not yet correct. Chrbartolf 17:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Chrbartolf

The corroboration doesn't have to be directly from them - any independent source that has a reputation for rigor might be appropriate. But if there isn't corroboration from a reliable source is not something we can use in Wikipedia. Our standard for inclusion is verifiability not truth. The center's claims may be true. But we need independent reliable sources that have already published information in order to include it in an encyclopedia article. If there aren't any such sources it's not something we can cover. -- Siobhan Hansa 18:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you call "independent reliable sources", e.g. http://www.jungewelt.de/loginFailed.php?ref=/2004/09-29/020.php ? Chrbartolf 14:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, here you find another article - The Hindu, Sunday 30 January 2000 "Gandhi through German eyes" http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2000/01/30/stories/13301281.htm - Chrbartolf 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And here some guide of the city of Berlin: http://www.berlin.de/sen/wirtschaft/lez/g01.html Chrbartolf 14:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And here a text of a German government website (against extremism, in favor of tolerance): http://www.buendnis-toleranz.de/nn_580830/SharedDocs/Initiativen/G/Gandhi-Info-Zentrum.html Chrbartolf 14:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And here (on the city of Berlin's official website) an official text of the Berlin district of Charlottenburg about a joint public commemoration plaque together with the Austrian government epresentative in Germany: http://www.berlin.de/ba-charlottenburg-wilmersdorf/bezirk/gedenktafeln/jaegerstaetter.html Chrbartolf 14:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The German name is "Gandhi-Informations-Zentrum" - that is why you find more entries of "independent reliable sources" under this name. In addition, many libraries keep the GIZ's ISBN registered books in English and German languages. Hope this will do now. Chrbartolf 15:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these. This is exactly the sort of thing we need for the article. I'll take a closer look later today and do some editing. -- Siobhan Hansa 15:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/a/n/Talk%7EGandhi_Information_Center_59b7.html"