Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Rama's Arrow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] oppose argument

1. Oppose. I was on the opposing side in the debate to rename Arabic numerals to Hindu-Arabic numerals. While some on the pro-Hindu side argued reasonably and with consideration of wikipedia policy (for example, I thought that about deeptrivia who was on the pro-Hindu side, and that's why deeptrivia got a support vote from me in his RfA), others seemed to be nationalistic POV pushers, and unfortunately that was my impression of Rama's Arrow. this edit seems to be an understanding of consensus by simply listing the people who agree with him and ignoring the rest, and he acts on this understanding in mid-discussion. in this edit, Rama argues that the article has a "rightful name". In this edit, he seems to argue that the name is rightful because to choose another name discredits the Indian culture. Arguing from the "rightness" of a name shows a lack of due consideration for policy (use english and common names), and the consensus-taking seems to be heavily stacked. -lethe ^{talk +} 11:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   Hi Lethe - you misunderstand me in these edits - I have absolutely no desire to push POV anywhere on WP. I believed that Hindu-Arabic numerals was a "rightful" name becoz it was my understanding that Hindu mathematicians had done a lot for its development. Its the same reasoning as "Bose-Einstein statistics," nothing more. I know that I reverted a move of this article, but only because I thought user:Mikkalai had disregarded the on-going vote - I believed he shouldn't have done that even as others were voting to resolve the issue. And the listing of people who support H-A numerals as title was absolutely without intention of excluding critics - I wasn't trying to ignore anybody. Rama's Arrow 11:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   The right name for the "Bose-Einstein statistics" is "Bose-Einstein statistics" because that's how it's commonly referred to (not because we want to make sure Satyendra Nath Bose gets due credit). The right name for Stokes' theorem is Stokes theorem, even though Sir George Gabriel Stokes had nothing to do with proving the theorem. We don't choose our names on wikipedia to insure credit where credit is due, rather we use common names. This is exactly the reason for my oppose. You seem to be arguing based on what the "right" name is, instead of what our policies dictate (and rest assured, there are policies that can be cited in support of the name "Hindu-Arabic"). -lethe ^{talk +} 11:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   Also, please note that I repeatedly asked administrators to intervene in this very messy debate. This was definitely no attempt to impose myself on anything. Rama's Arrow 11:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   Unfortunately, an adminstrator's job is not to solve content disputes. I saw that you asked for adminstrators to come in. But there were no 3RR violations, no personal attack violations, so it seems that you misunderstand (even now?) the role of adminstrators. -lethe ^{talk +} 11:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   You continue to misunderstand me Lethe. My request for an admin to give some attention to the dispute was only to ask for some with authority to bring some order to the process of resolution, someone everyone could listen to, as people were tugging in different directions. At the time, I was not as informed of Wikipedia policies, which is why I made the mistakes I made in my early career. Also, I had seen other references to "Hindu-Arabic numerals" so I believed that was the right name. I felt the reasoning was as simple as "Bose-Einstein statistics." Please note that I was not a regular participant in that debate, nor did I make any attempt to oppose the final consensus. I have not done any "POV-pushing," "pro-Hindu" or otherwise anywhere else. And obviously I have no doubt regarding WP naming conventions and the role of admins as of now. Rama's Arrow 11:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   Well, admins don't serve the role that your suggestion might imply. Their job is not to lend their authority or preside over content disputes. -lethe ^{talk +} 12:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   Hi again Lethe - might I add that you are making far-flung conclusions regarding my role in the H-A numerals debate? When votes were called, I voted properly. I did not insult anybody, nor disrupt anything. I did not dispute the final consensus. I have already explained my reason for reverting Mikka's move - he made the move while a vote was on-going, and I felt he was wrong in doing this. I made absolutely no reference to anything "nationalistic" - I would use the word "rightful" to describe the title "Bose-Einstein statistics" becoz its rightful as per WP policies and otherwise... Rama's Arrow 12:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   So you're saying that you didn't think that the name Hindu-Arabic was the right name because of its relevance to nationalism, but rather because that is the name that follows policy? Well, that's not the impression that I got looking at you edits, though it's certainly not impossible that I was jumping to conclusions, as you suggest. I guess I'll take a closer look. (by the way, you should prefix your comments with a hash sign (#), and don't put any new lines. This ensures that the counting markup works). -lethe ^{talk +} 12:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   With all due respect Lethe, I was entirely in agreement with Deeptrivia's arguments during the debate. I was a little offended by Francis Schonken's perceived rudeness to Deeptrivia. I entered the issue only on DT's request for me to have a look, I voted a couple of times and I performed a revert of Mikka's move. I repeatedly asked for admin intervention becoz people were pulling in different directions and votes were being disrupted, dat's all. As you said that we use Bose-Einstein statistics not to give S.N. Bose credit, but becoz its commonly known that way. But may I ask, why the term was used by others in the first place? Obviously to credit its formulators. I was using that rationale - Hindu and Arab mathematicians are responsible for the genesis of Hindu-Arabic numerals. I regret that I did not read WP naming conventions closely enough to realize that it wasn't a question of credit, just of common usage. That was my lack of understanding, but even then there were many legitimate references to the system as Hindu-Arabic, which caused me and others to slip up. I had absolutely no political or nationalistic POV in the matter. Rama's Arrow 12:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   And just for the record, I am no POV-pusher or Hindu nationalist. If you allow me, I point to the example of making Muhammad Ali Jinnah an FA - as an Indian and a Hindu, I had plenty of possible motive and opportunity to stuff it with Hindu nationalist POV, but I have not and will never. I am a firm believer in exact, factual knowledge with no desire to adjust facts to bring credit to anybody. Rama's Arrow 12:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   I'm having a look at the Jinnah page. To be honest, I'm too ignorant of Indian history to decide whether the edit conflicts there demonstrate an adherence to policy, though I will say I was impressed with how you dealt with the anonymous editor (per your conversation on the talk page). But can you understand how the diffs I linked on the Hindu-Arabic numbers might look to me? -lethe ^{talk +} 12:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   Yes I can understand, because the whole H-A numerals debate was entirely messy. At the time, I was not well-versed with Wikipedia policies as I did not desire to be an admin and I had just been working on my first FA. I am entirely open to criticism of my past, and if you wish to oppose my RfA, that's fine and I respect it. I just want you to understand that I had no intention of POV-pushing or anything bad faith or against Wikipedia policy at the time, nor ever will. Rama's Arrow 12:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   I am convinced that you are, as you claim, not a Hindu-nationalist or POV pusher, and do indeed hold in your heart the ideals embodied by wikipedia, and the appearance of those flaws was misinterpretation on my part combined with inexperience on your part. I take your statement And obviously I have no doubt regarding WP naming conventions and the role of admins as of now to mean that you understand why those comments appeared bad to me, and in the future will take care to rely more on a NPOV, policy-based position in arguments (and perhaps you've even been doing so since that debate in December). Is that so? I am switching to support. -lethe ^{talk +} 13:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   It is absolutely so. In fact, it is a major goal of mine that I can find ways to communicate to young users the futility of pushing POVs. Knowledge must reflect only facts and the truth. Rama's Arrow 13:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)