Talk:Voice of India
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] WP:ATT
Please note: 'factual errors' need to be cited as errors, and marked as disputed, if they are based on reliable sources. Note further: a partial list of publications is not considered standard in publishing house pages. We link to author pages; those link to book pages. Note finally: the 'heavily' is a direct quote from the Pseudoarcheology book. Please try and cite your changes, rather than deleting relevant information from mainstream, reliable sources. Hornplease 09:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- seeing the nature of the firm as a lobbyist platform rather than a bona fide publishing house, it may make sense to include a list of publications. dab (𒁳) 10:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] website
voi.org has been down for a few days. It used to be hosted by http://www.airband.com/ (Carrollton, Texas). dab (𒁳) 10:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] section not verified
- "may be biased and inaccurate"
- "not emigrant", the two have lived abroad, according to their WP biographies,
- Frawley, Klostermaier are "not New-Agers"
- Bhagawan Gidwani is not known to be a supporter of Nationalism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doldrums (talk • contribs) 06:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Point of View Tag
Please try to abide by the wikipedia policy of neutrality This is an encyclopedia, and as such should be a place for facts. I know little about the subject which is why I've tried to draw attention to the article to see if we can get help. If I have to be honest, the subject probably doesn't merit an article, It appears to be a vehicle for criticism, something which wikipedia is not. We should try to clean up this article, removing the bias and ensure that it has a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view or tag it for deletion.SallyBoseman 22:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Sally, Voice of India is not a huge publishing company, but probably notable enough to have an article. But the editors who are owning the article are using it as a vehicle for criticism, as you point out. My impulsive edits, which you reverted, were trying to balance the criticism - criticism which is being presented as fact, but are only allegations from a couple of people. Allegations are generally unencyclopedic when made by a few individuals (with Conflict of Interest at that), unless perhaps they are kept in the criticism section, and are made by extremely notable, or reliable neutral parties. I appreciate your attempt to draw editors who are entirely uninvolved with the much larger controversy that this article is part of (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_propaganda). If editors who are entirely neutral could wade into this, I for one would appreciate it. Cheers, ॐ Priyanath talk 22:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)