Talk:Ashok Banker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] Banker's science fiction/Reversion of article

Links to SF-related categories were removed with the explanation "got nothing to do with Sci-fi". However, Banker writes about the SF he's written and published in the introductory notes to two SF stories that he's posted online, East of the sun, west of Europe and Small Acts Of Betrayal. Further, in this interview he refers to The Krishna Coriolis as "my SF retelling of the adventures of Krishna", and discusses how he's trying to integrate SF tropes and quantum mechanics into his entire sequence of mythological epics.

Some of this obviously needs to be integrated into the article. I'd been planning to do so anyway along with some other minor revision, so I'll take care of it directly after posting this. Aitch Eye 21:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Ashok Banker, the subject of this page, questions the accuracy of this entry and requests that it be deleted in its entirety until such time as the facts can be verified by reliable primary sources. He concedes to the Bibliography and links section being retained; however, he feels there are a few errors in these as well. 210.214.10.55 03:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)User: Ashwin

[edit] Bibliography

We have TBA and Unsub in this section. I understand TBA. What is Unsub?
Why do we have forthcoming titles in the bibliography? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We are not here to tell the future. Nor do we have any refs to support these forthcoming titles.

User Ashwin responds: The refs were on the page itself, in a long profile of Banker by Telegraph, Kolkata, as well as Banker's own publishers in India, Penguin Books who have contracted with Banker for the various forthcoming titles. Wikipedia has several thousands of pages listing movies in production, books forthcoming from authors, music albums planned, etc. Clearly the person making the 'crystal ball' comment has some personal grouse against Banker and is maliciously deleting material from this page and adding unreferenced and libellious comments which are purely fictional in nature.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.40.188 (talk • contribs)

I have no personal grouse, nor any malice towards a person I haven't even met. Please keep your childish allegations to yourself. I am simply an editor looking for references. If indeed the references are on those pages, it can be noted on this talk page (without this drama about malicious deletions and libelous comments).xC | ☎ 22:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

~~Unless clarified, I'll be removing these titles in 48 hours.~~xC | ☎ 22:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:BOLD - went ahead and removed them. There were no reliable sources to support em.xC | ☎ 22:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

User Ashwin has removed the paragraph about some alleged dispute between Banker and Virgin Comics. There was no reference to substantiate the mention. In fact, Banker has said clearly on several forums as well as his own website that the comic based on the 'Devi' stories is being published by Vertigo Comics. Clearly, the writer mistook the Vertigo comic for another comic titled 'The Sadhu' which Banker wrote earlier for Virgin Comics. Vertigo Comics and Virgin Comics are two entirely separate entities with no connection.
User Ashwin has also removed the specious comments about an unreferenced and unsourced 'article' written by Banker as there is no mention of even the publication in which this purported article appeared, let alone a ref to the specific article itself. The comments about Banker's alleged attempt to gain publicity by not doing publicity is in itself contradictory and have been deleted as well.
The only sources and links cited on the page lead to non-existent web pages.
Links and sources citing actual refs to published articles as well as to Banker's official website have been removed by the same person (see above) who deleted the 'forthcoming' titles and added the malicious comments.
I am forwarding these issues to the concerned parties as there is a possibility of legal action against Wikipedia, especially by Virgin Comics, for citing the alleged 'dispute' without any factual verification or backing. The deletion of comments and titles and addition of malicious comments further proves that this Wikipedia page has been hacked by persons with personal axes to grind against Banker.
Wikipedia senior editors please note the above and deal with the problem before it gets out of hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.40.188 (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
As per WP guidelines, have deleted several other statements that are without citation or ref. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.41.57 (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets clear out a few things, shall we?

I have no idea about the Vertigo-Virgin comics issue. I have no idea whether or not it was even an issue in the first place.
The only sources and links cited on the page lead to non-existent web pages. - I noticed that, which is why I removed stuff which wasn't referenced. Your point is?
Links and sources citing actual refs to published articles as well as to Banker's official website have been removed by the same person (see above) who deleted the 'forthcoming' titles and added the malicious comments. - Your constant use of the word malicious is painful, to say the least. You can check the article history, there were no refs provided for that phenomenally long list of TBA titles. A direct link to a list, or interview, or something of the sort that satisfies WP:V is necessary.
Lastly, we're all voluntary editors here. We're not getting paid to be malicious to Banker, or anyone else. We're just trying to build a respectable encyclopedia, and so your constant use of the words malicious seems all the more wrong when we're just trying to help.

Regards,xC | ☎ 22:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Would like to further note, both refs given in the article at present one two have absolutely nothing on them. They just have the words epicindia.com. The links are useless as references.

Another quick look around reveals epicindia.com is run by Banker himself. As such, using a website run by an individual to validate claims about that individual's work seems a little shaky to me.

Regards,xC | ☎ 22:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the two empty references from the article, as they added nothing and only created an illusion of there being referenced content in the article.

Lastly, at its heaviest, the article was this - oldversion. If it is of any help to anyone, please do have a look.

Regards,xC | ☎ 22:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Have edited and revised certain paragraphs relating to the article by Banker--said article was in Mid-day where I worked at the time, so I have made changes that more accurately reflect what happened, and have toned down the accusatory tone of the phrasing.

Have changed 'eight-volume' in two places to 'six-volume' as Banker's Ramayana series is clearly only six volumes. Since the 'forthcoming' books section was deleted in its entirety (for reasons I still don't fathom), what is the point of keeping the 'eight-volume' mention without any citation or reference to back it up? There are six published volumes, as and when future volumes are published, they can be added at that time.

For the same reason, i.e. unpublished as of now, I have deleted mention of the fourth hardcover Ramayana volume.

Ditto reason for deletion of the two forthcoming projects "Sword of Dharma" and "Mahabaalak". The only source seems to be Banker's own website, and quite correctly, as mentioned by Xcentaur, that is not the most acceptable source.

I suspect that most of the contents of the page have been lifted verbatim by someone from Banker's own website and posted here by some WP editor sympathetic to Banker, please ensure that copyright has not been violated.

I have also deleted the mention of Virgin Comics. I recall at least two articles in respectable publications--The Telegraph, Kolkata, and Hindustan Times, New Delhi, which cited the Vertigo Comic series Banker is working on which is quite on track and scheduled for publication in 2008. (Will try to find online references for both these sources.) The Virgin Comics dispute, if there ever was one, has no citation or reference and clearly, the person posting mention of it is confusing Banker's Vertigo Comics project with the unnamed Virgin Comics project--an understandable error. I suggest we leave out mention of the alleged dispute with Virgin Comics and the mention of the 'legal notice' posted by anonymous person, as there is no relevance and may possibly raise legal issues with Vertigo Comics and Banker as well as with Virgin Comics. Until and unless you get your facts right, don't add material!

Regards, user ShwTarn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.144.254 (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Note - said edits were reverted by User:Vetinarih with this edit.

I've changed the eight-vol to six as its in progress right now. We can only count the number of volumes which have been released, not the expected number of volumes. That is information for which we do not have a reference. Similarly, I've removed the upcoming hardcover omnibus and 2 other titles. No future-telling without refs.

I don't have much knowledge about the Mid-day incident. I'll read up on it before offering an opinion. For now, I've added a "refs needed" tag to the page, if it helps.

I suspect a similar copyvio. On the other hand, considering how some of the anon edits have been, I wouldn't be surprised if it was written by Banker himself, or somebody biased towards him.

I completely agree with the entire Virgin Comics-Vertigo Comics fiasco. I'll be removing anything which doesn't have a reference but makes claims based on facts within 48 hours. A similar incident happened on the Ron Jeremy, Jimbo stubbed the entire article because it talked of incidents and facts without any references. Lets keep things real, people.

Regards,xC | ☎ 17:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither have references been cited, nor have the copyvios been corrected. Also, the '48 hours' have long since passed, but the uncited claims and unrereferenced statements still remain. Keep things real by doing something, not just talking about it.

Regards, user ShwTarn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.40.29 (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What, are you stupid? I have a life outside WP, you whiner. Why don't you provide refs, since you like talking so much?

I'm not paid for this, so I'll get to it as, if and when I can.

I just removed the copyvio bit. Interestingly, as far as I can see, you haven't fixed anything. I don't understand why you couldn't have removed it yourself instead of crying about it. I have over 600 articles on my watchlist. Every now and then, something slips under the radar.

But that isn't something within your range of comprehension. So why don't you just go back to doing nothing, and stop posting rubbish here? Or here's an idea - why don't you improve this article? That way, you'll be keeping things real by doing something, not just talking about it.

If editors like you just did what is expected of them (ie. improving articles) things would be a lot easier on all of us here on WP. Instead, you choose to spend your time attacking other volunteers pressed for time and resources. Counter-productive, at the very least.

-xC- 13:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I have just read over the current version of the page for Ashok Banker and would like to raise the following issues: instead of facts people are posting opinions on the author. Somebody has written somehting that suggest Mr. Banker uses his refusal to do publicity as a means to manipulate publicity. A claim has been made the author's own site is not a valid source for information on the author - where else would you go to find out what an author has planned for the future and what he has published? At one point I had posted a link to an interview I had conducted with Mr. Banker for Blogcritics.org and it has been removed.

Epic India Magazine is an arts and culture magazine edited by me, and published by Ashok. It has nothing to do with Mr. Banker's work and I agree it's inclusion is irrelevent to any biographical detail about Mr. Banker. I would suggest that all information regarding his published and forthcoming books be verified against the current listing he has at his website - not from sources which can't be substantiated. (Including Amazon.com, the last time I checked it was still listing a book as forthcoming that there are no plans to write let alone publish.)

I'm making these suggestions and observations and not editing the page, as I think before any more changes are made a consensus needs to be reached on what is considered a legitimate source and what is considered a valid statement of fact as opposed to an individual's opinion.

I admit to a bias in this matter as Ashok is a friend, but I would think that a site that is used as reference material by many writers on the Internet - including myself - should be restricting it's content to verifiable facts and not personal opinions or editorialising. As it stands right now the entry on Ashok Banker does neither and attempts to correct the errors in fact and delete personal opinions are beening thwarted by other writers.

At one time the entry for Ashok Banker on this site was very good, citing primary and secondary souces of information allowing readers to do more indepth reading on Mr. Banker and his work. It's a shame its been allowed to degenirate to the state that it's in now. It also makes me wonder about the condition of other sites, and I'm now hesitant about using these pages as references for articles in the future. I'm also appalled at the attitude taken by one of your editors to a contributor, there was no need to be insulting, and I hope that's not indicative of the way your editors are in the habit of treating the people who care enough to make this iste work. Raphael M B (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphael M B (talk • contribs) 07:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The page could be reverted back to its old state if indeed the older version was better. Around what date had you seen the article? If we have the date, looking through the History we could revert it to the better version.

Happy editing,-xC- 15:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It would have been either late 2005 or early 2006. It would be a good place to start over from. Oh and sorry about the signature thing, I'm not used to your system yet so appologies to all for that. It also seems I placed this in the wrong area of the page. I'll learn. Am I able to access the history or does that need to be left to the editors? Oh and thanks for that great suggestion Centaur.Raphael M B (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The version that looks to be best - although the bibliography will need editing - especially forth coming - and I reccomend using Mr. Banker's site as it has his current plans listed is located at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashok_Banker&oldid=78096802. I'm not sure how to go about carrying out this revision - may I ask an editor to do it for me? I just don't want to mess it up. Thank youRaphael M B (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have revised the page back to the September 2006 link mentioned above, and updated the bibliography to match what is listed at the author's web site. I have also updated the link to his personal blog. Thank you again to Centaur for his help in correcting the page - I was able to figure our how to revise the page (amazing) ! Raphael M B (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, and good going. Lets start anew with the article from the old version, and improve from there.

There are still a few stylistic problems with the article (per the WP manual of style for articles) but those can be ironed out. The article is in block form, instead of sections, but since Banker and his friends prefer it this way, maybe the article will remain this way.
I also note the epicindia.com links which are without any content are still in the article. 1 2 Therefore the article is lacking reliable sources, as defined in this link.
The to be announced titles (forthcoming) are still in the article. Generally, WP articles don't carry a whole section of forthcoming titles, instead adding them in as they come up.
In all WP articles, phrases such as worldwide attention, was earlier known as a, well-known for, etc need references to clarify/prove what they are saying. In case of our stating that he was earlier known as ..., or known for ..., this should be backed up by refs per verifiability rules; the ref should be able to give the information that he is known for this, or at the very least, name of the person who says the same.

Now of course, I could help in all this. But since I've been publicly blamed by Banker for ruining this article, I doubt I will be editing it anytime soon. Good luck with the article, and happy editing,-xC- 09:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reversions of legitimate content

An IP editor had added large portions of content with refs to the article - see the comparison.

These were reverted by some user Minormorgul, not me, as being wrongly claimed by Banker on his blog. The edit with which Minormogul removed the anon edits was [1]. As is clear from Minormogul's contribs page, he has only one edit to this page, and that was this reversion.

Clearly there is some mischief happening, and I am being blamed for it. I was the next edit on the page, two days later, with this edit per the discussion on the talk page with User ShwTarn (above) about removing copyvios. All I've done is do what was right, and I'm being blamed for ruining this article?? Banker or his friends, whoever is reading this, it wasn't me who reverted the IP edits. Stop blaming me for it.

On this page, there have been dozens of bot reversions, because there are bots running on WP to prevent vandalism and some edits by IPs could be mistaken for vandalism, hence the confusion.

Other examples of reversions on this article for which I am being blamed are -

This edit by User:Vetinarih, removing three paragraphs from the article. As can be seen by anyone from the article history, I was the next two edits on the article. However, I noted my changes on the article on the talk page, Vetinarih didn't and so I was blamed for the removals.
There were a large number of edits on the page by another IP. The final comparison (12 edits by IPs between this) is at this link. Right after this, another editor User:Lilac Soul reverted all these changes, believing them to be vandalism (as noted in the edit summary). The diff for the reversion is here. I did not revert this, but I was blamed on the article talk page for it.
Right after Lilac Soul's reversion, the next edit is by another IP - this edit, removing a large portion of the content. This was on 23 december 07, and this IP editor noted his/her changes on the article talk page, with the words - As per WP guidelines, have deleted several other statements that are without citation or ref. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.41.57 (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC) This was the edit that confused editor Ashwinblake into thinking it was me that removed the content. He wrote on the article talk page from IP 59.164.40.188, saying Clearly the person making the 'crystal ball' comment has some personal grouse against Banker and is maliciously deleting material from this page and adding unreferenced and libellious comments which are purely fictional in nature. I had not removed anything, they had been removed by the other IP, noted above. The libellous additions were also by some IP, whose edits I have noted below. That IP was not me, yet I am being blamed for all this.
There were again edits by an IP (diff presented here), who then also blanked the page. This was reverted by a bot (edit can be seen here). That was a bot reversion, not a removal of content by me, not a reversion by me. Yet again, on the talk page I was blamed for this reversion. Not me, it wasn't me.
Another series of IP edits, seen in this diff all on the 23rd, which were then reverted by User:MER-C with this edit and further went on to make this edit regarding the AfD nomination. Again, it wasn't me who reverted.
Further, there were edits by User:Ashwinblake, who went on to blank the page (again) with this edit. This was reverted by User:Shoessss with this edit, telling him not to blank the page just because the article was AfD'd.
Yet another edit by Ashwinblake on the same day, 23rd dec 07, and yet another reversion by MER-C can be seen in this edit. Clearly, 23rd dec was a very eventful day for the article, but I wasn't involved in any of the content removals or reversions. Not me, as wrongly noted by Banker on his blog.
And lastly, the most recent 28 edits by IPs, with one bot reversion in the middle can be seen in this edit. This was later reverted by User:Minormogul, with this diff, as noted above. Not me, not me, not me.

Now, I've placed all the facts in front of you. The edit history can be accessed by anyone, but Banker hasn't bothered to look up the article history. Instead, since I was the only editor replying or noting large-scale changes to the article on the article talk page, I am being blamed for ruining this article.

What we must realise is the article has been looked over by several editors, both registered and unregistered (ie. anon IPs), and all these changes haven't been noted on the article talk page by all the involved editors. So I have been wrongly blamed.

The blog post by Banker in which I have been blamed wrongly can be seen here - link.

I am no journalist, no failed writer. I've never tried writing a book in my life. I am a science student.

I am on no corporate payroll (sadly), and I am not paid for editing on WP against Banker.

The above sentence about being on a corporate payroll and me being sad about not being on it was a joke. I'd just like to clarify that, otherwise that might end up on a blog post as well, aboutn how malicious WP editors want to be on corporate payrolls, right?

In summary, I am not the person you should be blaming for ruining this article. I just formatted the article to get it in line with manual of style guidelines and made a fuss about having references in the article since that is a rule as well, clearly explained in verifiability rules and the requirement for reliable sources.

I hope Banker and his friends learn to use the 'History' tab on the top of the page, and understand that the edit history does not lie - I am not the person to blame.-xC- 10:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re-addition of content

Dear Banker,

The edits by 59.164.41.124, which you mentioned in your blog post are - link.

I have put them all back in - edit link.

The article now strongly leans towards praising you, thus violating WP:NPOV. Thats probably because most of it has been written either by you or your friends. I'd like to start cleaning it up (again), but then I'd have another blog post up on the net, with you trying to shred my online reputation.

I invite you and your friends to edit the article in line with The five pillars of WP to improve the article. Of course, neutral editors are invited as well.

Cheers,-xC- 13:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tagged concerns

Hi. I have carried out some work and some formatting of references to improve the look of the sections, especially the References. However, I notice that there are "Forthcoming" publications in the Bibliography, as mentioned in the posts above. This is not what Bibliography is for. Rumoured (?) releases should be laid out in prose form in the main body of the article, with sources to prove they are "forthcoming". I have tagged the article for that concern.

Some of the "Epic India" sources (which still remain as References), and the external link (which I removed as this is allowable) do not work. The servers at epicindia.com/indianenglish are empty of the necessary files, and one cannot refer to the items promised through the use of those references. So duly tagged to illustrate that concern. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Start-Class India articles | Start-Class India articles of unknown-importance | Unknown-importance India articles | WikiProject India articles | Biography articles with listas parameter | Biography articles of living people | Arts and entertainment work group articles | Wikipedia requested photographs of artists and entertainers | Start-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles | Unknown-priority biography (arts and entertainment) articles | Start-Class biography articles

Talk:Ashok Banker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Banker's science fiction/Reversion of article

[edit] Bibliography

[edit] Comment

[edit] Reversions of legitimate content

[edit] Re-addition of content

[edit] Tagged concerns

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search