Talk:Human rights in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human rights in India article.
Article policies
WikiProject_India 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)
This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.
More information about this article...
48px} This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] human rights in india

implementation schime ? of human rights in india

[edit] OBCs, Dalits and Sachar Committee report

While I'm not doubting the validity of statements in this article they need to be moved to a more relevant section such as Caste in India, or Economic status of minorities. Human rights refers primarily to things like freedom of speech, religion etc and not to economic status. Muslims, Dalits, OBCs are poor but that's for another article. If they are also oppressed (by the state or by other groups with state support or lack of legal enforcements) for being Muslim, Dalit etc then that comes under human rights —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.199.177.246 (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Please stop the overly broad mass reversions

I have fixed many typos and grammar errors several times now, and reversions continue to undo that work. I can't imagine anyone actually disagrees with those edits, so please leave them alone.

I have tried to explain the copy and paste plagiarism problem in edit summaries, but apparently I was insufficiently clear. It doesn't matter whether you link to the source from which you have copied -- it's still a copyright violation. I have added templates to encourage others to examine this issue; please do not delete the templates.71.174.94.146 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. Take a look at WP:NOR a bit more closely. The whole purpose of wikipedia is to cite and quote from other sources. As long as it isn;t unattributed mass-copying it isn't "copyright violation" or whatever, unless, of course, a troll wikilawyers to push a political agenda. And please don't troll the article again. If you have any issues take it to WP:DR.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I have examined WP:NOR and find nothing there that says that you should use others' words and represent them as our own. Of course we should cite reliable sources, but if we wish to quote them, we should do so sparingly, and explicitly attribute the quote. Merely including a link to the source you have copied from is insufficient.
I ask you for the fourth time, please stop calling me a troll. I have no political agenda, and do not know why you would think that I do.71.174.94.146 (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand. WP:NOR and WP:ATT state that we are not supposed to interpret other's work, but cite them as is. Now, of course, that does not mean going in the opposite direction and copy-pasting their stuff into the article in copyright violation. The right thing to do is to strike a middle ground. Quote them somewhat and attribute tothem, but do not just copy-paste every thing. I have done so. Putting attributed quotes is not plagiarism (see purdah for instance, where extensive quotes are used as well, much more direct than in this case). Like I said, if you have issues, please don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point by mass-tagging the article. Doing so, especially by an anonymous ip address, is an indication of trolling. If you're a serious editor who wishes to raise concerns about copyright violations then why not discuss each point in this talk page and suggest ways of modifying the text to remove any perception of copyright violations. Instead of doing that, you first mass-blanked the text and made the article unbalances, then proceeded to vandalize the article with tags. Continuation of such behaviour places serious doubts on your credibility or intentions.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you are copying your sources' work directly into the article. An attributed quote has quotation marks aka inverted commas around it. Mixing sentences that the source wrote with sentences that you wrote without distinguishing between them is not appropriate. I am in no way suggesting that we violate the strictures against original research or proper attribution. We don't need to copy our sources verbatim to avoid original research.
I hardly mass-blanked the text; I carefully excised a handful of sentences that were copied directly from the sources. Regarding my tagging, three templates, one for each instance of unattributed quotes, hardly qualifies as mass tagging. I am not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; I am trying to avoid violating the copyrights of others. A few appropriately placed tags do not constitute vandalism nor trolling, and allowing copyright violations to persist jeopardises the entire project.71.174.94.146 (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I just examined the purdah article. The article is dominated by two enormous quotations, and has already been appropriately tagged for its unencyclopaedic nature. Even more importantly, those quotations have giant speech marks around them, clearly identifying them as not merely based on the cited sources, but directly copied therefrom.71.174.94.146 (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Please list exactly what has been allegedly "directly copied" and from where below, based on the current revision of the article. i emind the reader that this edit of the anon [1] is clearly vandalistic in nature, given that there was no "mass copying" and all attributed statements are clearly in quotesGhanadar galpa (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You have quite recently fixed the first instance of plagiarism with this edit [2]. It would have been much better to paraphrase the first time around, and never inserted copied sentences at all. It would also have been better to fix it the first, second or third time that I pointed it out rather than edit warring until the fourth round, and even better if you had not called me a vandal and a troll. The fact that you specify "the current revision of the article" shortly after finally fixing a problem makes it appear that you already recognize your actions as plagiarism and are being disingenuous -- this appearance is making it harder for me to assume good faith.
The edit you call "vandalistic" included the deletion of the phrase "many different variables" which was directly taken from a quote of Mark Lagon in the CNN article [3] (seventh paragraph of first section). This is especially obviously inappropriate, as the very next sentence is also a quote of Lagon, but this time acknowledges him as the originator of those words. I removed the stolen words, and joined the two sentences into one to maintain readability and grammar. Hardly the act of a vandal.
I then removed the sentence "U.S. Assistant Attorney-General, Alexander Acosta, said that India faced a handicap in the fight against such crimes due to the lack of an adequate federal law enforcement agency." This was lifted from the article in the Hindu [4] (last sentence of second paragraph). Again, no attribution of the quote to either the author or the newspaper. The copied sentence is nestled in between two apparently original sentences, and no attempt is made to differentiate the copied sentence from the original ones. This deletion was accompanied in the same edit by a few typo fixes. When was the last time you saw a vandal fix typos?71.174.94.146 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh please. This has got to be the most ludicrous level of wikilawyering I have ever seen. You first rampage the article, accusing everybody under the sun and moon of "plagiarism". Then you claim that I have copied one sentence verbatim, and jump to the conclusion that it is an egreggious copyright infringement that will propel wikipedia into some sort of lawsuit. It is your motives that are suspect here, and, frankly, border on WP:POINT. Taking a sentence from an article does not constitute a copyright violation. If that were the case, most of the internet would be a copyright violation and lawsuits would shut down every server in existence. Copyright violation is when entire masses of text are copied without attribution. That clearly has not happened here. So "many different variables" is "plagiarism"? This is ridiculous. You need to consult a dictionary as to the meaning of the word Mr Wikilawyer. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I strongly recommend that user Ghanadar galpa modify his/her tone as per the etiquette guideline and the civility policy. — Athaenara ✉ 01:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

A third opinion was requested. My first opinion would be to ask the two editors to stand-down for a few hours to cool-off. Then I suggest that the IP user make all of his/her clerical edits and the contact Ghanadar and request him/her to review those. After you both can achieve consensus on those issues, lets' tackle the alleged copyright violation. In the interim, I don't see a gross violation which requires immediate action, if at all. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but why don't you let him make the minor clerical changes and then you and I can verify his work. It looked like he has a keen eye for grammar and spelling. --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Third opinion is not as formal as mediation etc. It is a first step in problem solving. I'm happy to help where I can to keep this on track and if it seems ot get out of hand I'm happy to help with involving stronger remedies. At this point I have no bias in the topic, just a bias toward offer good accurate information to our readers. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)