Portal:India/Selected article candidates/Ayyavazhi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ayyavazhi

(As the main member of the Assessment Team for WikiProject India, I have stiked out content that is inappropriate, specifically between the period of September 10, 2007 and February 6, 2008, as good-faith efforts have not been made to address objections raised, and . Hopefully, in future nominations, this sort of behaviour is not repeated, especially by editors who have content that is striked out between these dates, as they will be blocked if they do). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC) )

Long, systematic and extremely well referenced article. It also includes all diverse topics. - white dot...!!! 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable article to say the least . All the academic references are "extremely" well referenced.(thanks to our "Living GOD")-Bharatveer 06:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
What is this? I don't understand. - white dot...!!! 17:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not consider Ayyavazhi is a well referenced article. It is over referenced article. Foot notes are so numerous, make article and foot notes difficult to read. Articles needs copy editing regarding foot notes. I think editor has been too much defensive as can be seen non important and weak points are bearing too many references. pruthvi 19:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
What a pity? If there is no reference, questioning about that; and if there is a lot, questioning even that?!!! I've cited more sources for the sections, history, Teachings and Impact, Introduction, etc; the topics which interacts with outer-ayyavazhi areas. I remember oncein wikipedia people saying every thing related to Ayyavazhi as "I've not heared", "I don't know", "there is no such Ayyavazhi there" and all. One user went over this limit and started opinioning that the whole Ayyavazhi related articles, portal, and catagories should be deleted. 'Tireless user's Barnstars' were awarded to a user for removing Ayyavazhi from several articles. Some others went on glorifying all these, while even some respectful users remained eyes-closed in these matters.
"Over reference"!!! Mind that, these refernces includes statements from Kerala govt syllabus, Tamil Nadu higher education syllabus etc. Friend, if needed, I will scan the whole refernce i added, from books, magazines, and news papers etc(for those refernced offline) for the wikipedian community(not here). And you must answer me for that, there regarding the matter of citations. Imm, "Over reference". It's really pity friends.
And in the matter of the accesment scale in India project, PLESE LEAVE THE ARTICLE ALONE "It don't need your accessment" or your featured article symbol. And I know well that it is a waste of time and know from here, how you would access.
Please note that comments are for improving the article not to discourage editors. Also comments are about article and not about Ayyavazhi. Said that, Yes I believe article has unneccessary references. If there wouldn't have been any references, I would have certainly commented against that also. What really needed is appropriate references. At many places one or two citations would have served, I see at least ten. Close examination of them reveals that many of them are from same news paper for different days. Many of them are multiple newspapers reporting same event. How do they justify as independent citations. If the event was so important, why I don't see citation from National news paper, which can be accessed by many editors. I believe references should be used wisely, only to justify controversial claims or key aspects of article. This remains to be the reason for me for not voting this article as "FA".
Sorry, I don't see this above comment earlier which is in btw. Friend, Sorry once again if my words hurt you. Friend, Yes I too believe so. But they are not 'unneccessary' but 'over neccessary' citations. But why I've to collect too many refernces is regarding the way they commented earlier. If you see this discussion and some others, there too I cited a few. But people use to shoot words that "considering merely 'a' summary news article about Ayyavazhi you are focussing something" and all. And the current citations say that not one or two citations there, but quiet a lot.
And regarding National news papers, I like to remember you one thing to remember. The festival Ayya Vaikunda Avataram was celebrated with holiday for three districts in Tamil Nadu. But the so called National Newspapers not even mention it, except a three line summary news (cited in he article) saying that, "many people from different parts participated in Vaikunda AVatara festival" that's all. That is it's negligibility, being failed to report on an important festival. But backing this a community of people use (earlier) to march against that, that there is no such big celebrations there and so no news paper reports. SO I've made reference her in the article, through that events, from various major Tamil News papers. Also same news papers of different days are used because they are telling about different events. That's all. In your vision, those top Tamil News papers aren't independent sources and dependent to Ayyavazhi. If you do believe so?, But i'am not.
And you told that, "I believe references should be used wisely, only to justify controversial claims or key aspects of article." I cent percent agree with you for the above words. But see this pathetic situation of the Ayyavazhi article once. This template ==> [citation needed] symbol is there behind almost all sentences;(in 93 places across the article) for even belief related statements. So those refernces are to the cent important IMHO. - Paul Raj 18:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I could see from talk page that people have been over critical regarding notability. I agree with you that citation needed template has been used unfairly in this article. If I have been editor of the article, instead of supplying unneccessary citations, rather would have questioned such unfair use of template on talk page. Regarding independence of newspapers -- I mean independence from each other. I have no comments regarding whether they are independent from Ayyavazhi or not. If ten newspapers are reporting same event, it counts to me as only one citation, because event has been already addressed. If two newspapers publish contradictory news then only it makes sense to supply citation from multiple newspapers. pruthvi 03:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding notability itself, there are citations from university books itself that there are thousands of worship centers across India and 8000 in Tamil Nadu and Kerala alone. Again citation are also there from university papers that Ayyavazhi is a separate religion. But all these were neglected by the whole people of the community saying that they are obscure books. Mind that Madras University is one among the leading authentic third-party source in India. A book from that university itself was ignored by the people over here, saying that no newspaper reports to support this etc. So I had to refer a vast number of papers and need to find citations. So i collected reference from three leading Tamil news papers (for that) which are obviousely independent to each other. So notability need to be proved, cited from various sources. And that's what I did. And IMO a large number of citation doesn't affect an article rather than which had none of them. And in a situation like this (where people with wide-opened eyes looking for a reason to reject or even delete an article and all it's family including portal) I feel that it is neccessary that it should carry all those references.
And you told that, "I will question rather than finding all number of reference". You can do so if some other users support you. But when some 15 people are against you and you are a single on other side, you are of no worth here in the community. For example, in the discussion at the talk page of India article, I made every edits after discussion and use to wait atleast 24 hours for the reply for that before editing the article. But there are people who even do go to the discussion page and revert in the article. If I revert backnad in the edit summary I sak them to command and revert, they simply revert and there is no one there to question them. I also complain this in the very same discussion area. But as usual they again marched against me calling them as 'established users' (I don't know how this term established user fit to them; may be because of rejecting valid sources) and I was blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR and as a final act an RFC was started against me. All because they are in large number and I am a single; all else - third party sources, citations, and authenticity all made fly in the air. It's there our Great community stands. Thanks - Paul Raj 12:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Imm... OKEY, As you suggested, I've stepped down; I've removed almost all repeated references except a very few which are very important. - Paul Raj 15:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Lalu Hrishikesh, don't u have other works rather than circling these community. Here there is no 'NPOV' and only 'POV'. Look in the top of this page, one user insulted the artilce saying that " (thanks to our "Living GOD")". see any one question that!!! that is what going on here. I respect and have been watching your works friend; I think you too add some online citations. So you carry on. Leave this accesment scale of Project:India. Let them work on other artilce and glorify other works on their own way - Paul Raj 14:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
And one thing, if any one genuinely doubts any citations pls contact me or carry this matter to 'wikipedia community' directly (not here) and I shall deal with it directly. - Paul Raj 14:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Paul, let's wait and see what others tell. Don't decide anything from the comments of one or two. I hope that there may be some valuable users with NPOV. - white dot...!!! 10:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this article does not exemplify Wikipedia's best work, evidenced by the article failing as a GA and FA (and the relevant criteria has not been satisfied. Reasons are detailed in the FA-archive and the talk page of the article itself. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)