Talk:Landour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Flair

I love the flair with which this page has been written. :-D I dont know if it'll last given Wikipedia's NPOV policy, but the colourful language is rather welcome on the otherwise drab 'encyclopedia' that Wikipedia is. - MetaMutator

Well, yes, it has flair, but yes, it is POV and not consistently encyclopedic in tone. Wikipedia is not the place for personal essays. I like a lot of this article, and it certainly has a wealth of information---in fact, too much information, e.g. the travel details and number of good cafés. But it needs sources, and major work towards NPOV. I made a few changes, but a lot remains to be done. -- Spireguy 19:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice that my changes have been reverted without discussion. I think we need to discuss these issues on the talk page. I firmly believe that this article as currently written is seriously contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. Clearly at least one person disagrees---please explain. I'm not going to re-revert right away; I prefer an open discussion. -- Spireguy 14:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again someone's attempt (much more limited than mine) to address the numerous problems with this article has been reverted without explanation. So I'm going to put back in my changes (along with the useful minor changes made in the interim---I didn't just revert back). Please discuss the changes on this talk page if you disagree. I would also suggest looking at Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view, verifiability, and ownership of articles, and also at What Wikipedia is not. I would like to see this article, which as I have said has a wealth of useful information, become a high-quality Wikipedia article; at this point it is not. -- Spireguy 03:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment 23 July 2007

For earlier comments see the section above this one.
So far, a rather one-sided dispute over verifiability, NPOV, and tone. Other party (parties? anon IP only) simply reverts. Comments wanted, thanks. 19:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the anon IP for the lengthy list of sources. I accordingly changed the {{unreferenced}} tag to {{nofootnotes}}. Ideally, these sources wouldn't just be listed at the bottom, they would actually be cited specifically in the text. That's particularly important for anything that is controversial or bordering on POV.

As to the content of the page, reverting again without discussion is inappropriate. The addition of sources does nothing to address the POV and tone concerns. I'm going to ask for this page to be semi-protected. This page needs to be edited with discussion and consensus, not unilaterally by one editor. That is not how Wikipedia works. -- Spireguy 16:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

By definition, any article in any encyclopedia, online or not, is only useful if the the users of said encyclopedia actually READ, and BENEFIT from having read, said article. That said, this article "Landour" has been proven to be highly popular among the following eleven (11) categories of users of Wikipedia, as shown by 175+ "thank you" private messages to all seven (7) of the primary authors, who are all, or have been, long-term residents of "Landour" and/or its sister city "Mussoorie" and/or the nearby city of "Dehradun":

(1) Residents of Landour.

(2) Former long-term residents of Landour.

(3) People with an academic research interest in Landour, or in Indian hill stations (which see) in general.

(4) Short-term students in Landour, esp. those at Landour Language School (which see).

(5) Teachers and students of Woodstock School (which see), the largest institution of any kind in Landour.

(6) Visitors to Landour, be they tourists or not.

(7) Prospective visitors to Landour.

(8) Individuals with historical and/or family ties to Landour.

(9) Bloggers, who point to this article in their blogs.

(10) The print media, who have cut-and-pasted entire sentences/paragraphs from this article.....which per GFDL is VERY MUCH allowed and indeed encouraged.

(11) The Indian Army, which is the 2nd-largest institution of any kind in Landour, behind Woodstock School (above).

This article has moved up to NUMBER ONE in the search engine results of both Google and Yahoo Search, which speaks for itself. A year ago, this article ranked at approx. 10-12 in the search engine results. At all three of the cybercafes in Landour, and at two of the three guesthouses, this article is saved as a 'Favorite' in the default browsers, for the convenience of the new arrivals in Landour who often ask "How can I learn more about Landour?". More often than not, they have already read the article before arrival.

Nonetheless, it is DULY NOTED that the user "SpireGuy", a vandal (as far as the authors of this article are concerned) has taken this very personally and for reasons unknown (and unnecessary for us to know) is fond of vandalizing this particular article, despite his wholly-obvious unfamilarity with this topic. Spireguy is a high-school math teacher in Albuquerque, NM, in the US, and lives over 15,000 kms from Landour. This info about him is very much in the public record, since he has publicly identified himself as an active Wikipedian, having given radio interviews (e.g. to Voice of America) under his real name - which we do not care to disclose on this talk page, since we are not interested in any aspect of his life.

It is further noted that SpireGuy has NOT made any edits to any of the sixteen (16) articles that link to this article, as may be seen from their respective histories. Pls see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Landour This speaks for itself in terms of how personally SpireGuy is taking this. He may wish to set the record straight by vandalizing all those 16 articles as well.

SpireGuy should stick to topics he knows - making lists of mountains. SpireGuy's latest vain threat to ask for this article to be "semi-protected" is outrageous, and underscores how personally he is taking this. No author of this article has ever defaced (or even edited) any of the articles that Spireguy has written/edited, e.g. the lists of mountains.

It is further noted that another user, Sherurcij, has made the ridiculous allegation (perhaps at SpireGuy's behest?) of a "personal cookbook" having been promoted by this article. The cookbook in question has been off-copyright since 1968.

It is hoped that SpireGuy will not henceforth deface this article, which has educated thousands (more than likely, tens of thousands) of individuals in the eleven (11) categories listed above. His conduct, and misconduct, shows that such a hope may be just that - a hope.

69.203.17.168 04:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the long statement above in toto, completely. This article has become the 'default' source on Landour for everybody since last year. Ruskin Bond himself says that it is best source for learning about Mussoorie + Landour. The Statesman in both Calcutta and Delhi editions quoted a lot of things from this article and told readers to read it. It doesnt make sense why a Maths teacher from USA is so khundaki and bitter re: this particular matter. Maybe peace will break out and the Maths teacher will forget about Landour and move on with his teaching his students Maths!!! Winterline 07:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

My reaction to the above long statement by 69.203.17.168 and the statement by Winterline is mixed. I'm pleased that the anon IP editor (or editors? I see that there are multiple contributors involved, but I'll use the singular for simplicity) has finally responded to my invitation for discussion. That was my primary desire, as repeatedly expressed above. I'm also pleased that reasons were given for supporting the anon's version of the article. However the response was not in the direction of true discussion towards improving the article. Also I'm certainly not pleased at the personal attacks, which are inappropriate.
Let me respond to the comments on the article in general and its content. At the outset let me make clear what I said at the very beginning: I like most of this article and think it has a lot of good information. When I originally edited the article, even though I cut out a significant amount and added three tags, I did far less than I could have under the guidelines of Wikipedia, given the concerns I had about POV, tone, and the (then) lack of references. So although my edit may have seemed drastic, it was done with restraint, because I didn't want to completely hack up a good (but flawed) article. Given the tone of anon's comments, I don't know if he/she/they will believe the claim of restraint, but it's true.
As to the popularity of the article, expressed by personal messages and use by print media: that's great, and it speaks to the large amount of information in the article. I would be surprised if another web source had more. But that does not mean that the article is perfect, or written in a way that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. That was my concern, and the popularity of the article doesn't allay those concerns for me. In fact, since it is a popular article, that makes it all the more important that it conform to Wikipedia policies such as neutral point of view.
As to the requested semi-protect: the purpose of that is not to imply that the anon IP is a vandal. However, in a situation where one editor is trying to open a discussion and the other one is simply reverting (i.e. an "edit war", and a one-sided one at that) a semi-protect can be appropriate, to notify the editor who simply reverts that such behavior is unproductive. (In fact a full protect is often used in such a case, but I didn't want to go that far.) Now that there is progress (i.e. discussion of a sort---despite the personal attacks) a semi-protect may not be necessary.
I'll make a minimal response to the personal attacks, simply to explain my interest in the page. I found this page through the Swargarohini article, which I created; a picture of Swargarohini is on this page, and this page would link to the Swargarohini article but for anon's reverts. It's correct that my main interests and specialties lie outside of the realm of hill-stations of India, and I have far less personal knowledge of Landour than any resident would have. One of the things about Wikipedia that can be hard to get used to is that that doesn't matter. Also, as I said above, my concern with this article was the clear violation of Wikipedia's policies. I wanted to start a process by which the article could be improved to come into conformity with those policies, while keeping as much as possible of its good features.
Unfortunately what I encountered was repeated reverting without discussion (by anonymous contributor(s), which in itself is legitimate, but really does make it hard to open discussion). On most articles, enough other people would be watching the page and commenting on the talk page to start discussion and consensus; unfortunately, this is a quiet little corner of Wikipedia, so there was no one but me to try to open the discussion (until eventually Sherurcij---not someone I know---stopped by, probably because of my Request for Comment, and added his two cents). That perhaps made my moderately persistent efforts seem "bitter" and "personal". My interest in this page is not personal, and my editing of it is not meant as a personal attack on the anon editors. Remember what it says on the editing page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...do not submit it." If the anon editors perceive editing of this page (with explanation and invitations to discussion) as a personal attack, he/she/they need to better understand how Wikipedia works, and in particular read about ownership of articles. If the editors want to publish on the web and be sure that their work will not be changed, they should find one of the many other web-publishing opportunities.
However, at this point, it's hard not to have a personal response, after asking repeatedly for discussion, getting no response for a long time, and then getting personal attacks. So I'll take a break from this frustrating experience, and hope that someone else will eventually take up the issues that I've raised. -- Spireguy 16:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fresh opinion from seeing the RFC: "SpireGuy should stick to topics he knows - making lists of mountains," and "we are not interested in any aspect of his life": These are an ad hominem attack that is irrelevant to whether SpireGuy's edits of this page are appropriate. To have a higher quality of comments from those responding to the RFC, please remove all material referring to SpireGuy which is not about his edits to this article, and please relocate the comments about the classes of people who have appreciated this article, which is feedback worth keeping but does not shed light on whether SpireGuy's edits are appropriate. SpireGuy, please indicate the specific Wikipedia guidelines you believe were violated by the changes to your edits.

If both SpireGuy and his opponents can then stand down from comments about "how Wikipedia works," and simply summarize the contested material, refer to its sources, and concisely indicate reasons for against its inclusion, then editors new to the article will be able to get right to the point and opine on the debate about inclusion of that material - which, of course, is how Wikipedia works. Please notify on my talk page when the RFC is ready for review. Thank you. VisitorTalk 08:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)