Talk:Amritapuri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)
	This article is maintained by the Indian geography workgroup.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Hi I request for grammer and syntax correction. --Rabidphage

I've reverted the article to an older version. I invite discussions from parties who may find the contents not factual as to warrant deletion. 82.37.20.166 19:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)rabidphage

[edit] Please help with the tone

User Jim is of the opinion the the article does not adhere to the policies of wikipedia. I request users who are of the same opinion as Jim to help rectify the issue. I am a memeber of the arayan community and has first hand knowledge regarding the issues that I have brought up here. Hence if you need to tone down my style of writing, please do some research beforehand. Note that I have not removed the noncompliant tag in an effort to invite discussion and input. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rabidphage (talk • contribs) 07:49, 18 February 2007.

Hi Rabidphage (cool name!); since the article doesn't cite its sources, my main concerns were finding good ones along the lines of WP:V and WP:RS. Can you suggest any? If we get those, and follow WP:NPOV, tone won't be an issue. best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 09:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jim; Thanks for the compliment :) I did have access to material that could be used as referance while I was in Kerala. However, I cannot attest to the "reliability" of that source and moreover, I do not have access to the material at the moment. If word of mouth and well known facts are reasonable factors to go by, then certainly, this article adheres to wikipedias guidelines. If and when you visit parayakadavu next time, please take the time to interact with the locals. They maybe able to provide you with valuable insight into the matter. You may also have noticed that before "Amritapuri" was instituted, the location of the ashram was marketed as "Vallikkavu" which by no account is true. The meaning of the word Vallikkavu roughly translates into "the vine grove" this name has a spiritual ring to it because in kerala "kavu" or groves are considered sacred where are "parayakadavu" is as glamourous as saying "the valley of the nigger". These statements are not merely a conspiracy theory of a lone wikipedian but the genuine concern of a community that has been sidestepped and downtrodden because of its reluctance to embrace "the truth" of miracles and divine connections. I am writing these with the hope to provide a foundation for research into the matter and hopefully improve the article with more "legitimate" referances. Rabidphage 12:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply; it sounds like you did some research in India and have some understanding of the situation. The thing that's important is that we be able to cite sources, cf. Wikpedia's policies of Neutral Point of View, Verifiability and No Original Research. If you read those pages, you'll see that "word of mouth and well known facts" unfortunately aren't sufficient ("well-known" among whom?). Wikipedia's standard is "verifiability, not truth". These policies apply especially for assertions that are controversial and potentially defamatory ("paper-pushing", "considerable bribing and subversion of law", "policy of evasion"). Usually the thing to do in these cases is to "fact-tag" the statements, and give some time for them to be sourced. However, unsourced, constroversial statement shouldn't just be left in forever. It's also, per WP:NPOV, vitally important to distinguish between opinion and fact. "Opinions about facts" are acceptable as long as they are from a good source representing a significant point of view. Please read WP policies, and you'll see that what I say above is all pretty standard, accepted Wikipedia stuff; I'm not trying to suppress or advance any view by saying so.

As an analogy, think of this: a native of Chicago may edit the Malayalam Wikipedia article on Chicago to include "well-known" allegations of corruption among city officials. Those allegations (whether true or not) may be "well-known" in Chicago, but to meet the standards of Wikipedia, those statements would need to be sourced, ideally to a reliable source that Malayalam-speaking editors could find and read. Similar standards apply here. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 01:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to spoonfeed a newbie ;-) . I'll try to get the needed reference as and when possible.Rabidphage 00:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem.  :-) Please don't be offended if after a couple of weeks I move any unsourced stuff to this talk page. Also, I'm learning things about WP every day: seems that WP:V and WP:OR may merge into WP:ATT, i.e. "attribution". Same basic idea, but it does seem better put. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Nachiketa removed the unsourced material (which was OK) and added some unencyclopedic material (not OK)[1], so for now I've partially rv'd back to a bare-bones version[2]. WP:NPOV and WP:ATT, as always, are good reads.... best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 07:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)