Talk:David Frawley

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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

[edit] Unsourced criticism

I removed the unsourced criticism, because criticism needs to be sourced (and it was also pov). --Rayfield 17:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Answer to the above:

Don't you think it would be reasonable to add some criticism? The article looks like a hymn to Dr. Frawley, as if it were written by himself. As I am not much acquainted with the Wiki system, I don't really get how to "source" something - at first glance the article on Frawley is also not sourced.

Anyway, as I am doing my thesis on the Rigveda and therefore (believe myself to) have at least some ability of judging the discussions (also involving Michael Witzel) - Dr. Frawley having an important part in them - I would appreciate it if someone could help to "source" the criticism, or explain to me how "sourcing" is done. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.221.87.219 (talk • contribs).

Negative information about living persons must always be sourced. To see how, read WP:REF. For neutrality issues, read WP:NPOV. --Rayfield 17:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

um, any information, on people both living or dead, must be sourced. At present, the introduction is a fawning eulogy. The article gives no source whatsoever. It won't do to just drop what you don't like and keep what you like. Care to source any of the extolling praise, or shall we remove that as unsourced too? In fact, the criticism was attributed, to Witzel. To whom shall we attribute the claim that Frawley's presentation is "lucid" and "recognized by the tradition"? dab (ᛏ) 13:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just following official Wikipedia policy, by which:

Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criteria A6).

Jimmy Wales has said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [1]

I removed the criticism because it was unsourced. --Rayfield 17:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)