Talk:What Is Living and What Is Dead in Indian Philosophy

Copy-pasting

Material in the lede seems to have been copy-pasted from the Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya article - without attribution. Please note that per WP:COPYWITHIN, it is a requirement that such copying be properly attributed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Free use

This article relies on a lot of quotations from the book that is its subject. Some of those are lengthy and we may thus have a WP:COPYRIGHT issue. In addition, all of the quotes come from a narrow range of pages - nothing is said of the preceding 400 pages of the thing.

In any event, I will be proposing it for deletion unless some decent secondary sources emerge soon. Wikipedia is not the place to publish material such as this. - Sitush (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If it is relying a lot on quotations from the book why did you add the "essay-like" template which says "This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic"? How can it be relying too much on the source as well as be a "personal reflection" "that states the editors personal feelings" at the same time? That there could be a copyright issue is true and the quotes can be shortened or paraphrased but there is no wiki rule which says articles on books cannot be incomplete. Not sure what "material such as this" means. You have a problem with what the book says? If this is a vindictive action because the material was originally sourced by Soham321 it sure is not in good taste. -Mohanbhan (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Because you are inserting your own commentary between the quotations. That is WP:OR and in this particular format creates an essay. Are there any secondary sources of note? - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Where am "I" inserting my own commentary? Where is WP:OR in this article? This article could be guilty of WP:QUOTEFARM not WP:OR. This book is cited by a lot of books and articles and secondary sources will be added by and by. -Mohanbhan (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that you didn't write the article? It is certainly an extraction and interpretation of what the book says (or, at least of what it says from around page 400 onwards), which makes it the commentary of who ever did write it. As for sourcing, well, the burden is on you: either get it sourced properly, cut it down to remove the improper stuff, or nominate it for deletion. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a summary of parts of what the book says, especially its exposition of Charvaka philosophy. It is neither a commentary nor an interpretation. I didn't ask you to source it, so no need to remind me of the burden. It was created yesterday and, as I said, it will be sourced by and by. -Mohanbhan (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You should not be summarising it. That is the role of a secondary source. There may be scope for summarising a novel but certainly not for summarising a work on philosophy. I am going to stub it now. You can reinstate as and when you source things. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Honestly, statements such as The most interesting feature of the book is ... are simply not appropriate. - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There may be scope for summarising a novel but certainly not for summarising a work on philosophy. And who made this rule? You. You make wp rules as you go along. See how this is sourced, Being and Time. The article as it stands is fully sourced from the primary source, just as Being and Time is sourced with only 4 non-primary sources. A book of philosophy is usually summarised based on primary source because there is always the danger of interpretation in a secondary source. So, though the article did not cover the entire book, whatever was covered was done carefully with citations and quotes from the primary source. But who could tell you this? You have already stubbed the article and make your own rule of summarising from secondary sources. -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Philosophy is an inherently complex field to summarise. The article ignored the first 300 pages of the book and then took a selection of quotes from some subsequent pages. Those quotes may or may not represent a decent selection that encapsulates the work as a whole. Reliable secondary sources can be used to establish what is and is not significant but we cannot do it ourselves. This is not a plot-line from a soap or a novel. Now, if you do not like my way of doing things then I suggest that you report me to WP:ANI - just beware of the boomerang because I rather suspect that there are quite a few people paying attention to your contributions at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)