Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Bhagavad Gita trial in Russia

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Orlady (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Bhagavad Gita trial in Russia

edit
(
)

A 19-century manuscript of the Bhagavad Gita.

This hook is more accurate, as it does not imply that the professors referred to the British PM. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
How about this? Cinosaur (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I've copy edited it for English, and fact. The article doesn't contain any reference to Mein Kampf at the moment though. I'd suggest, "Journalists have drawn attention to the Federal List of Extremist Materials being used to ban works currently used in right-wing circles in Russia to foment nationalist hatred, such as Mein Kampf." and cite this against the variety of works. This represents that the journalists as an opinion expression have drawn attention to this; not that the BGaii has actually been compared to Mein Kampf by the Russian State or prosecutor. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. Cinosaur (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Created/expanded by Cinosaur (talk). Self nom at 22:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  • I can't tell if you intend to continue major construction on this article, as you've left the "in construction" template up. If so, please wait to nominate it until major construction is finished, since of course any comments as to its suitability for the Main Page that a reviewer might make here might well be invalid by the time it is promoted or removed. What I see now is that you've cited a lot of material to various unreliable sources, so please review WP:RS and try to substantiate all article content with reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Roscelese, I'm not sure which sources of the ones the article cites you consider unreliable (except for, probably, the StudentOperatedPress, which is borderline and is used only for one minor detail). The rest are: Moscow Times, Times of India sourced to Indo-Asian News Service, and Forum 18 -- as WP:RS as you can get. The "under construction" template can go now, and no future expansion of the article will affect the facts that have already been included and supported by the above WP:RS. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 08:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • StudentOperatedPress is obviously not reliable, and Forum 18 doesn't strike me as reliable either. But we could try RSN? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't mind your giving WP:RSN a try for StudentOperatedPress, but in the meantime, to address your concern, the fact is now referenced to Hindustan Times. As for Forum 18, you may want to look up references to this source in Google Books, where it is quoted in dozens of academic publications on religious freedom. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 08:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The references to Forum18 in the search are less convincing than you might think (a number of them seem either to be an unrelated juxtaposition of the word Forum and the number 18, to be talking about the group or to be attributing comments to it rather than stating them as fact. The issue might be corrected if you would do the same, but you cite a lot of material to them so I'm not sure how much of a help that would be). Again, try RSN. StudentOperatedPress and other amateur websites are, again, not reliable and cannot be used. The nomination will not be approved while the article cites it, unless RSN consensus is different (which is your burden as nominator). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • [This] gives a more accurate picture of Forum 18 as a RS quoted in academic pubilcations. Anyhow:
  • And I overlooked your mentioning that you replaced the SOP citation, that's good. Please take Forum18 to RSN. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh! And you need a fair use rationale in order to use the non-free book cover in your article. I'm not sure it's necessary, but if you feel it is, you do need a FUR. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I will. Cinosaur (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Per Article 3a (neutrality) and Hook 2b (facticity): The hook is unacceptable original research by synthesis, in particular, it is a classic version of synthesis per our WP:SYNTH examples. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

  • for ALT1 for exactly the same synth reasons. Neither the hook, nor the text in the article, is found or can reasonably be abstracted from the sources cited. This is an extreme claim, and synthesising it together isn't appropriate. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The on-going problems with these hooks is the fascination with Mein Kampf, and the Godwin-like insinuations made about people. Putting BGaii on a forbidden literatures list, that also happens to contain Mein Kampf is not sufficient to support any of these. Go reread WP:SYNTH and note the structure: "A possesses characteristic B. C possesses characteristic B. Therefore A is the same as C." "Did you know, the British Prime Minister owns a book that Russia wants to ban?" is far closer to legitimate. "Did you know, a court rejected the expert opinion of Russian professors, as they had failed to read a Hari Krisna classic or the Bhagavad Gita?" Fifelfoo (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Using Mein Kampf in the hook is not synthesis (of fascination) because it has been reported by at list a dozen of reliable sources in exactly the same context and intent: "Look, these guys in Tomsk are trying to put BGAII along with Mein Kampf!" Unlike WP:SYNTH, I do not combine material to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The fact that BG is lumped in with Mein Kampf is an explicitly (and even indignantly) stated fact in such WP:RS as Reuters, The Times, and Moscow Times, and I'm not sure what my fault is in using it in the hook to make it more interesting? What is that conclusion that the current hook reaches or implies that is not explicitly stated in the WP:RS? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Except everytime Mein Kampf appears in the article, I read the sources, and the sources do not support the claim that anyone is equating the BGaii with Mein Kampf. All of the uses are journalists contextualising the banned works list. The inappropriately SYNTHetic conclusion is that anyone equates the BGaii with Mein Kampf; this is not found in the sources used, and appears to be a creation of a wikipedia editor, via the attempt by the Russian state to place BGaii on a banned literature list. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • All right, please look at the new ALT. Cinosaur (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
It is a moot point - I have removed the material as it is not reliable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I do not think that the removal, albeit well-intended, is warranted. I will have to undo some of the deletions per WP:RS. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • for ALT. I've checked the sources supporting the statements. The equation isn't too much of an encyclopaedic stretch. The repeated mentions by journalists as context mean that it is reasonable to provide the context of Mein Kampf, while not actually claiming that BGaii equates to Mein Kampf. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your valuable feedback, Roscelese and Fifelfoo. The article has just been nominated for deletion, so let me take care of the AfD first and I will hopefully get back with a better version of the hook (and the article). Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
    • No worries, something that's not inappropriate synthesis, such as "Tomsky State University professors admitted to a judge that they had not studied The Bhagavad Gita as it is, etc. We can't permit a DYK to be based on a false synthesis that appears to produce a fact through the conflation of two other facts. (It doesn't look AfDable to me, just badly in need of more love) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Definitely a relevant topic and a developing story. Should not be deleted 89.77.88.115 (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The current hook is synthesis. Except the hook, the article is good. A neutral, cited new hook is needed. The image of the Sanskrit Bhagvad Gita manuscript is inappropriate. Bhagavad Gita As It Is, the ISKCON translation and commentary of the Gita is the book in question. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Re Forum 18: it looks like you've managed to substantiate almost all its claims with other sources. Can it be removed? Or listed as further reading, or something. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Sure,  Done. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Synth is fixed -  Done! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

After editing, this article is a clear example of what Wikipedia is about, consensus built articles - based upon reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Bhagavad_Gita_trial_in_Russia&oldid=1021781833"