Talk:2024 India–Maldives diplomatic row

Why speedy?

This is important event happening in India-Maldives right now and definitely deserves an article if there’s already existing article I’m okay with merge or deleted but if not, this article should me improved. Systumm (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Rename?

Can this be renamed to something like 2024 India-Maldives diplomatic crisis? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that is a better title and will perform the move tomorrow if there are no objections Josey Wales ^Parley 22:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

As there is some discussion with differing viewpoints at Talk:India–Maldives relations I'll leave the page at this title until there is some consensus regarding what is to happen (this page hasn't even been reviewed at WP:NPP yet) - any other editor is free to move if they wish Josey Wales ^Parley 22:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Page move

Moved from User talk:DaxServer#Maldives page move

No one talks on the talk page, starting a discussion for the move will be very long and monotonic. Let the page move be and please dont revert Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Pharaoh496 You can make your arguments in a Wikipedia:Requested moves as to why the page needs to be moved — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 17:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

well but im autoconfirmed, and as of now face no opposition Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

You did.. from me! Why did you think I reverted the move? Wikipedia:AUTOCONFIRMED doesn't mean you get to move pages but rather technically possible for you to move pages. Page moves are done as long as they're uncontroversial and adhere to the guidelines. From WP:RM - A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus: see § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus. I've yet to hear why — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

mate, when you reverted it back you didnt give a reason, you just advocated for a discussion.

share now, how exactly is it disputed, lets discuss Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, '2024 India–Maldives derogatory row' isn't a good article title - because the first reaction to it is "what even is a 'derogatory row'!?". However, the current title ('diplomatic row') effectively communicates the fact that it's a diplomatic crisis which hasn't quite reached fever pitch yet. That said, I haven't been paying any attention to this incident, so if it has boiled over to 'diplomatic crisis' status (or 'diplomatic incident' status) - those would work within an article title. But not 'derogatory row'. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 15:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Changes

• Hi @DaxServer, thank you for the edit. I want to share that as the principal contributor on the page, it is in no way my intention to include WP:Undue in this article. Being the sole contributor, I am one-by-one adding and correcting subsections, and have simply not reached to the other point of view yet. For clarity, I have added maintainence tags, and as always, Other editors are obviously welcome to add the other bits as well. There is only so much that I can do at once.
• For the quotation overload: I have wanted to add only a few quotes - three from the ministers - which started the whole row; and one from Akshay Kumar, which was one of the first and prominent outcomes of the row on Twitter. I have removed the quotations from the ex-prez and ex-defence and shall re-fit them after rewording.

Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not intending to introduce any bias and vio WP:NPOV - and will get fairly to all sides involved. I have added subsections and will add more for when I move to them, and other editors can add if they can/want to if they reach there before me. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pharaoh496 This is an encyclopaedia not a tabloid. We don't add every other quote stated by every other person. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you @DaxServer. The edits should be reverted to as they were before the most recent edit removing quotes and blank spaces. The response by @Pharaoh496 on User talk:Actuallynobody66 were far from ideal and is treating Wikipedia as if it is some tabloid; sourcing material from a website with obvious AI generated content. Actuallynobody66 (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

No material is AI generated. The four quotes from Maldivian ministers and politician should be included (already cited) as they had a major role in the deepening of this row; and the actor's response on twitter. I am currently rewording the ex-prez and ex-defense quotes - I may not have to add them at all Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pharaoh496

I agree with DaxServer on the page reading more like a tabloid than an encyclopedia. We can trim down the quotes and words similar to what the cited sources have done. Rather than pulling the full quotations, something like "remarks including calling the Indian Prime Minister Modi a "clown".." This can be summed up and put in a single paragraph rather than with just derogatory remarks or the full quotations.

I'd like to point out that the quote by Malsha Shareef was certainly AI-generated and not something she has ever posted on X. There is no source mentioning what she has said besides the one you pointed out on my talk page.

The source you've mentioned:www.newsunzip.com/wiki/malsha-shareef/

That website is posting AI-generated content and is deindexed on Google for poor-quality SEO spam. This is why the quote never appeared when I initially searched for it. This is not reliable source and should not be used here at all.

This can be further elaborated with internet archive snapshots of her twitter feed.

While the sources only mention partial parts of the tweets, or not at all, they've still been used as sources to cite for the entire quote. If the quote is word for word then the cited sources should also quote is word for word (I'd say screenshot of the tweet from a reliable source would count as well).

Regardless, I support completely removing the full quotations and only sum up the critical parts of the tweets which are concerning the article and resulting in public outcry. Actuallynobody66 (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Concerns

The second pharagraph says the incident led to a death of a teenager. I believe the wording should be changed or removed entirely.

Cited sources only alleges this happened and one has the response by the other party involved. It should cover both side in a more neutral tone, or not at all.

Another thing to point out with the both cited sources quotes a Tweet from the same person and one source refers to them as an MP[1] and the other one refers to them as a Minister. Questionable sources without fact checking and has editorial oversight should not be used in my opinion.

__

The cited sources for some quotes here only mention the quotes partially or not at all. I propose to either add Template:Irrelevant citation, add a better source, or remove them entirely.

Also, since removing whitespace has become such a hot-topic resulting in warring, I propose to remove the empty whitespaces MOS:OVERSECTION. Actuallynobody66 (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for the discussion!

Yes, I am completely in favour of a neutral perspective. Lets deliberate to see how it should be reworded.

As for the white spaces, it is to ensure proper layout on desktop mode Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

In the instance for the first part, I think it should be removed entirely as it has no base in this article. Based on the wording, the article is saying the diplomatic row directly led to the death. Who determined this? Somebody could take it that way but who did? Your personal opinion shouldn't determine it.

X led to Y is a strong statement and there should be strong evidence and sources to back it up. In this case, it doesn't and the sources are questionable as per my initial topic.

This is a serious and sensitive topic and I don't think such accusatory and alleged statements should be made here. Actuallynobody66 (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I 100% agree that the current wording is unfair to all sides involved. However, I do not believe in removing it, as it is the only solitary death that has come in the wake of the row. Whether the guy was denied confirmation by authorities, or whether he was given too late; the unfortunate incident did take place because of the row. Hence, it may be included somewhere in the article but shouldnt be removed Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Whitespaces also also needs to account for mobile users. I don't have any suggestions but I think it could be presented in a better way. Maybe the suggestion on changes topic work. Actuallynobody66 (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I have put a maintainence template. Around the time that it is removed, we can decide how to handle. Lets cross that bridge when we come to it. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)