Talk:Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya

WP:INDIA Banner/Madhya Pradesh workgroup Addition

{{WP India}} with Madhya Pradesh workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Madhya Pradesh or one of its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the irrelavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 13:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Type of university

Another editor is edit-warring trying to show this is a private university. This is the official list of state universities - established by the states. This is the official list of private universities. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya appears on the former, not on the latter, so it is a public university, not a private one. --Muhandes (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"State Univerity" means established by law of a State legislature. "Central University" means one established by a law of Parliament. Most private universities are established under law of State legislatures and hence are "State Universities" but are not "Public" universities. The reason this Univ is not on the UGC's list of private univs is because it was established in 1988. Pringles3000 (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll start with the distinction between state university and private university. I believe you are misrepresenting the situation in India. In India all legal private universities are established under law of a state legislature, not only "most" of them. The UGC does not recognize any private university unless it is established by such legislature. State universities are allowed to have off-campus affiliated colleges while private universities do not, and the UGC is the one which is responsible for approving universities and maintaining the lists. This university appears on the list of state universities and it is also an affiliating university, so clearly it is a state university, not a private one and this has nothing to do with its establishment date.

As for the distinction between public university and private university, the de facto consensus is to list state universities as public and private universities as private, though listing the former as state university is also acceptable (though rare). While I see where this may be a little misleading, changing this consensus will require discussion at WT:INEI at the very least. So, to summarize, this is a state university, and consensus is to list such universities as public, or in rare cases state, but not private which would be grossly misleading in India for an affiliating university. --Muhandes (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

References

The terms must be used as defined in UGC Act applicable to India, not by some 'consenus' for US universities. Please compare apples with apples and not with oranges. In India 'State' university means a university established under or by a state level enactment, whereas 'Central' university is equivalent to 'Federal' and means established under/by a Central/Federal law. So 'Amity University' is a PRIVATE "State" university established by a law of Uttar Pradesh State Legislature whereas the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (also in Uttar Pradesh) is established by a Federal/Central Law and is a PUBLIC university. So don't mislead the poor innocent Indian students or their parents. Pringles3000 (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the odd idea that I was referring to a consensus about US universities. I was referring to the de facto consensus about India universities, as evident by the hundreds of articles we have of state universities, all of them listed as public, none of them as private. Why muddy the water with US universities? I'm not sure either what Amity University or IIT Kanpur have to do with this. I agree and, so this is also the consensus, that Amity University should be listed as private and IIT Kanpur as public. This has no bearing at all on the discussion. We are talking about RGPV, which you are claiming to be private and I am claiming it cannot be, since it is affiliating and also listed otherwise by UGC. Anyway, I suggest something we can both live with, which is to state in the infobox that it is State university, which is factually correct as evident by UGC listings. In the text itself you can state whatever you have good sources for. --Muhandes (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary Conflict by Muhandes

Please clarify why the names, images of the university be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.20.163 (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

All are explained below. Your edit goes against, at the very least, six guidelines. You have been warned move than four times about it. Please stop. --Muhandes (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Multiple MOS and other guideline violations

The following edit which was repeated six times within the last 24 hours includes, at the very least, the following violations of guidelines:

• Introducing Indic script to the lead and infobox against MOS:INDICSCRIPT
• Introducing "Dr." against MOS:DOCTOR
• Introducing an indiscriminate collection of images against WP:IG
• Replacing a prose paragraph with a table, against WP:PROSE
• Introducing sources to the lead which already exist in the body, against MOS:LEAD
• Introducing multiple affiliations without source against WP:V
• Adding details to the infobox against the template documentation, such as campus area
• Introducing factual errors: the chancellor position is not a personal position, it is always to the Governor of Madhya Pradesh

Please explain each and every violation before reintroducing the material. --Muhandes (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• There's a reason why there is a field named "Native name" in the infobox.
• Name is as per the reference, it is a prenominal academic title and this article is about academics.
• All the images are on Wikipedia and related to the subject.
• The table is easy to read, no sentences are used.
• multiple sources are used as they back different claims.
• affiliations were in the reference that you removed.
• even Harvard and all other universities have campus area in their infobox, try removing that first.
• The holder of the office needs to be mentioned, it's the holder, not the office who's the chancellor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.20.163 (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

There are guidelines and we are required to follow them. None of your "explanations" validates going against guidelines and consensus.

• "Native name" field is not an excuse to go againts MOS:INDICSCRIPT. This is the consensus reached by editors. You are free to start discussion, but until this changes, we don't add Indic script to lead or infobox.
• A "prenominal academic title " is not an excuse to go against MOS:DOCTOR
• Related images should be listed next to the subject, not in a gallery. Listing an indiscriminate collection of images is against WP:IG
• You may find it easier to read but prose is preferred, per WP:PROSE.
• This does not explain what the sources are in the lead. The lead is for summarizing the article, not for introducing facts or sources. See MOS:LEAD.
• This is a blatant lie. Show where these affiliations are referenced by reliable independent secondary sources: NBA, IAU, ACU, AIU, AICTE, PCI, COA.
• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We are not discussing the Harvard article, we are discussing this article. You are introducing material against template documentation to this article.
• I don't really care about this one, but it is standard practice in articles about education in India not to list the chancellor by name but by position. This saves effort in updating all articles once a governor changes. You can have it your way, but another edit will surely remove it, since that's the standard practice. --Muhandes (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Native name does not violate any indicscript, it would have been violated if sentences and other info was added in Indic scripts which would have been difficult for non-Hindi / Devanagari readers.
• no one is going against any policy, you read it first, there's no rule that you CAN'T write academic titles, especially in academia!
• it is under the campus section, please remove images from other articles too. are you suggesting that gallery section in Wiki is against the policy too?!
• no written rule that only prose is to be used. are you gainst tables on wiki too?!
• this is the reference that you removed and it contains some of the affiliations. https://www.rgpv.ac.in/pdf/RGPVBhopalNAACSelfStudyReport.pdf you removed it from the lead section and you are the one who's lying. plus i don't see other articles with reference to their affiliations.
• no double standards, try bullying Harvard and other universities and remove their campus area first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.20.163 (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself so I wont bother answering again. I'll just say that the source you provided is obviously a primary source which cannot be used. Not only that, I can't find some of the items you claims (the word "Commonwealth" for instance). If you don't care about guidelines I will have to take this elsewhere. --Muhandes (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't mean it can't be used, although i agree a secondary source is preferable. already said "some" of the affiliations, try searching "ACU", mostly abbreviations are used — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.20.163 (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I shall be gone for a while.will resume afterwards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.20.163 (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I largely agree with Muhandes's messages here, except I can't comment about the images. Not having substantially contributed to Indian articles, I didn't know about the Indic script guideline, but its reasoning makes sense to me. I don't normally get into disputes like this ... I'm only here because I history-merged the article and talk page, but I thought another opinion from an experienced user would be helpful. I'd prefer not to get involved with this any further. Graham87 08:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)