Talk:Dravidian parties

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Dravidian parties was a Social sciences and society good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: May 21, 2008
WikiProject_India 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.
This article is maintained by the Tamil Nadu workgroup.
More information about this article...
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dravidian civilizations, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Dravidian related topics. If you would like to participate, please feel free to visit the project page to join.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project’s quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project’s importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tamil civilization, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Tamil related topics. If you would like to participate, please feel free to visit the project page to join.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project’s quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project’s importance scale.
A fact from Dravidian parties appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 27 February 2008.
Wikipedia


Contents

[edit] Good article nomination

Why not submit this for good article nomination ?Taprobanus (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats a good thought, but we may have to do a bit more for a GA. Dravidian parties are not just unique of its kind but congealed out of indigenous ideologies (with a few borrowed concepts). Expanding on the ideology section and propaganda and media aspects, which contributed a great deal for Dravidian politics will surely make it a great nominee for GA. Thats my opinion! I have been working on those points for a while now, but that has caused a heck of a lot to read between work. More ideas and suggestions are welcome. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 19:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International impact

Shouldn't the "International impact" section at least mention the significant role played by the Dravidian parties in the Sri Lankan problem? They've certainly had a bigger impact there than in Malaysia. -- Arvind (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I have added that. Well spotted. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 21:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

I realised that a few of the citations have been removed. I believe that those were done on good faith. I am reverting them to hear back why they were removed, in light that the statements were not controvertial. In the mean time I will try to find alternate sources for the statements. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 09:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

geocities is not WP:RS. I didnt think this was so difficult to figure especially after I'd left edit summaries to that effect. And controversial or not, you cant use non-RS like blogs and geocities to cite. It is against WP:RS and also circumvents WP:EL. I hope you will revert your reversion now. Sarvagnya 15:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Tamil tribune is an online magazine on Tamil-related issues. With all due respect, you can see that the reference is used only on Tamil politics related issues and not in the sections on Nationwide impact nor on overseas. WP:RS does state that such sources are premitted when they are used as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves. Geocities is not a blogspot, but just a webhosting domain. I personally don't see why this should be a breach of WP:EL, when url cross-referencing is always appreciated in a scholarly society. Nevertheless, if you feel that linking to the article does make wiki a soap, then please free to remove the links. I appreciate your concern. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
in articles about themselves - clearly means "in articles about themselves. To break it up for you, if you were to write an article about Tamil Tribune itself, you can cite from their site (ie., Tamil Tribune). You cannot cite from Tamil Tribune on any article which != Tamil Tribune. Dravidian parties != Tamil Tribune. I dont know how else to explain this to you and if you think fit, you can take your doubts/queries to WP:RSN. Thanks. Sarvagnya 18:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah take it to WP:RSN and see whether Tamil tribune passes the test of WP:VERIFYTaprobanus (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed to Taprobanus view. I am resting my case that a Tamil magazine can be used to cite on issues with Tamil people. I can assure that I will abide on what WP:RSN would recommend for this case in specific. The issue is clear, that if the article talks about people other than Tamils we may not be able to use Tamil tribune (for eg., Tamil tribune has an article on Kaveri issue which we can not use as WP:RS, BUT can be used to state TN's claim). Please feel free to take it to WP:RSN which is indeed good so that this will help wiki in the longer run. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 23:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
In an atempt to AGF I have given alternate citations where ever I can for now, void the Annadurai's speech (which I have removed under goodfaith). Having said that, I would still want to include Tamil Tribune for Tamil related articles. Moreover adding {{cn}} on a simple statement that DMK and AIADMK have never allied with each other is a bit disturbing since anyone who knows about TN would find this as a WP:CK. It would be really nice if this is avoided in the future. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 00:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
fwiw.. i did not add a {cn}} for that statement. It is you who had cited that sentence and cited it to Tamil tribune and I simply did a "find and replace" of all tamil tribune refs with {cn}} tags. just so you know, I havent even read the article except in glances. I've found that reviewing articles upside down can help get a great deal fixed in very little time and I do it quite often. also, tamil tribune is a self published source and anybody can publish anything. it doesnt make it authoritative or RS. Having been around here for as long as you've been, I'm surprised you're having trouble grasping WP:RS. Cheers! Sarvagnya 00:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) People who come to read these articles don't necessarily have knowledge about Tamil Nadu. Therefore, adding {{cn}} is appropriate. Remember, this is a wiki for everyone, not just people from a particular region. As for Tamil magazine, I do not think it is a reliable source. It is a self-published source and from a lookthrough, there's no indication that the authors of the magazine's articles are authoritative on any TN-related matters. It seems that the people writing for this magazine are ordinary folks who aren't experts on the matter. Per WP:SPS, self-published sources are largely unacceptable, since anyone can claim to be an expert on a topic. The exception: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." These aren't being produced by an established expert. Why do you need to resort to referencing from small self-published magazines, with articles written by nonexperts, instead of getting material published in books or peer-reviewed journals? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 00:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
From WP:VERIFY, the test is, Tamil Tribune,
  • Is it an Academic source ?
  • Does it have third party scrutiny ?
  • Is it a respected mainstream publication - (We should have other sources who call it as such)
  • It is not a wiki ?
  • Is it a Questionable source ? -(We should find other sources which claim as such)
  • Is it self published by an expert ? -(Authors should be acknowledged experts in their fields)Taprobanus (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
As I promised earlier, I will abide by the consensus here that Tamil Tribune not to be used in this article. Thanks chaps! Now moving ahead I would like to point to Nishkid that when talking about {{cn}} tags added, I was certainly talking about edits of a particular editor in specific (seriously Sarvagnya this is not a personal attack, but an opinion) that he should have added the tag where it is needed. The tag is for sentences which really need citations, but not to replace removed citations. Dear Sarvagnya! I added the citation tags at the end of the sentences to make it look as neat as possible. For an wikipedian as prolific as you, I would have expected you to correct my mistakes but not to have perpetuated it with another one. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 17:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you neglected to read my previous reply before you posted this. Well, if you thought that the sentence was so CK that it didnt need a citation, you yourself could very well have left it uncited and it would have stayed clear of my "find and replace" radar. anyway, the more important thing is that this is a source you wouldnt want to use not just on this article.. but on any article for that matterc. and you dont have to thank the consensus "here" for that.. but the community-wide consensus that has gone into framing WP:RS, precisely to keep screed of this sort out of wikipedia. Cheers! Sarvagnya 23:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thats fine mate, I have already stated that I thought of using it only in this article. May be I should have phrased it better. Moving on now... do we agree that DMK and AIADMK have never allied with each other as a WP:CK? It is my opinion that it makes good sense to specify it in the lead as well as where we can find it fit. What do you think? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 07:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
We should move on :)) Taprobanus (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Amen ;) Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 19:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
On second thoughts you should still post it in WP:RSN but make sure all deatils are clearTaprobanus (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Per recent suggestions about the Good article review process, and to better support {{ArticleHistory}}, I have moved all commentary concerning this article's review to a dedicated Good article review subpage. I welcome any and all comments on this review, but please, place them on the subpage. Thank you. Gosgood (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second GA Review

Per my remarks above, the commentary that used to be here may now be found on the subpage dedicated to the Good Article review. Gosgood (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?
Yes, it would be nice to get critical feedback. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 19:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?
Yes again, but not to general public. I write research papers for specialised personnels, which obviously takes for granted that the reader has limited knowledge of the subject area. This may not be very relevant here, but people like me are too used to ENDNOTE and it gets too hard with the inline citation templates. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 19:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?
Not that am aware of! Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 19:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ready to work on this article .

dear admin : i wish to work with you / anyone who wishes to improve this article . kindly do inform if im useful in any way ...regards:--91.77.184.175 (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC):--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring this article

I have a feeling that we may have to restructure this article. After the GA review I think that the overall topic should start with a bit of explaining the so called North South divide as seen by leaders of the Dravidian parties, then proceed on to the rise of Justice Party (India) and the Self-respect movement of Periyar. This I reckon will give a sound base to talk further into the major events of rise the modern days (post independence) Dravidian parties. The history is very much complicates since as the Dravidian parties get stronger and stronger, the borders of the Madras Presidency keeps going down which needs to be mentioned in the article too.

Then comes the task that I'm finding too hard. The ideologies!! The Ideologies keeps evoloving as the parties fragment and with the historical happenings. The North-South divide as per the Dravidian party leaders is the basis of the ideologies of Dravidian identity and the so called Tamilism. So now this would leave the ideologies sections either fragmented into two or the whole ideologies section to preceed the history of the parties. I prefer the former, but suggestions on this are very much welcome.

The third concern is about the list of parties and the navigation box. I am wondering if it would be a good idea to change the navigation box as to stay in the corner of the article rather than as a footer and thereby the list can be avoided. Probably the navigation box can also hold the party flags and symbols, so we can get rid of them from the article too. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 14:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)