Talk:P. K. Abdul Aziz

CBI finds AMU V-C guilty of financial impropriety

[redacting news text because of copyright concerns] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/CBI-finds-AMU-V-C-guilty-of-financial-impropriety/articleshow/11442378.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.251.47.123 (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Highlighting of indictments

I agree with TheRedPenOfDoom edits and rationale. I see absolutely no reason to highlight the various indictments with all the bolding and subsections, and doubt there is a need to expand the article at all on the details as presented.

If something important is being left out, please indicate what it might be. --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok so what I can infer now is that the issues of WP:BLP WP:UNDUE WP:STRUCTURE WP:ATTACK have been toned down to WP:UNDUE. Coming to WP:UNDUE though I dont entirely agree that the "highlight the various indictments with all the bolding and subsections" give it undue weight-age considering the number of indictment concerned person has by Government of India. But in the spirit of things and to be fair and neutral, I am toning down the section of indictment but a complete deletion of section will be a reverse case of WP:UNDUE

I am putting all the indictment and probes under one section and also making the tone much more neutral Infinity4just (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you can't infer anything is settled.

While toning it down is progress, it doesn't address my main concern: Is there anything important being left out, or is this just about adding details? --Ronz (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No issue of WP:BLP WP:UNDUE WP:STRUCTURE WP:ATTACK etc

WP: BLP is maintianed in the article
1) Neutral point of view (NPOV) is maintained as valid defence section is put up
2) Verifiability (V) is maintained as all the sources are accurately referred
2) No original research (NOR) is maintained as no direct/indirect inferences are made out of any articles or news source, only the facts are presented as it is.

WP:UNDUE: this is not the case of WP:UNDUE as the edits by me Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views by having a section on defence. Moreover there is not the case of asserting opinion over facts as the article states hard core uncontested facts verifiable from leading publications and government letters in a non-opinionated way.

WP:STRUCTURE is maintained as the article mention enough achievements and defences of PK Aziz.

WP:ATTACK: this is not valid criticism considering the fact that a solid defences argument in favour of PK Aziz is put up

It will appreciate if certain editors pin-point specifically which point in the article is contrary to wikipedia standards and guidelines instead of blatantly deleting whole sections.

Infinity4just (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

See the section above. But I will take the allegations of plagiarism /academic record - you are citing a place called slideshare which is not a reliable source, and the Indian Express site which says the two investigations which had been conducted on the charges were " futile"; and the outlook source only can verify that someone had requested an investigation. So we have bad sources, misrepresenting the content to create an attack. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

thanks for pin pointing exactly what you mean by WP:BLP WP:UNDUE WP:STRUCTURE WP:ATTACK but it is not valid criticism any more since I have already taken down that particular section before your detailed criticism since Ronz was nice enough to give a detailed explanation earlier on the topic. Infinity4just (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you MAY NOT CONTINUE TO INSERT BLP CONTENT without gaining a consensus on the talk page. You have been reverted by multiple experienced editors. continued disruption and edit warring WILL LEAD TO YOU BEING BLOCKED. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have been reverted by only one editor other than you. That editor was polite and decent enough in the above section on “Highlighting of indictments” to pin point specifically where I might be wrong and I was equally prompt in correcting myself. But as far as you are concern, in reply to my first engagement with you on my talk page, you threatened me with blocking and in second engagement you again threatened me with blocking instead of a direct logical discussion.

To quote you this is your response "revert absolutely fucking" on edit summary

And this you call an act of experienced editor. While I have been from the start interested in rules and logic and have shown enthusiasm to learn, you on your part seem to be more interested in things other than logic and rules. This said and then I consider your actions more an act of cyber bullying then editing and am referring it to third part dispute. Infinity4just (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have not "threatened blocking" - i have made a straightforward statement that if you edit war to include inappropriate content in inappropriate manner that you WILL BE BLOCKED, because YOU WILL BE BLOCKED if you continue to do so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

as to what is specifically wrong with your most recent additions, you are still WP:UNDUEly accentuating the investigations [[WP:STRUCTURE|by calling them out in a separate section], and you are basing content on primary sources and other non-reliable sources rather than on what the third party neutral coverage is of the items. The only reliable third party that you quote, is already quoted covering the same content within the article as it existed prior to your improper insertion of attack materials. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Now you are talking and that is good. First of all the primary source (reports of government of India) is backed by secondary source in the form of published letter by respectable Member of parliament of Union of India who also happens to be on various prominent comities of parliament of India. This letter is prominently placed on his website. Plus these are backed enough by neutral articles from reputed publishing houses in India like India today article and two circle article which clearly indicates PAG and Kerala Govt indictment and these indictments were not covered before my insertion. Infinity4just (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

you seem to still be misunderstanding the requirement of reliable third party sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The articles of reputed media houses like India today and Two circles fulfil the requirement of third-party sources because

1) They are Reliable: They are peer-review by their respected editors 2) Third-party: Both publishing houses are independent and unaffiliated with the subject, 3) Sources: At least two third-party sources should cover the subject and in this case this is what exactly is happening 4) Based upon: These reliable third-party sources have verified the original Govt of India indictments so they are based on facts and not on opinions.

Infinity4just (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in the reliable sources that is not already adequately covered within the article. If I am missing something please point out what specifically you think should be included that hasnt been covered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok good, now we have come to the conclusion that you agree that these are indeed reliable sources as defined by wikipedia. So the core issue remains whether there is anything original in the section which was impulsively deleted.

and my answer is Yes there is substantial originality in the section impulsively deleted earlier. The originality stems from the mentioning of two indictments (mentioned in the deleted section) by two independent Government of India premier agencies at two different points of times and in two different universities.

1) Principal Accountant-General (Audit) UP, CAG Report indictment (vide AB(C) 09-10/ 249 dated 17-11-2009 to HRD ministry) 2) Finance inspection wing, Kerala Govt indictment on the basis of financial and administrative malpractices.

and these two indictment are completely separate and different from CBI on going probe and its interim indictment mentioned at present in the article. Infinity4just (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No I dont agree that Two Circles is a reliable source. What is it, the University Paper? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope you understand that it is another in series of flip-flop from your side from the beginning. Once cornered, you speedily change track as any independent observer might observe and agree. But anyhow coming to point that you don’t consider two circle reliable now and ask me what is it, is it university newspaper?....my answer is very simple why don’t you check yourself online whether it is a university newspaper or one of the most widely read and respected e-paper in its niche segment with a prominent editorial board consisting of acclaimed personalities from all over the world.

But to cut this debate short, I hope you consider Times of India reliable enough. And please don’t be impulsive this time and do read it fully.

The whole point of debate with you, despite knowing fully well that how impulsive and irrational you can be, was to show independent observers and editors the logic, rationale and reliability behind the section so impulsively, brashly and repeatedly deleted by you.

I hope the neutral editors have reached conclusion on the topic and if they still need any clarity on the section deleted then please let me know I will be more than happy to bring more clarity on it.

I kindly expect some conclusion from neutral editors. Infinity4just (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll ask that WP:FOC be followed. --Ronz (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)