Re: Please help with wikipedia's article on Arabic Numerals that's falling victim to vandalism


casiocult...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> mensanator@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > casioculture@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > I visited this page a little while ago and I was startled by the
> > > extreme Hindu-nationalist and anti-Arab biases, and the resulting
> > > ludicrous factual errors on the page. I therefore took the time to find
> > > reputable scientific and academic sources that are neutral, edited the
> > > article so that it was in line with the scientific consensus, quoting
> > > even a professor who is an effective member of the International
> > > Academy of the History of Science, and reputable Indian sources such as
> > > from the Indian National Science Academy and from the Bulletin of the
> > > National Institute of Sciences of India, and many others.
> > >
> > > Let me make it clear; I have no anti-Indian bias, in fact, I listened
> > > to Indian music on my playlist many times over the past few days
> > > (Musafir, Gypsies of Rajasthan) and ate some pretty nice Indian food.
> > > I'm against blatant biases leading to blatant factual errors and
> > > deliberate distortion.
> > >
> > > I have had help from many reasonable editors whom I thank, but the
> > > article is now having a problem with a few individuals with quite
> > > pronounced Hindu-nationalist who remain in persistent refusal to base
> > > their content on reliable sources as per Wikipedia policies and whose
> > > version contains too many serious errors to accomodate. They keep
> > > reverting the page. The more I try to reason with them, going to
> > > excruciating lengths as evidenced by the talk page linked to below, the
> > > more I become aware, from the evasive and ironic one-liners they reply
> > > with, that they're not really interested in being reasoanble.
> > >
> > > Please visit the page, it still needs some work to edit it and fill in
> > > some gaps, which must be based on reliable sources, and if you don't
> > > want to help with that then at least put it on your watchlist and
> > > ensure that the version you're in honest agreement that is based on
> > > reliable source and is in line with the wikipedia policies linked to in
> > > the talk page is kept from being reverted and hidden form the public.
> > > Your comments on the talk page are also welcome.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arabic_numerals
> >
> > Tempest in a teapot, eh?
> >
> > Could you post a scorecard so I can tell who's on which side?
>
> I don't care who's on which side, what I care about is that people
> abide by wikipedia policies and cite reliable sources.

Sorry, on a second reading, I think I may have misunderstood your post.
So I'll elaborate.

At this moment there two versions of the page that are being reverted
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabic_numerals&oldid=30788115
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabic_numerals&oldid=30788028

One of them is, in all fairness, citing verifiable and reliable sources
(ie, scientific and academic, by professors and doctors on the topic of
mathematics and history of science) and doing so on a point-by-point
basis, with almost a citation for every significant piece of
information provided that is linked to and can be checked by the
reader. The page also links at the end of the article as its first
external reference to a paper titled "The Development of Hindu-Arabic
and Traditional Chinese Arithmetic" by Professor Lam Lay Yon, member of
the International Academy of the History of Science". This page still
needs some work to fill in the gaps, but as it's careful to be accurate
and verifiable it takes time, as well as the unpleasant fact that its
editors have to face an onslaught of a disruptive activism against
their efforts.

The other version of the page is, in all fairness, lacking in citations
on a point-by-point basis, its first external reference linked to is a
personal weblog with the title of "Laputan Logic: Fanciful.
Preposterous. Absurd." that lists no author in its about section, has
quite a manifest and obvious bias that can be estimated to be Hindu
Nationalist or Hindu revisionist, contains many factual errors,
examples of which are discussed here and elsewhere on the talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arabic_numerals#Vertaloni.2C_examples_of_errors_in_your_version


Regards

.

Relevant Pages