Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-31 Indian Navy
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Indian Navy |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Mediator(s) | Trusilver |
| Comment | Closing case |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Indian Navy]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Indian Navy]]
Request details
[edit]A single user insists on reverting to the following edit of Indian Navy. It contains the following text, which seems to me (and some others, who drew my attention to this page) ill-sourced peacockry, and includes a reversion to a grammatical error; above all, it is utterly irrelevant to the Indian Navy
- India has a maritime history dating back to 5,000 years.[1] [2] [3] [4] The first tidal dock is believed to have been built at Lothal around 2300 BCE during the Indus Valley Civilization, near the present day Mangrol harbour on the Gujarat coast. The Rig Veda written around 1500 BCE, credits Varuna with knowledge of the ocean routes and describes naval expeditions using hundred oared ships to subdue other kingdoms. There is reference to the side wings of a vessel called Plava, which give stability to the ship under storm conditions. A compass, Matsya yantra was used for navigation in the fourth and fifth century AD.[5]
Who are the involved parties?
[edit]- Chanakyathegreat (talk · contribs)
- Pmanderson (talk · contribs)
- SohanDsouza (talk · contribs) who originally complained of the disputed text.
- BillCJ (talk · contribs) who brought this to the MilHistory Project.
What's going on?
[edit]What would you like to change about that?
[edit]- Take this irrelevant nonsense out, and replace, if necessary, with a simple statement of India's ancient maritime tradition. I would be willing to see this cruft a separate article, although such an article will deserve tagging at a minimum. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Mediator notes
[edit]Trusilver, I tried to get a discussion going on the article talk page as well as the User_talk:Chanakyathegreat to see if User:Chanakyathegreat will even accept mediation, I have gotten no response. When I tried to interact with the parties on the article talk page and included a suggestion that the parties stop making changes while we talked about it, Chanakyathegreat apparently responded by adding the disputed material back in. You're welcome to try of course, but I think the referring parties may need to take this issue to a different forum for lack of agreement to mediate. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Administrative notes
[edit]Discussion
[edit]- There is a discussion, including a sentence by sentence analysis of what's wrong with the edit, at Talk:Indian_Navy#Origin_of_Navy_and_Navigation. I have put the cabal tag there as perhaps clearer; feel free to move if necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing irrelevant in the article. Every information is relevant. I don't know why you consider it to be irrelevant and want it to be removed. That relevant information in the article is not causing any harm to anyone. It's all about India's maritime heritage. The origin of Navigation has already been removed since exact reason for the claim has not been found, even though no other nation can claim the Origin of Navigation. I am strongly against removal of relevant information because someone dislikes it. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please read WP:TOPIC; each article should stick to its subject. Why not make this an article on Navigation in India, where this would at least be directly related to the subject? There is no evidence that the docks of Lothal supported a Navy, for example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It's part of the subject. During such early days, the differentiation is very different. Weapons were used by them during that time. Armed men inside the ship is Navy.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Since changes has been made and the important info being retained, I hope that no one has any more objections. Thank you. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Outside Opinion
[edit]If I may be allowed to contribute an outsider opinion, I think the paragraph above is ok, except for the last two sentences, which seem the most contentious and irrelevant. Maritime history is important, even if it isn't military, especially considering that in the early days, there wasnt really a distinction between the two. Plus, the Rig Veda reference is relevant, since it does refer to Naval warfare and use of ships for transporting troops. However, a reference for this would help. The other point that needs citing is the Tidal Dock at Lothal... where/how has it been characterized as the first dock? that may need rephrasing.
The last two sentences can be deleted, as they are not relevant at all, especially in the context of the Modern Navy. I think they should be deleted. Plus, the sources doesn't seem reliable, and does not cite its references. Is the below text agreeable?
- India has a maritime history dating back to 5,000 years.[1] [2] [3] [4] A tidal dock is believed to have been built at Lothal around 2300 BCE during the Indus Valley Civilization, near the present day Mangrol harbour on the Gujarat coast. The Rig Veda written around 1500 BCE, credits Varuna with knowledge of the ocean routes and describes naval expeditions using hundred oared ships to subdue other kingdoms.
T/@Sniperz11editssign 08:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Varuna is important because the Indian navy's motto is Shano Varuna which means "May the Lord of the Oceans be Auspicious Unto Us".[1]. In India it is customary to acknowledge the gift of nature by offering felicitations to its presiding deity. Water is the greatest of such gifts and Varuna is its presiding deity. And hence the Vedic prayer 'Shano Varuna' - meaning 'Be Auspicious Unto Us, oh Varuna!'.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)