85,257
edits
Sarkarverse:Central discussion forum/Articles: Difference between revisions
Sarkarverse:Central discussion forum/Articles (view source)
Revision as of 04:06, 19 June 2014
, 19 June 2014Slightly more clear
m (Joined two sets of remarks) |
m (Slightly more clear) |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
<span style="background:orange;border:orange ridge">[[User:Tito Dutta|Tito]]</span><span style="color:blue;background:white;otit;border-bottom-style:ridge;">☸</span><span style="background:#57C738;border:green ridge">[[User talk:Tito Dutta|Dutta]]</span> 01:47, 18 June 2014 (MDT) | <span style="background:orange;border:orange ridge">[[User:Tito Dutta|Tito]]</span><span style="color:blue;background:white;otit;border-bottom-style:ridge;">☸</span><span style="background:#57C738;border:green ridge">[[User talk:Tito Dutta|Dutta]]</span> 01:47, 18 June 2014 (MDT) | ||
* It may form a guideline here. --<span style="background:orange;border:orange ridge">[[User:Tito Dutta|Tito]]</span><span style="color:blue;background:white;otit;border-bottom-style:ridge;">☸</span><span style="background:#57C738;border:green ridge">[[User talk:Tito Dutta|Dutta]]</span> 01:48, 18 June 2014 (MDT) | * It may form a guideline here. --<span style="background:orange;border:orange ridge">[[User:Tito Dutta|Tito]]</span><span style="color:blue;background:white;otit;border-bottom-style:ridge;">☸</span><span style="background:#57C738;border:green ridge">[[User talk:Tito Dutta|Dutta]]</span> 01:48, 18 June 2014 (MDT) | ||
**For the second, a title, I always use the uppercase when referring to a specific individual (Acarya Soandsoanananda Avadhuta) and | **For the second, a title, I always use the uppercase when referring to a specific individual (Acarya Soandsoanananda Avadhuta) and the lowercase when referring to the order or status ("He is an acarya" or "Some nuns are avadhutikas"). | ||
::For the first, I mostly use the lowercase. I would always capitalise both the A and the M in "Ananda Marga" and "Ananda Margii". So when using the word 'margii' in the somewhat exclusive sense of being an "Ananda Margii" - in other words, when "margii" becomes a shortened version of "Ananda Margii" - then, similar to words like "Christian" or "Hindu", the upper case becomes acceptable (although I would still tend to use the lower-case). However, if we think of being a margii as the equivalent of being a spiritual aspirant or a spiritual seeker, then only the lowercase would be appropriate. So this is somewhat context dependent and a bit flexible. | ::For the first, I mostly use the lowercase. I would always capitalise both the A and the M in "Ananda Marga" and "Ananda Margii". So when using the word 'margii' in the somewhat exclusive sense of being an "Ananda Margii" - in other words, when "margii" becomes a shortened version of "Ananda Margii" - then, similar to words like "Christian" or "Hindu", the upper case becomes acceptable (although I would still tend to use the lower-case). However, if we think of being a margii as the equivalent of being a spiritual aspirant or a spiritual seeker, then only the lowercase would be appropriate. So this is somewhat context dependent and a bit flexible. | ||
::There is another issue, and that is the spelling of "margii". Technically, the word should have two 'i's at the end, similar to "yogii". However, in many newspapers and perhaps even dictionaries, we find a single 'i'. My preference is to use two 'i's, regardless of the current popular convention. On Sarkarverse, we don't blindly parrot whatever is written elsewhere. Our priority is to present both accurate and verifiable information. We do not want to present information that is merely verifiable but easily shown to be inaccurate. For example, "So-and-so wrote this about such-and-such" might be a 100% accurate statement; but if what So-and-so wrote is also demonstrably (verifiably) wrong, we won't publish it without also presenting the correct information. That type of information - someone's incorrect comment - is valuable in a critiques or commentaries section at the end of an article; but, typically, it should not be presented in the main body (earlier sections) of the article. (Of course, if the article is about the person who made the incorrect observations, then that incorrect information might appear in the main body, though there would also be a caution that the information is wrong.) --[[User:Abhidevananda|Abhidevananda]] ([[User talk:Abhidevananda|talk]]) 21:13, 18 June 2014 (MDT) | ::There is another issue, and that is the spelling of "margii". Technically, the word should have two 'i's at the end, similar to "yogii". However, in many newspapers and perhaps even dictionaries, we find a single 'i'. My preference is to use two 'i's, regardless of the current popular convention. On Sarkarverse, we don't blindly parrot whatever is written elsewhere. Our priority is to present both accurate and verifiable information. We do not want to present information that is merely verifiable but easily shown to be inaccurate. For example, "So-and-so wrote this about such-and-such" might be a 100% accurate statement; but if what So-and-so wrote is also demonstrably (verifiably) wrong, we won't publish it without also presenting the correct information. That type of information - someone's incorrect comment - is valuable in a critiques or commentaries section at the end of an article; but, typically, it should not be presented in the main body (earlier sections) of the article. (Of course, if the article is about the person who made the incorrect observations, then that incorrect information might appear in the main body, though there would also be a caution that the information is wrong.) --[[User:Abhidevananda|Abhidevananda]] ([[User talk:Abhidevananda|talk]]) 21:13, 18 June 2014 (MDT) | ||