Talk:Infrastructure in Bangalore

The Tags explained

the sole purpose of this article seems to be to show bangalore in poor light. the entire article is based on half truths. while nobody is claiming that bangalore's infrastructure is the best in the world, or is even world class, it shouldnt be forgotten that Bangalore has arguably the best infrastructure in India after New Delhi and Bombay. Even New Delhi and Bombay have their own teething problems. Madras/Chennai, Hyderabad and Calcutta have even worse infrastructure problems and their own unique problems.

these are things that can be debated for days together without reaching any conclusions. heavily opinionated and 'POV' articles like this can be written about every city in the world. it is shameful that the author chose to write this mischevous article. i urge the admins to delete this worthless article67.164.5.90 09:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the above user is right. these are things that should be written in newspapers, tabloids and magazines not in encyclopaedias. it is high time people understand that WP is neither a newspaper nor a tabloid. and the author should

all the sources the author has cited would themselves not make it past WP's guidelines pertaining to POV/NPOV and sensationalism. to use such sources to advance one's own POVs is patently unencyclopaedic.

i urge the author to look at What Wikipedia is not

And yet ... slapping that many tags on it looks a lot like a POV attack on the article and its contents (how is it a "hoax", anyway? And why do you need to say that it's disputed and totallydisputed?). The little in-bold-with-exclamation-marks bit about Mr Premji and 67's "you shouldn't say bad things about Bangalore because you can say bad things about other cities" justifiaction for the tagging doesn't help it look like sensible neutrality either. I've refactored Mr Premji to be a bit less hysterical-sounding and reduced it to just a disputed neutrality tag. --Bth 20:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

on taking an another look at the article, i see that there no verifiable sources cited by the author!! NONE AT ALL!!...most certainly unencyclopaedic. and most certainly deserves a few more tags. 209.180.28.6 20:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article is "Infrastructural Concerns in Banaglore". By the very nature of the topic, I would argue that it will highlight infrastructural challenges the city is facing. AreJay 20:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and who asked you for your opinion?? if it is your opinion that Bangalore is facing infrastructure problems, and that the problems are the ones you have trolled about in the article, keep it to yourself or maybe write a blog on it. or even write an article in the Washington Post or a cover story for Time Magazine if it pleases you. there, however, is no place in WP for your POVs. nor does it have a place for anything unencyclopaedic. 209.180.28.6 23:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to annoint a billion tags on the article, just because its contents are not popular. I do however, agree that sources need to be cited to evidence the statements. If appropriate sources are not found, that particular section/statement needs to be removed. I would urge those displeased with the article as it stands today to contribute by researching and citing appropriate sources to validate/correct statements in the article instead of attacking it as being "shameful" and "michevious". AreJay 20:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i wonder if there can be anything more shameful than your response above. what you are essentially saying is, "i will write bullshit. i will push my POVs no matter what. i will, however do so without citing any sources and if anybody disagrees with me, they will have to cite proper sources as to why they disagree with me!!! 209.180.28.6 21:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what i am saying is, you have a POV. and i have mine. no harm. but WP is NOT the place for our POVs. even if you were to cite sources where the source might have the same POV as you do about a subject, it doesnt become fact or even encyclopaedic. in other words, just because a columnist in some newspaper happens to share a POV with you, doesnt give your POV any legitimacy. it still remains a dumb little POV. 209.180.28.6 21:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to clarify even further, let us take the example of American foreign policy. that america was party to the Gulf War and many other wars around the globe is verifiable fact. but to say America is responsible for all the unrest in the world(this, in fact, is many people's view)is plain POV. not verifiable fact. not something beyond debate. and certainly not encyclopaedic. 209.180.28.6 21:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cite Sources

Hi - I think the sources must be immediately cited so that the conflict may be properly defined, if not resolved. Also, the present tags are adequate to raise attention to any problems. Rama's Arrow 20:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the sources must be immediately cited and the sources themselves should be POV-free. just because an article appears in a newspaper doesnt make it 'news' or 'fact'. many articles in newspapers and magazines are POVs again and many times the concerned publications take the pains to inform readers that the following/preceding coloumn 'reflects the veiws of the writer and should not be taken to be representative of the publication's stand or even reality'. 209.180.28.6 21:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so dont cite an article full of shameless POV pushing to support your own shameless POV pushing. 209.180.28.6 21:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and another thing. anytime you write something on WP, the burden of furnishing verifiable and credible sources to prove that you are not merely POV-pushing and that what you have written is verifiable fact, is upon you. it is not contingent on someone who disagrees with you to provide sources to prove the contrary!!

Red Tape

A full scale international airport was planned at Devanahalli, 30 kilometers from Bangalore. The project, initially conceived in 1991, was repeatedly delayed due to red tape and tussles between the private companies involved and the Central and State Governments.

Red Tape. what red tape?? can you prove that it was Red Tape that delayed the project. AFAIK, the delay if any was due to the fact that the concerned parties had some dispute(details of the dispute is beyond the scope of this talk page and even the article) the resolution of which took time. everytime there is a dispute/litigation/delay in a public infrastructure project doesnt mean it is 'Red Tape'!!