Talk:Sepia Mutiny

This article was nominated for deletion on May 3, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Untitled[edit]

Are weblogs encyclopedia material? --Wetman 06:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not unless their notability can be established. Some are, but most aren't. Rick K 07:12, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

This one certainly is not. A deletion should be considered. Padishah5000 21:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree fully. Sepia Mutiny has provided a forum for Indian-American unity and has become an icon among 20-something Indian-Americans over the last few years. While you may disagree with the content of the site, to ignore the fact that it has become a focal point for thousands of young Indian-Americans caught between two rapidly changing cultures would be contrary to the basic philosophy of Wikipedia. I am not involved in Sepia Mutiny as an editor or contributor, but the site is being discussed across America in the newly born community of Indian-Americans as we try to acknowledge our roots while still being aware of their limitations. Similar to recent cultural icons like Punjabi MC and Russell Peters, I cannot over-emphasize the impact the site has had on our community. I will Wikify the article in the meantime however as I do agree that its current format needs work. Chantoke 03:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our website has been cited or our bloggers interviewed by the BBC, MSNBC, Salon, Newsweek, Slate, ABC and 100s of other blogs. If that isn't relevant for a Wikipedia readership then I don't know what is.

I tried updating the format some. I think it's heading in a good direction. Really think some discussion should occur before such an important part of the internet community is disregarded as not being 'notable'. I went ahead and removed the deletion subheading--if there any issues with this feel free to contact me. Would love to hear your thoughts. Otherwise will continue to improve the piece. Chantoke 04:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the names of a few bloggers, there is no real information confirming their names. --Desinole 20:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Identity[edit]

The part about the race of the bloggers is incomplete, two of the four bloggers are not regulars and I am not sure it adds any value to the information. 20:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)--Desinole

I am not so sure about the new updates on the 20th. A lot of it seems like unnecessary information. For example the Racial identity section could fall under social context. The entire post now looks like a lesson in South Asian history combined with information about the blog, I suggest that we go back to the 4th September edit. Everything after that seems to be adding fluff.--Desinole 20:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna is a very prominent blogger. Are you talking about Ennis or Taz when you refer to bloggers without prominance? It is not a lesson in South Asian history. It describes the way the bloggers identify their own race. Why do you feel that the section should be removed when it is cited?----^DarkTea © 02:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you have not identified the race of all bloggers. I am not sure on what the Abrahamic faith has to do with race. And finally, I do know that Anna is prominent, but Taz and Vinodh are not regulars on SM. So I am not sure it adds any value to the information.--Desinole 03:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "you have not identified the race of all bloggers" sounds like a perfect solution fallacy. When more information becomes available about the racial identity of the other bloggers, then we will add the information. You appear to lack a consistent stance on the direction you want for the section. First, you highlight that all of the bloggers do not have their race represented, presumeably as a problem, then you complain that some of the less prominant bloggers listed do not add to the article. You criticize both too much and too little in the same analysis, so which is it? You can remove the tidbit of the Abrahamic faith if you want.----^DarkTea © 03:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sepia Mutiny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070410011000/http://www.asata.org/issue/hateviolence/content to http://www.asata.org/issue/hateviolence/content

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]