This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
User:AmritasyaPutra, "Modi government" has 121 hits on Wikipedia and "Vajpayee government" has its own page! If you want to complain about the use of such terms, please take it to the WP:BLP Noticeboard. The term stays. Uday Reddy ( talk) 14:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link) - "It is yet another decision by the Narendra Modi government which has invited controversy." While I don't have any objection to the wording of the appointment being attributed to either the 'Modi government' or the 'NDA government', Vanamonde93 has a good point when they said- "The fact that a lesser version is also accurate is hardly a reason to exclude a more informative one". - @
Reddyuday and
Vanamonde93: - Regards,
NQ
talk
11:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)User:AmritasyaPutra, you apparently object to the use of "controversial". The very title of the TOI article "Right-wingers question ICHR chief selection", indicates controversy. So, there is nothing unusual. You also want to change "widely criticised" to "criticised by some". If you want to demonstrate weight, find some source that shows any right wingers that supported the appointment. Then we can talk about due weight. First of all, I want to be sure that you have read the articles that I have cited. Did you read them? Uday Reddy ( talk) 14:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The word "controversial" does not appear in the sources, does it? I don't see anything in any of the sources cited that indicate support for the appointment by the government. "Questionned" seems a much better term. Further, it is ridiculous to attribute a position to "left wing" or "right wing" as if that clarified anything other than the viewpoint of the writer making the attribution. If someone states their relevant position, we say who states it, when, and where. We certainly don't put such dismissive attribution in the voice of the encyclopedia. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The inline attribution to The Hindu is necessary for the publications claim because it is contradicted by Romila Thapar. The Hindu certainly doesn't have any expertise in judging academic publications. The list of publications available from Kakatiya University mentions only 13, and hardly any of these are in journals and pretty much none in international journals. Google Scholar shows no publications by the man whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddyuday ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Meatsgains:, I only now noticed your explanation of your removal of Thapar on BLPN; apologies. Responding here because that discussion has taken off in an altogether irrelevant direction. My reasoning was simply this; Rao's sole claim to notability, at this point, is his position as a historian. There is nothing else in his Bio that makes him notable. Most of this article is currently about that, even the non-critical bits. Ergo, if we failed to include criticisms of him as a historian, we'd be failing NPOV, IMO. "peer-reviewed journals" may seem a little strangely specific outside academia, but in academia it tends to be the only significant yardstick of performance, for better or for worse. If it currently seems out of context, I think we could try and fix that; but that criticism itself seems necessary to me. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 12:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Please refer to this and previous sections. This edit shows tendentious editing by Vanamonde93. -- AmritasyaPutra T 05:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Secular777:, you need to slow down a little bit. The information you add needs to be backed up by reliable, secondary sources. The website of the ICHR is of little use here. Additionally, you also deleted some material that was well sourced; unless we have contradictory information from much weightier sources, this should stay. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 07:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The whole article is weighing down heavily with criticism it lacks neutrality. The new section i added has been deleted with out even trying to contact me before doing so by kautilya3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secular777 ( talk • contribs)
The wording is wrong... You can say he is interested in Hindu religion but can't say he is a professor of history of Hinduism Secular777 ( talk) 12:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I am re-wording the sentence where it says, "[...] and would later serve as dean of the social sciences faculty.[7] I am presuming no one has contested that Secular777 ( talk) 21:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
AlwaysIndian ( talk) 01:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC) May I know why this page is not editable.
It is secondary, but it may or may not be reliable. News reports are only reliable for news, not for commentary. We also have to worry about WP:DUE weightage. As you know from the citations in the article, there is a lot more criticism from authentic historians that we could have included. We didn't, in the interest of WP:BALANCE.
On the other hand, a better use can be made of the the M. G. S. Narayanan's column. He is after all a former ICHR chairman and an authentic historian. For instance, this paragraph can be paraphrased appropriately:
"I take objection to Thapar's uncharitable remarks about the HRD minister. Academic qualifications cannot be taken as the index of merit in our society where the highest academic centres have been controlled and monopolised by the politicians of the ruling parties."
Despite all the bar room brawls in the Press, I could hardly find any interesting information about Rao's academic work, even though I tried hard. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
"unfortunately, our academic centres and publication agencies are mostly controlled by politicians belonging to the Left parties. They are often reluctant to recognise work of scholars outside their circle. Several selfstyled Marxist writers possess narrow sectarian views, claim infallibility and exhibit intolerance of views unacceptable to them"
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
80.229.235.11 ( talk) 23:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
This article on Prof. Rao needs to be updated Annapurna7 ( talk) 11:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
who can find the actual pieces of these two news? I seem to have lost my credential for DC-archives :-(
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
User:AmritasyaPutra, "Modi government" has 121 hits on Wikipedia and "Vajpayee government" has its own page! If you want to complain about the use of such terms, please take it to the WP:BLP Noticeboard. The term stays. Uday Reddy ( talk) 14:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link) - "It is yet another decision by the Narendra Modi government which has invited controversy." While I don't have any objection to the wording of the appointment being attributed to either the 'Modi government' or the 'NDA government', Vanamonde93 has a good point when they said- "The fact that a lesser version is also accurate is hardly a reason to exclude a more informative one". - @
Reddyuday and
Vanamonde93: - Regards,
NQ
talk
11:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)User:AmritasyaPutra, you apparently object to the use of "controversial". The very title of the TOI article "Right-wingers question ICHR chief selection", indicates controversy. So, there is nothing unusual. You also want to change "widely criticised" to "criticised by some". If you want to demonstrate weight, find some source that shows any right wingers that supported the appointment. Then we can talk about due weight. First of all, I want to be sure that you have read the articles that I have cited. Did you read them? Uday Reddy ( talk) 14:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The word "controversial" does not appear in the sources, does it? I don't see anything in any of the sources cited that indicate support for the appointment by the government. "Questionned" seems a much better term. Further, it is ridiculous to attribute a position to "left wing" or "right wing" as if that clarified anything other than the viewpoint of the writer making the attribution. If someone states their relevant position, we say who states it, when, and where. We certainly don't put such dismissive attribution in the voice of the encyclopedia. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The inline attribution to The Hindu is necessary for the publications claim because it is contradicted by Romila Thapar. The Hindu certainly doesn't have any expertise in judging academic publications. The list of publications available from Kakatiya University mentions only 13, and hardly any of these are in journals and pretty much none in international journals. Google Scholar shows no publications by the man whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddyuday ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Meatsgains:, I only now noticed your explanation of your removal of Thapar on BLPN; apologies. Responding here because that discussion has taken off in an altogether irrelevant direction. My reasoning was simply this; Rao's sole claim to notability, at this point, is his position as a historian. There is nothing else in his Bio that makes him notable. Most of this article is currently about that, even the non-critical bits. Ergo, if we failed to include criticisms of him as a historian, we'd be failing NPOV, IMO. "peer-reviewed journals" may seem a little strangely specific outside academia, but in academia it tends to be the only significant yardstick of performance, for better or for worse. If it currently seems out of context, I think we could try and fix that; but that criticism itself seems necessary to me. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 12:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Please refer to this and previous sections. This edit shows tendentious editing by Vanamonde93. -- AmritasyaPutra T 05:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Secular777:, you need to slow down a little bit. The information you add needs to be backed up by reliable, secondary sources. The website of the ICHR is of little use here. Additionally, you also deleted some material that was well sourced; unless we have contradictory information from much weightier sources, this should stay. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 07:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The whole article is weighing down heavily with criticism it lacks neutrality. The new section i added has been deleted with out even trying to contact me before doing so by kautilya3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secular777 ( talk • contribs)
The wording is wrong... You can say he is interested in Hindu religion but can't say he is a professor of history of Hinduism Secular777 ( talk) 12:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I am re-wording the sentence where it says, "[...] and would later serve as dean of the social sciences faculty.[7] I am presuming no one has contested that Secular777 ( talk) 21:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
AlwaysIndian ( talk) 01:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC) May I know why this page is not editable.
It is secondary, but it may or may not be reliable. News reports are only reliable for news, not for commentary. We also have to worry about WP:DUE weightage. As you know from the citations in the article, there is a lot more criticism from authentic historians that we could have included. We didn't, in the interest of WP:BALANCE.
On the other hand, a better use can be made of the the M. G. S. Narayanan's column. He is after all a former ICHR chairman and an authentic historian. For instance, this paragraph can be paraphrased appropriately:
"I take objection to Thapar's uncharitable remarks about the HRD minister. Academic qualifications cannot be taken as the index of merit in our society where the highest academic centres have been controlled and monopolised by the politicians of the ruling parties."
Despite all the bar room brawls in the Press, I could hardly find any interesting information about Rao's academic work, even though I tried hard. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
"unfortunately, our academic centres and publication agencies are mostly controlled by politicians belonging to the Left parties. They are often reluctant to recognise work of scholars outside their circle. Several selfstyled Marxist writers possess narrow sectarian views, claim infallibility and exhibit intolerance of views unacceptable to them"
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
80.229.235.11 ( talk) 23:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
This article on Prof. Rao needs to be updated Annapurna7 ( talk) 11:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
who can find the actual pieces of these two news? I seem to have lost my credential for DC-archives :-(