Talk:Romila Thapar/Archive 2

About this edit

• Removed the sentence 'fanatical right wing' - that pretty POV in discribing BJP
• There's no need to mention Arun Shourie's political affiliation; this is not an article about him.
• Removed word 'eminent', its more or less a weasel word here.

I'm not sure what to do about the Koenraad Elst reference thats been deleted?... --hydkat 16:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

explain revertion

i've reverted some changes - i've moved the Padma Bhushan text to the section on awards and recognition in which it belongs. large "criticism" and "Controversies" sections covering distinct topics are not a good idea, see Wikipedia:Criticism. i've removed a paragraph of unsourced criticism by "people who are right of center", because it is unsourced. i've also removed a statement about Arun Shourie's criticism.

Arun Shourie, while notable is not a historian. further, this book appears to have been self-published[1]. the use of a self-published source by a non-historian to criticise the work of a professional historian should ring a few WP:BLP bells. in addition, i've earlier requested quotes to substantiate that Shourie makes the claims attributed to him. no response has been forthcoming[2]. given all of this, let me point to what i said about another article. Doldrums 21:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Arun Shourie's book is not self published. It has been in public domain for a long time. Why is Arun Shourie's criticism not acceptable while advocacy journalism by Praful Bidwai acceptable?

answers:

1. if you read the comment above, u'll find a source (one sympathetic to Shourie, at that) which says the book is self-published.
2. (see public domain.) i take it you mean the book has been published for a long time. that does not absolve WP of its responsibility towards BLPs.
3. coz Bidwai managed to get his comments published in a WP:RS, the text in the article is fully supported by the source whereas a request to quote the text in Shourie's book supporting the text being added to the article has gone unheeded. and Bidwai's comments is not a fringe view which defames the subject of this biography.

i will now revert the article to a state where BLP concerns have been taken care of. you are free to discuss changes you wish to make here, and figure out a way to add the content you wish to add without violating Wikipedia's policies. you are also free to ask for a third opinion on the matter. Doldrums 15:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Whether or not Praful Bidwai's view is a "fringe view" is a matter of subjective opinion. I do not share your view that his view is not fringe. In fact, his comments amount to advocacy journalism which has not place in BLP.

2. Arun Shourie has been active in public domain which means his work has been subjected to a lot of scrutiny. His publications far outnumber that of Praful Bidwai.

2. The source says Arun Shourie "despite his huge readership, had to self-publish his books" Never said that the referred book is self published.

i will now revert to a state where advocacy journalism(it violates wikipedia policies) is removed and reliable sources has been added.Outlookeditor 16:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "advocacy journalism" is a content dispute, but using self-published sources is a violation of WP:BLP. BLP reversions can happen innumerable times. Content dispute reversions cannot.

Second, Bidwai's article in the Hindu is one of the only works in a reliable source - a major newspaper - on the subject of the petition. (The only other RS on the subject, the TOI article, is even harsher on the petitioneers.) Thapar's work, on the other hand, has been reviewed and surveyed by many hundreds of people more qualified to evaluate her historical judgment than Shourie, an economist turned journalist turned politician. Do you see why one is acceptable and the other is not? Hornplease 17:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted Outlookeditor's recent reversion, that deleted sourced content attributed to Outlook and two Rediff articles and added POV language. He has also violted the three revert rule in spite of being warned before and I think it is time to file a report at WP:AN3 Abecedare 09:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going to edit this article again at next available opportunity.

1. Other editors such as Doldrums have performed reversions to all my edits. I am not going to be scared off by your threat of reporting if you are not going to take an even handed approach.

2. The fact that advocacy journalism by Praful Bidwai is a part of the article shows the bias of the editors. He has commented on the petition not on Thapar. If the petition has to be mentioned a link to the actual petition and a link to the original letter written against it is enough.

3. There is no proof that Arun Shourie's book is self published. It just seems like an imagination of the editors. Outlookeditor 15:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

To take your points one by one, (1) Have you read WP:3RR yet? or WP:Sock? (2) The petition on Thapar was news. If you wish to not have Praful Bidwai describe it, we can go to the Times of India article, which is somewhat harsher in language. We are restricted to WP:RS, which is another guideline you should perhaps read. (3) The link above seems to suggest that Shourie's book was self-published. Even if not, the book has only been cited once in the scholarly literature, and in dismissive terms. That is indicative of the fact that it is a marginal analysis of this academic's work, not worthy of inclusion here. Hornplease 15:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I have read both. If my edits are reverted thrice, does it amount to WP:3RR or not? Or are you going to be selective? 2. The petitition was news. Correct. Just report the news. The petition is available on the net and has been linked too. No need to take sides by quoting an editorial and/or an advocacy journalism. 3. You are yourself not sure if Shourie's book is self-published or not. Why the hurry to take it off then? 4. Do not make POV judgements by dismissing the book. The book has been widely read and reviewed.

I am hampered since you and your brethren are vandalizing this page. Will come back though :) Outlookeditor 16:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have filed an ANI report regarding Outlookeditor and his socks activities. Abecedare 17:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

now on BLP noticeboard

reported. Doldrums 17:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Marxist historian"

two of the sources provided do not appear to support the statement, it is not clear from the other sources (Wallia-IndiaStar, Goel-VOI, Namboodiripad-Marxist, all non-academic sources) whether they mean "Marxist historian" (which is what they write) or "marxist" or "marxian" historian. a more reliable source for some marxist/ian work is [3], but that does not support such a exclusive and prominent mention in the lead. an academic reference (another book review, perhaps?) would be better, obviously.

this labelling as "Marxist" is considered by Thapar[4] as a form of partisan discourse and shld be handled as a pov if other academic or neutral sources cannot be found.Doldrums 09:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

How can that source ( THE MARXIST) be called dubious ?? Surely being called a "marxist" is not defamatory? or is it? -Bharatveer 09:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The Marxist may be a reliable source for saying Namboodiripad considers Thapar as a Marxist historian, but not necessarily for saying she is one, especially to the exclusion of all other labels. we don't have a reliable source that Thapar self-identifies as Marxist (unlike Habib or to use the canonical example, Hobsbawm). we have non-specialists labelling her as "Marxist" in less than peer reviewed sources. what we would like is the label sourced to a professional historian or a well-reviewed publication, preferably one which makes it clear which of the Marxist/marxist alternative it is supporting. the best i am able to find is Sanjay Subramanyam suggesting that some of her work uses Marxist analysis, which does not equal "Marxist historian". Doldrums 10:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed "Marxist" and the associated citations. This word is simply too ambiguous, and possibly defamatory considering the way "Marxist" is used in political discourse. Some analysis of Thapar's politics and historical method belongs in the body of the article, where it can be explained in more detail. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The word marxist belongs in the article. Notable journalists such as Arun Shourie have covered this. Another sample is from noted journalist and writer in The Pioneer, Sandhya Jain, who writes The famous Marxist ideologue, Ms Romila Thapar, is an 'expert' on ancient India with poor knowledge of Indian classical languages, including Sanskrit. Nobel Prize winener V. S. Naipaul noted Romila Thapar's book on Indian history is a Marxist attitude to history, which in substance says: there is a higher truth behind the invasions, feudalism and all that. The correct truth is the way the invaders looked at their actions. They were conquering, they were subjugating.. Characterizations of Thapar as a Marxist abound.Bakaman 18:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "Marxist" is highly ambiguous, and if you're interested in a fair characterization of Thapar's life and work, rather than a smear piece, you will explain in what sense she and/or her work is "Marxist" through text in the body of the article, rather than placing a politically charged word in the lead. Some of the quotes you've given above seem like notable evaluations of Tharpar's work, and might well belong in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

i've no problem with a description of her works which points out those which use Marxist analysis to a significant degree. The views of prominent non-specialists such as Naipul and Shourie can also be mentioned, perhaps in a Reception section. by themselves, they don't belong in the lead. what we don't have are sources attesting that she has Marxist political views or that most (or the most significant) of her work is Marxist historiography, which would merit a "Marxist historian" or "marxist historian" respectively, in the lead. Doldrums 19:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As Doldrums, pointed out above Thapar herself considers the label "Marxist" to be a piece of political rhetoric. She says, in part: "The label of Marxist has become a catchall for any kind of history that now is disapproved of by religious nationalism..." It seems quite clear that she does not identify as a Marxist, and that the sources who call her one are doing so for ideological reasons, rather than describing her historical techniques. It might be fair for the article to say that she's been called "Marxist", but it does not seem appropriate to include the label in the lead. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The political hate campaigns against Thapar and various other academics are discussed in Martha Nussbaum's new book The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India's Future, (2007) The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-02482-6. I have not found a clear citation on the Marxist label issue, however. Buddhipriya 07:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Political hate? Shourie is one of India's most acclaimed journalists, and nobel prize winner V. S. Naipaul needs no introduction. Sandhya Jain is also a very respected journalist, but not in the same ballpark as Shourie of course. A large number of respected public figures in India and the diaspora have criticized her, and this obviously merits a prominent note in the article. Its not like Sanjay B. Rsswala is the only person doing the criticizing.Bakaman 03:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My reference to political hate campaigns had to do with incidents described in Nussbaum's book, and were not meant to refer to Sandhya Jain or any other figure mentioned in this thread. I did find a citation regarding the Marxist issue specifically. On pp. 229-230 Nussbaum says: "Thapar is repeatedly attacked as a 'Marxist' and 'Marxian historian,' both in public polemics and in personal insults of tremendous aggressiveness.... (Various details of incidents omitted)... But in fact Thapar is neither a Communist nor a Marxian historian. Her views are those of a liberal egalitarian humanist. The petition was a cheap type of red-baiting playing to American fear." This is a reference to the campaign mounted against her when she was named to the prestigious Kluge Chair at the Library of Congress. I think this citation should go into the article as it is specific to the Marxist charges. Buddhipriya 01:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Its not that she is just criticised for being a Marxist. Eminent Indian Marxits are proud of her development of application of Marxist thought in the field of Indian history and philosophy. --nids(♂) 03:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

the Namboodiripad bit, as currently written, is not supported by its source[5]. All he's saying is that Thapar is one of a "host of historians" who followed in the wake of Kosambi and Chattopadhyaya and that he's read her book, hardly an acclamation of "Thapar's role in the development of application of Marxist thought in the field of Indian history and philosophy." Doldrums 05:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Namboodiripad , who is considered as one of India's most influential marxist thinker can never be considered as a "bit" someone. She is amongst the four named important historians by him .This in itself is a great appreciation that should never be excluded from her biography. -Bharatveer 12:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

even assuming that every mention of a name by Namboodiripad merits a mention in an encyclopaedia, in this case he hasn't actually said what the text you added says he did. Doldrums 14:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Aside from that, it's clear that Thapar does not consider herself a Marxist, and has said that the labeling of Indian scholars as Marxists is akin to McCarthyism. Any criticism of her as a "Marxist" has to be carefully explained, since she has made it clear that she thinks the label is politically charged. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparing this to mccarthyism is quite dishonest. India does not have a communist enemy and in any case, the Cold War ended 17 years ago. The terms terrorist, extremist, Hindutva, and fundamentalist are also "politically charged terms" and are used without abandon on wiki. Prominent figures attract controversy and criticism. Of course, if Thapar is special or there is a certain reason to protect her feelings on wiki, we can always exaggerate characterizations of her in mainstream media and dub it McCarthyism.Bakaman 06:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I really have no idea what you're alleging with the wikilinks to Pseudo-secular and WP:COI. Why don't you try spelling things out, rather than making obscure allegations? As for McCarthyism, it's something that Thapar herself says: "Running through the critiques like a chorus is the familiar accusation that the liberal historians are communists and an appeal is made to the ghost of McCarthy to rescue Indian history." This really shouldn't be that hard to understand: if someone doesn't identify as a Marxist, they shouldn't be called one in the lead of an article, and any criticism saying that they are a Marxist has to be carefully contextualized. The same goes for any ideologically charged label, such as the ones that you've listed. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

V. S. Naipaul and Bidwai

Bidwai is quoted discussing the political imboglio, on which he is a quotable, encyclopaedic source. Naipaul is quoted analysing Thapar's work as a historian, on which he is not a quotable source, Nobel Prize in literature or not. Hornplease 20:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, Bidwai is a non-entity in comparison to Naipaul. Naipaul is very much a quotable source on subjects related to Indian history. His work India a Million Mutinies Now, among others, is interlaced with scholarly material about Indian history. There was no "political imboglio" about the petition opposing Thapar's appointment; it was related to her being biased in a certain manner. It was all about her historical point of view and had nothing to do with any politics. Naipaul's views should be included to give a balanced article. Outlookeditor 21:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Naipaul's travelogue, which is interlaced with pop-historical digressions, does not serve to indicate that he is a reliable source. WP:RS distincly indicates that notable individuals being quoted on subjects other than the source of their notability is not appropriate.

Bidwai discusses the individuals opposed to the granting of the chair to Thapar. That has nothing to do with her historical perspective, merely with the reasons behind political objections to her award. On such matters, Bidwai is notable and quotable. Hornplease 22:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice that a new single-purpose account has joined the discussion: [6]. I tend to agree that Naipaul's opinions are not authoritative with regard to the subject of history. Regarding the coordinated political attacks on Thapar, I previously mentioned that they are documented in Martha Nussbaum's new book The Clash Within (2007) where she is discussed as a sort of case study of political targeting. Buddhipriya 21:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate, and typical, that you have chosen to "politically target" the editor instead of responding to the points being made.Outlookeditor 23:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your concerns have already been addressed above. I trust you are now satisfied. Hornplease 23:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If an article has to be neutral and factual, there is no room for someone's opinions about the object in question. Without exception, the opinion introduces a bias. I would just like to point out that all the opinions that have been quoted in the article advance the same stream of ideology. I find it rather absurd that certain editors have used a minnow like Bidwai to score the brownie points that they want to score while editing out someone of the credibility of Naipaul. Nevertheless, since folks out here are known for ganging up I would leave it at that for now.Outlookeditor 04:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The petition: how significant?

I'm engaged in examining links to petition websites in Wikipedia articles. My reasons for this are described in detail here so I won't repeat that. Broadly speaking, I'm against use of petition links if there isn't some independent evidence suggesting that they're of significance. It's just too easy to make an internet petition, fake some signatures from internet cafes, and then put a link to it onto Wikipedia. It can be seen as a kind of astroturfing. But at the same time it wouldn't do to remove all links to petition sites. They have to be examined on a case-by-case basis.

The reporting of the petition in this article is very different from such reporting in other articles, and this is why I am in two minds as to whether reference to the petition is merited.

On the "plus" side we have apparently independent references to the petition:

• Here where the petition is mentioned in the US edition of rediff.com
• Here where in a rediff column the political pundit Praful Bidwai condemns the petition as the work of ignorant people, "most of them NRIs."
• Here in an editorial or analysis page Himal magazine, published by The Southasia Trust, also denounces the petition.

This does make it seem as if the petition was considered to be significance, so I'll leave it for now, but I would welcome further opinions, whether pro- or con-. --Tony Sidaway 13:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Namboodiripad on Thapar

what is Thapar's "pioneering role in the development of application of Marxist thought in the field of Indian philosophy"? Indian philosophy? where does EMS characterise Thapar's work as such? not Kosambi's, not Chattopadhyaya's, but Thapar's work? are "host"s who follow pioneers also pioneers? Doldrums 16:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand you have a quarrel with the word pioneer. I am reverting the article without the word pioneer. Outlookeditor 20:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks. that's one out of three. Doldrums 09:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Try to read that article in full. She is given her full due in 7th paragraph.-Bharatveer 13:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

in the 7th paragraph, he says he has learnt Indian history from "Marxist Scholars beginning with Kosambi, Romila Thapar, R S Sharma and others." you think that means Thapar had a "pioneering role in the development of application of Marxist thought in the field of Indian philosophy"? Doldrums 13:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed the line as per your suggestion.-Bharatveer 07:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is the fact that EMS has read Thapar's Indian history worth mentioning in Thapar's biography? Thapar's works have been standard texts for decades now, and anyone who's read Indian history would've little choice but to do the same. especially when EMS himself has nothing whatsoever to say about Thapar's work (compare with his remarks on Debiprasad, for instance). Doldrums 08:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It is very notable to include the EMS's acknowledgement of thapar being a "marxist" Scholar. This cannot be excluded from this biography as this does not violate any BLP policy in WP.-Bharatveer 09:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Bharatveer 09:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you suggest? I think it is worth a mention that EMS has mentioned Thapar as a Marxist scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outlookeditor (talk • contribs) 06:02, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Bharatveer missed the part of EMS' essay where he says "I am not an academic scholar but a political activist." Is this really someone who we think is going to give an accurate characterization of Thapar's work, especially when she doesn't seem to regard herself as a Marxist? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

For general information

I give a link to my page for general information: For information, please --Bhadani (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As Bhadani has said, I stand available for further clarification.Hornplease 04:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Debate

I have inserted the "neutrality dispute' sign 4 times only to find it reverted without fail. Is this again a part of your policies? Ankush135 15:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

if you believe that some views have not been represented in the article, pls bring to the table reliable sources for such views. i've previously pointed out the problem with Arun Shourie's book, which you did bring up -

1. we need actual quotes from the book to figure out what exactly Shourie has to say about Thapar.
2. we need to figure out how much significance ("weight") we should give to Shourie, given his standing as a non-historian, and the lack of professional historians buying his arguments.
3. if Shourie's views deserve a mention, what is the context in which it is discussed - as Shourie criticising Thapar? or Shourie and friends (what are they called?) disagreeing with mainstream historians? ("mainstream" unless you can find pros who contest Thapar's work.) if the latter, in what detail should it be covered here as opposed to under the Shourie (and friends') articles.

Doldrums 17:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Doldrums, possible that in your endeavour to teach the rulebook you have missed grasping some essence of that. When I put a statement, say, 'Right wing thinkers have often claimed that Romila has taken a very blinkered view of Indian history', in this case, I need to provide a reliable source on the accusation coming forth, and NOT on the merit or otherwise of the accusations. That Romila is among the most respected or despised Indian historian, depending on the view you take, is certainly not a point in dispute

Coming to your logic, Shourie & friends (??) don't have the professional competence to judge Thapar, but your actions convey that you consider yourself professionally and intellectually qualified to pass muster on work of 'non-mainstream' 'historians' or otherwise and solemnly decide that they are unreliable sources.

Sir, the question is not whether Thapar is correct in her approach or Shourie, KS Lal, S R Goel or JS Rajput are correct in denouncing her. The question is shouldn't the fact that Thapar has courted enormous criticism from Indian right-wing intellectuals on account of her 'professional views find a mention in her page?

Coming to reliable sources, your topic heading 'Views on revisionist historiography' in itself is violative of all neutrality clauses. Even in the subject, Thapar's comments have been presented without question and of course, the words of the 'very eminent' & very reliable source, Mr Bidwai, find a pride of place.

Again, the online petition is there. Any logical query would be...why was this petition filed? Of course, Vishal Agarwal is a very non-reliable source, so his allegations cannot be quoted but the effect and the spirited defence of a fellow Marxist find a place

The point again, you or me are not the authority to judge Thapar or her criticism. However, a biopic should include a mention of the controversies which a person faces and contrary to your assertion, there is no mention of any of the allegations which Thapar routinely faces. Ankush135 21:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

does all this mean you have a source, and can tell us what it says? Doldrums 21:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you are more intelligent than you sound. Ref para 1, 3 & 6 again Ankush135 21:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no reliable sources listed there. Do you have an additional reliable source on Indian politics that can be quoted as to why these objections are raised to Thapar? You cannot quote the objections themselves if raised by non-RSes. Hornplease 21:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it Romila herself?

Who was the person who deleted the references to controversies sorrounding Romila, an entry I made a couple of days back on issues like her lack of knowledge of Sanskrit and her acting as an expert on areas outside her pale of knowledge? She herself or some stooge of hers? It is so much like the Marxist cads, they cannot digest an iota of finger pointing on them. In response, I am erasing the data on the pimma donna of Marxism

My belief in Romila/her cronies 'moderating' this page stands vindicated as since this evening, I have altered the text of the same quite a few times only to find it getting reverted to original within a few minutes

A person of any mettle would have felt at least some shame in cleaning his/her own page, something which is not for personal promotion. However, it would be too much to expect that even the odour of shame hangs on this lot.

Shame!Shame!Shame!Shame!Shame!Shame!Shame!Shame!Shame!Shame!Shame!Shame! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.25.162 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Please read WP:BLP before re-adding irrelvant material. Hornplease 17:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease, please research a bit about Romila and also go through the postings which were made. It was only a small entry on accusations against her, not accusations by me, but a chronicle of accusations levelled by academicians. And does this entry on Romila really qualify as a NPV article? It paints her as an upright person with a righeous view point and any attempt to balance is out is erased. Is it the quality you are talking of. 'Irrelevant' is a usage you should be more careful about Ankush135 17:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

all content added must be fully sourced. the burden of finding appropriate sources lies with the person adding the content.

a physicist turned politician, a journalist turned politician and a [whatever the third critic is] are not not "academicians" whose judgement on Thapar's professional work is to be uncritically reported, emphasised or endorsed on WP. can you find a professional historian who endorses these views? if no such historian is found, what weight do you think these people merit in Thapar's bio? and why should it be reported as "criticism of Thapar" as opposed to the inability of these people to accept mainstream professional historiography? Doldrums 17:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'mainstream' historian? Is history is fiefdom of those who utter established discredited theories? Research and study a bit about Sita Ram Goel before disdainfully dismissing him as 'whatever'

And if you are so hung-up about academicians only, pray justify the presence of Praful Bidwai's comments in her support, someone who is neither a historian, nor an academician, only a mere ideologue.

Secondly, Thapar is not an academician, she is heavily into promoting her brand of historical interpretation. So, for her, comments from academician turned politicians are perfectly justified.

Third, to sate your thirst for a blue-blooded historian, soon will I post enough links in support of my contention.

My intention is not to condemn Thapar at all. At the same time, I protest missionary zeal of unjustified censorship under the pretext of adhering to protocols, more so, from people who seem to have little ides of the context of the criticism and the standing of Thapar and critics themselves Ankush135 08:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason for Bidwai's quotability is given elsewhere on this page: he is remarking on her political notoriety, on which he is a reliable source. He would not be a source on her method. Hornplease 17:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean the polemics behind Bidwai's acceptability on this page? Although not expecting even an iota of objectivity from you, cannot resist commenting that my insert was on her proclivity of furthering her ideology. And Joshi, Shourie et al are quite reliable sources on that. Hornplease and Doldrum, which other biopic on any personality is free from a mention of controversies surrounding that person? A chronicle of person's life and achievements are not complete without a mention of the flak which he/she has received? Whether that was justified or not, leave that for posterity to decide.

However, a perusal of the discussion page has reconfirmed what I had felt, that your interests are more in promoting Thapar as a benign Goddess who is under constant attack for protecting Dharma rather than any desire to adhere to the norms of posting on Wikipedia

One last question? What are your credentials? Who has given authority to you all to decide who is an eminent and reliable source and who is simply a 'somebody/nobody'? What is your knowledge of history and how many historians you have studied? Then again, it is perhaps a question not begging an answer. The zealous protectors of this page are only furthering the glorious tradition of the cabal of 'eminent' historians, i.e. any contra-opinion, any attempt at questioning the 'mainstream' any attempt to objectivise etc must be met with organic cries of revisionist, irrelevant, irreverent, blah, blah!!!

Keep up your worship of false gods--Ankush135 05:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

To take up only the points that seem relevant in the above cheerful paragraphs:

1. Joshi/Shourie are not reliable sources on her writing of history, as one is a physicist (with a thesis, I might add, that nobody but he can read, as it is in Hindi and he had to invent a few words) and the other is a journalist. They might be reliable sources on the controversy surrounding her historiography, but they are not sourced as such.
2. WP:NPOV, a core policy, means that notable controversies should certainly be mentioned, but WP:BLP restricts our writing of those to depend upon the most reliable of sources and in such a way that they do not overwhelm the article.

Our personal credentials, our motivations, and our fanatical and fundamentalist adherence to false gods are all, I believe, somewhat beside the point. Thank you! Hornplease 05:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Precisely the point. A dismissive attitude towards a scholar and a language, that too with pretensions of an expert and donning the garb of both the prosecution and the judiciary is simply a reflection on as you said, personal credentials, motivations, and fanatical and fundamentalist adherence to false gods are all, Sir, precisely the point now

Notable controversies..skipping mention of Romila's controversies is like a biopic of Savarkar without comments on his Hindutva and Indira Gandhi without comments on emergency. But anyways, besides the point, I guess --Ankush135 07:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to Thapar is given more percentage space as the Emergency is in Indira Gandhi, or Hindutva in Veer Savarkar. Hornplease 23:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

My sense of language must be pretty poor that I couldn't trace oppostion to Thapar nowhere except for a oneliner on her appointment, that too, without any light on the context and the grounds. Pathetic--Ankush135 04:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Percentages, I said above. Hornplease 06:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Insufficienct & dilatory explanation but since you talk in numbers, please provide the data on which you base on claim. Please don't forget to highlight which sentences/words you have construed as criticsim of Romila. For starters, recommend you visit the page of Wendy Doniger to see what NPOV is all about. Ankush135 13:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I wrote that section. Can you stop making remarks about my POV now? Hornplease 18:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Great!! Now the great custodians of Public Debate have removed the 'neutrality issue' tag which I had inserted. Really too much. Ankush135 13:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that edit was performed by a sockpuppet of a user who's been banned from editing Wikipedia. I must say, though, your tagging of User:Hornplease and User:Doldrums as sockpuppets doesn't say a whole lot for your good faith. The basic problem with your contention that the article is not neutral is that no one who's tried to insert material critical of Thapar has found a reliable source for the criticism. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus. Talking of good faith, I found myself tagged as a sockpuppet of some Bharatveer. It is your contention about reliable source which troubles me. A whole set of criticisms have been discarded on the pretext that the source is not reliable enough, while unrelated demagogues like Praful Bidwai find a prime place in this scheme of things. And moreover, my contention is that while we need not accuse her of something, not to throw light on the controversies she faces, is improper and unjustified. Ankush135 13:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable controversies have been mentioned. If the article expands, we will try and expand that section proportionately. How, I haven't the vaguest, since there is a paucity of reliable sources discussing it, as has been established already.Hornplease 18:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Established????Ankush135 21:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is are few enough reliable sources detailing the controversy surrounding her. Once again, quoting from her political critics about her historiography is a violation of our rules on the reliability of sources; quoting an expert on politics about the political objections to her work is permissibly. There are not that many of such experts on politics who have chosen to discuss this relatively minor problem. Hornplease 07:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3