Talk:Kancha Ilaiah: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 09:20, 26 August 2006 editIkonoblast (talk \| contribs)3,014 editsm rv,Talk page is not meant for these reasearch works,Find some other media to air your opinions← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 13:20, 15 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,305,318 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Stub" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject India}}, {{WikiProject Buddhism}}, {{WikiProject Philosophy}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(290 intermediate revisions by 58 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	'''Bold text'''All the links seem to be anti-Hindu.
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|blp=yes\|class=Stub\|listas=Ilaiah, Kancha\|1=
	<br>(The above unsigned comments are from ]).<br>] 09:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Biography\|a&e-work-group=yes\|a&e-priority=low}}
	:Yes The person is against hindu philosophy and cast system.] 09:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject India\|importance=low\|andhra=yes\|andhra-importance=low\|assess-date=April 2012\|literature=yes\|literature-importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Buddhism\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Philosophy\|philosopher=yes\|contemporary=yes\|eastern=yes\|social=yes\|importance=low\|religion=yes}}
			}}
			{{Image requested\|philosophers}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 2
			\|minthreadsleft = 3
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|algo = old(30d)
			\|archive = Talk:Kancha Ilaiah/Archive %(counter)d
			}}

			== His activities to create communilism ==

			Currently he actively writing articles to create commulism between different sects. He is Christian but always he writes about Hindu's and how to create differences between sects in Hindu's. Any one who attacks caste system is anti national and definitely bad. Caste system so good as it keeps the top at the top and bottom at the bottom!

			== religion ==

			how is there no description about the religious affinity of the above mentioned person. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			==BIAS and UNDUE article lede==
			{{anchor \| Bias }}

			Misplaced Pages policies are clear. Edits and article must be ] and ] the "valid" criticism but brushing it away or buying it down below the depth of article. This applies even for the ] articles. This article's lede did not include the summary of criticism, which creates ] imbalance and attempting to preserve this imbalance by reverting without adding the summary of criticism is both ] pushing as well as ] pattern of being "uncollaborative"/"non-cooperative" because wikipedia's core principal is "collaborative and iterative enhancements".

			To address the BIAS in the article, I took the pre-existing content from criticism section in the article, summarised the "important" points which were earlier missing from the lede. I did not introduce any new source. Summarising the existing content with pre-existing sources in the article is no synthesis, it removes the ] imbalance that article had by not showing all key points in the lede. Any attempts to revert edits, which remove this UNDUE BALANCE and BIAS is ] pushing. If the point is that criticism should be attributed and not generalised, I will agree if the criticism is from a one specific individual. In Kancha's case, his numerous colleagues from his own university have criticised him.The same criticism by several people is sufficient to be used as a "generalised" statement and hence does not need to be attributed specifically. Having said that, I still used the attribution while reinstating my reverted edits.

			If you have any concerns, do a direct revision of my edits. But ensure, you do NOT NEUTRALISE the VALID CRITICISM even in the BLP. Instead ensure that you are being ITERATIVELY COLLABORATIVE and your further edit (if you chose to paraphrase my edit) is UNBIASED and not pushing political POV (e.g. portraying a controversial figure in a different light by hidign away that criticism from the lede). ] (]) 06:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

			:Hello, IP. The cited sources should directly support the statement avoid ]. Re , it is added that {{tq\|"He is known for his several controversial views and theories, some of which could inflame sectarian discontent or prejudice."}} But the does not directly support such claim. {{tq\|His critics have called him a traitor because his writings were "intended to divide society"}} is added but only , not "critics". ] summarizes what's already given in the body, hence, if you'd like to add that several people criticized him for so and so, the please find a source which says "several people criticized him for so and so" and add it both lead and the body. Regards -- ] (]) 07:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

			Hi {{u\|Ab207}}, I am currently re-editing the article. I will factor in your opinion while reinstating my edits with further modifications. This is my first time to edit this article. I also noticed there are several pre-existing statements in the article which are not directly supported by the source, i.e. they violate the argument you have put forth above. Many are the poor and unacceptable sources, e.g. claims from his own interviews/claims had bene presented in the article as the definitive and as generalised/generally accepted view of others about him. If you have been watching the article, then why have you allowed those edits to be inserted or be retained in the article. Selectively applying the policies is POV pushing, and if such pattern is replicated across several articles then it becomes ] the system. At this stage I am not implying or alleging this is what you have been doing because I have not reviewed your editing pattern across articles. But if you are watching the article, then it is your responsibility that you consistently apply the same set of policies to the pre-existing text and new edits, and not be selective/subjective because then it becomes "preserving the POV" intentionally or unintentionally. Since I have specifically drawn your attention to his, please be careful about it on this article and other related articles. Thank you. ] (]) 08:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
			:Let's be clear that presence of poorly sourced information is not excuse to add more such information, hence my revert. Also, there are nearly 3,000 pages in my watchlist and its impossible for anyone to keep track of every statement present in those articles. But I can assure you that I'd be wary of additions to the lead and the infobox particularly in the BLPs.-- ] (]) 09:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
			::I don't agree with 58.182.176.169 because you are adding some critical statements said against him by people on social media with less reliable sources. Your only aim is to defame him and BLP policy violation. ] (]) 10:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:20, 15 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kancha Ilaiah article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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 Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

India: Andhra Pradesh / Literature Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Andhra Pradesh (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian literature workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article was last assessed in April 2012.

Buddhism Low‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Social and political / Religion / Eastern / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Social and political philosophy
	Philosophy of religion
	Eastern philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

It is requested that an image or photograph of Kancha Ilaiah be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

His activities to create communilism

Currently he actively writing articles to create commulism between different sects. He is Christian but always he writes about Hindu's and how to create differences between sects in Hindu's. Any one who attacks caste system is anti national and definitely bad. Caste system so good as it keeps the top at the top and bottom at the bottom!

religion

how is there no description about the religious affinity of the above mentioned person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.186.185.58 (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

BIAS and UNDUE article lede

Misplaced Pages policies are clear. Edits and article must be UNBIASED and not "netralise" the "valid" criticism but brushing it away or buying it down below the depth of article. This applies even for the WP:BLP articles. This article's lede did not include the summary of criticism, which creates WP:UNDUE imbalance and attempting to preserve this imbalance by reverting without adding the summary of criticism is both WP:POV pushing as well as ] pattern of being "uncollaborative"/"non-cooperative" because wikipedia's core principal is "collaborative and iterative enhancements".

To address the BIAS in the article, I took the pre-existing content from criticism section in the article, summarised the "important" points which were earlier missing from the lede. I did not introduce any new source. Summarising the existing content with pre-existing sources in the article is no synthesis, it removes the WP:UNDUE imbalance that article had by not showing all key points in the lede. Any attempts to revert edits, which remove this UNDUE BALANCE and BIAS is WP:POV pushing. If the point is that criticism should be attributed and not generalised, I will agree if the criticism is from a one specific individual. In Kancha's case, his numerous colleagues from his own university have criticised him.The same criticism by several people is sufficient to be used as a "generalised" statement and hence does not need to be attributed specifically. Having said that, I still used the attribution while reinstating my reverted edits.

If you have any concerns, do a direct revision of my edits. But ensure, you do NOT NEUTRALISE the VALID CRITICISM even in the BLP. Instead ensure that you are being ITERATIVELY COLLABORATIVE and your further edit (if you chose to paraphrase my edit) is UNBIASED and not pushing political POV (e.g. portraying a controversial figure in a different light by hidign away that criticism from the lede). 58.182.176.169 (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP. The cited sources should directly support the statement avoid WP:SYNTH. Re this edit, it is added that "He is known for his several controversial views and theories, some of which could inflame sectarian discontent or prejudice." But the cited source does not directly support such claim. His critics have called him a traitor because his writings were "intended to divide society" is added but only TG Venkatesh called him as such, not "critics". MOS:LEAD summarizes what's already given in the body, hence, if you'd like to add that several people criticized him for so and so, the please find a source which says "several people criticized him for so and so" and add it both lead and the body. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ab207, I am currently re-editing the article. I will factor in your opinion while reinstating my edits with further modifications. This is my first time to edit this article. I also noticed there are several pre-existing statements in the article which are not directly supported by the source, i.e. they violate the argument you have put forth above. Many are the poor and unacceptable sources, e.g. claims from his own interviews/claims had bene presented in the article as the definitive and as generalised/generally accepted view of others about him. If you have been watching the article, then why have you allowed those edits to be inserted or be retained in the article. Selectively applying the policies is POV pushing, and if such pattern is replicated across several articles then it becomes WP:GAMING the system. At this stage I am not implying or alleging this is what you have been doing because I have not reviewed your editing pattern across articles. But if you are watching the article, then it is your responsibility that you consistently apply the same set of policies to the pre-existing text and new edits, and not be selective/subjective because then it becomes "preserving the POV" intentionally or unintentionally. Since I have specifically drawn your attention to his, please be careful about it on this article and other related articles. Thank you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's be clear that presence of poorly sourced information is not excuse to add more such information, hence my revert. Also, there are nearly 3,000 pages in my watchlist and its impossible for anyone to keep track of every statement present in those articles. But I can assure you that I'd be wary of additions to the lead and the infobox particularly in the BLPs.-- Ab207 (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with 58.182.176.169 because you are adding some critical statements said against him by people on social media with less reliable sources. Your only aim is to defame him and BLP policy violation. 103.146.203.35 (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Categories: