Misplaced Pages

Talk:Koenraad Elst: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:18, 1 February 2021 editWalrus Ji (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,291 edits →Right wing author: Replying to LearnIndology (using reply-link)← Previous edit Revision as of 15:14, 1 February 2021 edit undoJoshua Jonathan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers107,123 edits →Right wing author: rNext edit →
Line 117: Line 117:
: The article discusses that repetitiously, It is best to avoid heavy words like ''right winger'' and ''Hindutva author''. We have done that on ] and ] though enough sources are available addressing them as ''leftist'' and ''Marxist''. So, it is best to discuss the nature of an author's work in the article rather than declaring them as some ''ist'' in the very first line. ] (]) 12:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC) : The article discusses that repetitiously, It is best to avoid heavy words like ''right winger'' and ''Hindutva author''. We have done that on ] and ] though enough sources are available addressing them as ''leftist'' and ''Marxist''. So, it is best to discuss the nature of an author's work in the article rather than declaring them as some ''ist'' in the very first line. ] (]) 12:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|LearnIndology}}, that is a flawed analogy. Only people associated with Hindutva refer to Romila Thapar and Wendy Doniger as leftist, not the mainstream. On the other hand Elst is called Right wing Hindutva by every Mainstream scholar and plenty have been listed as source. Misplaced Pages has to follow ] and clarify the subject in the lead accordingly. ] (]) 12:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC) ::{{u|LearnIndology}}, that is a flawed analogy. Only people associated with Hindutva refer to Romila Thapar and Wendy Doniger as leftist, not the mainstream. On the other hand Elst is called Right wing Hindutva by every Mainstream scholar and plenty have been listed as source. Misplaced Pages has to follow ] and clarify the subject in the lead accordingly. ] (]) 12:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Ad infinitum; see talkpage history. ] -] 15:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:14, 1 February 2021

Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 7 April 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Koenraad Elst article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis 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
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIndia: Politics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHinduism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJournalism
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBelgium
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Propagandistic style

This article appears as if written by some propagandists or his harsh critics. This is evident in the tone of language and content of this article. Onkuchia (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Please make specific suggestions, or be bold and fix the issues yourself. There is a consistent lack of support for Elst among reliable sources, so the discussion of his work is going to be critical if it is written neutrally (no, that's not a contradiction). Vanamonde (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I suggest not using Elst as a source. If there is anything interesting he has said, find reliable secondary sources instead (if they don't exist, then the material should not be in the article). I removed the recently added one but there are a couple of other uses of Elst writings in the article and someone with more knowledge about him should probably review those as well. --regentspark (comment) 17:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we must edit the description. Its better if the description calls him an Indologist/philologist instead of an "activist", a term which he denies. It makes Wiki look biased. He has an MA in indology. And PhD in Asian Studies

I have edited the description, making it neutral.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Islamic literature.

The source does not say that "Elst is known for publication of anti-Islamic literature". Winged can you help me find such mention in the source? --Jaydayal (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Check my last edit-summary. Stuff in lead may not be cited, as long as they are cited in body. ∯WBG 14:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The entire reception of his works in academia is centered around his corpus of anti-Islamic literature. Commentary by Blom Hansen (radical anti-Muslim persuasion), Meera Nanda (peddle the worst kind of Islamophobia imaginable), D. Anand (antagonistic to Muslims;not precisely quoted), Subrahmanyam (Islamophobia as the common ground). ∯WBG 14:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you and also aware that it does not need to be referenced right there, but I also do not find "known for publication of anti-Islamic literature" in any of the reference you present now either. "Known for" is a key element in that statement too.If you could share some of the reference I would also like to check in detail and may conceded or find a amicable middle ground. But right now, it does not seem plausible that on this BLP we can say in the lede that he is "known for" anti-Islamic literature (which one?). --Jaydayal (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I will wait for t/p watchers to chime in ..... ∯WBG 14:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I see "far right hindu fundamentalist" more appropriate summary of some unfavorable critics and less harsher summary from other few`er critics. I do not clearly see a strong consensus among scholars for known-for-anti-islamic-literature. Like Paul Beliën, François Gautier ,Daniel Pipes and Ramesh Nagaraj Rao do not advance this image. If there is a room for discussion we should have it on a BLP for sure? --Jaydayal (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Why do you deem Gautier (grad-school drop-out; another fellow traveler of the Hindutva fold who has been himself deemed as Islamophobic!) or Beliën (who has his own colorful history, much of which is not much mentioned at his article) or Rao (who has better qualifications than the other two but has no training in relevant academic fields and has an entirely negative reputation, on top of that) as scholars, is a mystery to me. ∯WBG 15:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
They hold Phd and have published researched content. What about the other two you left out, what is your objection to them? --15:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I am stumped by your speed. You edited your response while I was replying and my reply has lost little context because your earlier reply changed. Nothing new with you and me. Back to topic, there is still Pipes to discredit. And I don't completely buy your argument about totally duscounting Rao. --Jaydayal (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Gautier holds a PhD? Please provide a source! Same for Belien. ∯WBG 15:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Also dropping in Micheal Witzel:- There now exists a closely knit, selfadulatory group, members of which often write conjointly and/or copy from each other. Quite boringly, they also churn out long identical passages, in book after book, sometimes paragraph by paragraph, all copied in cottage industry fashion from earlier books and papers; the whole scene has become one virtually indistinguishable hotchpotch. :3 ∯WBG 15:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I could not understand why you deleted long standing text with reference citing INTEGRITY, could you help me understand? --Jaydayal (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Why don't you click on the link and find out? I removed the part, because the cited source did not support the assertion, thus failing verifiability. ∯WBG 02:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  1. Witzel, Michael (2001). "Autochthonous Aryans? : the evidence from old Indian and Iranian texts" (PDF). Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies. 7 (3): 28.

Biased Description

The description is biased. I have changed it. Please let me know if there are any issues with the changes rather than reverting them back to the original.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

To copy Vanamonde93, ..there is a consistent lack of support for Elst among reliable sources, so the discussion of his work is going to be critical if it is written neutrally (no, that's not a contradiction). Lead merely reflects the body. ∯WBG 14:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
There's no need to notify you. You need to read WP:LEAD "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." You deleted material simply because you don't like it even though it should be there to comply with WP:LEAD. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
So an author of more than 20 books on Hinduism, Indian History and Politics is merely described as a "Hindutva Activist", what is the problem in adding "writer" in his description?IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Author is a more accurate term; need to think about adding that .... ∯WBG 14:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Changing the lead

The lead says "Koenraad Elst (born 7 August 1959) is a right wing Hindutva activist, known primarily for his support of the Out of India theory and publication of Hindu Nationalist literature."

I would propose to edit the lead to "Koenraad Elst (born 7 August 1959) is a Belgian Indologist and author of more than 20 books on Indian history, politics and Hinduism."

The current description is inaccurate. Elst has himself written about the defamation in this article.To the editors of Misplaced Pages, particularly the lemma on Dr. Koenraad Elst IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The article has already been adapted in response to that article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I would not be comfortable with a description as an "Indologist" without an authentic source. I very much doubt his interest is really "Indology". It is just Hindutva. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, Indologist may not be the right description, not without an authentic source. However, this description by Daniel PipesElst is much better than what is currently written in the lead. IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Daniel Pipes is not a reliable source for this. Eg see footnote 44 here Or and . Doug Weller talk 15:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I couldn't find citation for phrases 'right wing' and 'activist'. Could you guide me or add relevant references? I also agree with Winged_Blades_of_Godric and IndianHistoryEnthusiast that 'author' is more appropriate term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Koenraad_Elst&type=revision&diff=959613987&oldid=959580602 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhawangupta (talk • contribs) 09:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dhawangupta: activist replaced with "author, right wing is sourced here:
Elst was an editor of the New Right Flemish nationalist journal Teksten, Kommentaren en Studies from 1992 to 1995, focusing on criticism of Islam and had associations with Vlaams Blok, a Flemish nationalist far-right political party. See WP:LEAD, sources don't need to be in the lead. Doug Weller talk 13:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Thanks for the update and your response. Dhawangupta (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. Nanda 2009, pp. 112–113. sfn error: no target: CITEREFNanda2009 (help)
  2. Vierling, Alfred (1 July 2013). "NIEUW RECHTS TEN ONDER, beschreven door Dr Koenraad Elst". Retrieved 19 April 2019.
  3. Zutter, Jan de, 1962- (2000). Heidenen voor het blok : radicaal-rechts en het nieuwe heidendom. Antwerpen: Houtekiet. p. 17. ISBN 9052405824. OCLC 50809193.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Warning template suggested

Certainly, the article deserves some kind of warning template. I suggest "Unbalanced", but are there other opinions? Maybe "exaggeration of his alleged right-wing affiliations" is a more proper description, but I suppose that is also covered by the term unbalanced. If you disagree, please suggest an alternative – not having a template seems unwarranted. --Sasper (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

No He is a strong right winger. What I say is that slander of him being a right wing by a strong leftist writer should be changed to proper qualitiative critcism of his works. No Adhominem. Mr IndianCotton (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Right wing author

LearnIndology, This is supported by reliable sources in the article body. Why are you removing this from the lead? Please read WP:NOTCENSORED. And self revert yourself. --Walrus Ji (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The article discusses that repetitiously, It is best to avoid heavy words like right winger and Hindutva author. We have done that on Romila Thapar and Wendy Doniger though enough sources are available addressing them as leftist and Marxist. So, it is best to discuss the nature of an author's work in the article rather than declaring them as some ist in the very first line. LearnIndology (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
LearnIndology, that is a flawed analogy. Only people associated with Hindutva refer to Romila Thapar and Wendy Doniger as leftist, not the mainstream. On the other hand Elst is called Right wing Hindutva by every Mainstream scholar and plenty have been listed as source. Misplaced Pages has to follow WP:MAINSTREAM and clarify the subject in the lead accordingly. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Ad infinitum; see talkpage history. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Categories: