Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:56, 14 April 2014

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 April 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

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. Biography 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Politics Low‑importance 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 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. Hinduism Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism This 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. Belgium This 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.

Archives

Archive 1 (Dec 2004–August 2009)

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 April 2014. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Koenraad Elst (May 20, 2013). "The wikipedia lemma on "Koenraad Elst": a textbook example of defamation".

criticism

mghori,

If you can add elst's responses to critics with reliable sources add them. Else stop removing the referenced portions from criticism section.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sodabottle

All are referenced are sources who are known for known leftist views. Please do not if you do not find response.

Mghori (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

so leftist sources cannot be used? it is criticism from reliable sources and can be included. if you can find elst's reponses add them. else stop removing these.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-factual and Subjectivity of the article

1. Elst is one of the few western writers (along with François Gautier) to actively defend the Hindutva ideology.

Koenraad Elst is not a supporter of Hindutva ideology as claimed by the current version of this article. Also, comparing him to Francois Gautier is also fallacious. Elst is a researcher who has spent time researching Hindu renaissance in post-independent India and it's effects on Indian politics. His research includes very harsh criticism of "Hindutva" as well. In fact his book "BJP vis-a-vis Hindu Resurgence" gives a very detailed criticism of BJP and Hindutva ideology. I would be non-factual to label Elst as a supporter of Hindutva in this light.

Hindutva ideology is the ideology put forward by RSS and BJP in India and Elst remains a critic of both these organizations and their ideology.

I suggest we replace the sentence with *Elst is one of the few researchers to have worked on ideological development of Hindu revivalism.* That was the title of his PHd thesis.

2. Many of these writings are featured in right-wing publications.

This might be factually correct but totally meaningless because Elst has also featured prominently in left-wing publications as well. He has also published in totally apolitical journals such as Inforiënt. The right-wing words seems selective and biased.

Elst started his public life in 1989 with an article about the Satanic Verses affair in the Communist weekly Toestanden. *I suggest we remove the right-wing word*.

3. that may focus on criticism of Islam,

If we are not sure that it focused on criticism of Islam we should remove this sentence or add relevant citations to prove that the paper clearly focused on criticism of Islam.

4. "At the end of March 2008, Koenraad Elst ridiculed Hugo Claus's decision to undergo euthanasia, claiming that it was influenced by the purple agnostic lobby to embarrass the Roman Catholic Church."

Totally incorrect. The article published by Elst was modified by the editor of that paper without his permission. Elst later not only clarified this but also stopped writing for the paper. Koenraad Elst is a vocal supporter to euthanasia. Elst has rebutted his Misplaced Pages claim here:

5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshar100 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

@IP; I agree that any source should ideally have a page number. However, the lack of such is not sufficient to dismiss a source. Tag it, and if nobody responds for a while, remove the material. As it is currently presented, the material is definitely notable, so simply removing it is unacceptable. I have no objections to the stuff you added. I would also point out that many of the sources you added did not have page numbers. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Elst never talked about nationalist claiming Taj to be theirs. Sarvepalli Gopal never mentioned Elst, you can paste that whole quote, you will find that wikipedia is only proof backing such quotation. Elst mentioned Gopal, but only as someone who had similar thoughts like himself. Which is not even criticism. Ayub Khan, Manini Chatterjee, are not notable, and they are not known for any other thing. "tactic against the freedom movement" is the actual, and sensible quote, I completed that. "been "proven" by prevalent standards of proof; even though one of the" even if it is not grammatical, that is what Elst wrote, it should be similar. N.S. Rajaram never mentioned Elst either. And the listed source doesn't exist, you can paste that quote(Rajaram) anywhere, only this page will be the result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.234.167 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Also read "The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History" yourself, page 8-9. Hans Henrich Hock haven't even talked about Elst Koenraad. If you think I am wrong and you have sources, you can add them, but this is biography of living person like it is written above, you will need to be strict about sources, misleading or contentious cannot be awaited for these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.234.167 (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I really have no idea what you are trying to argue here. Yes, Elst does ridicule the fringe of Hindu nationalist ideas such as claiming the Taj to be Hindu. See his blog here. I have no idea why you think the passage from "The Indo-Aryan Controversy" is relevant. What are you trying to say? That's just a summary of Elst's criticisms of Indo-Europeanists' arguments for the extra-Indian origin of PIE. You say "Sarvepalli Gopal never mentioned Elst, you can paste that whole quote, you will find that wikipedia is only proof backing such quotation." This is palpably false. It comes from p.21 of his book Anatomy of a Confrontation. For some reason it's falsely cited here to Elst's own book, which is probably the result of some bad cutting and merging of text in the past. Paul B (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I can agree about him dismissing the oak's theories. But everything else should be confirmed before adding. He dismiss taj mahal theory, but you should present the way he has wrote them. I have explained other points before.

I've corrected the Gopal citation. You also say the Rajaram quotation doesn't exist because if you "paste" it you can't find a source. If you mean it doesn't come up in Google, so what? Not everything is online. You also say "the listed source doesn't exist". The source is The Pioneer. Of course it exists. It's the Daily Pioneer newspaper, for which Rajaram has written several articles. Here's its website. Paul B (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@IP: you're kind of missing the point here. If the citations are incorrect, they should be changed; but the way to go about doing this is not to delete them wholesale. Tag them, watch for a while, attempt to find them yourself, then delete. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Paul, Thanks for that. If it is unavailable, I wouldn't be interrupting. Now it is all about the criticism section, It should keep Ramesh Nagaraj Rao's comment, but not Ayub Khan or Manini Chatterjee, they aren't notable. And there is a non-working link in see also — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.234.167 (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

They don't have to be notable in their own right, just legitimate scholars/commentators on the relevant topic. Paul B (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It sums up almost everything. So if I add some positive commentary about his work, what would be the title of section? "reactions"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.234.167 (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the Rao quotation, but it does seem to me to be rather - meaningless. He's not actually saying anything of substance. Still, several of the critical quotes are pretty meaningless too. So, Chatterjee complains that a book says "maybe". Big deal. Paul B (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

TY for heads up. Same, I have found a number of them to be meaningless, but which ones are redundant, according to you? Let us know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.234.167 (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I made account today. Me and Paul have agreed that Manini's comments are not notable or meaningful. We've also agreed that Nagaraj's view can be added. So I am not sure why Vanamonde93 added it back, and removed Nagarao's commentary.

The consensus here seems to be that Manini and Nagaraj have similar weight. See Paul's comment. So either add both, or neither. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

NPOV violations in a BLP article

After Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) and Shrikanthv (talk · contribs) nominated the BLP article and all of the authors' book articles for deletion, one of the discussions centered on the serious NPOV violations in the article.

They were already brought up at this noticeboard at least once. Some improvements were then made by User:Collect, but they were reverted by another editor. The article may need to be protected.

The NPOV violations were explained in great detail by the subject of the lemma here:

• The wikipedia lemma on "Koenraad Elst": a textbook example of defamation
• Meera Nanda against Hinduism

These links say among other things:

Well, there you have it. The lemma on me has ended up taking this form because some militant among your contributors purposely wanted to “warn readers” against me. Please cite me an instruction for encyclopedists that names “warning” among the legitimate goals of an encyclopedia.

Either you remove the lemma altogether, or you straighten it out and apply the rules of encyclopedia-writing to it. At any rate, in a encyclopedia, I count on being judged for what I myself have said or done, and not for the gossip my declared enemies have come up with.

If Misplaced Pages wants to live up to its promise of being a reliable encyclopedic source, it will strike this and all sentences resembling it from its article on me. At most, it can use me as an example of how it was fooled by some of its all-too-partisan collaborators. Speaking of whom: the history page accompanying my page proves forever that some Misplaced Pages collaborators wanted to inflict on me the maximum harm possible, an attitude incompatible with work for an encyclopedia.

The old discussion was here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive178

Someone claiming to be the subject of the article Koenraad Elst has written a long blog post with a set of criticisms of the article. Some of the criticisms seem slightly overwrought but there's probably quite a few which are valid. Anyone want to sort this out? —Tom Morris (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well -- the BLP was replete with "claims" and polemical wording which I did a little clean-up on. Not a shining example of Misplaced Pages biographies in any case. More for others to work on. I specifically did not seek out the blog, bit worked from Misplaced Pages normal best practice on it. Collect (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I will start by rewriting the lead. The lead is not the place mention his writings in small papers that he did 40 years ago - that stuff should be in the biography part. Because of the serious NPOV violations in this article, all changes to the lead should be first discussed on the talk page. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with The Saffron Swastika

The book is not notable enough for it`s own article, a redirect is suitable given the AFD results. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Saffron Swastika conclusion was "the book is deemed reliable and important enough". There are Afds which are closed as Redirect explicitly. --Redtigerxyz 15:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I know that, however I am of the opinion that the books are not notable, and the closing admin has said he has no issue with these being redirected, I figured rather than just redirect w merger discussion would be preferable. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose merger - keep as stand-alone article. The book does seem notable. I corroborated some of the mentions or reviews ("heavily lined copy", Menon review mentioned in deletion discussion). DarknessShines' "reason" is therefore a non-reason. Perhaps there is some other motivation for the merger proposal that hasn't been disclosed. I find some of the book's ideas implausible but WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a valid Misplaced Pages reason to eliminate a separate article about the book. The Menon review that has been discovered should be intergrated into the stand-alone article, since it can indeed help to fill out the article further. And the online "heavily marked" should also be linked into the article.--Presearch (talk)

Oppose merger per Redtiger and FreeKnowledgeCreator and Presearch. I agree with the first two that some users need to learn to accept the outcome of deletion discussions. Not all of his deletion nominations are accepted by wikipedia admins, his deletion nomination for Anti-Hinduism and Category:Anti-Hinduism and Ilsaghat massacre and Captivity of Nairs at Seringapatam and Captivity of Kodavas at Seringapatam and Sanaullah Haq and Decline of Hinduism in Pakistan and 1971 killing of Bengali intellectuals and 2013 Bangladesh riot were not. I agree with the other editors that he should accept these outcomes, and I also agree with some of other editors who said he has been renominating the article for deletion a second or even third time after the outcome was keep or has been asking for them to be merged after the outcome was keep. But instead DS has personally attacked the admin who closed the discussion with keep, calling him a tit and **** dense. --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society

Non notable book, following the AFD discussion this really ought to be a redirect. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose merger. You also forgot to add the merger tag to the article, so that others can see it. I will do it now.

The outcome of the discussion was keep. The two articles should be kept separate, they are discrete subjects. --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

1. http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/bjp/index.html
2. http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-wikipedia-lemma-on-koenraad-elst.html

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Low-importance
• B-Class Indian politics articles
• Mid-importance Indian politics articles
• B-Class Indian politics articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject Indian politics articles
• WikiProject India articles
• B-Class Hinduism articles
• Low-importance Hinduism articles
• Unassessed Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Unassessed Belgium-related articles
• Unknown-importance Belgium-related articles
• All WikiProject Belgium pages
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press