Talk:Arundhati Roy

Arundhati Roy has managed to annoy the Supreme Court of India, an american commentator and the environmental activist Ms. Medha Patkar all at the same time, a gadfly indeed!

[user:Abhijna]

i have added one line about the controversy regarding her illegal encroachment of protected forest land (with reference)Bharatveer 05:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Some information has been changed on this site due to gross amounts of misninformation. I am Ms Roy's cousin and I have made a few amendments to the script regarding her life. I do insist that at no time was she homeless or lived under a "tin roof". Regards, Partha

I have added the references regarding her Contempt cases.Can anyone help in fixing the references??Bharatveer 07:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

abusive text

At the end of the summary/ abstract section I noticed some troll has added the phrase 'rand hain saali', which is rather tasteless and disgraceful. thing is , when i tried to remove this text from the 'edit page' tool, i couldn't find it; yet it appears in the main entry...

Can someone do something about this?

Sam

Hi Sam,

While it is ture that such abuse should be avoided and whoever doing it be banned. On the other hand I have seen any critisizm is removed. It looks like all oil money spondored Anti-Americans and Anti-India people have lot of paid supports on the net who are abusing free media such as wikipedia. We should also try and restrict such people.

Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeindia (talk • contribs) 07:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Accusations of Anti-Americanism"

Under the section titled "Accusations of Anti-Americanism", the footnote hyperlinks to a report ostensibly presented before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. That report cites three examples of critics labeling Roy's writings "anti-American": in the Columbia Journalism Review, the New Republic and Mother Jones. However, I could not find the original source of a single one of these examples. In fact, Google searches for these "anti-American" accusations always produce references to the same House Committee report. The author of that report? Stanley Kurtz, a fellow of the conservative Hoover Institution and contributing editor of the conservative National Review Online. I should think that under no circumstances should a piece of think tank agitprop (conservative or liberal) be offered as a source (let alone the sole source) for any Wikipedia entry. If the original examples cited -- in the Columbia Journalism Review, the New Republic or Mother Jones -- do exist, then shouldn't your article hyperlink to those originals? If they do not exist, the entire section -- "Accusations of Anti-Americanism" -- should be deleted, as this one questionable report is the only source for all of the examples cited.--Gdr2634 06:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)gdr2634

It is said here The Mary Roy has been running a school called corpus christi,but when the link is followed it takes to "Pallikodam".There needs to be a clarification when this renaming ocurred.

Media celebrity Pranoy Roy is said to be a relative of Arundhati Roy.For this citation is needed.--Lakshmanan 06:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Zora's edits

I noticed that a certain editor had removed some material that I had to agree was POV -- but, he also removed a quote from Roy responding to criticism. I restored the quote, and then tried to make the article as neutral as I possibly could. I don't suppose it will stop being a political football, but ... all we can do is keep trying. Zora 09:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That quote i removed was full of spelling mistakes.I dont agree withyour idea of neutrality as well.-Bharatveer 10:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, if the woman is being accused, it's only fair to let her defend herself, spelling mistakes or no. Zora 10:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Corpus Christi

At the top, it says she went to school in corpus christi (ie the city in texas) and in the personal life section, it says she went to a school called corpus christi, run by her mother. which is true? 86.137.111.33 08:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

that would be the school... joseph 18:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

== support to terrorists? ==

the cited article does not state anything close to the effect of "Roy has also been accused of supporting terrorist and extremist ideologies". in fact, what it does say is this:

The whole case is full of faulty evidence and fabricated stories and to hang someone for something he may not have done is not fair.

that's hardly supporting terrorist and extremist ideologies. i think it should be removed, unless it can be cited by a source that actually DOES show the implication. 192.223.226.6 20:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

BharatVeer's RV

What is the justification to removing somany formatting changes, new pictures, and lots of rework? If you have a content-dispute please address it. Also if you have not already read it, please see Help:Revert, wikipedias policy on using reverts. --பராசக்தி 07:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Pls read wiki policies regarding this.-Bharatveer 08:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, that's not an answer. Zora 09:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User :Zora , Pls read this - "Wikipedia is not a battleground.Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. " - from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. -Bharatveer 09:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, that's not to the point. The point is explaining your revert. Zora 10:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you got the point there. Regards-Bharatveer 11:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Bharatveer, you have made a large revert without explaination, and as such, it may denote vandalism. Your revert did not, IMHO, enhance the encyclopedia. You're refusing to explain yourself is not helping matters any. --Bhuston 16:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

copyvio

Why is there a copyvio thing on the page? The reasons havent been spelled out either here or on the page. Hornplease 11:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"anti-India" criticism section

have removed the following text from the section. while Roy's words are sourced, the charaterisation that that these statements constitute an "anti-India bias" needs to be attributed, o/w it becomes original research. Doldrums 12:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Roy has accused India of amassing 7,00,000 troops in the troubled state of Jammu and Kashmir [1]. Her book entitled "The Algebra of Infinite Justice”, is critical of Indian control in Kashmir, Nagaland and Manipur [2]. Many times it is indicated from her statements that she does not have any faith in Indian Judiciary and law; to cite an example, she defended parliamentary bomb accused Afzal by saying that his case is full of false evidence and fabricated stories [3]. She believes that there is no democracy in India and surprisingly she says this to an audience in New York [4].

likewise, this time in the "anti-American" section. Doldrums 14:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Roy criticized US President George Bush's trip to India in March 2006 [5].

have now added it to the advocacy section. Doldrums 08:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

birth year

Roy was born in 1959, according to [6], conflicts with the date in the article. Doldrums 11:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Charlie Rose interview

i removed the rather large segment on this, following WP:BRD. i feel that this incident is not sufficiently notable to be discussed at such length. it is not clear from Roy's interview with Goodman that this was "censorship". If the podcast source asserts that it is (btw, i suspect such a assertion would be disputed) i think it may deserve a 2 sentence mention on the Charlie Rose article, rather than a three paragraph mention as an "Arundathi Roy controversy". Doldrums 14:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's an acceptable compromise, as per WP:BRD. It was a significant publicity incident for this author, not for Charlie Rose. I'm not sure if you're American or are familiar with PBS broadcasting, but it and the Charlie Rose program are public television stations and available on every American television set, the striking of the interview (whether you personally consider it censorship or not) is a significant controversy.MartinDuffy (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2008 (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 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Roy's list

This section needs to be cleaned up immediately. It amounts to nothing more than inappropriate and impartial editorializing and has no place in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cratedigger (talk • contribs) 07:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

have removed this section as her Guardian piece is better summed up a couple of paragraphs above. the second half of this section, originally written for the article on US imperialism, goes beyond what Roy herself has stated and does not belong here. Doldrums 08:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That single sentence addresses post-9/11 only. Roy's list addresses US conduct post-WWII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.98.135.196 (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

not quite, that sentence reads, "listing the numerous armed conflicts the U.S. has been involved in since the second world war". Doldrums (talk) 09:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Roy has gathered a compelling piece of evidence for her position. In an opinion piece in the Manchester Guardian (10/23/01), Roy wrote, "Here is a list of the countries that America has been at war with - and bombed - since the second world war:" Updated, it reads China (1945-46, 1950-53), Korea (1950-53), Guatemala (1954, 1967-69), Indonesia (1958), Cuba (1959-60), Vietnam (1961-73), the Belgian Congo (1964), Laos (1964-73), Peru (1965), Cambodia (1969-70), Nicaragua (the 1980s), El Salvador (the 1980s), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-99, 2003-08), Bosnia (1995), Sudan (1998), Yugoslavia (1999), and Afghanistan (2001-08). From this, the years 1947-49, 1955-57, 1974-79, 1990 and 2000 were the only peaceful ones. 73% of the years, from World War II's end until 1989, the U.S. was militarily intervening somewhere. After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 (not counting conflicts like Colombia where governing elites request help against rebellious subpopulations) the U.S. was actively militarily intervening in a foreign country at least 89% of the years into 2008.

Father's religion

Not only is it non-notable (unlike her mother's, because Mary Roy won a major court case relating to Syrian Christian inheritance law) but it is inaccurate to say he was Hindu. In actual fact, he was from the same family of Bengali Christians as Prannoy Roy. I have found one apparently reliable source that says "Hindu" but I strongly suspect that that's been picked up from here. Arundhati herself in all her interviews never gives a religion. Relata refero (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Please do not delete without discussing it here.-Bharatveer (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actress

Have added mention of her acting in two films as per <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0746936/#actress">this IMDB entry</a>.Browndog72 (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Supporting Islamic Fundamentalists in Kashmir

This should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.159.108 (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a pretty vague sort of statement, unsigned and all--perhaps from a sock puppet. Your 'contribution' to the Wikipedia article was to call her a traitor; your rhetorical argumentation is that of 'guilt by association' (you added, "She supports Kashmir seperatists, whose cause is also supported by Islamic Fundamentalists"). So, if she support such separatism, what, she's responsible for 9/11 also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 02:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I am against having Controversial in the lead. None of the sources provided says so. It is just the conclusion of some people that she is controversial. But then there may be others who think another way. I don't find any reason to include it in the lead unless there are strong sources supporting that. Otherwise, let the readers draw conclusions whether she has to be named controversial or not. The sources provided through very poor quality disruptive edits by the user Raulmisir does not say that she is controversial. They just contain some sharp reactions to some of her comments about sensitive issues, but in fact most of the points are already accounted in the article under separate section. Suigeneris (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Besides, the one user who keeps reinstating that useless sentence about separatists (as if her life's work boils down to one interpretation of a current event) should try to do so in careful and well-written English.Drmies (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Thegodofsmallthings.jpg

The image Image:Thegodofsmallthings.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism POV, lack of references, and misquotations

I have removed this paragraph: "Arundhati is known to be a rabblerouser and relishes in stirring up controversies. She has been accused of sympathising with terrorists justifying their acts by exaggerating their sufferings. On the Mumbai attacks of November 26, 2008, Ms Roy in an article in the Guardian newspaper blamed India for the attacks and opined that India deserved these attacks. " It engages in POV where she is called a "rabblerouser." It does not quote the accusations of "sympathizing with terrorists" or "justifying their acts by exaggerating their sufferings" (it seems these are the views of whoever has inserted this bit, and they are attributed to nameless others). And it misquotes her Guardian article saying that she "opined that India deserved these attacks." She never said any such thing. If you think she did, please include a proper quote. -- Alireza

the quotes by Mr advani on arundhati are representative of the view of a large number of indians, also the quotes of manish tiwari are well documented in the press. also quotes regarding her believes can be well seen in the webpage http://ibnlive.in.com/news/if-treated-like-taslima-id-give-up-writing/53464-3-single.html. so all these comments form a part of her personality, and in view of the holistic and integral approach that wikipedia takes, they should be made available to the users.Nageshvkl

ALSO I FIND THAT SOMEONE CONSTANTLY DELETES THE SECTION CRITICISM IN MEDIA. it is an integral part of her personality, and everything is well documented. the section contains no lies. so stop deleting it.

contribs) 18:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)