Talk:Yellapragada Sudershan Rao

Modi Government

User:AmritasyaPutra, "Modi government" has 121 hits on Wikipedia and "Vajpayee government" has its own page! If you want to complain about the use of such terms, please take it to the WP:BLP Noticeboard. The term stays. Uday Reddy (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Kindly read the discussion here where you have already participated. We need not rehash. You want to add it so you need to go to the above mentioned noticeboard as per WP:BURDEN. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Calling Modi Government "Modi Government" requires me to go to WP:BLP Noticeboard? Is that what you are saying? Uday Reddy (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Uday Reddy, You went to noticeboard for this and did not discuss this. You can follow the link and see that you have been told to do so by two other editors also. You were rehashing! And you have come back knowing fully well you cannot add it! Ping User:Meatsgains. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

AmritasyaPutra, come on. You are being silly by telling me why I am doing what I am doing. This issue is still waiting for your response since 14:47. I went to the BLP Noticeboard because you said (below) that I couldn't do "that kind of synthesis on a BLP page". Uday Reddy (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Really? So naive? Okay, I said before here and I repeat here : goto BLP noticeboard. And remember to ping the other two editors also who gave same advise. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• From BLP/N : - Hi, @Dharmadhyaksha: - The source you linked seems to be just an opinion piece on a news blog and as such cannot be used as a standalone reliable source (WP:RSOPINION) for attributing the appointment to Prime Minister Modi. However the discussion here is not whether Mr Modi had anything to do with the appointment. It has been pointed out that the HRD Ministry under the federal government in India makes such appointments. Terms like 'Modi government' and 'Obama administration' are commonly used to refer to their respective administrations and isn't a BLP violation at all. Quoting from "YS Rao's appointment as ICHR chief meets stiff resistance from historians". IBNLive. 15 July 2014. Retrieved 21 August 2014.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - "It is yet another decision by the Narendra Modi government which has invited controversy." While I don't have any objection to the wording of the appointment being attributed to either the 'Modi government' or the 'NDA government', Vanamonde93 has a good point when they said- "The fact that a lesser version is also accurate is hardly a reason to exclude a more informative one". - @Reddyuday and Vanamonde93: - Regards,  NQ  talk 11:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, both Vanamonde93 and I have clarified repeatedly that we are only mentioning Narendra Modi as the Head of Government, which is an entirely normal practice. Dharmadhyaksha and his colleagues have sought to exclude this reference on the grounds that we have no information about Narendra Modi's involvement in the decision and mentioning him by name would amount to false attribution. This "involvement" issue has not been our concern. (It could be in future, but it is not the reason for our wording.) Uday Reddy (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I should also add that Firstpost is an online newspaper with an editorial board. It is not a "blog" site. However, the article I cited is clearly an opinion piece, which would have gone through the normal editorial process. Uday Reddy (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Controversial

User:AmritasyaPutra, you apparently object to the use of "controversial". The very title of the TOI article "Right-wingers question ICHR chief selection", indicates controversy. So, there is nothing unusual. You also want to change "widely criticised" to "criticised by some". If you want to demonstrate weight, find some source that shows any right wingers that supported the appointment. Then we can talk about due weight. First of all, I want to be sure that you have read the articles that I have cited. Did you read them? Uday Reddy (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No. In BLP you cannot do that synthesis. The article does not say controversial. Sticktosource. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Show me a policy that you says "in BLP you cannot do synthesis." You haven't answered my question, did you read the sources? Uday Reddy (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Uday Reddy, Yes, I have read. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. So, where is the policy that you have claimed? Uday Reddy (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The policy is wp:SYN, which is part of wp:NOR, and it is not just specific to BLP articles, it applies to all articles. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog:, sure I know wp:SYN very well. But, note that wp:SYNTHNOT also tells us that synthesis that constitutes original research is what is prohibited. Summarising "Right-wingers question ICHR chief selection" as a "controversial decision" does not constitute original research, does it? I understand AmritasyaPutra's point as being that that kind of synthesis should not be done in BLP articles, even if there is no original research involved. Are you supporting that position? Uday Reddy (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

About this specific case: Read grapevine and gossip. And also, why not sticktosource at worst? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Why not do X" is a separate issue. As Wikipedia editors, we want to write short, clear, simple and readable articles. For that purpose, we may need to use different words from what the sources use. That is not the point we are at. Our problem is that you make up fanciful policies to suit you and start obstructing our work. You are still continuing to do that. What is "grapevine" or "gossip" about "controversial"? Uday Reddy (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I am not a fan of the word "controversial," as it tends to obscure what exactly is going on; I would put it in slightly plainer language, and simply say that the appointment was criticised. Uday Reddy, does that sound reasonable? I agree that the use itself seems okay, given the sources; but it gains you little, and is causing another long-winded dispute with your old friend. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The word "controversial" does not appear in the sources, does it? I don't see anything in any of the sources cited that indicate support for the appointment by the government. "Questionned" seems a much better term. Further, it is ridiculous to attribute a position to "left wing" or "right wing" as if that clarified anything other than the viewpoint of the writer making the attribution. If someone states their relevant position, we say who states it, when, and where. We certainly don't put such dismissive attribution in the voice of the encyclopedia. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The criticism of the "appointment" can be noted in the page but to boldly state that it was "criticized by some right-wing academics", with only one source supporting this claim, is inaccurate. As Uday Reddy stated, the title of the article referenced indicates controversy. We need multiple RSs to make such a claim.Meatsgains (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right, saying "right-wingers" is a little dodgy, especially because the source does not give their identity. Most of the TOI source is just discussing how it was all so much better in the good old days, which of course is rather irrelevant here. Meatsgains, what think you now? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: You're edit resolved this issue and there should be no objections unless other RSs are provided making the assumption. Meatsgains (talk)

@Meatsgains:, I have given two sources. The Hindu article quotes the former ICHR secretary in the previous NDA government that also questioned Rao's credentials. While the TOI article quoted only one source in the article, we cannot assume that they have only one source. (I can't say how many sources they might have, but the title implies that they have several.) Uday Reddy (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

We are referring to inclusion of the phrase "right-wingers" which was only used in the biased article titled, "Right-wingers question ICHR chief selection". Meatsgains (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Publications

The inline attribution to The Hindu is necessary for the publications claim because it is contradicted by Romila Thapar. The Hindu certainly doesn't have any expertise in judging academic publications. The list of publications available from Kakatiya University mentions only 13, and hardly any of these are in journals and pretty much none in international journals. Google Scholar shows no publications by the man whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddyuday (talk • contribs) 17:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thapar

@Meatsgains:, I only now noticed your explanation of your removal of Thapar on BLPN; apologies. Responding here because that discussion has taken off in an altogether irrelevant direction. My reasoning was simply this; Rao's sole claim to notability, at this point, is his position as a historian. There is nothing else in his Bio that makes him notable. Most of this article is currently about that, even the non-critical bits. Ergo, if we failed to include criticisms of him as a historian, we'd be failing NPOV, IMO. "peer-reviewed journals" may seem a little strangely specific outside academia, but in academia it tends to be the only significant yardstick of performance, for better or for worse. If it currently seems out of context, I think we could try and fix that; but that criticism itself seems necessary to me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I made some minor tweaks to the "Life and Career" section. Before the revisions, the criticisms were made very assertive from a very broad group of people. I currently support the way the article reads. Are there any pressing issues regarding his criticisms you would like to expand on? Meatsgains (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the present content. Thanks very much for your oversight! Uday Reddy (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Meatsgains:; no, not really. This was just a belated reply to your BLPN explanation of your removal of Thapar. I am satisfied with the current version, too. Thanks! Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to this and previous sections. This edit shows tendentious editing by Vanamonde93. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The content was added three days ago by an IP. I reverted it, because our no original research policy (3rd footnote) states that interviews are primary sources, and therefore useless for determining due weight. Applying common sense, the interview is essentially an SPS, because the subject of the article can say anything he likes without it being challenged; and as per BLP, primary sources are acceptable only when they are used for uncontentious information, which this is plainly not. You should have followed BRD, and discussed it here; instead, you choose to revert, and leave a talk page note unrelated to content. It is not me that is being tendentious, here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I expect same from you. Discuss rather than revert. You reverted yet again without waiting for a response. An interview published in a mainstream newspaper is not SPS. Produce a policy stating otherwise. Sudershan had no hand in getting it self-published. What Thapar opines is also reported as her reflection. What Sudershan thinks of personal attacks is not contentious. This is BLP and if the person has responded to personal attacks which is mentioned here then his response to it should be included. I am just being extra careful because this is BLP, if he were dead we need not apply BLP standards regarding personal criticism to his biography. Like you preach, I hope you will engage in discussion rather than revert or ask your partner to revert. I don't have much time or interest here in entertaining your usual warring behavior; if that is the course you take you can force your pov. Cheers! --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I did link a policy, which explicitly says that interviews are primary sources. Please read it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent additions

@Secular777:, you need to slow down a little bit. The information you add needs to be backed up by reliable, secondary sources. The website of the ICHR is of little use here. Additionally, you also deleted some material that was well sourced; unless we have contradictory information from much weightier sources, this should stay. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if you think i have deleted some information that was well sourced.

The whole article is weighing down heavily with criticism it lacks neutrality. The new section i added has been deleted with out even trying to contact me before doing so by kautilya3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secular777 (talk • contribs)

@Secular777:, a couple of points. First, please remember to sign your posts on the talk page, by typing ~~~~ at the end of your statement. Second, you are correct in saying that an article needs to be neutral. The way we do so on Wikipedia is to present all views present in reliable, secondary sources, as detailed at WP:NPOV, duly weighted. This was the problem with a lot of the things you added; they were based on the ICHR website, which is a WP:PRIMARY sources, so not very useful here. The article by Narayanan has the same problem. Additionally, the commentary you added about Thapar had no source at all, and so it needed to be removed. Finally, you removed the part about his affiliation with the RSS. This is well documented, so it needs to stay. Basically, you need to find reliable, secondary sources for anything you wish to add. Oh, and are you and @Vedvyas12: the same person? If not, that's fine; if you are, then you should read WP:SOCK before doing anything further. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

thanks vanamonde93 for the tips and for accepting that the article needs to be neutral. I have now made some additions citing sources. no me and vedvyas12 are not same. Secular777 (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Secular777: your latest addition was acceptable; however, you have capitalized far too frequently, so please correct that. Also, your signature should go at the end of your posts, which should be indented appropriately. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is not acceptable. It is WP:UNDUE in the lead, and it is already covered in the body, sourced to reliable sources.

80.229.235.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), this edit [1] is an argumentation, which should be discussed here, not in an edit summary. "the citations dont show he specialises in history of hinduism they show that he worked in the department of history. that university does not have any course saying 'history of Hinduism" The article that is cited has plenty of description of his work related to "Hindu religion," but nothing about any other religion. So your claim is false. The second part of your argument is entirely irrelevant. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

            The wording is wrong... You can say he is interested in Hindu religion but can't say he is a professor of history of Hinduism Secular777 (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)