Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
r2
Line 141: Line 141:
{{od}} The two of you need to explain what issues there are with such content under his personal life? No doubt the man has much to have written about, but his affairs belong under personal life. Its received ample coverage, the sources I cited being a few of them. [[User:JosephusOfJerusalem|JosephusOfJerusalem]] ([[User talk:JosephusOfJerusalem|talk]]) 07:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
{{od}} The two of you need to explain what issues there are with such content under his personal life? No doubt the man has much to have written about, but his affairs belong under personal life. Its received ample coverage, the sources I cited being a few of them. [[User:JosephusOfJerusalem|JosephusOfJerusalem]] ([[User talk:JosephusOfJerusalem|talk]]) 07:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
:[[WP:IDHT]]. Read the "two" again and don't repeat the same question. [[User:D4iNa4|D4iNa4]] ([[User talk:D4iNa4|talk]]) 08:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
:[[WP:IDHT]]. Read the "two" again and don't repeat the same question. [[User:D4iNa4|D4iNa4]] ([[User talk:D4iNa4|talk]]) 08:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
{{od}} When was the first question asked? Read [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:ESDONTS]]. [[User:JosephusOfJerusalem|JosephusOfJerusalem]] ([[User talk:JosephusOfJerusalem|talk]]) 08:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:35, 7 May 2018

Template:Vital article

Template:0.7 set nominee


RfC on inclusion of previously deleted content

Closing this since the filer is currently blocked, the questions are not properly formulated, and there has been on prior discussion.--regentspark (comment) 14:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On 23 July, 2015, large chunks of this article were deleted. See diff1 and diff2. The deleted content included the following sections:

  • On Caste system, and Caste based reservations (chunks of this section deleted)
  • Religion (chunks of this section deleted)
  • Budhism
  • On Cow Protection
  • On Spiritualism in India
  • Secular State
  • Views on communalism
  • Nehru and Science
  • Nehru as a person
  • Nehru and Patel
  • On Communism, Fascism, and Hindu Right-wing Communalism in India

Other changes were made to reduce the neutrality of the article. For instance, the words "According to a Times of India editorial, Nehru left behind a disputed legacy, being "either adored or reviled for India's progress or lack of it." were changed to "Nehru, thus, left behind a disputed legacy, being "either adored or reviled for India's progress or lack of it." These words have exactly one source to back them up which is a Times of India editorial. So the previous version was clearly better and not the changed version (which exists till date).

Also, what makes the large scale deletions (refer to diffs given above) curious is that the person who carried them out (refer to diffs given above) has been blocked for socking in the past and is again being accused of socking. I am pinging this editor so that he is aware of the outcome of the RfC: D4iNa4

This RfC is being initiated to determine whether the removed content should be re-inserted into the main article. Please vote Support to accept my proposal to re-insert the deleted material or Oppose to maintain the status quo.Soham321 (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before commenting on the content, I'm putting a disclaimer about the format of this rfc. This shouldn't be a poll format per WP:NOTVOTE, such formats are only suitable for straightforward yes/no questions, rare ones where majority votes actually matter or just straw polls. Let's default to the usual single threaded discussion from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting. Additionally, from what is proposed, given the scale of it in terms of content and topic-wise, even separate section for straw polling would not be wise and would distract us from main issues of it--given that most of the content is failing on initial inspection. It's mainly WP:QUOTEFARM concerns. That being said, I'll note that the article isn't in the best of shape currently as well and there is some content I think can be salvaged from those diffs. We should focus our discussion on that content. I'll elaborate more in my subsequent comment. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ugog Nizdast, i have no objection to whatever format of discussion is adopted about this RfC. As regards the WP:QUOTEFARM concern, the correct approach is to transform the quotes by paraphrasing and summarizing rather than deleting the material altogether. Some of the quotes may be given as footnotes rather than in the main article. Some may be truncated, some may be retained. But this massive deletion of clearly significant content ( the Nehru and Science section for instance) in one shot is clearly unacceptable. Soham321 (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're on the same page here. This issue is far more complex than "yes, put them back" or "no, remove them entirely". All those sections seem to excessively rely just on quotes. On style and format, they should follow WP:USEPROSE and would most of them even get their own separate section say if it became a FA? and how would they be mentioned? Are they referenced adequately for it? This leads to a bigger issues of this page which I don't think we can solve in one-shot, nor is it concerned with specifically to those diffs (rather than those topics in general); so we should focus on each at once. Without doing much digging, FWIK, there has to be at minimal something about his views on science but question the relevance of specific issues like Cow protection and Spiritualism in India, the rest have at least a mention in the present revision. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One obvious solution is to allow the Support and Oppose voting to take place and if the removed content is deemed significant it can be re-inserted into the main article and then editors working on the article can convert the direct quotes into prose by paraphrasing or summarizing or retaining the quotes as footnotes or retaining the quotes in the main article. Some of the material can be removed through condensing the content. Another solution is more time consuming: we do a voting on each and every section that was deleted to determine whether it should be re-inserted into the main article. Step by step, one by one. I am not as worried about QUOTEFARM as you are. What is more important to me is whether the quotes contain meaningful, relevant, significant and encyclopedic information. If they do they can be easily transformed into prose or retained as footnote. Note also that it is acceptable to use long quotations in WP articles. See here and here for instance. Of course, over quoting should be avoided. Soham321 (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To make it easier to read some of the deleted content, i copied the 'Nehru and Science' material on my user space: Link. Rather than deleting this content altogether, I would like to see a separate main article on this subject giving even more details. Even in this article this section could be expanded to incorporate more information. I also don't like the point format being used here; there is no need for using it. Of course, the question is: what do you do with the two Blackett quotes being used in this section? We could convert both into prose or convert one into prose and leave one as it is. Soham321 (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the Nehru and Science section again makes me conclude that while the content is significant and deserves inclusion in the main article it also needs to be rewritten to make the language more encyclopedic. Soham321 (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jawaharlal Nehru

In the Wikipedia article on Harold J Laski, a prominent British left/socialist political scientist, it points out that Nehru was one of his students and Laski's thinking greatly influenced Nehru and Laski became well known in India for his articulation of socialist ideas and his championing of Indian independence. Nehru even founded a Harold Laski Institute for Political Science. Thew Wiki article states "He taught generations of future leaders at the LSE, most famously, his prize student, V.K. Krishna Menon. According to John Kenneth Galbraith, "the center of Nehru's thinking was Laski" and "India the country most influenced by Laski's ideas".[16] It is mainly due to his influence that the LSE has a semi-mythological status in India. He was steady in his unremitting advocacy of the independence of India. He was a revered figure to Indian students at the LSE. One Indian Prime Minister of India said "in every meeting of the Indian Cabinet there is a chair reserved for the ghost of Professor Harold Laski".[31][32] His recommendation of K. R. Narayanan (later President of India) to Jawaharlal Nehru (then Prime Minister of India), resulted in Nehru appointing Narayanan to the Indian Foreign Service.[33] In his memory, the Indian government established The Harold Laski Institute of Political Science in 1954 at Ahmedabad.[14]"

The article even quotes Nehru as having said after Laski's death in 1950 "It is difficult to realise that Professor Harold Laski is no more. Lovers of freedom all over the world pay tribute to the magnificent work that he did. We in India are particularly grateful for his staunch advocacy of India's freedom, and the great part he played in bringing it about. At no time did he falter or compromise on the principles he held dear, and a large number of persons drew splendid inspiration from him. Those who knew him personally counted that association as a rare privilege, and his passing away has come as a great sorrow and a shock."

However, in the Wikipedia article on Nehru, there is no mention of Laski anywhere. Should this omission be corrected? While Laski become more radical in his later years and his influence decreased, he was never the less a brilliant and influential academic in his earlier years.

Michael Wiggin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.30.14 (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wiggin: Well let's see. The "early life" section does mention Annie Besant who was an early Fabian socialist, and the Fabian socialism page very prominently mentions both Besant and Nehru in the "second generation" section. Yes, Laski was definitely important. Nehru had many Fabian friends, George Bernard Shaw (as I remember it, ... at least there are pictures of them together) and the Bevans (Aneurin and ...). I didn't realize that Laski was absent. Perhaps in the "economic policy" section a few lines could be added, if appropriate. Of course, we have to be careful that in the current atmosphere of scapegoating Nehru for all of India's ills, this addition is not WP:POV. Why don't you take a stab at it, or some other editor might who watches this page with more care than I do. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nehru was at Harrow, was he not? Not mentioned, though. Seadowns (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jawaharlal Nehru. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is at least one historical figure with a non-placeholder article to them that is not hotlinked from here.

Can someone hotlink the Annie Besant article wherever her name occurs? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Besant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.84.16 (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jawaharlal Nehru. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious revert

@Capitals00: this is quite crossing the line. Removing scholarly content for such a spurious reason is likely to land you in deep waters. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is better without mention of what somebody "speculates", what was "controversial" about the speculation and all other types of opinions associated with these gossips. Capitals00 (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there is enough material to write about Nehru than his romantic life. This stuff is quite WP:UNDUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The two of you need to explain what issues there are with such content under his personal life? No doubt the man has much to have written about, but his affairs belong under personal life. Its received ample coverage, the sources I cited being a few of them. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDHT. Read the "two" again and don't repeat the same question. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When was the first question asked? Read WP:CIVIL and WP:ESDONTS. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jawaharlal_Nehru&oldid=840032740"