Talk:Arundhati Roy/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Arundhati Roy is Prannoy Roy's niece or cousin?

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arundhati_Roy" says: Arundhati Roy is a niece of prominent media personality Prannoy Roy but "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prannoy_Roy" says: Prannoy Roy is the cousin of the prize winning Indian writer Arundhati Roy. Dr Roy's father and Arundhati's father are brothers. Now, which one is correct? 125.17.174.6 (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Malar Kannan 19-May-2009

Suzanna_Arundhati_Roy Ananya_Roy Prannoy_Roy Laura_Nader

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 01:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up article and added more info

@Geniac, i have not deleted any info but simply added more info which is widely known in india. If you have any questions, i will answer them here.Unknownbroadway (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC).

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. --Geniac (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop deleting what i've added to the article. Like i said before, talk it out here and i'll stop reverting it back else what your doing is vandalism.Unknownbroadway (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC).

Added citations.Unknownbroadway (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
None of your citations support the statement, it's pure synthesis. If she's "known" for something, multiple sources need to document it that way. Stop adding your POV to the article. -SpacemanSpiff 16:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I repeat, Stop vandalizing. The only POV i see is from you. Wikipedia is not your personal website. Your are warned.Unknownbroadway (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop adding nonsense to the article in addition to synthesis and POV. -SpacemanSpiff 08:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You have been reported. Rethink again before you indulge in this sort of juvenile behaviour. Unknownbroadway (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Do not ping to my talk page. Discuss it here what you want to discuss. There is no such thing as a "consensus" for expanding a box or expanding the article. Unknownbroadway (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Given that you're adding unadulterated nonsense -- "known for incest" etc, I have no problems in any reports you issue. Besides, two editors have reverted you already and you don't appear to have any justification for your edits. -SpacemanSpiff 08:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding name of spouses and name of parents is not "nonsense". I have even added citations to it. There are many website that note arundhati's biography and a person who edits this section should know better. Asking for multiple citations about these claims is an attempt to personalize this article. I will happily revert back if citations were missing but in this case all necessary citations have been added. Again, do not ping me at my talk page. If your deleting my content then mention here why you've done so. Do not cite "nonsense" else i'll email the admins to take action against you.Unknownbroadway (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not think you are from india. That is one of the things the author is known for. It is known fact. If your from india and purposely doing it then your deluding yourself for your own goals.Unknownbroadway (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point. "It is a known fact". You don't have sources, so this is a known fact. That's basically nonsense. -SpacemanSpiff 08:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Proper Infobox

Apparently there is an ongoing latent edit war regarding this article and lately regarding the infobox in particular. Independent what information one might prefer in detail, there a certain things which are somewhat "standard" for writer's or person's infobox. In particular being a recipient of a prestigious book price belongs in the infobox. Also when you delrte stuff please make sure that you do not remove sources as well, which are useful for the article in other regards. CNN interview was actually an interesting piece for readers(assuming it originates from Cnn's own youtube channel, so that there are no legal issues).--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The videos are all copyvios and therefore do not qualify as legitimate sources, the content he keeps adding is his opinion (see the response above, "I do not think you are from india. That is one of the things the author is known for"). Taking interview statements out of context to provide hyperbole ("Naxalite sympathizer"). This is a BLP and such junk synthesis shouldn't be here. Quite a few editors have opined on this previously. As for removing the Booker award, that was an error. —SpacemanSpiff 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that his edits seem somewhat questionable. But please note that copyvio do not disqualify a source as legitimate. It only means that we cannot provide a direct youtube link. The (original) interview on CNN itself however is of course a perfectly legitimate source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but using it for hyperbole isn't kosher and given that this is a BLP, it qualifies for automatic reverts —SpacemanSpiff 19:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Court ordered registration of FIR (complaint) against Roy and Syed Ali Shah Geelani

[1] -- 06:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.68.118 (talk)

Sympathizer

A recent edit added a Arundhati Roy#Sympathizer of Naxals section. I suspect that the section heading and content are in conflict with WP:BLP and invite opinions on how to proceed. However accurate, the term "sympathizer" is inappropriate anywhere in a BLP, although I suppose an attributed direct quote might occasionally be suitable (X said "Y is a Nazi sympathizer"[ref]). The first source appears to be an unsubstantiated comment based on the second source (this long article) which has a subheading "Gandhians with a Gun? Arundhati Roy plunges into the sea of Gondi people to find some answers...". It is very likely that Roy did not write the subheading: writing about a Naxalite army, Roy actually wrote "As far as consumption goes, it's more Gandhian than any Gandhian, and has a lighter carbon footprint than any climate change evangelist" and (after more musings), "Should I write a play, I wonder—Gandhi Get Your Gun?". Nothing in the source justifies our article claiming that Roy described the insurgents as "Gandhians with a gun". To summarize the long source in the terms currently in this BLP is a conflict with WP:UNDUE. While a smaller problem, text like "dragged to the court" is also inappropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 07:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It think the article may describe her experiences with the naxalites without labelling her a sympathiser. What you can get from her own statements and quality sourced is, that she "sympathizes" with the plight of the tribal population and that they have a just cause to complain due to being uprooted and dispossed. Meaning that "naxalite sympathizer" is mostly classical political mudslinging like somebody fighting for worker rights or better participtation/share of lower classes gets called a "communist" or somebody arguing for civil rights gets called "bourgeios and conter revolutionary". In short WP should stay away from such labels and if they become that common in association with a person, they need written in a more objective fashion, ie. not "Eoy is naxalite sympathiser" but "XY or some critics charge Roy for being a naxalite sympathiser". But reporting it as a fact as currently should only be done, if really almost all sources call her that and/or if it a self description by her. The Ghandi with guns-part however is correct and a phrase she used repeatedly. As sources there are several interviews she's given and long article in the guardian of march this year entitled Gandhi but with guns ([2]), where she describes experiences when she was undercover/embedded with the naxalites for a while. Generally speaking there, seem be some danger for constant pov-edits and BLP-violations mostly due to the fact that she's a "controversial" figure in India, in such cases I'd favour simply reverting their edits without much fuzz. This section however was added by veteran editor and admin, although imho it needs improvement, it doesn't fall into the category of intentional pov-edits and blp-violations i just mentioned.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S.: The (also new?) section "violation of forest law" needs some help us well. There needs to be some backround onfo on te forest law and some general context.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, the term "Sympathizer" might be considered POV (though I don't see anything wrong with it: there are plenty of people who support Arundhati's view, including many politicians). As for "Gandhian", Arundhati has indeed described the Maoists as Gandhians on multiple occasions. For example, in an interview, she was asked "...you describe the people you traveled with, the armed guerrillas, as Gandhians with guns. Can you talk about what you mean by that and how—what you think of the violence perpetrated by the Maoists?"; she replied: "it’s an army that is more Gandhian than any Gandhian, that leaves a lighter footprint than any climate change evangelist. You know, and as I said, even their sabotage techniques are Gandhian." utcursch | talk 13:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Personally I don't consider "naxalite sympathiser" as a bad thing per se, but there is a potential for "name calling" here. As I understand there various groups pushing for classifying naxalites as terrorists, then "naxalite sympathiser" can easily turn into a euphemism for "terrorist lover", so we can get in murky waters quickly. Hence it is better for WP to avoid that such labels altogether and simply describe her statements/position towards naxalites in greater detail (quotes) and consequently in a more neutral fashion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've already renamed the section to "Views on the Naxals". I just added the section without much thought to possible POV because Arundhati's views about Naxals have caused much discussion back here in India. Some have labeled her as a traitor or as a publicity-seeking agitpropist, while others have hailed her as the voice of the poor tribals trying to save their lands -- either way, it's notable. Feel free to mercilessly edit it! utcursch | talk 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Could someone hyperlink South End Press

Could someone hyperlink South End Press to the wikipedia page? Thank you,

Seergenius (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Seergenius — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seergenius (talkcontribs) 02:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh Susanna...

I have seen the name Susanna or Suzanna attached to Ms. Roy, I recall her saying she didn't use that name etc. 99% of the time the press refers to her just as Arundhati Roy. As the spelling is questionable, as well as the usage etc. I'll put it here instead of the article as this is sorted out.

I do remember her talking about this once...have to see if I can find that source again. Ruy Lopez (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Helloworld1988, 1 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The statement that kashmir should get azadi from bhookhe nange hindustan is wrong. What she actually said, that She witnessed Kashmiris saying india as bhookhe nange hindustan, but they must understand that this bhookha nanga hindustan is with you and ony it will support you " her statement were very mature , and were not as provocative as Indian media potrayed, so atleast wikipedia should report correct. Kindly see the video on the youtube , and report her complete line she spoke there .

Helloworld1988 (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2010/oct/301010-Arundhati-Roy-controversial-Kashmir-speech-LTG-Sedition.htm transcript Off2riorob (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected}} In the interview that helloword1988 is talking about she also denies the tragedy of the kashmiri pandit and say's that she know that the story put out by the kashmiri panun is false, http://www.dawn.com/2010/12/01/seditious-speech.html . can the this be mentioned in the article under section Support for Kashmiri separatism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannu.ray (talkcontribs) 09:39, 13 December 2010

Question: Please try to explain what text (if any) in the current article is not correct, preferably by pasting a short extract here so we can see exactly what you are referring to. Also, suggest possible text to add, and where it should be added (or what text it should replace). There is no need to get your text perfect (other editors can fix any problems), but the edit requests above are too vague: I know that Roy is frequently misquoted and misinterpreted, but I have not followed the details of the case and need some clear suggestions that I can investigate. In the link you gave, Roy says "I know the story of the Kashmiri pundits. I also know that the story that these Panun Kashmir pundits put out is false. However, this does not mean that injustice was not done." but that is not useful for the article because there is no context. Clearly Roy understands the context, but it is not stated, and we would need a reliable source providing enough information for inclusion in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There should be a section where she was filed in Indian courts for secession

link http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/sedition-case-registered-against-arundhati-roy-geelani-69431 reds that Mrs.Roy has been filed in Indian courts for Sedition charges along with Hurriyat party hawk Syed Ali Shah Geelani.This is an important part and must be in the article realting to her. Also her remarks on kashmir didnt have any consequence on her freedom..ref-http://blogs.reuters.com/india/2010/10/28/arundhati-roy-kashmir-remarks/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.158.34.85 (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Congressfan, 5 April 2011

This page earlier had a description of the "Azadi the only way" .. That was an important event to be included in her page .

Congressfan (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Bility (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit required

121.73.92.60 (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC) This page needs a keen editorial eye thrown across it. There are numerous grammatical errors. As an anon wiki-gnome, the locked page prevents me. A nice 5 minute job for a good editor who can spot inconsistencies and missing full stops, etc.

Edit request 22, September 2011

Can someone please add the following to the section entitled "Articles" on Arundhati Roy? "Vadde, Aarthi "The Backwaters Sphere: Ecological Collectivity, Cosmopolitanism, and Arundhati Roy" Modern Fiction Studies 55:3(2009), 522-544."

Hi. Thanks for the suggestion but you'll need to explain why that particular article is a useful addition to the wikipedia article on Ms. Roy. Regards. --regentspark (comment) 20:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, well it discusses how Roy's environmental activism is inseparable from her novel writing. It connects the literary experimentalism of The God of Small Things and its representation of the River Meenachal to the rhetorical strategies she develops for her explicitly political essays on the Narmada campaign in The Cost of Living. The article creates an important bridge between Roy, the writer and Roy, the activist, by arguing that she first refined her polemical style through her fiction writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.248.112 (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Arundhati Roy's controversial comments on Gujarat riots in 2002 missing in "Advocacy and controversy" section

Hi,

Arundhati Roy's comments on Gujarat riots of 2002 that came in Outlook magazine when the riots were happening, which got very high media attention, when the enquiry proved false and subsequent apology was published in the same magazine, are one of the biggest controversial statement ever issued by her, which triggered widespread violence during the riots, is missing from "Advocacy and controversy" section of the wikipedia article about 'Arundhati Roy".

Some of the comments in the article published in the Outlook magazine were :

"Last night a friend from Baroda called. Weeping. It took her fifteen minutes to tell me what the matter was. It wasn't very complicated. Only that Sayeeda, a friend of hers, had been caught by a mob. Only that her stomach had been ripped open and stuffed with burning rags. Only that after she died, someone carved 'OM' on her forehead."

"A mob surrounded the house of former Congress MP Iqbal Ehsan Jaffri. His phone calls to the Director-General of Police, the Police Commissioner, the Chief Secretary, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) were ignored. The mobile police vans around his house did not intervene. The mob broke into the house. They stripped his daughters and burned them alive. Then they beheaded Ehsan Jaffri and dismembered him. Of course it's only a coincidence that Jaffri was a trenchant critic of Gujarat Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, during his campaign for the Rajkot Assembly by-election in February."

Please refer to the below citations and for further details :

1) "Democracy - Who's she when she's at home?" (Outlook magazine, MAY 06, 2002 issue) : http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?215477

2) "To the Jaffri Family, An Apology" (Her apology posted in Outlook magazine, MAY 27, 2002 issue) : http://www.outlookindia.com/feedbacks.aspx?typ=100&val=215477&source=published&commentid=27001#27001

3) "Fiddling With Facts As Gujarat Burns" - by BALBIR K. PUNJ (Outlook magazine, MAY 27, 2002 issue) : http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?215755

Thanks and regards, Prasanth --Prasanthkrish (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone Please Add this Video Under the "War in Srilanka against Tamil rebels, 2009" header

Hello. Can someone please add this link under this header?

http://www.france24.com/en/20100107-video-showing-execution-tamils-authentic-un-envoy-says-sri-lanka

It's a link to a news article which reports that a video showing summary executions of Tamils (POWs?) by the Srilankan army was found to be authentic by a UN envoy.

Currently, the way this section is phrased is implying that Roy didn't really know what she was talking about when she made those comments about the Tamil. It uses words like "perceived" to convey that kind of meaning. Moreover, a critic's response was immediately written after her calling her "ill-informed and hypocritical", which only adds to the implication that she doesn't know what she is talking about.

Therefore, it is only fair to add this link to show people that she wasn't just making up shit out of her ass, but that her comments had strong basis in reality (I won't say "real" for the sake of objectivity).

Perhaps something like this would do "However, later in 2009, a video authenticated by a UN envoy was disseminated throughout media channels showing summary executions of Tamil prisoners by the Srilankan army, lending support to Roy's claims". or something along those lines. The point is to change it from implying that she was just talking shit to implying she actually stated a claim that had factual basis in reality. It's only fair really, and would add to the credibility and integrity of this article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.32.51 (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2010‎ (UTC)

Edit request to include "Sedition Charges"

[1] http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/sedition-case-registered-against-arundhati-roy-geelani-69431, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/kashmir-has-never-been-integral-part-of-india-arundhati/701793/

Kindly add the following to Arundhati Roy's page under "Sedition Charge", as this is very critical to her biography. Sedition charges Writer Arundhati Roy, Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani and others were booked on charges of sedition by Delhi Police for their "anti-India" speech at a seminar. The filing of the FIR came following a directive from a local court on a petition filed by Sushil Pandit who alleged that Geelani and Roy made anti-India speeches at a conference on "Azadi-the Only Way" on October 21,2010. In the words of Arundhati Roy "Kashmir has never been an integral part of India. It is an a historical fact. Even the Indian government has accepted this".

Rockthemind (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

On hold until it's cleaned up a little bit. If you can clean this up I see no problem with adding it. Lose some of the specificity, copyedit, and make it easier to follow please! :) gwickwire | Leave a message 21:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
On hold, still until it meets NPOV. Please try to write this from a less biased point of view. It would benefit from having the last sentence removed or sourced. gwickwire | Leave a message 18:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 Done. I'm okay with adding this now. The sourcing could be improved, but it looks fine to me. Well, it looks like someone beat me to it. It's in its own section now! I went ahead and added your information to the article. Thanks! gwickwire | Leave a message 19:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

An Atlas of Impossible Longing should be added as her latest book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.38.240 (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - Adding her full name

I am requesting edit access to add her full name as Suzanna Arundhati Roy. For reference, please find the encyclopaedia Britannica page here - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/511182/Arundhati-Roy 70.178.221.18 (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)joyez, 21st Nov. 2012

I second this request. The subject's full name is SUZANNA ARUNDHATI ROY, and there are several multiple credible and trustworthy sources for this fact which even a trivial google search will throw up. 202.3.77.183 (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You'll need to provide the sources, we won't hunt for you. Also, next time, put {{edit semi-protected}} somewhere when you make a request so I can see it :) gwickwiretalkediting 21:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Umm, dude, he's already given a source. What, Encyclopedia Britannica not good enough source for Wikipedia now? LOL! 202.3.77.183 (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Done -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - Replace incorrect obsolete link to transcript of speech on 18 September 2002 and conversation with Howard Zinn

Under the section Speeches, Essays, Interviews, the entry 'Come September - transcript of speech on 18 September 2002 and conversation with Howard Zinn' is linked to http://nmazca.com/verba/roy.htm. This page doesn't exist, and the transcript can't be found elsewhere on the nmazca.com webste. Please replace the link. I suggest http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0211/S00035.htm Dru09 (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out! -- Irn (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 June 2013

The article says Arundhati Roy is the niece of Prannoy Roy. However, the cited article says the following. It was to this place that an emotionally-battered Mary returned after her marriage to Ranjit Roy (NDTV head, Prannoy Roy's uncle) broke up in 1963.

Since the father of Arundhati Roy was Prannoy Roy's uncle, Arundhati Roy is the cousin of Prannoy Roy. It may also be noted that this point is inconsequential here since there is no documentation of any contact between Prannoy Roy and Arundhati Roy. I have come across no interviews she has given for NDTV other than a minute or two snippets for NDTV journalists. She has given an interview to NDTV Hindi and we do not know if that has anything to do with Prannoy Roy. Hence, it may be specified that this relationship does not translate into anything beyond a genetic accident.


Amithbelur (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Done - Looks like this was changed a couple of weeks ago by an editor who misinterpreted that article as pertaining to Arundhati herself rather than her mother, Mary. Easy mistake to make, also easily corrected. Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 21:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Controversial Writer

The fact that she has faced sedition charges and alleged link with Maoist labels her as a controversial writer. The same should be mentioned in the title in the introduction page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.144.141 (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Arundhati Roy W.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Arundhati Roy W.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 24, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-11-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Arundhati Roy
Arundhati Roy (b. 1961) is an Indian author and political activist who won the 1997 Man Booker Prize with her debut novel The God of Small Things. Born in Shillong, Meghalaya, Roy wrote several screenplays in the late 1980s after meeting (and later marrying) director Pradip Krishen. She wrote The God of Small Things over a four-year period ending in 1996; it was published the following year and received positive international reviews, although in India the work was controversial. She has continued to write essays and articles, but has yet to publish another novel.Photograph: Augustus Binu


File:Arundhati Roy W.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Arundhati Roy W.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 24, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-11-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Arundhati Roy
Arundhati Roy (b. 1961) is an Indian author and political activist who won the 1997 Man Booker Prize with her debut novel The God of Small Things. Born in Shillong, Meghalaya, Roy wrote several screenplays in the late 1980s after meeting (and later marrying) director Pradip Krishen. She wrote The God of Small Things over a four-year period ending in 1996; it was published the following year and received positive international reviews, although in India the work was controversial. She has continued to write essays and articles, but has yet to publish another novel.Photograph: Augustus Binu


Edit request on 15 March 2015

The article says Arundathi Roy's mother is a Syrian Christian. Syrian Christian is another term for Saint Thomas Christians. The phrase 'Syrian Christian' in the article is wrongly used as a link for Syriac Christianity not the Saint Thomas Christians. It should be a link for Saint Thomas Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josslined (talkcontribs) 14:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: This seems to arise from a disagreement over the target of the redirect Syrian Christian. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 22:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


I don't understand. Who is disputing this? Syrian Christians of Kerala are the St Thomas Christians. Some Syrian Christians are part of Syriac Christian religion, most are not. Currently the article is false. Josslined (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Mistake in a date

She won the booker prize 1997 and not in 1998 as written in the first line of the article. [2] 113.193.192.164 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out. (It was right everywhere else in the article.) -- Irn (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2015

In may 2008 Arundhati Roy termed the land struggle in Chengara, Kerala, in which almost 30’000 adults and children have forcefully occupied a plantation property of Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., as "the most revolutionary struggle that is going on in India."[3]

182.71.202.217 (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think this should be included in the article? -- Irn (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Article tone looks promotional/cult figure in nature

The tone of the entire article looks promotional in nature of the said person. The entire article always points about what the author has mentioned in her columns without maintaining neutrality of issues and opposing view points and this has a cult figure like representation. Drsoumyadeepb (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you give an example using a specific paragraph? Maybe a criticism section would help? Jonpatterns (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Every section appears to have info on what others have said about her statements. See WP:BLPSTYLE. —SpacemanSpiff 12:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)