Talk:Scientific plagiarism in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on October 28, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

The Raju-Atiyah controversy has been moved to List_of_plagiarism_controversies as it is not a case of plagiarism in India but one whose victim is an Indian scientist. This misclassification was emblematic of a certain ethnocentrism! Bernard Bel (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


This is one book referring to the controversies and suggesting the answer is a formal code of conduct for Indian scientific institutions. -- (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Gopal Kundu[edit]

I have received a reasonably plausible claim that this section was biased and misleading. I have removed it for now. I will try within the next couple of days to check both the sources in the article and others that have been brought to my attention carefully before deciding whether the section should be restored. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the debacle of WP:IEP, this really is the last straw for WP's credibility. So if you're an Indian student, and you shout loud enough, edit-warring and vandalising pages against previous policy, you now get to win and push your own highly-biased POV? Why does Wikipedia and the WMF (IEP posts passim, just read the links from the recent Signpost) hold European contributions to one fairly high standard, yet Indian contributions (and Pune in particular) get a free ride through sourcing, BLP and NPOV? 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I didn't think I had said that the "Indian student" had "got to win and push their own highly-biased POV". I said that their was a reasonably plausible claim, and that I had temporarily removed the disputed content pending further investigation. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
If I'd behaved as badly as this student has behaved so far, I'd expect to have been blocked for it -- not to have their POV implemented. At least the JBC didn't publish Kundu's paper, even after he was white-washed by a panel of Indian scientists who still couldn't bring themselves to say that the paper was actually genuine. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I have now checked the relevant sources, and come to a conclusion. (It turns out that "within the next couple of days" was unduly pessimistic.) I had been approached on my talk page, but I am copying the post from that talk page here, and answering here, as it has considerable importance to this article. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi James!! I understood what you mean sorry for delayed response, please refer following URLs, which clearly says, Dr.Gopal Kundu came out clean from this plagiarism issue and he is not guilty. The URLs are,

This comprises of newspaper URLs from Telegraph India, Indian express, The Hindu, hope this is enough to clarify that Dr Gopal Kundu was accused but, he came out clean. Since, it was a malicious email sent by his student and he is not guilty. So, by invalid I mean he is not guilty, and he was never barred from doing anything later and this article is using references from sources which says he was accused but the verdict by committee is in favour of Dr Gopal Kundu. So, I again request you to delete this page " Gopal Kundu cntroversy" from article "Scientific plagiarism in India". And the URL which I earlier referred to is from the same organization NCCS which is mentioned here in all the references. It's a goverement body and they still allow him to work there.

Thanks Shrikant101 (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I have had a quick look at the sources you have cited, and it does look as though you may be right. I have removed the section form the article for now, and when I get time (probably in two days) I will check the sources more thoroughly. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
As it turns out I have managed to check more thoroughly sooner than I expected. I have discovered the following:
  1. Some of the sources you cite are certainly not reliable, such as a blogspot post.
  2. You have been highly selective in what you cite. For example, you have cited an article published on March 06, 2007 in the Calcutta Telegraph, but have failed to mention that another article in the same newspaper described a very different side to the case.
  3. You say that "he was never barred from doing anything later", but sources (such as the Telegraph article I have just mentioned) say otherwise.
  4. You say "the verdict by committee is in favour of Dr Gopal Kundu". However, that is only one view. It was mentioned in the Wikipedia article, but to give a balanced, neutral, coverage, it is necessary also to mention the opposing views, which the article did. Your attempt to represent one committee's assessment as though it were a final and definitive judgement in the case is disingenuous.

It is clear that reliable sources exist covering both sides, and your attempt to represent the issue as being one sided is misleading. I shall, therefore, restore the section to the article. Please drop your campaign to try to suppress the information. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi James! Yes, you are right but you can check by comparing the sources like newspaper articles from Telegraph, The Hindu, Indian express, the article date which talk about him being guilty is older than the date which talks about him being clean. It clears shows that. Dr Gopal Kundu is came out clean. If you still don't agree you can make a call to any of the contact numbers mentioned anywhere on the articles or NCCS number they say he is clean. It was a malicious mail that raised this controversy. Thus, I kkindly request you to please take off the page Gopal Kundu Controversy from the article.

Thanks Shrikantbhalerao101 (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

We have evidence of a 3-year ban by the Indian Academy of Sciences, which I personally see as the strongest outcome of this story thus far. I have not seen any evidence that the announcement of this ban is incorrect or has been withdrawn. Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, initially he was supposed to be barred for 3yrs but, later charges were withdrawn please check this URL Indian Express newspaper which says this, Shrikantbhalerao101 (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find it in your link. Further, the link is 3 years older than the academy decision, which was taken in July 2010. Materialscientist (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Likewise, of the two links to the Calcutta Telegraph I gave above, the one which indicated doubt about him was over three and a half years later than the one suggesting innocence (November 14 , 2010, as compared with March 06, 2007), and yet Shrikantbhalerao101 followed that post with "the article date which talk about him being guilty is older than the date which talks about him being clean". Considering the considerable efforts that Shrikantbhalerao101 has clearly gone to in order to find sources supporting his/her case, it is difficult to see how he/she can keep on over and over again accidentally making errors like that. I'm afraid it has become difficult to maintain an assumption of good faith. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

IP editor's addition about the 2 cases of plagiarism[edit]

I just checked through the source provided, its actually on pg 24/25of the book. Technically we just need to make it a proper publication-style reference instead of using the PDF link. The problem is that its still a very big claim to make; do we take it at face value and just qualify the edit by stating it as a claim made by the publication, or do we hold off and seek further verification? Zhanzhao (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scientific plagiarism in India. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)