Talk:Vikram Sampath

Acclaimed

What is the evidence that all 4 of his books are "acclaimed"? Awards are mentioned for one of them. User:122.161.105.164

No evidence. Should be removed. --Venkat TL (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Primary Sources Issue

@Venkat TL:I don't know why but you have added template with WP:SPS,WP:SELFPUB,WP:SELFPUBLISH,WP:BLOGS,WP:PSTS despite the fact that primary source i.e his website is used only one time and even for the "Early Life and Education" section. The Article fits the WP:PSTS.-- AryaGyaan (talk) 13:04,21 October 2021 (UTC)

The tag has links to Wikipedia:No original research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. Please read these 2 links. I am sure you will understand what is lacking in the article. Venkat TL (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

In this Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources,it is mentioned that "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.",the only primary source used in the whole article is Vikram Sampath's own website and is cited only one times in the "Early Life" which is niether appreciative nor critical but only descriptive .

Wikipedia:No original research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources,Again,The whole article has mostly cited reliable scecondry sources like The Hindu etc.- AryaGyaan (talk) 13:22 21 October 2021 (UTC)

please look again, carefully.Venkat TL (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Please help to replace these Primary/SPS sources. https://theprint.in/author/vikram-sampath/page/2/ "Vikram Sampath". ThePrint.

"281 new Fellows & Members elected to the Society | RHS". royalhistsoc.org. Retrieved 2021-10-18.

"Vikram Sampath ~ Author | Voice of the Veena | My Name is Gauhar Jaan! | Splendours of Royal Mysore". vikramsampath.com. Retrieved 2021-08-01.

"Founders - Bangalore Literature Festival". bangaloreliteraturefestival.org. Retrieved 2021-08-15.

"Savarkar (Part 1)". Penguin Random House India . Retrieved 2021-08-01.

"Splendours Of Royal Mysore". www.goodreads.com. Retrieved 2021-08-01.

"My Name is Gauhar Jaan!". www.goodreads.com. Retrieved 2021-08-01.

"Voice Of The Veena S Balachander". www.goodreads.com. Retrieved 2021-08-01.

"Vikram Sampath". Penguin Random House India. Retrieved 2021-08-01.

"- BITS Alumni Association". www.bitsaa.org. Retrieved 2021-09-27. Venkat TL (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You have not given me any specfic reason why you have included the said template, and saying that "plz look carefully ",you are violating WP:TALKDONTREVERT.And if we can't reach the consensus,it is beeter to go with Dispute resolution noticeboard.AryaGyaan (talk) 13:22 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Venkat TL:

• 1.The Print Website is a reliable secondry source and is only used to cite Sampath as a columnist in the said website.
• 2. royalhistsoc.org. is not a primary source but a secondry reliable independent source.
• 3. vikramsampath.com is defintely a primary source but the source is cited only one times and it fits Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources,it is mentioned that "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim." and source is used only descrpitive and not as appreciative or critical of the subject.
• 4.bangaloreliteraturefestival.org is again a reliable indepedent secondry source.
• 5.Penguin Random House India again is a secondry source and again is merely descriptive.
• 6.www.goodreads.com again is a secondry source.

Plz see WP:PSTS..AryaGyaan (talk) 13:22 21 October 2021 (UTC) @Venkat TL: I am removing the unneccsery tag.AryaGyaan (talk) 13:22 21 October 2021 (UTC)

AryaGyaan, Problematic sources have not been replaced. See the list above for sources that need to be removed. If you disagree with me then you can discuss this on WP:RSN. Please do not remove the tags without fixing the problem, as mentioned in the tag. Venkat TL (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam is this removal of tag inadvertent? [1] Please do not remove it before replacing the sources. Venkat TL (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Venkat TL, I think it might be an edit conflict. I did not recall removing any tag - so strange. As things stand, there is no need of any tag. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Venkat TL (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Popular Historian

• "The Risks of Looking at India's History Through the Eyes of Pseudo-Historians". The Wire. Retrieved 2021-10-21.

• [...] Sampath’s approach is not scholarly per se, as he cites few of his sources, making his book a problematic reference work for other researchers. On a few occasions he indulges in some mild fictionalization [...]
  — Manuel, Peter (2012). "Review of "My Name is Gauhar Jan!": The Life and Times of a Musician". Ethnomusicology. 56 (1): 146–150. doi:10.5406/ethnomusicology.56.1.0146. ISSN 0014-1836.

TrangaBellam (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Author of the the said Wire Article is not a historian and comes under Questionable Source (WP:QS). Content of "views" rely heavily on unsubstantiated personal opinion and personal opinion about BLP is questionable.

Second article overall praises the said book with little criticism and also can you plz rovide me with scholarly creditential of Peter Manuel .--AryaGyaan (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

D'Souza is not a historian? I suggest that you contact the multiple universities where he served in their Depts. of History or CHS (JNU) for awarding him a PhD at the first place.

Dalrymple is a popular historian and his books are gen. praised; so are works by Shashi Tharoor. What is the relevance? Sampath might be an excellent popular historian - I don't know.

Peter Manuel is a Professor of Ethnomusicology at CUNY. He specializes in Indian and Caribbean Music, and has published several award winning academic works.

I think you believe popular historian to be some kind of pejorative, when it is not. The methodologies of scholarship —popular and academic/professional— differ in light of different target-audiences - nothing more, nothing less. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Another article, in support of D'Souza. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with TB that he is not an academic historian. Sampath is simply a biographer, nothing more. His PhD thesis is here. The subject is Music. And his prior degrees are in Engineering and Business. LukeEmily (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. But absent sources who deem him to be a biographer, we cannot use that word. Popular historian is the best fit. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, sure. Sounds fair. I have changed it to popular historian.LukeEmily (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

"The subject is music" is objectionable. He has clarified it himself https://mobile.twitter.com/vikramsampath/status/1447206910915010569 103.199.180.151 (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

How come William Dalrymple and Ramachandra Guha are listed as historians and not popular historians? Seems inconsistent. Correction: D. actually did seem to have a history degree. Am I right? --Hunnjazal (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Dalrymple is indeed a popular historian and his works don't find a sympathetic audience in most academics. I have objected to him being used as a high-quality source (in various articles) on these grounds.

Guha writes histories of both kinds, and his work is highly regarded by academic historians. So, I disagree. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Latest additions

His research interests include [..] biographies is a weird thing to state. Maybe, state outright that he is a biographer?

He strongly supports the rewriting of Indian history is fine but does not aid a reader. Why does he want to rewrite history? Is it because he is of the subaltern school, who believes the mainstream histories are centered around elites and ignores the masses? Or, is he of the Marxist school who believes that mainstream histories do not show due regard for class concerns? Or, is he of the right-nationalist school who believes that mainstream histories do not reflect Hindu India in its full glory? Or, [..]

This is not Twitter to score points. Please write substantial statements that is encyclopedic and aids all varieties of reader including those who are not at all acquainted with Indian Politics. That is, add a background. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Plagiarism

What's happening over here — anybody who is acquainted with the details? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, it was a "transcript of a talk" as it clearly says in the journal publication. Since we were not present at the conference, we are advised to speak to those who were "in charge of the transcribing". If the journal forgot to put their names in the authorship, clearly Vikram Sampath cannot be held responsible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have the letter sent to RHS by the trio? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Truschke had uploaded it. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

If the journal forgot to put their names in the authorship - Sampath has literally copied entire sentences off Bakhle, Chaturvedi et al; that is about a half of the essay. If he had indeed attributed them, that would have been a very weird speech to hear.

I am not buying Sampath's arguments but I do not attribute any malice either. This is an endemic problem to S. Asia - graduates from quite decent universities feel that they can copy lines off random books as long as they throw a proper citation in the bibliography. See Sanjeev Sanyal's defense (1) where he makes the exact same point: what's all this hullabaloo about when Chaturvedi is cited! TrangaBellam (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, please! I am from South Asia. I wouldn't claim that I never cheated, but I was clear in my own mind when I was cheating and when I wasn't. The idea that they don't know what is plagiarism is bull. They just think they can get away with it. Nobody will know. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair point.

Meanwhile, Sampath is playing to the gallery: he has filed a defamation suit in Delhi HC. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You can't take it lightly. It means that if any of the critiquing scholars enter India, they can get arrested. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ahem. Am I to believe that a Big Five publisher did not bother to run the print-draft past our ubiquitous plagiarism detector? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Plagiarism and defamation suit details has been added. Reporting at The Wire is quite credible LINK and it is used to expand this article with due diligence. In case, if there is any difference in opinion then I would suggest to use our access at The Wikipedia Library to cross-verify the current (and future findings). Since this issue is quite controversial, please do expect edit war at this entity's page. Will not be surprised if a page protection is requested for. -Hatchens (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Poor drafting and I suggest that we maintain the status quo until there is more clarity (not in a legal sense) on this developing situation. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Rewrote the section. I hope that nobody has any issues. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Why have the "plagerism" allegations listed in the summary @TrangaBellam?

I have read several Wikipedia articles, but none highlights the "alleged" allegations which are widely contested. Shouldn't Wikipedia edits be free of bias? Tsachin (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Several Wikipedia articles - other stuff exists but Tsachin, please consult How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life and Jayson Blair.

Lead is the condensed version of a body. I have added a ton of content within the last 48 hours and they will be summarized in lead, too. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam Why shy away from listing who made the allegations in that letter to RHS? The ideological leanings of Audrey T, Rohit C and Ananya C don't align with Sampath's (I expect that this isn't disputed). This gives important context. Additionally, I notice that TrangaBellam has used his/her/their admin powers to vandalise my personal talk page with warnings. I don't take my edits personally and expect that others wouldn't too.

Please sign your posts using ~~~~. The two messages on your talk-page state explicitly that they are not warnings: such awareness-messages are necessitated by policy.

There is no shying away; we do describe them in the section on plagiarism. I do not see any reliable source that describes the ideological leanings of Truschke/Chakravarti/Chopra and compares it with Sampath's; even if they exist, how is that relevant? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

That is relevant because it gives context as to why these three academics with no known interaction with Sampath decide to subject his work to plagiarism softwares and then go public with a letter they sent to the RHS. Note that the academics who were supposed to have been plagiarised commented on the controversy only later when reached out by media, primarily thewire.in. Unless you suggest that his summary should focus on the allegation without context about the academics making it, we should have the context in the summary. To highlight an example, the page you authored for Audrey T focusses on her supposed harassment by suspected right wing online accounts in the Summary. We should treat both similarly - i.e., either highlight the accusations or highlight the harassment or both in the Summary.Tsachin (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I propose an update to the Summary in line with my points above as below. If you object, please could you explain the rationale for each objection:

In February 2022, three US based academics (Audrey Truschke, Rohit Chopra, Ananya Chakravarti) accused Sampath of plagiarism in a publicly released letter to the Royal Historical Society ; Sampath denies the charges and has responded with a lawsuit against the three.Tsachin (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your sealioning. The recipient of their allegations—RHS or Deutsche Welle or Joe Biden—is undue for our lead.

You might retarget your efforts on summarizing the extensive information, that I added to the article recently. But you are under no compulsion. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

And I do not appreciate your allegation and name calling. You showing up on my personal page and pasting notices appeared as an attempt at subtle threat which is unbecoming of a good faith editor (I do not find any wikipedia "policy" which states that other editors should do this, though I am happy to be corrected). I wanted a good faith discussion to understand what your objections are. The wording I have put together is completely based on facts and evidenced using a source you use often (thewire.in).

The recipient of the allegation and the people making those allegations are important context and are relevant here. You making a frivolous comment (Joe Biden etc) about it is unwarranted. Please might I ask that you stick to why you object to the change to the summary? If you don't have any clear objection, I will proceed to make the change. Tsachin (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Alerts is policy, as is WP:UNDUE. You have been repeatedly told that five (not three) academics have accused our subject of plagiarism.

I am under no obligation to satisfy you esp. when three other longstanding editors (1, 2a, 2b and 3) do not find anything amiss with my line. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

No editor is under any obligation to another. I wanted to have a collegiate discussion on this matter, thus haven't proceeded to make the edits before we agree here.

I acknowledge the discretionary sanctions policy you have shared.

I do not see how mentioning and evidencing the source of the allegation (publicly released RHS letter by three not five academics) is incorrect or irrelevant. Subsequently there have been more academics (Gaurav Sabnis et al) so the count can be said to be higher than five. However, that is not relevant. Tsachin (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are refraining from edit-warring.

For our lead, it boils down to the overall picture. Who raised the allegations, who seconded them, and who thirded (sic) them falls under nitpicking.

Who is Sabnis? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Besides the point here, but to answer your question: Gaurav Sabnis is a tenured professor specializing in social-media marketing at Stevens Institute of Technology

I think we have reached the point where we disagree -- regarding whether highlighting the allegation without context is appropriate. This comes right after the sentence highlighting his fellowship at the RHS. In addition, the lawsuit by Sampath is not against all others who joined the accusations after the first three made public their letter to the RHS. As such, the two sentences read together give a slightly misleading picture of who made the allegations and who the lawsuit is against. In any case, given your objection to further details in the lead, I propose a slightly curtailed version below:

In February 2022, three US based academics accused Sampath of plagiarism in a publicly released letter to the Royal Historical Society ; Sampath denies the charges and has responded with a lawsuit against the three.Tsachin (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

How is US-based a rational qualifier?

For the umpteenth time, the mode of accusation is irrelevant for lead and you cannot wash away Chaturvedi and Bakhle. Accept that the consensus is not in your favor and move on; I won't respond anymore. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not wishing away Charturvedi and Bakhle just as I wouldn't wish away others who have joined the allegations. As you mentioned, those who seconded and "thirded" the allegation is detail that can come later. The lawsuit that is mentioned isn't against Charturvedi and Bakhle and others who came out in support thereafter.

If the consensus is against me, please might I request that you allow other senior editors of the said consensus to revert the change that I shall make. Else it is just you vs me and we end up in the edit-warring territory. My proposal is fact based (whether you agree that the facts are relevant or not) and is evidenced.Tsachin (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

You can just ping them—Kautilya3 and Vanamonde93—to check whether they prefer (underlined parts denote insertion):

• Current version:

  In February 2022, multiple academics accused Sampath of plagiarism; Sampath denies the charges and has responded with a lawsuit.

OR

• Proposed version:

  In February 2022, three US based academics accused Sampath of plagiarism in a publicly released letter to the Royal Historical Society; Sampath denies the charges and has responded with a lawsuit against the three.

  TrangaBellam (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

This is my last comment in this thread and I am off to expanding the lead from the rest of body. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Tsachin, the MOS:LEAD is a quick summary. It contains the minimal amount of information necessary to know what is in the body. It is not meant to provide any detail. The WP:ONUS rests on you to explain why the additional detail is necessary. TrangaBellam proposed the wording for the lead, and obtained the WP:CONSENSUS of those of us that were watching the page. You need to do the same. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Vandalism

I have not used either of the articles to write anything and claims of vandalism are ludicrous, to say the least. If you have a policy compliant argument about how they are not reliable sources, please respond. TIA. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Preemptive warring! Lest you might get any bright ideas! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Not adding anything unless this gets more traction in media or the issue is settled. I wonder whether the Delhi HC will issue a ruling anytime soon. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The hearing is scheduled for tomorrow. You can be sure that Hindutva itself will come and add what the court says (and rule out eerything else as "defamation"). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Like clock work, they do it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Better Source Needed

Akshay, why is the current source not a decent one? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Added Reichman's article. More details about the publication: 1. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

A line in the lead

How do watchers feel about this edit? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, Vanamonde93, Joshua Jonathan, Akshaypatill, and WikiLinuz: I will appreciate your opinions. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Good to go. No WP:CENSORSHIP. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, seems reasonable. The allegations are generating enough coverage that they require inclusion; per BLP we need to be very careful about what's in Wikivoice, and this formulation is solid from that perspective. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that edit. It seems DUE in the lead, given that we have multiple sources reporting the accusations. However, I fear it may transgress BLP WP:SUSPECT, which says [a] living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Since Sampath is a historian/academic, I think it falls under WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 19:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

NOTPUBLICFIGURE? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

BLP's primary requirements have to do with quality of sourcing, due weight, and use of Wikipedia's voice. Sampath is likely not a highly public figure, but he's a widely published author; he's not unknown. The allegations in question are discussed in several solid news pieces; I don't think leaving them out is an option. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, fair enough. He's definitely popular among RW. Maybe my threshold of being a public figure was way off the charts, nevermind. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 06:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ramachandra Guha is not a signatory

Hi @TrangaBellam I saw that you have added the name of Ramachandra Guha as on of the signatories in the footnote in [2] . The provided source doesn't even mention the name of him. Moreover Ramachandra Guha himself refuted the claims of signing any such document. [3]

Kindly look into this and revert the edit. >>> Extorc.talk(); 12:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Removed the entire note. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2022

Change 'Multiple academics have since affirmed the charges of plagiarism; in an open letter, they further accuse Sampath of having mobilized right-wing allies in harassing Trushcke and others while mounting an intimidatory lawsuit.[19][20]' to

'An open letter was published in which multiple academics have since affirmed the charges of plagiarism however this was disputed by some of the prominent names mentioned in the letter as niether having signed it nor having heard about it'

Source : https://twitter.com/Ram_Guha/status/1497841519536984065 https://twitter.com/pbmehta/status/1497899460361428996 1+1Equal10 (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please provide a WP:SECONDARY source for this. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 18:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Removed the line based on (what appeared to be) a recent update. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead line

AryaGaan: Truschke, Chakravarti, Chopra, Bakhle and Chaturvedi do not three academics make. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

An interim order is not indicative of merits and does not belong at the lead. Indian Courts appear to court an extremely defensive posture in defamation issues to the extent of allowing suits without even giving the defendants a chance to file reply. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @TrangaBellam,the plagiarism accusation are by namely three academics-Trusckhe,Chopra and Chakravarti in their letter to Royal Historical Society[4],others like Bahkhle are later supporters of the accusation and not the direct accusers.

It doesn't matter what are the merits of interim order, I am merely presenting the result of the defamation suit as the former article vioates WP:WEIGH,WP:DUE.WP:UNDUE and doesnt comes under facts.

On the Open letter, the open letter is found to be lacking the signs of many academics,and comes under forgery and was shared by Audrey Trusckhe on Social Media.

@Kautilya3, Vanamonde93, and Joshua Jonathan: I will appreciate your opinions.AryaGyaan (talk) 13:22 28 Febraury 2021 (UTC)

Please indent your posts.

How does it matter whether their support arrived late? It was their works which were plagiarized and they affirm the charges. You are not reading the policies you cite; please read them. I am not questioning the merits of interim order - explicitly, interim orders are not indicative of the merits. I have removed our line about the "open letter" (thanks to Extorc for drawing my attention): so? (It was not a forgery but a harebrained way of using technology.) TrangaBellam (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think there's any material difference between "five" and "multiple" in the lead. Reviewing the article, though, the plagiarism allegations are taking up too much space; it's a due weight problem. I think we should summarize a bit more. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  Today, Sampath had moved a fresh application to censor the "open letter" which the Court rejected and this new development is (again) all over the media - Indian Express etc. Coverage of "alleged plagiarism" is on a steady increase. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  I know that. I'm not saying we remove it. But 300 words of plagiarism allegations and counter allegations in a 570-word bio is too much. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  Merge the book with author and we will (probably) have enough content to offset the ratio. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  And you can put the "Further Reading" section to use. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: Do you still intend to trim the section? If so, please go ahead. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  I was initiating a discussion, TB, not so much declaring my intentions to trim, but I'll try to work on it a bit later. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  I've trimmed a little content. Given how much you've added to the biography, I think it's okay now. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  It is fine. Btw, I wish for a second opinion on using Bhattacharya's review - the publication medium is not very decent. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  And our lead needs an expansion in light of all the new content. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  That source is best avoided, I've removed it. Party organs are not a priori reliable. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  How about this review? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  Don't think so...from an established scholar, the publication might be okay, but this is a first-year PhD student. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  First year PhD students review books routinely but what's bothering me is that the forum has a single editor. There are acclaimed names in the "Advisory Board" but they appear to be uninvolved in editorial process. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think anybody publishing in a reputed journal or other media would be fine; a respected scholar publishing on a website with somewhat less oversight might be acceptable in limited circumstances; but an unknown person publishing in a forum without much oversight is a combination we should avoid. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Opinions are welcome on how to add Rohan D'Souza's commentary to our article. DUEness is obvious given D'Souza's credentials. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

• Plagiarism accusations, especially when raised by multiple academics and covered in MSM, is a grave charge. We have established a local consensus for the current version of the line in lead.
• We need a secondary source for "Eisenhower Fellowship" since it does not appear to be a notable award.
• We need reliable sources for his employment at Citi Bank and GE Capital.
• Until the article includes other criticisms of Sampath, there is no need to create a separate subsection for plagiarism under an "umbrella section".
• No coatracking about Savarkar's debated nature esp. in lead! TrangaBellam (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Who died and made him the lord of this page? His wholesale removal of edits without discussion based on "local consensus" which doesn't even seem to be apparent from this Talk Page. His editorialising of this Wikipedia article seems to be related to pointing a vicious picture of Vikram Sampath.

What was the point of removing these edits?

- Mentions of his corporate career for a complete picture of his career.

- Why does summary need to have allegations of plagiarism when no such thing has been proven, has been countered by the author and other authors with proofs? Does this define his whole identity as an author? This didn't made him famous and as of now is just allegations by a group of individuals. He has been in news and discussion far longer than the few tweets on this issue.

- Why should the plagiarism section not be under Criticism/Controversy? They are better umbrella sections to have on people related articles and maintains uniformity for the reader.

- He was awarded a prestigious fellowship which I added about and it was removed by TangaBelaam

It is easy to edit a Wikipedia article which might not point a fair picture of a person, specially of one who has done far more for the written word and achieved far more than the user(User:TrangaBellam) making edits is going to achieve in literary field.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshikamal (talk • contribs) Shifted from top of the page by TrangaBellam (talk).

New Lead

Kautilya3 and Vanamonde93 - Courtesy pings. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the FRHS fellowship from lead. They have a few thousand fellows and accept almost anybody who has published a book (academic/trade/..) on something that can be reasonably connected to history.

I have also removed the phrase Sampath denies the charges since the part about lawsuit implies it. I am being WP:BOLD and if either of you disagree, please reinsert it. I offer no objections. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It goes without saying that all copyedits etc. are welcome. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Working through it. I think we need to make his denial explicit. The lawsuit implies it but doesn't make it certain. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi TB, I would prefer if both of them are retained. FRHS, because it is his only credential as a historian, and because it crops up in the news. The bit about "he denies the charges" is needed for completeness I think.

As to the rest of the lead, it reads too much like a timeline or life history. I can reword things to make it look more like a summary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits and I have no objections to including an explicit denial. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I am still not convinced about FrHS. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Wadiyars

TB, can you send me a copy of the DH source about the Wadiyars that isn't online? I'm not too happy with how we're phrasing it at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I accessed the source from his own website. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Source

Family, God, and Kingdom: Vamsavali as Local Royalist Literature in Clio and Her Descendants: Essays for Kesavan Veluthat; ed. Devadevan, Manu V.; Simmons, Caleb; Primus Books; 2018; p. 606. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.deccanherald.com/content/584342/alumni-back-sampath-say-symbiosis.html TrangaBellam (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

COI edit requests

Hi, I'm a COI editor hired to represent Sampath, with some edit requests for this article.

Lead

• A citation is needed for the description "popular historian". I looked and was unable to find a suitable one; if none exists, maybe this should be revised to "historian".
• Update "PhD in ethnomusicology" to "PhD in ethnomusicology and history" per the "Early life and education" update below.

Early life and education

• Update

Sampath was born into wealth; his father was a Tamil banker and mother, a Marathi housewife.

to

Sampath was born to a Tamil banker and a Marathi housewife.

TrangaBellam (talk · contribs) has expressed that they won't be involved in this area again for some time, but in this discussion clarified that the source for the "born into wealth" claim is the information that Sampath's parents were bankers. No other information in the cited sources substantiates the claim. Per WP:INTERPRET, I think it's better to state the reported fact than infer what it might mean, especially in a WP:BLP.

• Update

In October 2017, Sampath received a doctorate in ethnomusicology from the School of Music at University of Queensland, Australia.

to

In October 2017, Sampath received a doctorate in history and ethnomusicology from the School of Music at University of Queensland, Australia.

Career

• Update

He went on to join Hewlett-Packard, where he stayed till July 2013.

to

He went on to join Hewlett-Packard, where he stayed till July 2013, when he received a full scholarship for a PhD at the University of Queensland.

• Update "has also been a former senior fellow" to "was a senior fellow" – "has been" and "former" are redundant of each other.
• Add to end of section:

Sampath, composer Ricky Kej, and scholar Rajib Sarma produced a documentary film, Who is Baul, about the mystic Baul tradition of Bengal, directed by Sairam Sagiraju.

Archive of Indian Music

Add a new subsection under "Works and reception":

In 2011, while working on his biography of Gauhar Jaan, Sampath created the Archive of Indian Music to preserve and digitize old gramophone recordings. He was inspired by previous visits to similar archives of European music. The archive is a private non-profit trust created in collaboration with Manipal University's Manipal Centre for Philosophy and Humanities. T. V. Mohandas Pai also donated seed capital to the project.

The archive encompasses a variety of musical genres and includes recordings from as early as 1902. It included almost 15,000 records as of 2021, with 7,000 digitized. Since 2013, much of the archive has been accessible for free on SoundCloud. In 2015, while serving as the Executive Director of the Southern Regional Centre of the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, Sampath donated the entire collection of the archive to the institution for free public access.

Wadiyar Dynasty

• Delete "the lack of an academic training coupled with an equal disinclination to either the Marxist Left or the Hindu Nationalist Right apparently served him well", which is not substantiated by either of the cited sources.

V. D. Savarkar

• Update

In contrast, Swati Parashar, a professor at the Gothenburg University, found the book to be a "must-read"

to

In contrast, Swati Parashar, a professor at the Gothenburg University, found the book to be a "must-read" and called it "one of the first comprehensive attempts to document and contextualise the life of the biggest 'Hindutva' ideologue",

Feels like this should be given WP:DUE weight alongside the preceding paragraph.

• Add to end of section:

In The Telegraph, TCA Srinivasa Raghavan described the book as "a straightforward, no-fuss narrative without hyperbole and hero worship". Saradindu Mukherji wrote in Firstpost, "Sampath is thorough in his handling of the sources, both secondary and primary."

Controversies

I propose adding this as a subsection, with the new "Bangalore Literature Festival" subsection (below) and "Plagiarism allegations" as another subsection.

Bangalore Literature Festival

Add new subsection of "Controversies":

In 2015, some writers who were invited to the Bangalore Literature Festival raised objections to an article Sampath, the event's founder and director, had written opposing the Award Wapsi campaign occurring in India at the time. In response, Sampath resigned from his role with the festival, stating that he did not want his presence to discourage authors from attending. In response to the resignation, MA Deviah wrote in Firstpost, "the irony is that Vikram Sampath can fearlessly express his opinion anywhere he likes, except at the Festival, which he helped create, thanks to the intolerance of the 'tolerant.'" The Economic Times wrote, "Sampath's move comes with a wave of protest and disappointment in Bengaluru's literary community, with friends, fellow writers and historians asking him to reconsider."

Plagiarism allegations

• Add to end of section:

Truschke and others circulated a new open letter in support of the scholars making the plagiarism allegations; however, two of the signatures, from Ramachandra Guha and Pratap Bhanu Mehta, were forged.

Commenting on the allegations, MP Swapan Dasgupta said, "The entrenched historians have always portrayed the right-wing as a bunch of illiterates, incapable of writing, comprehending and judging seriously. In all honesty, Sampath has written two volumes. And rather than any substantive argument, there are frivolous charges of plagiarism on him. It is basically a way of saying, how dare you intrude into our terms." In ThePrint, Aseem Shukla wrote, "by every appearance, Sampath was targeted for scrutiny because some fellow historians disapproved of the subject of Sampath's best-selling biography, the story of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. ... All three accusers have a long history of relentlessly denying the existence of Hinduphobia, and clashing with Hindu American groups they label 'right-wing' or 'Hindutva'."

Further reading

I see no reason why this should contain only negative links when so many positive articles on Sampath's work exist in major publications. I propose adding

• Mukherji, Saradindu (7 January 2022). "Why Vikram Sampath finds himself in the line of fire for probing suppressed histories". Firstpost.
• Shukla, Aseem (4 March 2022). "Vikram Sampath's brutal targeting wasn't academic activism. It was antithesis of restraint". ThePrint.

Thanks for your time/help! Mary Gaulke (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Responses to request

• Saradindu Mukherji was one of the Modi-Regime appointees in its bid to saffronize ICHR and Firspost (post-2019) is not a reliable source (cc:@Tayi Arajakate).
• Aseem Shukla is not a competent critic — he appears to be a surgeon by training and the founder of an advocacy organization with roots in a Hindu Nationalist entity. The cited article is an opinion piece and WP:NEWSORG goes,

  When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. Please keep in mind that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources, and this is policy.

• As you say, Swapan Dasgupta is a Member of Parliament — a Hindutva-leaning (or fwiw, left-leaning/centrist/..) politician's ravings on academic issues don't matter.
• Please consult WP:QUOTEFARM: A Wikipedia article is not an indiscriminate collection of gossipy verbatim quotes. And BLPs do not have C-sections. The first two lines about BLF shall go into career. The rest, junked.
• Raghavan's review need to be added; Parashar's review can be expanded but only to include the comprehensiveness. Biggest Hindutva ideologue etc. is coatrack.
• The line about his new film belongs.
• I am undecided about "full scholarship" - will concede to the opinion of others.
• No objections to the section on music-archive but I will take a relook. Need to be trimmed.
• That his doctorate was in ethnomusicology is held by UoQ's thesis listing, You cannot cite Sampath's blurb — which are always self-written — from the launch-event of his new film to dispute the accuracy.

• Maybe, enquire of Sampath to contact the university and have a new subject tag added? Or, he can just un-embargo his thesis and we can check the finer details.

• About the line on Wadiyars:

  A management graduate, Vikram admits [..]: "Since it is not a historian's point-of-view, I was more worried as to how eminent historians would react".[1]

  The driving motive of the 700-odd-pages tome was a “non-historian perspective”. Vikram had no Left bias, nor was he fuelled by a Hindu nationalist slant. [2]

• The lack of academic training as well as the lack of LW/RW bias is already sourced. The phrase "apparently served him well" is sourced to this article, taken from Sampath's own listing of press coverage:

  He calls himself a rookie at history and says it has its benefits. "I come with no baggage and have approached the subject with a rationale bent of mind."

• See archives #Popular historian for discussion on "popular historian". TrangaBellam (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC) correction by Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  Fwiw, these are my only comments. I won't participate further, and have alerted WikiProject India of this discussion. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, popular historians are those that write for lay readership. They could be academic historians but more often they are not. In normal English the term "historian" is often used for both academic and popular historians, but in scholarly literature, the distinction is made (but may not be exactly in those terms). For example, here is a line from Ian Talbot's review of a book by Praveen Swami:

The work does not suffer from the lack of historical depth and historiographical awareness displayed in some journalistic accounts of the Kashmir.

So the reviewer pointing out that it is a journalistic account but also that it is historically competent.

In Vikram Sampath's case, unless we see academic reviews that say similar things, we have to label him as a popular historian. His PhD was from a School of Music, and the department showed no expertise in professional history. (Granted that every profession does study history of its concepts and developments, but that does not qualify as history in general. For example, there are loads of "history of mathematics" books written by mathematicians, which are blatantly wrong in historical matters.) So I would be opposed to calling it "history and ethnomusicology". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• To clarify, 2019 is just a rough cutoff for when Firstpost became unusable, its quality has fallen through 2013 to 2019, starting from the Network18 takeover around which time, most of their editorial staff was laid off and has since then undergone number of funding cuts, relying largely on freelancers to the point that now many of their reports aren't even written by professional journalists. Otherwise reading through the request, I'll essentially agree with TrangaBellam's response. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Sampath's claims about being a "historian"

He has clarified it himself https://mobile.twitter.com/vikramsampath/status/1447206910915010569 103.199.180.151 (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

To further support his claim, please check the "Acknowledgement" in preview pdf of https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780367822026/indian-classical-music-gramophone-1900%E2%80%931930-vikram-sampath . This is adaptation of Vikram Sampath PHD thesis as an academic book. @Kautilya3@TrangaBellam. Vikram Sampath had advisors from both the schools- Prof Margaret Barrett from School of Music & Prof Adam Bowles from School of History. 103.199.180.151 (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Note- I only have access to preview. If anybody has complete access then please consider adding more changes to this page. For now there is enough evidence to change "Popular Historian" to "Historian" in this page. @Kautilya3 103.199.180.151 (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Unconvincing since you wish to remove "popular historian". Barrett was the principal advisor. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam Have you verified this with university rules regarding interdisciplinary studies? This is a strange argument that you can't be a historian if your Principal advisor is not from the department of History in an interdisciplinary subject.I wonder how R.Guha is a historian then, his Phd thesis (or fellowship) was about Environmentalism focusing on Chipko movement but his main interests are Modern Indian History. 103.199.180.158 (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

See my replies at this thread. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not satisfied. Would you please clarify on this @TrangaBellam. In the preface of book adaptation of Ram Guha's thesis - "The Unquiet Woods: Ecological Change and Peasant Resistance in the Himalaya (Oxford India Paperbacks),1991" Guha mentions -

Second, I am not a historian but a sociologist trying to write history. This is a work of historical sociology, in which I am, as compared to most historians, more consciously theoretical and comparative in my approach. Here I am on slippery ground, for historians have in general a sharp scepticism of the pretensions of sociologists.

103.199.180.158 (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Take this to R. Guha's t/p. Why are you expecting me to satify you on whether Ram Guha is a historian? This page is about Vikram Sampath and as countless reviews/remarks show, he is far from being a proffessional historian. That's the last you will hear from me. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Can it be changed to "Phd in Ethnomusicology and History"? As I can see in the above mentioned book, Dr.Sampath had advisors from School of History and his thesis contains historical analysis of the topic. Mixmon (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I offer no objections. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok then change it, the article is protected for me. Mixmon (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done TrangaBellam (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Typo in Lead

Typo in lead? "Sampath was in Karnataka." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahinshah121 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - corrected. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Visana (2022)

Vikram Sampath, on the other hand, has left My transportation for life's provenance completely un-historicized, taking Savarkar's claims of mistreatment at the hands of Muslim prison wardens at face value. Sampath fails to contextualize this narrative alongside Savarkar's highly stylized and rhetorical history-writing, which employed epic heroism and myth-making to inspire a sovereign peoplehood through revolutionary violence.
— Visana, Vikram (2022-10-04). "Glory and Humiliation in the Making of V. D. Savarkar's Hindu Nationalism". The Historical Journal: 1–21. ISSN 0018-246X.

TrangaBellam (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Did you note that Chaturvedi's recent work on Savarkar does not cite Sampath a single time despite an entry in the bibliography? Quite interesting, I might say. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

new COI edit requests

Hi again. As noted above, I'm a COI editor hired to represent Sampath, with a few more edit requests for this article.

Career

• Add before "In February 2014,":

Sahitya Akademi awarded Sampath the first Yuva Puraskar in English literature in 2012.

• Add after "The same year, he resigned from the Bangalore Lit Fest, after writer-invitees criticized his opposition to the Award Wapsi campaign.":

In response to the resignation, The Economic Times wrote, "Sampath's move comes with a wave of protest and disappointment in Bengaluru's literary community, with friends, fellow writers and historians asking him to reconsider."

• Add to end of section:

In 2014, as part of his work with the Karnataka Tourism Vision Group, Sampath compiled a report with recommendations for increasing tourism to Karnataka. President Pranab Mukherjee selected Sampath as a writer-in-residence at Rashtrapati Bhavan in 2015. As of 2017, Sampath represented India in the International Society for Music Education.

Women of the Records

Add new subsection of "Works and reception":

Women of the Records, written by Sampath and published in 2021, covered the history of female Indian recording artists in the early 20th century. The book comes with a CD of recordings co-produced by Sampath and Ricky Kej.

Bravehearts of Bharat

Add new subsection of "Works and reception":

Sampath's Bravehearts of Bharat: Vignettes from Indian History, published in 2022, is an anthology of 15 non-fiction stories on the theme of under-appreciated figures from Indian history, including Lachit Barphukan, Chand Bibi, and Lalitaditya Muktapida. Sampath has stated that one of his goals for the book was to shift the "Delhi-centric" perspective of Indian historiography. As part of a panel discussion marking its launch, Vinay Sahasrabuddhe praised the book.

Further reading

Add:

• Ghose, Chandrachur (17 February 2022). "For Entitled Academics, Vikram Sampath is Not the Chief Problem, It is Modi and BJP". News18.

Thanks for your time and feedback! Mary Gaulke (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Responses to COI requests

• That he was awarded with the Yuva Puraskar is already in the honors section!
• I do not believe that the ET line is worth quoting.
• Nothing against Women of the Records. Merge it to an existing subsection than create a new one?
• I am not convinced on the Bravehearts section. More soon.
• How is Chandrachud Ghose's op-ed RS? What is his qualification to make an informed critique of Sampath or his opposition? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Further reading section

How are they choosen and what is the criteria used. Trying to understand why links are pointing to opinions 50.46.233.164 (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Original Research in the lead section.

The lead part of the article states - he wrote a two-part biography of Savarkar that was held to be an uncritical work by most critics. This is original research at best and a fringe theory at the worst. I don't find any reliable source in the article which justifies the use of the word "most" nor does it correctly summaries the body. I am fine with statements like - " The book received mixed response from critics " or any other which is more in line with what reliable sources say and is more accurate summary of the body. The current statement is a blatant violation of WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:BLPRS because it is technically impossible to prove that "most" critics held it uncritical. What is the sample size of the so called "most critics" . What is the definition of most ? . Such contentious statements should be avoided on Wikipedia , especially in case of WP:BLP. WP:BLPREMOVE is clear on this issue. - Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources. Razer(talk) 21:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The MOS:LEAD is a summary of the content in the body, and it is necessarily "synthesized" to that extent. See WP:SYNTHNOT.

If there are notable critics that did find him to be "critical" of his subject, please add them to the body first (assuming there is consensus for adding them) and then we can figure out adjust the lead accordingly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You do realize that WP:SYNTHNOT is not a policy and at best just a wiki essay ? Please have a look at WP:NOTPOLICY

You are trying to counter WP:BLP which is a core wiki policy with a fallacious argument backed by a essay. The term "Most Critics" imply that there is a section in the article backed by reliable sources that confirms that most of critics find the work uncritical. The problem here is that it is not possible to prove such statement. The statement - that was held to be an uncritical work by most critics is not the correct summary of the body and hence is original research. According to WP:BLP the burden of proof is not on me to prove that "Most critics didn't find it uncritical" but on you to undisputedly proof with reliable sources that yes "most critics" did find the work to be uncritical.

Also the suggestion that I should first add critics that did not find it critical is a ridiculous attempt at stone walling. You are already clinging to straws by deducing such a absurd conclusion for the lead from the main body and are blocking any attempt to rectify a WP:BLP violation by trying to cite essays and shifting burden of proof. Razer(talk) 08:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The policies allow you to put a {{citation needed}} tag. I suggest you do that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think we can reach a consensus by changing - he wrote a two-part biography of Savarkar that was held to be an uncritical work by most critics to he wrote a two-part biography of Savarkar that received mixed reviews from critics . Although the change is minor, It is far more nuanced and summarizes the lead in more broad based manner instead of the current blanket statement. I do have to emphasis that the problem here is less of a content dispute and more of a BLP violation and the statement proposed here is far more in line with MOS:BLPLEAD and WP:BLP . Razer(talk) 10:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Razer, I reverted your recent alteration to the lede, for want of a consensus. I think it would be best to channel your energies to thrashing out the disagreement on the contested assertion than hazard an edit-war, which would but be prejudicial to the interests of the encyclopedia and the readers of the page. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

A major change took place in the discipline of history around 1950, the date from which we take the modern field of history to have been born. It is fundamentally based on source criticism, which was apparently known since the time of Aristotle but it wasn't practised seriously. After 1950, historians decided that narratives that didn't employ source criticism were completely unacceptable. Most lay readers have no idea about it, and even other kind of social scientists (who are supposedly taught source criticism in their own curricula but apparently not that well). So "uncritical acceptance of sources" is a pretty devastating blow to somebody who claims to have been trained as a historian. Endorsements by the likes of Swati Parashar receive zero weight. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry to be blunt but your "Insightful" comment has no relevance to this discussion and maybe look good on your personal blog but is neither needed nor welcomed on Wikipedia which relies on reliable secondary sources and not on the intellect and original research capabilities of their editors. Wikipedia is fundamentally built on research that has been collected and organized from reliable sources. If you are here to critically analyse modern history and push your own research here, sadly you are in a wrong place.

Wikipedia works on policies and I have cited enough of those above to demonstrate how this blanket statement is against WP:BLP , WP:OR , MOS:BLPLEAD. Your constant attempt at stonewalling the discussion is not helping anyone here. What is the relevance of source criticism and timeline of modern history on the argument that a statement in the lead of the article violates a core wiki policy. Razer(talk) 11:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It does. As per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:WEIGHT, the experts in the field under question get weight; non-experts don't. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you the expert in the field ? I am honestly amazed by this juvenile argument. There is a statement that says "Most critics found the work to be critical". You need to prove with reliable sources that this is infact true. To assert that "most" not "some" but "Most" critics found it uncritical. You need a undisputed sources which asserts 2 things

• The book is uncritical
• The fact that the book is uncritical is supported by most of the critics.

I want to understand how do you plan on proving the second part? Is there any comprehensive list of critics which you have analysed and concluded that yes , most critics are in fact in agreement that the book is critical or is there multiple reliable sources which concur that it is a general agreement that most of the critics found the book to be uncritical. If you are unable to back any one these cases with reliable sources then this statement is in direct contradiction of WP:BLP and WP:OR . Razer(talk) 11:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Quite surprising that K3 is promoting his own research and opinions here, he generally encourages everyone to look for secondary sources. Mixmon (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Mixmon, I would rather encourage you to concern yourself with the content at issue, and not gratitiously take swipe at others who are productively contributing to the discourse or employ ad hominem to debase it. Secondary sources indeed need to be furnished to gainsay the scholarly critique of Sampath's uncritical and coloured work on Savarkar, which the article does a fairly decent work at adumbrating (vide Vikram Sampath#V._D._Savarkar). MBlaze Lightning (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning I am not taking swipe at anybody, I respect K3 for his contributions, it's your own subjective interpretation just like the word "most critics". Mixmon (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• To repeat what K3 said, the experts in the field under question get weight; non-experts don't.. See this thread for more evidence. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  I feel like I am going around in circles here. The usage of determiner "most" is not suitable here as it not the correct summary of body and not backed by reliable sources. It is a blatant violation of WP:BLP and is still standing because of constant stone walling and circumvention from the core topic. How do you plan to prove that "Most Expert" found the book to be uncritical. This assertion which is a wide blanket statement need a reliable source which it currently doesn't have. Razer(talk) 20:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  WP:1AM. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• User:Morbidthoughts, surely you know by now that the talk page is the place where disagreements are thrashed out. Your unilateral deletions and gratitious reverts rode roughshod over the long-standing consensus that undergirded the information in lead. Any invocation of BLP remains fallacious so far as the information is concerned, as the policy does not foist a bar on lending prominence to scholarly critique, where it is decidedly due. BLPBALANCE only reiterates the conventional precept of employing a dispassionate tone while writing in Wikipedia's voice, which this article observes satisfactorily. You have much explaining to do. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you dispute this on the BLP Noticeboards where a broader audience can review your arguments. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The onus is on you as the editor seeking to remove a longstanding adumbration of scholarly critique to establish your contention that the foregoing infringed on the precepts of BLP. Unilaterally foisting your misconstructions on others even in the face of elucidations and then passing the buck isn't constructive. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

All I see right now is blustery WP:STONEWALLING. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's a useful link for you to continue your argument.[5] Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I would appreciate if this edit-warring stops and the lead remains conservatively written until the dispute is settled. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Khosla

Khosla is a Professor of Law and his interests include Constitutional Law, Regulation, and Public Policy, and nternational and Comparative Law. None of this is remotely relevant to Savarkar.

His review of Sampath's work (alongside Purandare's) — barring a single paragraph containing generic praise — is a commentary on Savarkar's politics and life. Khosla seems more interested in profiling Savarkar than reviewing the author's works on merits!

That said, a particular line from the "single paragraph" is interesting:

[Compared to Sampath], Purandare’s shorter contribution is more thoughtful, both in its attention to Savarkar’s extremist and medieval views and to his complex relationship with the Raj.

Which is a sugar-coated way of pointing out the lack of criticality, as has been pointed out by many other reviewers. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I won't oppose inclusion if others feel that this review enriches Sampath's biography but the focus needs to be on the above quote. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

You need to more familiarize yourself with WP:BLP and WP:OR. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves..

Trying to deduce something from a source to suite your point of view is a fundamental violation of WP:OR. You are not the judge of what the source is trying to imply something in a sugar coated way. Maybe it can work on your personal blog but not on Wikipedia, especially in a contentious topic like WP:BLP. We need to work on what reliable secondary source explicitly state. It is not our job to infer or deduce what sources are trying to imply. Razer(talk) 09:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Care to explain this edit?

It is your claim that my interpretation of

If Vikram Sampath’s work is written with considerable detail, [..], Purandare’s shorter contribution is more thoughtful, both in its attention to Savarkar’s extremist and medieval views and to his complex relationship with the Raj.

as

[Khosla] found Sampath's treatment of Savarkar's extremist views and his relationship with the British Government "less thoughtful" when compared to another contemporary biography by Vaibhav Purandare.

violates BLP? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thia is a absurd attempt to deduce a negative tone from a otherwise positive review. I find it interesting that you choose to quote only a selection part of that statement. The complete paragraph reads - Vikram Sampath’s work is written with considerable detail, especially in its account of Savarkar’s harrowing time in prison, Purandare’s shorter contribution is more thoughtful, both in its attention to Savarkar’s extremist and medieval views and to his complex relationship with the Raj. The review states - The books provide us with an occasion to inquire into Savarkar’s place in our intellectual life and in our political imagination. Understanding that place calls on us to notice. Contentious topics like WP:BLP should be strictly written in a WP:NPOV. You are trying to cherry pick sentence to turn a positive review to a negative one. Wont it be a foolish exercise, if based on the above quote , I state that the reviewer has tried to imply that purandare work is not detailed as savarkar. Well you are trying to a similar thing here Razer(talk) 10:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The line underlined by you is boilerplate language where the reviewer introduces the topic of the works. What do you propose to cite from it?

That said, I did write that [Khosla] commended the detailed narrative which appears to have escaped your attention. So, the POV allegations are bogus. Do not like it; do a RfC. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The current version looks fine to me. I think we can avoid the double quotation on "less thoughtful" mainly due to two reasons. First it gives undue weightage to the negative part , second it implies that it is a direct quote from the review when in fact it a close paraphrasing of the review. Razer(talk) 17:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Fixed the quotation issue. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Parashar

Her review needs an expansion, tbh. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Profession and plagiarism

Anyone who read these two articles[6][7] can no longer call him either "historian" or "popular historian". At best, he can be defined as a historical revisionist but that description lacks enough sources. We should call him simply "author" for now.

The Wire's investigation regarding plagiarism is important to note because everyone who engages in plagiarism would deny it. But it is very necessary to provide third party opinion (as long as it is coming from a reliable source) to state what is their position on the matter.

I believe this edit should be restored. Dympies (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: any comments? Dympies (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see any issue with these edits. Third party investigation is indeed important to note. >>> Extorc.talk 17:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to make judgement calls on whether a person is a "Author" , 'Historian" or "Popular Historian" by reading a few internet articles. We will have to go by the term that is widely used by the reliable sources for the subject. Razer(talk) 18:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• I disagree with the proposed edits, in agreement with Razer2115. That said, I am open to including D'Souza's perspective; as an acclaimed historian, his opinions are DUE for inclusion. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

What is the reason behind your objection? It is necessary to provide coverage to third-party investigation as said above.

Sampath is absolutely not a historian. I would be fine with describing him as "biographer" because enough sources describe him as such.[8][9][10] Dympies (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I tend to see merit in deferring to the characterization coming through in the preponderance of reliable sources on the question thereof. Additionally, the article currently touches on the HC injunction restraining academics from airing their informed views on Sampath's unmistakable plagiarism. It should be updated to reflect the court's subsequent observations deferring to the academics' discourse on the question: [11]. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Please gain consensus on talk page before making any controversial changes to the article. WP:BLPREMOVE applies. Razer(talk) 13:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

There is consensus to remove "popular historian" per above. You are just WP:STONEWALLING. >>> Extorc.talk 11:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Like I said in my previous comment, We will have to go by the term that is most widely used by reliable sources. Almost all the reliable sources use the term "Historian" for the subject. Even the two links provided in the main post have used the term "Historian". Please see - WP:OR, Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.

You are more than welcome to demonstrate that the term "Biographer" is indeed the more widely used term, until then I suggest that you stop edit warring and continue the discussion on talk page. Razer(talk) 12:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

"Even the two links provided in the main post" actually prove Sampath is not a true historian. Enough reliable sources call him "biographer" thus we should use "biographer" for now as more neutral. Dympies (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Razer and do not see how WP:1AM applies. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Vikram_Sampath#Popular_Historian. Here you had said "absent sources who deem him to be a biographer, we cannot use that word but there are enough reliable sources that simply call him a "biographer". At best, Sampath shouldn't be called a "popular historian" because he is not exactly publishing popular historical non-fiction but largely promoting his own fiction as confirmed by one of the sources you cited in the same section.

Description from other sources include:

• The Caravan: "constant writing and rewriting of his life to fit the Hindutva politics of the time".[12]
• Akbar Ahmed: "Ultranationalist Indian scholars like Deepak and Sampath promote a consolidated narrative of Indian history. It is as if they are reading from a shared memorandum titled “Hate Muslims.” .... Sampath regularly reminds us in every video interview that he is an academic. For me an academic must be much more careful about throwing around such exaggerated numbers as he does without any reference to a source". [13]

Analysis by Ahmed should be probably included in the article. Dympies (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Well If you use the word "biographer", I wonder how would you define his other works like these - [14][15][16] 202.168.86.170 (talk) 09:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

"The artists from across India featured are: Gauhar Jaan of Calcutta, Janki Bai of Allahabad, Zohra Bai of Agra, Malka Jaan of Agra, Salem Godavari, Bangalore Nagarathnamma, Coimbatore Thayi, Dhanakoti of Kanchipuram, Bai Sundarabai of Pune, and Husna Jaan of Banaras."

"Fifteen Brave Men and Women of Bharat, who Never Succumbed to the Challenges of Invaders".

Yes, sounds like biographies. Dympies (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You can not give undue weightage to any specific sources. We have to go by the term that is most widely used by reliable sources. Almost all the sources use the term historian. You are not helping your case here by repetitively engaging in edit war despite of my constant effort to explain you that Wikipedia doesn't allow you to use original research to decide weather a person deserves to be called a historian or not. If historian is the most widely term used by the reliable sources, we will have to go by that term despite what you think or believe. Have a look at MOS:ROLEBIO, The first line reads - The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources.. Either prove that 'biographer" is infact the most used term by reliable sources or stop engaging in edit war. There is no consensus as yet on the talk page to replace historian with biographer and even if that was the case, a local consensus cant overrule core wiki policies. I am afraid the next escalation would be to take this matter to WP:ANI and your constant edit warring and violation of core wiki policies and WP:BLP would not be looked favorably. Razer(talk) 15:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

See WP:CRYBLP. I am providing sources per your demand below. Dympies (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You seriously need to learn to differentiate between wiki policies, guidelines and essays. Wiki policies and guidelines are community vetted and enforced after community wide consensus while anyone can write an essay. Have a careful look at - WP:NOTPOLICY Razer(talk) 16:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• I have removed the sentence about an "investigation debunking Sampath". It is not explicitly verifiable from the source (thus fails WP:V). Do not restore this, it's a clear BLP violation. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• I tired of repeating the same thing again and again. In the effort to promote healthy discussion and assuming good faith. Can the proponents of the term "Biographer" give 5 reliable sources that use the term "biographer" and doesn't use "historian" for the subject. Razer(talk) 15:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Times of India[17][18], Indian Express, The Hindu, The Quint, New Indian Express, Deccan Chronicle and many more. Dympies (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you serious here ? All the links are in the context of a specific book - "Savarkar". Obviously sampath wrote a biography of a specific person so he will be termed a biographer in that specific context. The article is not about the book savarkar, it is about an individual. The book is a part of his claim to notability but doesn't cover his whole career. You need to give more general resources. Let me give you examples - [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] . You get the common theme here ?

Are you seriously trying to imply that a person who is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society , has written multiple history related books and is widely reported in reliable sources as historian is not a historian because you think he doesn't deserve to be called a historian due to some controversy. Are you grasping the stupidity of your argument ? Razer(talk) 16:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It's like redesignating an engineer because some sources referred to him as a building designer/planner. 202.168.86.170 (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You asked for 5 reliable sources and you got more than that. Your concern was addressed.

Being a "Fellow of the Royal Historical Society" is not enough. Stephen Church, Robin Darwall-Smith, Sidney Aster and many others are not described as historians on lead. Dympies (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

This is beyond amusing. You are seriously wasting valuable time of Wikipedia editors. I have lost count on how many wiki policies I have cited. See - WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. ALL the sources you have mentioned are about the book "Savarkar" which is a biography written by vikram sampanth. It is obvious that some sources will use the term biographer in that particular context because it is a biography written by a biographer. The sources are not implying anything about weather vikram sampath is primarily a biographer, historian, plumber or any other professional. They are just merely conveying the fact that the book is a biography and vikram sampath in the biographer in that context. Razer(talk) 17:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Sampath is largely known for his biography on Savarkar but he is not the only person Sampath has written about. He has written more biographies that's why "biographer" is how he has been described often by reliable sources. Dympies (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you give some reliable sources which use the word "biographer" in a more general theme, not in the specific context of any book like [Person]'s biographer? What about the other general sources which @Razer2115 has cited? It seems you are not interested in answering the questions of other wiki editors and forcing your point of view by being selective and ignoring context of sources. 202.168.86.170 (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Please provide those reliable sources. Like I said above, You are wasting time of everyone by clinging on to this useless argument. I will repeat again, Sampath is widely known as a historian in reliable sources. We will have to follow what the sources and saying and your argument that he can no longer be called a historian because you read a few articles on internet and now think he doesn't deserve to be called a historian in foolish and WP:OR.

• You will need to proof with reliable sources that vikram sampath is generally termed as a biographer by reliable sources . What the above sources you have provided fails to do. ALL of them are stating sampath as a biographer of VD Savarkars biography.
• All the reliable sources widely report sampath as a historian. - [29] , [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] . All of these sources are in addition to the ones I have already provided above.
• In trying to change a long standing statement. The onus is on you to obtain consensus. As of now there is no consensus in the talk page to change the term historian to biographer and your constant edit warring on this issue is amounts to unconstructive editing,

Razer(talk) 07:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You made a demand for reliable sources that call him biographer without calling him an historian. Your demand was fulfilled, now you are required to drop the WP:STICK. >>> Extorc.talk 11:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Razer2115 made a demand for reliable sources focused on the author, not context-specific based on books. Let's for a moment extend that argument - many sources call him a historian without calling him a biographer. Why biographer should be used? 152.58.134.32 (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

"You made a demand for reliable sources that call him biographer without calling him an historian." The sources are calling him "Biographer of Savarkar" not biographer as a profession. You can't misinterpret sources to suit your POV. Mixmon (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Not all. Also, "Biographer of Savarkar" is what he is known as. Sources could have simply called him a "historian" if they really treated him as one. >>> Extorc.talk 20:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Have you seen this or this? You have just ignored previous arguments. Mixmon (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I've never heard of Vikram Sampath, as far as I recall I have never edited this article and I have no interest in the subject. That being said, I agree with the label historian. Searching "Vikram Sampath after:2022" in Google news gives me 10 results results on the first page: 123456789. I had to remove the blacklisted opindia, so 9. I havent checked the reliability of the sources (WP:THEHINDU is #6) but the results are hard to dispute; #9 only mentions him by name; #7 only refers to him as an author; the rest refer to him as a historian. I'd be happy to check page two, but I imagine it would be much of the same. – ².O.^Boxing 01:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't like odd numbers so I searched the BBC. They also say historian10. – ².O.^Boxing 01:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: See the various reliable sources provided above.[38][39][40] Evidently, he engaged in plagiarism. Do you know this person also claims a non-existing "Hindu genocide" to have happened and 80 million Hindus were killed? This is one of the many reasons why it is unwise to deem such a pro-Hindutva ideologue as "historian". Dympies (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

MOS:ROLEBIO says, The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources. The abundance of sources provided above tell me that he's commonly described as a historian in reliable sources. The Hindu source I provided was from 27 February, showing he's still described as such in RS. And you are aware that two of the sources you just provided describe him as a historian, right? – ².O.^Boxing 03:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Just the sources that make mention in passing are not enough but those who detail what the person is actually doing. Surely most sources don't call Alex Jones a conspiracy theorist either, it doesn't mean that he does not need to be described as one here. You need to read the linked article to understand what they are saying. Start reading from "Hindu-Muslim binary" here, "second key feature of the pseudo-history project is how they invariably craft a sense of paranoia and sustain a siege mentality towards any likely criticism", and "throwing around such exaggerated numbers as he does without any reference to a source". Dympies (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

We're talking about how to describe him in the first sentence. For that, we defer to ROLEBIO and describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources. Alex Jones is a perfect example; he's described as a conspiracy theorist because RS describe him as such.[41][42][43] If they didn't then neither would we. – ².O.^Boxing 05:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

And per two of your sources, Deepak too is not alone; his network of like-minded vigorous, aggressive, and articulate Hindu nationalist historians include Dr Vikram Sampath, and How historian Vikram Sampath uses decolonisation rhetoric to make Hindu domination sound reasonable (emphasis mine). They might be saying how he's a bad historian, but they're still calling him a historian. Like most RS appear to do. – ².O.^Boxing 05:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It would only mean that we should also highlight how he is a "bad historian" by using any other terms like "Hindu nationalist historian", but I haven't seen enough sources using such description. That's why I believe he should be instead described as a "biographer" or a "writer". The word "writer" has been used by many sources that don't call him "historian" as already suggested elsewhere.[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][[51] The word "historian" is inaccurate and does not address the fringe nature of his writings. Dympies (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

MOS:ROLEBIO - The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources. Razer(talk) 19:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Your original argument was he is primarily known for biography of savarkar so he should be referred to as biographer but now you're citing his pre-savarkar biography news articles to argue he should be called a "writer". Mixmon (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

As per MOS:ROLEBIO, we would then need to highlight he is known for his pro-Hindutva writings. He cannot be described as a historian because his discourses are not accepted by historians as discussed on WP:FTN. Dympies (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit war

Why is an edit war going on here when there is clearly no consensus on proposed changes? I guess it's been happening for several weeks now. Mixmon (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue should be taken to WP:DRN Mixmon (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

You are too late. See the discussion above. The edit warring (including by you) is just WP:DE at this stage. >>> Extorc.talk 19:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOCONSENSUS. When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal Razer(talk) 19:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes I've seen that and you'll have to fulfill last demand made in the discussion before moving forward which is person-specific reliable source calling him biographer. Mixmon (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It was already fulfilled, so right now the real issue is with your WP:STONEWALLING. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Vikram_Sampath. >>> Extorc.talk 20:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Only if you ignore the previous arguments like in this comment Mixmon (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Pursuant to a request at WP:RFPP I have fully protected this article for 2 weeks to stop an ongoing edit war. I also have reverted to the Feb 19th version of the article as the last one prior to the start of the edit war. Please note that all prior edits and citations remain in the edit history, and can be restored if consensus develops here on the talk page to do so. Given that the article has required full protection twice in the last few weeks I encourage editors reach consensus on the talk page, by a RFC if necessary. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

An editor's request on my talk page suggests that there are more appropriate versions of the article than the one to which I have reverted. Please weigh in here. In the event I am unavailable I have no problem with any administrator implement a decision they deem to have reached consensus. Thanks. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with what @Razer2115 said in your talk page. Mixmon (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you also talking about selective agreement? The edits that actually had consensus also include the ones you are reverting. There is no need to unilaterally restore your preferred version. Dympies (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

That was wholly unnecessary; the revert back to a months old version only undid a host of undisputed work so I've gone and restored them now.

The edit warring and content dispute as far as I understand was over whether the first sentence should describe him as a "biographer" or "popular historian" and whether one of the sentence in the lead should be "In 2019 and 2021, he wrote a two-part biography of Savarkar that was held to be an uncritical work by most critics" or "In 2019 and 2021, he wrote a two-part biography of Savarkar that received praise for its thorough detail, but was also criticised for its uncritical treatment of Savarkar". There doesn't even seem to be any difference between what was in 19 Feb version and 2 April version, unless I'm missing something. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 COI edit requests

Hello! As noted above, I'm a COI editor here with a few requests on Vikram's behalf. I'm resurfacing some key items from above, some of which received a favorable response but seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle.

• Add to end of "Career" section:

In 2014, as part of his work with the Karnataka Tourism Vision Group, Sampath compiled a report with recommendations for increasing tourism to Karnataka. President Pranab Mukherjee selected Sampath as a writer-in-residence at Rashtrapati Bhavan in 2015. As of 2017, Sampath represented India in the International Society for Music Education.

• Add new "Women of the Records" subsection of "Works and reception":

Women of the Records, written by Sampath and published in 2021, covered the history of female Indian recording artists in the early 20th century. The book comes with a CD of recordings co-produced by Sampath and Ricky Kej.

• Add new "Bravehearts of Bharat" subsection of "Works and reception":

Sampath's Bravehearts of Bharat: Vignettes from Indian History, published in 2022, is an anthology of 15 non-fiction stories on the theme of under-appreciated figures from Indian history, including Lachit Barphukan, Chand Bibi, and Lalitaditya Muktapida. Sampath has stated that one of his goals for the book was to shift the "Delhi-centric" perspective of Indian historiography. As part of a panel discussion marking its launch, Vinay Sahasrabuddhe praised the book.

Thanks for your time and feedback. Mary Gaulke (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

References

 Partly done: I don't see any issues with the additions to the career section. The "Women of Records" and Bravehearts bits have previously been declined by TrangaBellam. Please don't re-submit edit requests that have previously been declined. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 09:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I took TrangaBellam's responses as ambiguous ("Nothing against" and "more soon"), so was hoping to get more clarity on what's needed here. Mary Gaulke (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Which source?

@TrangaBellam: Which source has been misrepresented? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

We need multiple (not one) high quality sources to qualify someone as a Hindu Nationalist in wiki-voice. That said, can you please quote the relevant bits from the two sources that supported your line —

Fact-checkers have found multiple instances where Vikram Sampath promoted disinformation.

Please be mindful that this is a WP:BLP. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)