This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
.
Hornplease seems to belong to the same cabal of Marxists who are in a state of permanent hysteria with regards to Hinduism/Nationalism. A reader of his comments and edits would not leave even a simpleton in doubt with regards to his 'objectivity'. Same old censorship game, be it the Romila Thapar page or any other page dealing with History.
God! Why do such people not get gainfully employed somewhere? Pity you, Hornplease. If you want, can suggest a good Doc for your illness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.196.249.242 ( talk) 06:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
He was a marxist, he then converted to Hinduism. "Why I Became A Hindu", he had to have started from somewhere. Bakaman%% 23:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
looks like certain users are vandalizing this page Baka man 19:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
"(...)The forfeiture is exactly the sort of thing which had landed us where we are: where intellectual inquiry is shut out; where our traditions are not examined, and reassessed; and where as a consequence there is no dialogue. It is exactly the sort of thing too which foments reaction. (...)"Freedom of expression which is legitimate and constitutionally protected," it [the Supreme Court] declared last year, "cannot be held to ransom by an intolerant group or people." (...)The "victories" in having Shah Bano reversed, in having Rushdie banned - "victories" which were loudly applauded by the "secularists"; the success in convincing political parties - with maps and lists - that Muslims would decide their fate in hundreds of constituencies; to say nothing of the "victories" of the violence in Punjab and Kashmir - the reaction is the cumulative result of these distortions in our polity" is a long, off-topic quote that does not discuss Goel. So too the other quotes, which together create a degree of imbalance in the article; this is not a soapbox, particularly for fringe views.
That he attacked Romila Thapar is possible, but he attacked all mainstream Indian historians, so why single out Thapar? Also, Meera Nanda is probably relatively nn at this point. Finally, he is known for his polemics, is he not? I trust this is satisfactory, please discuss each point in turn. Hornplease 10:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hornplease 10:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
These were the paragraphs that were deleted or shortened in your last edit. We'll see what we can make of them.
This may be notable because of the famous letter he sent to Romila Thapar.
References
This template and all the books in it were the sole contributions of a single editor. Most of the books are self-published, and though some are of note as often-quoted handbooks of certain streams of thought within political Hinduism, not all of them are notable. All are self-published, and none are peer-reviewed. Can I solicit suggestions on which of them are candidates for AfDs? Hornplease 09:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hornplease 10:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean "that does not work anymore?" This article never had anything like that, was never nominated for collaboration, Good Article or Feature article. It is in bad shape. What is wrong with improving and expanding the article first? It makes it easier to decide, because we would have more information. It seems the article will be selected for collaboration this or next Friday.
Are we here to censor and delete, or are we here to improve articles? If the author article is worthy of retention, then it is a fairly natural progression to wikify his book titles. These red links then cry out for articles. But not all of his books have the same importance, and maybe up to one third of the articles are among his less important works. I have now finished reading his autobiography, which is the only book by him I have read in full, and will begin improving the Goel article. It is not among his most cited or well-known works, but an autobiography has IMO automatically notability for people interested in this topic. After some more research, preferably after the collaboration, I could identify his less important works, which could be redirected if must be. -- Bondego 12:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I have redirected his book "History of heroic hindu resistance...". Primarly because the book reviews a book by another historian (Ram Gopal). (There is also additonal matter in the book, esp. the last chapters, but half of it is a review.) -- Bondego 17:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I have now redirected in total four book articles. In my opinion, these are not among the most important books of Goel. Additionaly they were also very short articles. Of course, others who know more about his works than I may disagree, and if somebody thinks so in the future, he may recreate it. There are now six books left where Goel is the sole author, and four books were he is not the sole author. -- Bondego 18:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
If you can source any of these claims, write it in the article. Goel's degree was in history from the University of Delhi (see here for a definition [6] here [7]. ) and the article does not make the claim that he was a mainstream historian in any way. The article does include criticisms and evaluations by academics and other notable people. I have seen quite a lot of negative criticism of Goel by searching the internet, but the problem is that many of such criticism, though some by notable academics, are IMO too simplistic, and they often don't criticize his arguments, only his pov or alleged political standpoints, and the article does not need to report a dozen examples of the same simplistic criticms. The negative criticism I have added has the advantage that Goel replied to it. Even a scholar of high standing like Edwin Bryant is too simplistic, describing him as an "extreme and vociferous anti- Marxist". But if you think other negative criticisms are notable, add them. And if you want to add more positive criticism in the article, a good place to start might be the book "India’s only communalist: In commemoration of Sita Ram Goel". Many other such criticisms are of course not on the Internet, because Goel's earliest writings date back to the 1950s and 1980s in India. When you say selfpublishing, you are probably referring to his Voice of India publications. Voice of India was founded by Ram Swarup, so at least legally (but not pratically) one could say they were published by Swarup, and Voice of India has published works by many other scholars and writers, not only by Goel. Anyway, even if self-published, it is not the only criteria for notablility, and there are many notable self-published books, also with articles on wikipedia. Not all of his publications were in Voice of India, and his bibliography is incomplete. I've seen some other books and publications by him that I didn't add to the bibliography because they were IMO not notable enough for a general bibliography, and I know that he has for example written more books in Hindi than the two in the bibliography, and even some poetry and a novel, but I couldn't find the title of these books. If you want to make claims about the details of his bibliographies, can you please give us a complete bibliography of Goel, so that we have a sound basis to discuss this. While researching a bit for the Goel article I became for the first aware of Koenraad Elst's publication about Goel in a book edited by Arvind Sharma, which I didn't know before. Contrary to this article here, I have tried to make the Elst bibliography complete by searching the Internet, and despite it I found the A. Sharma publication only now. Instead of making Original Research claims about his bibliography, you or somebody else please give us his full bibliography if we want to discuss this. Maybe it is available in the book "India’s only communalist: In commemoration of Sita Ram Goel", I don't know. After thinking about it, I'm going to redirect another of his books (Defence of Hindu society). For the same reason as before, and the article is not well developed. Please note that this means that there are now only 5 book articles, were Goel is the only author (and not only a co-author or editor). One of these five, Catholic Ashrams, has a large part written by others like Devananda and Bede Griffith, so all in all there are now 4 and a half books that are written only by Goel. I think 4 and a half are not too much for him. If an author is notable there is no reason NOT to cover the body of his work. Some of his books are also critical of Islam and Christianity. If you look at List of books critical of Islam, you'll see that most if not all books critical of Islam are not written by top-notch academics. ( Bat Ye'or, Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Oriana Fallaci, Srđa Trifković, even if their books are scholarly are not top academics) I see no reason that Goel's books in this genre are less notable than the books by others on that "list of" article, they all are. Compared with other genres, authors in this genre do not have the highest academic qualifications. Their works are sometimes still very scholarly, but because of of the political climate or whatever reason, in this genre we will not find scholars with the same academic qualifications as in other book genres. The books on List of books critical of Islam are notable because they are influential or well known, not because of their high acamdemic qualifications. The genre is still notable, and has even a "list of" article. -- Bondego 20:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
This article could be a good "Good Article". See here for guidelines: [8] -- Bondego 15:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
If you can source any of these claims, write it in the article. Goel's degree was in history from the University of Delhi (see here for a definition [9] here [10]. ) and the article does not make the claim that he was a mainstream historian in any way. The article does include criticisms and evaluations by academics and other notable people. I have seen quite a lot of negative criticism of Goel by searching the internet, but the problem is that many of such criticism, though some by notable academics, are IMO too simplistic, and they often don't criticize his arguments, only his pov or alleged political standpoints, and the article does not need to report a dozen examples of the same simplistic criticms. The negative criticism I have added has the advantage that Goel replied to it. Even a scholar of high standing like Edwin Bryant is too simplistic, describing him as an "extreme and vociferous anti- Marxist". But if you think other negative criticisms are notable, add them. And if you want to add more positive criticism in the article, a good place to start might be the book "India’s only communalist: In commemoration of Sita Ram Goel". Many other such criticisms are of course not on the Internet, because Goel's earliest writings date back to the 1950s and 1980s in India. When you say selfpublishing, you are probably referring to his Voice of India publications. Voice of India was founded by Ram Swarup, so at least legally (but not pratically) one could say they were published by Swarup, and Voice of India has published works by many other scholars and writers, not only by Goel. Anyway, even if self-published, it is not the only criteria for notablility, and there are many notable self-published books, also with articles on wikipedia. Not all of his publications were in Voice of India, and his bibliography is incomplete. I've seen some other books and publications by him that I didn't add to the bibliography because they were IMO not notable enough for a general bibliography, and I know that he has for example written more books in Hindi than the two in the bibliography, and even some poetry and a novel, but I couldn't find the title of these books. If you want to make claims about the details of his bibliographies, can you please give us a complete bibliography of Goel, so that we have a sound basis to discuss this. While researching a bit for the Goel article I became for the first aware of Koenraad Elst's publication about Goel in a book edited by Arvind Sharma, which I didn't know before. Contrary to this article here, I have tried to make the Elst bibliography complete by searching the Internet, and despite it I found the A. Sharma publication only now. Instead of making Original Research claims about his bibliography, you or somebody else please give us his full bibliography if we want to discuss this. Maybe it is available in the book "India’s only communalist: In commemoration of Sita Ram Goel", I don't know. After thinking about it, I'm going to redirect another of his books (Defence of Hindu society). For the same reason as before, and the article is not well developed. Please note that this means that there are now only 5 book articles, were Goel is the only author (and not only a co-author or editor). One of these five, Catholic Ashrams, has a large part written by others like Devananda and Bede Griffith, so all in all there are now 4 and a half books that are written only by Goel. I think 4 and a half are not too much for him. If an author is notable there is no reason NOT to cover the body of his work. Some of his books are also critical of Islam and Christianity. If you look at List of books critical of Islam, you'll see that most if not all books critical of Islam are not written by top-notch academics. ( Bat Ye'or, Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Oriana Fallaci, Srđa Trifković, even if their books are scholarly are not top academics) I see no reason that Goel's books in this genre are less notable than the books by others on that "list of" article, they all are. Compared with other genres, authors in this genre do not have the highest academic qualifications. Their works are sometimes still very scholarly, but because of of the political climate or whatever reason, in this genre we will not find scholars with the same academic qualifications as in other book genres. The books on List of books critical of Islam are notable because they are influential or well known, not because of their high acamdemic qualifications. The genre is still notable, and has even a "list of" article. -- Bondego 20:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sita Ram Goel. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sita Ram Goel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
This article has serious NPOV issues. For example the only two comments in the Legacy section are from two prominent prominnents of Hindutva, neither of which are historians (except perhaps by their own fancy; but the scholarly community does not consider them as such). One of them ( David Frawley) is an astrologer for Christ's sake. Who cares what a third rate pseudoscience-promoting quack thinks of this guy? Brusquedandelion ( talk) 11:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)