Talk:N. S. Rajaram

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

This article appears biased and unverified simply on its own language: unsupported statements and assertions. In fact there is a storm of controversy, over N.S. Rajaram and his unorthodox views on South Asia's history. Not even indicating that controversy immediately places the article in the Wikipedia-dangerous arenas of "NPOV" and "citation needed" and "disputed" and so on.

So I suggest a rewrite: add in ample quotation and citation of Witzel & Farmer, and of Romila Thapar, and of the many others who have commented -- favorably and unfavorably -- on Rajaram's theories, and supply links to the many online sites which discuss all of this, now.

Otherwise, this article is simply misleading. There is no reason why Wikipedia should suggest a position on a controversy -- in fact it should not -- but when a controversy is as "hot" as this one is, and as many experts in the field appear to disagree about it, simply omitting the controversy or glossing over its existence damages the credibility of any article which does so, and leads dangerously toward the forbidden area of "POV".

So, please do a re-write. "Balance" the pro-Rajaram with some anti-. Give readers a chance to make up their own minds, or at least to ask themselves better-informed questions about the issues Rajaram and the others raise.

--Kessler 16:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going to do my own "edit" to try to get rid of what I consider to be the "worst offenders" in terms of emotive language. Rajaram's views deserve to be heard, I think -- controversial or even disreputable though they may be -- but presenting them in emotive language simply alienates readers. If you want people to read this, you have to respect their intelligence. So, happy to discuss any particular change or note, here... The general topic which appears to interest Rajaram also interests me, although I am not sure that I agree with him about it. Agreement not being the point here, though, here goes... others please help too...

--Kessler 17:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

there isn't even much of a controversy. Rajaram is an amateur author with an ideology. Does he have any sort of notability in his own field, or is he just interesting for his indigenous Aryans hogwash? dab (𒁳) 11:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] to the anon reverter

please log in, and present your criticism on talk. You are free to request citations or representation of other views, but you cannot revert this to the fan page it used to be. Feel free to especially make a case of Rajaram being at all notable in his own field; his amateur contributions being of questionable notability. dab (𒁳) 14:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well my problem with your edits is that you converted the article into an attack page on Rajaram. I make no comments on his scholarship. Whether it is legitimate or fringe is not the issue. The issue is that your edits were not backed by a single source,bordered on defamation of character, and had a clear agenda behind them. The fact that you seem to be an established editor rather than a newbie only goes to established that these particular edits were part of an intellectually dishonest campaign and were meant to bolster your views on this and related issues rather than present verifiable and neutral content. Bottom line is that, irrespective of whether Rajaram is a propagandist or not, you certainly seem to be. 70.113.122.198 14:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As for your appeal to a "compromise". Well I'm all for it. Th only notable criticism of Rajaram seems to come from this Witzel chap and his rotary club. Witzel himself a controversial figure who stands accused of fomenting racism against Indians , encouraging acts of terrorism against them, and conducting historical revisionism[1]. The allegations may be true, they may be propaganda in on themselves. I don't know and don't judge.OF course, it is fair to write that he and his cronies are prominent critics of Rajaram's views, with the sourced and appropriately paraphrased response from Rajaram included as a rebuttal that presently is linked in the "External Links" section. 70.113.122.198 14:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

much to the contrary; my edits corrected the misrepresentation of Rajaram's works as scholarly, as was pointed out by Kessler above. I have no intention to "assassinate" anyone's character, and Rajaram may have the nicest of characters for all I know. We get frequent attempts on Wikipedia to represent Hindutva propaganda as scholarship, and a certain amount of vigilantism is required in this area. As for the assessment of Rajaram's works, well, their gist is hardly to be disputed. He is a textbook example of the ideological tendencies outlined in Sokal's article, and Sokal even quotes Rajaram directly. If you are going to ask for actual reviews of Rajaram's books, so will I: as amateur publications, they are entirely unnotable until some sort of academic review can be presented. If you can produce a positive academic review of one of Rajaram's works, I will fully support it is referenced in full. If you cannot, I suggest we merge this article into a treatment of Hindutva ideology in general, since per WP:BLP it is questionable to have an article on a living person that does not clearly qualify as a public figure. dab (𒁳) 15:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)