Talk:Purushottam Das Tandon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	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.
	This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in India may be able to help!
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

---

Hi, before I created the main page of this article, I noticed that there was a long delete history of 3 edits for copyright violation. (See WP:CP) It is sad that a distinguished recipient of Bharat Ratna was unrepresented on Wikipedia so long. Kindly ensure that all comments made are verifiable, NPOV and cited. Most importantly, please keep off copyright violations. Thanks...Gurubrahma 09:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 NPOV 2 Everlasting Regards 3 Make Over 4 POV extreme 5 Clarification? 6 Clarification and Apology 7 Fresh edits 8 Speaker

[edit] NPOV

the tone of this article is quite defensive and corrective. The writer spends his time defending the person, without elaborating or discussing on the controversies or situation of the subject's life and time. A distinguished Indian must have a distinguished biography, and not an apologetic op-ed piece.

Dear Mr. Anon IP, could you please let me know where exactly this article is being defensive and corrective? I've sourced material to the best of my knowledge and energy. It is not an apolegetic op-ed sir, but it is called a Neutral Point of View. I'd wait till the 20th for further discussions; if none are forthcoming, I'd rmv the tags. --Gurubrahma 17:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

First off, dear sir, your attitude to criticism is problematic. Why get irritated? Any author on Wikipedia knows you will have all kinds of criticism, with no definite way to decide matters.

It reads like an op-ed. If I posted some called NPOV, then I know that means Neutral Point of View in question. I know perfectly well what kind of materials are supposed to be displayed in an Wikipedia inquiry, and what you were trying to do. There are many third-class sources on Tandon available, but I understand most Wikipeople try to put out something better.

Secondly, what you have done is to the best you could do, but not by Tandon or the objective of having a bio on Tandon on Wikipedia.

You simply need to re-organize this article, in the sense state more about his work in life, his beliefs, vision etc., rather than create special sections on his conflicts with Nehru, work for Hindi, etc. Plus you need to add more detail about those conflicts.

When you say, a protege of Sardar Patel" what the hell is that supposed to mean to anyone unacquainted with Nehru, Patel or Indian independence era politics? Your problem there is low info on what Nehru's attitude was, what Tandon's beliefs were and where Patel comes into all this.

When you organize your data in this manner as is now, you have a situation where your article appears to be "defensive," "corrective" and "apologetic." Because accompanying an inadequate detailing of his personal life, work and experiences, you give over-importance to conflicts and controversies. You state a problem, say with Nehru, and state your review of Tandon's stance. And nothing here gives the reader a chance to understand the controversy, understand Nehru's point of view, or Tandon's thinking process beyond a point. One is left with an idea that Nehru was a victimizer of Tandon. How true is that (Evidence needed...)? And is that a "Neutral Point of View? (Who's the judge, jury....?)"

Tone is a helluva lot in writing. It shapes the reader's understanding more than particular words end up doing. A misshapen article with what is ultimately incomplete info can do more harm than the good of having any entry on Tandon to begin with.

As you can see, I'm putting far more energy in criticizing you than correcting the mistakes in the article or making an ID on Wikipedia. I'll admit straight way that I really don't give a damn, nor care if you take any criticism in the spirit its intended. As I said, there are many third-class sources...

Yours Truly, Mr. Anon IP

Hi, one reason why you should get an account is because I did not know if you yourself reverted what you typed or if someone working from the same IP did so. Hence, reverted the removal of your reasons as to why it is POV. I do hope that you will invest your energy in creating an account and creating mistakes in this and other articles. Thanks, --Gurubrahma 05:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Everlasting Regards

Hi, as a matter of fact, I decided to erase my comments because I felt it was inevitably going to be a waste of words and provoke inevitable arrogance upon your part. It would have been a sin, to have printed words that would provoke you to sin. Anyway, I hate bitching, especially around other, more naturally proficient bitches. Everlasting Regards, Mr. Now Different Anon IP

P.S. - may I add, probably to no avail, that Tandon is probably better described as a soft Hindu nationalist leader than anybody associated with Hindutva, which is a more Savarkar-RSS brand of Hindu nationalism, but certainly different from Tandon's own beliefs.

[edit] Make Over

This is a much better version, better organized with more information without having to delete any previous info Gurubrahma put in.

I hope that both Gurubrahma and the Anon guy will treat this more objectively and with integrity, rathering than continuing to bitch around.

[edit] POV extreme

This anon IP is the same as the last anon IP, make no mistake. And if I'm not mistaken, it is the same fellow who called Wikipedia names when he could not handle the pressure on some of the pages he created. He announced grandly on a couple of user talk pages that he is giving up editing and that he has better things to do. tens of millions of people is extreme POV. While the writing style sparkles in places, it doesn't add new facts, but brings in fresh perceptions in the garb of facts. You can use Rajmohan Gandhi's Patel for facts, not for bringinging the point of view that the author espouses in that book. --Gurubrahma 10:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification?

What are you talking about Gurubrahma? First off, I don't really care about edit wars. I don't give a damn about any problems you've had with other Wikiusers.

What is the factual basis for rejecting my edits? I haven't deleted any of your stuff, and only better organized the article.

I thought I was helping out when I read the other guy's dispute with you.

[edit] Clarification and Apology

Hello Gurubrahma,

I'm writing this to say that you were right - it was me giving you a little headache with the Purushottam Das Tandon article. And yes, I didn't have the stomach to get through the edit wars on Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhism. Furthermore, it was me removing your fancruft notice on the Gandhism article.

Its true that I've had my problems with you. I wasn't man enough to admit that your spirited and aggressive participation in Wikipedia was actually scaring me, as if there was something mentally wrong with me and my outlook on the world, and ability to communicate with other people. I think I got into Wikipedia totally for the wrong reasons.

I actually hate bitching, so I want to just say that you've been a good teacher - you've helped me understand my faults, and understand the hidden mistakes in my edits on various articles.

I wish you good luck on Wikipedia and your life. Go ahead and revert this article to its normal position.

Har Har Mahadev!

Nirav Maurya.

Hi Nirav, all the best for your future endeavours. I would like to take this oportunity to commend you for starting articles such as Indian Nationalism and Gandhism, though I may not agree with the content in them. As for the reasons for reverting your edits, they are as follows: - freedom fighter includes national political leader - intro shdn't be too long. Rajarshi is correct usage. We don't translate the first names of Mohan das and Jawahar on Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru. Why here? rmved all see also as they don't directly tie-in to the article. A separate see-also section added. The wording of his being born at Allahabad suggests that Allahabad is now Uttar Pradesh. rmved overwiki of Allahabad. Constituent assembly implies that it is a body to frame constitution. Anyway, it is linked. Almost every leader opposed the alliance with Muslim League is Unencyclopedic tone. While some other leaders may hv opposed it, Tandon was at the forefront of this opposition. True disciple, tens of millions of people and the references to later congress presidents not having integrity - are POV. Thanks and regards, --Gurubrahma 12:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fresh edits

Hi - just to note my point that Tandon was not an adherent of Hindutva - it is a very Savarkar-type Hindu nationalism that does not include other leaders espousing Hindu nationalist values like Lala Lajpat Rai, Lokmanya Tilak, Tandon himself and at times Mahatma Gandhi and Sardar Patel.Rama's Arrow 21:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, point taken that Tandon was not an extremist or reactionary like Savarkar. But to me, "Hindutva" and "Hindu nationalism" are two terms explaining the same thing, though it is sad to see that the term "Hindutva" is appropriated exclusively by RSS and VHP ideologues. Also, why remove "See also"? Of the links, I don't think "Indian nationalism" has been referenced in the article anywhere, the others may have been, I am not sure. --Gurubrahma 13:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Hindu nationalism" is grander in the sense of (1) Shivaji and other folks resisting the tyranny and anti-Hindu pogroms of Muslim monarchs, (2) Lokmanya Tilak (3) Lala Lajpat Rai (4) the incorporation of Hindu philosophy and culture into freedom struggle and politics by Mohandas Gandhi, and (5) the defence of Hindus against League propaganda undertaken by Sardar Patel. A lot of the "Hindu nationalism" is often asserting the interests of the wider nation against some opponent ideology like Jinnah's two-nation theory, but Tilak, Lajpat Rai and Gandhi also revived lot of Hindu national, cultural ethos.

"See also" - I felt those links were a redundant addition to the article - "Indian nationalism" is linked via the freedom struggle template. Rama's Arrow 17:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speaker

He worked as the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the present-day Uttar Pradesh for a period of 13 years, from July 31, 1937 to August 10, 1950

Hi - I want to ask you, does this statement mean Tandon did not resign in 1939 with the World War II outbreak, or take part in Quit India? According to R. Gandhi, all elected Congressmen resigned in 1939 when the INC protested the unilateral insertion of India into the conflict, and did not return to office until elections in 1946. For a man who became Congress president in 1950, I consider this highly unlikely as he would have no esteem left in the party if he hadn't resigned. Rama's Arrow 22:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC) original msg. from my talkpage

Yeah, it is very surprising and I too was wondering about that when writing the article. The actual source for the dates is an official site. Also, a couple of write-ups indicated that he was the speaker for over a decade. It may have so happened that it was the congress ministries that resigned, but the legislatures may have been placed in suspended animation. I know it for a fact that Tandon was a speaker for the United Provinces after independence as well. What beats me, however, is how he could be a member of the Constituent assembly in 1946, if he was still a speaker of the provinces' assembly. As far as his esteem goes, it has to be remembered that he lost an earlier election for the same post and that Nehru opposed him for the post. --Gurubrahma 17:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)