Talk:Romila Thapar

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.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] The author of my history textbooks

I grew up being taught history from the three History of India text books written by her in my school. Our History teacher took the the official History text for class VII and dumped it. Then she made sure we all had a copy of HoI volume I, and our real education about Indian history began. Most of my understandings, beliefs, and knowledge about my country stem from those three books. I'm glad to see someone decided to write an article on her.

--h y dkat 06:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] communalism

User:vkhaitan Firstly, we must understand the contexts of blame of communalisation of historybooks and communalism in hisotry. The contexts are two conflicting streams of thinkings, that is nationalist and communist stream of opinions. Communist historians claims of nationlist historians of communalisation, whereas nationalist historians claims about them of outright lies and politics. Wikipedia is not about pushing one standpoint in controversies. That's why I am not in favour of removing the communalisation allegations.

To tell you the fact, the NDA government did some changes in the history textbooks. All of them were reveres by current indian regime UPA. The ncert website gives the details of reversal of changes and see whether this is communalisation or not(I myself have studied them). This is a long debatable issue. But main thing should be very clear, this is not the platform to usher one standpoint.

This is not the issue. It's just confused to say someone took a stance against alleged X, since a stance is a personal position. Thapar herself would presumably state something like "I'm trying to counter communalism", not "I'm trying to counter alleged communalism". And to say Thapar took a stance against communalism is not to make any claim about the extent or origins (or even existence) of communalism. Perhaps the term "communalism" is debatable and scare quotes might be appropriate - though I think it's meaning is clear enough even if its politics is complicated. -- Danny Yee 10:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a stark difference between "She was trying to counter communalism" and "I am trying to counter communalism". First assumes that communalism is really there and she was countering, whereas second says that it is her statement, hence her opinion. Stance is a personal position, sure. But against what is not personal opinion. The word "alleged" shows here that there are groups who has done allegation of communalism(not proven). The word "alleged" has nothing to do with allegations by thapar even. So the word "alleged communalism" has nothing to do with thapar's viewpoint. I hope, after understanding the issue, you would yourself change it back. --Vkhaitan 12:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, the implication is that Thapar only opposes alleged communalism, and that if there were verifiable cases of communalism then she wouldn't be opposed to those. Which is just bizarre. -- Danny Yee 06:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't misinterpret the sentence. The context in which the sentence is written is that she opposed the communalism spread by "Hindu Historians" and NDA government. She has taken strong stance upon so-called communalisation of History, that is true, but then that is her allegation that that is a communalisation. Interpret the sentence in the given context. If there are verifiable cases or if there are not, that is another issue, which is not in that context. BTW, Romila thapar and other left-historians also have tried to downplay the atrocities done by muslim rulers. So her word "communalisation" has double meanings too. I am of the viewpoint of removing the sentence related to communalisation, because the same blames are also there for Romila Thapar. In fact, according to wikipedian guidelines, unless both side of controversy is represented inthe article, that sentence is planely biased. But I hoped you would realise the issue.

If you are hell bent on not having the word "alleged communalism" as it looks confusing to you, then change the whole tone of the sentence. This must not look like there was real communalism. If there is one point of view shown by the article, I may put the "neutrality disputed" tag here. --Vinay Khaitan 13:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

For some understanding of controversy about left-leaning historians of double standard on communalism see this wikipedian article of a book Negationism_in_India_-_Concealing_the_Record_of_Islam . --Vinay Khaitan 14:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romila sows communalism

It's great that an encyclopeadic article is created for Ms. Romila Thapar. Under the pretext of being a left leaning Marxist historian, Ms.Romila has authored many anti-Hindu works. She questions the scriptures of Hinduism, but doesn't have the same approach towards other religions. She takes a fanatical extremist anti-Hindu stand. She, of course is a proponent of Western thinking. It is said that the grass on the other side is greener and that is true for people like Ms.Thapar. But she would do well to understand that the grass on the other side, could be poisonous too. Ms.Thapar conveniently says she is fighting communalism. If she says she is secular, and tolerant, then I presume she is culturally tolerant as well. She would be a global citizen. I would request her to go to some theocratic states and preach secularism there. Her tirades against Hinduism are tolerated in India, not just because India is a secular state. Let me tell you that even if India would have been a theocracy (read Hindu Rashtra), she would have been tolerated. Tolerance is in Indian ethos. But if she would have been in a theocracy (like those Islamic states), she would have been severely prosecuted for blasphemy. But she doesn't understand that. She goes on rambling about things that doesn't exist. I am not a Hindutva supporter, but historians like Ms.Thapar make me feel that I should be one. But my true Indian origins stops me from adopting the Hindutva ideology. As far as I dislike Hindutva, I also abhor distorted history lessons of Ms.Thapar. However, as I said it's my personal opinion. I am a liberal and a proponent of free speech, so I would say let this article remain, but make it neutral and I would say let the word "alleged" remain as she doesn't seem to be removing communalism but feeding the Hindutva hate preachers and Islamic fundamentalists as well.

Naamdar Saheb 17:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've only read a few of her books, but nothing in those strikes me as at all "anti-Hindu", unless maybe one takes a very narrow view of Hinduism. If anything I'd say it helped open my eyes to just how complex and diverse Indian religion is. (And I don't see why adovcates for secularism should be required to work for that outside their own countries -- I'm a secularist opposed to the intrusion of religion into school teaching, for example, but surely I can oppose that in Australia without worrying about Shinto in Japan or stuff I know nothing about!) -- Danny Yee 06:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That's where the problem lies. You have read few of her books and you know only of one viewpoint. Knowing one viewpoint is always dangerous to neutrality. Get to know the controversies surrounding Aryan Invasion Theory debate. There are so much of politics involved. To know the other side of viewpoint, study books written by Shrikan Talegeri and Koenraad Elst on same topic. -- The best things to understand the real problem is that "don't rely on words of a historian. Check yourself about facts." Romila Thapar is many times accused of straight lying. For some controversies, read the book written by Arun Shourie "Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud" . BTW, Arun Shourie is by belief Agnostic, not hindu. --Vinay Khaitan 14:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed POV words and made the article more neutral.

I really fail to understand Ms.Thapar's ideology. She refuses the Indian award 'Padma Bhushan'(because she can't accept state awards) and then accepts the title of First Holder of the Kluge Chair in Countries and Cultures of the South at Library of Congress, the USA, an organisation funded by the US Government. Seems like hypocrisy to me. But there may be other reasons as well. Fighting communalism is one thing. But she must do well to understand that a nationalistic passion is necessary for a country's overall development. And for nationalistic fervour, one cannot disown one's ethnic past.

Naamdar Saheb 09:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

A few rebutals about the above statements I would love to make here...

Romila Thapar has made it clear that she accepts no awards or recognitions from anyone except her scientific peers and their representative bodies. The Library of Congress is a premier research institute more than 200 years old. It is very much autonomous and a very very very very important repository of all human knowledge. I guess that was why she thought she should accept their honorary title, or else she would have deserved your title of hypocrisy.

she must do well to understand that a nationalistic passion is necessary for a country's overall development - If you read any of her books you will understand that she is one of the best assets we have got for nation building- a historian who shows us nothing but a actual history. And it is great!

one cannot disown one's ethnic past- Nor should one promote Bigotry in the garb of promoting an ethnic or religious group. Especially not for one as great, ancient and comprehensive as Hinduism.

--h y dkat 13:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, who are we to decide whether her approach is scholarly or not. Secondly, she takes a stand against communalism, is a POV statement, to which some sections of the public may object. Hindutvavadis will certainly object. I am not a Hindutvavadi, but I take objection. It is appropriate to write that she is percieved as opposed to communalism.

Naamdar Saheb 13:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Taking a stand against communalism is not POV. Its a stand. And very precise one.. there is no disamguity allowed here; She doesn't claim you are a communalist. She is targetting communalism not YOU!

Hindutvavadis supports Hindutva. You do not say Hindutvavadis support alleged Hindutva. Romila Thapar is against communalism. Get that difference in your head first. If you claim Hindutva is communalism, then you are doing a great diservice to those who have painstakingly worked to show it holds for a way of life.

--h y dkat 13:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let me ask you, when have I said Hindutva equates to communalism ? I've just said I'm not Hindutvavadi. Now, does that make Hindutva communal, or for that matter, does that make me secular ? No, my friend ! One can not be a Hindutvavadi, yet one can be communal ! And by the way, when Gujarat happened, it was you guys only, who went on screaming that Hindutva is communal and blah blah... And now you do a U-turn and tell me it is a way of life. For your kind information, it is Hinduism that is a way of life, not Hindutva ! And this is according to the Supreme Court. Hindutva is an ideology. Don't tell me all Hindus have a Hindutva way of life. Get your facts straight, kid ! And then argue. And by the way, the Hindutva policy as practised today by hate preachers is certainly close to communalism. The form of Hindutva which advocates Hindu way of life is not.

Naamdar Saheb 17:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all don't call me kid. You are one really confused person and you are confusing me. :Secondly, whats the Gujrat riots got to do with a.)me and more importantly b.)this article.

Thirdly I was just trying to point out to you that personal stands are not alleged or POV if stated and true. They are just stands.

And finally don't revert something without discussing it in the talk page first, and convincing other editors first. Or you have a revert war in your hands.

--h y dkat 21:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rm word alleged

was not signed in... --h y dkat 21:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "documented proofs"

An encyclopedia can't just endorse a book. We should state what the books say, and perhaps describe their reception and any controversy surrounding them, but to venture into endorsement of their claims will just result in endless POV. Does the Bible provide documented proof that Jesus rose from the dead? Does Thapar provide documented proof that common myths of Indian origins are false? This is just the wrong way to go. -- Danny Yee 21:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of endorsing any book. Mr.Shourie has provided documented proofs in the book, which is a common knowledge in journalism and history circles. He doesn't stop at accusing Ms.Thapar, but he provides documented proof. Your comparisions of this book with Bible or religious scriptures is out of place here. We must show what is there in the book and documented proofs are there, so why deny them. It is not unencyclopeadic. The documented proofs have been verified by the critics themselves. And by the way, just check the original article on the book itself. It is mentioned there as well. So, I am reverting back to the earlier version.

-- N aamdar Saheb|talk to your Saab 05:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

But you *aren't* showing what's in the book, you're just stating that it demonstrates something. And if there is a consensus among historians that it does in fact demonstrate what you claim it does, then you need to cite a statement to that effect from some acknowledged body of historians or something like that. -- Danny Yee 05:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps we could change it to read "without any solid evidence", which would be just as wrong. Unless we can cite some evidence for a consensus reception of the work by historians, we're best off avoiding evaluative claims for its failure or success. -- Danny Yee 06:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am quite hesitant to have "documented proofs" in the main article. But after a thought, I think that hyperlinking documented proof is only possible if the book is available on the web, which is normally not the case. So the word documented proofs can still be there if documents are actually available in the book. Consensus among historians is neither required nor possible because of a sharp divide between marxist historians and nationalist historians, which has gone so far to the fact of straight lies.

I would accept the word documented proofs only if the book gives the official documents to emphasize their viewpoint. The official documents here means the excerpts from government circulars, excerpts from Romila Thapar's books(within context), excerpts of Actual historical records to prove the excerpts wrong.

I have not read the book, but some articles from that book. What I have come to conclusion is that most probably namadar saheb is right about documented proofs. However the word "documented proofs" can be changed to "rigid proofs" or something like that. --Vinay Khaitan 06:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The threshold of inclusioin in Wikipedia is Verifiability. Please verify your sources or anything that suggest 'proof' does not go into the article. --h y dkat 06:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I read that article. An excerpt "This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." So it is not necessary for it to be truth, only verifiability. As the book is published, anyone can look into the documents provided into the book. So according to wikipedian guidenlines, there is nothing wrong in writing "documented proofs". In fact, I now think that "solid/correct proof" would be a POV. Instead, documented proof is good word because it doesn't tell clearly whether documents in the book actually is undeniably correct. However I do think that Namadaar Saheb should have written at least in one line about what types of documents are actually cited.

[edit] Iconoclasm

When did romila thapar was accused of false islamic iconoclasm ?

Koenraad Elst, in the article cited, accuses Thapar of mistakes in her accounts of the destruction of idols by Islamic leaders. We want "Islamic iconoclasm" rather than "Hindu iconoclasm" as the sense of the phrase is "destruction of idols by X", not "destruction of X idols". -- Danny Yee 02:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

uh, you are totally mistaken. for example read Hindu Iconoclams by elst. Actually elst has even accused thapar of producing false evidences of Hindu Iconoclasm just to counter islamic iconoclasm claims. Islam is nowhere in the picture even.--Vinay Khaitan 12:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, that paper is about claims about Hindu iconoclasm. But Elst also accuses Thapar of errors about Islamic iconoclasm, which is why I got confused. -- Danny Yee 00:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit wars

I have been following this for sometime. Edit wars are bad. I do hope that the users here are mature enough to resolve differences through talkpage rather than getting into unnecessary and unproductive revert wars. Also, seeing anon IPs and new users immediately enter revert wars raises concerns of sockpuppetry or strawman puppetry. I was reviewing this to see if the page requires protection. Page protection is bad and typically, the last line of defense - I hope that you will not let matters to deteriorate to that extent. Thanks, --Gurubrahma 04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that I reverted only once and that is because someone edited the page to "Romila Thapar is a Bitch" . I do understand that revert wars are the worst thing to happen on wikipedia. Hence I never indulge into that. I have made policy for myself that I would like to discuss matter in the talk page. But if after 1-2 day, no response on talk page, I change it according to my understanding.--Vinay Khaitan 05:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the current version of the criticism section meets everyone halfway. The article now has her accomplishments and her critics in equal measure. This page is really meant to inform people about who she is, not to make/promote an opinion about her. So please lets leave it at that and be done with this. --h y dkat(msg me) 19:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, every action has certain reaction? The article about her has certain POV included with it. it doesn't talk only about her role in history writing, but also the political side relating to hindutva ideology. Then, of course, it is necessary to present other viewpoints on her. I had only added the "alleged" word to say that the word "communalism" is not generally acceptable. People removed it initially using arguments like "it is her opinion", then after that second argument came for rescue. Now, if these things keep on happening here, it is necessary to represent other side of POV. Noone can clap with one hand.--Vinay Khaitan 06:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand... you will not accept the current version? --h y dkat 06:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

One paragraph of criticism doesn't seem excessive, and I think it's notable that Thapar has been subjected to such attacks. -- Danny Yee 14:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I will remove it. Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering that is lot of material both on the internet and in print that is critical of Thapar, I think it is appropriate that a Controversy section (although small) be present. User:Outlookeditor

[edit] Marxist

I suspect Thapar could correctly be labelled "marxist" - as a statement of her approach to history - but "Marxist" would depend on her political stance rather than her historiography. -- Danny Yee 11:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "critical"?

For early India, "Hindu customs and beliefs" has (at least if "Hindu" is interpreted broadly) much the same meaning as "customs and beliefs", but it would make no sense to describe Thapar as "critical of customs and beliefs". And "critical of religion" or "critical of Hinduism" don't make much sense in that context either. Actually, "critical" here may be confusing - as a marxist historian, Thapar tries to elucidate class structures and their workings, but is generally free from judgements about them. -- Danny Yee 22:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Pls cite sources for what you claim.-Bharatveer 11:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Even the claim that she has 'anti-hindu views' has to be sited then. Only thing known is that she is criticised. Removing statement --h y dka t 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About this edit

Removed the sentence 'fanatical right wing' - that pretty POV in discribing BJP
There's no need to mention Arun Shourie's political affiliation; this is not an article about him.
Removed word 'eminent', its more or less a weasel word here.

I'm not sure what to do about the Koenraad Elst reference thats been deleted?... --h y dka t 16:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] explain revertion

i've reverted some changes - i've moved the Padma Bhushan text to the section on awards and recognition in which it belongs. large "criticism" and "Controversies" sections covering distinct topics are not a good idea, see Wikipedia:Criticism. i've removed a paragraph of unsourced criticism by "people who are right of center", because it is unsourced. i've also removed a statement about Arun Shourie's criticism.

Arun Shourie, while notable is not a historian. further, this book appears to have been self-published[1]. the use of a self-published source by a non-historian to criticise the work of a professional historian should ring a few WP:BLP bells. in addition, i've earlier requested quotes to substantiate that Shourie makes the claims attributed to him. no response has been forthcoming[2]. given all of this, let me point to what i said about another article. Doldrums 21:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Arun Shourie's book is not self published. It has been in public domain for a long time. Why is Arun Shourie's criticism not acceptable while advocacy journalism by Praful Bidwai acceptable?

answers:

if you read the comment above, u'll find a source (one sympathetic to Shourie, at that) which says the book is self-published.
(see public domain.) i take it you mean the book has been published for a long time. that does not absolve WP of its responsibility towards BLPs.
coz Bidwai managed to get his comments published in a WP:RS, the text in the article is fully supported by the source whereas a request to quote the text in Shourie's book supporting the text being added to the article has gone unheeded. and Bidwai's comments is not a fringe view which defames the subject of this biography.

i will now revert the article to a state where BLP concerns have been taken care of. you are free to discuss changes you wish to make here, and figure out a way to add the content you wish to add without violating Wikipedia's policies. you are also free to ask for a third opinion on the matter. Doldrums 15:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Whether or not Praful Bidwai's view is a "fringe view" is a matter of subjective opinion. I do not share your view that his view is not fringe. In fact, his comments amount to advocacy journalism which has not place in BLP.

2. Arun Shourie has been active in public domain which means his work has been subjected to a lot of scrutiny. His publications far outnumber that of Praful Bidwai.

2. The source says Arun Shourie "despite his huge readership, had to self-publish his books" Never said that the referred book is self published.

i will now revert to a state where advocacy journalism(it violates wikipedia policies) is removed and reliable sources has been added.Outlookeditor 16:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "advocacy journalism" is a content dispute, but using self-published sources is a violation of WP:BLP. BLP reversions can happen innumerable times. Content dispute reversions cannot.

Second, Bidwai's article in the Hindu is one of the only works in a reliable source - a major newspaper - on the subject of the petition. (The only other RS on the subject, the TOI article, is even harsher on the petitioneers.) Thapar's work, on the other hand, has been reviewed and surveyed by many hundreds of people more qualified to evaluate her historical judgment than Shourie, an economist turned journalist turned politician. Do you see why one is acceptable and the other is not? Hornplease 17:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted Outlookeditor's recent reversion, that deleted sourced content attributed to Outlook and two Rediff articles and added POV language. He has also violted the three revert rule in spite of being warned before and I think it is time to file a report at WP:AN3 Abecedare 09:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going to edit this article again at next available opportunity.

1. Other editors such as Doldrums have performed reversions to all my edits. I am not going to be scared off by your threat of reporting if you are not going to take an even handed approach.

2. The fact that advocacy journalism by Praful Bidwai is a part of the article shows the bias of the editors. He has commented on the petition not on Thapar. If the petition has to be mentioned a link to the actual petition and a link to the original letter written against it is enough.

3. There is no proof that Arun Shourie's book is self published. It just seems like an imagination of the editors. Outlookeditor 15:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

To take your points one by one, (1) Have you read WP:3RR yet? or WP:Sock? (2) The petition on Thapar was news. If you wish to not have Praful Bidwai describe it, we can go to the Times of India article, which is somewhat harsher in language. We are restricted to WP:RS, which is another guideline you should perhaps read. (3) The link above seems to suggest that Shourie's book was self-published. Even if not, the book has only been cited once in the scholarly literature, and in dismissive terms. That is indicative of the fact that it is a marginal analysis of this academic's work, not worthy of inclusion here. Hornplease 15:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I have read both. If my edits are reverted thrice, does it amount to WP:3RR or not? Or are you going to be selective? 2. The petitition was news. Correct. Just report the news. The petition is available on the net and has been linked too. No need to take sides by quoting an editorial and/or an advocacy journalism. 3. You are yourself not sure if Shourie's book is self-published or not. Why the hurry to take it off then? 4. Do not make POV judgements by dismissing the book. The book has been widely read and reviewed.

I am hampered since you and your brethren are vandalizing this page. Will come back though :) Outlookeditor 16:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have filed an ANI report regarding Outlookeditor and his socks activities. Abecedare 17:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] now on BLP noticeboard

reported. Doldrums 17:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Marxist historian"

two of the sources provided do not appear to support the statement, it is not clear from the other sources (Wallia-IndiaStar, Goel-VOI, Namboodiripad-Marxist, all non-academic sources) whether they mean "Marxist historian" (which is what they write) or "marxist" or "marxian" historian. a more reliable source for some marxist/ian work is [3], but that does not support such a exclusive and prominent mention in the lead. an academic reference (another book review, perhaps?) would be better, obviously.

this labelling as "Marxist" is considered by Thapar[4] as a form of partisan discourse and shld be handled as a pov if other academic or neutral sources cannot be found.Doldrums 09:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

How can that source ( THE MARXIST) be called dubious ?? Surely being called a "marxist" is not defamatory? or is it? -Bharatveer 09:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The Marxist may be a reliable source for saying Namboodiripad considers Thapar as a Marxist historian, but not necessarily for saying she is one, especially to the exclusion of all other labels. we don't have a reliable source that Thapar self-identifies as Marxist (unlike Habib or to use the canonical example, Hobsbawm). we have non-specialists labelling her as "Marxist" in less than peer reviewed sources. what we would like is the label sourced to a professional historian or a well-reviewed publication, preferably one which makes it clear which of the Marxist/marxist alternative it is supporting. the best i am able to find is Sanjay Subramanyam suggesting that some of her work uses Marxist analysis, which does not equal "Marxist historian". Doldrums 10:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed "Marxist" and the associated citations. This word is simply too ambiguous, and possibly defamatory considering the way "Marxist" is used in political discourse. Some analysis of Thapar's politics and historical method belongs in the body of the article, where it can be explained in more detail. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The word marxist belongs in the article. Notable journalists such as Arun Shourie have covered this. Another sample is from noted journalist and writer in The Pioneer, Sandhya Jain, who writes The famous Marxist ideologue, Ms Romila Thapar, is an 'expert' on ancient India with poor knowledge of Indian classical languages, including Sanskrit. Nobel Prize winener V. S. Naipaul noted Romila Thapar's book on Indian history is a Marxist attitude to history, which in substance says: there is a higher truth behind the invasions, feudalism and all that. The correct truth is the way the invaders looked at their actions. They were conquering, they were subjugating.. Characterizations of Thapar as a Marxist abound.Baka man 18:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "Marxist" is highly ambiguous, and if you're interested in a fair characterization of Thapar's life and work, rather than a smear piece, you will explain in what sense she and/or her work is "Marxist" through text in the body of the article, rather than placing a politically charged word in the lead. Some of the quotes you've given above seem like notable evaluations of Tharpar's work, and might well belong in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

i've no problem with a description of her works which points out those which use Marxist analysis to a significant degree. The views of prominent non-specialists such as Naipul and Shourie can also be mentioned, perhaps in a Reception section. by themselves, they don't belong in the lead. what we don't have are sources attesting that she has Marxist political views or that most (or the most significant) of her work is Marxist historiography, which would merit a "Marxist historian" or "marxist historian" respectively, in the lead. Doldrums 19:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As Doldrums, pointed out above Thapar herself considers the label "Marxist" to be a piece of political rhetoric. She says, in part: "The label of Marxist has become a catchall for any kind of history that now is disapproved of by religious nationalism..." It seems quite clear that she does not identify as a Marxist, and that the sources who call her one are doing so for ideological reasons, rather than describing her historical techniques. It might be fair for the article to say that she's been called "Marxist", but it does not seem appropriate to include the label in the lead. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The political hate campaigns against Thapar and various other academics are discussed in Martha Nussbaum's new book The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India's Future, (2007) The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-02482-6. I have not found a clear citation on the Marxist label issue, however. Buddhipriya 07:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Political hate? Shourie is one of India's most acclaimed journalists, and nobel prize winner V. S. Naipaul needs no introduction. Sandhya Jain is also a very respected journalist, but not in the same ballpark as Shourie of course. A large number of respected public figures in India and the diaspora have criticized her, and this obviously merits a prominent note in the article. Its not like Sanjay B. Rsswala is the only person doing the criticizing.Baka man 03:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My reference to political hate campaigns had to do with incidents described in Nussbaum's book, and were not meant to refer to Sandhya Jain or any other figure mentioned in this thread. I did find a citation regarding the Marxist issue specifically. On pp. 229-230 Nussbaum says: "Thapar is repeatedly attacked as a 'Marxist' and 'Marxian historian,' both in public polemics and in personal insults of tremendous aggressiveness.... (Various details of incidents omitted)... But in fact Thapar is neither a Communist nor a Marxian historian. Her views are those of a liberal egalitarian humanist. The petition was a cheap type of red-baiting playing to American fear." This is a reference to the campaign mounted against her when she was named to the prestigious Kluge Chair at the Library of Congress. I think this citation should go into the article as it is specific to the Marxist charges. Buddhipriya 01:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Its not that she is just criticised for being a Marxist. Eminent Indian Marxits are proud of her development of application of Marxist thought in the field of Indian history and philosophy. --nids (♂) 03:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

the Namboodiripad bit, as currently written, is not supported by its source[5]. All he's saying is that Thapar is one of a "host of historians" who followed in the wake of Kosambi and Chattopadhyaya and that he's read her book, hardly an acclamation of "Thapar's role in the development of application of Marxist thought in the field of Indian history and philosophy." Doldrums 05:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Namboodiripad , who is considered as one of India's most influential marxist thinker can never be considered as a "bit" someone. She is amongst the four named important historians by him .This in itself is a great appreciation that should never be excluded from her biography. -Bharatveer 12:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

even assuming that every mention of a name by Namboodiripad merits a mention in an encyclopaedia, in this case he hasn't actually said what the text you added says he did. Doldrums 14:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Aside from that, it's clear that Thapar does not consider herself a Marxist, and has said that the labeling of Indian scholars as Marxists is akin to McCarthyism. Any criticism of her as a "Marxist" has to be carefully explained, since she has made it clear that she thinks the label is politically charged. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparing this to mccarthyism is quite dishonest. India does not have a communist enemy and in any case, the Cold War ended 17 years ago. The terms terrorist, extremist, Hindutva, and fundamentalist are also "politically charged terms" and are used without abandon on wiki. Prominent figures attract controversy and criticism. Of course, if Thapar is special or there is a certain reason to protect her feelings on wiki, we can always exaggerate characterizations of her in mainstream media and dub it McCarthyism.Baka man 06:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I really have no idea what you're alleging with the wikilinks to Pseudo-secular and WP:COI. Why don't you try spelling things out, rather than making obscure allegations? As for McCarthyism, it's something that Thapar herself says: "Running through the critiques like a chorus is the familiar accusation that the liberal historians are communists and an appeal is made to the ghost of McCarthy to rescue Indian history." This really shouldn't be that hard to understand: if someone doesn't identify as a Marxist, they shouldn't be called one in the lead of an article, and any criticism saying that they are a Marxist has to be carefully contextualized. The same goes for any ideologically charged label, such as the ones that you've listed. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] V. S. Naipaul and Bidwai

Bidwai is quoted discussing the political imboglio, on which he is a quotable, encyclopaedic source. Naipaul is quoted analysing Thapar's work as a historian, on which he is not a quotable source, Nobel Prize in literature or not. Hornplease 20:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, Bidwai is a non-entity in comparison to Naipaul. Naipaul is very much a quotable source on subjects related to Indian history. His work India a Million Mutinies Now, among others, is interlaced with scholarly material about Indian history. There was no "political imboglio" about the petition opposing Thapar's appointment; it was related to her being biased in a certain manner. It was all about her historical point of view and had nothing to do with any politics. Naipaul's views should be included to give a balanced article. Outlookeditor 21:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Naipaul's travelogue, which is interlaced with pop-historical digressions, does not serve to indicate that he is a reliable source. WP:RS distincly indicates that notable individuals being quoted on subjects other than the source of their notability is not appropriate.

Bidwai discusses the individuals opposed to the granting of the chair to Thapar. That has nothing to do with her historical perspective, merely with the reasons behind political objections to her award. On such matters, Bidwai is notable and quotable. Hornplease 22:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice that a new single-purpose account has joined the discussion: [6]. I tend to agree that Naipaul's opinions are not authoritative with regard to the subject of history. Regarding the coordinated political attacks on Thapar, I previously mentioned that they are documented in Martha Nussbaum's new book The Clash Within (2007) where she is discussed as a sort of case study of political targeting. Buddhipriya 21:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate, and typical, that you have chosen to "politically target" the editor instead of responding to the points being made.Outlookeditor 23:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your concerns have already been addressed above. I trust you are now satisfied. Hornplease 23:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If an article has to be neutral and factual, there is no room for someone's opinions about the object in question. Without exception, the opinion introduces a bias. I would just like to point out that all the opinions that have been quoted in the article advance the same stream of ideology. I find it rather absurd that certain editors have used a minnow like Bidwai to score the brownie points that they want to score while editing out someone of the credibility of Naipaul. Nevertheless, since folks out here are known for ganging up I would leave it at that for now.Outlookeditor 04:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The petition: how significant?

I'm engaged in examining links to petition websites in Wikipedia articles. My reasons for this are described in detail here so I won't repeat that. Broadly speaking, I'm against use of petition links if there isn't some independent evidence suggesting that they're of significance. It's just too easy to make an internet petition, fake some signatures from internet cafes, and then put a link to it onto Wikipedia. It can be seen as a kind of astroturfing. But at the same time it wouldn't do to remove all links to petition sites. They have to be examined on a case-by-case basis.

The reporting of the petition in this article is very different from such reporting in other articles, and this is why I am in two minds as to whether reference to the petition is merited.

On the "plus" side we have apparently independent references to the petition:

Here where the petition is mentioned in the US edition of rediff.com
Here where in a rediff column the political pundit Praful Bidwai condemns the petition as the work of ignorant people, "most of them NRIs."
Here in an editorial or analysis page Himal magazine, published by The Southasia Trust, also denounces the petition.

This does make it seem as if the petition was considered to be significance, so I'll leave it for now, but I would welcome further opinions, whether pro- or con-. --Tony Sidaway 13:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Namboodiripad on Thapar

what is Thapar's "pioneering role in the development of application of Marxist thought in the field of Indian philosophy"? Indian philosophy? where does EMS characterise Thapar's work as such? not Kosambi's, not Chattopadhyaya's, but Thapar's work? are "host"s who follow pioneers also pioneers? Doldrums 16:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand you have a quarrel with the word pioneer. I am reverting the article without the word pioneer. Outlookeditor 20:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks. that's one out of three. Doldrums 09:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Try to read that article in full. She is given her full due in 7th paragraph.-Bharatveer 13:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

in the 7th paragraph, he says he has learnt Indian history from "Marxist Scholars beginning with Kosambi, Romila Thapar, R S Sharma and others." you think that means Thapar had a "pioneering role in the development of application of Marxist thought in the field of Indian philosophy"? Doldrums 13:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed the line as per your suggestion.-Bharatveer 07:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is the fact that EMS has read Thapar's Indian history worth mentioning in Thapar's biography? Thapar's works have been standard texts for decades now, and anyone who's read Indian history would've little choice but to do the same. especially when EMS himself has nothing whatsoever to say about Thapar's work (compare with his remarks on Debiprasad, for instance). Doldrums 08:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It is very notable to include the EMS's acknowledgement of thapar being a "marxist" Scholar. This cannot be excluded from this biography as this does not violate any BLP policy in WP.-Bharatveer 09:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Bharatveer 09:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you suggest? I think it is worth a mention that EMS has mentioned Thapar as a Marxist scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outlookeditor (talk • contribs) 06:02, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Bharatveer missed the part of EMS' essay where he says "I am not an academic scholar but a political activist." Is this really someone who we think is going to give an accurate characterization of Thapar's work, especially when she doesn't seem to regard herself as a Marxist? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For general information

I give a link to my page for general information: For information, please --Bhadani (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As Bhadani has said, I stand available for further clarification.Hornplease 04:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Debate

I have inserted the "neutrality dispute' sign 4 times only to find it reverted without fail. Is this again a part of your policies? Ankush135 15:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

if you believe that some views have not been represented in the article, pls bring to the table reliable sources for such views. i've previously pointed out the problem with Arun Shourie's book, which you did bring up -

we need actual quotes from the book to figure out what exactly Shourie has to say about Thapar.
we need to figure out how much significance ("weight") we should give to Shourie, given his standing as a non-historian, and the lack of professional historians buying his arguments.
if Shourie's views deserve a mention, what is the context in which it is discussed - as Shourie criticising Thapar? or Shourie and friends (what are they called?) disagreeing with mainstream historians? ("mainstream" unless you can find pros who contest Thapar's work.) if the latter, in what detail should it be covered here as opposed to under the Shourie (and friends') articles.

Doldrums 17:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Doldrums, possible that in your endeavour to teach the rulebook you have missed grasping some essence of that. When I put a statement, say, 'Right wing thinkers have often claimed that Romila has taken a very blinkered view of Indian history', in this case, I need to provide a reliable source on the accusation coming forth, and NOT on the merit or otherwise of the accusations. That Romila is among the most respected or despised Indian historian, depending on the view you take, is certainly not a point in dispute

Coming to your logic, Shourie & friends (??) don't have the professional competence to judge Thapar, but your actions convey that you consider yourself professionally and intellectually qualified to pass muster on work of 'non-mainstream' 'historians' or otherwise and solemnly decide that they are unreliable sources.

Sir, the question is not whether Thapar is correct in her approach or Shourie, KS Lal, S R Goel or JS Rajput are correct in denouncing her. The question is shouldn't the fact that Thapar has courted enormous criticism from Indian right-wing intellectuals on account of her 'professional views find a mention in her page?

Coming to reliable sources, your topic heading 'Views on revisionist historiography' in itself is violative of all neutrality clauses. Even in the subject, Thapar's comments have been presented without question and of course, the words of the 'very eminent' & very reliable source, Mr Bidwai, find a pride of place.

Again, the online petition is there. Any logical query would be...why was this petition filed? Of course, Vishal Agarwal is a very non-reliable source, so his allegations cannot be quoted but the effect and the spirited defence of a fellow Marxist find a place

The point again, you or me are not the authority to judge Thapar or her criticism. However, a biopic should include a mention of the controversies which a person faces and contrary to your assertion, there is no mention of any of the allegations which Thapar routinely faces. Ankush135 21:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

does all this mean you have a source, and can tell us what it says? Doldrums 21:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you are more intelligent than you sound. Ref para 1, 3 & 6 again Ankush135 21:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no reliable sources listed there. Do you have an additional reliable source on Indian politics that can be quoted as to why these objections are raised to Thapar? You cannot quote the objections themselves if raised by non-RSes. Hornplease 21:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is it Romila herself?

Who was the person who deleted the references to controversies sorrounding Romila, an entry I made a couple of days back on issues like her lack of knowledge of Sanskrit and her acting as an expert on areas outside her pale of knowledge? She herself or some stooge of hers? It is so much like the Marxist cads, they cannot digest an iota of finger pointing on them. In response, I am erasing the data on the pimma donna of Marxism

My belief in Romila/her cronies 'moderating' this page stands vindicated as since this evening, I have altered the text of the same quite a few times only to find it getting reverted to original within a few minutes

A person of any mettle would have felt at least some shame in cleaning his/her own page, something which is not for personal promotion. However, it would be too much to expect that even the odour of shame hangs on this lot.

Shame!Shame!Shame!Shame!Shame!Shame!Shame!Shame!Shame!Shame!Shame!Shame! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.25.162 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Please read WP:BLP before re-adding irrelvant material. Hornplease 17:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease, please research a bit about Romila and also go through the postings which were made. It was only a small entry on accusations against her, not accusations by me, but a chronicle of accusations levelled by academicians. And does this entry on Romila really qualify as a NPV article? It paints her as an upright person with a righeous view point and any attempt to balance is out is erased. Is it the quality you are talking of. 'Irrelevant' is a usage you should be more careful about Ankush135 17:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

all content added must be fully sourced. the burden of finding appropriate sources lies with the person adding the content.

a physicist turned politician, a journalist turned politician and a [whatever the third critic is] are not not "academicians" whose judgement on Thapar's professional work is to be uncritically reported, emphasised or endorsed on WP. can you find a professional historian who endorses these views? if no such historian is found, what weight do you think these people merit in Thapar's bio? and why should it be reported as "criticism of Thapar" as opposed to the inability of these people to accept mainstream professional historiography? Doldrums 17:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'mainstream' historian? Is history is fiefdom of those who utter established discredited theories? Research and study a bit about Sita Ram Goel before disdainfully dismissing him as 'whatever'

And if you are so hung-up about academicians only, pray justify the presence of Praful Bidwai's comments in her support, someone who is neither a historian, nor an academician, only a mere ideologue.

Secondly, Thapar is not an academician, she is heavily into promoting her brand of historical interpretation. So, for her, comments from academician turned politicians are perfectly justified.

Third, to sate your thirst for a blue-blooded historian, soon will I post enough links in support of my contention.

My intention is not to condemn Thapar at all. At the same time, I protest missionary zeal of unjustified censorship under the pretext of adhering to protocols, more so, from people who seem to have little ides of the context of the criticism and the standing of Thapar and critics themselves Ankush135 08:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason for Bidwai's quotability is given elsewhere on this page: he is remarking on her political notoriety, on which he is a reliable source. He would not be a source on her method. Hornplease 17:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean the polemics behind Bidwai's acceptability on this page? Although not expecting even an iota of objectivity from you, cannot resist commenting that my insert was on her proclivity of furthering her ideology. And Joshi, Shourie et al are quite reliable sources on that. Hornplease and Doldrum, which other biopic on any personality is free from a mention of controversies surrounding that person? A chronicle of person's life and achievements are not complete without a mention of the flak which he/she has received? Whether that was justified or not, leave that for posterity to decide.

However, a perusal of the discussion page has reconfirmed what I had felt, that your interests are more in promoting Thapar as a benign Goddess who is under constant attack for protecting Dharma rather than any desire to adhere to the norms of posting on Wikipedia

One last question? What are your credentials? Who has given authority to you all to decide who is an eminent and reliable source and who is simply a 'somebody/nobody'? What is your knowledge of history and how many historians you have studied? Then again, it is perhaps a question not begging an answer. The zealous protectors of this page are only furthering the glorious tradition of the cabal of 'eminent' historians, i.e. any contra-opinion, any attempt at questioning the 'mainstream' any attempt to objectivise etc must be met with organic cries of revisionist, irrelevant, irreverent, blah, blah!!!

Keep up your worship of false gods--Ankush135 05:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

To take up only the points that seem relevant in the above cheerful paragraphs:

Joshi/Shourie are not reliable sources on her writing of history, as one is a physicist (with a thesis, I might add, that nobody but he can read, as it is in Hindi and he had to invent a few words) and the other is a journalist. They might be reliable sources on the controversy surrounding her historiography, but they are not sourced as such.
WP:NPOV, a core policy, means that notable controversies should certainly be mentioned, but WP:BLP restricts our writing of those to depend upon the most reliable of sources and in such a way that they do not overwhelm the article.

Our personal credentials, our motivations, and our fanatical and fundamentalist adherence to false gods are all, I believe, somewhat beside the point. Thank you! Hornplease 05:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Precisely the point. A dismissive attitude towards a scholar and a language, that too with pretensions of an expert and donning the garb of both the prosecution and the judiciary is simply a reflection on as you said, personal credentials, motivations, and fanatical and fundamentalist adherence to false gods are all, Sir, precisely the point now

Notable controversies..skipping mention of Romila's controversies is like a biopic of Savarkar without comments on his Hindutva and Indira Gandhi without comments on emergency. But anyways, besides the point, I guess --Ankush135 07:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to Thapar is given more percentage space as the Emergency is in Indira Gandhi, or Hindutva in Veer Savarkar. Hornplease 23:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

My sense of language must be pretty poor that I couldn't trace oppostion to Thapar nowhere except for a oneliner on her appointment, that too, without any light on the context and the grounds. Pathetic--Ankush135 04:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Percentages, I said above. Hornplease 06:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Insufficienct & dilatory explanation but since you talk in numbers, please provide the data on which you base on claim. Please don't forget to highlight which sentences/words you have construed as criticsim of Romila. For starters, recommend you visit the page of Wendy Doniger to see what NPOV is all about. Ankush135 13:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I wrote that section. Can you stop making remarks about my POV now? Hornplease 18:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Great!! Now the great custodians of Public Debate have removed the 'neutrality issue' tag which I had inserted. Really too much. Ankush135 13:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that edit was performed by a sockpuppet of a user who's been banned from editing Wikipedia. I must say, though, your tagging of User:Hornplease and User:Doldrums as sockpuppets doesn't say a whole lot for your good faith. The basic problem with your contention that the article is not neutral is that no one who's tried to insert material critical of Thapar has found a reliable source for the criticism. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus. Talking of good faith, I found myself tagged as a sockpuppet of some Bharatveer. It is your contention about reliable source which troubles me. A whole set of criticisms have been discarded on the pretext that the source is not reliable enough, while unrelated demagogues like Praful Bidwai find a prime place in this scheme of things. And moreover, my contention is that while we need not accuse her of something, not to throw light on the controversies she faces, is improper and unjustified. Ankush135 13:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable controversies have been mentioned. If the article expands, we will try and expand that section proportionately. How, I haven't the vaguest, since there is a paucity of reliable sources discussing it, as has been established already.Hornplease 18:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Established????Ankush135 21:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is are few enough reliable sources detailing the controversy surrounding her. Once again, quoting from her political critics about her historiography is a violation of our rules on the reliability of sources; quoting an expert on politics about the political objections to her work is permissibly. There are not that many of such experts on politics who have chosen to discuss this relatively minor problem. Hornplease 07:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)