Talk:Shashi Tharoor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shashi Tharoor article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

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)

This article is maintained by the Kerala workgroup.

[edit] Saibaba man

Despite his carefully nurtured image as a suave and balanced intellectual Shashi Tharoor is a propagandist of obscurantism, miracle-belief and all kinds of superstitions.

See Shasi Tharoor's articles on Saibaba [1] and Mariam Thresia [2] in his own web-site.

The rationalists of India have come out criticizing Tharoor's nomination for the post of UN Secretary-General. [3]

According to the rationalists, Shashi Tharoor's nomination is bound to become a major embarrassment for India. He is an articulate and avowed propagator superstition, miracles, and ridicules the scientific outlook of India’s policy, enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

If he becomes the UN Secretary-General, he will cause serious damage to the reputation of the august world organisation. Aparna

By no means do Shashi's articles smack of being a supersititous fool. Please learn to read carefully and view things in the whole - look at the bigger picture. If anything, it is your allegations that seem totally irrational. Shashi is a man of balanced faith - you on the other hand seem to be people of no faith at all - except that of making a mountain out of a moelhill. Infact I smell a deeper controversy here ...hmmmmmm

[edit] Lackadaisical use of words

Has Shashi Tharoor made major mistakes in public life which he will regret or have to openly apologise for? - Please read his racially discriminatory statement in Page 105 of his book "India: From Midnight to the Millennium". His casual, but grossly discriminatory comment is about an incomparable and pure soul that led an unblemished and perfect life promoting one of the most forward-thinking social philosophies of all time.

Shashi should come forward and explain his comment, or else he is going to be held accountable for his lackadaisical use of words (and worse, the discreditable underlying attitude) when in high-office.

Posted on behalf of a group of aggrieved readers.

[edit] Heights of ignorance, arrogance & shame

The candidature of Mr. Tharoor is one that not only Indians but the international community as a whole should be proud of. His candidacy, such as several others' is one the epitomises the very being of the United Nations. Such ignorant radicals like the ones who suggest Mr. Tharoor step down should find better jobs than self claiming presidency of a completely mickey mouse out-fit (Excuse me Mr. Walt Disney... it was only a figure of speech) As for the extracts from Mr. Tharoor's writings, folks the old school of reporting is over... long ago! For slightly intelligent readers, they try to get into the context these days, you know! Anyways, sounds good, Mr. Tharoor should step down. And then? Take a walk boys & girls. Do something better. Shut up to begin with.

P.S: I am not an Indian.

[edit] Shashi Tharoor, All The Best for the UN Top Job !!!

Dear Mr. Shashi Tharoor,

I wish you All The Best for the UN Top Job! You will win because you are the most eligible and the deserving candidate!! Will wait for your 'UN Top Office Tales' in 2017 !!!

You matter to us: India and Indians!!!

[edit] Quotes

The quotes need to be trimmed. It now occupies half the length of the article. Tintin (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should be transwikied to Wikiquote, and only a link to it must be given here.-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}08:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, the quotes should be referenced. False and defamatory quotes may go undetected without references. Andries 21:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the quotes on the Saibaba episode seem out of context without producing the entire article he himself wrote and thats widely available. Besides the "controversy" has already been mentioned in the page. I took the initiative to remove those quotes and to add Shashi's responde to the "controversy".

[edit] The Suitable Man

‘Straying straws of the poll, who is suitablest of them all?’…

“Straw polls” and subsequent voting in the ongoing selection (or election?) for the next United-Nations-Secretary-General have left me perplexed. Is there a guarantee with this procedure that “The Suitable Man” will get picked up for the topmost diplomatic position in the world?

While scanning candidature of the officially announced candidates so far, Shashi Tharoor surfaces as “The Suitable Man” for the post. Why and how? Well, I think perhaps in our hearts we already know the answer.

Shashi Tharoor is the only contender with almost 3 decades of work experience with the UN and is well versed with the functioning of this global governing body. The reforms carried out by him in his Department-of-Public-Information-and-Communications as its current Under-Secretary-General speak spectacularly about his competency. This proves his capability to handle 192 heads of states in making them converge on diverse issues concerning welfare of the world, and bring about the required reforms related to the geo-political realities of 2006 by balancing changes with continuity.

Moreover, Shashi Tharoor’s ‘adventure with Indian pluralism’ as an Indian supplements his suitability to administer the UN which is so similar to India in its constitution: of being singular while remaining plural. With his belief in ‘a world safe for diversity’, he is most likely to emerge as a worthy successor to Kofi Annan, and thereby, succeed in retaining the relevance of the UN in the time of radicalism.

Being an author-diplomat also complements Shashi Tharoor’s candidacy. In his work he is sure to espouse the same supreme sensitivity towards the ‘larger idea of humanity’ which he has shown in his writings, though they have been exclusively about India and Indians. This is plausible because of his ability to inhabit alternate spaces simultaneously: living as an ‘Indian’ author with his idea of ‘an India for Indians’ while managing myriad matters of the world as an international diplomat.

These are precisely the merits which make Shashi Tharoor “The Suitable Man” to adorn the Top-Seat as the next UNSG and do justice to probably the ‘most impossible job on earth’!

See, I had told you we already knew the answer to our question :-)

[edit] Senseless Series of Straw Polls

‘The Da Vinci Code’ had left me perplexed about the Pope’s selection process and I am getting the same feeling following this senseless series of straw polls to select a suitable Secretary General at the UN. Wonder if the topmost diplomatic seat would get ‘the suitable’ man / woman to adorn it.

Currently there are 6 official candidates in the fray. More are in the offing to join as the rounds progress. Before dissecting each candidate’s candidacy, I would like to harp on the selection process. The ‘idea’ of a regional candidate in itself is idiotic. When we are looking for an able administrator for a global governing body as important as the UN, from where does the question arise of a ‘regional candidate’? Shouldn’t we rather be searching for ‘the suitable' man / woman at the helm?

But what makes a man or woman ‘suitable’?

As per the definition of the post, the UNSG is the chief administrator - a CEO (to use the corporate world’s parlance). And to be able to qualify as an able administrator, the candidate needs to have the first hand experience of the working culture of this colossal corpus.

The UNSG also needs to be a dexterous diplomat with the competency to get the 192 member states converge on diverse international issues. By a diplomat I certainly do not mean a politician – head of state or a minister – who would find himself / herself seriously inept in carrying out such crucial chores.

So, the UNSG would essentially be dealing with people – people working in the organization and people in the member states. And as we know, to be an effective administrator, the person needs to be an effective communicator.

Therefore, when we conclude who is ‘suitable’ and who is not as the UNSG, we compare candidates on these considerations, no matter from which ‘region’ of the world he / she comes from. This leaves us with just one candidate in the current crowd and that person is Shashi Tharoor.

Shashi Tharoor has been with the UN for almost three decades now, participating in its working from bottom-up, successfully handling various responsibilities ranging from refugees resettlement to peacekeeping to public affairs. And nobody can ever question his communication skills. My vote goes out for this author-diplomat!

So I am not wasting my time preparing a comparative chart as this is certainly not a selection of ‘The First Amongst The Equals’. Nevertheless, I am still trying to make sense of this senseless series of straw polls to select the ‘suitable’ UNSG.

[edit] Shashi Tharoor and Satya Sai Baba Controversy

Tharoor has been critisized by certain rationalist for his views on Sathya Sai Baba. For more details click on - Sanal Edamaruku. Here is an excerpt from the article.

When the world media came out to expose Indian godman Satya Saibaba, and his so-called miracles as well as his outrageous behavior towards many young devotees were documented in television clippings, the UNESCO distanced itself from Saibaba^{[citation needed]} and cancelled a planned common project with him. Shashi Tharoor, however, did not hesitate to rush to the godman's rescue by singing his praise in international newspapers. In International Herald Tribune (dated 3 December 2002)^{[verification needed]}, Tharoor declared Saibaba’s conjuring trick of “producing holy ash” to be a miracle. He certified that Satya Saibaba did materialize gifts for his devotees from thin air and boasted that he himself was the recipient of a gold ring with nine embedded stones. The secret of the godman’s magic was already exposed by rationalists and his hand-sleight tricks were caught red-handed by television cameras and shown in television documentaries around the world. But Shashi Tharoor remained his staunch defender.

The following article at Tharoor's personal website is probably what bothers many people. That such an intelligent person can praise a "godman" in public.

[edit] Rationalists’ Irrational Obsession with Shashi Tharoor and Satya Saibaba

I am irritated at the irrational obsession shown by these so-called rationalists with Shashi Tharoor and Satya Saibaba.

Hey guys, please read his article carefully before embarking on your jealousy-ridden ride to scathe Shashi Tharoor.

...Thats right. Tharoor should take these rationalists to court and sue them for libel if he is so confident they dont have their basics right :) Anyway, the good thing that probably will come out of this controversy is that Tharoor will be more "careful" and more diplomatic in future when he makes public statements on controversies and controversial figures.

... Well, I would never like to see Shashi Tharoor - the author-diplomat - bring his diplomacy skills into his writings.

[edit] Best of Luck, Mr. Tharoor, for today's crucial straw poll !

Mr. Tharoor, I wish you all the luck in this world to win today's crucial straw poll!

The 'First Amongst Equals' does not apply here as, Mr. Tharoor, you are way ahead of the others in this race for UNSG!!

You are simply "The Best" !!!

Hello! Your contributions are always welcome to wikipedia. However, please refrain from posting matters unrelated to the Shashi Tharoor article here. Wikipedia is not a forum, but an encyclopedia. Please see the welcome page and WP:NOT for more. Thank you.-- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 06:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

... Thanks for letting me know the actual use of this 'discussion' page. I had just followed the initial few 'discussions' on this page as I have started visiting Wikipedia only since recently. Nevertheless, I strongly feel that the matters posted by me are certainly not 'irrelevant' to Shashi Tharoor. Atleast my wishes and discussion pieces are not defamatory & harmful to his reputation, as can be seen in many of the personal vendetta-inspired posted materials, both on this page and on the main article page as well.

[edit] Quotes out of context and repeated though already referenced..

The following quotes seem out of context and the whole context is already referenced earlier in the page in the section about the Saibaba controversy. I see no reason why they should be there and am deleting them...

Sourced " "A private audience with the ocher-robed guru was astonishing at several levels. Sai Baba uttered insights about my family and myself that he could not possibly have known. Most startling, he materializes gifts from thin air - in my case a gold ring with nine embedded stones. He slipped it on my finger, remarking, "See how well it fits. Even a goldsmith would have needed to measure your finger." published by The International Herald Tribune December 3, 2002 available online " "It was as if he had heard what I wanted," she said. But a skilled magician can do that, and it would be wrong to see Sai Baba as a conjurer. He has channeled the hopes and energies of his followers into constructive directions, both spiritual and philanthropic." about Sathya Sai Baba in the article Meanwhile: Old mantras and new software side by side published by The International Herald Tribune December 3, 2002 available online

Kakhaga 13:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)kakhaga

I do not see why they are out-of-context. They should have been moved to wikiquote, not deleted. I find it slightly upsetting that only the sourced quotes were deleted, while the unsourced ones stayed. It should have been the opposite. Andries 18:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sathya Sai Baba Controversy

I deleted the information from "Shashi Tharoor and Sathya Sai Baba Controversy". This section was referenced from an online email bulletin from a rationalist site. It has not been referenced using reliable or reputable sources and violates WP:BLP. A section can be written, however, saying that Tharoor visited Sathya Sai Baba and witnessed what he considered to be materializations yet claimed that he was not a devotee. SSS108 ^talk-email 02:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. A lot of of the section was sourced by an interview with Sashi Tharhoor which is an acceptable source. Andries 05:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Andries, do tell us how belief.net qualifies as a reliable or reputable source? As far as I can tell, the interview was not published in any other media besides this internet site. And you are incorrect. A lot of what was deleted came from the non-reputable Rationalist site. It did not come from the interview you are referring to. How does this interview qualify as a reputable source when it is only an online source that has not been published in newspapers, magazines or other reputable media. Until you back it up with reliable sources, I will delete it again. The article does not even have a date. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

About Belief.net SSS108 ^talk-email 06:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

SSS108 ^talk-email 06:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC), does Shashi Tharoor's own website not count as a reliable source? Heck, most of the content on this page has been sourced from there. I found the Beliefnet interview I linked to on his website]. And in complete fairness, he also lists the Sai Baba article on his website. And why, single out the Saibab article for the quotes unless you are pandering to the slandering by the "Rationalist" site ? Tharoor has written over a hundred articles for the Hindu and the one on Saibab was only one of them. The quotes read without reading the entire article are misleading. Kakhaga 13:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Kakhaga, I am not singling out the Sai Baba quotes. I agree with you that reading the quotes without reading the entire article is misleading.

The point is: Online email bulletins from a rationalist site are not reliable sources. Just because information is listed on Tharoor's personal site does not instantly qualify it as being reliable as per Reliable Sources. The Hindu article can be referenced and cited. SSS108 ^talk-email 14:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

SSS108 ^talk-email 14:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC), I was referring to the Beliefnet interview given by Shashi and listed on his website. Kakhaga 03:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Kakhaga, kindly tell me how the interview on belief.net (which was not published by reputable media) qualifies as a reputable and reliabe source as per WP:BLP. Once again, just because the link is given on his personal site, does not qualify it as being a reputable or reliabe source. The interview needs to be reported by a verifiable secondary source. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Using the subject as a source In some cases the subject may become involved in an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email. Or, they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or blog, or an autobiography. When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed.

Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:

It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies. It is relevant to the person's notability; It is not contentious; It is not unduly self-serving; There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject. A blog or personal website written by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is not used as a source. Kakhaga 15:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

However, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

If you add the material from the belief.net site, it can be removed by any editor, at any time, even if other editors believe that this will affect the quality of the article. The belief.net article has not been published by reliable or reputable sources. That is the point I am making. You can always make a RFC to get other's opinion if you want. Sincerely, SSS108 ^talk-email 16:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If it is listed on the subject's website then it can be added. A source provided by the subject is more or less assumed to be reliable for the article about the subject. Andries 16:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not listed on his website. A link is. There is a difference. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be more of a personal issue between two or more editors here. Please try to resolve this issue on each other's talk pages instead of drastically editing the article without proper discussion. The Beliefnet source fulfils reliability conditions using online and self-published sources as far as I can see:

"Reliable sources tend to state explicitly who their sources are. Thus quotes with attribution are more reliable than 'anonymous sources,' particularly when anonymous sources are speaking towards their own interests."

Also:

"The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief are in themselves reasons not to use a source." [4]

It is unclear to me why the Rationalist site is an unreputable source. If no satisfactory explanation is given and no further reasons to justify the drastic editing of this article are given, then this article is going to be reverted back to how it was. Please edit responsibly and without personal agendas. Ekantik 02:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik, you are mistaken. Sources must be referenced to reputable and reliabe sources that have been published by reputable media. Online bulletins and online sources that have not been published by reputable media can be deleted at any time and do not have a place on an encyclopedia. There seems to be a systemic problem with many editors adding this type of information on Wikipedia and others think it is allowable. It is not. Since you are under the assumption that this is a personal issue (it isn't), I suggest you file a request for comment. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In reviewing the Rationalist website, as requested by SSS108 on my talk page, I would argue that the website it is not a reliable source for anythig else than the website itself, or the author of the website, as it is a primary, partisan website and this is a biography of a living person (See: WP:BLP and WP:RS]. Another issue that I would want to raise, is that this article contains too many quotes. Please keeop one or tow quotes abnd move the rest to Wikiquote. Of course, if the article/opinion was referred to, discussed or described in a reliable source, the article/opinion could then be added, with proper attribution, to a WP article.

Thanks Jossie. I agree that the page has too many quotes too. For those who want to know, I asked both Jossie and Pjacobi to comment on this thread. See [5] [6] SSS108 ^talk-email 19:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And what about the BeliefNet site, Jossie? Is that a reliable source as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Partisan.2C_religious_and_extremist_websites? Ekantik 04:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ekanti, the belief.net article is not reliable for the section you just cited. It is not reliable because it has not been published by a reliable secondary source (such as reputable media newspapers, magazines, books, documentaries, tv programs, etc). The belief.net article was published on the internet only. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I split this discussion off the discussion about quoting out of context into its own separate section. Ekantik 01:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cogratulations and Celebrations for Shashi Tharoor on his re-marriage !!!

Congratulations! May you and Christa live happily ever after :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.67.235 (talk) 20:38, 19 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 19:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)