Talk:Vikram Sampath

Acclaimed

What is the evidence that all 4 of his books are "acclaimed"? Awards are mentioned for one of them. User:122.161.105.164

No evidence. Should be removed. --Venkat TL (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Primary Sources Issue

@Venkat TL:I don't know why but you have added template with WP:SPS,WP:SELFPUB,WP:SELFPUBLISH,WP:BLOGS,WP:PSTS despite the fact that primary source i.e his website is used only one time and even for the "Early Life and Education" section. The Article fits the WP:PSTS.-- AryaGyaan (talk) 13:04,21 October 2021 (UTC)

The tag has links to Wikipedia:No original research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. Please read these 2 links. I am sure you will understand what is lacking in the article. Venkat TL (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

In this Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources,it is mentioned that "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.",the only primary source used in the whole article is Vikram Sampath's own website and is cited only one times in the "Early Life" which is niether appreciative nor critical but only descriptive .

Wikipedia:No original research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources,Again,The whole article has mostly cited reliable scecondry sources like The Hindu etc.- AryaGyaan (talk) 13:22 21 October 2021 (UTC)

please look again, carefully.Venkat TL (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Please help to replace these Primary/SPS sources. https://theprint.in/author/vikram-sampath/page/2/ "Vikram Sampath". ThePrint.

"281 new Fellows & Members elected to the Society | RHS". royalhistsoc.org. Retrieved 2021-10-18.

"Vikram Sampath ~ Author | Voice of the Veena | My Name is Gauhar Jaan! | Splendours of Royal Mysore". vikramsampath.com. Retrieved 2021-08-01.

"Founders - Bangalore Literature Festival". bangaloreliteraturefestival.org. Retrieved 2021-08-15.

"Savarkar (Part 1)". Penguin Random House India . Retrieved 2021-08-01.

"Splendours Of Royal Mysore". www.goodreads.com. Retrieved 2021-08-01.

"My Name is Gauhar Jaan!". www.goodreads.com. Retrieved 2021-08-01.

"Voice Of The Veena S Balachander". www.goodreads.com. Retrieved 2021-08-01.

"Vikram Sampath". Penguin Random House India. Retrieved 2021-08-01.

"- BITS Alumni Association". www.bitsaa.org. Retrieved 2021-09-27. Venkat TL (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You have not given me any specfic reason why you have included the said template, and saying that "plz look carefully ",you are violating WP:TALKDONTREVERT.And if we can't reach the consensus,it is beeter to go with Dispute resolution noticeboard.AryaGyaan (talk) 13:22 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Venkat TL:

• 1.The Print Website is a reliable secondry source and is only used to cite Sampath as a columnist in the said website.
• 2. royalhistsoc.org. is not a primary source but a secondry reliable independent source.
• 3. vikramsampath.com is defintely a primary source but the source is cited only one times and it fits Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources,it is mentioned that "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim." and source is used only descrpitive and not as appreciative or critical of the subject.
• 4.bangaloreliteraturefestival.org is again a reliable indepedent secondry source.
• 5.Penguin Random House India again is a secondry source and again is merely descriptive.
• 6.www.goodreads.com again is a secondry source.

Plz see WP:PSTS..AryaGyaan (talk) 13:22 21 October 2021 (UTC) @Venkat TL: I am removing the unneccsery tag.AryaGyaan (talk) 13:22 21 October 2021 (UTC)

AryaGyaan, Problematic sources have not been replaced. See the list above for sources that need to be removed. If you disagree with me then you can discuss this on WP:RSN. Please do not remove the tags without fixing the problem, as mentioned in the tag. Venkat TL (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam is this removal of tag inadvertent? [1] Please do not remove it before replacing the sources. Venkat TL (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Venkat TL, I think it might be an edit conflict. I did not recall removing any tag - so strange. As things stand, there is no need of any tag. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Venkat TL (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Popular Historian

• "The Risks of Looking at India's History Through the Eyes of Pseudo-Historians". The Wire. Retrieved 2021-10-21.

• [...] Sampath’s approach is not scholarly per se, as he cites few of his sources, making his book a problematic reference work for other researchers. On a few occasions he indulges in some mild fictionalization [...]
  — Manuel, Peter (2012). "Review of "My Name is Gauhar Jan!": The Life and Times of a Musician". Ethnomusicology. 56 (1): 146–150. doi:10.5406/ethnomusicology.56.1.0146. ISSN 0014-1836.

TrangaBellam (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Author of the the said Wire Article is not a historian and comes under Questionable Source (WP:QS). Content of "views" rely heavily on unsubstantiated personal opinion and personal opinion about BLP is questionable.

Second article overall praises the said book with little criticism and also can you plz rovide me with scholarly creditential of Peter Manuel .--AryaGyaan (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

D'Souza is not a historian? I suggest that you contact the multiple universities where he served in their Depts. of History or CHS (JNU) for awarding him a PhD at the first place.

Dalrymple is a popular historian and his books are gen. praised; so are works by Shashi Tharoor. What is the relevance? Sampath might be an excellent popular historian - I don't know.

Peter Manuel is a Professor of Ethnomusicology at CUNY. He specializes in Indian and Caribbean Music, and has published several award winning academic works.

I think you believe popular historian to be some kind of pejorative, when it is not. The methodologies of scholarship —popular and academic/professional— differ in light of different target-audiences - nothing more, nothing less. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Another article, in support of D'Souza. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with TB that he is not an academic historian. Sampath is simply a biographer, nothing more. His PhD thesis is here. The subject is Music. And his prior degrees are in Engineering and Business. LukeEmily (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. But absent sources who deem him to be a biographer, we cannot use that word. Popular historian is the best fit. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, sure. Sounds fair. I have changed it to popular historian.LukeEmily (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

How come William Dalrymple and Ramachandra Guha are listed as historians and not popular historians? Seems inconsistent. Correction: D. actually did seem to have a history degree. Am I right? --Hunnjazal (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Dalrymple is indeed a popular historian and his works don't find a sympathetic audience in most academics. I have objected to him being used as a high-quality source (in various articles) on these grounds.

Guha writes histories of both kinds, and his work is highly regarded by academic historians. So, I disagree. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Latest additions

His research interests include [..] biographies is a weird thing to state. Maybe, state outright that he is a biographer?

He strongly supports the rewriting of Indian history is fine but does not aid a reader. Why does he want to rewrite history? Is it because he is of the subaltern school, who believes the mainstream histories are centered around elites and ignores the masses? Or, is he of the Marxist school who believes that mainstream histories do not show due regard for class concerns? Or, is he of the right-nationalist school who believes that mainstream histories do not reflect Hindu India in its full glory? Or, [..]

This is not Twitter to score points. Please write substantial statements that is encyclopedic and aids all varieties of reader including those who are not at all acquainted with Indian Politics. That is, add a background. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Plagiarism

What's happening over here — anybody who is acquainted with the details? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, it was a "transcript of a talk" as it clearly says in the journal publication. Since we were not present at the conference, we are advised to speak to those who were "in charge of the transcribing". If the journal forgot to put their names in the authorship, clearly Vikram Sampath cannot be held responsible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have the letter sent to RHS by the trio? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Truschke had uploaded it. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

If the journal forgot to put their names in the authorship - Sampath has literally copied entire sentences off Bakhle, Chaturvedi et al; that is about a half of the essay. If he had indeed attributed them, that would have been a very weird speech to hear.

I am not buying Sampath's arguments but I do not attribute any malice either. This is an endemic problem to S. Asia - graduates from quite decent universities feel that they can copy lines off random books as long as they throw a proper citation in the bibliography. See Sanjeev Sanyal's defense (1) where he makes the exact same point: what's all this hullabaloo about when Chaturvedi is cited! TrangaBellam (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, please! I am from South Asia. I wouldn't claim that I never cheated, but I was clear in my own mind when I was cheating and when I wasn't. The idea that they don't know what is plagiarism is bull. They just think they can get away with it. Nobody will know. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair point.

Meanwhile, Sampath is playing to the gallery: he has filed a defamation suit in Delhi HC. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You can't take it lightly. It means that if any of the critiquing scholars enter India, they can get arrested. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ahem. Am I to believe that a Big Five publisher did not bother to run the print-draft past our ubiquitous plagiarism detector? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Plagiarism and defamation suit details has been added. Reporting at The Wire is quite credible LINK and it is used to expand this article with due diligence. In case, if there is any difference in opinion then I would suggest to use our access at The Wikipedia Library to cross-verify the current (and future findings). Since this issue is quite controversial, please do expect edit war at this entity's page. Will not be surprised if a page protection is requested for. -Hatchens (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Poor drafting and I suggest that we maintain the status quo until there is more clarity (not in a legal sense) on this developing situation. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Rewrote the section. I hope that nobody has any issues. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Why have the "plagerism" allegations listed in the summary @TrangaBellam?

I have read several Wikipedia articles, but none highlights the "alleged" allegations which are widely contested. Shouldn't Wikipedia edits be free of bias? Tsachin (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Several Wikipedia articles - other stuff exists but Tsachin, please consult How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life and Jayson Blair.

Lead is the condensed version of a body. I have added a ton of content within the last 48 hours and they will be summarized in lead, too. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam Why shy away from listing who made the allegations in that letter to RHS? The ideological leanings of Audrey T, Rohit C and Ananya C don't align with Sampath's (I expect that this isn't disputed). This gives important context. Additionally, I notice that TrangaBellam has used his/her/their admin powers to vandalise my personal talk page with warnings. I don't take my edits personally and expect that others wouldn't too.

Please sign your posts using ~~~~. The two messages on your talk-page state explicitly that they are not warnings: such awareness-messages are necessitated by policy.

There is no shying away; we do describe them in the section on plagiarism. I do not see any reliable source that describes the ideological leanings of Truschke/Chakravarti/Chopra and compares it with Sampath's; even if they exist, how is that relevant? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

That is relevant because it gives context as to why these three academics with no known interaction with Sampath decide to subject his work to plagiarism softwares and then go public with a letter they sent to the RHS. Note that the academics who were supposed to have been plagiarised commented on the controversy only later when reached out by media, primarily thewire.in. Unless you suggest that his summary should focus on the allegation without context about the academics making it, we should have the context in the summary. To highlight an example, the page you authored for Audrey T focusses on her supposed harassment by suspected right wing online accounts in the Summary. We should treat both similarly - i.e., either highlight the accusations or highlight the harassment or both in the Summary.Tsachin (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I propose an update to the Summary in line with my points above as below. If you object, please could you explain the rationale for each objection:

In February 2022, three US based academics (Audrey Truschke, Rohit Chopra, Ananya Chakravarti) accused Sampath of plagiarism in a publicly released letter to the Royal Historical Society ; Sampath denies the charges and has responded with a lawsuit against the three.Tsachin (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your sealioning. The recipient of their allegations—RHS or Deutsche Welle or Joe Biden—is undue for our lead.

You might retarget your efforts on summarizing the extensive information, that I added to the article recently. But you are under no compulsion. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

And I do not appreciate your allegation and name calling. You showing up on my personal page and pasting notices appeared as an attempt at subtle threat which is unbecoming of a good faith editor (I do not find any wikipedia "policy" which states that other editors should do this, though I am happy to be corrected). I wanted a good faith discussion to understand what your objections are. The wording I have put together is completely based on facts and evidenced using a source you use often (thewire.in).

The recipient of the allegation and the people making those allegations are important context and are relevant here. You making a frivolous comment (Joe Biden etc) about it is unwarranted. Please might I ask that you stick to why you object to the change to the summary? If you don't have any clear objection, I will proceed to make the change. Tsachin (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Alerts is policy, as is WP:UNDUE. You have been repeatedly told that five (not three) academics have accused our subject of plagiarism.

I am under no obligation to satisfy you esp. when three other longstanding editors (1, 2a, 2b and 3) do not find anything amiss with my line. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

No editor is under any obligation to another. I wanted to have a collegiate discussion on this matter, thus haven't proceeded to make the edits before we agree here.

I acknowledge the discretionary sanctions policy you have shared.

I do not see how mentioning and evidencing the source of the allegation (publicly released RHS letter by three not five academics) is incorrect or irrelevant. Subsequently there have been more academics (Gaurav Sabnis et al) so the count can be said to be higher than five. However, that is not relevant. Tsachin (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are refraining from edit-warring.

For our lead, it boils down to the overall picture. Who raised the allegations, who seconded them, and who thirded (sic) them falls under nitpicking.

Who is Sabnis? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Besides the point here, but to answer your question: Gaurav Sabnis is a tenured professor specializing in social-media marketing at Stevens Institute of Technology

I think we have reached the point where we disagree -- regarding whether highlighting the allegation without context is appropriate. This comes right after the sentence highlighting his fellowship at the RHS. In addition, the lawsuit by Sampath is not against all others who joined the accusations after the first three made public their letter to the RHS. As such, the two sentences read together give a slightly misleading picture of who made the allegations and who the lawsuit is against. In any case, given your objection to further details in the lead, I propose a slightly curtailed version below:

In February 2022, three US based academics accused Sampath of plagiarism in a publicly released letter to the Royal Historical Society ; Sampath denies the charges and has responded with a lawsuit against the three.Tsachin (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

How is US-based a rational qualifier?

For the umpteenth time, the mode of accusation is irrelevant for lead and you cannot wash away Chaturvedi and Bakhle. Accept that the consensus is not in your favor and move on; I won't respond anymore. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not wishing away Charturvedi and Bakhle just as I wouldn't wish away others who have joined the allegations. As you mentioned, those who seconded and "thirded" the allegation is detail that can come later. The lawsuit that is mentioned isn't against Charturvedi and Bakhle and others who came out in support thereafter.

If the consensus is against me, please might I request that you allow other senior editors of the said consensus to revert the change that I shall make. Else it is just you vs me and we end up in the edit-warring territory. My proposal is fact based (whether you agree that the facts are relevant or not) and is evidenced.Tsachin (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

You can just ping them—Kautilya3 and Vanamonde93—to check whether they prefer (underlined parts denote insertion):

• Current version:

  In February 2022, multiple academics accused Sampath of plagiarism; Sampath denies the charges and has responded with a lawsuit.

OR

• Proposed version:

  In February 2022, three US based academics accused Sampath of plagiarism in a publicly released letter to the Royal Historical Society; Sampath denies the charges and has responded with a lawsuit against the three.

  TrangaBellam (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

This is my last comment in this thread and I am off to expanding the lead from the rest of body. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Tsachin, the MOS:LEAD is a quick summary. It contains the minimal amount of information necessary to know what is in the body. It is not meant to provide any detail. The WP:ONUS rests on you to explain why the additional detail is necessary. TrangaBellam proposed the wording for the lead, and obtained the WP:CONSENSUS of those of us that were watching the page. You need to do the same. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have not used either of the articles to write anything and claims of vandalism are ludicrous, to say the least. If you have a policy compliant argument about how they are not reliable sources, please respond. TIA. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Preemptive warring! Lest you might get any bright ideas! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Not adding anything unless this gets more traction in media or the issue is settled. I wonder whether the Delhi HC will issue a ruling anytime soon. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The hearing is scheduled for tomorrow. You can be sure that Hindutva itself will come and add what the court says (and rule out eerything else as "defamation"). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Like clock work, they do it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Better Source Needed

Akshay, why is the current source not a decent one? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Added Reichman's article. More details about the publication: 1. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

A line in the lead

How do watchers feel about this edit? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, Vanamonde93, Joshua Jonathan, Akshaypatill, and WikiLinuz: I will appreciate your opinions. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Good to go. No WP:CENSORSHIP. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, seems reasonable. The allegations are generating enough coverage that they require inclusion; per BLP we need to be very careful about what's in Wikivoice, and this formulation is solid from that perspective. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that edit. It seems DUE in the lead, given that we have multiple sources reporting the accusations. However, I fear it may transgress BLP WP:SUSPECT, which says [a] living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Since Sampath is a historian/academic, I think it falls under WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 19:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

NOTPUBLICFIGURE? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

BLP's primary requirements have to do with quality of sourcing, due weight, and use of Wikipedia's voice. Sampath is likely not a highly public figure, but he's a widely published author; he's not unknown. The allegations in question are discussed in several solid news pieces; I don't think leaving them out is an option. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, fair enough. He's definitely popular among RW. Maybe my threshold of being a public figure was way off the charts, nevermind. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 06:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ramachandra Guha is not a signatory

Hi @TrangaBellam I saw that you have added the name of Ramachandra Guha as on of the signatories in the footnote in [2] . The provided source doesn't even mention the name of him. Moreover Ramachandra Guha himself refuted the claims of signing any such document. [3]

Kindly look into this and revert the edit. >>> Extorc.talk(); 12:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Removed the entire note. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2022

Change 'Multiple academics have since affirmed the charges of plagiarism; in an open letter, they further accuse Sampath of having mobilized right-wing allies in harassing Trushcke and others while mounting an intimidatory lawsuit.[19][20]' to

'An open letter was published in which multiple academics have since affirmed the charges of plagiarism however this was disputed by some of the prominent names mentioned in the letter as niether having signed it nor having heard about it'

Source : https://twitter.com/Ram_Guha/status/1497841519536984065 https://twitter.com/pbmehta/status/1497899460361428996 1+1Equal10 (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please provide a WP:SECONDARY source for this. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 18:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Removed the line based on (what appeared to be) a recent update. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead line

AryaGaan: Truschke, Chakravarti, Chopra, Bakhle and Chaturvedi do not three academics make. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

An interim order is not indicative of merits and does not belong at the lead. Indian Courts appear to court an extremely defensive posture in defamation issues to the extent of allowing suits without even giving the defendants a chance to file reply. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @TrangaBellam,the plagiarism accusation are by namely three academics-Trusckhe,Chopra and Chakravarti in their letter to Royal Historical Society[4],others like Bahkhle are later supporters of the accusation and not the direct accusers.

It doesn't matter what are the merits of interim order, I am merely presenting the result of the defamation suit as the former article vioates WP:WEIGH,WP:DUE.WP:UNDUE and doesnt comes under facts.

On the Open letter, the open letter is found to be lacking the signs of many academics,and comes under forgery and was shared by Audrey Trusckhe on Social Media.

@Kautilya3, Vanamonde93, and Joshua Jonathan: I will appreciate your opinions.AryaGyaan (talk) 13:22 28 Febraury 2021 (UTC)

Please indent your posts.

How does it matter whether their support arrived late? It was their works which were plagiarized and they affirm the charges. You are not reading the policies you cite; please read them. I am not questioning the merits of interim order - explicitly, interim orders are not indicative of the merits. I have removed our line about the "open letter" (thanks to Extorc for drawing my attention): so? (It was not a forgery but a harebrained way of using technology.) TrangaBellam (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think there's any material difference between "five" and "multiple" in the lead. Reviewing the article, though, the plagiarism allegations are taking up too much space; it's a due weight problem. I think we should summarize a bit more. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  Today, Sampath had moved a fresh application to censor the "open letter" which the Court rejected and this new development is (again) all over the media - Indian Express etc. Coverage of "alleged plagiarism" is on a steady increase. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  I know that. I'm not saying we remove it. But 300 words of plagiarism allegations and counter allegations in a 570-word bio is too much. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  Merge the book with author and we will (probably) have enough content to offset the ratio. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  And you can put the "Further Reading" section to use. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: Do you still intend to trim the section? If so, please go ahead. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  I was initiating a discussion, TB, not so much declaring my intentions to trim, but I'll try to work on it a bit later. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  I've trimmed a little content. Given how much you've added to the biography, I think it's okay now. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  It is fine. Btw, I wish for a second opinion on using Bhattacharya's review - the publication medium is not very decent. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  And our lead needs an expansion in light of all the new content. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  That source is best avoided, I've removed it. Party organs are not a priori reliable. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  How about this review? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  Don't think so...from an established scholar, the publication might be okay, but this is a first-year PhD student. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  First year PhD students review books routinely but what's bothering me is that the forum has a single editor. There are acclaimed names in the "Advisory Board" but they appear to be uninvolved in editorial process. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

• Plagiarism accusations, especially when raised by multiple academics and covered in MSM, is a grave charge. We have established a local consensus for the current version of the line in lead.
• We need a secondary source for "Eisenhower Fellowship" since it does not appear to be a notable award.
• We need reliable sources for his employment at Citi Bank and GE Capital.
• Until the article includes other criticisms of Sampath, there is no need to create a separate subsection for plagiarism under an "umbrella section".
• No coatracking about Savarkar's debated nature esp. in lead! TrangaBellam (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Who died and made him the lord of this page? His wholesale removal of edits without discussion based on "local consensus" which doesn't even seem to be apparent from this Talk Page. His editorialising of this Wikipedia article seems to be related to pointing a vicious picture of Vikram Sampath.

What was the point of removing these edits?

- Mentions of his corporate career for a complete picture of his career.

- Why does summary need to have allegations of plagiarism when no such thing has been proven, has been countered by the author and other authors with proofs? Does this define his whole identity as an author? This didn't made him famous and as of now is just allegations by a group of individuals. He has been in news and discussion far longer than the few tweets on this issue.

- Why should the plagiarism section not be under Criticism/Controversy? They are better umbrella sections to have on people related articles and maintains uniformity for the reader.

- He was awarded a prestigious fellowship which I added about and it was removed by TangaBelaam

It is easy to edit a Wikipedia article which might not point a fair picture of a person, specially of one who has done far more for the written word and achieved far more than the user(User:TrangaBellam) making edits is going to achieve in literary field.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshikamal (talk • contribs) Shifted from top of the page by TrangaBellam (talk).