Talk:Anand Kumar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment moved from article

This information is not about Anand kumar. It is about R. Anand Kumar, while Anand kumar is a mathematician in Patna, now he is very famous in India and aboard due his noble cause super 30 program for poor brilliant students. He born in 1973 in Patna and faced a lot of difficulties during his study. Due to lack of money he could not Cambridge for higher studies. And this pain forced him to start super 30 program. His many articles on mathematics have been published in journals, magazines and news papers. Some links about him and his work are as follows:

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050222/asp/frontpage/story_4407084.asp

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5345100.stm _{Comment by User:Bittukr originally added to article; moved to talk by Dave6 ^talk 04:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)}

You are right there, thanks! --Ekabhishek^talk 08:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I searched databases of math journals, but I could not find any papers listed under his name. Is the information in the article authentic?

Manjil P. Saikia (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please make a table

It would be really nice if a more skilled editor make a table of all the data in the section of "Teaching career and Super 30". The data is unorganized in the text. Breakfastisready (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2019

• In the line 'His life and work are protrayed in the 2019 film' the correct spelling must be portrayed Kaishows (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Level of vandalism very high (linked to smear campaign)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been a lot of vandalism on this article since August 2018; most edits are now vandalism and they are material. There has not been a single discussion on the Talk Page?? Have asked for page protection to help solve this. Britishfinance (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: I have cleaned up the controversy section by adding links, fixing syntax and improving style. Let me know what you think. Huntthetroll (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Huntthetroll. Nice work, looks good. I have deleted the allegation of not paying his game-show winnings to charity as it is unsubstantiated. Britishfinance (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I found Indian papers reporting on an active smear campaign on Kumar and the school. It is not clear whether they target him because of this mission (helping lower caste students), or his involvement with a retired senior police inspector who left the school. Any attempt by editors/IP's to insert material into his BLP (and the Super 30 article) alleging "controversy" (even if from a third-party source), should be treated with a lot of suspicion. Britishfinance (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Britishfinance. It is not NPOV to label these allegations as a "Smear campaign". Adding links that challenge these allegations is welcome, because it creates a better NPOV. However, the title should be "Controversy" and not "Smear campaign" because the latter readily declares that these allegations are factually incorrect! To maintain NPOV, I have relabeled the title.Breakfastisready (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Breakfastisready. No. We had a whole section in this article laying out every single allegation from an Indian tabloid paper as if they were valid. These are completely unproven allegations and not fit for a BLP. Some of these edits are very troubling for a BLP such as this [1]. The way in which they were presented and the heading of the section was also a clear desire to misuse Wikipedia to present an agenda against a BLP. Note the discretionary sanctions available on BLPs and Indian articles in this regard. Britishfinance (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Britishfinance Unless you have a complete story of who created a "Smear campaign", why was it created and it gets widely accepted by everyone that it was in fact, a smear campaign, there is no reason why we should call it so. Furthermore, the way you describe your position makes me think that you might have a conflict of interest (WP:CONFLICT) or this may be your original research (WP:OR). You should be the last person arguing to not call it a controversy, if you do have a conflict of interest. I am not arguing over which version of truth is correct. I am just arguing for NPOV. It's a controversy, and let it be declared as one. It doesn't matter how the previous versions of the article were. The correct policy to read here is WP:IMPARTIAL.Breakfastisready (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Breakfastisready. You have troubling edits on this BLP showing that you have been pushing unproven allegations from low-grade RS into this article (e.g. [2]). Just because a low-grade source published something doesn't allow an editor to stick it into a BLP. Wild edits like this [3], are enough to be prohibited from editing an article. The detail of your edits is particularly troubling when two higher-grade RS stating that these were "smear campaigns" was omitted from the article (and your comment above Unless you have a complete story of who created a "Smear campaign" .... is also a concerning defense). None of this is suitable for a WP BLP. Not even close. You need to step back from this section and contribute productively to this article in other ways. Avoid accusing other editors of COI etc. which is also not productive. Britishfinance (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Britishfinance I readily concede that my editing skills were that of a novice at that time (and are still not excellent). But if you want any justification of my neutrality, note that I was also the editor who added the smear campaign allegations from Akhilesh Yadav and Shatrughan Sinha. But enough of the blame game. If you think that it is a smear campaign, the current level of discussion in the article is far too less to justify that it is a smear campaign. What it really looks like is someone trying to defend Anand Kumar from these allegations by publishing an article in a prominent paper and editing the wiki. Please add more details from multiple sources and make it a better article. In fact, if you do not believe that "controversy" is a neutral headline, let's go with something else. Maybe "Allegations" or "Accusations" or "Feud" (with whom?). "Smear campaign" is definitely not a neutral title. It makes no sense that wikipedia must mention that it was a "smear campaign" but not mention who did it, why was it done and how was it done. Breakfastisready (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Breakfastisready. It is not about your skill, it is about what you did, which goes your intentions towards this subject (although, despite your 178 edits to date, you demonstrate no weakness in WP editing skills, from day one). I have also found you started another new section in the film Super 30 (film) pushing these unproven allegations [4] (also titled "Controversy"). That is also disturbing and demonstrates your intent regarding this topic. I give you fair warning regarding the sanctions for editors on BLPs and Indian articles who violate WP:BLP, and particularly in the area of unambiguously promoting and marketing false allegations about a BLP across several WP articles. Britishfinance (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is he a mathematician?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1) Why is Anand Kumar called a mathematician? He is a mathematics teacher, a good one maybe, but what is the official wikipedia policy to designate someone as a mathematician?

2) His papers cannot be found in journals. There is a letter to the editor in "the mathematical gazette" which is by one Anand Kumar, but it is hardly and serious mathematics. I am removing the mentions that he has papers published in journal until someone finds these references.Breakfastisready (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Because lots of reliable independent sources say that he is a mathematician (I am not going to list them all here, and I presume you can read). In WP, we don't get into trying to "prove" that someone is a mathematician (that would be WP:OR), we record what reliable independent sources say. The RS you deleted says During graduation, he submitted papers on Numbers Theory that were published in UK's Mathematical Spectrum and The Mathematical Gazette.. You are deleting the RS that supports the statement, nothing else is needed. If someone produced links to journals, they would have to be deleted as OR or PRIMARY. Britishfinance (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I changed 'smear campaign' into 'fraud accusation' why it was reverted?

Hi @britishfinance, I changed 'smear campaign' into 'fraud accusation' because there were several media sources and court record as well which I had cited too. I respect Anand Kumar for what he's doing but wants to show people that there is controversial side as well. 'Smear campaign' doesn't sound so clear. The content I had added (mostly from Indian news articles) gives a picture that the allegations has been put by Anand Kumar's students about him being not 100% honest and what people have portrayed him might not be true. The statement of advocate discuss that he has not replied to PIL while the Court website show that the case is pending and ongoing. I think these details should be there on Wikipedia so people know both side of stories. I am not a good writer but I tried to write in unbiased tone and mostly gave citation for everything I wrote. I am not sure why it was removed. Could you please tell me? Thanks. (Also being inexperienced user of Wikipedia, I don't know how to quote you here so you can see my comment but will recheck) Creepy.clown.wiki (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Per my edit to your reversion (and discussion above with another editor), the allegations against Kumar are (1) unproven, and (2) considered a "smear campaign" by notable people in WP:RS (per the article), and (3) are also considered a "smear campaign" by the BLP themselves. Per WP:BLP and WP:SUSPECT, such unproven allegations are not suitable for the BLP page of a subject; a Wikipedia BLP cannot be used as a platform to introduce or promote such unproven allegations, regardless of the sources. Also note that per a major ArbCom ruling here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others#Edit warring and BLP, editors who "restore" content removed due to BLP violations, face sanctions. Britishfinance (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

A "smear" implies unfounded and malicious rumor. An "allegation" is a legal term, and it is presumed false until and unless proven otherwise. Since an Indian state High Court agreed to hear a legal case against Anand Kumar, the term "allegation" would be appropriate. Sooku (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It has been called a "smear campaign" by several notable sources in good WP:RS. We have to go by what notable sources say, AND also avoid BLP violations; only after a formal conviction, can we introduce such material into a BLP (e.g. a BLP cannot be used as a platform to promote unproven "allegation" against a subject); as yet, these "allegations" are not proven, and hearing a case is not a "conviction". Britishfinance (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)