Talk:Anand Teltumbde

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2019

by Vidya Bhushan Rawat Ganesh2019 (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Unwarranted removal of publications section

Edit warriors have been consistently removing the sub-section of this notable author's works.

They should take note that MOS:WORKS recommends "Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet" and desist forthwith.--BushelCandle (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Please note that like all content on Wikipedia (and as stated in the quote above), that information needs to be verified by reliable sources. If you do not have a source, please discuss on the talk page where you are obtaining your information before adding it to the article. As per WP:BRD and WP:BLP, you should discuss your inclusion on the talk page before reinserting the content if it has been removed by multiple other editors.Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, you seem to be the only editor that is removing the list of some of the more notable publications of this famous Indian author and you need to stop. In-text attribution is normally reserved for minority views, controversial claims, and other widely disputed material. If you go into any bookshop in India and ask to see his works, you can verify that the partial list of publications you keep removing is accurate - or you could just check an online bookshop like Amazon. --BushelCandle (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Here, below, is the partial (and sourced) list that I believe should be included in this BLP:                     --BushelCandle (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Publications

• Radical in Ambedkar (Ed) (Penguin Random House, New Delhi, 2018)
• Republic of Caste: Thinking of Equality in the Era of neoliberalism and Hindutva (Navayana, New Delhi, 2018)
• Dalits: Past, Present and Future ISBN 1138688754 (Routledge, London and New York, 2016)
• Introduction to B R Ambedkar's India and communism (Left Word, New Delhi, 2016)
• Mahad: The Making of the First Dalit Revolt, (Aakar, New Delhi, 2015)
• Scripting the Change (Ed) (Danish, Delhi, 2011)
• The Persistence of Caste ISBN 9781848134492 (Zed Books, London, 2010)
• Khairlanji: A Strange and Bitter Crop (Navayana, Delhi. 2008)
• Anti-Imperialism and Annihilation of Castes (Ramai, Mumbai. 2005)
• Hindutva and Dalits: Perspectives for Understanding Communal Praxis, (Ed) (Samya, Kolkata. 2005)
• ‘Ambedkar’ in and for the Post-Ambedkar Dalit Movement, (Sugawa, Pune), 1997

References

--BushelCandle (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I have cleaned up and added information to these book citations. Please stop removing the ISBNs for these publications from the article and reinserting incorrect formatting and punctuation. Also, the Amazon.com links and multiple links to the same Penguin Books India source are not needed. Please see WP:AMAZON and WP:DUPCITES. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Recent copyedit

I recently went through the article's sources and noticed several WP:BLP and copyright issues. I rewrote the article to remove those issues and improve the cited references (and also a general cleanup). That rewrite was recently reverted by Salithak1. Due to the BLP and copyright issues, I have reverted back to my copyedited version, and I wanted to explain the BLP issues for others so that the article can be improved. After plagiarism, the most serious issues are WP:RECENT and the allegations about his brother in the old version.

• The old version went into unnecessary minor details about his 2019 arrest (e.g., the reference to the "FIR" or the particular dates of his protection against arrest), and it also included only one line about those supporting him and criticizing the arrest, which is what I found in the vast majority of coverage in the sources.
• The references to his brother seem to clearly violate BLP given that I could not find sources linking Anand to his brother or his brother's activities in any way (The Washington Post even stated that the police "declined to comment" on a connection between Anand and his brother). The line that his brother is "believed" to be a "Maoist operative" seems particularly to violate WP:BLPCRIME, especially as his brother is not a notable figure.

In addition, the old version had several issues of incorrect, unsourced, or plagiarized material. Some examples include:

• The first source is an opinion article by someone about Teltumbde that should not be used for factual statements in Wikipedia's voice
• "Regular" contributor is not supported by the sources, which are single articles he has written for the named publications.
• The petition to the UN was not signed by "hundreds of academics". That line was largely plagiarized from The New York Times, which says "Hundreds of academics, including Noam Chomsky and Cornel West, have signed petitions calling for the United Nations to intervene and for the police's 'fabricated charges' to be withdrawn". As the two links in the Times article explain, there is both the letter to the UN that was signed by Chomsky, West, and about 150 other individuals and organizations, as well as another statements signed by over 600 people. A subsequent update changed the sentence to almost exactly match the Times.
• The line "The case against Teltumbde has alarmed scholars across the world" is taken directly from the Times article.
• In the personal life section, his wife is not named in the currently cited source and the line that "Teltumbde is an Ambedkarite" is from an interview that seems potentially problematic, as I tagged it in the rewritten version.

The article currently focuses more on the support he has received since his arrest than the details of the arrest as that seemed to be the WP:WEIGHT expressed in the sources. If additional information is needed to balance the article, please add that material. The section about his arrest could also be trimmed if there is too much about it that it is WP:UNDUE given the length of the overall article. However, the plagiarized material or BLP issues should not be restored. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

While WP:BLPCRIME (which hadn't been violated) is an important policy, I also think that WP:RGW is also an important policy. I don't think we must add criticism of government actions by a media outlet or an anti-government activist to prove that this individual is obviously innocent. I have modified the version now,[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anand_Teltumbde&type=revision&diff=894223565&oldid=893472557] in order to remove the disputed edits. Consider avoiding the use of sources like scroll.in and thewire because they are not that reliable sources and at least scroll was marked as unreliable on WP:RSN. The Wire must be attributed but for this kind of subject we can avoid for now. Shashank5988 (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Archive data for live links

Hi Wallyfromdilbert and GreaterPonce665, the reason I had reverted your edits stating that archive links for live links add "unnecessary bulk" to the page in terms of bytes to load. On this page the archive links are adding 7,163 bytes (of the total 24,709 bytes), and removing the archive data could enhance the page load time by a third of what it takes now. On the CAA protests page that I was invited to clean up, I manually removed over 45,000 bytes of archive data from the entire page. That is the average size of 3 Start class articles. These links cause nothing but clutter to those readers who actually read the citations (even "access-date" parameter is not needed unless it is a website with dynamic content). Additionally, IABot has already archived the links and stored the links in the Wayback Machine, and the bot regularly does checks for dead links and replaces them, so there's no need to preserve the archive data here. You may read the detailed discussion of the same on my Talk page. Thanks. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi SerChevalerie, are we really concerned about load times of few microseconds for a few additional kbytes of files? I wasn't aware that IA already archives all the wikipedia links, that makes this easy to sort (i.e. I'm ok with not having archived links for live links). TBF, I don't have a strong opinion on this matter and am not interested in getting into edit warring over this trivial matter. Thanks. GreaterPonce665 (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I think they are useful and do not find them to add "clutter" to the citations. I use the archive links regularly. I also do not believe they affect the page load time to any noticeable amount (especially as the 24k bytes of page text is not the only content loaded for a page). Has there been any centralized community discussion about not having archive links because of page load times? If not, maybe that would be the way to address your concerns by starting one, SerChevalerie, as I think that would get opinions beyond individual editors at a few pages. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, that does make sense, I don't want to edit war over something so trivial either. Any suggestions as to which forum would be the best? SerChevalerie (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure. That's partly why I was asking, or I would have tried myself. Maybe ask where on the bot's talk page? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Will do that and ask a couple of admins. Thanks. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate that. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Freed on bail in Nov 2022?

Article seems to need comphehensive update. Media reports say he was granted bail, and the decision was confirmed by the Indian Supreme Court. 2601:544:C100:9EE0:4DA3:963E:D679:3770 (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)