Talk:Chinmoy Guha

NPOV

The tone of this article does not conform to the NPOV standards of Wikipedia. Also several claims are unsubstantiated, i.e., without any mention of sources. Wikipedia is not a forum for hagiography (as this piece stands), but objective facts, presented in a readable format. Please improve this article.Patoldanga'r Tenida (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

As a regular reader of Wikipedia and researcher, I note with great dismay that it is the above-mentioned user, and not the creator, who added wrong information ("Guha being presently Head, Dept of English, University of Calcutta and he being a member of the Faculty of Rabindra Bharati University) and HAGIOGRAPHY ("prominent essayist") and not the other way round. Guha is highly respected in Bengal as a professor, essayist and a translator, the news of his Knighthood was published in all important newspapers like The Times of India (18 October 2013), Ei Samay (19 October), Sangbad Pratidin(19 October), The Telegraph (20 October), Ananda Bazar Patrika (21 October) and Desh (2 November 2013). I still remember that the description of an Egyptian vendor giving away all his roses to him in appreciation of his French was prominently published in the Statesman, Kolkata and the matter is available. It was rightly incorporated in the original text by the creator, but later eliminated by the above-mentioned user!! Jacques Derrida's admiration for Guha--published by The Times of India-- is quite well-known in Bengal. Interestingly, this too was incorporated by the creator but eliminated for reasons best known to him by Patoldanga'r Tenida!! Much of the great joy of learning through Wikipedia derives from these wonderful life-stories which have made Wikipedia so readable for the students all over the world! Do we "improve" the text or do we make it dull and uninteresting? Isn't Wikipedia known for its high readability? The complainant also unnecessarily added "former" to the description of Ramananda Chatterjee, the legendary Editor of Prabasi which seemed unnecessary. He added South Calcutta to the location of Jagadbandhu Institution which seems to be also redundant. Do we need to write South Calcutta for St Xavier's College, north Calcutta for Presidency College or for that matter South Oxford to Christ Church College, Oxford? The complainant also strangely eliminated the name of the distinguished filmmaker Rituparno Ghosh who was most aptly described as the previous Editor of Robbar Supplement of Sangbad Pratidin. Instead of presenting an objective fact, the complainant edited out such an important piece of information, which was an uncalled for action. All major facts in the text created seem to have been substantiated. If the complainant finds it necessary to substantiate a Teacher Fellowship at Jadavpur University, it seems a little illogical and dishonourable. Will the editor ask for someone's birth certificate or School-leaving certificate? It is the creator who seemed more neutral and sensible.Sandburgcarltalk15:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your detailed response, which is indeed somewhat better the previous versions of the text itself (it would seem that the students of the department of English at the University of Calcutta can write objectively, after all). While I never doubted the facts that you mentioned, what I merely mentioned was that the information given was not sourced or cited, and that the tone of the text seemed to convey the impression that objectivity was not the sole purpose of this piece, as is required in a typical Wikipedia article, but personal aggrandizement, through the use of peacock terms and ornate expressions (typical among the postgraduate students of the department that Guha chairs; no wonder that its students rarely get scholarships in the West, unlike those of Presidency, or Jadavpur, but that is another story for another time). Wikipedia articles are not written for the typical Bong reader, but for any reader, irrespective of geographical locale. Anyone not associated with that department might be compelled to ask questions on the native language or nationality of the subject, and indeed, whether the associations of the subject are verifiable. To that end, far from being illogical, any edit that aims to conform to the objective guidelines of Wikipedia is more than welcome. Patoldanga'r Tenida (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Like If I were to pitch in which I am doing at this moment this article suffers from heavily biased point-of-view unlike Wikipedia where there is a policy (not a guideline) which is dedicate to Neutral Point of View and is one of the five pillars Wikipedia was founded and based on. This article of Chinmoy Guha was primarily written by Anusuya Guha who in the article itself mentioned as Chinmoy Guha's wife. Now it does not matter if Guha is Neil Armstrong or not and whether this article (and the man) is of any importance and encyclopaedic value, but thats another ball game, a topic I would like to debate with. Anyway along with Conflict of Interest the article also suffered/(suffers if they are added again which is likely) from Peacock words, Weasel words and above is completely unreferenced and therefore qualifies as Original research and here anything original or bullshit [This is not a violation of WP:NPA, I am commenting on the article not the contributor] is not kept here. This article was solely created and further expanded for the glorification of the man. Now thats my opinion and please read the links I gave above. Sohambanerjee1998 17:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As one can see I have added further maintenance tags to the article which might provide more insight. For the Facebook like button I do not have a profile and am extremely against having one but since I was extremely impressed by Tenida's reply I decided to like it. Sohambanerjee1998 17:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a shame that one of our finest scholars is subjected to personal attack! Instead we should be proud of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amfloyd (talk • contribs) 19:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

As a creator of this page, I can clearly state here that not a single textual change was made by Anusuya Guha - except a very few minor changes of the bibliography. (History clearly shows that.) So, Mr Sohambanerjee1998, stop making unnecessary allegations. Rather, try to have some decency and stop disrespecting an internationally-acclaimed scholar. Suvapar82 talk • 1:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Suvapar82 you see you can't abuse editors here, if you do you'll meet with a Block and regarding that [try to have some decency and stop disrespecting an internationally-acclaimed scholar.....] have not made single comment disregarding the scholar but have rather commented on the article of his [pun intended]. Sohambanerjee1998 04:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Updates

I did remove lots of peacock terms, and mellowed downed the tone, some days back. Sitush has done great job in further improving the article. Although I have not thoroughly read it now, a quick look gives the impression that it is better: I did not pick up any melodrama (touching life events!), or glaring peacock terms.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've read the original wiki article on Dr. Guha. Hence I'm surprised to read the mutilated one. Being a student of Jadavpur University, I feel disheartened to see such humiliation being meted out to a legend and stalwart like that of Dr. Guha. Let us please treat an erudite scholar and exemplary human being like him with utmost respect and veneration. Baezjoan (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not intended to be akin to fan websites. However, we do have a policy concerning biographies of living people and if the article is somehow breaching that then it will require amendment. Please can you give some indication of what you consider to be the "humiliation" in the current version. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I notice with horror that the Bengali transcript of Professor Guha's name has been chopped off. Interestingly, it was there from early September to late October 2013. His lectures in Western universities, though corroborated by the University website profile, have been eliminated. Despite the list of Central Institute of Indian languages documentaries anchored by him being there, a citation is sought by these "editors"! Although the name of the Festschrift is clearly given with date (Amritalok, April 2012)and the list of writers, a citation is sought! The mailicious intent is clear.Sandburgcarl (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bengali name chopped off! Bravo! Compare this with other wiki articles. "Sitush" has eliminated the names of French Ministries who conferred the awards along with several citations, changed Chevalier into Knighthood and later on Knighthood to Chevalier!! Is this madness? Somebody playing with wiki? Important citations omitted (the ISSN no of the Festschrift) and then they added "citations needed"! Yes, it would be very very interesting to compare with other Indian entries. Yes, the malicious intent is only too obvious.senabs (talk)22:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is nothing malicious going on here, although there may just possibly be some unwitting meatpuppeting going on among his fans. Were your points the ones that Baezjoan considered to be the "humiliating" aspects of the article?

• Regarding the transcript, please see WP:INDICSCRIPT.
• The lectures in Western universities are still present but some English universities were removed because they were duplicated. From what I could work out, they were shown twice and are now listed just once (they all related to his T S Eliot book).
• We need sources for pretty much everything on Wikipedia - please see WP:V for the policy details.
• The problem with the festschrift is also that it is not easily verifiable using the info provided and it looks as if it never was. Almost certainly, a single sentence should suffice for the point anyway (the long list of names is unnecessary) but let's find a more complete citation (what volume, issue, publisher, ISSN number etc). Is that magazine even notable? Is it listed in the catalogues of major libraries?

Hope this helps. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Supavar82 might be personally linked with Chinmoy Guha as I suspect he is a student of Guha. The suspicion got stronger when I see the OTRS tickets. Sohambanerjee1998 11:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I have tried to fix most of the citation issues that were mentioned earlier. Regarding the transcript, since Bengali is a national language of a country (Bangladesh) and not a regional language, we can use Bengali name. Also Professor Guha is well-known in that country.

Also, a vast source of knowledge is not available in the internet. So, I had to cite relevant records in print. Hope this will help. - Victor Béart (talk) 1:06PM, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• ..the man himself jumps in with knowledge of both french and bengali and use of templates that too with a redlink to his talk and sense of using {{Cite web}}. Either there is serious socking or the man himself has decided to edit. 15 mins of fame. Soham 08:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've trimmed it. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

As an avid reader of wikipedia I have been following many articles. Everything mentioned in this article on Chinmoy Guha is fairly well-known, and there is no question of lack of neutrality about all this. The unjust tag about neutrality must be removed. Someone must have played pranks by using a relative's name! No fool would do that. The tag should be removed. - (talk)12:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Resolving ties with the article.

I hereby decide to never edit this article again as it seems to be a pretty hot one and the man himself is keeping a tab on this article as evident from his blog post titled Wiki mischief. Being a controversy free person I would like to remain one but editing this article might risk it. Soham Banerjee 07:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)