Jump to content

Talk:John Dayal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

John Dayal is allegedly a Hate-monger. Promoting rights for a certain group does not mean preaching hate for others. The article does not address the issue, rather putting all the blame on the Hindus for hating his "good actions" (sic). Cygnus_hansa 13:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entomologist's Memo to self - Three! Aha! So they have at last begun to creep out of the woodpile. The bugs, that is. I was wondering when they would. One thing is certain: There may be a delay, but the bugs will eventually attack. Heard of "Chinese Whispers"? First one comes and attacks one or two words, diluting them. "Neo-Nazis" is replaced by the far less offensive "far right". Of course, "far right" in the West are compulsorily "Neo-Nazi", but perish the thought that the same can be true in India, even though these "Constitutionally Non-Hitlerites, Non-Nazis" idolize Hitler and declare that they wish to emulate him. And so now the Neo-Non-Nazis have certified that this article's "Neutrality" is "disputed". Yeah! Way to go! How dare they imply that Hitler was a monster? How POV!!! My Wikidness 03:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MAgicalsaumy. My Wikidness, I couldn't catch what you were saying lol. Be more blunt. I removed the uncited nonsesne of far-right hindu orgsBakaman Bakatalk 05:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to christianaggression.com

[edit]

If we are going to link to extremist websites, the users must be warned that these websites do not meet the standards set by WP. This is not 'poisoning the well', as IndiaRissing claims it is; unless he/she chooses to modify the language, I will be forced to revert. I look forward to discussing this further. Hornplease 23:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove the claims you wrote about CA.org? Does any reliable source say that they are an extremist group? Absense of evidence is evidence of absence on wikipedia. India Rising 23:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to prove it, again: you have to demonstrate that ca.org meets WP:RS.
Also, a list of criticisms of the man must be either (a) from reliable sources or (b) indicating the provenance of the sources.

Hornplease 00:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Gautier satisfies that criterion.CA.org is reliable enough to express their views. One can reword it accordingly. They are, of course, partisan. India Rising 00:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I do not think Gautier is suffuciently prominent. Dayal is a prominent figure, the RSS' official critique of him would be more relevant. In addition, please note that your paraphrasing of the criticism should be neutral in tone and stay as close to the original accusation as possible. Hornplease 00:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit puzzled by your edits, as well as your claim of Gautier, who is a prominent columnist and has written a lot about India from his point of view. I think CA.org is not reliable if an article is authored by one of them. The cited article is a copy of Banjamin's letter, and we can be reasonably sure that CA.org would not fabricate a letter like that as then they risk court action from Benjamin for libel, which they would not want as they would be discredited as liars which they haven't. Of course, CA.org is very partisan, but partisan does not mean unreliable. I have tried very hard to be neutral and not propogate hate against Dayal in this article, as that would severely violate WP:LIVING which would be very bad. To achieve that objective I have put Benjamin's remarks in quotes so that it is established as his comments and not ours. That way, wikipedia is safe from legal action by Dayal. India Rising 00:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I personally think partisan reprints of other material should not be viewed as suspect. Gautier is hardly an authority of encyclopaedic stature, surely? I think that criticism of Dayal from his real opponents in the mainstream or in the RSS is better suited for the article. Hornplease 04:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


WP:BLP

[edit]

WP:BLP is policy. Please note that linking to partisan websites is a strict no-no. Unless this article is rewritten keeping that in mind, I will stub it.Hornplease 07:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what it the purpose of this article. I would like to have the article either be re-written or removed al together. Recordfreenow (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No partisan websites are being linked to. Please point to real BLP violations, if there are any, then we can discuss modifying the section or removing it.Pectoretalk 20:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you (Recordfreenow) read BLP you would notice the word "individual" is not even found in Biographies_of_living_persons#Criticism_and_praise. Not only that, but I have removed some of the previous partisan criticism, and some of the ridiculous ChristianAggression drivel on the page in line with BLP.Pectoretalk 05:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Criticism section

[edit]

This section reproduces hostile opinions from two journalists and from P.N. Benjamin of the Bangalore Initiative for Religious Dialogue. It is reasonable to report criticism made by the subject's peers but attacks by op-ed journalists rarely belong in an encyclopedia biography, particularly of a living person. P.N Benjamin is a different case. If there is no objection, I will delete this section. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is against WP policy to directly or indirectly remove or water down another POV so as to emphasize a certain POV. The criticism section should be kept, wikified and improved. Cygnus_hansa (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article presents John Dayal's views, as the article on Karl Marx presents Marx's views and the one on Alfred Rosenberg presents Rosenberg's views. It tries to give a neutral presentation of his views, reporting them accurately but without comment. Criticism by a political opponent, or criticism in a reputable journal or book that discusses specific issues may sometimes be relevant. The article on Karl Marx contains some criticism like this, although not much. The article on Alfred Rosenberg has no criticism. The Marx and Rosenberg articles are excellent examples of neutral biographies of people who have each attracted a huge amount of criticism.
An op-ed essay by a journalist saying "I don't like him" does not seem to be useful in this or any other article. The Francois Gautier polemic is mainly about Sonia Gandhi. Should his accusations be noted in the article on Sonia Gandhi? I would not want to damage whatever reputation I have as an editor by attempting that change. So why is his polemic cited in this article? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the criticism section should be kept according to WP policy. -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 06:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Dayal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Dayal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Dayal&oldid=1205300298"