Talk:M. N. Vijayan

POV concerns

This article is blatantly written from a POV (point of View); statements like "fondly" and "is the leading intellectual" need to be either removed or references supplied. I'm starting cleanup of this article. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I just found this article through Special:Random and was put off by its bad quality. I fixed some stuff, mainly POV stances & wordings as well as formatting, but there still is a lot of work that needs to be done. To be true, though, I don't know if it is worth it. The article should probably be deleted if it isn't brought to the quality of a truly encyclopaedic article soon. zerofoks 11:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Clean up

I cleaned up some of the language and grammatical errors, but I have removed the clean up tag and related tags because I don't see how the article was really in that bad shape when I got to it. However, there are definite notability issues and no references, so I have put those tags there instead. Hope my edits were to everyone's satisfaction (though I didn't really change much) Jdcooper 17:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Marxist Ideologue

M.N.Vijayan is fondly called Marxist Ideologe by the Communist Party activists.But,he has not made any original contribution to Marxism.He has been relying mainly on authors like Wilhem Reich.Unlike party leaders he did not use the classical marxist jargon of Class War.However,later due to his disagreement with some of the party leaders he has statrted saying that a revolutionary party should not open up its windows,as it would enable intruders to get in.He was removed from the editor position of party owned weekly after this criticism of party. Mahesh Mangalat 06:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Impartiality of editors

If you read the archives of "M.N.Vijyan" page, it is clear editors have not done justice to this biography. Some text entered are not written with nuetral point of view. But the editors who removed are more biased as they just removed all write up instead of modifying without reason. M.N.Vijayan is one of the two most prominent living intellectuals of Kerala. The other person is Sukumar Azheekkode. M.N.Vijyan's contribution is not only as a CPIM intellectual. He got Sahitya Academy award in 1970s or 1980s. M.N.Vijyan is a mentor of many famous personalities including Punathil Kunhabdulla. Punathil Kunhabdullah is an anti Marxist. Infact there should be a separate paragraph to highlight this side of M.N.Vijayan's life. The number of people who visit M.N.Vijayan personally to take his advice is may be many thousands. If you go to Kodungallur Town and ask an autorickshaw driver they will tell you the truth. Wikipedia editors are simply becoming laughing stalks by acting with some other interests. It is clear from this page, some editors of this page have motive and they are not eligible to do that work.

• Hi, thanks for your comments, I'm sorry you feel that the editing on this article is too ruthless. However, it has to be said that the material that was removed was removed because it was almost exclusively opinion, specifically opinion that showed clear bias not befitting an encyclopaedia. Furthermore it was written in substandard English. If you are a fan of Mr Vijayan, then surely you of all people would desire that the article about him would be well-written, well-sourced and informative? Please help us to do this by adding relevant encyclopaedic information, but only if it is accompanied by a reliable source to back it up. Unsourced information and clearly biased text will be removed. Jdcooper 17:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for the message and for indirectly admitting that those who were removing the content know little about the subject. In this context I appreciate your request inviting "well-written, well-sourced and informative" write up and writing "Please help us to do this by adding relevant" content. One of those jokes about wikipedia is that a Nobel laureate's biography was edited and replaced with another person's biography. It is important that if editors do not know about the subject, they should not decide the relevance of the subject and delete others's inputs altogether.

• File:Http://hallaboal.blogspot.com/2010/07/m-n-vijayanchinthayute-agniparvatham.html

</gallery> ==Nobody has published biography of M.N.Vijayan. But a book is published as part of smear campaign against M.N.Vijayan by M.A.Baby. This explains a lot of things. It was more than 5 years back M.N.Vijayan warned against M.A. Baby and Thomas Isaac of bringing the politics of Capital into Communist party through back door. Now things are obvious when Prakash Karat himself warn against influence of Lottery Mafia's money. "When capital was brought into Communist party, the Capital brought its ideology also into communist party." It is not surprising why big media and certain individuals are keen to remove anything written about M.N. Vijayan. Kairali T.V, which was started by Communist Party of India (Marxist) till this date never published a single statement by M.N. Vijayan. Never showed his face in that channel even when M.N. Vijayan was the editor of Communist party's weekly Deshabhimani. There is no need to comment much about obvious things.

• Wikipedia has certain central tenets, most importantly neutrality and verifiability, which any editor can judge, regardless of their familiarity with the subject. If you review those pages fully before making significant additions to the site then it is unlikely that any editor will have any substantial problems with anything you write, and what you write will not be removed. Jdcooper 15:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion

Repeatedly we are getting unsigned comments and statements which are pov. Cluttered with red links that lead you nowhere; forgetting that this is a biography of a respectable living person. Disparaging comments and innuendos about other living people. The article is crying out for improvement or, deletion Weblogan 12:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag you placed on this page, because this is the talk page; tags should go on the article itself. On that note, the tag you placed, {{db-attack}}, does not seem appropriate because the article does not seem to be a completely negative biography. Yes, it could use sources, but that's no reason to place a speedy deletion tag on it. Now, your header for this comment says "Vote for Deletion." There is no more "Votes for deletion." That area has been renamed Articles for deletion, and if you want to start a discussion concerning deletion, you need to follow the instructions there, not place a speedy deletion tag on it. But, it sounds like you want the article to be improved... so deleting it would be unfavorable, no? Leebo ^T/C 12:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• why you are sooooooooooooooooo keen to remove this? Last two days there were hot discussions in the T.V channels and dailies about a "Two day discussion camp" under the leadership of M.N.Vijayan and others.

== What ever may be done in the name of "improving" the article, by some people are done with an intention of destroying the facts. After the collapse of Soviet Union, the communist movement world over has either became Social Democratic parties, or disintegrated into irrelevance or fought against rightward deviation to uphold Marxist-Leninist moorings. Anti-Communist fundings and deliberate and organized campaign against communism is still goin on officially by various imperialist agencies. Cuban party and CPI(M) are the world's larget communist parties now, which till date refused to deviate from the Marxist moorings after Soviet Era. M.N. Vijayan is leading an ideological campaign against the world's largest existing communist party against such Social democratic deviations. No biography of M.N.Vijyan is complete without mentioning this. But the moment some one add any such write up, some people would destroy them.

See for example-- 01:14, 9 June 2007 Weblogan (Talk | contribs) (4,119 bytes) (deleted as the whole thing was irrelevant for an encyclopedic article. they were reading like testimonials you find in ads) (undo)

05:41, 24 June 2007 Weblogan (Talk | contribs) (4,455 bytes) (gibberish and improper redirects, some proxy war is going on here) (undo)

13:51, 3 June 2007 Weblogan (Talk | contribs) (18,942 bytes) (There is no reason to remove notability and lack of reference tags in the absen ce of any improvement in content.) (undo)

It is clear why some of these "editors" do not want this article to be read by others. It is only understandable. And I have only sympathy for them.

It is good that paranoia is manifested now in clear terms in the demand "Delete! and Destroy! or the world will perish tomorrow!!! Delete! Delete ! Delete!!!".... Let us hope after a few months, in the same way a frank statement will appear here--- "I dont like him! So I dont want any one to write about him!!!"--- Waiting for that comment to appear.

• If you people spent as much time finding sources for your assertions in the article as you did ranting about things that are not appropriate to discuss on wikipedia, then this article would be featured standard by now. Please read WP:NOT and WP:V thoroughly before making further complaints. This kind of discussion is unproductive. Jdcooper 15:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong disagreement even with the idea of deletion, wikipedia is an inclusive space & mn vijayan has a lot of references, and news on him & his interviews (Alex.mathews (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC))

This is not Hyde Park

Donot expect any sympathy, if your piece in Wikipedia is soapbox rabble rousing. Please see the following guidelines: WP:SOAP WP:NOT#SOAP WP:NOT#SOAPBOX WP:NOT#ADVOCATE WP:NOT#OPINION] In short, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia content is not be anything but verifiable and NPOV. Internet provides places for soapbox oratory. Blog is a very good medium. But, certainly not encyclopedic articles. You can see reasons for deletion in edit summary and there will not be any change in policy if such misdemeanors are repeated. Also this page is not the only one that is subjected to propaganda of similar nature -- or the proxy war hoisted on wikipedia. please see Pinarayi Vijayan, equally virilant other side of this parochial gang war. Weblogan 02:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-linking

I've tried to get rid of some of the red and excess blue and ugly links that were making this article look more intimidating than it really is. There's no need to link to any specific article more than once, perhaps twice, and no need to link to Vijayan himself. I did some other small format changes, hope everyone is happy with them. There are still some sentences that I really don't think make sense, but failing any specific knowledge I am kind of impotent to do anything to them. Jdcooper 12:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Another POV Attack

To say that allegations raised against you are true if you lose a defamation case is stretching it too far. In this case the complainant was representing an organization and had, for the time being, failed to prove the charges. Nothing more; nothing less. On the same issue, there is also another case pending filed by another individual against Vijayan et al for personally defaming him. English news [1]tells it all. If no legit explanation forthcoming from the perpetrator of this POV attack,, an ip address 59.92.131.235, proposing to delete/edit the offending portion. Weblogan 00:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC) edited the section to some level of NPOV. Weblogan 08:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• The case filed by KSSP in its complaint alleged (From Hindu [2]): "The parishad president alleged that the third accused (Mr. Sudheesh), who very well knew that these allegations were false, baseless and defamatory, wrote the article with an intention to defame the Parishad. The editor and the printer and publisher also knew that the allegations were false and that they published the article without any inquiry.". It is true that the English newspaper has omitted the fact that M.N.Vijayan and Prof. Sudheesh stood by what they published in their publication. (In fact every allegation made in the Padhom magazine is supported by evidence. Unfortunately an online copy is not available.)

The translation of the news report appeared in the regional language press is given below: (Mathrubhumi-Saturday, 29th September 2007 )[3]

Defamation case: M.N.Vijayan and Sudhish are acquitted.

Kochin: The chief Judicial Magistrate Court has acquitted Prof. M.N.Vijayan and Prof. Sudheesh in the defamation case, finding they are innocent.

"K.Pappootty, the president of Kerala Shastra Sahitya Parishad filed the case accusing that articles written by them in Padhom Magazine are defamatory. The articles written in 2003 criticised People's Planning. The articles had alleged that Shastra Sahitya Parishad was receiving foreign funds, among other things.

T.K. Madhu said in the verdict that the complainant Pappootty has failed to prove that the editorial and other articles are defamatory. Court also acquited the publisher of the Padhom Magazine, D. ShreeKumar.

The allegations published in the Padhom magazines had generated much controversy in Kerala. Prof. Vijayan and Prof. Sudheesh reiterated in the on their allegations in the court. The articles also contain criticisms against the Finance Minister Prof. Thomas Isaac. He has filed case asking compensation for defamation in the sub-court."

The facts--

1) M.N.Vijayan and Prof. Sudheesh had made allegations in writing.

2) They have reiterated their allegations, and there was no attempt to deny what ever they had said earlier.

There are only two ways KSSP can fail to prove the charges.

a) If there is an ambiguity about what M.N.Vijan and others have said. So court considers that Pappootty has failed to prove what M.N. Vijayan and others had originally stated.

b) If court consider what M.N. Vijayan has said is true.

In this case, there is absolutely no ambiguity about what M.N.Vijayan and others have alleged because a) They have alleged them in writing. b) They stood by what they had said.

Thus, any one with elementary knowledge of the law can easily understand the meaning of the verdict. That court considers what M.N.Vijayan and Sudhish have said is right.

This is what I have published in Wikipedia. "The court verdict indirectly endorses what M.N.Vijayan has said, that is KSSP has received imperialist funding. And as majority of the leaders of KSSP are also leaders of CPI(M), "a section of CPI(M) has accepted imperialist funding."

The court examined all the documents taking 3 to 4 years' time and reached in its present conclusions. It clarified that allegations are NOT DEFAMATORY. Where does the question of "the time being, failed to prove the charges" arise? (And for the time being, if they have failed their case, till their better time comes, those facts can be legitimately accepted. I dont question the right of others to file any appeal. But that is not my work. If any one thinks they have to wait for 200 years till KSSP fails all court cases in this world, nothing can be published in any media, not necessarily only in Wikipedia.)

In fact, CPI(M) has clarified earlier that KSSP has received funds but they said it is an internal matter of KSSP. And majority of the KSSP leaders and also CPI(M) leaders.

It is clear that this editor is deliberately removing references published to support the articles, in this site and deleting the contents without valid reasons. I leave this for the better judgement of the readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.137.99 (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

misguiding readers

First deliberate attempts to remove this very article. The argument -"not a famous personality". That tag removed very recently. One such contributor - who repeatedly removed the contents for reasons best known to him or her- later added: M.N. Vijayan received "Sahitya Akademy award" in 1980s. If contributor knew it, why demanded removal of page? And if knew Vijayan selected for award, then must know he refused award. So, there was a deliberate misguiding. how can wiki allow such people removing facts?

The Mathrubhumi of Oct 9 2007 reports what court said about imperialist funding. KSSP admitted in court- reluctantly though- they received foreign fund- and they have no permission to accept foreign fund. Mathrubhumi: this can put them behind bar for 5 years, as it is a violation of relevant rules of foreign funding. Now who are others in receipt of foreign funds? Center for Development Studies, Trivandrum and its then office bearers.

Mathrubhumi Oct 9, does not name Thomas Isaac, but he was then responsible for receipt of foreign fund by CDS and is present finance minister, Kerala. How can a person, who perhaps should sit in jail now- continue as finance minister? These are the issues, but only one sentence is included in the wikipedia- Court has approved M.N. Vijayan & Sudheesh' allegations. I dont see any reason why this can be removed from wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.11.173 (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• M.N.Vijayan was a successful counsellor. And that content is removed by arguing: "man with no psychology education counselling people is unscientific."... If I am assuming that I need to certify Abraham Lincoln, if his role in civil war was right ot not before putting that in Lincoln's biography, I can do that sitting in my home. But insisting that in a public forum raises some questions... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.200.101 (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Can any one point out Weblogan adding any point to this article? He apparently has only one motive to participate here- to destroy the facts. He argued first to remove this page, consistantly removed references. He doesnt have any point why M.N. Vijayan's life's important aspect, that he was a successful conselor, can not be showed here. M.N.Vijayan, for that matter, anyone in the world, doesnt require any medical degree to give simple counseling. Was Jesus Christ a qualified medical practitioner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.143.70 (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No POV pushing please

In the name of citation don't give as reference any odd article. Encyclopedic articles should cite from tertiary sources. wikipedia is in the serious business of disseminating accurate NPOV accurate knowledge. Internet offers opportunities for 'fan' sites; buy a website. Don't misuse wikipedia facilities, which is precious to many. Weblogan 02:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Two instances

1) On August 29 2007, Weblogan deleted the text from this article which stated "M.N.Vijayan refused to accept any award" and inserted a factually incorrect content suggesting he accepted awards and added this line: "Deleted a POV falsehood that said that the author refused all awards given, and inserted the factual position.". But the citation is given here from The Hindu : "He also kept away from established cultural institutions like Sahitya Academy and refused to accept any state-sponsored awards." Weblogan has alleged others of spreading falsehood. The Hindu is not a tertiary source?

2) The New Indian Express, one of the most prominent English Daily newspapers in India published this: "His house in Dharmadom, the small village where Brennan College is situated, was a home for the revolutionaries and the marginalised. Vijayan’s deep knowledge of Freudian psychology made him a psychotherapist. Those who accidentally tasted his counselling skills gave word-of-mouth publicity for that. For years, without any recognised qualification, MN Vijayan practiced counselling and brought back hundreds to normal life." For weblogan it is not tertiary. If The New Indian Express can not be believed, which other source can be believed in India? And weblogan removed the entire paragraph.

The motive is obvious.

Anybody can attempt editing Wikipedia. I can be a journalist, student, professor, thief, or a liar. But I hope readers are capable of understanding if any editor- myself- is saying truth or a lie. And before I alleging others of spreading falsehood, I need "go home and look at the mirror" (to quote a famous Vijayn Metaphor)

No one here questions, additional citations being provided. Anyone can google/visit websites and find out hundreds of articles endorsing the above facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.149.245 (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"guru and counsellor" section

I have removed this again, as in its current form it is not encyclopaedic. All of the statements in it are opinions, which we cannot have in an encyclopaedia, and are not sourced, which they must be to remain in an encyclopaedia. Please read and ensure you understand the pages WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR before contributing again in this way.

Furthermore, many of the recent additions to this article and talk page have been written in sub-standard English. While everyone is welcome to contribute to the English-language wikipedia, a certain level of ability in English is obviously important. There are many other language wikipedias for those who want to contribute but are struggling to do so here.

Lastly, there are definitely conduct issues here. Another page that it may be worth looking at is WP:AGF. Wikipedia does not work as well if everyone is attacking each other all the time. Jdcooper 15:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• It is important to have some knowledge of the subject to edit an encyclopedia. Jdcooper has admitted not having knowledge of the topic. The New Indian Express is a news paper published in English and is considered to be one of the most reputed newspapers published in India. (in my opinion after the Hindu it is the most reputed (general) news paper in India)The contents published in the above para of Wikipedia are facts and not opinions. It is elementary to understand what is opinion and what is fact. If a person has couselled two people it is a fact. And not opinion. And if a person has conselled hundreds without commercial interest, it is an extraordinary event, which must be included in his biography. Though, I could have easily included that text in this page earlier, i didnt do till I got a supporting source published in English. Weblogan has consistantly removed facts and published falsehood (example shown above) in this site. It is a joke, the editors had earlier added tag saying Viajan is not famous. The examples and sources given above are self-explanatory. Instead of removing page with biased arguments, please try to give supporting facts if possible, to justify the action, and that is much appreciated, rather than teaming up to destroy facts. Why there are only two or three writers interested to destroy facts here? When M.N.Vijayan passed away, relatively irrelevant websites which had info about M.N.Vijayan had got thousands of hits.(a website i knew got more than 20,000 hits) Wikipedia page about M.N.Vijayan is positioned number 1 in google search results. Many newspapers in India used Wikipedia article to prepare their news among other sources (please compare the contents). These points show that this page is visited by many hundreds (and perhaps thousands). If what is published here are not facts, why hundreds of such visitors (among them many are journalists and writers) never bothered to remove content? Why only one or two people are interested in destroying the content? (and it is these one or two people who are consistantly destroying content.) Curiously, these editors fail to contribute even a single line to this page. There are many other facts I personally know about M.N.Vijayan, the only reason why I dont add them is that I dont have corroboratory written facts in English language to convince others. Remember, internet and websites did not exist during most part of his life and he is a person who never wished to come to limelight. So it is not easy to get sources in English language websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.202.82 (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• I was not referring to the sources when I mentioned sub-standard English, i was referring to the copy added by different editors. I do not need in depth knowledge of the subject to edit this page, I only need in depth knowledge of wikipedia policy (specifically the policy pages I direct you to above). No-one is "interested to destroy facts", myself and Weblogan are only trying to ensure that all the facts included in this page are impartial and supported by sources. The paragraph under discussion is sourced, but not impartial. It is somebody's opinion, and just because somebody's opinion was printed in a newspaper does not make it fact, it makes it an opinion printed in a newspaper. Jdcooper 15:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• • I have translated your additions into correct English and given the section a more neutral title, I hope you are happy with that. Please please also read WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR. Jdcooper 15:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Awards--- Again citation is removed. The hindu article clearly suggests : "He also kept away from established cultural institutions like Sahitya Academy and refused to accept any state-sponsored awards." K.M.Sethee's "Mainstream" article also says the same thing. This is not the first time Weblogan removing citation first. He did it in the past.Frst removing citation and after a few weeks removing the article itself saying there is no citation. is appears to be a strategy here.

There is an important stream of thought which argues "works of literature are collective cultural products and do not arise from singular, individual beings". M.N.Vijayan throughout his life was a proponent of this view. He has repeated any number of times that "an author mixes his saliva and the saliva of the society and chew it again and again to produce a literary work. This is an important theory in literary arena, and it is quite well known for those who have elementary knowledge about literature and cultural matters. And what can we say if people who don’t have elementary knowledge want to write encyclopedia? M.N.Vijayan rejected the idea of originality of literary works and that or arts. He argued repeatedly that the question if a piece of art or a literary work is originally created by the author or if the author was influenced by other writer’s works is irrelevant. And no one can separate M.N.Vijayan's views from M.N.Vijayan the individual. And it is because Vijayan had great conviction for the above view that he refused to accept the awards. He argued that you can not compare two literary works. When you compare two work and say one is better, you are rejecting a million possible other readings (interpretation) of that text. (Some people mistake it as his modesty. But it is not modesty.) And he has never created any controversy by rejecting awards, unlike many others. This whole theory, which M.N.Vijayan preached through out his life, can not be explained in this biography. There is no scope for that. But it is very important to note that Vijayan rejected the awards. And his rejecting the awards has a big philosophy behind it. And Vijay (also others) transformed the Kerala literature with these views. Today no one in Kerala would enquire what the author really wanted to say by his book. Today once a book is published, readers accept the text as it is, and many interpretations and many re-readings are possible for the same text. (which is not possible earlier. Earlier you can not make Sita think against Rama. Today in Kerala, a Sita can question Rama, but when Kumaran Asan first did it it was a controversy; but it is no longer a controversy in Kerala. But in many other societies in India, it is still a controversy. No one questions M.F. Hussein in Kerala, and Hussein was fondly invited to Kerala; but not everywhere in India. Vijayan’s views (and that view itself is not original) among many others’s view has transformed the Kerala literature and life and his rejecting of award has also played an important role in the transformation of Kerala life. This is why it is important that one single line should be included in the biography about his rejecting awards. But those people who compare everyone with himself and herself think, "If I were in his position, I would not have rejected that award. So I should not let others understand this fact." This type of attitude cannot be answered here. But I can only request those who don’t have elementary knowledge not to attempt correcting the history; of course they also can make comments but coercion is not a civilized man's way. I agree removing M.N.Vijayan’s biography altogether- No problem. Because Vijayan’s life doesn’t need this article. But if an article is published, it should do justice to facts and his life. No one has the right to distort the history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.209.221 (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• The problem here is nothing to do with any of that, it is whether what is written in wikipedia is supported by the sources provided. This particular fact is, in part, but i will modify it to a compromise which is better represented in the source. And please read WP:AGF, jumping to conclusions about your fellow editors' motives is not welcome on this encyclopaedia. Jdcooper (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• • The above statement clarifies "..This particular fact is, in part (supported by source)."

And Weblogan has deleted the very source arguing : "deleted irrelevant links not substatiating claims made in the write up." (which according to jdcoop support the article in part. And how can a source which support the fact be irrelevant?) What is the justification of deleting the source? (he never attempted modifying the article. But deleted a valid source. Which rule permits him to delete a SOURCE which supports the article partly or fully? It is not the first time he deleting the references. And now you want to modify the article. Okay, agreed. I have never opposed others' rights to modify an article. But destroying is not same as modification. And why cant someone who is good in advising, advise someone who keeps deleting sources and argued to delete the very article earlier. (See the discussion above.)

His deleting source can not be seen in isolation with what he had done in the past. He argued on 29th August 2007-- (cur) (last) 11:40, 29 August 2007 Weblogan (Talk | contribs) (7,694 bytes) (→Writings - Deleted a POV falsehood that said that the author refused all awards given, and inserted the factual position.) (undo)

The earlier version was: "Though nominated for various awards, he has refused to accept any, stating a belief that two literary works cannot be compared to give more points to one for receipt of an award. " which is fact?

So his argumnet is that the statment "Vijayan refused to accept award" is a falsehood. It is obvious as black and white. I understand motive behind coming forward to rescue a teammate. Butlame excuses CAN NOT HIDE what he has clearly said his reason for removing this. Whom should we belive why weblogan is removing the article? Weblogan himself or his advocate? Defending the undefendable. And what source Weblogan provided for his version that Vijayn indeed accepted the award? Why is that some editors fail to ask for citation from Weblogan then, for his version of falsehood?

Obviously, these people havent heard of "Death of the Author" and Roland Barthes and Deconstruction theory. For any student it will be amazing to know that even before in France and western world, these theories were discussed, some intellectuals were already writing about them in a remote Eastern location-- Kerala. It is so amazing that Vijan used psychology and Marxism together at the same time Erich Fromm did that in the west. There is very little published about Kesari Balakrishna pillai online. (imagine source-removers asking for citation for Kesari's biography!!!)

This consistant destruction of article about Vijayan will be rightly judged by the time.

Ultimately for an encyclopedia what is important is it should represent the facts and not falsehood. It is daylight clear who is propogating falsehoood. (interestingly, the first version of M.N.Vijayan article is very close to what is published here now. But a thousand times, these articles were removed and re-written. Weblogan has not added a single source to this article. I agree with Jdcoop that the source-removers and friends' knowledge of the subject is a big zero (see earlier comment by jdcooper.) There are millions of other pages what can be edited without knowledge of the subject, and many of them do not have sources and propogate utter falsehood. I request the source-removers to spend their valuable time more constructively. What is the justification of some one sitting and keep deleting source, without adding a single fact to this article?

More importantly the Hindu article source which weblogan has removed now, supports most of the points in this biography. Though that source is added at a certain place in the article (to avoid quoting repeatedly), it supports the entire wikipedia article. In that sense, it is a very important source. I admire the skill of source-removers of identifying the best source to be removed.

Death

There doesn't seem to be a cause of death listed here?--Vylen (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• There wasn't one listed on the article we used to source the death initially, and no-one has come back with a source saying how he died. I'll have a look now. Jdcooper (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Cardiac arrest seems to be what all the news outlets say. 38.100.212.21 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on a Google search, his chief claim to fame appears to be having died on camera.WQUlrich (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is of good quality & doesnt seem biased

The article has hardly any tone issues. It is written, and lot of information is available on google on the subject. Some points editor can disagree, but over all it is good. removing "tone" comment, open to discussion and debate (Alex.mathews (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on M. N. Vijayan. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930155539/http://www.epw.org.in/epw/uploads/articles/1900.pdf to http://www.epw.org.in/epw/uploads/articles/1900.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928094437/http://www.cpiml.in/070419.htm to http://www.cpiml.in/070419.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009120933/http://mathrubhumi.com/php/showNews.php?news_category_id=3&Farc= to http://www.mathrubhumi.com/php/showNews.php?news_category_id=3&Farc=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130621143838/http://www.mnvijayan.com/ to http://www.mnvijayan.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708144759/http://www.channels.com/episodes/show/6638577/Professor-M-N-Vijayan to http://www.channels.com/episodes/show/6638577/Professor-M-N-Vijayan

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) 16:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M. N. Vijayan. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011155311/http://hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/000200710031846.htm to http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/000200710031846.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.newindpress.com/sunday/sundayitems.asp?id=SEB20071011090709&eTitle=Books+%26+Literature&rLink=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130621143838/http://www.mnvijayan.com/ to http://www.mnvijayan.com/

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) 20:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)