Talk:Maulana Azad Library

Libraries Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

India Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Factual mistake

It is wrongly mentioned in the article that Maulana Azad Library is in Maulana_Azad_National_Urdu_University rather its in Aligarh Muslim University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoulaey (talk • contribs) 14:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I have removed the NPOV tag from the article. In my view, mentioning that there was controversy doesn't violate WP:NPOV. This is the second largest library in Asia and the university who owns it has refused to allow its female students to access it. There is media coverage about this and I think it it pretty obvious why. So long as we don't state our opinion on the matter or write the section in a way that casts the library as a whole in a negative light, I think we're fine as far as WP:NPOV is concerned. If someone disagrees, please feel free to re-add the tag and reply to me here. Mww113 (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSECTION covering it as a "controversy" is an issue. If it is a relevant event in the history of the library, it should be covered in the history. if it is not a relevant event, then we have no need for covering it at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It seems like an interesting detail to me though. How would you suggest avoiding labeling it as controversy then? Mww113 (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You either don't pull it out into a subsection (and given the lack of content in the History section overall, that is my first choice) or you specifically describe the issue with something like "Male-only access" or "Protests over male-only access". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]