Talk:Ramesh Pokhriyal

sources

Pretty sure an article that details his 44 books having low literary value isn't self-published. If so, he should probably hire a PR person. see here. Praxidicae (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rhode Island Red: You should discuss before you start reverting/removing content [1] that was involved in the dispute between me, Praxidicae and User:Benarasibabu. That too immediately after Benarasibabu got banned. It looks suspicious, compounded by the fact that you didn't seem interested to do the same in your previous edits to the article [2]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I find it quite concerning that you blindly restored the content of a blocked POV pusher without discussion with any of the other involved editors or this talk page. Please explain. Praxidicae (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Not clear what your concerns are about my good faith edits. Perhaps you could elaborate. I didn't know that Benarasibabu got banned but fail to see how that's relevant to my edits. Explain here if you have any issues about article content. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rhode Island Red: This edit of yours, which comes just after my revert. You should have discussed here before "restoring" the banned user's edits. Since he was edit warring, it raised suspicion of sock puppetry and didn't look good faith. As for the content you deleted, self-published sources can be used if not controversial as per WP:ABOUTSELF. I don't think merely mentioning the names of the 44 books (the number which is supported by a third party source) he's published is problematic, but of course not in a tabulated form. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Still not clear what the issue was with the banned editor and it doesn't seem relevant. I deleted the SPS because it was unnecessary (i.e., there is already a third-party reference to support that he wrote 44 works). Aside from that, I removed the table. I don't see that anything was "restored". Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

BTW, is there any evidence that source in question is SPS and not just an unreliable source? Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rhode Island Red: I don't understand why are you not getting the obvious even after I provided the diffs. By restoring I meant "restoring the edit/version" of the article not the content, which actually got deleted. Let me try it again. See this edit of yours and this by the banned user. They look exactly same. It raised the suspicion of sock puppetry, since your edit "restored Benarasibabu's edit" and came immediately after that user got banned. That's why I said that it would have been better if you had discussed what you were going to do in this talkpage page first instead of immediately reverting my edit since the content was part of an edit war dispute involving the banned user Benarasibabu.

As for the source, http://www.rameshpokhriyalnishank.in/books is SPS. It is the subject's official website. I'm OK with you deleting that table, but I personally don't find mentioning the book names to be controversial if written in prose. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh I see. The use of the term "restore" was confusing since it was actually a deletion. BTW, regarding terminology, the editor to whom you refer was apparently blocked for 24 hours, not "banned" (bans are permanent). Now that we have that cleared up, do you have any evidence that the site to which you referred is operated by Pokhriyal? Perhaps you are more fluent in Hindi than I am (or you have details as to whom the site is registered). Which raises another issue as to the value of citing what appears to be a WP:PROMO site in Hindi, that seems to have no encyclopedic value. Anyhow, the site did not need to be included since the statement it was supporting was already supported by a reliable source, which I made clear already. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Didn't notice it, I thought they got indefed. As for the SPS, it is linked from the subject's verified twitter handle [3] and facebook page [4]. It would look promotional if we include it as a list, however a lot of Indian articles do mention a "list of work" from SPSes. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Would be quite unusual for an editor to get a permanent ban for a 3RR violation. Anyhow, I'm pretty lukewarm (or luke cool) on the idea of listing 44 pubs. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm also not keen on re adding the stuff you removed either. I believe that was added by some POV pusher. lukewarm (or luke cool for me too. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not a POV pusher (whatever that is), and I am glad that my edits to this page were upheld after discussion by other writers. I was unfairly banned for these edits but that is a different story. 14:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benarasibabu (talk • contribs)

You were banned for edit warring and failing to abide by WP:BRD. That's in the past, so happy editing. And keep the Wikipedia guidelines in mind. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Controversy Section

It seems inappropriate for the controversy section to be the largest chunk of information about a current Union Minister and former Chief Minister. Surely, this could be largely condensed to indicate he has made several controversial statements and let readers follow the sources to know more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadrasChecks (talk • contribs) 06:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. The goal of the encyclopedia is to include relevant details as reported by reliable sources with due weight, which has been achieved in this case. The article covers controversial statements because the subject has made a lot of controversial statements, as indicated by published sources. What you're asking for ("condense...let readers follow the sources to know more") sounds like whitewashing. And we don't simply provide links but rather fleshed-out noteworthy details. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Disagree too. It is the most useful part for us, non-Indian readers. Let us keep it. Zezen (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean by "being most useful part for non-Indian" Zezen. And I don't think non-Indians should only be concerned about the "controversial stuff" on Indian politician articles. That being said, the controversy section is just about the right size, the subject seems more notable (in a wider scale) for his controversial claims, etc. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ramesh Pokhriyal.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding references to his books

Here I have mentioned few of his books, but for some of them I can't find any references so I cited the books itself. Is this acceptable ? --Aryan ( है?) 10:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The table was WP:UNDUE and the works it included are all self-published by vanity publisher Diamond Press, so no, not acceptable. Any works notable enough to have been discussed in depth by independent WP:RS could be mentioned in that context, but otherwise individual publications wouldn't merit being mentioned. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rhode Island Red:Bheed Sakshi Hai and Pahaad Se Uncha both have been praised in this article, which has also been used as a sourced in the page. Would it be OK to mention them ? --Aryan ( है?) 11:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The central point of that article is that "scholars and literature connoisseurs" are dismissive of the books. It cites one contrarian who expressed an anodyne opinion that despite acknowledging that the books being "not literary", "he connects with people through his writing". There is an issue with respect to WP:BALANCE and WP:UNDUE; i.e., it would not be appropriate to give equal weight to one (fringe) opinion with that of scholars and literature connoisseurs. You could propose text here though for further discussion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

:::: 1 person says that ‘No literary value’ but 'high on patriotism', two have not came across his works, other person feels that his work 'connects with people' and the last says that the books are a 'commercial success' and that many of his books were published before him becoming the CM. The same article mentions few of his books are translated into other languages and that one of them have been adapted into a film. Yet, the article mentions only the negative aspects of his works. I'm back on WP after a long time, is there a template to propose text ?--Aryan ( है?) 05:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, WP:BALANCE and WP:UNDUE must be respected. The title of the article quoted includes the very phrase "high on patriotism, low on literary value", and that is clearly the conclusion and thrust of the article. They attribute this to "scholars and literature connoisseurs". The article further down also includes a comment from one person who basically says that some people like the books ("he connects with people"), which is pretty much a throwaway comment IMO and doesn't add anything encyclopedic (it's also an expression of what he thinks other people think rather than simply stating what he thinks, and there's no evidence it's true). So the proper thing to do is quote the article's main thrust -- "high on patriotism, low on literary value" -- without further comment, as it is in the current version.

If we were to include the comment from the lone dissenter, then we would also have to greatly expand on the critical comments with more detail in order to respect WP:BALANCE and WP:UNDUE. Regarding the comment about "commercial success", that came from a source identified as someone who "handles Nishank’s publishing interests", so that would not be included because the source is not independent and has an apparent WP:COI (also no corroborating evidence that it's true).

No template is needed for proposing text. If you want to, you can do so here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Minister of Education

@Rhode Island Red: The Ministry of Human Development changed its name to the Ministry of Education. The mention of Minister of Education can be found here https://indianexpress.com/article/education/mhrd-is-now-ministry-of-education-new-education-policy-to-unveil-at-4-pm-6529072/.Manabimasu (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

This source says that a name change was planned but it does not confirm that it was actually executed. We also have an issue with the fact that the existing source cited refers to him as HRD minister. Once the name change is official, and there is a source that names him by the new title, we can use it, but the article will have to address it by saying that his original position was HRD ministry and that the ministry changed its name in 2020. Easy enough to do but protocol must be followed properly so I suggest you propose changes here on the Talk page first. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rhode Island Red: Here is another mention - https://smestreet.in/limelight/national-education-policy-2020-to-bring-transformational-reforms-in-indian-education-system/ Manabimasu (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't look like that's a WP:RS but regardless, it identifies him as minister of "Human Resource Development", as per how he was listed in the WP article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rhode Island Red:A mention here https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/rigorous-consultations-done-before-framing-new-national-education-policy-says-ramesh-pokhriyal-nishank/article32243060.ece Manabimasu (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that his title for more than a year was HRD Minister up until this week when the HRD changed its name to the Ministry of Education. One way to address this would be to say in the lead that he the current minister of education and then in the body of the article (and infobox) make it clear that he was initially appointed HRD minister and his title changed to minister of education subsequent to the ministry changing its name. All cited appropriately with dates, of course. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Is use of hindi a 'controversy' ?

In one of my edits I removed the following text: In 2019, after being appointed as the HRD Minister, Pokhriyal issued a directive saying that all the files and note sheets forwarded to him must be in Hindi. This created controversy with ministry officials, as not all of them had the level of proficiency in Hindi needed to prepare notes in that language, and the norm until then had been to prepare all official notes in English. Even though the government had traditionally encouraged officials to have a working knowledge of Hindi, existing rules did not make it compulsory for officials to be highly proficient in Hindi.. This lead to a warning on my talk page as well as it is included as a ARE violation (not sure about the name for the term). The second source mentions: So, when the HRD Minister has the temerity to demand that all communication be made to him in Hindi, I feel a double or even a triple anger. One, why should someone be making official communications in Hindi when their mother tongue might be Telugu, Odia, Kutchi or Khasi? Everything above this is the author's personal experience and below it is why hindi,RSS,German,BJP is bad. The relevant sentences from the first source are:Human resource development minister Ramesh Pokhriyal Nishank has got an order issued saying all the files and note sheets forwarded to him must be in Hindi,,The order, issued by the higher education department last month, has left a large section of ministry officials in a flutter. Files and note sheets have always been written largely in English, they say, adding that not all of them have the proficiency in Hindi to be able to write in the language. and According to the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, “an employee may record a note or minute on a file in Hindi or in English without being himself required to furnish a translation thereof in the other language”.. It also says Files and note sheets have always been written largely in English, while the article says , and the norm until then had been to prepare all official notes in English. I don't think it would be considered a controversy (considering he did not do anything that was not in his official capacity, nor did he asked for documents in a language other than specified. I think this should be removed from the controversy section section, but hisprefrence of hindi in official documents may be mention elsewhere. --User:श्रीमान २००२ (User talk:श्रीमान २००२) 05:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Removing claim about misquoting Charaka

I am removing He also misquoted that Charaka, hailed as one of the principal contributors of Ayurveda, was the first person who researched and discovered atoms and molecules, when in actuality, it was 6th century BCE philosopher Kanada who developed the foundations of an atomistic approach to physics and philosophy in the Sanskrit text Vaiśeṣika Sūtra. as only the second part of the sentence is backed by the source.--User:श्रीमान २००२ (User talk:श्रीमान २००२) 06:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted my edit since I have found a a source to back first half of the claim. --User:श्रीमान २००२ (User talk:श्रीमान २००२) 06:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2020

The Person died on 31 August 2020. I am requesting admin to change it as soon as possible Sayampradhan (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 05:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Dr. Ramesh Pokhriyal 'Nishank', 2020.jpg
• Shri Ramesh Pokhriyal ‘Nishank’ taking charge as the Union Minister for Human Resource Development, in New Delhi on May 31, 2019.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)