Talk:Sanjeev Sanyal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This article does *not* have a neutral, unbiased tone. It reads like a resumé and is full of unsourced, poorly sourced or heavily exaggerated claims about the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caversham (talk • contribs) 14:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Very promotional indeed, —PaleoNeonate – 19:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

DUEness

How important is Sansad TV to Indian audience for this to stay at lead? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thinking of ways to incorporate the Caravan long-read. Will appreciate suggestions. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This guy is truly a polymath - what did I just read on Rama Setu. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Omniscopic, a jumbled edit like this is no good. Any deletion of reliably sourced material should carry an explanation, either in the edit summary or here. And, expect it to be challenged. Note also that the MOS:LEAD is meant for summarising the body. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Disputed Content

Please raise your issues in this thread. You cannot remove well-sourced content, at whims. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Issues with current version:

The line represents India on a number of international forums is not supported by the cited source.

The line Sanyals has challenged often conventional wisdom in the field of economics is unsourced.

NYT quotes Sanyal as someone skeptical of UN's population forecasts but stays away from supporting or rejecting his narrative. So does BBC. We have every other economist disagree on important issues — what's special over here to warrant a mention? Have other demographers agreed with him? Or disagreed? I don't even see any respected demographer engaging with his arguments.

The line Sanyal is one the main authors of the G20 Action Plan that was used to co-ordinate the global response to the Covid-19 pandemic is sourced to an author-bio for a non-notable think tank. Not the right kind of source for such an important line.

The line [h]e [Sanyal] is also said to be behind a number of key structural reforms implemented by the Indian government in recent years is sourced to (1) a column by Sanyal at ET and (2) a video of Sanyal speaking at some (non-notable) conclave. WP:SPS prohibits such use.

The line This approach had informed several of India's policies in recent years including the economic response to Covid-19 as well as several supply-side reforms is sourced to a column by Sanyal at ET. WP:SPS prohibits such use.

He was named Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum in 2010 - Shall go to honors.

a Visiting Scholar at Oxford University - DNA has been held to be unreliable at RSP — we need better (non-primary) sources and more details. Shall go to career; not a honorary membership at all.

Removal of content added by me:

My content is sourced to The Caravan, an Indian long-form narrative journalism magazine which won the Louis M. Lyons Award for Conscience and Integrity in Journalism from the Nieman Foundation for Journalism of Harvard University in 2021 among countless others. Their journalism has incurred rave reviews from Virginia Quarterly Review (1) and The New Yorker (2).

There is no doubt to be raised on the reliability of the magazine. Neither is there any policy that forbids usage of recent sources. Additionally (and most importantly), the review by Meera Visvanathan is the first-ever review of Sanyal's scholarship by any professional historian.

Visvanathan had received her Ph.D in Ancient History from arguably the most premier university for humanities in India and is an Assistant Professor of History at Shiv Nadar University.

So, is it your claim that I am misrepresenting the source and introducing political bias?

TrangaBellam (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• The complete Views section of Sanjeev Sanyal is sourced from a single article published by The Caravan and reflects author Meera Visvanathan's views about BLP WP:BLPGOSSIP. The same source is cited multiple times in the section. (Ref - is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see also Wikipedia:No original research (WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLPREMOVE). Hence, entire "Views" section deserves to be deleted as per WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLPCOI LTbharat (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Please read the policies that you cite.
• For example, WP:BLPCOI notes an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography [...] More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful [...]

• How did you ascertain that I have a COI? Or that, I have any strong feelings about the subject?

• WP:AVOIDVICTIM concerns a person noteworthy only for one or two events.

• Sanyal is definitely more than that.

• WP:GRAPEVINE has four criterion for removal of content.

• Which one applies?

• How have I engaged in a synthesis of sources? Or, original research?

• Let me emphasize that policies do not forbid reliable sources (in this cases, the Caravan article) from engaging in these things. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• LTbharat, you're tossing around a lot of acronyms (including some pretty obscure ones) without explaining how they are relevant. We based our articles on independent secondary sources whenever possible. As such the Caravan piece is a superior source to almost anything else in this article, and you need some really strong arguments to remove it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Putachi claims that Visvnathan is an unknown author with no recognised publications, claiming to be a historian. Absent substantiations, these claims are BLP violations. Visvanathan had received her Ph.D in Ancient History from arguably the most premier university for humanities in India and is an Assistant Professor of History at Shiv Nadar University. She has authored the bibliography for "Early Historic Inscriptions" in the Oxford Bibliographies in Hinduism (ed: Alf Hiltebeitel) apart from multiple articles/chapters in peer-reviewed journal and books. She has also edited a volume on ancient India, published by Primus Books. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• I have removed the content that is supported solely by the Caravan opinion piece as the reliability of the source must be established before it is used to support contentious claims about a living person (WP:BLP). We must remember that Wikipedia is not a opinion piece and unless it can be substantiated that the claims presented are in line with academic consensus or the academician in question satisfies the official notability criteria, the inclusion of such content is clearly not warranted. SignificantPBD (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  User:Vanamonde93 and User:Kautilya3, is there any policy dictating that reviews must be from wiki-notable academics?

  The rest is citing policies without understanding them. The reliability of Caravan is not under any doubt until succesfully challenged at RSN. No academic historian has bothered to yet engage with Sanyal, as Visvanathan writes. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

No. notability and reliability are entirely different concepts. Notable writers may not be reliable and vice versa. A professional historian criquing a pop-writer is perfectly normal, though it would be rare.

There also seems to be some confusion about "opinion piece". Opinion columns published in newspapers are regarded as WP:PRIMARY sources because they are not subject to editorial review. But the articles published in news magazines, like Frontline, Outlook and The Caravan, are regular features and are editorially reviewed. There is no question regarding their use as WP:SECONDARY sources.

Finally, a lot of the material that has been contested is under Views, which is merely descriptive and it is not opinion at all. There should be no contest about it, unless somebody were to claim that Sanyal has been misrepresented there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's any misrepresentation going on. See this review over The Hindu from where I had planned to add some details. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree entirely with K above. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:Vanamonde93 and User:Kautilya3 on the use of only one source on views and reception section. The fact that this one source, itself is crtical of Sanjeev Sanyal makes the whole article as one-sided. The way is to also add positive reception and neutral description of Views and reception of Sanjeev Sanyal while not deleting the caravan magazine article as a source. In the Reception section imprtantly,other views of other scholars like positive, or negative should also be added.AryaGyaan(talk)16:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

What prevents you from adding them? The Mint Review is useless because of the author-creds but you can always use this by Manu Pillai. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

AryaGyaan, you cannot remove sourced content. And, I strongly suggest against using his own columns to source his views for they are the equivalent of primary sources. See this edit about an example of incorporating other sources without tampering with the current content. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• I do not find any issue with source reliability (Caravan) but the cited article is definitely a Questionable Source (WP:QS). Content of "views" rely heavily on unsubstantiated personal opinion of someone who may have expertise in a particular subject but his/her personal opinion about BLP is questionable. Such sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. So, I support removal of Views( WP:QS) KhrushchevN (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• A reliable source can't be a questionable source, and we routinely carry reviews of one's work by scholars. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• As I mentioned, though the source is reliable but I reiterate that Content of "views" rely heavily on unsubstantiated personal opinion of someone who may have expertise in a particular subject but his/her personal opinion about BLP is questionable. Such sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. KhrushchevN (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Visvanathan is not opining about how is Sanyal, as a person. As I noted, we routinely carry reviews of one's work by scholars. If you disapprove of our practice, please convince the community and change it. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Below excerpts clearly reflects Visvanathan's personal views on BLP as a person or his work, her views remain "unsubstantiated". and you are giving undue weightage to her views.

1. Meera Visvnathan, a historian of ancient India, notes Sanyal to be ignorant of methodologies in historical research.

2. Sanyal fails to apply source-criticism

3. Sanyal remains oblivious of Trautmann's scholarship

4. he went on to misrecognize KhrushchevN (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Why do you believe that her views are unsubstantiated? Please publish a rejoinder, in that case.
  Our article on T. C. Lethbridge is a good article and features lines like, According to the historian Ronald Hutton, [...] Lethbridge's "status as a scholar never really rose above that of an unusually lively local antiquary".
  K3, can you attempt to make him understand our policies? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Rejoinder is required to substantiate her views. Which you are supposed to add I guess. Referring some other article will only divert the discussion. KhrushchevN (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• You are sea-lioning. I won't engage any further. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

KhruschevN, you are welcome to submit your rejoinder to The Caravan, not here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The issues you have raised are all part of scholarly criticism. They are not BLP violations. You can take it to WP:BLPN if you want other people to look at it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Already opened (by someone else). TrangaBellam (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

I edited the [1]page so to include other historians review in the reception section as the section was one sided,that's why I included review of Manu Pillai in Reception section.I don't understand why you have undo my revision.You are violating BLP WP:YESPOV WP:WIKIVOICE WP:VOICE The complete Views section of Sanjeev Sanyal is sourced from a single article published by The Caravan and reflects author Meera Visvanathan's views about BLP WP:BLPGOSSIP. The same source is cited multiple times in the section. (Ref - is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see also Wikipedia:No original research (WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLPREMOVE).Hence,other articles must be used for representation of his views.AryaGyaan(talk)20:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

If you remove well-sourced information, you will be reverted. Even if you have added some content. That has been explained to you, once. Pillai's review is included in the article. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@AryaGyaan: Are you saying that:

Visvanathan, Meera (1 October 2021). "Against History: Sanjeev Sanyal's attempts to rewrite India's past". The Caravan. Retrieved 2021-10-03.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources?-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Considering notability of Pillai, his views should be given more weightage than a comparatively lesser known/notable authour. Hence, in the Reception section, Pillai's views should come first. KhrushchevN (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• I know of no policy/guideline that states such. Pillai does not have any academic training in history (as of yet) and is another pop-historian but from the center-left camp. Currently, he is pursuing a PhD. at King's. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Aryagaan, you cannot skip participation in talk-page threads and sneak in your edits after some days. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• @TrangaBellam: Ok. But still the source used to repersent Sanyal's views is one and laying overemphasis on one source,thereby violating WP:WEIGHT WP:DUE WP:UNDUE.It would be better to cite more independent secondry source and you havve not replied on " License Raj link" issue. AryaGyaan(talk)20:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  AryaGyaan, why are you throwing acronym soups at me? All of them concern the same wiki policy. How is her views a minority when she is the first and only professional historian to publish a detailed review of Sanyal's works?

  Shiv Visvanathan is an STS scholar (and social anthropologist) with no training or expertise in ancient Indian History. His views go below Sanyal (and even, Pillai.) TrangaBellam (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  @TrangaBellam: I am not throwing any "acronym" war on you. It is just that laying undue importance on only one source to represent Sanyal's views, thereby violative of WP:UNDUE . I am not saying remove the said Caravan Article from citing it, I am just saying that overempahsis on only one article. It reduces the neutrality of the article as the only one source cited for the views section is itself critcal of Sanyal. It would be better to remove some portion of views section and cite more independent secondry sources .

  She is not the only one professional historian to review the works of Sanyal. See:[2] .

  Second,you still havenot replied me on "Licence Raj"Issue. AryaGyaan(talk)20:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Why? Is it your claim that Sanyal has been misrepresented by Meera V.? UNDUE does not even apply here — for an interesting parallel, we allow plot sections of cinemas/books to stand unsourced!

  Ian St. John teaches history at Haberdashers' Boys' since 2000. He has a DPhil from Oxford, though. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  I am not saying that remove the said caravan article. I am just saying that using just one source and that one source itself is critical or biased of Sanyal's views reduces neutrality .And the said article comes under opinion rather than facts.See:[3].See;WP:YESPOV,,"Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc",so the reason I am still not sure should we use only one source and itself critical of Sanyal's views to represent whole Sanyal's views.AryaGyaan(talk)20:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  What Sanyal has written in his books, is not an opinion and absent any contradictory evidence, we must consider that Meera V has appropriately documented them.

  YESPOV governs the reception section, where her "opinions" stand attributed. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  The source cited i.e Meera V. article in Caravan magazine is a review of Sanyal's works and does not come under facts but opinion.

  Second, Yes,the review must be be used in Recpetion section to attribute it to Meera V on Sanyal's views.I am not talking of recpetion section but views section.

  Third, the complete Views section of Sanyal is sourced from a single article(crtical of Sanyal) stated in "Wikipedia's voice" rather than opionion of Meera V on Sanyal's views. This definitely violates WP:YESPOV,"However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc".

  I think it is much better to cite independent secondry soucres for Sanyal's views.See:[4],[5],[6] to name a few.AryaGyaan(talk)4:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  This is sealioning - I won't engage with you. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Woah!Sealioning charge on me, I am just stating my view on the issue and follwoing all guidelines [7],Looks like you are trying to runaway from the discussion Now, that it looks like that we have not found a solution or consensus,it is better to go with WP:THIRD or WP:RSN.AryaGyaan(talk)4:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Do whatever you like. Multiple editors—Kautilya3, Vanaomnde93, and others—have participated in discussions on issues concerning Meera V.; 3O is not applicable. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

License Raj link

@TrangaBellam: Why should not the License Raj page be linked to Nehruvian Socialism. Isn't that the same?Any reasons? AryaGyaan(talk)20:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Where was this? And, who called it "License Raj"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Our entry on "Nehruvian Socialism" redirects to License Raj. That choice is quite poor and hence, I inserted a comment about not linking Nehruvian Socialism in the views section. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok.Got,your point. Should Nehruvian Socialism be linked with [8]then ? AryaGyaan(talk)20:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

No opposition from me. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

A veteran WP editor since 2002 returning after long time, forgot my password.

Was drawn to this article after seeing some sh**e on Twitter. I'm amazed no one has objected that this BLP is littered with WP:LINKSPAM ,WP:CITESPAM to promote the subject. Since these are WP:PRIMARY external links, I am deleting these till such time as a reliable secondary source mentioning all these great works of his are found .. I couldn't. 49.36.179.171 (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

If you are a "veteran WP editor" what is your ID?-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

You are not allowed to ask me that, as it would violate my privacy by linking my IP address to my ID and expose me to personal harm for my past edits at Wikipedia between 2002 and ca. 2009. I had moved on from editing at Wikipedia, till I received an automated email generated by Twitter regarding this article. 49.36.179.171 (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

If any user or admin has issues with my editing as an IP, I suggest they first read WMF's privacy policy at the bottom of every en:wiki page. 49.36.179.171 (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

False claim "He was the Managing Director and Global Strategist at Deutsche Bank till 2015."

He was actually one of many Global Strategists at Deutsche Bank in Hong Kong before becoming the Managing Director of a Deutsche Bank subsidiary in Singapore. So unimpeachable respectable German sources needed to be found for the present misleading claim. For instance DB has added about new 63 MDs in Europe alone.. 49.36.179.171 (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

References

When article Talk pages are ignored, is edit warring the new reality at Wikipedia ?

Do Wikipedia's article talk pages exist as a hollow formality or to promote collaborative editing ? 49.36.179.15 (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

What is your point? Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says: The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article. That is generally complied with. If you wish changes to the article, you need to explain to other editors (so that they can understand them) what you object to, how it should be changed, and provide a justification in the form of reliable sources. The justification can be positive or negative. (Positive: showing that a source supports content or proposed content. Negative: showing that citations being used to support content do not support it.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Please understand that your comments are valued. But we need to understand the "so what". Do these edits meet your objections? If no, please make suggestions, preferably with sources to justify them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

COI edit requests

Hi, I'm a COI editor hired to represent Sanyal. I have just a few edit requests for this article. I know the article's contents are very much in flux, so I welcome any feedback.

• In "Early life and education", update

He then attended Shri Ram College of Commerce followed by

to

He received a bachelor's degree in economics from Shri Ram College of Commerce. He then attended

• In "Career", after "Sanyal had worked in financial markets since the mid-nineties.", add:

He worked as Deutsche Bank's chief economist for South and Southeast Asia until 2008, leaving to research and write Land of the Seven Rivers and returning in 2011.

• Also in "Career", after "In 2017, he was appointed Principal Economic Adviser to the Indian government in the Modi administration.", add:

In this role, he helped prepare and publish the 2021–22 Economic Survey of India.

• Add to end of "Career":

He is also the host of "Economic Sutra", a show on Sansad TV.

• Fully four paragraphs of this article, in "Views", are cited to only one source, the Caravan magazine piece. This strikes me as WP:UNDUE. Perhaps the synopsis of this article could be condensed to one paragraph, or at most two total: one paragraph under "Views" and one under "Reception". (That still feels like a lot of coverage of one article to me, but I'm not a subject matter expert here.) It also seems to me that some of the statements under "Reception" cited to this article should include caveats, like "Visvanathan claims that...", since these seem primarily to be analytical interpretations of Sanyal's career rather than objective facts substantiated by a variety of independent, reliable sources.

• Add to beginning of "Honors" (using "moneycontrol-22Feb22" ref name already in use in article):

Sanyal was awarded an Eisenhower Fellowship in 2007 for his work on urban issues.

(This is mentioned in brief in the article lead, so it should be in the article body, too, per MOS:INTRO.)

• In "Honors", delete the quotation marks around "He was named Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum in 2010." And here's another source for that info, if helpful.

Thanks for your time/help! Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

References

The reason for the quotation marks around He was named Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum in 2010. is that it is a direct and exact quotation. Given that I do not know exactly what was meant by that, I could not paraphrase it. It would have been a copyright violation to have quoted the source without making clear that it was a quotation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Have you read The Caravan source? It is arguably the most reputed publication from India and the cited article is a profile of Sanyal. UNDUE does not say what you intend it to say.

That being said, I have condensed Visvanathan's review to a single paragraph. It ought be expanded even more since both Pillai and S. Visvnathan had found grounds for professional historians (which Visvanathan is but they weren't) to take issues with.

Is it your claim that Visvanathan has misrepresented Sanyal's "views"?

For example, did he not criticize Nehru-Mahalanobis' model of economy as a "mechanical toy"? Did he not argue for applying a CAS framework to economic issues? Did he not claim that mainstream historiography has been tainted with "Colonial, Nehruvian, and Marxist" biases and hence, requiring of a rewrite? Did he not find Ashoka as a "modern day fundamentalist" and Dhaṃma Mahāmātās as "religious police"? Did he not find Chanakya to be a "professor of Political Economy at Taxila university" who wrote Arthshastra, the manual of Mauryan statecraft? Did he not argue about interpolating Arthshastra into the current scheme of things? Did he not claim of a Golden age of India, where had birthed "yoga, algebra, the concept of zero, chess, plastic surgery, metallurgy, Hinduism, [and] Buddhism."? Did he not speculate about Rshis having had "deliberately set up [...] Hinduism's flexible, adaptive architecture"? Did he not claim of Indian Nationhood, which evolved in Vedic Age, to have spent "twelve hundred years" of "servitude" to "outsiders"? Did he not claim of this nationhood to have been brought with blood at Talikota and other battles?

Otherwise, this is a non-starter. Because, these are factual observations - I can simply replace the citations with books where Sanyal makes those claims etc.

I have committed the rest of proposed changes. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

One of the problems with this edit is that it changed On 22 February 2022 it was announced that he had been appointed to be a full-time member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India to He is an incumbent member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India. The reason for the old wording was that we had an IP editor who cited About EAC-PM as evidence against the previous statement that he was a full-time member (or indeed a member).^[9] The source cited for the announcement (Moneycontrol 22 February 2022), unarguably supports that it was announced - hence the defensive wording.

About EAC-PM says: At present, the composition of EAC-PM is: Dr. Bibek Debroy (Chairman), Shri Rakesh Mohan (Part-Time Member), Dr. Sajjid Chinoy (Part-Time Member), Dr. Neelkanth Mishra (Part-Time Member), Shri Nilesh Shah (Part-Time Member), Prof. T.T. Ram Mohan (Part-Time Member) and Dr. Poonam Gupta (Part-Time Member). See also Team Members – EAC-PM.

There are plenty of reliable Indian news sources dated 22-24 February 2022 making statements like: Finance Ministry's Principal Economic Advisor Sanjeev Sanyal has been inducted as a full-time member of Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister (EAC-PM). They seem to stress that it is a full-time appointment, so clearly that is important. Nobody seems to have updated the EAC-PM website since 3 February 2022. I have no idea why.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks all for the quick responses. Re: the Caravan source, Caravan is not listed at WP:RSP. That's not a comprehensive list of reliable sources, of course, but I would expect "the most reputed publication from India" to have an entry; certainly other reputable Indian publications do. There also isn't significant discussion of Caravan in the WP:RSN archives. Also: wouldn't replacing the Caravan citation with citations to Sanyal's writings, as TrangaBellam suggests, be considered WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY? Finally, WP:IMPARTIAL states, "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." (I think the WP:PROPORTION section of WP:UNDUE is also relevant here.) Again, I'm not a subject matter expert here, but it seems a dispute is ongoing, the article includes extensive quotes from the participants, and the tone used to summarize it is not impartial. Hopefully we can agree on that. Mary Gaulke (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

You can challenge the reliability of The Caravan at RSN; there is no reason that obviously reliable sources will be discussed at all.

I do not appreciate the misrepresentation of OR. That being said, the issue in replacing Visvanathan's citations with Sanyal's will be one of WP:DUE — that Sanyal makes a thousand arguments in his works, I cannot use my editorial powers to select a few of them and exclude others. We circumvent this by citing Meera V. since she found those particular aspects of Sanyal's work, worthy of a mention.

Anyway, my question was rhetorical and I know, from my own reading of Sanyal, that Meera Visvanathan has not misrepresented anything.

"Extensive quotes"? We include quotes from Sanyal's own works and I do not see how a professional historian critiquing Sanyal entitles us to remove them. For an example three reviewers have commented on Sanyal's reconstruction of Ashoka; no-brainer that it will indeed be described to some detail. Meera V.'s arguments/opinions have been indeed summarized to a paragraph in the reception section.

As to IMPARTIAL, you can suggest rewordings. I do not offer any objections.

@Kautilya3 and Vanamonde93: FYI. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Suggested some rewordings below: "finds Sanyal ignorant" to "claims Sanyal is ignorant", "Sanyal failed to" to "she writes that Sanyal failed to", and "Sanyal's analysis of Mahabharata was deemed to be" to "Visvanathan deemed Sanyal's analysis of Mahabharata". It feels important to distinguish what is a recap of Visvanathan's criticisms from what is objective fact. Thanks for your time and consideration. Mary Gaulke (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS:CLAIM applies: to write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question. Do you have grounds to dispute the claim?-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Toddy1 You have a point; shall we add the qualifier "full-time"? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The Hindu article says that he was the Principal Economic Adviser to the Ministry of Finance. There are two points here.

• The article is saying that he was the Principal Economic Adviser, not a Principal Economic Adviser. The difference between "a" and "the" is important. [In the British scientific civil service, there used to be a rank Principle Scientific Officer (PSO). Departments had many PSOs; it was a mid-ranking post.]
• The article said that he was the Principal Economic Adviser to the Ministry of Finance. i.e. just one government ministry, not necessarily the whole government.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. MaryGaulke, The Caravan doesn't get discussed much because it is hard for most editors to access, but there has been some discussion at WT:INDIA. You refer to a "heated dispute". Where is this dispute? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Kautilya3: Not at all disputing that The Caravan is an RS, just that it's such a weighty publication that a significant portion of the article should be devoted to one citation from it. The dispute I was referring to is the ongoing discussion in academia about Sanyal's views, and the subsequent edit warring we see in a lot of the history of this article. If our goal is to "summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone", I think it's worth revisiting phrases like "finds Sanyal ignorant" (perhaps "claims Sanyal is ignorant"?), "Sanyal failed to" (similarly, shouldn't this be "she writes that Sanyal failed to"?), and "was deemed to be" (shouldn't we be specific that Visvanathan is the one doing the deeming, rather than using a vague passive voice?). Mary Gaulke (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  It is not The Caravan that is weighty here, but rather the fact that the reviewer is a professional historian. Amateur historians do not use the same standards of evidence and source-criticism and so it is not uncommon for professionals shoot them down as being invalid. This happens a lot with India these days. Coming back to the topic, it should be clear to any ordinary reader that that whole paragraph is summarising Visvanathan's review. To be clearer, I added an attribution in the last sentence. Adding it in every sentence would lead to very unnatural prose and we don't normally do it. I don't agree with the usage of "claim". That would imply that there is a significant doubt. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Rohan D'Souza, yet another professional historian, approves of Vishvanathan's critique of Sanyal:

  Recently, Meera Visvanathan in an article in the Caravan magazine served up a reality check to the many immodest efforts by Sanjeev Sanyal to rewrite Indian history. In his day job, Sanyal is a principal economic advisor to the Government of India, having earned a BA and an MSc in Economics. Visvanathan, on the other hand, has a PhD in History and teaches and researches on ancient India besides being capable in Sanskrit and Prakrit.

  In her article, Visvanathan clarifies what writing history means and what is not “history”. Notably, history cannot be reducible to facts. If anything, the reigning consensus amongst professional historians is that history makes sense only when grasped as a relationship between fact and interpretation. That is, academic history always walks on two legs and does not aimlessly hop around between one fact-point to another fact-place.

  Visvanathan also explains how Sanyal remains entirely innocent about one of the defining requirements for writing academic history, the notion of ‘source criticism’. Put differently, you cannot simply accept what has been put down on a palm leaf, paper or rock. A source, as any academic historian will tell you, is oftentimes layered with multiple and even contradictory meanings. And that is why claims about history can become compelling only when they are able to rigorously establish the ‘provenance’ of their source or why we should accept something as a historical source in the first place.

  To correctly judge the claims of Sanyal and a proliferating number of suchlike, however, we must begin by acknowledging that they are advocates of an entirely new genre of thinking about India’s past. Something that has, in fact, no precedence with regard to at least the last 70 years of history writing in India. This newness follows a pattern and can best be classified as “Pseudo-History”, a departmental level contribution to “WhatsApp education” in general.
  — D'Souza, Rohan (20 October 2021). "The Risks of Looking at India's History Through the Eyes of Pseudo-Historians". The Wire.

  TrangaBellam (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Is the line: He believes the Partition of India to have had happened due to a "fundamental divergence" in opinions about this nationhood. ... worthwhile? Is it a remarkable opinion in any way? Isn't any ideological split that leads to a break up of a territory at heart based on a "fundamental divergence" of opinion? Isn't this just stating the plainly obvious? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• The minor points above do seem to have been addressed. I see no reason to object to the Caravan magazine as a source; it appears to be the only detailed examination of Sanyal's writings, and as such giving it some weight is entirely reasonable. I do think some condensation of the views section is appropriate, and I trimmed what I felt to be the weakest paragraph. It could also use a copy-edit, but lacking the sources, I'm not willing to take that on. I wonder if his claim about ancient Indian civilization has received any scrutiny re: plastic surgery; it's a fringe claim; absent secondary source commentary, we should likely omit it. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Source emailed. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

July 2022 COI edit requests

Hi! As noted above, I'm a COI editor hired to represent Sanyal, here with some new edit requests:

Lead

I'd like to suggest this get fleshed out to touch briefly on each section of the article. Here's what I propose:

Sanjeev Sanyal is an Indian economist, author, and historian. He is a member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India and has helped author several editions of the Economic Survey of India. Sanyal is a Rhodes scholar and was a managing director for Deutsche Bank. In 2010, the World Economic Forum named him a Young Global Leader. He applies a Complex Adaptive Systems framework to understanding economic issues. He has also written several books on Indian history, with a focus on revisiting and reevaluating primary sources. Historian Meera Visvanathan has criticized Sanyal's methodology; other academics have praised his books.

Career

• Add to beginning of section (using ref name already in article):

Sanyal began working in financial economics in the 1990s. In 2004, Sanyal and environmental economist Pavan Sukhdev created the Green Indian States Trust to promote sustainable development. Its work has included advocating for replacing GDP with an economic indicator that is adjusted according to changes in environment.

• Update (using ref name already in use in article)

Sanyal worked for Deutsche Bank until 2008, leaving to research and write Land of the Seven Rivers, and returned in 2011.

to

Sanyal was chief economist for South and Southeast Asia for Deutsche Bank until 2008. He left to research and write Land of the Seven Rivers, a history of Indian geography, and returned in 2011. After his return, he authored two frequently quoted series of reports, The Random Walk and The Wide Angle. The Random Walk analyzed the differences in prices for the same goods in different economies and the implications of those differences. In The Wide Angle, Sanyal contended that the global economy should accept imbalances, rather than trying to achieve equilibrium among different economies. He also disputed the United Nations forecast of continuous population growth until the year 2100, predicting that global population will peak around 2055.

• Update

and helped prepare the 2021–22 Economic Survey of India.

to

and has been an author of the annual Economic Survey of India for several years.

• Add to end of section (using ref name already in article):

Sanyal is also the host of Economic Sutra, a show on Sansad TV, which covers topics like smart cities and Central Vista Redevelopment Project.

Thanks for your time/help! Mary Gaulke (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Author. Your proposed text frequently uses the verb author. This is a problematic and ambiguous word, which has different meanings to different audiences and in different contexts.

• In the context of writing software, if a person authors an application it means that the person was the the creator of the application; they designed it, and possibly wrote the code (though they may have had programmers writing the code under their supervision).
• In the context of an article, a book, or a report - to British-English readers it conveys the impression of poor word choice by someone with limited English.
• In the context of an article, a book, or a report - to American-English readers the word is more acceptable. Some American-English readers regard it as more punchy than saying that the person wrote the article/book/report. It is sometimes used to suggest that the person did not really write the article/book/report - they got somebody else to do it for them, but took the credit for it (undeservedly).

Unless we wish to hint that somebody else wrote Sanyal's books, it would be best to use different language: either "he was the author of" or "he wrote".-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Several editions. This is too vague. We should be saying which editions if we can. Do you know which editions?-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Other academics. This would only be acceptable if there were citations to say three different academics praising his work. (See MOS:WEASEL.) We probably also need to say what they praised it for; there is a technique called "damning with faint praise"; we must not be too naive.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Toddy1: The author revision makes total sense to me – no objection here.

Several editions – It is in fact six (2017 through 2022), but I only found sources for the last three years. Would "at least three" be better?

Other academics – Open to any revisions here; I wanted to raise the issue but I'm aware my COI makes it difficult for me to judge the best wording.

Thanks for the feedback! Mary Gaulke (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Replying to myself – here are citations for contributions to the 2018 and 2019 Economic Surveys. Wasn't able to confirm 2017, so maybe we just say "five". Mary Gaulke (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment:

• The last line in the lead is a non-starter. We have Meera V. as well as Rohan D' Souza (both academics) lambasting his entire scholarship which includes methodology but is not limited to it. Besides, Pillai is not an academic.
• Being a Rhodes Scholar belongs at the lead, as does being "a managing director for Deutsche Bank." The description of Sanyal's motivation is decent but needs to include his aims to recover history from "Colonial, Nehruvian, and Marxist" biases in some suitable manner. We can also add about his being a critic of Nehruvian planning of economy sourcing from Meera V. and S. Gupta. That being said, the line on CAS is garbage - conveys nothing of importance beyond a buzzwordy vibe.
• No qualms with addition of the proposed paragraph to the beginning of the career section but the last line is superfluous considering the negligible effect it had on Indian economy or policy-discussions.
• I reiterate Toddy1's point on the poor draftsmanship of the line on Economic Survey. Further, we must quantify the number of economic surveys he has been associated with rather than use weasel words like "several": say, "from 2018 to 2022".
• "which covers topics like smart cities and Central Vista Redevelopment Project" - I have nothing against a short description of Sanyal's show but this is being comically inept.
• Why are Ghoshal (2013) and Pillalamarri (2014) cited? Simpson (2014) does not support that the report "studied [] the implications of those differences." We need a better source to support that the two reports are "frequently quoted."

TrangaBellam (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Hi! In order:

• I'm not seeing the Rohan D'Souza criticism represented in the body of the article – am I missing it?
• Totally aligned with those revisions. Would it be helpful for me to update the proposed wording, or would you prefer for me to be uninvolved in that?
• Understood.
• Replied to Toddy1 above.
• Just reflecting what's in the source. Feel free to revise.
• "Frequently quoted" comes from Fortune India: "In this role, he has produced two series of reports, The Random Walk and The Wide Angle, in which he has put forth some of his controversial and highly quoted views." If that is for some reason insufficient, we can take out the phrase. I added the Ghoshal and Pillalamarri citations as additional coverage to establish the notability of these reports, but happy to remove them if preferred. The "implications" wording can be removed if you feel it's a stretch.

Thanks much. Mary Gaulke (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have added D'Souza.
• I have nothing against COI editors proposing (potential) improvements as long as they are mindful of our rules.
• Thanks.
• Agreeable.
• Please propose a line.
• Ghoshal and Pillalamarri citations can be done away with. As I said, "we need a better source" to support that the two reports are "frequently quoted." TrangaBellam (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  Btw, find a way to add this. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Following up on two items where I believe we have consensus:

• Since there's been some iteration on the lead, I'd like to just ask that this be added to what's there now, per your note above:

Sanyal is a Rhodes scholar and was a managing director for Deutsche Bank.

• Revised text for beginning of "Career" section, per your feedback:

Sanyal began working in financial economics in the 1990s. In 2004, Sanyal and environmental economist Pavan Sukhdev created the Green Indian States Trust to promote sustainable development.

Will be back in touch with more as soon as I can be. Mary Gaulke (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

References

I have added the suggested text at the beginning of "Career" section.

I am not really sure that his being a Rhodes scholar and was once one of very many managing directors for Deutsche Bank should go in the lead. What we have now focuses on why the reader ought to read the article on Sanyal. Adding the material requested detracts from that focus. On the other hand the article on Anthony Blair mentions his education in the second paragraph of the lead. The lead for the article on Viktor Yanukovych does not mention his "education" in prison, and Donetsk Polytechnic. I think that Sanyal was a managing director for Deutsche Bank used to be in the lead with a note explaining that it did not mean that he was the managing director; I am not really sure why it was removed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The lead.

I have made some modification to the lead and the career section taking account of the above.^[10] Sanjeev Sanyal is an Indian economist, author, and historian. does not seem as good as Sanjeev Sanyal is an Indian economist and popular historian.

I accept that he wrote Life over Two Beers and other stories, which is listed as fiction, but the body of the article seems to ignore that book. If the book is significant, then we should write about it in the body of the article before including it in the lead. There is a negative review of the book in The Hindustan Times, and an interesting and very positive review in Indica Today. The review in The Hindu seems more like a paid advertisement.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Indica Today is not a RS. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022 COI edit requests

Hi all, thank you for your help and feedback so far. I have just three more edit requests for this article:

• Add after "In 2017, he was appointed as the Principal Economic Adviser to the Indian Ministry of Finance and in that job helped prepare six editions of the Economic Survey of India."

As Principal Economic Advisor, Sanyal also advised on India's economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He has described the response as a form of barbell strategy, coupling limited immediate targeted funding to urgent areas with Bayesian updating and quick response on an ongoing basis. For the longer term, he advocates supply-side reforms and infrastructure investment in order to increase the productivity of the Indian economy.

• Add after "In February 2022, he was appointed member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister.":

In this role, he has pushed for a major expansion of India's patenting system.

• Add

He has also served as co-chair of the Framework Working Group of the G20.

(Side note: Possibly I over-referenced a bit here, but I wanted to provide redundant sources in case any are unfit, although I did due diligence with WP:RSP and the WP:RSN archives.) Thanks again for your time and feedback. Mary Gaulke (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, what you are asking for is:

In 2017, he was appointed as the Principal Economic Adviser to the Indian Ministry of Finance and in that job helped prepare six editions of the Economic Survey of India. As Principal Economic Advisor, Sanyal also advised on India's economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He has described the response as a form of barbell strategy, coupling limited immediate targeted funding to urgent areas with Bayesian updating and quick response on an ongoing basis. For the longer term, he advocates supply-side reforms and infrastructure investment in order to increase the productivity of the Indian economy. In February 2022, he was appointed member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister. In this role, he has pushed for a major expansion of India's patenting system. He has also served as co-chair of the Framework Working Group of the G20.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That's correct! Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding He has described the response as a form of barbell strategy, coupling limited immediate targeted funding to urgent areas with Bayesian updating and quick response on an ongoing basis. There is no point in including that jargon-filled sentence, because it is meaningless to anyone not familiar with the ideas that Sanyal espoused. We either need to have a paragraph/section that describes those ideas on dealing with COVID or don't bother.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Is this preferable, to lead into the subsequent sentence? He has described the response as a form of barbell strategy, coupling limited immediate targeted funding to urgent areas with longer-term structural investment. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Hi! Checking on the above. Given that Sanyal's primary claim to notability is his work as an economist, I do think it makes sense to reflect the media coverage of that work in this article.

I also wanted to flag that 49.36.178.54 reverted several of the recent edits to this article that resulted from my above requests, citing inadequate talk page discussion (although they did not elect to post on the talk page themselves). Since those edits were implemented through the consensus achieved above, I request that they be restored.

Also happy to open a {{request edit}} if you'd prefer not to engage anymore. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Mary, do you understand the stuff that Sanjeev Sanyal produces?

• If yes, then please could you draft at least two paragraphs about what Sanyal and his team did with respect of COVID.
• If no, then when I get time, I will try to write a few paragraphs about what Sanyal and his team did with respect of COVID.

I suspect that what he and his team did was important, and ought to be written up as part of his biography. Your attempts in August 2022 to summarise it as one or two sentences were not entirely successful. We need something that explains things in language that non-experts understand. Your description of a barbell strategy as coupling limited immediate targeted funding to urgent areas with longer-term structural investment was a good start. But it then needs a paragraph to explain about limited immediate targeted funding to urgent areas and another paragraph to explain about longer-term structural investment, and then a third paragraph to explain why Sanyal and his team thought that this kind of strategy combining very short term and very long term measures was the right approach.

I do not know how much you understand about the work Sanyal does.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Like any Wikipedia editor, I draft content by reading and summarizing the relevant reliable sources. I'm not interested in WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. But of course I'm happy to flesh out what I proposed further:

In 2017, he was appointed as the Principal Economic Adviser to the Indian Ministry of Finance and in that job helped prepare six editions of the Economic Survey of India. As Principal Economic Advisor, Sanyal also advised on India's economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He has described the response as a form of barbell strategy, coupling limited immediate targeted funding to urgent areas with longer-term structural investment. In the short term, funding focused on direct investment through capital expenditure on infrastructure to drive up economic demand and safety net spending like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act rather than helicopter money distributed to individuals. Short-term interventions to increase economic supply included deregulation of select sectors and reforming processes for government procurement. For the longer term, he advocates supply-side reforms and infrastructure investment in order to increase the productivity of the Indian economy in alignment with the concept of Atmanirbhar Bharat and respond to the evolutions in the global economy caused by the pandemic. As part of this response, in 2022 the Indian government extended tax incentives for manufacturing originally put in place in 2019.

In February 2022, Sanyal was appointed member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister. In this role, he has pushed for a major expansion of India's patenting system. He has also served as co-chair of the Framework Working Group of the G20.

Thanks again for your time. Mary Gaulke (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Hi! Checking if you're able to review the above or if I should open a new edit request. Thank you kindly. Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The edit Mary complained about by 49.36.178.54 reverted edits made by HarshitMishraaa. If the aim was to revert HarshitMishraaa's edits, it would have been best to restore the first paragraph of the career section before HarshitMishraaa's edits. I have done this.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

References

October 2022 COI edit request

Hi again – COI editor for Sanyal here. Resharing the one open item from my last edit request above. This has been revised with additional detail, per Toddy1's feedback.

My request is to replace the last paragraph of the "Career" section with the following, which adds more detail on Sanyal's economic work:

In 2017, he was appointed as the Principal Economic Adviser to the Indian Ministry of Finance and in that job helped prepare six editions of the Economic Survey of India. As Principal Economic Advisor, Sanyal also advised on India's economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He has described the response as a form of barbell strategy, coupling limited immediate targeted funding to urgent areas with longer-term structural investment. In the short term, funding focused on direct investment through capital expenditure on infrastructure to drive up economic demand and safety net spending like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act rather than helicopter money distributed to individuals. Short-term interventions to increase economic supply included deregulation of select sectors and reforming processes for government procurement. For the longer term, he advocates supply-side reforms and infrastructure investment in order to increase the productivity of the Indian economy in alignment with the concept of Atmanirbhar Bharat and respond to the evolutions in the global economy caused by the pandemic. As part of this response, in 2022 the Indian government extended tax incentives for manufacturing originally put in place in 2019.

In February 2022, Sanyal was appointed member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister. In this role, he has pushed for a major expansion of India's patenting system. He has also served as co-chair of the Framework Working Group of the G20.

I appreciate your help or feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

None of this can go in, sourced from interviews of Sanyal. Undue. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Sanyal's primary claim to notability is an economist, and the article currently reflects almost none of the media coverage of his economic policy. Toddy1 above seemed to agree this information is germane. Can you please clarify why you believe it's undue? Mary Gaulke (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

What we need are secondary sources that document Sanyal's policies, how they played out in ground etc. and critiques them. That would be encyclopedic "coverage" of his economic chops. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It is fine citing articles by Sanyal in the above. And it would help the reader if the new citations gave the author, who in many cases is Sanjeev Sanyal. I agree with TrangaBellam that the article also needs to report commentary on the policies Sanyal espoused and give citations for it; this commentary is missing. A problem in the article is excessive brevity in describing economic ideas.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Education

I think his education in St John's college needs some correction

1. BA PPE (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy,_politics_and_economics) 1992

2. Msc Economics 1994

Source- https://www.sjc.ox.ac.uk/alumni/alumni-spotlight/sanjeev-sanyal/ Mixmon (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This is what sources say:

• "Sanyal studied at the prestigious St. James’ and St. Xavier’s schools before moving to Delhi and getting a B.A. in economics from the Shri Ram College of Commerce. Soon after, he moved to St. John’s College at Oxford University for a master’s degree."^[11]
• "He attended Shri Ram College of Commerce, Delhi and St. John's College, Oxford, where he was a Rhodes Scholar."^[12]

Of the sources provided by Mixmon, the first is a wikipedia article, which is not a reliable source. The second says: "Sanjeev Sanyal (1992, BA PPE, 1994, MSc Economics)"^[13] That is useful information and is worth including.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you are confused. I meant that PPE in degrees means Philosophy, Politics and Economics (wiki article was for that) Mixmon (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the Oxford Alumni Relations website can be regarded as that reliable. We would need to see corroboation.

He did a BA in Economics from Delhi, and MA from Oxford. How could he do another BA in Oxford (which is what "PPE" means) in the middle of that? It doesn't make sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

It does make sense. A PPE degree from Oxford is vastly more prestigious than a degree from Shri Ram College of Commerce (New Delhi). The PPE degree then opened the door to the MSc in Economics. The source for his PPE degree is the St John's College, Oxford website www.sjc.ox.ac.uk. This is probably more reliable for what his degrees from Oxford were than the sources for his degree from Shri Ram College of Commerce.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there any rule that a Bachelors degree can be received only one time? Mixmon (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

It is St. John's College's "alumni" website, which is generally a fund-raising shop. Hardly reliable. Why doesn't it mention his degree from Delhi? Did any other RS say that he obtained two Bachelor's degrees, one from Delhi and another from Oxford? Do the timelines check out? Does Oxford even accept people with prior Bachelor's degrees for a second Bachelor's degree? It is all hog-wash. And, you need to maintain WP:STATUSQUO until consensus is obtained. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

www.sjc.ox.ac.uk is the college website - see for example www.sjc.ox.ac.uk/contact-us/.

Wikipedia:Verifiability says All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles... must be verifiable. The statement that Sanyal was did a master's degree at St John's College between 1992 and 1995 needs a citation. The college website give the dates 1992 for his graduating in PPE and 1994 for his graduating in economics. I have not seen anything in the other two citation supporting the dates for his being at Oxford. Citations support that he was a Rhodes scholar, but do not say when. That he only did one degree at Oxford is pure supposition (i.e WP:OR). There is a reliable source that says that he did two.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

In India, unless one is a prodigy, they enroll into college at about 18 years of age or more. An undergraduate degree in India takes three years irrespective of one's academic acumen. Assuming Sanyal's unsourced DOB is accurate, the only possibility is that St. Johns took his previous undergraduate degree into consideration and awarded a PPE upon a one-year-coursework. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is a possibility. But if he did obtain two Bachelor's degrees, that would be mentioned, e.g., for Anurag Das in this document. But for Sanyal, we only get that he "attended" Sri Ram College, which is not a degree granting instituion, and that he was a "Rhodes Scholar (1992-95)". That might mean that he transferred mid-course to the Oxford PPE programme, completed it in 1992, and then got a Rhodes scholarship for M. A. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The document you have cited has data from Sanjeev's website (not sure if it's official). http://www.sanjeevsanyal.com/home/index#about_sanjeev many of Sanjeev's descriptions can be traced to this website. Is it reliable? Mixmon (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Afaik, only undergraduates are eligible for Rhodes Scholarship. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Really? Please read this: Academic achievement: You must have already completed, or will have completed by July 2023, an undergraduate degree (normally a Bachelor’s degree) with an academic background and grade that - at a minimum - meets or exceeds the specific entry requirements of your chosen full-time course at the University of Oxford (https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/graduate/courses/courses-a-z-listing)
Given the very intense international competition for places at the University of Oxford, candidates will have a greater chance of successful admission to Oxford if they have:
• A First Class Honours Degree ^{The Rhodes Scholarship for India} -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I meant to say the same thing. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, 1992-95 means 2.5 or 3 academic years: 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. All of this post-graduation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Economic sutras

Should this be added in the career section - "Sanyal anchors Economic Sutra, a show telecasted on Sansad TV, the official channel of the Parliament of India. The series covers various aspects of economic and financial policies, regulatory elements and institutional frameworks to be decoded for the average citizen's understanding.[14]" Mixmon (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Might be of interest

I came to know from an acquaintance that Shiv Visvanathan — whose review of Sanyal's work is quite flattering — is the father of Meera Visvanathan :3 TrangaBellam (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Sanyal also criticised various indices that have downgraded India for Democratic Backsliding

This edit reverted the following paragraph, saying: Need WP:SECONDARY sources:

In an EAC-PM Working paper, Sanyal also criticised various indices that have downgraded India for Democratic Backsliding. He criticised them for being primarily based on the opinions of a tiny group of unknown "experts". The paper alleged that there were serious problems with the methodology used in the perception-based indices such as Freedom in the World Index, V-DEM indices and EIU Democracy Index.

References

In fairness, there is what should be a secondary source: an article from The Economic Times. But the newspaper article merely says what Sanyal says. A secondary source is meant to provide another author's thinking, and contain an evaluation or interpretation of the primary source. And that is missing from The Economic Times article. The newspaper article is still of value, because it demonstrates evidence of notability. I have mixed feeling about the deletion of the paragraph. I think if the paragraph were going to be restored, it would need to say what the alleged problems were, and get some commentary on what Sanyal's team claim.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The link for the report is actually to a page that tells the reader that the report exists - it is hard to access, because the server does not respond - but web archive has a copy. But we need a link to the report itself.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mixmon: Look at this First Post article by Siddhartha Rai. It is a much better secondary source. And remember, readers need to know (a) that Sanyal has criticisms, (b) what the criticisms are, and (c) how sensible his criticisms are. The deleted paragraph only achieved (a). The First Post article can help with (c), for example: The paper rightly points out the absurdity.... There are probably other good secondary sources that comment on the validity of what Sanyal says. -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

This article from The Print, which was written by a computer (seriously), is good in that it is a summary, but contains no analysis or commentary. It is like a Persil advert for Sanyal's report.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

This Al Jazeera article was copied from The Print.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Remember that a biography article is based on what WP:SECONDARY sources say about the subject, the subject here being Sanyal. It is not democracy ratings. If a source about Sanyal says that he had offered criticism about democracy ratings, then we can say so too. If a newspaper reports that Sanyal said XYZ, it just falls under WP:NOTNEWS category. Public officials say hundreds of things. (If we were writing an article on democracy ratings, then it would be a different matter.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The report can be accessed on web archive. The original URL times out.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It was working yesterday, I guess there's some problem with the EAC-PM website. I disagree with @Kautilya3 that it's just some random XYZ talk. It's a report of Govt of India's premier think-tank. The problems in metrics are Sanyal's long-held belief, for example, in this column. I don't know why nobody has written a counter to these allegations provided EAC-PM reports get wide media coverage and policymakers' attention. Mixmon (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Think tank? He is an economic advisor to the prime minister! It is part of his job to produce reports like these. If the report accomplishes something, like create some policy changes that result in improvements, then it might be worthwhile. Otherwise, it is just a bland report with a few gripes thrown in. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree the EAC PM is not a think tank. It works as directed by the prime minister.

Perhaps the questions to ask are (a) what reports produced by EAC PM list Sanyal as the author,^[15] and (b) are any of them notable enough to list in a biographical article on Sanyal? To be mentioned in this article does not require them to be notable enough to merit their own article, but it does require a measure of notability. Kautilya3's suggestion seems to be that whether a report had any impact is a good measure of whether it is notable enough to mention has merit.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. It could be practical impact or even intellectual impact. It would have to be evidenced in WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• The report link worked just now. It did not work 7 hours ago.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)