Talk:K. S. Lal

Libelous

Many of his books are based on the theme perceived as critical of Islam and as such a lot of his works focus on the impact of Muslim conquerors on India and hinduism. This has made him a controversial author and often at odds with other contemporary Indian Historians such as Romila Thapar on their visions of Indian history and its politicization. His views on history are often quoted and used by proponents of hindutva, as are those by Will Durant.

Just what is libelous?--Tigeroo 16:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No sources to establish that he is "often quoted and used by proponents of Hindutva". Same for Will Durant as well. The term "controversial" is also unsourced. Unless you can source specific controversies (and put it in an itemized section) with multiple sources, we have a libelous edit.Hkelkar 17:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the term "controversial" is libel worthy to justify removal under WP. The other two statements also in no way impune upon the character of K.S. Lal. It is equivalent to saying "XXX use his works as toilet paper".--Tigeroo 17:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes but can you source any of these claims? Not a single source in the section (for a long time). And yes, in the absense of sources, "controversial" is libelous. If you supply many sources then okay. If you can supply sources that attest to specific controversies then you can list them under "controversies" but you can;t call him "controversial" unless there are reliable source that address him as such. Hkelkar 17:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Bah, that's easy. His NCERT role and the history Saffronization controversies easily sourced make him one. That's fine, I'll fix it.--Tigeroo 19:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

With what? what is "Delhi Historian's Group, Section 2. Part 3"? Please cite title, page #, publisher etc isf it is a book and cite per WP:CITE if it is a paper. "India Religious Freedom Report". What is it? Who published it? Please provide details.Hkelkar 19:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Provided are links to the entire report. Take a second to check and you will see the that India Religious Freedom, Report is by the US Government, the Delhi Historians Group is a grouping of Indian Historians opposed to the saffronization of Indian history and central to the whole debate about history books. They are all professors of standing, and have numerous publications. The notes are just abbreviated specific references to the entire report available, linked and listed in the references.--Tigeroo 18:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

As explained here this was deleted in the article by Hornplease (talk · contribs) long time ago. Could the reason please be explained on the talkpage?

• [1] K.S. Lal wrote a rebuttal to many criticisms in his book "Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India". He explained:

One does grow during the course of half a century if one continues with his studies and I have surely grown. And since I do no believe that "Muslim rule should not attract any criticism. Destruction of temples by Muslim invaders and rulers should not be mentioned and forcible conversions to Islam should be ignored and deleted, etc. etc.", my books are free from such restrictions. I now also apply the same yardstick to medieval Indian history as is done with respect to modem Indian history. ... We in India write the history of British rule not from the point of view of European imperialism but from that of the victims of colonization. I apply the same methodology to the history of Muslim rule. I write about it from the people's point of view rather than from the view of Islamic imperialists. We cannot apply different standards of approach and methodology to different periods of Indian history.] (pov deletion, he only deletes Lal's rebuttal to the partisan criticism of Lal, and leaves the lengthy partisan criticism in the article)

Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Andrew Bostom and "see also" section

I've deleted the sentence that states that K.S. Lal wrote several chapters of Bostom's book, becuase that is simply not true. Boston simply cites Lal a great deal. It then made me wonder if the "see also" listing people mentioned in the article is really necessary, as they are already linked. Is this common format for Biographies of Living Persons? Shall this be deleted too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemiljan (talk • contribs) 18:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There are 5 full chapters in this book contributed by K S Lal. I have moved those details though from career to works section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shandil (talk • contribs) 11:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Indic Scripts

Cpt.a.haddock, please see this link [2], and the clarifications provided there, if you wish to go into the details. The guideline exists, and it applies to the infobox as well. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, Thanks. I don't see any mention of infoboxes in the guideline. The infobox template comes with native_name and native_language fields which are suitable for this purpose. It seems to me that it is *destructive* to remove pertinent information when there's a dedicated space for it. IOW, rather than removing the Indic string, moving it to the infobox will, IMO, be far more constructive.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right, the decisions listed there do not explicitly mention the infobox; but if you think about it, the issues with the lead (primarily which language to use) still apply in the infobox, and so it makes sense to keep them out. I also know for a fact that the RfC close has previously been interpreted to mean "no scripts in infobox" but I cannot remember off the top of my head where that was true. If this is a pressing concern for you, I could try to find such, or you could try to post at INB. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, I have no pressing concern :) I'm guessing that the guideline to avoid Indic equivalents in the lead is more to do with clutter than anything else. Adding them to the infobox solves this issue and I don't see how a guideline on leads can be interpreted for infoboxes. The very existence of native language fields is an indicator of their usefulness. This ought to trump any Wikiproject India guideline. That said, the guideline does specifically suggest that IPA ought to be used as pronunciation guides. IOW, rather than a blanket removal of Indic scripts in the lead, replacing them with IPAc guides will make it a constructive exercise. Unfortunately, the IPAc implementation on WP is not flexible enough for Indian languages and is often inexact, thus making the addition of Indic scripts handy. My 0.02p.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It may have been something to do with clutter, but from what I know that clutter was a product of all the different scripts being inserted into the lead, and edit-wars over those. In an ideal world, perhaps, we might be able to reach some agreement over which language to use on a case-by-case basis, and then use them in the infobox; but I don't think the existence of the field trumps the RfC. I have no expertise with IPA; if there are problems with it, that is unfortunate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, problematic IPA is better than no IPA at all. Currently, this article lacks a native language pronunciation guide as well as an IPA guide. If you're going to remove the Indic script, then it should at least be replaced with an IPA guide. As it stands, the article has lost some of its value. While this might not seem too important for this article, it will be for some other articles. Later.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it has; but in that case, invoke IAR, and put the indic script into the infobox. The guideline itself I know for a fact applies to both leads and infoboxes. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)