Talk:K. S. Manilal

NPOV and Verifiability dispute [Section: Publication of the English and Malayalam versions of Hortus Malabaricus]

It looks like this section reads like allegations. Please provide corroborating evidence through links. Some one should provide links to the recorded interview (indicated in the articles), articles corroborating other events etc. Else, remove this one. At this time, this section violates point-of-view rules (WP:NPOV) and verifiability rules (WP:V) of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.116.98 (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Reply to User 66.27.116.9 : It is evident that you are concerned about and repeated deleting the statement - "Evidently, in 2003, the University of Kerala officials in charge failed to invite or even inform Dr. Manilal on the occasion of the formal release of the English book, which was organised by then incumbent Vice-Chancellor B. Ekbal and performed by then President of India Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam at the Rashtrapathi Bhavan in New Delhi." .... Is there an allegation here? From the various news reports it is evident that Dr. Manilal was present not at the event. Was the event not organised by B. Ekbal as VC? The author of this article has only stated that in a "recorded interview" Dr. Manilal has stated ".....". The recorded interview is recorded on video and currently available to a select group of professionals. Do you wish to have it uploaded in the public domain, like YouTube, and linked? Truly that might only cause more damage to the individual you are trying to cover up for. If you do not reverse your edits, the video will eventually be put in public domain to substantiate the statements that you edited/disputed. Anyway your edits itself will ultimately draw more attention to the issue that distressed Dr. Manilal, although that was not intented to be the highlight of the section. The section was included as pointer for those genuine hardworking researchers/authors who face deceit in the hands of publishers. A very common occurrence in the publishing world. There was also no 'attempted plagiarism' accusation here after all.Aaroamal (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Reply to user Aaroamal -> All I want is full sourcing. Each content should be verifiable according to Wikipedia policy WP:V. Source each statement with a neutral article. You can put the video on youtube, link to it and indicate that "The author claimed". You cannot state is a fact. If you want to state a fact, you need to do that with a neutral enough source. If indeed, this is correct, I have no objection on having it sourced. All I am suggesting is that without adequate references, this article on Manilal is in serious violation of Wikipedia policies. From news articles at that time, it looked as if the first copy was handed to Abdul Kalam at his office at short notice and it was not an "official" release function. If you have a different news report, please include that as a reference. It is a usual occurence in the publisher world, but your specific case has to be referenced with neutral news article links. Else, you cannot have it on wikipedia. I was asking for adequate references politely and your reply is an ad-hominem attack against me. This is against the nature of Wikipedia. It is clear that you have not read through policies.

• Add citations, upload the youtube video, reference these stuff. If Manilal was truely wronged, it has to be highlighted. I have seen news reports corroborating some aspects of this section, but you HAVE to cite news reports. As an example, I have added a news report citing one of the facts. This is how wikipedia works ... no through ad-hominem attacks. Verifiability is key.

Remember Jimmy Wales quote:-

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales

• Joseph Antony's "Harithabhoopadam" (released February 2012) discusses this episode in detail. He uses citations of publications, first hand interviews with multiple people involved in the publication of the books, and the records acquired via the Right to information act from the Kerala University, Dirctor of Planning and Development, and The Hortus Malabaricus trust to show that Manilal was indeed wronged. The book clearly illustrates the discrepancies in the University's account of how the whole episode was handled, including figures from the financial transactions between the University and Manilal. I find that the material presented in the book supports the removal of the dispute warnings from the Publication section - silentnihilist

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.116.98 (talk) 05:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on K. S. Manilal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080623033942/http://www.iaat.org.in/index.html to http://www.iaat.org.in/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)