Jump to content

Talk:Ram Sharan Sharma

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photograph needed

[edit]

Please arrange for his photograph. ♔BADMIN♛ (आओ✍) 13:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Please ensure that relevant information regarding Professor Sharma's major works is being deleted every often. Such vandalism should be protected. As a student of History I feel offended and alarmed that such a great scholar's page is being tampered with for any ulterior motive. If wikipedia wants to maintain its objectivity and impartiality as an encyclopedia it should be aware and alert to counter such vandalism. - A student of History. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.244.42 (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COPYVIO and refrain from reinserting publisher's blurbs. Relata refero (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist

[edit]

"Marxist" is a slur thrown around by the religious right in India. It basically means "anyone to the poltical left of Attila the Hun". Just because some critic gave the epithet "Marxist" to this author doesn't make it so. It's also interesting how this supposedly Marxist historian doesn't seem to have published anything about Marxism at all. --dab (𒁳) 20:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A similar slur "Brahminical" is thrown around by people like RS Sharma to dismiss anything truly "Indian" e.g. no consideration is made for people who were, since time immemorial, actually tasked with record/history keeping. To dismiss this entire class of record keepers as "Brahmins" is equally a sign of people of Sharma's ilk who go around claiming to be Indian historians but are nothing more than people parroting the <speculations> of Jones, Mueller, Smith etc as <historical facts>. His positions are avowedly "Marxist" inasmuch as positions within the Indian intellectual space go.

What would you call him? He is product of Nehru Socialist government which promoted most incompetent historians like Sharma Romila Thapar etc to promote socialism and islam and other foreign religions and to show native religion in poor light. Sharma, S.Gopal and Romila thapar and entire JNU history department have given written statements that there was no temple existed in Ayodhya before Babri structure which proved to be totally motivated and incorrect (Archaeology of Ayodhya). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mghori (talk • contribs) 06:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Marxist historians are big liars as per Allahabad High Court judgement as they all claiming there was no temple existed and Ayodhya was not a Holy place. They manipulated the free run given by Nehru to completely put their fictitious content as History all over universities and IHC with liberal help from anti Hindu groups from all over world.Mghori (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the evidences of R.S.Sharma being called a Marxist historian.

1. 'The Hindu' which itself is a left wing newspaper had this heading when R.S.Sharma passed away

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/marxist-historian-passes-away/article2379796.ece Marxist historian passes away

2. Communist party of India (marxist) own website gave glowing tributes to R.S.Sharma calling him a "People's historian", a term which they refer only to those with marxist ideological bent. https://www.cpim.org/content/ram-sharan-sharma-people%E2%80%99s-historian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.238.211 (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

[edit]

mghori,

what you are adding is not "well referenced material". It is original research. You cannot yourself say sharma was wrong. Find a reliable source that calls him wrong, and use it to quote that "X says sharma was wrong on ayodhya". Stop calling others vandals, when they remove your POV filled original research additions. In fact what you are doing here (calling the hindu a indian version of xinhua like it is a fact?) is borderline vandalism and POV pushing. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sodabottle Sharma been on several occasions given in writing that there was no temple existed. The reference is High court judgement. U call High court judgement not well referenced ? Is this not vandalism ? Hindu now well known for its pro- china view and Anti hindu. It needs to be brought out clearly. It is also suspected to be part of Divide India plan of China. Mghori (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sharma says something; hc says something. thats the extent of what the sources say. if someone else says hc's views were opposite of sharma, then use it to source the statement "someone else says hc's views are opposite of sharma's". anything else is original research. And stop this whole paranoid anti-hindu pro-china ranting. you are pushing your pov here.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
look at the current entry in the criticism section and how it reports a criticism. find someone reliable who calls sharma is motivated by such and such - add it in the same way. for instance "X has called sharma's stance on ayodhya is motivated by such and such". Th hc jugdgement is on the ayodhya issue and not on sharma. so find someone who is criticising sharma directly (i am sure you can dredge up elst or someone saying the same thing) and add it as X's opinion and not as fact--Sodabottle (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor article

[edit]

Very very poorly written article. How can you make statements like 'demolished the myth'? Any historian can only give arguments for or against a theory. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.65.138.198 (talk • contribs)

 Done Changed the wording. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ram Sharan Sharma. 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:

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) 23:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography needs to be trimmed

[edit]

The bibliography is too exhaustive and it should have only major contributions as by WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonkPupas (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ram_Sharan_Sharma&oldid=1204543150"