Talk:Barun De

message: A self-claimed family member (and based on some past history, I believe that he is actually a family member), has requested that the nature of Barun De's death be removed from the article. While the information is adequately sourced, I don't know that it's absolutely critical to the article that it be kept; WP:BLP (which still applies, given that the person is recently dead) does give us some leeway to allow borderline information to be removed. I'm inclined to grant the request, because in this case there's no particular connection between the person's cause of death (you can still see it if you follow the references) and the person's notability. Does anyone object to the current phrasing? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That family member actually objected to any mention of the death and was edit warring on that basis. I don't object to omitting cause of death for now - I know how raw the feeling can be soon after a parent dies - but the fact that he has died and the date of death must appear in the article. It is basic stuff and to imply that he is still living by omitting such information is a gross dis-service. - Sitush (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illness and death 

message: I've made an attempt to improve the sourcing of this article but it is still a sea of blue tags. One contributor to this article has claimed to be De's son and I am a bit reluctant to remove statements that are still unsourced when their origin appears to be that person. The chances of them being wrong are fairly remote, especially since they, too, appear to hold academic posts. (You'll have to do your own research to verify this - I'm not prepared to out someone based on a claim made on-wiki).I'm pretty sure that there will be some academic obituaries published in learned journals in due course but these may take many months to turn up due to publishing schedules, peer review requirements etc. I do have access to JSTOR and will try to keep an eye on developments there. Anyone is welcome to remind me in a few months' time. And anything that remains unsourced at that time should, of course, be removed. - Sitush (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We are inviting a form of WP:CIRCULAR if we let the obituary writers refer to this unreferenced article when they are writing their obituaries. The result will be that everything here becomes the official version. I'd rather remove the uncited text, or comment it out, until it can be sourced. Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my concern with the Frontline source but there are so many significant differences (and now, it seems, a typo) that I figured it was independent. I'd be quite surprised if someone writing an obit for, say, Social Scientist were to base their statements on Wikipedia. However, feel free to remove or comment out. - Sitush (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources cited are being reverted. Telegraphindia.com cited by one editor is reliable. The same telegraphindia.com cited by another person has been reverted. This gives me to believe that the page presently being edited is not reliable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.181.199 (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the section immediately above this one (Circular Sources). The sources removed by Sitush are using material from Wikipedia and are therefore unreliable. --regentspark (comment) 13:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I included this bit in the page which has been edited: ""... as a senior professor of social and economic history "... http://www.telegraphindia.com/1130718/jsp/calcutta/story_17126553.jsp#UlcmEdaPqfA |title=Historian Barun De Dead in The Telegraph, 18 July 2013 ...". This source was not taken from Wikipedia. It was taken from Calcutta The Telegraph. I don't know what made the editor remove this source?Bikramjit De (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. regentspark: Yes, the newspaper articles that have been used were taken from the Wikipedia article that I wrote. Soon after my father passed away, journalists started coming to us or rang us for information on his life. Either, the information that you read in the newspapers were given by my mother, or my sister or me in addition to what the journalists read in the Wikipedia article which they were not all that aware of until I told them about it. I won't have any objection to what is written here so long as the information given on Wikipedia are not incorrect, which at the moment they are on my father's page: for instance my father was not on the faculty of the IIMC just as a program director, he was on the faculty as a senior professor of social and economic history. If that is doubted, then it can be checked with the IIMC administration. They'll be able to tell you. There is a photo of my father on google with his former student, Sh. Ajit Balakrishnan, the present chairman of the IIMC and Dr. Shekhar Chaudhuri, the present director of the IIMC. You could, if they have the time, ask them. There are numerous similar errors which I would be only too happy to point out to the editors of this journal, if my inputs are to be used, which would not only authenticate the article, but also will be welcomed and appreciated in large segments of the Calcutta society. My only concern is to see that the facts of his life are correctly given.Bikramjit De (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Bikramjit, it is not an error to say that Barun De was a program director at IIMC though it may not be the complete story. Wikipedia does not try to be complete but does try to ensure that everything that is actually included in an article is verifiable through independent sources. Verifiability requires that a reader be able to reasonably verify that the material is correct. Asking the reader to check with the son of the person whose biography it happens to be is not really a viable way of verifying facts.  If we can't ensure that the material can be reasonably verified, we exclude it. In the case of Barun De, unfortunately, most sources are dated after his death and, clearly, at least some of them have used unverifiable material from previous versions of this article and are hence not truly independent. Therefore we have to be extra careful in what we include here. Less, often, is greater than more. --regentspark (comment) 21:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: regentspark: Your argument is convincing. What is most heartening is your reasonableness. I fully appreciate that the complete story cannot be given by Wikipedia. But when a reader reads that Barun De was on the IIMC faculty as a program director, it appears that he was just that there and never held any academic post at the pre-eminent business school. That is not so, since he joined the place in 1963 as an associate professor, was promoted to a professor in 1965 and finally became a senior professor. He left the IIMC in 1973. His course was highly popular with the students, some of whom attained high posts in mercantile firms of those days, and a lot of whom remember him very fondly. To refer to him as just a program director is perhaps doing him an injustice. He wouldn't have liked it, since he wanted to be known as a scholar more than an administrator. Also, dates are very important. To a historian like him or his son, i.e. myself, incorrect citation of dates is historically unacceptable. He did not join the IIMC in 1965. He left Burdwan University in 1963 and joined the IIMC in the same year. But I can understand your constraints and the restrictions placed on your editing. What is most encouraging is that there are editors, like yourself, who are prepared to explain why certain edits have been done, and sometimes even make changes honouring the wishes of family members. And thanks very much for showing me how to sign out by typing the four tildes. I shall remember to do that every time I write something on Wikipedia.Bikramjit De (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again, regentspark.Bikramjit De (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've removed most of it. We're not using stuff that can only be sourced ultimately to your father or yourself. The fact that you are still quibbling about minor details on an almost daily basis shows a desire to manipulate the presentation of an image of your father regardless of our policies and I've had enough of it. RP may be prepared to play "good cop" with you but I am not: you have had a phenomenal number of explanations of our policies etc given to you by a variety of editors, not just RP, and it is clear to me that your primary purpose here is not to improve the encyclopedia but rather to get your own way. - Sitush (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sitush: I don't think I am quibbling about minor details. I am not showing any disregard to your policies. I have not made any changes regardless of what has been written. I have presented the data as it was, to the editors, who have made the changes. Nobody is playing the "good cop". I am not manipulating the presentation of an unfair image of my father either. I have just given the facts as they were. The facts and the dates were not correct, so I pointed that out based on the sources that were cited on the Wikipedia. You are free to block my account. The data I presented on Siddhartha Shankar Ray's page is corroborated above in the same article by someone else. You are free to change that as well. Or you can  write to his family members and ask them if I am correct or not? And for the latest edits on my father's page, it seems you want to turn it into a stub, or you want to remove it from Wikipedia. Please, do so. That way incorrect information will not be presented on my father on the internet.Bikramjit De (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sitush & regentspark: Professor Anup Sinha's obituary notice is perhaps the most authoritative and original one on my father. He spoke to none of us, or at least not to me, before writing this piece. He wrote it entirely on the basis of his own knowledge of my father. Thus his obituary is neither circular, nor biased. As far as not being popular, I don't know why that's being said, since he is one of the most well known economists of his generation, and anything he writes is popular and widely read, at least in Indian social science circles.Bikramjit De (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid that the well has been poisoned here. Too many obituaries from around that time were clearly based on our article and your comments. "Popular" was a reference not to the person but to the medium (eg: not a peer-reviewed academic journal) and please note that you have consistently opposed another obituary written by an academic on the grounds that he did not consult you. You cannot have it both ways.Yes, the situation is unfortunate but if you had followed our policies in the first place then none of this would have arisen. I have little doubt that at some point it will be possible to source his early education. For example, Nuffield College has its own journal and will record his death in due course. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor of the Wikipedia is free to do what he/she wants to with my father, Barun De's page. Since I have put it up on the Wikipedia I cannot expect it not to be edited by anonymous editors. My only concern is to see that no incorrect information is entered or data is manipulated to present an incorrect view of the man that would have hurt him. I did know my father nearly as well as myself - to borrow an idea from his friend from Presidency College, Calcutta, Amartya Sen - and I do know how badly hurt he used to be by some of the comments that some of his self appointed proteges, such as Dipesh Chakrabarty and Rudrangshu Mukherjee used to make and are still making about him. I don't care what is said about him. To me all the recognitions he got don't matter. He was my father, and that is what matters to me only. I published Anup Sinha's article because that may be unbiased piece, or so I think. I do not know Sinha well, nor do I believe he knew about my father more than me. Also, please, do note that I do not care if some people are intent on suggesting that I have violated rules on the Wikipedia. If my father's reputation is hurt on it, I will object. Please, do not call my father a bureaucrat, because that used to hurt him immeseaurably. And no, Sitush, he did not hold "... various official positions, such as professorship at the Indian Insitute of Management, Calcutta.". A professorship is not an official position, it is an academic position. Please, do not seek to in any way damage my father's reputation, even if that is on the internet. That is an offensive act. And please, could you kindly stop misappropriating my father, Barun De, whom you may not have known even. If you do not want his page on your esteemed journal, then close it down, but you may not behave as if Barun De was your prerogative.Bikramjit De (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Shut. Up. With. Your. Moaning. Please. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I won't fall silent. And no, I am not moaning. And please, don't misbehave. Do not use abusive words. You are not allowed to. Please, don't start believing that because you are an editor of the Wikipedia, you can insult other people there.  And do not write derogatorily about my father, Barun De, on the Wikpedia. I am taking note of every comment you are posting.Bikramjit De (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Probably not. But  is definitely not involved if he could review the situation here. --regentspark (comment) 12:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

text: You have made three reverts to the article (here, here and here) since you semi-protected it on 2 Sept. I presume that you were not involved at that point. You've made several comments in several places, mainly because of various IPs being used etc.I lost my rag above. Yes, I should not have done but the provocation has been considerable and I do not claim to be saintly in manner. You've tested my limit, Bikramjit, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: It used to be the case that we did not show honorary degrees. I think that the basis was such things reflect the awarding institution more than the recipient but I've no idea if it was policy or just a consensus formed somewhere. Does anyone know more about this? - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorary degrees 

message: It is becoming evident to me that various sources have taken information from our article as it was on 14 July 2013. For example, the IANS source of 17 July which I have just removed uses phrases such as "At IIM Calcutta he was the first Indian Post-Graduate Programme Director, and contributed to the setting up of the management diploma course there.", which is lifted straight from our article. I really do think that we have a pretty hopeless situation until an academic obituary appears. - Sitush (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Another example: we said on 14 July that "After his graduation he went to St Catherine's Society, Oxford to complete a second B.A. in History and later obtained an M.A. from the University of Oxford". The Times of India said on 19 July that "After graduation, he went to St Catherine's Society, Oxford, to complete his second BA in history and later did his MA from the University of Oxford." Ultimately, the problem here is that this article was crap prior to his death and the lack of sourcing at that point has landed us with major plagiarism issues wrt Indian media sources. - Sitush (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We said on 14 July that " He has specialised in the social and economic history of India in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Bengal Renaissance, and British constitutional history". The ToI said the same on 19 July; the Hindustan Times is fairly similar (and gets his date of death screwed up, I think); The Telegraph is identical ... and on we go. - Sitush (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular sources 

message: This article is being edited and managed by editors who have little or no knowledge of Barun De, and have doubtfully met him too many times or at all. An article on Barun De need not be left in the hands of those who did not know him. If a reliable group of editors cannot be found, this article should then be removed from the Wikipedia.117.194.232.218 (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Unrealiability

message: The editors of the page on Professor Barun De seem to have disregarded the views and sentiments of the son of Prof. De who had opened this page way back in 2007. When the page was opened Prof. De had clearly stated that no Wikipedia article on him should be opened, but his son still opened one. Details on his mother which he subsequently dictated to his son were deleted by an editor against the wishes of the author. The article was shortened, which is well taken, since a small article is always nicer to read than a bigger one. Since Prof. De's passing away in July 2013 some anonymous editors or editors with fictitious names - JamesBWatson seems to be a fictitious name - have taken over the page against the wishes of the author, i.e. Prof. De's son, and have been inserting details that the author does not want to be written here. It is the sincere wish of the author that the birth and death dates of Prof. Barun De be removed for entirely personal reasons, which he doesn't want to mention here on the Wikipedia which is too public for him and his mother. If this request cannot be kept and since there can be no agreement on this issue between the editors and the son then closing down the page seems to be the only option left. This has been stated clearly to the editors who are being consistently arbitrary in their responses. What is most unfortunate is that the editors may or may not have known Prof. De at all. It is unfortunate that Prof. De's article on the Wikipedia should be usurped by people who did not know him and who also did not open this page from his son for whom his father's reputation is more important than his own. Even though this is just a Wikipedia article this is a matter of grave importance to Prof. De's son.
117.194.232.42 (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a Wikipedia page about Barun De, it is not owned by anyone, other than Wikipedia.In particular people close to the subject have a conflict of interest and are the last people who should to decide, or even influence, what should, or should not, be included.We will certainly not "close down the page" on the request anyone - especially an entirely unknown IP editor.Your accusations against User:JamesBWatson, a well respected and long serving Administrator, are equally misplaced. Given that we will not "close" the page, if you wish to propose changes, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the author will decide what is appropriate for himself and what is not. He isn't waiting for any fictitious editor to call the shots for him. One editor's page does say that the name given out is not his. Thus the claim that the author made. It wasn't an accusation nor is it misplaced. As for your prerogative to keep the page open, what can be done about it. If a group of anonymous people have nothing else to do other than damage articles on specific people on the Wikipedia then that is there concern, not the author's. After all this, you may even insert very damaging comments about the author's father, which will remain on the page for everyone to see. And it will also be more than evident who is inserting those comments. After that it is really your responsibility to make derisive comments about the person on whom the page is opened. The author, whose identity is now known, reserves the right to point out the limits of the law. Cheers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.237.180 (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Bikramjit, you have a legal background and are feel free to sue anyone you like. But you'll be blocked here while you do so, per WP:NLT. Really, I think perhaps you should have heeded your father's wishes in the first place and/or taken note of Wikipedia's legal arrangements regarding licensing etc  when you created the article: the issues about which you complain at a meta level are of your own making, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what makes you come in suddenly, after having spoken through proxies for a while? You suddenly seem to be very alarmed? What makes you feel so alarmed? As for the limits of the law, I pointed out what they are. Pointing out the limits of the law and threatening legal action are two different things. I thought you would know that! Since you say that I didn't know anything about licensing on the Wikipedia the article may not be valid. An invalid article should have been removed. Why was it allowed to remain untouched by anyone else other than the author well after his father's passing away. It remained untouched for more than six years. Why did you suddenly get so deeply interested in the article after six years of its publication. Instead of telling me that it was not licensed - whatever the points of law are - you proceeded to damage the article without my knowledge. Usurping an invalid article which doesn't fulfill all the rules of licensing is even more problematic. But there is no point in explaining all this to someone who is not only usurping another person's article but is also plain rude. Additionally, your language is extremely unconstitutional.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.243.32 (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2014 

message: As I said in the above thread this guy, if he is notable, is only as director of a research institution and as editor of the district gazetteers for one Indian state (among 28). While he technically passes WP:GNG because of newspaper reports by clueless journalists, there is no evidence that De is noteworthy as a scholar (based on citation counts) or as an author (based on book reviews).
The editorship of the district gazetteers is also of suspect notability. Henry Scholberg lists 1,344 district gazetteers in 1970 (guessing the figure has crossed 2000 by now), 630 for the Bengal province (note: Bangladesh included) alone. Do all of the "editors" of the 1,344 district gazetteers are notable enough for WP articles? Note that the gazetteers published after 1947 have had very little "new information" to share, so likely they were copy pastes of the British versions. Can someone provide any other evidence of notability and explain the citation anomaly? Pinging some previous contributors to this article: , , , , , . Solomon7968 15:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: He possibly does, especially if someone were to trawl through native-language sources. That said, I wouldn't oppose someone taking this to AfD. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: I have done some cleaning up. This article is again getting out of control as a member of the De family attempts to document every trivial thing that their relative did. We're not interested in that level of detail: he was good at getting himself on committees etc, which indicates perhaps that he was good at using the Old Boy Network. Let's leave it there, shall we? - Sitush (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Trivial details should be deleted. But major appointments are not trivial details. Some major appointments were also deleted. Whether De was good at using the Old Boy Network is irrelevant. Also, which Bikramjit are you talking to?117.194.231.249 (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about the Bikramjit who IP-hopped using BSNL from Kolkata and who had an obsession with this guy, including a tendency to misrepresent the sources. You might want to read WP:DUCK and WP:BEANS.Define "major appointment". - Sitush (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So, should you do two things: (a.) be a lot less rude, because there's simply no cause for rudeness here? and (b.) refer the article to AfD?117.194.235.0 (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Also, I think you might be imagining an edit clash. You are carrying on a tirade with an imagined foe all by yourself on the internet, on which you seem to have a lot of time to waste.117.194.235.0 (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not an AfD candidate. You, however, need to take care otherwise the article will be semi-protected again. I can't believe the amount of disruption that has been caused by this piddling little article about a fairly obscure lifelong committee man. - Sitush (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detail 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Barun De. 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/20131010131755/http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/kolkata/Historian-Barun-De-passes-away/Article-1094187.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/kolkata/Historian-Barun-De-passes-away/Article-1094187.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Barun De. 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/20150226153443/http://www.victoriamemorial-cal.org/official_info/victoria_newsletter_feb2014.pdf to http://www.victoriamemorial-cal.org/official_info/victoria_newsletter_feb2014.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150226153443/http://www.victoriamemorial-cal.org/official_info/victoria_newsletter_feb2014.pdf to http://www.victoriamemorial-cal.org/official_info/victoria_newsletter_feb2014.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified