Talk:V. T. Rajshekar

message: :Past edits to this article were ridiculous and laughable. Nothing was sourced and the article was clearly edited by Rajshekhar's fringe supporters. I have changed the article with SOURCED statements establishing his extremist views and balanced the article out. Henceforth, please don't vandalize the article with garbage and follow wikipedia's rules while editing.Hkelkar 05:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ridiculous

message: Why would a book by Elst be an adequate source for this statement? 
As you know, this writer is himself a controversial figure and many editors, including myself, have argued that he doesn't count as an academic source. But whether he is an academic or not is not relevant to this particular point. As you know, big claims need big evidence, and what is needed here is a *news* source, rather than an academic book. There is no reason to think that Elst would be privy to any inside information that the rest of us do not have access to. 
As I read about Rajshekar's political positions I can easily understand that a mainstream publication like the Indian Express would have eventually found his views to be too way out for them. But that is not the same as proving that he was dismissed as opposed to, for instance, reaching an agreement with the newspaper that he would resign. Perhaps a search in the news archives for the dates around the time of his departure might yield something to indicate the circumstances under which he left. For example, did he write a departing article or did the newspaper include a statement about his departure? What did the other major papers say? Itsmejudith 09:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Valid questions.I will research Rajshekhar's dismissal. However, Elst is presently the most reliable source I could find so it stays.Are you accusing Elst of lying?WP:AGF!!Hkelkar 10:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much for offering to research the circumstances of his departure from Indian Express. WP:AGF applies to us in the WP community, not to sources. We must always read sources with a sceptical eye. Although I am not accusing Elst of deliberately lying perhaps he was repeating as fact something that was only rumour. Or he might have been trying to provoke Rajshekar into responding. That's why, especially when making claims about living people, we have to restrict ourselves to sources that are fact-checked. Itsmejudith 10:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you, but unless there is a published document of some kind that confirms this - so that a reader of the encyclopedia could check if necessary - there is no reliable source for him being dismissed and the article should simply state that he worked for the Indian Express for a certain time. Itsmejudith 21:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing for dismissal statement 

message: I recommend making a publications section, with seperate subsections for Books, and Pamphlets, and splitting all the pubs up that way. (If anyone knows which are which). Crockspot 15:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Publications

message: I have added a POV tag as this article shows systemic bias towards anti-anti-semitism. This chap is Indian, and so far as one can tell from the little information given (especially the book list) mainly concerned with Indian issues, but the article doesn't reflect that. Hoylake 14:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV systemic-bias mess

message: #Too much whitewash. You have removed several references that showcase his anti-Hindu and anti-semitic views
#His support for Islamic terrorism needs to be added
#basically you can't remove Elst's quotes for the reasons that they are attributed (not used as secondary and tertiary sources) and that they are supported by authoritative sources in this case.
(will add more)Hkelkar 00:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is ridiculous. I've read several of Rajshekar's books. He's a nutcase, but this article greatly distorts his views, presenting him as some sort of neo-Nazi obsessed with Jews! I don't remember reading anything about Jews in the booklets of his I've read, an his references to Nazis are all about their alleged links to Brahmanism - presenting the latter as the model for the nasty Nazis. Paul B 11:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been definite antisemitic statements in DV, which can be cited here. But the article is badly structured and gives too much weight to the antisemitism dimension rather than to the attempted critique of Brahamanism. Please go ahead and re-order, summarise and add salient facts. Itsmejudith 14:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Itsmejudith is correct, there is a little too much focus on his anti-Semitism and not enough focus on his polemic anti-Hindu rants.Bakaman 17:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Several problems with this version

message: Please let us try to keep this article as neutral as possible, given that the subject is a very controversial writer. His viewpoints should be briefly explained here, although I think a lot of the detail should be in the Dalit Voice article instead. Adding him to all sorts of categories does not help the article towards neutrality. It is not necessary if we have summarised the viewpoints carefully in the article. Itsmejudith 15:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if the categories are appropriate. Categories exist for a reason, namely to guide the reader, which, in this case, it does. Rajshekhar's views are virtually identical to those of Lyndon LaRouche, David Duke and Mahmud Ahmadinejad, and his abuse of academic history to further political propaganda is along the likes of his ideological opposite PN Oak, all of whom are listed in these categories. Nahartasanhedrin 15:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: His views can't be identical to the views of LaRouche AND Ahmadinejad, sorry. All this would be much easier were the article properly sourced. Itsmejudith 15:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are as far as Jews are concerned, which is why this fellow openly supported Ahmadinejad's holocaust denial (and, for all intents and purposes, subscribes to the same conspiracy theories as LaRouche). Nahartasanhedrin 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case what you need is a recent quote from DV or another publication of his (hopefully DV because it's online, not one of the pamphlets) denying the holocaust, and then he can be added to the category "holocaust deniers". Sorry, but what you see as "for all intents and purposes" I see as WP:OR. I notice that while LaRouche is in Category:Conspiracy theorists but not Category:Antisemitism it is the other way round for Ahmadinejad. Let's just keep this as a short article sticking to the known facts. See Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin for examples - except they were important historical figures, while the subject of this article isn't. Itsmejudith 16:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this and this and this then? Nahartasanhedrin 16:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this for Jewish conspiracy theories? How about this] for antisemitic accusation of "Jewish Lobby"Nahartasanhedrin 16:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's antisemitic. It's in Dalit Voice. Would be better added to that article, since none of the pieces are signed by Rajshekar. Also, the article should really be written up from secondary sources. DV in this context is a primary source. Look, I honestly do not want to keep out of the article everything that might reflect badly on the subject. However, it still is a biography of a living person. It should be impeccably referenced. Itsmejudith 16:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: I completely understand the desire not to let incorrect statements stand, but this way of dealing with the problem reads awkwardly. I'm going to ask for advice on how best to handle it. Itsmejudith 20:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meanwhile if anyone can show parallels in other articles (preferably GA, FA) then that would be great. Itsmejudith 20:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know the best way to deal with it either, obviously.  At the same time, I think my insertion of "incorrect" was accurate, while the one that came later (here) was, well, in a word, incorrect, which is why I reverted it, explaining my reversion to the editor who made it on his talk page.  Cheers, Tomertalk 04:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to deal with incorrect statements? 

message: Everything in the article seems sourced, and I was considering removing the tag. However, the tag was originally placed to indicate that the article focussed too heavily on antisemitism which is presumably a small fraction of his views and not those he is notable for in India. (Presumably anti-Brahminism is more important.) 
Given that, I'm leaving it on for now, but adding :Template:Globalize which I think is what is actually needed. Relata refero (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, thanks. There is one reference to the Dalit Voice website that does not link to any particular article and is thus pointless. The references to the publication are also quite old. The two from the early 1990s are, I think, those cited by Leon Poliakov in the last volume of his history of antisemitism. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the POV template