Talk:Romila Thapar

message: There was a recent controversy on Thapar's Professor Emeritus status (~ September '19). Here is a source. I am not sure whether this should be added to the biography now.  can you please suggest? AyushMukherjee376 (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What we need really is a paragraph or section on her post-retirement activities. If we have such a paragraph, then this can go in there. But just mentioning something that hits the headlines would be out of place. It would fall into the WP:NOTNEWS category. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I’ve added that section by mentioning some developments around it. I named that section as ‘Public Disagreement’ involving appointment to library of congress and JNU CV thing. There’s enough and multiple coverage in independent source regarding this. So, IMHO, this’s not case of WP:NOTNEWS.— Harshil want to talk? 14:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I noticed. This tidbit can be added there too, I suppose. But the whole section is not a biographical section. It is chasing the headlines. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be edited afterwards and moved to another section per consensus. But I think that this was not regular coverage, I tried to enlist as many as reference possible including both sides. I added there because her appointment to library also had caused some controversy. — Harshil want to talk? 15:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have concerns that that section fails WP:NOTNEWS. There's only allegations there; there's no substance. If there's any sources that treat these incidents as part of larger trends related to her legacy as an academic (for instance, as part of a conflict between the current Indian government and mainstream historians) it would be a different matter; this he said she stuff is not encyclopedic, it's the stuff of online newspapers. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest removing it. If it becomes an issue, i.e., something that is discussed in broader sources as something that fits into a pattern of harassment of Thapar, then, perhaps, it could be included. As written, it is not at all clear if this is just a bureaucratic mess or something targeted at Thapar. Including it here makes it seem like the former and that inclusion itself is likely WP:OR. I'll let Harshill69 do the honors but it should go. --regentspark (comment) 17:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it already has wider coverage. There are many opeds written in reliable sources like the hindu, telegraph India, toi and others in support/oppose of this step. Even Romila gave interviews to multiple channels and attacked administrative people for this. — Harshil want to talk? 17:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , I do not understand this proposed section is different from the "Appointment to Library of Congress" section already present. Can you explain how something is deemed to become an issue as it relates to biographies? AyushMukherjee376 (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The library of congress section says that the petition targeted Thapar. In the JNU CV section, at least from what's written here, it is unclear whether this was targeting Thapar or whether it was a bureaucratic mishap. If there are more sources as Harshill69 says, and they are reliable enough to show that this wasn't just a bureaucratic mixup, then, it should be included as long as the sources are clear that Thapar was targeted. (I'm just going by what I'm seeing in our article).--regentspark (comment) 18:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , I understand what you are saying. If I remember correctly, there are letters by three JNU-related non-news sources on this issue -- The JNU Teachers' Association, the administration and Thapar herself. As Harshil169 says, there are also secondary sources (Hindu, Telegraph India and Times of India) which cover these, both as op-eds and as news. To confirm, would a collection of these sources suffice? If so, I shall try writing a draft and adding it here before posting it on the main page. --ayush (reach out) 07:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

text: User:Harshil169 if  is going to post some controversial content into the article then it is a good idea to post the content on the talk page first and seek feedback WP:CONSENSUS. Our WP:BLP policies need strict adherence. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding recent JNU Professor Emeritus Status Controversy 

message: What is her education/qualification? Is she married? Does she have children? What is her political affiliation? What Indian laguages can she speak like Prakrit/Pali/Kannada/Bojpuri/Sanskrit?. Can someone with info add them please?
~rAGU (talk)
Yes, that's what you need to know about an academic nearly 90 years old. NRPanikker (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the information is available in this book. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life 

message: An editor has been insistently adding "Marxist" or "left-leaning" despite my protests that they no do so, especially to a longstanding BLP lead. Pinging some regulars and admins:  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted their latest edit. The last t/p discussion on the issue, which happened about two years ago, has an obvious consensus. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxist or left-leaning