Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru

message: I don't think AI colored Photos should be on Wikipedia 2604:CA00:13C:39C0:0:0:E67:54B5 (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  AI Colored Photos 

message: An editor has carried complete reverts to my edits stating that a particular source (Tharoor, Nehru: the invention of India) is not reliable. I have various objections. 
First, I have added material that does not rely on this particular source alone. However, these edits are also being blanked as part of complete reverts. I do not think the user has gone through the entire material I have edited. 
Second, I can easily replace the "problematic" source. Tharoor relies on other scholarly works and autobiographical writings of Nehru. I am already in the process of adding the relevant primary sources, and removing Tharoor, if neccessary. 
Thirds, I have edited the lead section to be more concise and better reflect the main contents of the article. I do not understand what possible objections are being raised to blank these edits too. I think it could be more concise, but I am not sure why anybody could be in the favour of blanking it altogether?
I am taking the criticism in good faith, but I am not sure proper justifications have been offered to contest my edits. . Exdg77 (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Tharoor has been completely replaced wherever I cited him with scholarly alternatives. I hope this will please everyone.  Exdg77 (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't consider Shashi Tharoor's works to be reliable sources [for this article]. Anything sourced to his works, I'd consider as his opinion and include only where it's W:DUE. Still applies even if there are other citations supporting the content. Please use secondary scholarly sources. A blind search on JSTOR yields 25,000+ results. Also, please restrict usage of primary sources, except only where it's due. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 10:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, thanks for the feedback. I have already edited out Tharoor and replaced him with secondary scholarly sources by authors such as Bal Ram Nanda and Sarvepalli Gopal, among others.  I have only cited primary sources for quoting Nehru on certain points, and restricted their usage to places where I thought these would be helpful for additional context. I prefer to find these quotations in secondary literature, if possible. It was not difficult to replace Tharoor because I was not following a unique narrative account from his book. The facts of Nehru's life are well-established, and it seems more that Tharoor was paraphrasing secondary scholarly works (and Nehru), albeit with his own spin here and there. Anything that was uniquely Tharoor is gone, not that there was much of that to begin with (if at all?). I contend that whatever is there now is well-supported by relevant secondary scholarly works by Nanda, Gopal et al. Please do let me know if there are any other issues. Exdg77 (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to clarify, I have thorougly reviewed the newer scholarly sources that I have cited; I did not just find them in Tharoor, who doesn't include references anyway (I am beginning to realize why citing Tharoor was a bad idea). Besides that, I have one question. There is a "secret report" Nehru made about the League Against Imperialism to the Congress which I can only find in Tharoor and M J Akbar. Since one editor was finding Tharoor objectionable, I replaced that citation with Akbar. However, I wonder if Akbar might be considered problematic in light of objections to Tharoor? I would like to find the report, but both Tharoor and Akbar have the bad habit of not including footnotes or endnotes. Akbar does have an extensive bibliography. Exdg77 (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: MJ Akbar is opposition politician and Tharoor's work has lots of factual errors. You cannot use either. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are not being constructive. Thraroor has been completely removed and the material has been sourced to reliable secondary scholarly works. MJ Akbar (a Bharatiya Janata Party politician, not "opposition" btw) is only used for one sentence! You are justifying blanking everything else on that? I  Exdg77 (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of the newer material never even cited Tharoor to begin with, and it's all being blanked too. I don't understand what you are doing. Exdg77 (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, I just noticed that you have agreed about the edits to the main body of the article, and only reverted changes to the lead. Might I enquire what are your objections to the lead? You did not offer a reason for reverting the changes. It is a summary of the main body of the article, and I included citations. I think my edits were a substantial improvement. Exdg77 (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  The user User:Fowler&fowler has also reverted the lead. I had sounded him out on the topic on his talk page, and I am going to defer to his rationale for doing so, and take into account his advice for future changes. Unless anybody has another issue, I guess this dispute is closed now. Exdg77 (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing dispute 

message: Add Category:Indian critics of religions 73.3.170.99 (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2024