Talk:Robert Caldwell

message: Dr Y Vincent Kumaradoss' publication in India of the first full biography in English of this influential missionary has been the impetus behind the recent expansion since 22 September 2007 of the original text on this page (plus notes and references). 
This has caused just one correction to the previous text - at the beginning of the second paragraph. As both Kumaradoss and Trautmann point out, Caldwell was not "the first European to propose that the South Indian languages …formed a separate language family", but he was responsible for the "consolidation of the proof".
Footnoter 19:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bishop Robert Caldwell 

message: "most comprehensive single work".. "amazing levels of conversion".. the article carries heavy pro-Caldwell POV and should be balanced -Ravichandar 02:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Was involved in the Druce-Portland affair (see William John Cavendish Bentinck-Scott, 5th Duke of Portland (1800-1879)) Jackiespeel (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Caldwell in the Druce-Portland affair was a "Robert C. Caldwell of New York". Salmanazar (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Robert Caldwell

message: The article is strongly and specifically referenced and almost all the statements are substantiated in the Notes and References. The writers/editors also have had the advantage of a detailed biographical study of the subject written by an Indian, Dr Vincent Kumaradoss, the history professor at the Madras Christan College, University of Chennai, and published by ISPCK in Delhi last year. See Footnoter’s comment above.
Ravichandar quotes two phrases to indicate ‘bias’. The first, “most comprehensive single work”, is a direct quotation from an assessment made by Dr Robert Frykenberg, Professor Emeritus of History & South Asian Studies at the University of Wisconsin - Madison, one of the leading authorities on Caldwell’s written works, and is referenced accordingly in Notes. The phrase is also preceded by the word “perhaps” and the basis of his assessment – “archaeological, epigraphic and literary sources”.
The other example, suggesting ‘bias’, quoted by Ravichandar is the phrase “amazing levels of conversion”, but the word “amazing” does not occur at all in the piece. The actual phrase indicated reads “…achieved levels of Christian conversion among the lower castes almost unheard of in India”. This is not a general unverifiable statement, but a specific comparison relating to caste and Christianity in India as a whole, which is established in Kumaradoss’ book and elsewhere in the references. The sentence which follows it and which is referenced in the Notes, begins to explain how this was achieved, i.e. by adopting “some of the methods of the Lutheran missionaries …”.
Malpus (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If Vincent Kumaradoss uses such words, you ought to state in the article that Kumaradoss uses them. Even if the article itself is neutral, the usage of such terms isn't permitted. See Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. I am sorry. I wasn't keeping track of this talk page for a long time.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 15:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree such terms are not necessary in an encylopedic project. We try to explaian his work in neutral  tone which the article now achives. Taprobanus (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on NPOV 

message: There is already a section in this talk page about NPOV. In order to make this article encyclopedic we need to change the language in the text to mention where necessary that the views expressed are that of such and such personality like Kumaradoss. We should also make the article more balanced by including some of the dissenting views on Robert Caldwell's contribution and theories which have been published by scholars. My recent edit was reverted by Dravidianhero   who seems not to agree with such balancing and accused my edits of being original research, without explanation on which edits were in his view "original research" which I had provided references. Revert of edits about Dr. R. Nagaswamy and his book "Mirror of Tamil and Sanskrit" were the most shocking and indicate a clear bias against any contrarian view. I believe political motivations should not be used to create biographical articles and all dimensions of the life and work of the person concerned should be addressed. I hope people will participate in reviewing other such edits to this article which were reverted  by some opinionated gatekeepers. Expecting explanation for each revert by user Dravidianhero(talk). Indoscope (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nagaswamy says nothing about Caldwell in the source. That's your synthesis and falls under original research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position . It's also not clear which reputed scholars in Dravidian linguistics reviewed this book, hence there is no basis for adding its content anywhere in wikipedia until this is cleared. Way to go for your fanatic promotion of fringe views.-- Dravidian  Hero  19:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV has been cited by many editors lets not get into edit wars. Let other editors review the content and my edits also. Do not remove POV template. Nagaswamy makes assertion about influence of Sanskrit on Tamil which was relevant for the section where his work was cited. Anyways this issues not going to be resolved by my getting into arguments with you. You are clearly a hard lined gatekeeper. Please be warned that neutrality of the article and keeping autobiography balanced is of utmost importance and several editor have made the same point about this. I have not reverted my edits to article which you have deleted because I don't wish to get into edit wars with you. Let other editors review the neutrality of this article also. A flag had to be raised which I have done.Indoscope (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The NPOV complaints are almost 4 1/2 years ago, you can't use them as evidence for the current state of the article. And reverting the edit about Nagaswamy was correct so far as I can tell if he doesn't discuss Caldwell. If you want to keep the NPOV tag you will have to have more specific suggestions. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balancing the Article with All views about Robert Cladwell 

message: The following stood out as I was reading from this article:
"The caste system was an exploitative, violent and dehumanizing ideology that served the interests of high-caste Hindus. In keeping with his Christian beliefs and very much to his credit, Campbell was absolutely opposed to the caste system and sincerely committed to the welfare of the Shanar people whom he believed could be liberated from casteist oppression through evangelism."
This is quite blatantly an example of bias. It reads like part of an opinion piece rather than an impartial encyclopedia article.
Graaaaaagh (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  More concerns regarding bias 

message: The publication of the following book seems to have been done in Madras first, in 1849.https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100850066"The Tinnevelly Shanars : a sketch of their religion and their moral condition and characteristics : with special reference to the facilities and hindrances to the progress of Christianity amongst them"--Mageshsai (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books