Talk:Koenraad Elst: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by Akshar100 - "Added some comments to change the article." |
Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs) →Recent Reverts: new section |
||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
5. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Akshar100|Akshar100]] ([[User talk:Akshar100|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Akshar100|contribs]]) 23:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
5. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Akshar100|Akshar100]] ([[User talk:Akshar100|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Akshar100|contribs]]) 23:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Recent Reverts == |
|||
@IP; I agree that any source should ideally have a page number. However, the lack of such is not sufficient to dismiss a source. Tag it, and if nobody responds for a while, remove the material. As it is currently presented, the material is definitely notable, so simply removing it is unacceptable. I have no objections to the stuff you added. I would also point out that many of the sources you added did not have page numbers. Cheers, [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 17:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:55, 11 March 2014
| This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
criticism
mghori,
If you can add elst's responses to critics with reliable sources add them. Else stop removing the referenced portions from criticism section.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sodabottle
- All are referenced are sources who are known for known leftist views. Please do not if you do not find response.
- Mghori (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- so leftist sources cannot be used? it is criticism from reliable sources and can be included. if you can find elst's reponses add them. else stop removing these.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Non-factual and Subjectivity of the article
1. Elst is one of the few western writers (along with François Gautier) to actively defend the Hindutva ideology.
Koenraad Elst is not a supporter of Hindutva ideology as claimed by the current version of this article. Also, comparing him to Francois Gautier is also fallacious. Elst is a researcher who has spent time researching Hindu renaissance in post-independent India and it's effects on Indian politics. His research includes very harsh criticism of "Hindutva" as well. In fact his book "BJP vis-a-vis Hindu Resurgence" gives a very detailed criticism of BJP and Hindutva ideology. I would be non-factual to label Elst as a supporter of Hindutva in this light. [1]
Hindutva ideology is the ideology put forward by RSS and BJP in India and Elst remains a critic of both these organizations and their ideology.
I suggest we replace the sentence with *Elst is one of the few researchers to have worked on ideological development of Hindu revivalism.* That was the title of his PHd thesis.
2. Many of these writings are featured in right-wing publications.
This might be factually correct but totally meaningless because Elst has also featured prominently in left-wing publications as well. He has also published in totally apolitical journals such as Inforiënt. The right-wing words seems selective and biased.
Elst started his public life in 1989 with an article about the Satanic Verses affair in the Communist weekly Toestanden. *I suggest we remove the right-wing word*.
3. that may focus on criticism of Islam,
If we are not sure that it focused on criticism of Islam we should remove this sentence or add relevant citations to prove that the paper clearly focused on criticism of Islam.
4. "At the end of March 2008, Koenraad Elst ridiculed Hugo Claus's decision to undergo euthanasia, claiming that it was influenced by the purple agnostic lobby to embarrass the Roman Catholic Church.[39]"
Totally incorrect. The article published by Elst was modified by the editor of that paper without his permission. Elst later not only clarified this but also stopped writing for the paper. Koenraad Elst is a vocal supporter to euthanasia. Elst has rebutted his Wikipedia claim here: [2]
5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshar100 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Recent Reverts
@IP; I agree that any source should ideally have a page number. However, the lack of such is not sufficient to dismiss a source. Tag it, and if nobody responds for a while, remove the material. As it is currently presented, the material is definitely notable, so simply removing it is unacceptable. I have no objections to the stuff you added. I would also point out that many of the sources you added did not have page numbers. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
