This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography India: Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Indian politics (assessed as Mid-importance). Hinduism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Belgium This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (Dec 2004–August 2009)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Elst never talked about nationalist claiming Taj to be theirs. Sarvepalli Gopal never mentioned Elst, you can paste that whole quote, you will find that wikipedia is only proof backing such quotation. Elst mentioned Gopal, but only as someone who had similar thoughts like himself. Which is not even criticism. Ayub Khan, Manini Chatterjee, are not notable, and they are not known for any other thing. "tactic against the freedom movement" is the actual, and sensible quote, I completed that. "been "proven" by prevalent standards of proof; even though one of the" even if it is not grammatical, that is what Elst wrote, it should be similar. N.S. Rajaram never mentioned Elst either. And the listed source doesn't exist, you can paste that quote(Rajaram) anywhere, only this page will be the result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.234.167 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also read "The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History" yourself, page 8-9. Hans Henrich Hock haven't even talked about Elst Koenraad. If you think I am wrong and you have sources, you can add them, but this is biography of living person like it is written above, you will need to be strict about sources, misleading or contentious cannot be awaited for these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.234.167 (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no idea what you are trying to argue here. Yes, Elst does ridicule the fringe of Hindu nationalist ideas such as claiming the Taj to be Hindu. See his blog here. I have no idea why you think the passage from "The Indo-Aryan Controversy" is relevant. What are you trying to say? That's just a summary of Elst's criticisms of Indo-Europeanists' arguments for the extra-Indian origin of PIE. You say "Sarvepalli Gopal never mentioned Elst, you can paste that whole quote, you will find that wikipedia is only proof backing such quotation." This is palpably false. It comes from p.21 of his book Anatomy of a Confrontation. For some reason it's falsely cited here to Elst's own book, which is probably the result of some bad cutting and merging of text in the past. Paul B (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree about him dismissing the oak's theories. But everything else should be confirmed before adding. He dismiss taj mahal theory, but you should present the way he has wrote them. I have explained other points before.

I've corrected the Gopal citation. You also say the Rajaram quotation doesn't exist because if you "paste" it you can't find a source. If you mean it doesn't come up in Google, so what? Not everything is online. You also say "the listed source doesn't exist". The source is The Pioneer. Of course it exists. It's the Daily Pioneer newspaper, for which Rajaram has written several articles. Here's its website. Paul B (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@IP: you're kind of missing the point here. If the citations are incorrect, they should be changed; but the way to go about doing this is not to delete them wholesale. Tag them, watch for a while, attempt to find them yourself, then delete. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, Thanks for that. If it is unavailable, I wouldn't be interrupting. Now it is all about the criticism section, It should keep Ramesh Nagaraj Rao's comment, but not Ayub Khan or Manini Chatterjee, they aren't notable. And there is a non-working link in see also — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.234.167 (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to be notable in their own right, just legitimate scholars/commentators on the relevant topic. Paul B (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sums up almost everything. So if I add some positive commentary about his work, what would be the title of section? "reactions"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.234.167 (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the Rao quotation, but it does seem to me to be rather - meaningless. He's not actually saying anything of substance. Still, several of the critical quotes are pretty meaningless too. So, Chatterjee complains that a book says "maybe". Big deal. Paul B (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TY for heads up. Same, I have found a number of them to be meaningless, but which ones are redundant, according to you? Let us know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.234.167 (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made account today. Me and Paul have agreed that Manini's comments are not notable or meaningful. We've also agreed that Nagaraj's view can be added. So I am not sure why Vanamonde93 added it back, and removed Nagarao's commentary.

The consensus here seems to be that Manini and Nagaraj have similar weight. See Paul's comment. So either add both, or neither. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) and Shrikanthv (talk · contribs) nominated the BLP article and all of the authors' book articles for deletion, one of the discussions centered on the serious NPOV violations in the article.

They were already brought up at this noticeboard at least once. Some improvements were then made by User:Collect, but they were reverted by another editor. The article may need to be protected.

The NPOV violations were explained in great detail by the subject of the lemma here:

• The wikipedia lemma on "Koenraad Elst": a textbook example of defamation
• Meera Nanda against Hinduism

These links say among other things:

Well, there you have it. The lemma on me has ended up taking this form because some militant among your contributors purposely wanted to “warn readers” against me. Please cite me an instruction for encyclopedists that names “warning” among the legitimate goals of an encyclopedia.

Either you remove the lemma altogether, or you straighten it out and apply the rules of encyclopedia-writing to it. At any rate, in a encyclopedia, I count on being judged for what I myself have said or done, and not for the gossip my declared enemies have come up with.

If Wikipedia wants to live up to its promise of being a reliable encyclopedic source, it will strike this and all sentences resembling it from its article on me. At most, it can use me as an example of how it was fooled by some of its all-too-partisan collaborators. Speaking of whom: the history page accompanying my page proves forever that some Wikipedia collaborators wanted to inflict on me the maximum harm possible, an attitude incompatible with work for an encyclopedia.

The old discussion was here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive178

Someone claiming to be the subject of the article Koenraad Elst has written a long blog post with a set of criticisms of the article. Some of the criticisms seem slightly overwrought but there's probably quite a few which are valid. Anyone want to sort this out? —Tom Morris (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well -- the BLP was replete with "claims" and polemical wording which I did a little clean-up on. Not a shining example of Wikipedia biographies in any case. More for others to work on. I specifically did not seek out the blog, bit worked from Wikipedia normal best practice on it. Collect (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will start by rewriting the lead. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]