Talk:Rahul Easwar - Knowledge

718:

program as cited by the tabloid DNA. This page had previously listed Rahul Eashwar's education was at LSE and IIM(A) Now lists only IIM(A). As pointed out multiple times by many editors before, this page has reverted to claims (without explanations on talk) that Rahul Eashwar is an author and his Alma mater is LSE without any primary source of citations without discussing it here or giving any reasons for edit. The claims that he is a philosophy author and alumnus of LSE and IIM is not credible and doesn't cite any sources other than some newspaper article which had probably picked it up from press handouts by Eashwar himself and/or earlier version of this page or his social media pages. If he is actually a philosophy author there should be a section about his books and his education before claiming authorship and Alma mater. I had contacted Mr.Eashwar about these claims by email that is publicly available on his website before doing the edits and received no reply. Furthermore, if someone who is making these edits should provide reasons for the edit and here on the talk pages which is not to be found. I have made major edits about Authorship: Removed the description which states that Rahul Eashwar is an author as there is no record of his authorship or books. As others have stated and the section as author was already removed there is is no verifiable source to prove that he is an author. Anyone claiming he is an author should add a section on this page about his published works. Also added Hindu Activist as there are numerous sources for his activism the sources are in the reference section. Removed "Alma Mater: London School of Economics IIM(A)". The Biography page of Rahul Eashwar says that his Alma Mater is London School of Economics for which the only sources are some newspaper articles (Who probably picked it up from this Knowledge page or his social media self-claims or a handout by him to the Journalists). There is no public record of him attending London School of Economics or any information about his higher education there, what he studied there, what degree he obtained other than his own claims. About IIM(A) the only available source is an article published on a newspaper. The entry is not verifiable

379:. Arguments like "wikipedia needs to be comprehensive, it is not a 'tell only positive' space. Controversies needs to be added" hold no water in this case. The content is clearly not written in a proper encyclopedic tone, which it would need to be even if it were worthy of inclusion. As noted, the content is vague. "getting close to" is uselessly vague and colloquial. Are we talking about a sexual relationship? Did either Jolly or Easwar confirm that they had a sexual affair? If not, the content should be cut immediately without further discussion, because "sexual affair" is what the section is heavily implying, and if we're seriously going to have a controversy section on the basis that two people flirted a bit, that's completely idiotic. 1058:

the article is not supported in any of the resources given. Coming from the same community as the person about whom the article is, the lay-person perspective on him is that he is a controversial figure. His arguments don't carry any weight, are most often terrible and invalid, and he's brought on to news debates because he is very animated. This is merely my personal opinion, which has no place in an article, but, it does appear to me that the page is being maintained for the purpose of self-promotion, and even perhaps getting authenticity for his personal webpage.

679:. I'm a professional philosopher, also trained in Indian philosophy, and I can attest that his books and even his name is unheard of in the discipline. Of course, my personal opinion doesn't count here, I merely mention it for context. I tried looking up the books, but got no positive results. No major university library in India has those books. Nor is it listed by ISBN. The Hindu article cannot be used here as a source because the article just quotes him saying it; it is not stated or verified in the article itself; that would not meet the criteria of 1451:, the point of an encyclopedia is to highlight the most important aspects of a subject, and specifically what they are chiefly known for, with the claims supported by reliable published sources. Easwar giving a speech or leading a discussion, especially about a book that may or may not exist, doesn't suddenly make him an "orator" any more than him singing "Happy Birthday" in public would qualify him a singer. Maybe he is an orator, (I don't know what qualifies someone to claim such a nebulous occupation,) but the article has not established that he is 1036:, where you'd find during your due diligence research a plethora of content about him. This isn't to say that the article can't be shaped, and that fluffy, irrelevant information can't be removed if it exists (this is a matter for discussion) but the major deletion is rash. It also concerns me that we would be removing the bulk of the substantiating content just prior to nominating it for deletion. "See, this skeletal article doesn't properly establish the subject's notability, so it should be deleted." 170: 152: 2691:. On matter of blood, that is neither related to menstruation nor celibacy, spilled human blood is considered impure at places of worship, there is a shloka saying the same in one of the upanishads ( most likely maitreya, but I am not so sure and reply after consulting our priest), but not being agamic I not sure how much it would apply to Sabarimala. I am open to a more NPOV edit. I think linking 121: 2322: 1189:

seems to be part of his claim to fame, so I think it's important to mention. So I edited your revert, since that seems to be the way of doing things. Also, I'm confused, would you remove a Wiki link to 'Kerala'? May I now request you to talk here before reverting my edits? I'll do the same. In that spirit, what would you suggest we do about the possible plagiarism I've mentioned above?

261: 240: 271: 963:

needs to be mentioned on a biography page unless it contributes to the narrative of the person's notability. In this case, it does not. And unless it relates to ongoing popular social debates, what the person told in interviews is irrelevant; again, in this case, it does not so relate. The 'flag ambassador' thing comes from a very tabloidish source, as does not meet

21: 392:, "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". We are not required to include every detail available to us under the sun. A real controversy section might include information on a subject's behavior that directly impacted the public like criminal arrests, or a failure to report a serious public safety issue that resulted in the loss of property or life, or 1226: 2482: 2455: 2366: 2516:

Sabarimala Ayyappa diety to restrict entry of women in the age group of 10 to 50 from entering the temple. Rather the cultural belief of the devotees (only devotees go to a temple) was based on the 'Naischtika Brahmacharya Prathishta nature' of Lord Ayyappa as cited in the scripture - Sri Bhoothanathopakhyanam Slokas 35 - 40.

180: 2311: 687:. I'm massively editing the article. If the content is restored without proper reasoning on the talk page, I'll try to get some admin attention. This entire page seems to be merely for the purpose of lending some authenticity to a political grandstanding. The page itself does not meet any of the standards set out in 1028:(and similar) seems excessive. If the subject is notable for being an activist, or even a television news pundit, then we should have some examples of the guy doing activism. Seems very shortsighted to delete the majority of content, much of which is attributed to reliable mainstream sources just like we want. He 2658:

correct than the other. If there are differing perspectives, shouldn't that information be presented in a neutral way? Also, where did Easwar's perspective disappear to? And now I'm less clear about why, if his group had spilled their blood, that would have forced the closure of the temple. What does

2048:

As another editor has noted, the purpose of the lead section of an article is to summarise content found elsewhere in the article. There is no content about any of the subject's writings, because (as far as anybody can tell) no reliable sources have ever written about the subject's works. If there is

1206:

I'm sorry, I'm undoing your revert. I requested clearly that we reach a consensus before we edit. As Netha and I have argued, there isn't a shred of evidence that he's an author. I've searched global ISBN databases, WorldCat, local libraries, and local publishers. None of them list his book. There is

858:

1: The articles had little or nothing to do with the statements they were supposed to support, which is why I deleted them. For example, there is no information in any of those pages about his higher studies, his being an author, and (for me, most repulsively) his being a philosopher. The best we can

2582:

The other aspects of your edit that I found problematic: You changed "whom his group considers the shrine's resident deity" to "Lord Ayyappa, the shrine's resident deity". If you're going to criticise another editor for not understanding Knowledge principles, you should probably familiarise yourself

2578:

How is that not correctly described as a "cultural belief"? What other types of beliefs are there? Religious beliefs? Deductive or assumptive beliefs? Or do you erroneously think that by Knowledge saying "cultural beliefs" that this somehow suggests that all South Indians think this way, as if there

2515:

1. It's not a cultural belief in South India to consider or treat menstruation as impure. Always, a girl attaining puberty was celebrated as a special festive day in almost every Indian family and the occassion was celebrated with feast for near and dear ones. Menstruation was never a reason for the

2012:

He is referred to Author is international Media org like BBC as author. One can disagree with what he writes, especially as he has taken stance against homosexuality & progressive politics. But ideological inclinations shouldnt stop from calling a person what he is. also there are many published

1008:

Let us first discuss before such massive deletion of content. i hope we can build a consensus then editing and going ahead. Notability guideline is fulfilled by mentions in BBC, Al Jazeera, Times of India, The Hindu. Agrees that the content from website of any person shouldn't be quoted. 1 or 2 more

2583:

with these principles first. Knowledge doesn't make statements of fact about the existence of deities, nor does the encyclopedia pay homage to those deities. So "Ayyappa", not the reverent title "Lord Ayyappa", would probably be the correct presentation of this content. The encylopedia doesn't call

2549:

Just so we're clear, there is no requirement that all discussions about content need to take place on the article talk page. What would be the purpose of a user talk page if that was the case? I also pointed out specific problems with your edit and edit summary that didn't make sense, like that you

2187:

As noted above, we don't determine consensus through voting, and it doesn't really matter that an opposing voice has described him as an author, because they're not talking about his books. Let's see the article that negatively describes his books. That would at least suggest that a reliable source

1230:

Given the lack of availability of his written works, authorship is probably not what he is known for or notable for, so it probably doesn't belong in the lead. As for the potential plagiarism at upclosed.com, I'm not convinced. I think this is a classic case of a shitty website scraping Knowledge's

1061:

I agree that the major deletion without adding any more content was probably rash on my part. I'll try to find more sources, and edit the article bit by bit. I hope that will be acceptable? I'll delete the items I find to be fluff one at a time, giving other editors time to respond. But, I'll again

1057:

Again, I'm not saying that the person is unheard of. It's just that most of what's said in the Knowledge entry does not seem to me to be noteworthy. It reads like a self-promotion article, with most of the content being twisted from the reports in the media. Much of the content of the first half of

766:

1. The person is not an author - his books are not available in English or Malayalam, and no public records of them exist (book seller catalogues, libraries, ISBN). The only source is himself where he was quoted as saying as much. In the face of lack of any other evidence, and since it was reported

2519:

2. The Sabarimal temple has the Naischtika Brahmacharya Prathishta nature of Lord Ayyappa. The authors should also take cognizance of the fact that not all temples of Lord Ayyappa has a restriction on women in this age group. It's just this specific temple in the entire World of Lord Ayyappa that

1601:

Again, while the sources call him an author, there is absolutely zero coverage of his authorship, so he is not notable for being an author. More than likely, the outlets are just going by whatever bio sheet his press agent has sent them. At this point "author" sounds like a hobby. He is not widely

1188:

I don't agree with you about the controversial - several of the articles mention the word, and it's not a weasel word; anyway, I'll let that pass. But I think we have conclusively shown that he is *not* an author. He is/was, however, a video jockey, as is mentioned in the article quoted; that also

1130:

Let me say that you haven't provided a rebuttal of the points I made. I'm not going to redo your reverts, but that does not mean I accept them. I'll try to make smaller changes, and see if there is an issue with it. Again, I request you to give specific points of argument in response to my claims;

944:

guidelines to remove inaccurate or non-verifiable content (which does not require consensus to remove unverifiable content especially regarding living people), and I'm going to revert your edits again. I would say that right now, the burden of proof is on you to show how they are verifiable - I've

722:

and was removed. If other editors have verifiable information on his education please cite primary sources and add what education he obtained from LSE and IIM(A).The Only available primary source of the information is a statement from IIM(A) reported by a newspaper 9during a protest by students of

2550:

indicated you "fixed grammar and errors with narration", when it's not clear to me what that even means. That's maybe not a question that needs community scrutiny, so that might be better directed at the individual. But if you want to have that discussion here, what exactly were you trying to say?

2527:

has a different opinion on the edit made by me, I would request him to discuss this here in the 'Talk' page of the article and not as a message to the user who made the edit. As per Knowledge guidelines, There should be consensus by other authors as well before making any further changes to this

2462:

The above referenced has to be corrected explaining that menstruation being impure is a more popularized version whereas the actual reason can only be attributed to the celibacy nature of the diety - as mentioned in Slokas 35-40 of Sri Bhoothanathopakhyanam. The supreme court themselves has taken

2210:

Co - authored in International Journal of Indian psychology. also some philosophy stuff book to in amazon. there are also writings of him on Ndtv, The Hindu, Times of India - the usual indian conservative thing. also read something in the The Print. average, but i guess he can be called Author or

962:

Adding on, some specific comments regarding my edits: I do not see how being the offspring of someone makes you famous; unless, there is something about that relationship that brings the fame, as in the case of the Trump family. I do not see how receiving death threats or getting into minor tiffs

717:

Rahul Easwar's education credentials were added. No information about his educational credentials is available from reputed sources or in public domain, except his self-published claims. He now claims his Alma mater is IIM(A) where he had attended a 21-day non-degree awarding Executive leadership

618:

As pointed out multiple times by different editors here on talk there are no factual primary sources that he is a philosophy author other than newspaper reports based on press handouts or versions of this article which touted him as an author. If he is why the information is not available on this

404:

Knowledge is an encyclopedia, not a trade rag, and salacious gossip is not our bread-and-butter. Editors need to consider the impact that this piece of information will have in ten years, not just now. If it's not going to be relevant in 10 years, then it probably isn't relevant now. Further, the

2761:

WP:TOOMUCH is used here. The detail is not suitable for context. Regarding Indian Express, it is a mainstream media who is covering. Knowledge editors rely on mainstream media for information and the said content is not a press release but a Express Web Desk authored article by the media house -

2626:

You introduced ambiguous language, which you also flagged for clarification, which is a bizarre choice. It was not only completely avoidable, but also introduces the element of skepticism in the article, as if Knowledge is suggesting that readers should not accept that information as valid, even

1221:

I prefer to remain uninvolved so long as you two are working constructively, which it seems you are, but I don't mind occasionally contributing some thoughts. As for the authorship issue, Easwar might be self-published. If that's the case, is he an author or not? Do you have to be published by a

1754:

there is no obvious commentary (as far as I'm aware of) of his books. So if the media doesn't care enough about his books to talk about them, is he really considered an author? Like, if he was fond of singing, but the media didn't pay any attention to his songs or his performances, should he be

1324:

Thanks for your clarification. Though that's what the press might say, it's apparently not what he is known for, so it probably doesn't belong in the lead. For all we know, that basic information was passed along to the press by his publicist. Doesn't make it true, doesn't make it false. But if

2531:

As per the Knowledge guidelines, I will wait for other authors to evaluate this and arrive on a consensus before making an attempt to edit the article. Not as messages or entries to my user-talk page but as entries to this article-talk page. Though I appreciate being notified with messages the

2425:

I cannot possibly fathom why the user would have removed context that explains exactly why women are banned in favor of vague language that doesn't tell us the specific reason. The next question your mind would ask when reading the truncated sentence is "what are those long-standing cultural

983:. Generally speaking, I think this entire article is a case of self-promotion and should be marked for deletion (again), but I'll wait for a consensus on that. If you are reverting my edits, I request you to give a point-by-point rebuttal on why you are deleting/adding something. Thank you. 1054:. Let me start with saying that your last claim was really not what I had in mind. The idea was to delete the fluff, and add some verifiable content; if that didn't work out because of edit-warring, I'd hoped to get some admin attention. I'm not making a case for deletion right now. 1908:(where?) contain the fact of his having written a specific book, learned paper, news article or pamphlet; or of his being an author. The body of the article (as yet) contains absolutely no information on whatever he may have written. Compared with this, its documentation of his 2069:. And unless you can prove there's some sort of rigid selection process for TED talks, wherein the TED folks verify the legitimacy of their speakers, the argument holds no water. I'd be willing to bet I could give a TED talk about Knowledge editing without much resistance. 1955:

pieces (CalcuttaTimes (TOI), T2 (The Telegraph), Metro Plus (Hindustan Times)) are some of the most shoddy journalism-works in Indian-media-circuits and typically serve as PR-vehicles for entertainment industry and the like....The linked piece by HouseOfChange is a

1666:

territory. They are light in substance while the No !votes are heavy with the weight of evidence: It is trivially evident that to qualify as an author, a person has to either have numerour works to their name or at least one notable work (such as in the cases of

2312:{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Rahul Easwar|timestamp=20181204164954|year=2018|month=December|day=4|substed=yes}}  2686:

and gave the impression that concern for celibacy being only a fringe opinion of Easwar. But it is a widely believed ( and correct in my opinion, but that doesn't make a difference) reason, even mentioned in the court proceedings and at various platforms by

2638:

You have emphasised as a fact that women are kept out of the temple to protect the god's celibacy. The Britannica article you cited (a tertiary source) doesn't make this claim, and Easwar's opinion piece shouldn't be used as it places undue emphasis on a

2561:

or gaining strength, when I don't know that to be true. Ambiguous language is not helpful in an encyclopedia. If what you meant to say was "popular", that would seem to conflict with your argument above, where based on your personal observations

514:

the part of lecture tours seems to have deleted without consultation. and there was also the deleting of ISIS terror threat without stating reason. gave more citations. more discussions in talk page needs to be there before unilateral deleting.

2579:

has to be one unifying cultural belief system and nobody can deviate from that? That seems like it would be your problem, not Knowledge's problem. There is nothing wrong with describing this as a cultural belief, because that's what it is.

2188:

had finally read something the guy wrote. I do, however, find it adorable that there's a last-minute push from anonymous users to comment on this topic. IPs that have few, if any substantial edits suddenly care about this topic. Hmmm...

456:

because there is insufficient context that explains why we should care about it. What were the anti-Muslim comments? What is Easwar's interest in Islam, that he should care? How was he harmed? What was the response to the activism? The

2681:

Thanks for not undoing my edit and sending me a warning at my talk page. I cited the Britannica article as a claim of celibacy, not for the reason. Now, I think that was not needed. Earlier it was stated as a fact that the reason was

1513:

deleted "Orator" as it is better to put after consensus. Let us come to agreement what to put, orator / author / speaker / panelist / writer. Even thou i deleted, i think it is ok, to put author or orator as it is even given in BBC.

1131:

it's only thus that we can reach a rational conclusion. I have nothing personal against the guy or the article, but it pains me to see so much misinformation and nonsense; and I am willing to discuss and work on consensus. Thanks,

2700: 1924:

to the article that give evidence of his authorship of specific writings. One hopes that, if his writing is substantial and notable, some editor will soon add another section to the article describing and detailing them.

624: 2576:"The temple's rule emanated from the still widely-held belief in India that menstruating women are "impure". In rural pockets of the country, many women are still made to sleep and eat separately during menstruation." 770:

2. Most of the references given were either non-existent, or did not contain what it was supposed to reference. I removed all of those references, and the claims that they were supporting. (this was most of the page)

1325:

editors are trying in good-faith to suss out actual books that he's written, but can't find any, that probably speaks louder than what the press says. We're not required to regurgitate everything the press says. Per

1231:

content and republishing it without attribution. I say that, because it has the general shape of a Knowledge article, and because the content about the temple elephants (minus a few subsequent changes) is content

2711:

There is no mention of this person being a Hindu spiritual teacher, at the most he can be called an orator. There is no inline citation to support this. So deleted the category of being a Hindu spiritual teacher

2696: 2613: 635:

cover of his new book 'A pilgrimage into the History of India', but it appears that the book did not get published yet. I think Rahul does not qualify to be described as an author in the lead of the article. --

2003:

He can be called an author. It will be unfair on editors part to sit in judgement on what he wrote. Our job is here to see if the references to Mr Easwar as Author is there. The references to him as Author is

428:

a tabloid gossip magazine; and the inclusions thus far have been both inane twaddle and salacious scandalmongering. The sources provided are at the tabloid level of quality; mere regurgitators of gossip. If

1207:

one page on Amazon with a title, but no book ever published. I think the onus is now on you to show that he is an author. Please do that. And I request that the page be left alone until we talk about it. --

945:

already read all the links, and I stand by my #1. I'll request, again, to discuss the issue here on the talk page, before changing what I've done, so that we can act, like you rightly write, with consensus.

730:. My reasons for doing so are given below. If you do not agree with my edits, I request you to discuss it here before reverting my edits. I am open to adding more content to the page as long as it meets 1978:

provides a succinct summary of the content discussed in the body.Without any mentions about his author-profile (which seems fairly impossible), we cannot expect to describe him as an author in the lead.

2270:

Allegations against Rahul Eshwar is not given enough weightage in the article. Eminent Saint Sandeepananda Giri has accused him of behind the arson in his ashram. such things are not mentioned at all (

723:

IIM(A) against Rahul Eashwar speaking on campus of IIM(A)) that he is enrolled in a Global leadership program which is a short term seminar like course which doesnt confer any higher education degree.

1695:

should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article

51: 41: 2380:

Unclear what you are trying to achieve here, since you've provided no legitimate rationale for deletion of this article. (Or this talk page, which is what you are actually flagging for deletion.)

1107:

Agrees with the earlier wikipedia editor when he says - "Seems very shortsighted to delete the majority of content, much of which is attributed to reliable mainstream sources just like we want."

1617:

almost all media houses refer as author and activist. that is the inline citation too. and there is no need to put full name everywhere. as earlier editor said "we know who we are taking about" (

1428: 2414:

For centuries, females of childbearing age (approx. 10–50) have been banned from worshipping at the Sabarimala temple, because of long-standing cultural beliefs about menstruation being impure.

1032:

to discuss controversial topics, so it's not like he doesn't exist and doesn't get discussed in the news. I'm not sure on what basis you'd argue for deletion, since the first step of an AfD is

405:

repeated addition of this content looks an awful lot like agenda-pushing. We always err on the side of caution in these cases. For these reasons, I have again removed this pointless nonsense.

2149:

votes for author. even in an article written against him, he is referred to as "Philosophy Author". Even the opposing voices address the subject as Philosophy Author. Source - CNN News 18 -

1258:

It is given in BBC Website, The Hindu News paper article, (Philosophical anchor). Are they not enough. One international and one is Indian, both Media houses of high credibility and repute. (

1791:

as in the links, there was a talk in IIM A regarding his book. If an institution like Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad is organising a talk on a book, he could be called an author .

2647: 384:

As for the "it is not a 'tell only positive' space" argument, Knowledge is not in the business of regurgitating the obsessions of entertainment rags. Our standards are higher and we take

1755:

considered a singer? What's a hobby, and what's a profession? It's entirely possible that the news outlets have public relations bios that they refer to when explaining who a person is.

859:

describe him as is a Hindu activist (even that is a problematic description, because I am unsure of what he thinks Hinduism is... in any case, he seems to be some sort of an activist).

788:

I see that the page has a contested history. In the light of this, I request you to discuss issues you might have with these edits on this talk page before reverting edits. Thank you!

1687:, while an occasional, casual mention of authorship by a reliable source, e.g. the BBC, cannot be accepted without hard evidence of something beyond one relatively litle known title, 1679:). Neither is true for the subject of this article, despite the protestations that are mostly invocations of "why not." The lack of evidence of any kind of notable authorship, per 2835: 2438:, and answering "Why?" is one of them. Naturally Diamond Head green didn't explain their rationale, but I don't see any legitimate reason to remove this, so I have restored it. 1478: 100: 1076:

I made some small edits. But, might I point out that the article as it exists now is a word-for-word copy of this website that allows people to post their own biographies -

484:

as Cyphoidbomb points out this article needed more clarity . added inline citations to it. new user, yet to make a page of myself was editing many articles yesterday too. (

2463:

cognizance of this nature of the diety considering various arguments and I am sure we all will agree to the fact that we cannot have a different narrative in this article.

2049:

no coverage of the subject's written works, then there is nothing for us to summarise. The fact that the label exists in references doesn't necessitate inclusion per

809:

1. Major links in News papers were given in the article - The Hindu, Times of India were there ( I guess some deccan chronicle link was also there, cudnt find it )

2053:: "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". As for your argument that "IIM ... did a Talk on his book", the phrasing of your claim suggests that someone talked 1837:, per 112.133.236.197 and the fact that his books seem to represent a separate avocation than simply his activism (given a brief scan of the titles and contents). 1281:

What point specifically are you responding to? You didn't indent your reply, (with colons ::) so it's unclear which threaded discussion you're answering. Regards,

967:. I also do not see why his website has been repeatedly stated; unless he is notable enough to have the website mentioned. In this case, it seems to be a case of 2420:

For centuries, females of childbearing age (approx. 10–50) have been banned from worshipping at the Sabarimala temple, because of long-standing cultural beliefs.

2206:

Confused re title "Author". is it only for writers of books or is it a generic term? a simple google search gives the content of rahul eshwar's writing. for eg:

1302:

I was referring to the matter as author. It is given in international news website like BBC, Al Jazeera, Buzzfeed. and book is available online also. Regards (

815:

3. references as Author from BBC, Al Jazeera etc are there. They are international publications. many channel news are also there as discussion as reference.

2810: 2654:

So I'm unclear how, with two articles expressing different perspectives on the origin of the exclusion of women from the temple, how you arrive at one being

105: 58: 1084:, and in that case, I wonder whether, at the very least, it isn't a case of plagiarism? Is that justification enough for a major overhaul of the article? -- 623:

article says that he had written three books by the age of 24. I tried to verify this claim, but could not find any proof for books written by him. I found

88:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 2628: 2571: 2431: 2434:. So I can only surmise that squeamishness about menstruation is the reason Diamond Head green removed the content? We are supposed to be presenting the 2650:, supports the claim that women are kept out to protect the deity's celibacy, but I notice you didn't flag that content in any way to imply skepticism. 1752: 812:

2. such massive editing without any 3rd person also accepting is not right in wikipedia. edits can and should be definitely done, but with consensus

2231:

or tending to yes sounds ok. i don't know the technicalities of wiki, just learning it. but it is ok, i guess as some content of writing is there (

2820: 2815: 2128:

by voting, we determine consensus through strength of argument. "Why not call as an author" is not a strong argument, it's a rhetorical question.

499:

what is the issue in adding lecture tours. may be lecture tours are part of activism. as the subject is also some kind of lecturing philosopher. (

198: 80: 2786:

There is no significance of adding his wife's caste and couldnt find any verifiable link with that. Is it important. and his image can be added (

2830: 2557:, you removed the word "cultural" and changed it to "popularized". "Popularized" is ambiguous as it could suggest the belief is actively being 329: 319: 2150: 1796: 1405: 1374: 551: 388:

people very seriously because there is a real concern that content such as this could defame a person in a global encyclopedia. Further, per

2286: 1882: 1479:

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/at-war-over-love-state-and-society-vs-personal-freedom-in-kerala/story-hv8qrWusdcLvmoGCjMVZZO.html

656: 620: 2787: 2033: 2019: 1792: 1750: 1586: 1571: 1359: 1353: 767:

in direct speech (which is not fact-checked or verified by the editorial desk), I have removed the author tag, and deleted mentions of it.

566: 202: 2840: 2825: 2728: 2713: 2290: 2271: 2212: 2168: 2154: 2105: 2091: 1556: 1537: 1522: 1499: 1484: 1167: 1111: 834: 774:

3. Some of the content in the page was irrelevant and not notable. Sources for these were tabloidish websites. This does not conform to

581: 516: 485: 1747:, but can't find any of the other books he's alleged to have written. And while multiple media sources might describe him as an author, 2246: 2232: 1872: 1840: 1815: 1618: 1432: 1152: 1010: 819: 596: 500: 206: 1989: 2090:

the available data and inline citations is the proof. why not call as an author? is it something wrong? voting for author itself. (

2009:

Even IIM (A) 1 of the premier institutions of India did a Talk on his book. That adds credibility to the argument of him as author.

1475: 197:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 2254: 2176: 2113: 2041: 1856: 1885:

says "he has written three books and published two." We should follow RS, not invent our own definistions of what an author is.

1912:

is quite thorough. As the lead should give an introduction to, and succinct summary of, the article, I can only conclude that

1166:

deleted the link into some organisation and website. not a third party information like News website, this is only a website. (

193: 157: 1641: 2763: 2743: 1960:(read the link, please), and these days, every body , who has managed to publish/self-publish something or the other, is a 2266:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1904:. It's not enough for the lead (paragraph) to mention that somebody is "author and activist", even with a reference that 2692: 1979: 132: 1662:. The Yes !votes are numerous and passionately stated, yet weak on argumentation, some of them even crossing over into 2591:

thinks there is a god living there. So "whom devotees consider the shrine's resident deity" would be closer to ideal.

1471: 294: 284: 245: 2570:

a popular belief. So, that's even more confusing to me. Regardless, your opinion is contradicted by The NDTV article

1930: 1062:

request that responses be discussed, and a rational decision reached, before merely reverting my edits. Thank you.

878:

Further, some of the things, like his being a TEDx speaker, is just linked to a YouTube video, which does not meet

655:

The first two books claimed to be written by Easwar are, 'Philosophy of philosophy' and 'Philosophy of Education' (

1517:

BBC, The Hindu, NDTV .. such prominent media houses gives that title, then it is safe to put that in wikipedia.

1447:, IP 2402::C1A6, thank you for making it, because my restoration of the authorship category was a mistake. As for 1409: 1307: 1263: 27: 619:

page like titles of the book, ISBN? The article states that Rahul Easwar has written three books in philosophy.

2791: 1800: 1772:, I second the points above. I could not find an sources discussing his book outside of one amazon listing. -- 1575: 1378: 1363: 570: 555: 2037: 2023: 1590: 120: 2732: 2717: 2294: 2172: 2158: 2109: 2095: 1560: 1171: 1115: 838: 585: 520: 489: 2771: 2751: 2405: 2328: 2275: 2250: 2236: 2216: 1890: 1622: 1526: 1503: 1488: 1156: 1081: 1014: 964: 908: 879: 851:

I have no desire to participate in edit-warring, but, I have to point out that these anonymous IP addresses

823: 756: 731: 719: 665: 659:). I can't find any proof of existence of these books, and I strongly suspect Easwar's claims are false. -- 642: 600: 504: 465:. What is the 10 year relevance of this information? Will we care in 10 years? If so, then we need context. 89: 2151:

https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/opinion-harish-iyer-section-377-homosexuality-gay-sex-debate-1626521.html

1881:

calls him "activist and author" (which seems a better order for the two items than "author and activist."

2633:

he temple's rule emanated from the still widely-held belief in India that menstruating women are "impure"

2287:

https://www.dnaindia.com/ahmedabad/report-iim-a-invites-controversial-speaker-students-up-in-arms-2582122

2664: 2596: 2494: 2443: 2385: 2193: 2133: 2074: 1926: 1920:

that the lead is mistaken in calling him an author. For the present lead to be correct, we need to add

1793:

http://www.dnaindia.com/ahmedabad/report-iim-a-invites-controversial-speaker-students-up-in-arms-2582122

1760: 1717: 1607: 1545: 1460: 1424: 1394: 1354:

http://www.dnaindia.com/ahmedabad/report-iim-a-invites-controversial-speaker-students-up-in-arms-2582122

1334: 1286: 1240: 1212: 1194: 1136: 1089: 1067: 1041: 988: 953: 795: 698: 538: 470: 410: 356: 138: 2353: 371:

before that article was deleted. My general comments from that talk page, adjusted for relevance here:

1474:

also respectable news org such as Hindustan times, Hindu and buzzfeed gave as "author and activist" -

533:

I deleted the points mentioned above because they are in no way notable. See my justifications below.

2539: 2468: 2310: 1851: 1697:. Therefore, we cannot have in the lead any mention of the subject being something which he is not. - 1536:

Ya, i guess so. go ahead. it is ok to add the title if given in News websites like BBC, agrees with (

1319: 1303: 1276: 1259: 904: 887: 752: 738: 726:

I've initiated major edits to this page, which was in blatant violation of most standards set out in

99:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to 2622:

to clarify why women are kept out of the temple, I have concerns with a few aspects of the changes:

2504:

I am leaving it to the opinion of other authors of this page to evaluate my arguments as I consider

632: 20: 2727:

reverted to earlier edit as the earlier editor was deleting properly referenced in line citations (

2125: 1957: 1777: 1702: 1404:

IIM A conducted a talk on his book. is that not relevance enough? also online it is available too (

976: 968: 462: 376: 2375: 2349: 2767: 2747: 1886: 1736: 924: 676: 660: 637: 103:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see 1944:--I came here to close the discussion but choose to !vote instead to rebut a couple of specific 1476:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andreborges/this-guy-made-a-stupid-ass-tweet-about-feminism-and-twitter

1389:

Perhaps, but he is not widely known for his books. Where does one even find his books for sale?

461:

aren't being met here. Additionally, we are not a breaking news outlet, and we need to consider

2640: 2532:

guidelines stipulate that it should be an entry to the talk-page of this article i.e. here.

2066: 1743:. After researching the matter myself, I only find one book (at Amazon India) by the subject, 1684: 1672: 1663: 1151:

the word controversial is a weasel word and i agree with you that website need not be added. (

397: 2489:

template usage is obnoxious, since nobody was asking for a change to be made to the article.

920: 852: 2676: 2660: 2592: 2524: 2505: 2490: 2439: 2381: 2189: 2129: 2070: 1756: 1740: 1713: 1603: 1541: 1456: 1427:) as it is given as Activist and NOT as Author. and it is also given as Orator as IIM news ( 1420: 1390: 1330: 1299: 1282: 1236: 1208: 1203: 1190: 1132: 1085: 1063: 1051: 1037: 1033: 984: 949: 791: 785:. I removed claims that were being made, and replaced them with reportage from the sources. 694: 534: 466: 421: 406: 364: 185: 2535: 2464: 2207: 1846: 941: 900: 775: 748: 734: 727: 691:. As discussed in earlier AfDs, the article seems to be merely for blatant self-promotion. 96: 2643:'s opinion about the very controversy we're supposed to be writing neutral content about. 1668: 2764:

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/who-is-rahul-easwar-sabarimala-protests-5422831/

2744:

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/who-is-rahul-easwar-sabarimala-protests-5422831/

1824: 1773: 1698: 980: 912: 883: 805:

Deleted without discussion even while relevant information is there in Major News Paper

782: 760: 741: 2057:

his book. Is that he case, or did he talk about his own book? Big difference, because

2804: 2426:

beliefs?", which would be answered with "they think menstruation is impure". This is

1878: 1748: 1518: 916: 684: 627:

book from Amazon (which is claimed to be his fifth book), but I could not verify the

425: 385: 2688: 2563: 1971:

in the trivial-est of all contexts and Cyphoid is correct as to the case of PRBios.

1909: 1472:

https://www.amazon.in/Philosophica-Vedanta-Psychometrics-Rahul-Easwar/dp/813001694X

1235:

to improve the meaningless, vague content that previously had been there. Regards,

276: 1222:

major publishing house to be an author? That's something for you two to discuss.

2587:"Lord Jesus Christ", after all. And "the shrine's resident deity" suggests that 2050: 1676: 1326: 389: 360: 359:) who added the line "He was criticised for getting close to another contestant 169: 151: 1029: 615:

If editing please adhere to Knowledge guidelines and comment on talk section.

434: 393: 368: 266: 175: 2766:. Will wait for other editors to weigh in as a different view point came in ( 1009:

editors are there. with their input too, an agreeable stuff can be reached. (

1821: 1077: 628: 30:. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: 2795: 260: 239: 2408:

removed phrasing that totally unraveled the significance of the sentence.

915:. That might make some things clear. While you're at it, maybe also read 886:. Also, TEDx is not TED, and being a TEDx speaker does not contribute to 713:

Major edits to remove unverified statements, and to preserve neutral POV

2313: 458: 363:." This content is pointless, and objections were previously raised at 2285:

Is he a alumni of IIM (A), Indian institute of management Ahemadabad.

853:

have not answered any of the concerns I had posed in the section above

1916:

the article is presently incomplete, since it's missing his writing;

2775: 2755: 2736: 2721: 2704: 2668: 2600: 2543: 2498: 2472: 2447: 2389: 2357: 2298: 2279: 2240: 2220: 2197: 2162: 2137: 2099: 2078: 2027: 1991: 1934: 1894: 1862: 1829: 1804: 1781: 1764: 1721: 1706: 1626: 1611: 1594: 1579: 1564: 1549: 1530: 1507: 1492: 1464: 1436: 1413: 1398: 1382: 1367: 1338: 1311: 1290: 1267: 1244: 1216: 1198: 1175: 1160: 1140: 1119: 1093: 1071: 1045: 1018: 992: 957: 842: 827: 799: 702: 670: 647: 604: 589: 574: 559: 542: 524: 508: 493: 474: 437: 414: 292:-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the 866:. While your own argument seems misguided, it certainly is invalid. 205:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 2627:

though it was properly attributed to a reliable secondary source,

2584: 1693:

The absence from the main text defines the lead. The lead section

863: 688: 433:

cannot rise above the gutter, it is a sad indictment upon them. -

289: 1820:

not enough sources to demonstarte it, and points by Cyphoidbomb.

394:

making inflammatory statements about marginalized minority groups

1680: 680: 463:

that we are not just listing recent events to list recent events

355:

I removed (yet again) vague scandalmongering from an IP editor (

973:

most of the content added to the article comes from the website

2684:

long-standing cultural beliefs about menstruation being impure

2435: 2316: 114: 95:

from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially

72: 15: 975:, and in many cases is copy-pasted from it. This not only is 565:

i think more information should be added along with a photo (

2512:

as unilateral and not aligned with principles of Knowledge.

1712:

Should the article lead describe Rahul Easwar as an author?

1683:, is reflected in the main text where no works are cited. 747:

In a nutshell, the article did not adhere to standards in

420:

I concur wholly and wholeheartedly with the thoughts of

2619: 2554: 2509: 2401: 2208:

https://www.ijip.in/index.php/?view=article&id=1988

1739:

raised this issue in late November and was seconded by

1448: 1444: 1373:

In the IIM A news, it is given as author and activist (

1232: 1025: 453: 449: 352: 1555:

author can be added if in line citation can be given (

2013:

articles in The Hindu, The Print, Times of India etc.

2396:

Unexplained removal of content by Diamond Head green

1745:

Philosophica Vedanta - Psychometrics of Spirituality

1689:

Philosophica Vedanta - Psychometrics of Spirituality

1640:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

1650:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1455:for being an orator. Television commentator maybe? 2059:we would care what other people say about his book 1519:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36013215 1110:let it stay, we info can and source can be added ( 1358:IIM Ahmedabad invites for the talk on his book ( 1329:, "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". 288:, which aims to improve Knowledge's coverage of 2305:Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2018 398:surreptitiously spying on their political foes 1653:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 8: 2836:Start-Class India articles of Low-importance 2618:Hi there, though I appreciate your efforts 480:Clarity needed & inline citations given 118: 928: 234: 146: 2404:circa October 2019, inexperienced editor 1449:this change, where you reinstate "orator" 1078:https://upclosed.com/people/rahul-easwar/ 2742:Added references - The Indian Express - 1795:- IIM A was having a talk on the book. ( 2659:that have to do with celibacy? Thanks, 1685:Self descriptions are not to be trusted 236: 148: 2782:Regarding Caste of Rahul Eshwar's wife 2683: 2632: 2575: 2520:such a restriction is put on place. 2419: 2413: 1694: 1429:2402:3A80:E3C:8852:355C:E376:3EBA:C1A6 833:better writing style can be adapted. ( 631:. Three years ago, he had tweeted the 2289:Press release from IIM (A) says so. ( 7: 1470:some link to book buying in amazon. 1223: 781:4. I made several edits to bring in 282:This article is within the scope of 191:This article is within the scope of 2811:Biography articles of living people 137:It is of interest to the following 2695:as a see also would be helpful. -- 1967:All news-pieces mentions the word 448:Twice I have removed content like 14: 2607:Menstruation or not menstruation? 1964:author. That's of zero relevance. 855:. Responding to their own points- 778:. I removed all of this as well. 759:, and the language used violated 2480: 2453: 2364: 2320: 2262:The discussion above is closed. 1224: 1024:The blanket deletion as done in 755:. The sources did not adhere to 550:add more. there is lot of info ( 269: 259: 238: 178: 168: 150: 119: 78:This article must adhere to the 19: 2566:), you are saying that this is 324:This article has been rated as 215:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography 26:This article was nominated for 2821:WikiProject Biography articles 2816:Start-Class biography articles 2241:10:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC) 2221:16:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC) 2198:15:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC) 2163:07:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC) 2138:15:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC) 2100:08:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC) 2079:15:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC) 971:. It is also to be noted that 605:16:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC) 590:15:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC) 218:Template:WikiProject Biography 1: 2831:Low-importance India articles 2299:17:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC) 2065:says about his book. He is a 2028:15:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC) 1992:16:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC) 648:11:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 81:biographies of living persons 2776:07:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC) 2756:07:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC) 2693:Entry of women to Sabarimala 2448:17:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 2390:17:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC) 2358:16:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC) 2280:10:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC) 1339:03:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC) 1312:08:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC) 1291:16:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC) 1268:12:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC) 1245:03:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC) 1217:01:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC) 1199:23:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC) 1176:11:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC) 1161:08:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC) 1141:06:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC) 1120:05:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC) 1094:07:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC) 1072:06:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC) 1050:Thanks for getting involved 1046:05:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC) 1019:04:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC) 993:20:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC) 958:20:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC) 843:13:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC) 828:12:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC) 800:07:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC) 703:06:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC) 580:an image needs to be given ( 543:07:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC) 494:08:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC) 203:contribute to the discussion 57:Unknown, April 27 2005, see 2737:19:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC) 2343:to reactivate your request. 2331:has been answered. Set the 1735:, as RfC requester. Editor 1707:21:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC) 1570:adding author as per news ( 671:09:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC) 575:03:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC) 431:"national daily newspapers" 304:Knowledge:WikiProject India 93:must be removed immediately 2857: 2841:WikiProject India articles 2826:Start-Class India articles 2796:07:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC) 2705:10:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC) 1935:09:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC) 1895:02:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC) 438:06:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC) 330:project's importance scale 307:Template:WikiProject India 2722:07:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC) 2669:17:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC) 2646:The other opinion piece, 2601:16:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC) 2544:04:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC) 2499:16:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC) 2473:18:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC) 1863:19:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC) 1830:11:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC) 1805:08:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC) 1782:02:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC) 1765:22:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC) 1722:22:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC) 1627:20:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC) 1612:20:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC) 1580:13:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC) 1565:16:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC) 1550:15:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC) 1531:15:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC) 1508:15:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC) 1493:15:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC) 1465:14:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC) 1437:14:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC) 1414:08:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC) 1399:15:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC) 1383:09:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC) 1368:06:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC) 1030:has been brought in on TV 560:15:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC) 509:07:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC) 475:17:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC) 415:01:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC) 323: 254: 163: 145: 2264:Please do not modify it. 1647:Please do not modify it. 1595:11:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC) 525:08:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 38:already deleted under G4 2430:as well, attributed to 1445:this reversion of yours 979:, but it also violates 869:3: Same response as #1. 50:, January 22 2012, see 40:, January 28 2012, see 2701:User talk:श्रीमान २००२ 1419:Undid contribution by 1349:Authorship issue again 899:I request you to read 424:, above. Knowledge is 127:This article is rated 2255:few or no other edits 2177:few or no other edits 2114:few or no other edits 2042:few or no other edits 1483:so i guess it is ok ( 1080:. That wouldn't meet 611:Books by Rahul Easwar 386:biographies of living 194:WikiProject Biography 2781: 2257:outside this topic. 2179:outside this topic. 2116:outside this topic. 2044:outside this topic. 1789:Leaning towards yes. 919:. Also, please read 595:photo can be given ( 444:Anti-Muslim comments 2124:We don't determine 1642:request for comment 1633:Request for Comment 375:Knowledge is not a 2406:Diamond Head green 677:User:Netha Hussain 221:biography articles 133:content assessment 2697:User:श्रीमान २००२ 2347: 2346: 2258: 2180: 2117: 2045: 1876: 1844: 1827: 1819: 1673:Margaret Mitchell 921:my concerns above 347:Scandalmongering. 344: 343: 340: 339: 336: 335: 285:WikiProject India 233: 232: 229: 228: 113: 112: 71: 70: 67: 66: 2848: 2680: 2617: 2488: 2484: 2483: 2461: 2457: 2456: 2379: 2372: 2368: 2367: 2338: 2334: 2324: 2323: 2317: 2314: 2244: 2166: 2103: 2031: 1987: 1982: 1958:spammy interview 1922:reliable sources 1870: 1861: 1859: 1854: 1849: 1838: 1825: 1813: 1658:The decision is 1649: 1602:known for this. 1323: 1280: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1082:WP:Verifiability 965:WP:Verifiability 909:WP:Verifiability 880:WP:Verifiability 757:WP:Verifiability 732:WP:Verifiability 720:WP:Verifiability 668: 663: 645: 640: 400:. Cut, cut, cut. 365:Talk:Rosin Jolly 312: 311: 308: 305: 302: 279: 274: 273: 272: 263: 256: 255: 250: 242: 235: 223: 222: 219: 216: 213: 199:join the project 188: 186:Biography portal 183: 182: 181: 172: 165: 164: 154: 147: 130: 124: 123: 115: 101:this noticeboard 73: 32: 31: 23: 16: 2856: 2855: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2801: 2800: 2784: 2674: 2611: 2609: 2481: 2479: 2454: 2452: 2398: 2373: 2365: 2363: 2336: 2332: 2321: 2309: 2307: 2268: 2267: 1983: 1980: 1873:Summoned by bot 1857: 1852: 1847: 1845: 1841:Summoned by bot 1826:◊distænt write◊ 1816:Summoned by bot 1797:112.133.236.197 1729: 1709: 1645: 1635: 1406:112.133.236.128 1375:112.133.236.175 1351: 1320:Akshayacropolis 1317: 1304:Akshayacropolis 1277:Akshayacropolis 1274: 1260:Akshayacropolis 1225: 862:2: PLEASE read 807: 715: 666: 661: 643: 638: 616: 613: 552:122.174.199.135 482: 446: 349: 309: 306: 303: 300: 299: 275: 270: 268: 248: 220: 217: 214: 211: 210: 184: 179: 177: 131:on Knowledge's 128: 12: 11: 5: 2854: 2852: 2844: 2843: 2838: 2833: 2828: 2823: 2818: 2813: 2803: 2802: 2788:103.163.68.250 2783: 2780: 2710: 2708: 2707: 2652: 2651: 2644: 2641:primary source 2636: 2608: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2580: 2574:, which says: 2551: 2502: 2501: 2423: 2422: 2416: 2397: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2345: 2344: 2325: 2306: 2303: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2225: 2224: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2182: 2181: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2119: 2118: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2067:primary source 2034:110.173.189.82 2020:110.173.189.82 2015: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2005: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1972: 1965: 1962:self-described 1938: 1937: 1898: 1897: 1865: 1832: 1808: 1785: 1784: 1767: 1728: 1725: 1710: 1692: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1636: 1634: 1631: 1615: 1614: 1587:223.228.161.62 1572:171.49.184.180 1468: 1467: 1402: 1401: 1360:171.49.208.206 1350: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1294: 1293: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1201: 1150: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1074: 1059: 1055: 1000: 998: 997: 996: 995: 960: 946: 935: 934: 933: 932: 929:concerns above 894: 893: 892: 891: 873: 872: 871: 870: 867: 860: 856: 806: 803: 714: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 692: 675:I concur with 614: 612: 609: 567:116.212.177.35 548: 547: 546: 545: 481: 478: 445: 442: 441: 440: 402: 401: 381: 380: 348: 345: 342: 341: 338: 337: 334: 333: 326:Low-importance 322: 316: 315: 313: 310:India articles 281: 280: 264: 252: 251: 249:Low‑importance 243: 231: 230: 227: 226: 224: 190: 189: 173: 161: 160: 155: 143: 142: 136: 125: 111: 110: 106:this help page 90:poorly sourced 76: 69: 68: 65: 64: 63: 62: 55: 45: 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2853: 2842: 2839: 2837: 2834: 2832: 2829: 2827: 2824: 2822: 2819: 2817: 2814: 2812: 2809: 2808: 2806: 2799: 2797: 2793: 2789: 2779: 2777: 2773: 2769: 2768:Themisislegal 2765: 2759: 2757: 2753: 2749: 2748:Themisislegal 2745: 2740: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2729:59.92.119.166 2725: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2714:122.165.57.93 2706: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2685: 2678: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2657: 2649: 2645: 2642: 2637: 2634: 2631:, which said 2630: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2621: 2615: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2526: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2511: 2508:reverting my 2507: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2487: 2478:Your misused 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2460: 2450: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2421: 2417: 2415: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2407: 2403: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2377: 2371: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2342: 2339:parameter to 2330: 2326: 2319: 2318: 2315: 2304: 2302: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2291:111.92.28.176 2288: 2283: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2272:202.177.46.76 2265: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2227: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2213:111.92.30.118 2209: 2205: 2204: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2169:171.61.233.91 2164: 2160: 2156: 2155:171.61.233.91 2152: 2148: 2145: 2144: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2106:103.44.137.90 2101: 2097: 2093: 2092:103.44.137.90 2089: 2086: 2085: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2047: 2046: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2016: 2011: 2008: 2007: 2002: 1999: 1998: 1993: 1990: 1988: 1986: 1977: 1973: 1970: 1966: 1963: 1959: 1954: 1950: 1949: 1947: 1943: 1940: 1939: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1900: 1899: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1887:HouseOfChange 1884: 1880: 1874: 1869: 1866: 1864: 1860: 1855: 1850: 1842: 1836: 1833: 1831: 1828: 1823: 1817: 1812: 1809: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1787: 1786: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1768: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1753: 1751: 1749: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1737:Netha Hussain 1734: 1731: 1730: 1726: 1724: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1665: 1661: 1654: 1651: 1648: 1643: 1638: 1637: 1632: 1630: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1583: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1568: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1557:111.92.29.198 1553: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1538:111.92.29.222 1534: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1523:111.92.29.222 1520: 1515: 1511: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1500:111.92.29.222 1496: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1485:111.92.29.222 1481: 1480: 1477: 1473: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1417: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1371: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1356: 1355: 1348: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1321: 1316: 1315: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1278: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1205: 1202: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1168:42.109.134.34 1164: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1112:42.109.134.34 1108: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1060: 1056: 1053: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1022: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 994: 990: 986: 982: 978: 974: 970: 966: 961: 959: 955: 951: 948:Thank you. -- 947: 943: 939: 938: 937: 936: 930: 926: 922: 918: 914: 910: 906: 905:WP:Notability 902: 898: 897: 896: 895: 889: 888:WP:Notability 885: 881: 877: 876: 875: 874: 868: 865: 861: 857: 854: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 844: 840: 836: 835:42.109.164.54 831: 829: 825: 821: 816: 813: 810: 804: 802: 801: 797: 793: 789: 786: 784: 779: 777: 772: 768: 764: 762: 758: 754: 753:WP:Notability 750: 745: 743: 740: 739:WP:Notability 736: 733: 729: 724: 721: 712: 704: 700: 696: 693: 690: 686: 685:Verifiability 682: 678: 674: 673: 672: 669: 664: 658: 654: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 646: 641: 634: 630: 626: 622: 610: 608: 606: 602: 598: 593: 591: 587: 583: 582:120.56.33.251 578: 576: 572: 568: 563: 561: 557: 553: 544: 540: 536: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 526: 522: 518: 517:111.92.29.118 512: 510: 506: 502: 497: 495: 491: 487: 486:111.92.27.206 479: 477: 476: 472: 468: 464: 460: 455: 451: 443: 439: 436: 432: 427: 423: 419: 418: 417: 416: 412: 408: 399: 396:, or someone 395: 391: 387: 383: 382: 378: 374: 373: 372: 370: 366: 362: 358: 357:14.139.45.243 354: 346: 331: 327: 321: 318: 317: 314: 297: 296: 291: 287: 286: 278: 267: 265: 262: 258: 257: 253: 247: 244: 241: 237: 225: 208: 207:documentation 204: 200: 196: 195: 187: 176: 174: 171: 167: 166: 162: 159: 156: 153: 149: 144: 140: 134: 126: 122: 117: 116: 108: 107: 102: 98: 94: 91: 87: 83: 82: 77: 75: 74: 60: 56: 53: 49: 46: 43: 39: 36: 35: 34: 33: 29: 25: 22: 18: 17: 2785: 2760: 2741: 2726: 2709: 2689:J Sai Deepak 2655: 2653: 2614:श्रीमान २००२ 2610: 2588: 2567: 2558: 2534: 2530: 2523:If the user 2522: 2518: 2514: 2503: 2485: 2458: 2451: 2427: 2424: 2399: 2369: 2348: 2340: 2329:edit request 2308: 2284: 2269: 2263: 2247:137.97.90.39 2233:137.97.90.39 2228: 2146: 2087: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2000: 1984: 1975: 1968: 1961: 1952: 1945: 1941: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1905: 1901: 1867: 1834: 1810: 1788: 1769: 1744: 1732: 1711: 1688: 1669:Emily Brontë 1659: 1652: 1646: 1639: 1619:111.92.31.72 1616: 1584: 1569: 1554: 1535: 1516: 1512: 1497: 1482: 1469: 1453:widely known 1452: 1418: 1403: 1372: 1357: 1352: 1257: 1233:that I wrote 1165: 1153:45.248.92.96 1149: 1109: 1106: 1011:45.248.92.96 999: 977:WP:PROMOTION 972: 969:WP:PROMOTION 832: 820:45.248.92.96 817: 814: 811: 808: 790: 787: 780: 773: 769: 765: 746: 725: 716: 617: 597:49.248.225.6 594: 579: 564: 549: 513: 501:103.5.218.50 498: 483: 447: 430: 403: 350: 325: 295:project page 293: 283: 277:India portal 192: 139:WikiProjects 104: 92: 85: 79: 47: 37: 2677:Cyphoidbomb 2661:Cyphoidbomb 2593:Cyphoidbomb 2525:Cyphoidbomb 2506:Cyphoidbomb 2491:Cyphoidbomb 2440:Cyphoidbomb 2382:Cyphoidbomb 2253:) has made 2190:Cyphoidbomb 2175:) has made 2130:Cyphoidbomb 2112:) has made 2071:Cyphoidbomb 2061:, not what 2040:) has made 1948:arguments. 1811:Not in lead 1757:Cyphoidbomb 1741:Neogarfield 1714:Cyphoidbomb 1677:Anna Sewell 1604:Cyphoidbomb 1542:Blake Peter 1457:Cyphoidbomb 1421:Cyphoidbomb 1391:Cyphoidbomb 1331:Cyphoidbomb 1300:Cyphoidbomb 1283:Cyphoidbomb 1237:Cyphoidbomb 1209:Neogarfield 1191:Neogarfield 1133:Neogarfield 1086:Neogarfield 1064:Neogarfield 1052:Cyphoidbomb 1038:Cyphoidbomb 985:Neogarfield 950:Neogarfield 792:Neogarfield 744:standards. 695:Neogarfield 629:ISBN number 535:Neogarfield 467:Cyphoidbomb 422:Cyphoidbomb 407:Cyphoidbomb 361:Rosin Jolly 129:Start-class 2805:Categories 2536:RamRaghubn 2465:RamRaghubn 2333:|answered= 1910:§ Activism 1770:Leaning No 1664:WP:ILIKEIT 940:I went by 377:gossip rag 59:discussion 52:discussion 42:discussion 2589:Knowledge 2555:your edit 2528:clause. 2402:this edit 2211:Writer. ( 2126:consensus 1883:The Hindu 1774:Sadsignal 1699:The Gnome 1585:photo ? ( 1034:WP:BEFORE 1026:this edit 353:this edit 212:Biography 158:Biography 97:libellous 2559:promoted 2486:Not done 2459:Not done 2412:Before: 2370:Not done 1974:Finally 1835:Lean yes 942:WP:ALIVE 901:WP:ALIVE 776:WP:ALIVE 749:WP:ALIVE 735:WP:ALIVE 728:WP:ALIVE 28:deletion 2428:sourced 2418:After: 2376:Z4zaara 2350:Z4zaara 1681:sources 981:WP:NPOV 913:WP:NPOV 884:WP:NPOV 783:WP:NPOV 761:WP:NPOV 742:WP:NPOV 459:five Ws 328:on the 2635:, etc. 2004:there. 1969:author 1914:either 1727:Survey 925:@Netha 923:, and 917:WP:NOT 911:, and 667:(talk) 644:(talk) 426:WP:NOT 135:scale. 48:delete 2585:Jesus 2564:WP:OR 2337:|ans= 2327:This 2055:about 1953:metro 1675:, or 1540:by ( 864:ALIVE 689:ALIVE 662:Netha 639:Netha 435:Ryk72 369:Ryk72 301:India 290:India 246:India 2792:talk 2772:talk 2752:talk 2733:talk 2718:talk 2665:talk 2656:more 2648:here 2629:NDTV 2620:here 2597:talk 2572:here 2540:talk 2510:edit 2495:talk 2469:talk 2444:talk 2432:this 2386:talk 2354:talk 2295:talk 2276:talk 2251:talk 2237:talk 2217:talk 2194:talk 2173:talk 2159:talk 2134:talk 2110:talk 2096:talk 2075:talk 2051:WP:V 2038:talk 2024:talk 1976:lead 1951:The 1931:talk 1927:yoyo 1891:talk 1877:The 1858:sean 1822:L3X1 1801:talk 1778:talk 1761:talk 1718:talk 1703:talk 1623:talk 1608:talk 1591:talk 1576:talk 1561:talk 1546:talk 1527:talk 1504:talk 1489:talk 1461:talk 1443:Re: 1433:talk 1425:talk 1410:talk 1395:talk 1379:talk 1364:talk 1335:talk 1327:WP:V 1308:talk 1287:talk 1264:talk 1241:talk 1213:talk 1195:talk 1172:talk 1157:talk 1137:talk 1116:talk 1090:talk 1068:talk 1042:talk 1015:talk 989:talk 954:talk 882:and 839:talk 824:talk 796:talk 751:and 737:and 699:talk 681:NPOV 633:book 625:this 621:This 601:talk 586:talk 571:talk 556:talk 539:talk 521:talk 505:talk 490:talk 471:talk 454:this 452:and 450:this 411:talk 390:WP:V 201:and 2568:not 2553:In 2436:5Ws 2400:In 2335:or 2229:Yes 2147:Yes 2088:Yes 2001:Yes 1985:WBG 1946:yes 1906:may 1879:BBC 1868:Yes 1853:one 1848:the 927:'s 683:or 657:Ref 367:by 351:In 320:Low 86:BLP 2807:: 2798:) 2794:) 2778:) 2774:) 2758:) 2754:) 2739:) 2735:) 2724:) 2720:) 2703:) 2667:) 2599:) 2542:) 2497:) 2471:) 2446:) 2388:) 2356:) 2341:no 2301:) 2297:) 2282:) 2278:) 2245:— 2243:) 2239:) 2219:) 2196:) 2167:— 2165:) 2161:) 2136:) 2104:— 2102:) 2098:) 2077:) 2063:he 2032:— 2030:) 2026:) 1942:No 1933:) 1918:or 1902:No 1893:) 1803:) 1780:) 1763:) 1733:No 1720:) 1705:) 1691:. 1671:, 1660:No 1644:. 1629:) 1625:) 1610:) 1597:) 1593:) 1582:) 1578:) 1567:) 1563:) 1552:) 1548:) 1533:) 1529:) 1510:) 1506:) 1495:) 1491:) 1463:) 1439:) 1435:) 1416:) 1412:) 1397:) 1385:) 1381:) 1370:) 1366:) 1337:) 1314:) 1310:) 1289:) 1270:) 1266:) 1243:) 1215:) 1197:) 1178:) 1174:) 1163:) 1159:) 1139:) 1122:) 1118:) 1092:) 1070:) 1044:) 1021:) 1017:) 991:) 956:) 907:, 903:, 845:) 841:) 830:) 826:) 798:) 763:. 701:) 607:) 603:) 592:) 588:) 577:) 573:) 562:) 558:) 541:) 527:) 523:) 511:) 507:) 496:) 492:) 473:) 413:) 2790:( 2770:( 2750:( 2746:( 2731:( 2716:( 2712:( 2699:( 2679:: 2675:@ 2663:( 2616:: 2612:@ 2595:( 2562:( 2538:( 2493:( 2467:( 2442:( 2384:( 2378:: 2374:@ 2352:( 2293:( 2274:( 2249:( 2235:( 2223:) 2215:( 2192:( 2171:( 2157:( 2153:( 2132:( 2108:( 2094:( 2073:( 2036:( 2022:( 2018:( 1981:∯ 1929:( 1889:( 1875:) 1871:( 1843:) 1839:( 1818:) 1814:( 1807:) 1799:( 1776:( 1759:( 1716:( 1701:( 1621:( 1606:( 1589:( 1574:( 1559:( 1544:( 1525:( 1521:( 1502:( 1498:( 1487:( 1459:( 1431:( 1423:( 1408:( 1393:( 1377:( 1362:( 1333:( 1322:: 1318:@ 1306:( 1285:( 1279:: 1275:@ 1262:( 1239:( 1211:( 1204: 1193:( 1170:( 1155:( 1135:( 1114:( 1088:( 1066:( 1040:( 1013:( 987:( 952:( 931:. 890:. 837:( 822:( 818:( 794:( 697:( 599:( 584:( 569:( 554:( 537:( 519:( 515:( 503:( 488:( 469:( 409:( 332:. 298:. 209:. 141:: 109:. 84:( 61:. 54:. 44:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index