Talk:Shibdas Ghosh

Marxist Ideologist

The number of works that he has published itself seems enough to make such a point. Secondly, if you compare the wiki text with that of EMS Namboothiripadu and such other Indian Communist Politicians, he most certainly deserves to be called a Marxist Ideologist. Your argument that Breakthrough is not a peer reviewed journal is not enough to remove the citation from the Wikitext. For that matter even press reports are not; Breakthrough journal has at least a very reputed editorial board as I saw from their website. --Radhakrishnansk (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. From WP:RS: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available." Breakthrough may not be peer reviewed, but it is an academic source. And that's not even a requirement, especially for this kind of claim. Rl (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. This article in Breakthrough is more like a self published (and self hosted) article. Breakthrough is not a peer-reviewed academic publication; not a mainstream news organization. It is not a reliable source on Marxism and the author of this article is not an authority in this field either. Has anyone bothered to read this article? What does it say? Shibdas Ghosh is mentioned just once in this article. Even this insertion of his name on article about the Philosophy of Einstein shows the vested interest of the author. Trying to insert a POV claim by citing just one off topic remark in a non-neutral and non-reliable source is silly. If indeed Shibdas Ghosh was an important "Marxist Ideologist" is considered as an important "Marxist Ideologist" by mainstream sorces , there will be multiple, third party, reliable sources to attest it. Produce some such sources instead of saying other crap exists. WP:NOR applies to anything that appears in wikipedia; there is no exception to "this kind of claim" or "ordinary" claim.203.200.35.12 (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC). Modified: 203.200.35.32 (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You are not supposed to make a judgement of what is the interest of the author and you cannot claim that 'Breakthrough is not a PEER REVIEWED journal and so you cannot have it as a reference'. I clearly mentioned that even press news are not peer reviewed. Wiki only states that the most reliable is the peer reviewed. Why don't you look at the Breakthrough website and see the list of editors they have? They all seems to be very reputed people in their respective profession. I also checked the author and it seems that he is a very reputed author. If what you say is the case with Wiki then you cannot have most of the stuff in wikipedia. So the statement stays, unless you can prove it is otherwise. Even then you can put that as an additional comment only with the necessary reference. I also suggest you to check the Wiki page of EMS Namboothiripadu wherein there is also a claim that he is a marxist theorist without even a citation. I can show more examples of this. So if they all can have such a claim, this article too can have. You can also see that there are two editors agreeing on this point.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

“You are not supposed to make a judgement of what is the interest of the author and you cannot claim that 'Breakthrough is not a PEER REVIEWED journal and so you cannot have it as a reference'.” Breakthrough does not even claim to be a peer reviewed publication; so it is definitely not peer reviewed.

“I clearly mentioned that even press news are not peer reviewed.”. Need not be; and Breakthrough is not a mainstream news organization.

“Wiki only states that the most reliable is the peer reviewed. Why don't you look at the Breakthrough website and see the list of editors they have? They all seems to be very reputed people in their respective profession. I also checked the author and it seems that he is a very reputed author.” Not relevant; they (the editors and the author, who is also an editor) may be reputed people in their respective professions but not in disciplines related to this article. And Breakthrough is obviously not a reputed academic publication in political philosophy, sociology or related disciplines.

“So the statement stays, unless you can prove it is otherwise.” What to say. Though wikipedia does not set any minimum requirement of age/ IQ/ educational qualification to edit, some familiarity with the respective academic disciplines, scientific method and academic process is expected from someone who comes to edit an encyclopedia. One does not need to know Einstein or Marx to see how ridiculous the statement you made is. Please understand that an encyclopedia is not a place to dump everything that has “not been proven otherwise”. If you are unable to comprehend this, let me show you a specific policy (that we have in store for people like you): The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1].

“I also suggest you to check the Wiki page of EMS Namboothiripadu wherein there is also a claim that he is a marxist theorist without even a citation. I can show more examples of this. So if they all can have such a claim, this article too can have.” See my reply above (crap).

“You can also see that there are two editors agreeing on this point” see read my edit summary (No democracy).220.227.207.32 (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at your contributions. I am now convinced of the futility of this debate and the level it is soon going to reach. I may not edit this often anymore and will alert some relevant notice board instead. Does “the continued abasement you force upon yourself here" remind you of anything? Then learn and behave. I also did some web search of Breakthrough, SUCI, etc. I assume it is just an coincidence that many of the names mentioned here as the office bearers of Breakthrough Science Society are seen here and here as SUCI candidates and are seen here, here and hereas SUCI leaders.220.227.207.32 (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say that Breakthrough is not a reliable citation? The author himself is a famous physisist and he has had quote a Marxist Thinker. I guess that is more than sufficient to keep it there. Now that we have debated on it enough, let us go to other wiki editors and probably admins--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

In all the links that you have pasted here, no where could I see that Breakthrough is not an academic journal and no where do I see that it is not a reliable citation. Having people listed here and there is not enough to say that it is a publication by Shibdas Ghosh.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Breakthrough is a reliable academic journal and Shibdas Ghosh is a "Marxist Ideologist" just as the moon is made of green cheese.220.227.207.32 (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone asked for another Wiki editor/Admin? Ok. Breakthrough is not an academic journal, it is a popular science magazine as described here [1] which should be obvious anyway given the nature of Breakthrough. The author is not an expert in political theory in any case, so even if it had been an academic science magazine this would not be a reliable source. Whether or not the subject was a Marxist theorist, this will not do as a reference. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey. A third opinion was requested for this page, but it seems that with the IP being banned, the issue is resolved. However, I will have to agree with Dougweller that Breakthrough is not an acceptable source. I've added another, but you really need to improve the other ref. As a side note, all of those links to suci.in make this page seem more like a fansite than anything else. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Who banned the IP? Do you mean the semi-protyection of the article? Please look the discussion above and see whether it actually resolves the matter. The reference you added describes SUCI as a communist party; it does not say that Shibdas Ghoshh is widely considered as a Marxist thinker. User:Radhakrishnansk, who is likely to be a sock of the banned user User:Suciindia is mearly trying to push a POV and misrepresenting the facts.117.204.80.113 (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree to User:HelloAnnyong on the fact that the links to SUCI page can be reduced. Alternatively we can include a single link to the page in the External Links. I am taking the liberty to do that provided others don't disagree.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL says try to avoid multiple links to a site. Dougweller (talk) 05:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

SUCI to SUCI(C)

Mr. Soman, are the changes fine as it is now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bctcanji (talk • contribs) 11:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)