Talk:Vijay Prashad/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Style of the Article Inappropriate

While I am not challenging the content (or the verifiability for that matter), I feel the balance of article is severely skewed.The article seems to be cheery picking content from various article by Prashad. This results in the article appearing to be more of a commentary on a few articles of Prashad, rather than being a biographical article.

A writer's written work is an integral part of his biogrpahy. What you consider "cherry picking" is notability, an attribute sought for all wiki articles. You are free to add more content to the article without suppressing notable statements made by this author over different periods of time. His social and political commentary is very much part of his biographical sketch and an appropriate subject matter for any encyclopedia. Lets discuss and then collaboratively edit this article. Lets assume good faith. Regards.--Satyashodak (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest condensing the sections "# 2 Support for FARC:criticism of US role in Columbia and # 3 A Marxist critic of Mother Teresa" to a single section called "Political Viewpoints". Also inline quotes are unnceassary since an interested readers can always follow the cited link if he/she finds the claim relevant or interesting.

I am sorry this edit would work to obfustcate the fact that Vijay Prashad is a known Marxist and had critiqued Mother Teresa from that standpoint. Kindly do not try to suppress the fact that he is a Marxist and well known for his advocacy of communist causes.--Satyashodak (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Also a top-level critism is that style, especially the titles appears to be weasle. appoose (talk)

Hindu, Frontline

The Marxist sympathy of Hindu and Frontline is highly speculatively and not verified. Also the Tibet issue is not directly relevant to article. The right place to do it is in the Wikipedia article of Hindu. I am removing this in my edit.appoose (talk)

That appears to be your personal opinion. The citations provided from online Tibetan groups are more than sufficient to substantiate the accusation. Note: the article just says "accuse" and provides citations and referneces for those accusations. A mention is pertinent here as well because Vijay Prashad is one of the major contributors to The Hindu and known for his Marxist politics--Satyashodak (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Mother Teresa's alleged associations with dubious characters such as Baby Doc Duvalier and Charles Keating : Vijay Prashad's allegations

Regent Parks, I see you had objections to Vijay Prahsad's mention of Baby Doc Duvalier and Charles Keating for his allegations against Mother Teresa. Could you kindly point out how they appear to be unsubstantiated when the mention found in Vijay's article in communist daily are pretty explicit and leave nothing to interpretation or imagination.--Satyashodak (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article about 'dubious characters'. Prahsad's analysis of Mother Theresa is classic Marxist in the sense that he ties her charitable works to her function as mechanism for the alleviation of bourgeois guilt for poverty and suffering rather than a genuine challenge to those very forces that create, produce and maintain that poverty and suffering. I would hardly call Nancy Reagan, Diane Spencer, dubious characters. Please note that you should not add your own interpretation to what others have written, that is WP:OR.

Hello, thanks for this note but he also mentons Charles Keating and the wife of Baby Doc Duvalier in the article. There is no interpretation or synthesis involved here as described in WP:OR The reference to Mother's association with Charles Keating and his involvement with fraud are explicit. Please consider reading that exceprt again--Satyashodak (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Regent, kindly point out how mentioning that Vijay has accused mother of being associated with a dubious character like Charles Keating leads to violation of WP:OR rules. There is no synthesis involved in the following excerpt from Vijay's artcile. The accusation is pretty explicit:

Think of those with whom Mother Teresa is often photographed, Diana Spencer, Michele Duvalier (wife of the notorious Baby Doc Duvalier), Nancy Reagan and Hilary Clinton, Robert Maxwell and finally, Charles Keating.
Charles Keating is remembered as the emblem of the Savings & Loans fiasco, wherein his own Lincoln Savings & Loan Association required a $2 billion bail-out by the Federal Government, due to its licentious expenditure of the public's money. In 1992, Keating was charged with 70 counts of racketeering and fraud and he spent a brief period of his ten-year sentence before a Federal judge found him innocent due to a procedural problem during the trial. Keating not only ripped off the US workers of millions of dollars, but he bribed five Senators (the "Keating Five") to prevent his doing time.

I think we can add a brief mention of this important fact with the appropriate citation in the footnote. It does not constitute orignal research , interpretation or synthesis, imho. Let me know if you have any objection.--Satyashodak (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Regent, saw your note in the history section. I don't think that mentioning his views on Mother Teresa are an overkill. They are important to situate his biographical sketch in a historical and ideological context. They reveal an important evolutionary phase of his thought and explain some of his activism. Once we give some coverage to his views on globalization, capitalism, Latin America, Israel-Palestinian conflict, etc , they would acquire more symmetry. Regards.--Satyashodak (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Added reference to the following secondary source about his commentary on Mother. Notablity is thus established beyond any doubt:

White Women in Racialized Spaces: Imaginative Transformation and Ethical Action in Literature, Samina Najmi, Rajini Srikanth, Mother Teresa as the Mirror of Bourgeois Guilt- Chapter 4, pp 67,Published by SUNY Press, 2002, ISBN 0791454770, 9780791454770

--Satyashodak (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Note for the editor appose: please cite appropriate Wikipedia regulations before removing content

appose, I am assuming good faith and hope that you do the same. Kindly cite Wikipedia rules before making radical changes to the edits made by other editors. Simply removing significant sections of the articles could be interpreted as vandalism. I am sure that is not your intent. Just trying to learn from you here--Satyashodak (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate wikipedia policy is WP:UNDUE. You are taking one piece of work, devoting a large amount of real estate to that work, and thus are possibly skewing the biography. Do note that it is not at all clear if these views of Mr. Prashad are important or have received attention that would qualify them as being notable. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 18:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I see what you say. Lets de-magnify it appropriately then without suppressing the facts that he has in the past criticized Mother Teresea and has advocated for FARC which is regarded as terrorist group in USA and other Western countries--Satyashodak (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)is

This is much better. I have some concerns about the significance of his writings but I'll let others weigh in or evaluate that. Thanks for your efforts! --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to make some edits to tidy up the article and help it conform to NPOV. I'll make the edits one by one so they can be reverted. If anyone disagrees with anything I do, we can discuss it here. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of FOIL reference

Itsmejudith, your concerens are appreciated but why did you remove the link to FOIL? He is a co-founder of Forum of Indian Leftists . Mention of FOIL does not violate NPOV or any other wiki guidelines. Kindly explain why it was 'tidied out' when a clear reference was provided from a reliable source. Thanks. --Satyashodak (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It just didn't seem to be a particularly important or notable fact about him, but I don't mind if it stays in. I thought your recent edits improved the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Categories

Thanks to this edit on Nov. 22 by Satyashoda, all of the categories (and External links) were removed from the article, leaving it completely uncategorized. Please be more careful in the future not to inadvertently delete valid material in the course of editing an article. Cgingold (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not fully familiar with this functionality. I am glad you restored inadvertent deletion of imprortant content. --Satyashodak (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

CyberMacarthyism

To label everyone with Leftwing views a "Marxist" is CyberMacarthism of the 21st century. This page (along with those on ones for [Sonal Shah] reflect to me a massive attempt at discrediting certain points of view, and glorifying others. Attempts at manipulating the views on this page apparently do disservice to the writings and volume of work of Vijay Prashad. Has Prashad described himself as a Marxist, if so is there some attribution? To call commercially-run business enterprise The Hindu "Marxist" is quite a joke! It reflects the mindset of those making these allegations. Interesting to see that Prashad's attempts to question religious intolerance and hate in India is seen as "actively challenging the role played by Hinduism-inspired social, cultural and political outfits operating in India and abroad". This is definitely not NPOV (neutral point of view). Neutral editors should be aware of these games. --fredericknoronha (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Mother Teresa

I've updated the link to his Mother Teresa article, so it is accessible again. If the present summary is unsatisfactory, we do have the wherewithal to write a better one; but I would be against deleting the paragraph altogether. There is little enough content in the article as it is. --JN 466 18:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am a new editor and new to this page so joining the discussion quite late. As someone very familiar with his work, I agree that the unbalanced emphasis on the Mother Theresa critique is very strange and makes this page not as helpful to someone seeking to learn about him. I was unaware of this Mother Theresa issue until I read this page. While I can see why it should not be removed, I also feel it should be much less prominent, such as by making it a part of the "Views" section as previously suggested, and shorter. I may take this on when I become a more experienced editor. --Race+equityresearch (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Reviews

The reviews section seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. If we want to include a "Critical Reception" or similar section it should include both positive and critical comments which are not simply listed, are sourced, and do not come from the quotes commissioned by the publisher and placed on the back of Prashad's book. For now I have removed the section since it is entirely unsourced. Chris902 (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Mumbai Attack Conspiracy

The source listed for the claim that Prashadbelieves that "a secret conspiracy of Hindus and Jews (led by the Israeli Mossad) perpetrated the 2008 Mumbai attacks," does not actually contain that assertion. Rather it is a critique of the Indian state's reliance on Israeli counter-terrorism advice. As this claim seems to be made on a misreading, I am deleting it. --Alabasterj (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"...and a Marxist" in lead

Very strange edit first introduced by another IP editor: [1]

Why is it included in the lead, rather than just being mentioned in the body of the article? He's known as a university lecturer, historian and journalist, but he's not an outspoken Marxist; in fact, within the cited sources it is only mentioned in passing. It isn't even highlighted in the lead of articles relating to established, vocal Indian Marxists. - 85.255.232.215 (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, the edit was made by somebody with an axe to grind. But he is clearly a Marxist intellectual, and quite open about it. See this interview [2] for example. Note that the article is not well-structured into lead and body yet. It seems to have grown by fits. It needs major restructuring. If you can put effort into it, that would be quite welcome. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Vijay Prashad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)