Talk:Arundhati Roy/Archive 1

Comment
Arundhati Roy has managed to annoy the Supreme Court of India, an american commentator and the environmental activist Ms. Medha Patkar all at the same time, a gadfly indeed!

[user:Abhijna]

i have added one line about the controversy regarding her illegal encroachment of protected forest land (with reference)Bharatveer 05:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Some information has been changed on this site due to gross amounts of misninformation. I am Ms Roy's cousin and I have made a few amendments to the script regarding her life. I do insist that at no time was she homeless or lived under a "tin roof". Regards, Partha


 * I have added the references regarding her Contempt cases.Can anyone help in fixing the references??Bharatveer 07:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

abusive text
At the end of the summary/ abstract section I noticed some troll has added the phrase 'rand hain saali', which is rather tasteless and disgraceful. thing is, when i tried to remove this text from the 'edit page' tool, i couldn't find it; yet it appears in the main entry...

Can someone do something about this?

Sam

Hi Sam,

While it is ture that such abuse should be avoided and whoever doing it be banned. On the other hand I have seen any critisizm is removed. It looks like all oil money spondored Anti-Americans and Anti-India people have lot of paid supports on the net who are abusing free media such as wikipedia. We should also try and restrict such people.

Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeindia (talk • contribs) 07:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

also the comments by advani and tiwari are a part of her personality and should be presented as such NAGESH VAKIL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nageshvkl (talk • contribs) 03:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Accusations of Anti-Americanism"
Under the section titled "Accusations of Anti-Americanism", the footnote hyperlinks to a report ostensibly presented before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. That report cites three examples of critics labeling Roy's writings "anti-American": in the Columbia Journalism Review, the New Republic and Mother Jones. However, I could not find the original source of a single one of these examples. In fact, Google searches for these "anti-American" accusations always produce references to the same House Committee report. The author of that report? Stanley Kurtz, a fellow of the conservative Hoover Institution and contributing editor of the conservative National Review Online. I should think that under no circumstances should a piece of think tank agitprop (conservative or liberal) be offered as a source (let alone the sole source) for any Wikipedia entry. If the original examples cited -- in the Columbia Journalism Review, the New Republic or Mother Jones -- do exist, then shouldn't your article hyperlink to those originals? If they do not exist, the entire section -- "Accusations of Anti-Americanism" -- should be deleted, as this one questionable report is the only source for all of the examples cited.--Gdr2634 06:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)gdr2634

It is said here The Mary Roy has been running a school called corpus christi,but when the link is followed it takes to "Pallikodam".There needs to be a clarification when this renaming ocurred.

Media celebrity Pranoy Roy is said to be a relative of Arundhati Roy.For this citation is needed.--Lakshmanan 06:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Zora's edits
I noticed that a certain editor had removed some material that I had to agree was POV -- but, he also removed a quote from Roy responding to criticism. I restored the quote, and then tried to make the article as neutral as I possibly could. I don't suppose it will stop being a political football, but ... all we can do is keep trying. Zora 09:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That quote i removed was full of spelling mistakes.I dont agree withyour idea of neutrality as well.-Bharatveer 10:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, if the woman is being accused, it's only fair to let her defend herself, spelling mistakes or no. Zora 10:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Corpus Christi
At the top, it says she went to school in corpus christi (ie the city in texas) and in the personal life section, it says she went to a school called corpus christi, run by her mother. which is true? 86.137.111.33 08:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * that would be the school... joseph 18:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

support to terrorists? == ==

the cited article does not state anything close to the effect of "Roy has also been accused of supporting terrorist and extremist ideologies". in fact, what it does say is this:

The whole case is full of faulty evidence and fabricated stories and to hang someone for something he may not have done is not fair.

that's hardly supporting terrorist and extremist ideologies. i think it should be removed, unless it can be cited by a source that actually DOES show the implication. 192.223.226.6 20:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

BharatVeer's RV
What is the justification to removing somany formatting changes, new pictures, and lots of rework? If you have a content-dispute please address it. Also if you have not already read it, please see Help:Revert, wikipedias policy on using reverts. --பராசக்தி 07:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Pls read wiki policies regarding this.-Bharatveer 08:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, that's not an answer. Zora 09:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * User :Zora, Pls read this - "Wikipedia is not a battleground.Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. " - from What Wikipedia is not. -Bharatveer 09:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, that's not to the point. The point is explaining your revert. Zora 10:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you got the point there. Regards-Bharatveer 11:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Bharatveer, you have made a large revert without explaination, and as such, it may denote vandalism. Your revert did not, IMHO, enhance the encyclopedia. You're refusing to explain yourself is not helping matters any. --Bhuston 16:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

copyvio
Why is there a copyvio thing on the page? The reasons havent been spelled out either here or on the page. Hornplease 11:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"anti-India" criticism section
have removed the following text from the section. while Roy's words are sourced, the charaterisation that that these statements constitute an "anti-India bias" needs to be attributed, o/w it becomes original research. Doldrums 12:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Roy has accused India of amassing 7,00,000 troops in the troubled state of Jammu and Kashmir. Her book entitled "The Algebra of Infinite Justice”, is critical of Indian control in Kashmir, Nagaland and Manipur . Many times it is indicated from her statements that she does not have any faith in Indian Judiciary and law; to cite an example, she defended parliamentary bomb accused Afzal by saying that his case is full of false evidence and fabricated stories . She believes that there is no democracy in India and surprisingly she says this to an audience in New York.

likewise, this time in the "anti-American" section. Doldrums 14:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Roy criticized US President George Bush's trip to India in March 2006.
 * have now added it to the advocacy section. Doldrums 08:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

birth year
Roy was born in 1959, according to, conflicts with the date in the article. Doldrums 11:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Charlie Rose interview
i removed the rather large segment on this, following WP:BRD. i feel that this incident is not sufficiently notable to be discussed at such length. it is not clear from Roy's interview with Goodman that this was "censorship". If the podcast source asserts that it is (btw, i suspect such a assertion would be disputed) i think it may deserve a 2 sentence mention on the Charlie Rose article, rather than a three paragraph mention as an "Arundathi Roy controversy". Doldrums 14:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's an acceptable compromise, as per WP:BRD. It was a significant publicity incident for this author, not for Charlie Rose. I'm not sure if you're American or are familiar with PBS broadcasting, but it and the Charlie Rose program are public television stations and available on every American television set, the striking of the interview (whether you personally consider it censorship or not) is a significant controversy.MartinDuffy (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Father's religion
Not only is it non-notable (unlike her mother's, because Mary Roy won a major court case relating to Syrian Christian inheritance law) but it is inaccurate to say he was Hindu. In actual fact, he was from the same family of Bengali Christians as Prannoy Roy. I have found one apparently reliable source that says "Hindu" but I strongly suspect that that's been picked up from here. Arundhati herself in all her interviews never gives a religion. Relata refero (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion
Please do not delete without discussing it here.-Bharatveer (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actress
Have added mention of her acting in two films as per this IMDB entry.Browndog72 (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Supporting Islamic Fundamentalists in Kashmir
This should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.159.108 (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a pretty vague sort of statement, unsigned and all--perhaps from a sock puppet. Your 'contribution' to the Wikipedia article was to call her a traitor; your rhetorical argumentation is that of 'guilt by association' (you added, "She supports Kashmir seperatists, whose cause is also supported by Islamic Fundamentalists"). So, if she support such separatism, what, she's responsible for 9/11 also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 02:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead
I am against having Controversial in the lead. None of the sources provided says so. It is just the conclusion of some people that she is controversial. But then there may be others who think another way. I don't find any reason to include it in the lead unless there are strong sources supporting that. Otherwise, let the readers draw conclusions whether she has to be named controversial or not. The sources provided through very poor quality disruptive edits by the user Raulmisir does not say that she is controversial. They just contain some sharp reactions to some of her comments about sensitive issues, but in fact most of the points are already accounted in the article under separate section. Suigeneris (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Besides, the one user who keeps reinstating that useless sentence about separatists (as if her life's work boils down to one interpretation of a current event) should try to do so in careful and well-written English.Drmies (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Thegodofsmallthings.jpg
The image Image:Thegodofsmallthings.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --11:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism POV, lack of references, and misquotations
I have removed this paragraph: "Arundhati is known to be a rabblerouser and relishes in stirring up controversies. She has been accused of sympathising with terrorists justifying their acts by exaggerating their sufferings. On the Mumbai attacks of November 26, 2008, Ms Roy in an article in the Guardian newspaper blamed India for the attacks and opined that India deserved these attacks. " It engages in POV where she is called a "rabblerouser." It does not quote the accusations of "sympathizing with terrorists" or "justifying their acts by exaggerating their sufferings" (it seems these are the views of whoever has inserted this bit, and they are attributed to nameless others). And it misquotes her Guardian article saying that she "opined that India deserved these attacks." She never said any such thing. If you think she did, please include a proper quote. -- Alireza

the quotes by Mr advani on arundhati are representative of the view of a large number of indians, also the quotes of manish tiwari are well documented in the press. also quotes regarding her believes can be well seen in the webpage http://ibnlive.in.com/news/if-treated-like-taslima-id-give-up-writing/53464-3-single.html. so all these comments form a part of her personality, and in view of the holistic and integral approach that wikipedia takes, they should be made available to the users.Nageshvkl

ALSO I FIND THAT SOMEONE CONSTANTLY DELETES THE SECTION CRITICISM IN MEDIA. it is an integral part of her personality, and everything is well documented. the section contains no lies. so stop deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.211.212.77 (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

contribs) 18:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE HAVE A DISCUSSION HERE, BEFORE SOMEONE AGAIN DELETES IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.211.212.77 (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, the section is completely unreferenced and is not written well, let alone encyclopedic. Second, why should an article on Roy be overwhelmed by criticism of Roy? I find it somewhat distasteful and disrespectful that every Roy-hater who said somethign on some blog be given room in this article. Maybe those who yell on this talk page could do us all the courtesy of signing in and actually engaging in discussion. Without all-caps.
 * After looking at it again, more closely, I realize that I was too kind. The section is in fact poorly written--it is quite unclear who says what when in response to what, and I have a mind to delete it altogether. A short paragraph with some well-referenced criticism is one thing, but a completely unreferenced attempt at diatribe is quite another. I would urge the author (and the editors who keep this in place and keep reinstating it) to at least make the section adhere to a. grammatical standards and b. sourcing on a par with WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism in the Media
I have removed this section because it is unsourced. As per WP:BLP and WP:V, critical material must be sourced by a reliable source to be included. Additionally, the material must be presented in context and be relevant to the biography. If the material is added back with proper attribution, I suggest that, rather than having a general 'Criticism in the Media' section (will we also have a 'Praise in the Media' section?), relevant critical appraisal of her work be included in each relevant subsection. We must be extra careful what and how we put material into the biography of a living person. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 18:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

May be we need to add a section 'Criticism'
I remember one particular article from Guha? in Hindu which is very balanced. If somebody can find a link to it, it will add value to the article. Chavakiran (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is already in the article. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 15:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR and 'Do the math yourself'
By interpreting Ms. Roy's listing of countries bombed by the US as saying showing the proportion of years of U.S. bombing increasing after 1989 (end of the Soviet Union) you are putting words into Ms. Roy's mouth that she may not have intended. Nothing in the article points to her singling out the post-1989 world and US bombings of other countries. Best to stick to what the individual actually says and 'not do the math yourself'. --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 05:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected
I've semi=protected the page for two weeks. Please explain here (in this section) why you believe your conclusions from the Guardian article are not WP:OR per Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. Thanks. --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 18:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Roy's list
This section needs to be cleaned up immediately. It amounts to nothing more than inappropriate and impartial editorializing and has no place in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cratedigger (talk • contribs) 07:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

have removed this section as her Guardian piece is better summed up a couple of paragraphs above. the second half of this section, originally written for the article on US imperialism, goes beyond what Roy herself has stated and does not belong here. Doldrums 08:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That single sentence addresses post-9/11 only. Roy's list addresses US conduct post-WWII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.98.135.196 (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * not quite, that sentence reads, "listing the numerous armed conflicts the U.S. has been involved in since the second world war". Doldrums (talk) 09:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Roy has gathered a compelling piece of evidence for her position. In an opinion piece in the Manchester Guardian (10/23/01), Roy wrote, "Here is a list of the countries that America has been at war with - and bombed - since the second world war:" Updated, it reads China (1945-46, 1950-53), Korea (1950-53), Guatemala (1954, 1967-69), Indonesia (1958), Cuba (1959-60), Vietnam (1961-73), the Belgian Congo (1964), Laos (1964-73), Peru (1965), Cambodia (1969-70), Nicaragua (the 1980s), El Salvador (the 1980s), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-99, 2003-08), Bosnia (1995), Sudan (1998), Yugoslavia (1999), and Afghanistan (2001-08). (see "Brutality smeared in peanut butter") From this, the years 1947-49, 1955-57, 1974-79, 1990 and 2000 were the only peaceful ones. 73% of the years, from World War II's end until 1989, the U.S. was militarily intervening somewhere. After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 (not counting conflicts like Colombia where governing elites request help against rebellious subpopulations) the U.S. was actively militarily intervening in a foreign country at least 89% of the years into 2008.

"She disputes U.S. claims of being a peaceful and freedom-loving nation, listing the numerous armed conflicts the U.S. has been involved in since World War II, a list of twenty countries showing the proportion of years of U.S. bombing increasing after 1989 (end of the Soviet Union), casting doubt upon U.S. claims that Containment was sole motivation for 3rd World interventions during the Cold War."

A simple fact, presented w/o controversy here, here, here, here, and here, with which, no doubt, Ms. Roy herself would agree. The only controversy seems to be whether it's a stretch or not. If inspection or simple math suffices, it isn't. -74.162.149.2 (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to understand this issue. It seems like you feel "Roy's list" should be covered in a more meaningful way. I'm utterly unfamiliar with this person but the sources you link don't seem to be reliable sources. Do we have something compelling that this is an ongoing issue or, perhaps, is this a current dialog that should be focussed into a longer life arc of their work and philosophy? -- Banj e  b oi   14:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See the latest at bottom. -MBHiii (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Guardian article, original claims, and undue weight
I've read the Guardian article carefully and it neither casts "doubt upon U.S. claims that Containment was sole motivation for 3rd World interventions during the Cold War" nor does it say anything about the "proportion of years of U.S. bombing increasing after 1989 (end of the Soviet Union)". The division of pre and post cold war US policy/wars/bombing is not something that the article explicitly makes. If anyone feels that there is sufficient implicit evidence for these claims not to qualify as original research, please do so on the talk page BEFORE editing the article itself or I'll be forced to protect it. IMO, the amount of real estate given to the Guardian article is already undue - it is but one thing she has written, but, at the least let us make sure that anything we say is defensible and well sourced. Thank you. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by User:Mbhiii (copied from my talk page):
 * A simple fact, presented w/o controversy


 * 1) here,
 * 2) here,
 * 3) here,
 * 4) here, and
 * 5) here, with which, no doubt, Ms. Roy herself would agree. You say it's a stretch. If inspection or simple math suffices to see it, it isn't. The world seems to accept it. -MBHiii (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the references. Note that all five of the references you have provided are wikipedia mirrors and provide no support at all. What is necessary, per WP:V and WP:NOR is an independent reliable source that supports the two claims I've mentioned above. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Right--they are copies of (often) older versions of our article, and not independent. You say that Ms. Roy would undoubtedly agree, and while that may be true, it is not verifiable. If you find that article or speech where she says it, that's a different matter. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What about the argument "If inspection or simple math suffices to see it, it isn't (OR)." In other words, since it's derived directly from (with no additions except common knowledge [dates, etc.]), consistent with, and supports her POV, it's not new, rather simply explanatory? (O/w WP could only quote.) -65.246.126.130 (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The general spirit of WP:OR is that we shouldn't draw conclusions from a source unless it is reasonable. This is hard to do since reasonable people can differ on what is reasonable, especially when the subject is controversial. The usual way around this is to assume that if a conclusion is warranted, and if it is important enough to be included, then some reliable expert in the field would already have drawn that conclusion. Then, all wikipedia has to do is to source the conclusion (drawn by the reliable expert). I guess what we need is a source (a reliable one) that concludes that the claims are reasonably inferred from the text of the article. Failing that, and this is especially true of WP:BLP articles, we should err on the side of not drawing any conclusions at all. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 03:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In 2006, Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General under Lyndon Johnson, wrote something very similar, a continuing list of aggressions, introduced by "Both branches of our One Party system, Democrat and Republican, favor the use of force to have their way." (thus covering the Clinton years) and followed by "The United States government may have been able to outspend the Soviet Union into economic collapse in the Cold War arms race, injuring the entire planet in the process. Now Bush has entered a new arms race and is provoking a Second Cold War..." But, you don't need an expert on U.S. foreign policy to corroborate this. There is the simple evidence of one's own eyes, counting the years she lists, with updates:

Bombs XX---XXXXX---XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX--XXXXXXXXXX-XXXXXXXXX-XXXXXXXXX Peace --XXX-XXXXXXXXX--X-X- Years 45...50...55...60...65...70...75...80...85...90...95...00...05...

i.e., no post-Cold War reduction in years 3rd World gets bombed by US. -MBHiii (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm afraid this would seem to be OR. Peace and war are rather wobbly subjects in politics but certainly a more generalized statement Roy has pointed to the history of the United States since World War II of being at war and bombing other countries which contradicts U.S. statements of being a "peaceful and freedom-loving nation" would seem to be supportable. We can't "do the math" unless it is beyond reproach and this doesn't seem to be. Also much of that speculation or research would likely go in more appropriate articles. Now added onto all that is reliable sourcing showing that not only Roy stated this but others found it noteworthy. Was this a big deal to someone? Were her comments re-reported by other media? Did it generate its own controversy? If not you may want to see if it does become more notable. In the meantime it might add perspective to take a breather from this content and focus on cleaning up the rest of the article. -- Banj e  b oi   03:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * These are simply the years she lists, showing something highly note-worthy. -MBHiii (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But we have to keep it in context for this article as this is not a WP:Soap box . There might be other articles that deal specifically with the content and this article could simply link to them for our readers who want to learn more like Military history of the United States and Cold war. Is there anything besides the Guardian article that supports that this information is noteworthy? If so that would help me ubderstand why the emphasis on it here. -- Banj e  b oi   09:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The math is fine but ascribing the conclusion to Roy is not. One can look at the data in many ways and ascribing one particular view to her, a view which she has not explicitly stated, is what makes it OR. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 12:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying she said it explicitly, but rather implicitly, or in effect. It is a statement of the significance of what she has compiled, and, in this case, one doesn't have to be an expert to see it. -MBHiii (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment She doesn't say it herself, then you can't reference it. It wasn't in the Guardian article.  It is suggested by the writer in the first link you posted.  The second link you posted is a forum post with the title "Interesting Mother Fuckers".  I don't think that counts as a notable reference.  Just because someone post their opinion doesn't make it a fact.  The article is about Arundhati Roy, and if she doesn't specifically say something, you can't quote it.  If someone has a copy of her book, and searches for the words "cold war" or whatnot, then perhaps you can find her saying something about it.  Has anyone read the book?   D r e a m Focus  18:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh...has anyone? yes, millions have--including yours truly. Go read it, it's good. (I don't think there's Cold War in it.) Drmies (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I searched and found Google's book search has her book on it. http://books.google.com/books?id=4LZ2guxa1EIC&dq=Suzanna+Arundhati+Roy+%22The+god+of+small+things%22&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=C8zLSc-2MuL3nQeq3-naCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPP1,M1 I search for the cold war, and don't find it mentioned even once. Search around though, and if you find anything she specifically said, post it here, for further discussion.   D r e a m Focus  18:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Excellent idea Dream Focus! If I may suggest, however, use this book search of all her books. -- Banj e  b oi   01:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Protection
Please note that the following policies and guidelines apply to this article, specifically to the 'math' issue.
 * 1. 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. (WP:V) No reliable source for the math has been provided so far.
 * 2. Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source ((WP:BLP and WP:OR). The use of this math is clearly a conjectural interpretation.
 * 3. Adding this material has not yet been shown to be in compliance with our policies and guidelines and must be kept off the page until a reliable source is provided. The reliable source must directly support the inserted claim and should not be conjectural. Per WP:BLP, specifically Administrators ...... who have reason to believe that violating material may be re-added, may protect or semi-protect the page after removing the disputed material. We've patiently waited for the reliable source to be provided and I have not yet seen one. I don't want to protect the page but will have to do so if these inadequately sourced claims are re-added to the article. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment ... ridiculous, it's simple counting. You yourself said, immediately above, "The math is fine". Anyone can do it. No expert needed. Given that, all you write below is without foundation. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. The math is fine and would be perfectly appropriate in the article Distribution of years in a list of dated events or some such thing. However, this article is about Arundhati Roy and not about reading such lists. I am reluctantly semi-protecting the page for the time being. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 06:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The suggested article Distribution of years in a list of dated events has no purpose. The table above, however, summarizes her compilation. Also, if ad hominem attacks are allowable in an article (Ian Buruma), so, at least, should be factual support (Ramsey Clark). The edit you dispute is a true, accurate, informative summary of what she has compiled, placed in the context of her times, with which interpretation she would agree, no doubt. Others seem confident enough in it to mirror it without alteration.-MBHiii (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * About the bombings. You say that 'others' have mirrored the interpretation. I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean that other sources have made the same claim that that was Ms. Roy's meaning, then we need to see those sources (your list of sources above are all just copies of this wikipedia page). If you mean that other people have drawn the same 'math' conclusion, then it does not follow that Ms. Roy drew that conclusion or considers it part of her oeuvre of activism or activist writings. I'm not saying that the claim is implausible, but that it is a conjecture that is unsupported by a reliable source. As per wikipedia policies, such conjectures, when challenged, must be removed from the article.--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 01:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and of course the suggested article Distribution of years in a list of dated events has no purpose but that is the only place where one can legitimately make that claim because it is about the 'math' rather than what conclusion someone may or may not have drawn from that list. I thought the intent of my example was quite clear. Please don't reinsert the claim. You may start an RfC if you feel that inclusion of the claim is warranted but insertion of unsourced material that is challenged is against wikipedia's policy. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 05:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ian Buruma criticim
MBHiii, thanks for pointing out the Buruma remark. I took a look at the article cited in the Ian Buruma remarks, and the 'criticism' seems unwarranted. The cited article focuses on the impact of her activism and The question is whether Roy's preposterousness undermines the causes that she promotes and generally concludes that it helps those causes. The 'Bertrand Russel' and 'British lefties' remark is not presented by the author as a 'criticism' but rather as a sort of analysis of where her form of writing (and, I suppose, activism) comes from. The addition of the word 'criticism' seems bizarre at best. I'll let you guys deal with it because perhaps Buruma has phrased this differently elsewhere and I'm no expert on Ms. Roy but, IMO, it is both incorrectly phrased as well as in the wrong place. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 01:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, I concur; MBHiii, I should have been more wary of that claim a long time ago. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Auto archive
I've boldly added auto archiving for threads stale 30+ days leaving a minimum so the page will not empty. -- Banj e b oi   22:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Besmirching Ms. Roy's character
1. The following quote from the article is unsupported by sources (neutral or otherwise):

She has been accused by critics of supporting Islamic and Christian fundamentalists in India and for promoting genocide against the people of Gujarat.

The bold text, in particular, is quite a wild allegation. Even if it is supported by a source (it surely will not be a neutral one), such a comment should not be allowed as it's designed to tarnish her. Kasbee (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed it;

She has been accused by critics of supporting Islamic and Christian fundamentalists in India and for promoting genocide against the people of Gujarat.


 * I agree that this needs to be reliably sourced to be re-added. -- Banj e  b oi   13:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Kasbee and Banje, thanks for looking out. I appreciate y'alls assumption of good faith; you have better manners than I do when it comes to handling such slander. I've given the editor an unsourced-2 warning. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Birth date of Miss A.Roy
Hello everybody,

For your information... reading this article with some attention I was surprised to see at the beginning:"Suzanna Arundhati Roy (born 24 November, 1961)" then, in the References section, under point 1., this link: "^ a b "Arundhati Roy, 1959 -". The South Asian Literary Recordings ", leading to an article that begings with: "Arundhati Roy, born in 1959 at Shillong,..." Hum, doesn't seam very serious...

Now, as I am (right now) reading a compilation book of her articles, and by some coincidence just (also right now) at about the end of the one "the loneliness of Noam Chomsky" (sorry in the case my translation wouldn't be totally correct, I'm reading it in french), I see that She wrote that she was born in 1959. At about one and a half page of the end of this article (depending on your edition): "Child, I grew up in Kerala, a state in the south of India - where the first communist government in the world that was democratically elected came to power in 1959, year of my birth - and I was terribly..."

With best regards, marc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.3.135 (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No clue when she was born but the quote above only appears to say that the first communist government in the world .. came to power in 1959 and is not inconsistent with a 1961 year of birth. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

oops
sorry, I forgot to sign my previous comment following the rule marc, 11 mai 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.3.135 (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Arundhati is a Practicing Syrian Christian
Miss arundhati roy is a practicing syrian christian and she confirmed this on a show called "Indian Journeys - Doubting thomas" hosted by William Dalrymple. Someone please do the needful and add a religion line below her born/occupation/nationality list. Her name gives wrong impressions. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknownbroadway (talk • contribs) 19:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If someone has a doubt then please watch a series of documentaries of william dalrymple's travels in india where he has an interview with arundhati roy. The show has a repeated telecast on fox history & entertainment. Unknownbroadway (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC).

Updated Arundhati Roy's Biography
Biography Contribution to Roy Article

[edit] Attention: We are students currently working on Roy's Biography on behalf of a English Seminar Project, any further contributions would be appreciated. We wanted to add to her biography but had difficulties with the format and citations. However, we still wanted to contribute what we researched to Roy's page. We have provided parenthetical citations as well as a works cited page, so our sources can be available. Due to citing difficulties, any further help with potentially citing our information on Roy's wikipedia page will be greatly appreciated.

Susanna Arundhati Roy was born on November 24, 1959 in Shillong, Meghalaya,[1] India, to a Keralite Syrian Christian mother, the women's rights activist Mary Roy, and a Bengali father, a tea planter by profession. Roy’s parents divorced when she and her brother, Lalith were children (Rao 1). Roy responds to her mother being characterized as an “unconventional woman” by stating she married a man who “was a Bengali Hindu and what’s worse she divorced him, which meant that everyone was confirmed in their opinion that it was a terrible thing to do in the first place…I sometimes think I was perhaps the only girl in India whose mother said, ‘Whatever you do, don’t get married” (Barsamain 2). Roy states that growing up she had, “No father, no presence of this man telling us that he would look after us and beat us occasionally in exchange. I didn’t have a caste, and I didn’t have a class, and I had no religion, no traditional blinkers, no traditional lenses on my spectacles, which are very hard to shrug off” (Barsamian 2). Roy’s mother became “well-known in Kerala because in 1986 after winning a public interest litigation case challenging the Syrian Christian inheritance law that said a woman can inherit one-fourth of her father’s property or 5,000.00 rupees, which ever is less. The Supreme Court actually handed down a verdict that gave women equal inheritance retroactive to 1956” (Barsamian 3). Mary Roy started a school called Corpus Christi (Rao 1). Arundhati Roy was educated at her mother’s school and was the only person in the class at one point (Frumkes 1). Roy describes her mother’s achievements by stating, “She runs a school and it’s phenomenally successful-people book their children in it before they are born-they don’t know what to do with, or me” (Barsamian 3). Roy eventually continued her education at the Lawrence School, Lovedale, in Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu. Arundhati Roy left home at the age of sixteen, to live on her own (Rao 2). Roy states “I grew up in Kerala. It was a nightmare for me. All I wanted to do was to escape, to get out to never have to marry somebody there…I was the worst thing a girl could be: thin, black and clever” (Barsamian 2). Roy eventually decided to study at the School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi. While attending school, Roy lived with a group of young people (Frumkes 2). They lived in a slum colony within the walls of a monument (Frumkes 2). In describing this point of her life Roy states “we had no money but we had a lot of fun. When you’re that young, somehow the future does not scare you. You just live day to day” (Frumkes 2). It was at The School of Architecture where she first met her husband, Gerard D. Cunha (Rao 2). While they were married the couple embarked to Goa on the coast of India where they made and sold cakes to tourists for seven months (Rao 2). However, Roy ended their marriage within four years (Rao 2). Roy eventually found a job with the National Institute of Urban Affairs (Rao 2). Roy met her second husband, filmmaker Pradip Krishen, in 1984, and played a village girl in this award winning movie Massey Sahib. Roy eventually teamed up with her husband to write a screenplay for a television series (Rao 2). Unfortunately the idea failed, but she continued to write more screenplays which resulted in several films including “In Which Annie Gives It Those Ones” and “Electric Moon” (Rao 3).

Works Cited

Barsamian David. “Interview with Arundhati Roy”. April 2001. 

Frumkes, Lewis Burke. “A conversation with Arundhati Roy.” The Writer. 111.11 (Nov. 1998): p23. Literature Resource Center. Gale. ST. JOHNS UNIV. 8 Apr. 2009 .

Rao, E. Nageswara. "Arundhati Roy." South Asian Writers in English. Ed. Fakrul Alam. Dictionary of Literary Biography Vol. 323. Detroit: Gale, 2006. Literature Resource Center. Gale. ST JOHNS UNIV. 14 May 2009 <http://go.galegroup.com/ps/start.do?p=LitRC&u=jama62549>.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Law1221/Sandbox" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Law1221 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The following extract from a 2005 online report seems to expand on a brief statement made at the end of the preceding report: that the Banyan Tree TV serial was not completed, at least not under that name.

“She linked up with Krishen, now her husband, and they planned a 26-episode television epic for Doordarshan called 'The Banyan Tree'. The independent production company ITV advanced the money. Unfortunately, they had only shot enough footage for three or four episodes when ITV scrapped the serial. However, Bhaskar Ghose, then director-general of Doordarshan, met Roy who told him that she wanted to write, but that she didn't think anyone would finance her kind of screenplays. Ghose agreed to finance the deal and the result was the film 'In Which Annie Gives It Those Ones'.” (Note: Scroll down this article.)

In another report (purportedly from 1997) the following is stated: "Much of this getting ready, like the discipline that anchors a writer, would initially come through crafting screen plays - 'The Banyan Tree' a television epic for which she wrote 26 episodes but was never done, and the films Annie and Electric Moon." Ombudswiki (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)