Talk:Dinesh Singh (academic)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... the the situation is other way around. The other site has copied and pasted material from the wikipedia article in question. Earlier also another editor by mistake had deleted this page but later when this issue was brought to his notice, he reinstated the page.

Contested negative information
I want to bring it to the notice of the moderators and all my worthy fellow contributors that most of the negative stories on Prof. Dinesh Singh are coming from the Times of India. Does it not show the bias of the respective reporters towards him?! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utthaan (talk • contribs) 11:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like to contest the following information by citing several noteworthy news items. The Executive Council of the University of Delhi has censured Javid Chowdhury for spreading false information about Dr Kasturirangan. Chowdhury admits to having made a "typographical error" in this regard. "Chancellor’s nominee to the EC, Javid Chowdhury has raised the issue of legality of the appointment of Dinesh Singh as the Vice Chancellor of Delhi University. He pointed out that the committee that selected Dinesh Singh as the successor of Deepak Pental as the VC of Delhi University also included Dr Kasturirangan as one of the members of the search committee while he was then the scientific advisor to the Prime Minister and his presence on the search committee constituted a conflict of interest." http://wap.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/du-chancellor-s-nominee-censured-by-executive-council-115101301248_1.html http://www.hindustantimes.com/education/ex-upsc-chief-to-join-du-v-c-selection-panel/story-vci8fOyzkasVFCM03kfFOP.html http://www.deccanherald.com/content/506324/ex-upsc-chief-du-search.html Utthaan (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with that observation and decision to remove the above mentioned text from the wikipedia article. Though he used the wrong name and accepted that mistake, he did not take back the allegation of conflict of interest as he still claimed (in the above cited newspaper report) that ""This is to point out that there has been a small typographical error. The search committee set up in year 2010 had Dr R. Chidambaram, Principal Scientific Advisor to the GOI on it and not Dr. K. Kasturirangan," I am not sure if there was indeed a conflict of interest but at least there is an allegation. However, in the light of the statement by Javid Chowdhury, I think it would be wise to remove this whole paragraph as the user Utthaan has already done. Thank you. Annie.132.216.238.63 (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence to the following on the page, this is a serious charge and shouldn't be allowed to put without evidence."The V K Shunglu Committee, appointed by Government of India to probe allegations of corruption charges in the conduct of Commonwealth Games 2010, found evidence of misappropriation of funds, irregularities, weaknesses in management and wrongdoing in Delhi University and indicted many officials including Singh." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utthaan (talk • contribs) 08:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is a serious charge but I do not agree with the statement that there is no evidence given in the publication. The publication (see the partial screenshot here : http://s29.postimg.org/c1c7pqgzb/ds_cbi.png) a copy of which is hosted on CBI (central bureau of investigations, Government of India's main investigation agency) server, clearly starts by saying that Shunglu Committee had concluded in its report that DU officials including Dinesh Singh and the another accused Anupam Shrivastva whom the CBI wanted to probe were involved in the financial mismanagement during CWG games. Report is pretty detailed and based on the letter correspondences suggests that Dinesh Singh refused to give permission to CBI to investigate the case against Anupam Kumar who was one of the accused in the CWG Games scam.
 * Dear Slawekb: I see that you deleted this information which is in public domain and is not based on any rumour. I would be fine with your decision and would not undo that update on my own. However, I am not sure why did you mention that : "Singh does not even seem to be mentioned in that source". Maybe you were looking at the wrong page. I would appreciate if you can please go through the screenshot that I have provided and/or read the 2 page article available at the link that was in the reference list, and then make your decision based on those facts. If after seeing that, you still believe that that text is not relevant or does not show any significant controversy then I would accept your decision. Thanks. Annie.132.216.238.63 (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

If the information the various IPs insist on adding is sourced and worded correctly, then by all means let's add it. Edit warring is not the solution, but we must observe important policies and guidelines, otherwise we turn the article into an agenda. No one controls any articles around here, but it could be argued that the repeated removals by have been appropriate given the tone and weight of the material, if perhaps with a lack of communication on their part. Please propose the addition(s) with sources below. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear FreeRangeFrog, As one can easily see that that   has removed any information that shows the negative aspect of the personality, and the controversies that the personality in question has been embroiled in. This is not what a neutral article should look like. By hiding any negative information about a person that is in the public domain and published in the credible national newspapers, the article remains nothing but a promotion page for the person. The user   has been engage in edits that clearly are intended to hide the negative things about the person. The content that he has removed is based on the reports in the national media. If there is any issue with the wording of the content, then   should specify which sentences he has objection to and what is the basis for such an objection. I can help in rephrasing the sentences or removing any sentence that is not appropriate as per the policy of wikipedia. However, removing all the negative content without giving any rationale is inappropriate.

I appreciate your effort to resolve this issue regarding this article. Best, Annie.67.71.166.98 (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't contest that negative information has been removed, my point is that we can't turn this article into a "Scandal at the University of Delhi"-type deal. Some of the material that was repeatedly removed can be added, with different wording and less weight, so long as you take the time to summarize it into maybe one paragraph or so that we can place under "Tenure controversies" or something like that. If you and the other people involved feel they can use this article to right great wrongs or publish their agenda, I can assure you that will be very frustrating for you all. So, let's see that one well-sourced paragraph. The onus is on you, not on the user who removed it, because it was inappropriate from both a wording, relative weight and sourcing perspectives. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your POV and agree with your decision. Best, Annie 67.71.166.98 (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello involved parties - I probably won't be able to get to this until Monday evening or Tuesday (my time), but feel free to continue tweaking the material below. I'd say it is still too much, too wordy and a bit dramatic. Also yes, some of those sources are not reliable but many are. § FreeRangeFrog croak 07:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed addition(s) with sources
Please let me know if the following para is okay in terms of tone, wording and other aspects (and meets the policies of wikipedia) and if the sources cited are acceptable. I will try to fix any remaining issues. If you think that I am biased, please let anyone else rephrase the content that has been published in the national newpapers (and cited below) about the personality of the person in question. Feel free to add/delete/modify the content below before adding it to the article. Thanks. Annie67.71.166.98 (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There are several issues with the overall style. Here are a few things to work on:
 * The first sentence, for example, says "the teaching community has been critical..." which suggests that the community behaves rather monolithically (see WP:WEASEL). I realize that the source also includes monolithic attribution, but that isn't really appropriate here.  An encyclopedia article should be specific, and discuss only facts.  If individuals have been critical, then we should mention those individuals.  If organizations have issued white papers, we should name the organizations.  But "teaching community" is too amorphous.

>> I agree with your point and have replaced "teaching community" with "Delhi University Teachers’ Association (DUTA)" as the news reports in [1] is based on the DUTA's whitepaper. 67.71.166.98 (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Avoid non-neutral language like "shrouded". We should just report what individuals and organizations have alleged.  "Shrouded" seems like we are passing judgement on the matter.  A lot of the problems with the style could be solved by stating things in an affirmative, active voice.  In particular, "X was shrouded by Y" does not pass this test, unless there was literally a shroud involved and we are making some descriptive statement (say, of a work of art).

>> I agree. I have tried to rephrase the sentence. I hope it is better now. If not, I would be happy to revise it as per your suggestion. 67.71.166.98 (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Can we just cut to the chase and say, in an active voice, what this white paper says and who is responsible for it? I find the sentence that introduces it very hard to parse.  "Taking cognizance of..."  &endash; who is taking cognizance of this exactly?

>> I hope that the modified sentence reads better.67.71.166.98 (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * We should not describe reforms as "controversial reforms" (probably WP:WTA). Describe the reforms, then describe the controversy.  Making them "controversial reforms" is passing judgement.

>> I removed the term "controversial". 67.71.166.98 (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "He has also allegations..." Again, active voice.  If there are allegations, someone must be doing the alleging.  Who?

>> I removed the whole sentence. Also provided more details about who is making the allegation and what is the allegation.67.71.166.98 (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The proposed "Political activism" section seems like a WP:COATRACK. It does not describe activism so much as political brown-nosing.  The discussion is not neutral here, and I don't have any specific suggestions for improving it, partly because I don't really know anything about Indian politics.  I would probably just kill the section as irrelevant political ephemera.

>> May be the issue is with the wording of subsection heading. I removed that. I also removed the sentence that you think is political "brown-nosing". However, I think it is important to keep the allegations published in the media that are related to the administrative style/policy/strategy of someone whose primary job is as an administrator. Given the significant (negative) role of casteism in Indian political and social system, allegations against the top administrator of a premier University is of significance. If you and other editors do not think it deserves inclusion in the article, I would remove it as well. 67.71.166.98 (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * -- Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If the sources mentioned by user Annie are looked at carefully, one can quite easily conclude that [9][11][12][16][17] are poor and lack credibility. They share personal opinions and not facts. Unsungdarkknight16:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)t

>> I cannot understand on what basis the user is claiming that the sources which are reputed (Indian) newspapers are poor and lack credibility. 67.71.166.98 (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Controversies During Tenure as Vice-Chancellor

Various controversies regarding his administrative style and decisions taken during his administration have have been reported in the media. The Delhi University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) has been critical of the administration style of Singh and has termed his style of functioning as “authoritarian” and “megalomaniac” [1][2]. A ‘White Paper’ released by Delhi University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) alleged financial and administrative irregularities in functioning of Delhi University, like diversion of OBC funds for purchase of laptops or flagging off ‘Gyanodaya Express’[2]. The Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, after approval of the President of India (who is also the Visitor of Delhi University) has issued a showcause notice to Singh regarding these allegations [3]. He is the first Delhi University Vice-Chancellor who has been served a show-cause notice to be removed from the post [3].

He was instrumental in initiating Four Year Undergraduate Program (FYUP) which met with a lot of resistance from different quarters, after which the programme was scrapped [4]. Thereafter, Singh announced his resignation [5] but later retracted it [6].

The V K Shunglu Committee, appointed by Government of India to probe allegations of corruption charges in the conduct of Commonwealth Games 2010, found evidence of misappropriation of funds, irregularities, weaknesses in management and wrongdoing in Delhi University and indicted many officials including Singh. Later he refused to give permission, which was sought by CBI, to investigate the case of financial misappropriation of funds against the Delhi University officials in the CWG 2010 scam [8].

DUTA has also recently charged Singh with plagiarism and has seeked investigation into these plagiarism charges against him [12][10][11]. Various newspaper reports, citing Delhi University sources, have reported that Singh has been playing the casteist card and was engaged in crony politics at various levels of decision-making and in appointments [9][16][17].

References

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

67.71.166.98 (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Annie

Thank you, Slawekb. I am glad that I was able to edit as per your suggestions. In the meanwhile someone made an edit in the article and by mistake changed a date. "Dinesh Singh is an Indian professor of mathematics and since 2000" should be "Dinesh Singh is an Indian professor of mathematics and since 2010"   Hope it helps. Annie 67.71.166.98 (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My concerns over the tone have been addressed satisfactorily. It might be worth waiting for others to weigh in.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I am honestly not getting a good reliable source vibe from milleniumpost.in but I don't see that it's being used to source anything controversial. So maybe the duplicates can be removed. Beyond that I think this has the appropriate tone and weight. any objections? Please voice them now and not after the material is added to the article by consensus. § FreeRangeFrog  croak 20:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I quote directly from source [17] "Sources said Singh’s resignation may settle the controversy on FYUP but it could just be the beginning of a series of other controversies he may find himself mired in, some of which may end with institution of inquiries. In the Delhi University teachers' circle, Singh has for long been accused of playing the casteist card and of crony politics at various levels of decision-making and in appointments."

I cannot comprehend how this can be accepted as a reliable source of information to put down the statement regarding casteist card and crony politics in an encyclopedia article. The other two sources [9] and [16] do not even mention it. And [17] does not state a fact, it's the writer's opinion at best. All the author writes is that "in the delhi university's teacher's circle Singh has been accused of playing the casteist card etc.." Who are these individuals? Where is their knowledge sprouting from? Unsungdarkknight (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would still lose the last sentence that refers to crony capitalism and casteism. It isn't specifically attributed.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to defer to the judgement of Slawekb and FreeRangeFrog (as you guys have the interest of the quality of Wikipedia in your mind and action and are neutral in the issue about this article). I am learning about the process and the criteria to use for including information in an article on wikipedia. In response to comments by talk:Unsungdarkknight, I have few queries:
 * 1) If we know who are the individuals who are making the allegations, then does it give more credibility to the information. In that case:
 * a) Inder Kapahy who is former member of the Executive Council, Delhi University wrote in an article, published by millenium post (http://www.millenniumpost.in/NewsContent.aspx?NID=61451), while talking about DU VC Dinesh Singh administrative actions, that " The manner in which the university authorities made appointments to teaching positions is a sordid tale requiring looking into. That the Left was being contained is a cover up excuse. Only those who were the known lackeys of Congress groups in DU were appointed. Academic Standards were blatantly compromised at the altar of casteism, regionalism and lackeyism. "
 * b) Rakesh Sinha (political scientist and Associate Professor at Delhi University source: http://www.indiapolicyfoundation.org/static/Director.aspx) made same allegations against Singh in a public meeting held to felicitate HRD Minister and "blamed Delhi University administration for encouraging caste politics"  (http://www.millenniumpost.in/NewsContent.aspx?NID=59145). If these were defamatory allegations and untrue then there would have been a defamation case against all those who made such allegations. However, there is none.
 * So is it wrong to state that there are allegations of casteism against Singh, levelled by senior teachers in the DU community such as Inder Kapahy, Rakesh Sinha.
 * c) If times of India, one of the most reputed newspaper of India, cites a "DU official" (though unnamed due to privacy and secrecy reasons) who says that "Singh is even working on caste lines and has met prominent BJP leaders of his caste" then is it not evidence that Singh has been engaged in caste based politics. I do not believe that the journalist is making up the source. One cannot force a journalist to reveal his/her sources of information but that does not mean that the information is not reliable. I guess in these cases, we have to go with the facts as mentioned by a journalist unless there is any information that shows otherwise.


 * One last thing: though this wikipedia article states that Singh is Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Mathematics, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, .USA (based on the information stated by Singh on the official DU site (http://www.du.ac.in/du/index.php?page=vice-chancellor), the site of Univ. of Houston does not mention him as one of the adjunct faculty (http://www.mathematics.uh.edu/people/postdoctorals-adjunct-and-research%20faculty/index.php).


 * Thank you, Annie 67.71.166.98 (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I still find it hard to trust these sources. But I guess this decision can be left to FreeRangeFrog and Slawomir Bialy. I just find it extremely hard to fathom that you would use an argument along the lines of "go with the journalist unless there is any information that shows otherwise." If I make a claim that flying elephants exist, can you provide any proof that they do not exist?


 * No, but if you use the correct analogy, I can state the fact that a person whose goes by the name "Unsungdarkknight" on wikipedia made that claim. I would then either provide proof against that claim (based on published reliable sources) or if not, then I will let the people judge whether the statement made by "Unsungdarkknight" was rationale, reasonable or motivate readers to find out more about that claim (and may be later come back to wikipedia and use reliable sources to falsify the statement made by the person in question. I hope it is clear what the correct logic is and what can/cannot be said based on what is available in public reliable records. I believe that the discussion is being diverted from the main issues at hand by "Unsungdarkknight". I sincerely hope that it is unintentional. Annie 70.51.145.85 (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Using that argument I could say that apart from these two individuals Sinha and Kapahi, majority of the university folk do not mention anything of this sort, therefore it must be false.
 * I never said that the statement made by these individuals is true (the words specifically used is "allegation"). So, the logic given above is irrelevant. Morevover, if there are no public, reliable sources that have mentioned any other persons' account then it does not mean that those people do not have an opinion... they may have an opinion (either consistent or contrary with Sinha and Kapahi's opinion) " but we would not know unless a survey is conducted and reported in newspapers. However, until then we cannot make any statement about what the rest of the teachers think, believe or opine. Annie 70.51.145.85 (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not know why are you putting words in my mouth. I understand the logic that you gave. What I meant was that if a reporter gets some information (confidential but reliable) from sources that s/he knows to be reliable and publishes the facts as reported by the (confidential) source without naming the source, then can we assume that there was indeed a source (here: a "DU official" as mentioned in that report) and s/he made those statements or not? That is my simple submission.

I don't want to get into the debate about how reliable a newspaper like Times of India is, because it'll be a lost battle.


 * So if you say that Times of India (TOI) is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia policies, then I am not sure what would be? Is "thequint.com" (the source you cite) better than TOI? I had not even heard of that source and be looking at their site, I am not sure who are the reporters publishing on that site?. Anyway, if there is a debate about the reliability of the news reported in a national newspaper with wide circulation, then I am not sure I can find any authentic source for anything. Annie 70.51.145.85 (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

So again it's up to Slawomir and FreeRageFrog. I think the articles you mentioned written by Kapahi is absolute rubbish on a good day. Many of his "facts" are fiction. For example where does he get the figure 180 crores for laptops? If you want to read into the truth, here is the full response to the show cause notice that was issued to him by the MHRD, http://www.thequint.com/downloads/20150409004119.pdf.


 * Please read carefully and you will see the mistake that you are making. I have never claimed or written that these allegations are facts. There are allegations, which may be wrong and I am willing to accept that. However, it is you who is asserting that what Singh, who is the party on whom allegations were levelled, wrote in his reply to the showcause notice is the truth. No rationale person would make such an assertion. If statement by accused can be considered the truth by default without any enquiry/investigation then no one could be held guilty of any crime. Even FIR filed by police is based on allegations. At the time of registering of FIR the police does not know the truth but during the investigations truth comes out and either the accused is charged or allegations are dismissed.  Annie 70.51.145.85 (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe if one reads this carefully, one will be forced to remove the sentence about DUTA alleging financial irregularities as well (skip to page 15 if you want to get to the issue immediately). For those who do not have the time, a super brief summary can be found at http://www.thequint.com/2015/apr/09/exclusive-is-delhi-university-vc-dinesh-singh-a-villain. But this shall really not be satisfying enough because it's too concise, so I encourage you to read the entire response.

Also I would like to add that Singh was also a recipient of an Honorary doctorate from the University of Houston in 2014. The. This should be added to the list of universities which have awarded his honorary doctorates in the Early life and Background section. One could remove the part of Adjunct Professorship since user Annie has pointed out that the University of Houston website does not list it. Unsungdarkknight (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In that case, should we mention that as per the Delhi Univ. site he is adjunct faculty and as per Uof Houston he is not (or something along those lines). Because how do we know which source to trust --- both of them being official website's of two reputed University. Annie 70.51.145.85 (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for finding these sources. Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate to summarize the subject's response to the show-cause notice.  Also, including the Honorary Doctorate (as opposed to adjunct faculty) seems like a good idea.  I still would like to see the above paragraphs on the controversy reduced to a summary of just a few sentences if possible.  Especially the last part, which just seems like political ephemera without any specific charges.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with your point Sławomir that we need to summarize the subject's response to the show-cause notice. I guess, Unsungdarkknight knows that content very well (and that too from the perspective of Singh) and would be able to add a summary of subject's response to the show-cause notice. If anyone can further shorten the para that I wrote, then I would welcome that. Regarding the last part, having the casteism allegation (which might be a non-exisiting concept in North America -- closest would be charges of discrimination against or favor based on race, etc.,) against a topmost authority of a premier educational institution published in a newspaper that has wide circulation (i.e., it is not a blog that I can create without any time or cost which no one in the world may see or read) needs to be at least mentioned in an article about various facets of an important personality's life and style of administrative functioning. Casteism and cronyism is a specific and serious allegation. If there is a counter to this charge published by reputed credible sources then by all means we should also include that in the article. However, if consensus of all the esteemed editors who are watching this article edits is to remove that part then I would accept their decision. Annie 70.51.145.85 (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Unsungdarkknight (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Also I just wanted to pose a question, why does everything that DUTA mention, propose or allege, have to be taken so seriously? This is a question out of curiosity and nothing more. I say this because after all DUTA is just a worker's union of sorts as I understand it, and not a statutory body of the University of Delhi such as the Academic Council and Executive Council.

DUTA represents all the teachers of Delhi University. So it is important to know what that body says about the VC of the University (as it should carry more weight about what the teachers of the University are alleging against the VC (whether those allegations are true or not is not the question, the fact that they are allegations means that they may be wrong) as compared to one or two teachers raising allegations against a person. Can only a statutory body raise allegations against someone. I do not think that it the policy of wikipedia that a worker union (of all the teachers of Delhi University) claims or allegations against a person would be considered unreliable. As long as the article is clearly saying that it is the DUTA who is making the allegations, and that these are allegations, then what is the issue.

Annie 67.71.166.98 (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Moreover, given that you know so much about the DU, you might also know that the Chancellor's (who is the Vice-President of India) representative on the Executive Council (the statutory body that you mention) had written strong letter to Singh talking about the arbitrary and dictatorial style of his functioning, taking all vital decision using his emergency powers, allowing rowdy behavior in the EC meetings, taking illegal actions and decisions, and giving extra legal punishment to the employees by suspending or terminating them without any valid legal reasons to harass them as the legal remedy that they get comes after long time and at a monetary cost. I did not mention anything about this even though this allegation have been made by the Chancellor's nominee ( you can get a copy of these letters by filing a RTI application) as this was not reported by any published source. I also did not mention the very strong words used by the DUTA president against the VC -- "Dinesh Singh acting like terrorist, has taken university hostage, says President of Delhi University Teacher's Association" (source: http://www.dnaindia.com/delhi/report-dinesh-singh-acting-like-terrorist-has-taken-university-hostage-says-president-of-delhi-university-teacher-s-association-1997728). There are many such storied reported in the media. The reputation of Singh has already been tarnished by these allegations made against him. We are only reporting some of these allegations to allow the reader to know not only the great things about Singh (such as awards) but also controversies surrounding his administrative methods and style. The article, in the controversy section, is not about black and white objective truth but the grey areas of the personality.   Annie 70.51.145.85 (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the written opinions of the DUTA are indeed very relevant to the article. But the actual facts seem rather obscure here, and clearly tainted by politics.  On the one hand, it is possible that the DUTA's allegations are true, and on the other it is possible that Singh was a scapegoat or victim in this whole affair.  We need to bear this in mind.  Given that the subject strongly protested the accusations of DUTA, for us it is seems to be a he-said/she-said scenario that should be treated with some care.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, Slawekb, that this, like any other issue where there is an allegation made by a party against another party, is a he-said/she-said scenario. If there were no sides of the story then it would not be an allegation and a controversy. It would be a conviction (that happens only after a fair enquiry takes place in the matter). Since we cannot do primary research, we can rely on the secondary resources like newspapers to provide a summary of what is the allegation and what is the response of the other party, if any (without claiming that one side of the story is correct, unless there is evidence otherwise). I agree, with you that we need to be careful to ensure that we are only highlighting the allegations rather than trying to sound as if those allegations are true. Annie 70.51.145.85 (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, can someone who had edit privilege for the article page, fix the factual issue on the page.

current: Dinesh Singh is an Indian professor of mathematics and since 2000, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Delhi correct: Dinesh Singh is an Indian professor of mathematics and since 2010, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Delhi    70.51.145.85 (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Annie

Closure
Dear Editors: Till now there are three editors ( User :Slawekb, User:FreeRangeFrog , and User:Winner_42 ) who have monitored the edits being done on this article in the last few weeks and have provided constructive suggestions to improve the quality of these edits as per the wikipedia policies. Slawekb on 3rd May and FreeRangeFrog on 4rth May had opined to update the article with the controversy section, however, I think that this articles has fell through the cracks. I would like to request one of the editors to take a final call based on the discussion that you see on this talk page and update the article with the controversies section (after making any additional edits as you deem fit). Thank you, Animesh

BLP Noticeboard
This article was reported to the BLP noticeboard. I have reviewed the content and while sourced, it is not notable and controversies don't belong in bios unless the controversy is notable enough to stand on its own. bios should not be controversial. Please feel free to discuss. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I feel that blanking is not the optimal solution, although I confess to being tempted to do it after the latest round of edits. The WP:BLP policy says that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."  In this case, the material was well-sourced.  There is no mandate that "controversies don't belong in bios".    The neutral point of view policy dictates that we must summarize what reliable sources have to say about a subject.  That includes any controversies surrounding the subject.  However, we should try to do it neutrally. In this case, most of the Google News hits at least in part concern the material that was removed.  Singh is even writing a memoir about his "controversial tenure".  The controversy seems to have been chiefly with the Delhi University Teachers' Association (DUTA).  It is hard to understand the reasons for this conflict.  It seems to have something to do with Singh's four-year undergraduate program, but sources hint to other controversial reforms that the DUTA didn't agree with.   S ławomir  Biały  13:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Blanking is not appropriate. The material appears to be referenced via sources that easily meet WP:RS.  The text was not especially well constructed, so I'm not inclined simply to revert the deletion wholesale.  But simply eliminating the section is not consistent with WP:NPOV.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless the controversy is notable enough to stand in an article of its own it doesn't belong in a bio. This is not a tabloid newspaper.   Additionally, a large portion of this content was unsourced and tagged and I read your sources and they are dubious.   It's also questionable whether the subject of this bio is even notable enough for an article.  There's a lot of unsourced material that needs cites.  I have a suggestion, instead of finding libelous materials that result in the subject of the article posting complaints on the BLP noticeboard, how about we find cites for all the unsourced material so the article doesn't get deleted.  97.126.235.119 (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Unless the controversy is notable enough to stand in an article of its own it doesn't belong in a bio." What's the rationale for this?  I don't see anything in WP:BLP that would suggest this.  Indeed, many biographical articles do contain prominent controversies.  But anyway, it's pretty easy to pass WP:GNG.  All that demands is multiple independent reliable sources.  There were sources like the Times of India, The Hindu, Indian Express, The Dailymail, and The Business Standard referenced in this article, easily enough for GNG, that you removed.  In fact, the controversies section of the article had much higher quality sourcing than the rest of the article.  So you don't really get to remove that section and then complain about the lack of sources.  Also, they aren't "my" sources.  I did not write the content in question, nor did I write the sources.  Finally, I was also the one that posted at the BLP noticeboard.  It wasn't the subject of the article.  What I had hoped for was someone to summarize the sources neutrally.  The current situation of having the controversies section entirely deleted seems to be inconsistent with WP:NPOV, and I find the rationale of deletion unsupported by policy.  I am going to revert it.  If you want to try to contribute constructively, please work on making the content more neutral, summarizing the sources.  But the controversies are notable, and should remain.   S ławomir  Biały  16:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the so-called "news sites" from india are of dubious reliability. They move articles and remove cites leaving articles with dead links all over the place.  Many of them  are little more than blogs posing as newspapers, so I don't buy it.  This is what happens to bios that rely on India based news sites -- they end up uncited.  Look at this one -- Swapnil_Joshi.  Just because a news website in india publishes something does not have the same weight as a US or UK news service. BLPDegreaser (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So, what news sources would you consider reliable for India? Times of India, The Hindu, and The  usiness Standard all look pretty reliable to me.   S ławomir  Biały  17:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The editor participating as both 97.126.235.119 and BLPDegreaser is currently blocked for socking. Czoal (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)