Talk:M. S. A. Rao

Sourcing
Of course this article should not have been moved (back?) to draft space: it's worthwhile. But it does seem seriously flawed. I'm particularly puzzled by the reference to "" Despite the link, I'm unable to read this preface, which I presume is by Rao himself. (I'm open to correction.) Just what claims in the article is this preface supposed to back up, and is it a satisfactorily independent source for these? -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is surprisingly poor for someone who indubitably had a significant impact on the discipline in India. I always thought there would be more information available in obituaries etc and indeed there may be. If I added the book you mentioned above (and I probably did), you can safely assume that I read it an accurately gutted the thing even though, like you, I can't see the contents on GBooks. Well, can't see it now - but that's a GBooks issue and it may have been visible then, or I got it in hardcopy form.


 * Regarding what it actually supports and who wrote it, I'd have to get access to it again. I'll try. - Sitush (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think I may have the book. The problem is, I have about 5,000 others and a lot of them are boxed-up! Hardback version, yellow paper cover IIRC. Could be ages before I find it. - Sitush (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This blurb is not what I would usually use but it does add a few more lines of enquiry. Also this. - Sitush (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm, my comment was rather obscure. I meant: Here is something that presumably was written by Rao himself, but which is seemingly used as a reference for several of his achievements. (If it is indeed written by Rao, then it's hardly an independent source.) On top of that, it appears to be presented as a reference for three events that occurred after its publication. Ummm..... Hoary (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No, it's fine: I understood your point. I think WP:SPS stuff for basics such as appointments and qualifications is usually deemed acceptable but third-party is obviously better and, right now, I'm not even sure that the preface was used merely for those things. It's a bit of a mess, I'm afraid, and I can only repeat what I said previously: I don't usually get the statements wrong even if on this occasion I cannot immediately re-verify them and, yes, the attribution is poor. - Sitush (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Links to Google Books
The book above, and others, have links. I click on these in the hope of arriving somewhere useful. True, I only clicked on two of them, but for both all I got was an page at Google Books that said nothing that's not anyway at Worldcat. (I didn't get the text of the book, or even a single chapter.) Are such links to Google Books beneficial? (I'd never add them myself.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Sitush/Common - but I suspect you already know the information given there. I think courtesy links can be useful even though we can't predict how GBooks works for everyone, everywhere. I find Worldcat awkward to use and not particularly helpful here in the UK, certainly no more so than GBooks. Even with my location data entered, the results it produces for nearby holdings etc would give the impression that I live on a desert island - British Library, Cambridge University etc appear but seemingly everywhere from mid-England through to the north of Scotland is a cultural desert. - Sitush (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Confession: I'd sleepily forgotten that Google Books changes what it makes visible. I did sort-of know most if not all of what's in User:Uncle G/On common Google Books mistakes, to which you kindly point; but not all of it was uppermost in my cranium. I think that your page User:Sitush/Common is new to me; it's very valuable. &para; I never use Worldcat to find what's where; but come to think of it, this is because I'm in Japan, very few of whose libraries contribute to Worldcat. (I suspect that this is because Worldcat is foreign; though I must concede that what's in CiNii, the Japanese counterpart, is on average a lot freer of typos, unnecessary duplicates, etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)