Talk:Radhanath Sikdar

Biography assessment rating comment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Wikipeep 494 04:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Radnath Sikdar

 * Dear Mr.Hike,


 * Thanks for your notice/warning/intimidation! Since, I could sense an emotional outburst in your message, I thought it would be worth spending a few seconds calming you down :) I added my responses to your statements below.

Please be careful in your edits
 * Oh sure...Iam always careful. I do not send baseless assumptions as warning shots to anyone :)

Regarding Radhanath Sikdar: I think you need to realize that Wikipedia is a collaborative work --- we develop articles by consensus.
 * Thanks for your enlightenment. Unfortunately someone already taught me this fact a long time ago when I first ventured into this wikipedia :) Thanks anyway.

Simply reverting edits is counter-productive and against the etiquette of the Wikipedia.
 * I think this is your POV! There is a 'revert to previous page' button. May be your highness should dismantle it.

''Commonly, we iterate until we can find language and fact statements that are acceptable to everyone. Notice that this iteration isn't a "reversion war" --- people discuss and change and adapt the article until consensus is reached.''
 * Another POV again :) By the way - could you please enlighten me about who your 'we' refers to in all the above sentences?

''Please explain why you are insisting on "now called" in the Sikdar article, or, for that matter, why you are insisting on the mention of the name "Sagarmatha". There may be a legitimate NPOV reason for the inclusion of both --- without explanation, I am assuming that it is motivated by Hindu nationalism.''


 * I must appreciate your exceptional ability to assume things. Fortunately, I am not a religious fanatic. But, I do know that provocative sentences like this fuel hatred and anger in the hearts of those groups you mentioned. Again I may be wrong. You know all :) But, I do feel that there is no 'present day sun' or 'present day moon'. That was the only impetus behind my editing it. Besides I also thought that there is nothing wrong in representing a fact (name 'sagarmatha'). Again you know all.

''My assumption very well may be incorrect, but no explanation of your reversion has been given. Convince me.''
 * I confirm that your assumption is not only untrue but is provocative and preposterous. Sometimes even highly intelligent people like you make mistakes :) To err is human!

''Note that the original name of Presidency College (in Calcutta, founded in 1817) was "Hindoo College". Not "Hindu" (as in the religion). Please stop reverting. It seems to me that if you insist on using one of the original names of Mount Everest, for consistency you must also use the original name of the college. Convince me otherwise.''
 * As far as I could remember, I have been taught that the right spelling is Hindu, in India. Could you please let me know the difference between Hindoo and Hindu? By the way, could your highness :) please let me know how you assumed that I am an Hindu? I again appreciate your astrological prowess! Astrology is many a times fake - just fyi your highness :)


 * I do not know why messages like this from people who know everything, makes me a little sad sometimes. I am envious of the brilliant people like you who can assume a boat load of stuff with just a two-line edit!

We can continue this discussion at Talk:Radhanath Sikdar: that way, many people can participate.

Thanks for your attention. -- hike395


 * --Drbalaji md 05:16, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

''Gaaah. I guess I should have steeled myself for ad hominem attack. I wish we could reach some sort of agreement on the wording. I don't understand the strong emotion behind Dr. Balaji's insistent edits''
 * Emotions? I think it is your own emotions that got reflected back to you when your POV was challenged - Human nature.

''if we could have a rational discussion, we could try and find wording that makes everyone happy. Otherwise, we're just in random "try different wordings and see if it reverts" mode.''
 * nice POV.

And, I'm sorry if I offended you, Dr. Balaji.


 * I accept your apologies. But as I mentioned, religion and things surrounding it are very sensitive issues. They make or break nations. I think we should be careful when commenting about them.

I did not mean it to be intimidating --- I was trying to show that if we don't discuss controversial edits, then people (like me) make assumptions that may be incorrect.


 * Nice point, thanks. I will try to add my explanation here after. By the way, I don't get intimidated easily.

Upon reflection, I should not have shared my internal brain state with you: it probably wasn't conducive to calm editing.
 * Hindsight is always 20/20

I have been frustrated with this article for days:


 * Emotions again.

several anonymous users have injected obvious biased material about Sikdar, and I felt obligated to modify it.


 * I think we are obliged to analyze their facts instead. May be there is truth in what they say! I have been watching this page for a while and from looking at the type and number of changes, I sense a concerted effort by a sizeable group of people with substantial knowledge about the subject, to change a piece of world history. It is a waste of time and effort to find their ulterior motive as long as they project the facts. We cannot neglect all those precious pearls that come from unknown passers-by, just because they are anonymous. Anonymity is power. I also predict that this rising tide is NOT going to stop by a counter-offensive! On the other hand, it is going to get stronger, exponentially. I think what we are dealing with is a powerful, intelligent and determined group. I would suggest researching all those facts they submit and finding out their credibility.

''So, my comment on your talk page reflected some stored frustration. For that, I apologize.''
 * Again. There is no place for POVs or emotions in building a honest encyclopedia.--Drbalaji md 11:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

-- hike395 06:55, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hindu refers to the religion. It's actual spelling is Hindu, not Hindoo. There is an article on Hindu in wikipedia.

Sagarmatha is the actual peak that Sikdar estimated the height. It was later renamed as Mount Everest. I think it's apt to refer to Sagarmatha here, as opposed to Mt. Everest. --ganesh 15:08, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The spelling wasn't of the religion, but of the college in Calcutta, established in 1817. The original spelling of the college was "Hindoo college", but I've seen enough of the modern usage "Hindu college" that I yield the point.


 * OK. I changed it back, with a slight modification.


 * Linking to both Sagarmatha and Mount Everest in the article seems NPOV to me. I think you would find the NPOV article interesting, to help with your contributions to Wikipedia. -- hike395 16:07, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine.

Mt. Everest naming
Following lines have been copied from the article. They are not relevant to this article but has to be incorporated into Mount Everest or Peak XV (after removing its redirect of course) Jay 22:24, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Some Indians, including the former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, are of the opinion that Mount Everest should be named after Sikdar. The peak was re-named as Everest although it already had native names in Nepal, the Himalayan kingdom and erstwhile Tibet ( Sagarmatha and Choumoloungma respectively.) "


 * Sorry I didn't see the mention of the name Sikdar in the first line. Hence its relevant. Jay 22:29, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

historical names
According to our article Mount Everest, the name Sagarmatha "was invented in the early 1960s". If this is true, it's wrong to say here in the Radhanath Sikdar article that "it already had native names in Nepal". But if that statement is false, it should be removed from the Mount Everest article. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2006 (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 19:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of his last name
Some sources, such as the BBC article cited (written by an indian, I guess) and an essay by John Keay, available at a Royal Geographical Society website http://imagingeverest.rgs.org/Concepts/Virtual_Everest/-288.html spell the last name Sickdhar and not Sikdar. Aldo L (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright concerns
This article was tagged for copyright concerns by an IP contributor in October 2008. However, no source of suspected origin was identified. I have done google searches on several distinct phrases from within the article and discovered only Wikipedia mirrors (such as this one). If retagging, please identify the source from which this article is believed to have copied. Without this information, we may be unable to properly verify infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Recognition
Prior to 1871, Germany was an amalgamation of relatively independent states and Bavaria was a kingdom, so there was neither a German Philosophical Society nor a Bavaria branch of any learned society. A Deutsche Philosophische Gesellschaft (German Philosophical Society) existed only between 1917 and 1945. I checked the lists of members of the major German learned societies (Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Königlich-Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, and Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften) and could not find any entry for Radhanath Sikdar, neither for his first nor for his second name. I hesitate to eliminate the phrase about the German Society, but should be glad to read the wording of the referenced source. In the meantime, I modified the phrase about the recognition. Regards from Germany. AHert (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)