Talk:Romila Thapar

Romila Thapar is a Marxist historian.
[Copied from User talk:Kautilya3]

I gave verified link to support my modification and I can give more such links that clearly shows that Romila Thapar is Marxist historian. In fact she confessed that history not only depends on facts but also depends on historians ideology. Her way of writing history clearly shows that she believes in Marxist histography and she called her critics as right wing Hindutva historian which means that she considers herself as a Marxist historian. Birat Roy007 (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Newspapers are only reliable for news, as per WP:NEWSORG.
 * But the more important point is, why didn't you open a talk page discussion when you were first reverted by ? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Since I was pinged;, you need to read WP:DUE and WP:NOR very carefully. What you personally know to be true about Thapar is quite irrelevant; the only things we say in Wikipedia's voice are things which the preponderance of reliable sources agree upon. That is what you need to demonstrate, in this case. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * please explain your revert. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding recent JNU Professor Emeritus Status Controversy
There was a recent controversy on Thapar's Professor Emeritus status (~ September '19). Here is a source. I am not sure whether this should be added to the biography now. can you please suggest? AyushMukherjee376 (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What we need really is a paragraph or section on her post-retirement activities. If we have such a paragraph, then this can go in there. But just mentioning something that hits the headlines would be out of place. It would fall into the WP:NOTNEWS category. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I’ve added that section by mentioning some developments around it. I named that section as ‘Public Disagreement’ involving appointment to library of congress and JNU CV thing. There’s enough and multiple coverage in independent source regarding this. So, IMHO, this’s not case of WP:NOTNEWS.— Harshil want to talk? 14:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed. This tidbit can be added there too, I suppose. But the whole section is not a biographical section. It is chasing the headlines. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It can be edited afterwards and moved to another section per consensus. But I think that this was not regular coverage, I tried to enlist as many as reference possible including both sides. I added there because her appointment to library also had caused some controversy. — Harshil want to talk? 15:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have concerns that that section fails WP:NOTNEWS. There's only allegations there; there's no substance. If there's any sources that treat these incidents as part of larger trends related to her legacy as an academic (for instance, as part of a conflict between the current Indian government and mainstream historians) it would be a different matter; this he said she stuff is not encyclopedic, it's the stuff of online newspapers. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest removing it. If it becomes an issue, i.e., something that is discussed in broader sources as something that fits into a pattern of harassment of Thapar, then, perhaps, it could be included. As written, it is not at all clear if this is just a bureaucratic mess or something targeted at Thapar. Including it here makes it seem like the former and that inclusion itself is likely WP:OR. I'll let Harshill69 do the honors but it should go. --regentspark (comment) 17:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it already has wider coverage. There are many opeds written in reliable sources like the hindu, telegraph India, toi and others in support/oppose of this step. Even Romila gave interviews to multiple channels and attacked administrative people for this. — Harshil want to talk? 17:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I do not understand this proposed section is different from the "Appointment to Library of Congress" section already present. Can you explain how something is deemed to become an issue as it relates to biographies? AyushMukherjee376 (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The library of congress section says that the petition targeted Thapar. In the JNU CV section, at least from what's written here, it is unclear whether this was targeting Thapar or whether it was a bureaucratic mishap. If there are more sources as Harshill69 says, and they are reliable enough to show that this wasn't just a bureaucratic mixup, then, it should be included as long as the sources are clear that Thapar was targeted. (I'm just going by what I'm seeing in our article).--regentspark (comment) 18:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I understand what you are saying. If I remember correctly, there are letters by three JNU-related non-news sources on this issue -- The JNU Teachers' Association, the administration and Thapar herself. As Harshil169 says, there are also secondary sources (Hindu, Telegraph India and Times of India) which cover these, both as op-eds and as news. To confirm, would a collection of these sources suffice? If so, I shall try writing a draft and adding it here before posting it on the main page. -- ayush   (reach out)  07:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You don’t need anyone’s permission for it. Be bold, go ahead and post this is in the article. If it’ll be inappropriate then editors may remove it. — Harshil want to talk? 08:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Harshil169 if is going to post some controversial content into the article then it is a good idea to post the content on the talk page first and seek feedback WP:CONSENSUS. Our WP:BLP policies need strict adherence. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This does merit a mention in a couple of lines or so, going by the levels of coverage across reliable sources but I am not highly acquainted with the specifics and thus, not in a position to rewrite. &#x222F; WBG converse 10:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, this article is quite shabby and in need of a major re-write; so better spend the editorial resources over more vital areas ...... &#x222F; WBG converse 11:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Marxist
We have enough reliable sources which address Romila Thapar as leftist and Marxist.











LearnIndology (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)






















 * There's several problems here. First, whether we describe Thapar as a Marxist depends not only on whether sources label her as such, but whether the preponderance of sources label her as such, and I'm just not seeing evidence for that; the vast majority of sources simply describe her as a historian; even among the sources here, only a couple are directly using the label Marxist. Second, even those sources that are, are referring to Marxist historiography, not Marxism as such. Such content may be worth covering, but it needs to make the distinction, else it is original research. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:POINTy addition; see Talk:Koenraad Elst. And WP:OR an WP:TENDENTIOUS misrepresentation of sources:
 * Wagle: Not
 * but
 * Zhang Shijun:
 * When did Romila Thapar become a "he"? Or change her name to "Tharpar"? As usual, crappy sources and biased interpretations. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Romila Thapar's major contribution is that of bringing social history analysis to bear on the Aryan expansion down the Gangetic Plain in the mid-first-millennium BCE. Aryan society changed from lineage-based groups to rudimentary forms of state formation with social stratification (caste). She has also mined the Sanskrit epics for supportive gems.  She is not a Marxist historian (such as Irfan Habib or more relevantly DD Kosambi), nor is she a nationalist (such as Raychauduri, Datta or Mazumdar (of Advanced History of India fame)) nor cultural (e.g Basham), or archaeological (e.g. Gordon Childe) or colonial (e.g. Vincent Smith).  She is a social historian.  If I find some decent sources, I'll add them.     Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * When did Romila Thapar become a "he"? Or change her name to "Tharpar"? As usual, crappy sources and biased interpretations. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Romila Thapar's major contribution is that of bringing social history analysis to bear on the Aryan expansion down the Gangetic Plain in the mid-first-millennium BCE. Aryan society changed from lineage-based groups to rudimentary forms of state formation with social stratification (caste). She has also mined the Sanskrit epics for supportive gems.  She is not a Marxist historian (such as Irfan Habib or more relevantly DD Kosambi), nor is she a nationalist (such as Raychauduri, Datta or Mazumdar (of Advanced History of India fame)) nor cultural (e.g Basham), or archaeological (e.g. Gordon Childe) or colonial (e.g. Vincent Smith).  She is a social historian.  If I find some decent sources, I'll add them.     Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Romila Thapar's major contribution is that of bringing social history analysis to bear on the Aryan expansion down the Gangetic Plain in the mid-first-millennium BCE. Aryan society changed from lineage-based groups to rudimentary forms of state formation with social stratification (caste). She has also mined the Sanskrit epics for supportive gems.  She is not a Marxist historian (such as Irfan Habib or more relevantly DD Kosambi), nor is she a nationalist (such as Raychauduri, Datta or Mazumdar (of Advanced History of India fame)) nor cultural (e.g Basham), or archaeological (e.g. Gordon Childe) or colonial (e.g. Vincent Smith).  She is a social historian.  If I find some decent sources, I'll add them.     Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment's and. I have added more refs, that directly calls Thapar as Marxist. I hope these many sources are enough. LearnIndology (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD summarizes the article; simply calling her a Marxist won't suffice. First explain, in the body of the article, how she is a Marxist; what that means in how she is doing historiography, and what it does not mean (is she calling for a communist revolution? A dictature of the proletariat?); and how that is relevant, other than for Hindutva-proponents as a pejorative label.
 * To illustrate the qeustion "What does 'Marxism' mean in how she's doing historiography," see this quote from Santhosh Suradkar, Romila Thapar: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue:
 * That sounds more like Critical sociology, the Frankfurter Schule, Michel Foucault, and the hermeneutics of suspicion, and not like a radical revolutionary. That's the kind of context and background one would like to be informed about, not a simple label. I'll bet it's this critical attitude, coveniently shorthanded as "Marxist," that's not appreciated by some people, as it lays bare the shallowness of Hindutva-thought. See also Shaj Mohan and Divya Dwivedi (sept 1, 2019), Romila Thapar: The Modern Among Historians, thewire.in:
 * Quite obvious, isn't it? See also here and here to understand why the label "Marxist" is being insisted upon. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding this addition, which again uses "Marxist" as a label without providing context, it's quite obvious that there is no WP:CONSENSUS for such an addition. See my comments above, and also Vanamonde93's F&f's comments, and F&f's edit-summaries. See also previous discussions about harassment of Romila Thapar. The term "accused" is quite telling: accused of what, by whom, for which crime? The term is referenced with Santhosh Suradkar; he's definitely not "accusing" Thapar of 'putting a Marxist framework into practice'; he has praised her for her interdisciplinary approach, "putting a Marxist framework into practice." See the extensive quote given above. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Some more on the label "Marxist": Thapar herself, ThePrint, and the Washington Post. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And regarding "Thapar has been described as a left-leaning, Marxist historian.":
 * Sylvie Guichard:
 * Amar Maini:
 * This sounds more like
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  11:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Amar Maini:
 * This sounds more like
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  11:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  11:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  11:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, Marxist historiography simply means "history from the below", i.e., history studying the society at large, rather than just the kings, queens and generals. When I first read Thapar's [Penguin] History of India, Vol. 1, I was wonderstruck to learn that so much information about the society in the historical past was available. I had never been told any of it in school. (The NCERT books weren't widely used then.)

Incidentally, Thapar wrote that she learnt this from R. S. Sharma. When she was doing her PhD at the SOAS, her supervisor (A. L. Basham) told her to study Sharma closely because he had "a different approach". Sharma's PhD was on the Sudras in Ancient India, which is also an awesome book. But Thapar has easily surpassed Sharma in her later career. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Life
What is her education/qualification? Is she married? Does she have children? What is her political affiliation? What Indian laguages can she speak like Prakrit/Pali/Kannada/Bojpuri/Sanskrit?. Can someone with info add them please? ~rAGU (talk)

Yes, that's what you need to know about an academic nearly 90 years old. NRPanikker (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with talk that such information is certainly important. To say that simply as a result of her profession or religion, such information is not fit for wikipedia has no precedent and should be soundly rebuked. MRpcubed1145 (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the information is available in this book. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Criticism Section
Can I add a criticism section to the article? She seems controversial, and there is a lot of criticism of her. Indologist Edwin Bryant describes how she has been heavily criticized by other scholars.Shakespeare143 (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Criticism by scholars... or by unqualified fringe authors? The latter is not notable and would not deserve a criticism section if that is all that you can bring to the table. Chariotrider555 (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Controversial with Hindutva-proponents indeed. They don't like critical people who dismantle their myths. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Now we have edit-warring which has descended to childish name-calling, such as labelling Romila Thapar a "self-styled" Indian historian. NRPanikker (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe criticism from historical scholars and professors might be included under a separate criticism section, but as mentioned above, copying text from TOI or some fringe self called historian or you tuber is a strict no no. Scholarly criticism is welcome by all means, but if the whole point of criticism is ' since she is a so called Marxist historian, she MUST be wrong' or ' you have to trust myths and fallacies , just because its our culture and we know the best about it' is just hogwash and pathetic.

Editors, I request a move to make this page 'protected' to save it from frivolous and frothing edits from the lunatic brigade
 * Suksane (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Suksane

Marxist or left-leaning
An editor has been insistently adding "Marxist" or "left-leaning" despite my protests that they no do so, especially to a longstanding BLP lead. Pinging some regulars and admins:  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I have reverted their latest edit. The last t/p discussion on the issue, which happened about two years ago, has an obvious consensus. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)