Talk:K. S. Lal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]


WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article...
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject India because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WP India}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WP India}} template, removing {{WP India}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] Libelous

Many of his books are based on the theme perceived as critical of Islam and as such a lot of his works focus on the impact of Muslim conquerors on India and hinduism. This has made him a controversial author and often at odds with other contemporary Indian Historians such as Romila Thapar on their visions of Indian history and its politicization. His views on history are often quoted and used by proponents of hindutva, as are those by Will Durant.

Just what is libelous?--Tigeroo 16:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No sources to establish that he is "often quoted and used by proponents of Hindutva". Same for Will Durant as well. The term "controversial" is also unsourced. Unless you can source specific controversies (and put it in an itemized section) with multiple sources, we have a libelous edit.Hkelkar 17:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how the term "controversial" is libel worthy to justify removal under WP. The other two statements also in no way impune upon the character of K.S. Lal. It is equivalent to saying "XXX use his works as toilet paper".--Tigeroo 17:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes but can you source any of these claims? Not a single source in the section (for a long time). And yes, in the absense of sources, "controversial" is libelous. If you supply many sources then okay. If you can supply sources that attest to specific controversies then you can list them under "controversies" but you can;t call him "controversial" unless there are reliable source that address him as such. Hkelkar 17:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Bah, that's easy. His NCERT role and the history Saffronization controversies easily sourced make him one. That's fine, I'll fix it.--Tigeroo 19:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
With what? what is "Delhi Historian's Group, Section 2. Part 3"? Please cite title, page #, publisher etc isf it is a book and cite per WP:CITE if it is a paper. "India Religious Freedom Report". What is it? Who published it? Please provide details.Hkelkar 19:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Provided are links to the entire report. Take a second to check and you will see the that India Religious Freedom, Report is by the US Government, the Delhi Historians Group is a grouping of Indian Historians opposed to the saffronization of Indian history and central to the whole debate about history books. They are all professors of standing, and have numerous publications. The notes are just abbreviated specific references to the entire report available, linked and listed in the references.--Tigeroo 18:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Deletions

As explained here this was deleted in the article by Hornplease (talk ยท contribs) long time ago. Could the reason please be explained on the talkpage?

  • [1] K.S. Lal wrote a rebuttal to many criticisms in his book "Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India". He explained:
One does grow during the course of half a century if one continues with his studies and I have surely grown. And since I do no believe that "Muslim rule should not attract any criticism. Destruction of temples by Muslim invaders and rulers should not be mentioned and forcible conversions to Islam should be ignored and deleted, etc. etc.", my books are free from such restrictions. I now also apply the same yardstick to medieval Indian history as is done with respect to modem Indian history. ... We in India write the history of British rule not from the point of view of European imperialism but from that of the victims of colonization. I apply the same methodology to the history of Muslim rule. I write about it from the people's point of view rather than from the view of Islamic imperialists. We cannot apply different standards of approach and methodology to different periods of Indian history.] (pov deletion, he only deletes Lal's rebuttal to the partisan criticism of Lal, and leaves the lengthy partisan criticism in the article)

Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)