Talk:Vikram Sampath

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles India: Karnataka / Literature Low‑importance 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.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Karnataka (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Indian literature workgroup (assessed as Low-importance). This article was last assessed in September 2021.

The WP:COIRESPONSE . MaryGaulke (talk · contribs) has been paid by Sunil Bopardikar on behalf of Vikram Sampath. Disclosures made below and on userpage.

What is the evidence that all 4 of his books are "acclaimed"? Awards are mentioned for one of them. User:122.161.105.164

No evidence. Should be removed. --Venkat TL (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Venkat TL:I don't know why but you have added template with WP:SPS,WP:SELFPUB,WP:SELFPUBLISH,WP:BLOGS,WP:PSTS despite the fact that primary source i.e his website is used only one time and even for the "Early Life and Education" section. The Article fits the WP:PSTS.-- AryaGyaan (talk) 13:04,21 October 2021 (UTC)

The tag has links to Wikipedia:No original research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. Please read these 2 links. I am sure you will understand what is lacking in the article. Venkat TL (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources,it is mentioned that "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.",the only primary source used in the whole article is Vikram Sampath's own website and is cited only one times in the "Early Life" which is niether appreciative nor critical but only descriptive .

Wikipedia:No original research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources,Again,The whole article has mostly cited reliable scecondry sources like The Hindu etc.- AryaGyaan (talk) 13:22 21 October 2021 (UTC)

please look again, carefully.Venkat TL (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please help to replace these Primary/SPS sources. https://theprint.in/author/vikram-sampath/page/2/ "Vikram Sampath". ThePrint.

"281 new Fellows & Members elected to the Society | RHS". royalhistsoc.org. Retrieved 2021-10-18.

"Vikram Sampath ~ Author | Voice of the Veena | My Name is Gauhar Jaan! | Splendours of Royal Mysore". vikramsampath.com. Retrieved 2021-08-01.

"Founders - Bangalore Literature Festival". bangaloreliteraturefestival.org. Retrieved 2021-08-15.

"Savarkar (Part 1)". Penguin Random House India . Retrieved 2021-08-01.

"Splendours Of Royal Mysore". www.goodreads.com. Retrieved 2021-08-01.

"My Name is Gauhar Jaan!". www.goodreads.com. Retrieved 2021-08-01.

"Voice Of The Veena S Balachander". www.goodreads.com. Retrieved 2021-08-01.

"Vikram Sampath". Penguin Random House India. Retrieved 2021-08-01.

"- BITS Alumni Association". www.bitsaa.org. Retrieved 2021-09-27. Venkat TL (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have not given me any specfic reason why you have included the said template, and saying that "plz look carefully ",you are violating WP:TALKDONTREVERT.And if we can't reach the consensus,it is beeter to go with Dispute resolution noticeboard.AryaGyaan (talk) 13:22 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Venkat TL:

• 1.The Print Website is a reliable secondry source and is only used to cite Sampath as a columnist in the said website.
• 2. royalhistsoc.org. is not a primary source but a secondry reliable independent source.
• 3. vikramsampath.com is defintely a primary source but the source is cited only one times and it fits Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources,it is mentioned that "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim." and source is used only descrpitive and not as appreciative or critical of the subject.
• 4.bangaloreliteraturefestival.org is again a reliable indepedent secondry source.
• 5.Penguin Random House India again is a secondry source and again is merely descriptive.
• 6.www.goodreads.com again is a secondry source.

Plz see WP:PSTS..AryaGyaan (talk) 13:22 21 October 2021 (UTC) @Venkat TL: I am removing the unneccsery tag.AryaGyaan (talk) 13:22 21 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSN. Please do not remove the tags without fixing the problem, as mentioned in the tag. Venkat TL (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@TrangaBellam is this removal of tag inadvertent? [1] Please do not remove it before replacing the sources. Venkat TL (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat TL, I think it might be an edit conflict. I did not recall removing any tag - so strange. As things stand, there is no need of any tag. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Venkat TL (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Risks of Looking at India's History Through the Eyes of Pseudo-Historians". The Wire. Retrieved 2021-10-21.

• [...] Sampath’s approach is not scholarly per se, as he cites few of his sources, making his book a problematic reference work for other researchers. On a few occasions he indulges in some mild fictionalization [...]
  — Manuel, Peter (2012). "Review of "My Name is Gauhar Jan!": The Life and Times of a Musician". Ethnomusicology. 56 (1): 146–150.

  ISSN 0014-1836

  .

TrangaBellam (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Author of the the said Wire Article is not a historian and comes under Questionable Source (WP:QS). Content of "views" rely heavily on unsubstantiated personal opinion and personal opinion about BLP is questionable.

Second article overall praises the said book with little criticism and also can you plz rovide me with scholarly creditential of Peter Manuel .--AryaGyaan (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D'Souza is not a historian? I suggest that you contact the multiple universities where he served in their Depts. of History or CHS (JNU) for awarding him a PhD at the first place.

Dalrymple is a popular historian and his books are gen. praised; so are works by Shashi Tharoor

. What is the relevance? Sampath might be an excellent popular historian - I don't know.

Peter Manuel is a Professor of Ethnomusicology at CUNY. He specializes in Indian and Caribbean Music, and has published several award winning academic works.

I think you believe popular historian to be some kind of pejorative, when it is not. The methodologies of scholarship —popular and academic/professional— differ in light of different target-audiences - nothing more, nothing less. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another article, in support of D'Souza. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TB that he is not an academic historian. Sampath is simply a biographer, nothing more. His PhD thesis is here. The subject is Music. And his prior degrees are in Engineering and Business. LukeEmily (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But absent sources who deem him to be a biographer, we cannot use that word. Popular historian is the best fit. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam, sure. Sounds fair. I have changed it to popular historian.LukeEmily (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The subject is music" is objectionable. He has clarified it himself https://mobile.twitter.com/vikramsampath/status/1447206910915010569 103.199.180.151 (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How come

Dalrymple is indeed a popular historian and his works don't find a sympathetic audience in most academics. I have objected to him being used as a high-quality source (in various articles) on these grounds.

Guha writes histories of both kinds, and his work is highly regarded by academic historians. So, I disagree. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His research interests include [..] biographies is a weird thing to state. Maybe, state outright that he is a biographer?

He strongly supports the rewriting of Indian history is fine but does not aid a reader. Why does he want to rewrite history? Is it because he is of the subaltern school, who believes the mainstream histories are centered around elites and ignores the masses? Or, is he of the Marxist school who believes that mainstream histories do not show due regard for class concerns? Or, is he of the right-nationalist school who believes that mainstream histories do not reflect Hindu India in its full glory? Or, [..]

This is not Twitter to score points. Please write substantial statements that is encyclopedic and aids all varieties of reader including those who are not at all acquainted with Indian Politics. That is, add a background. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's happening over here — anybody who is acquainted with the details? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was a "transcript of a talk" as it clearly says in the journal publication. Since we were not present at the conference, we are advised to speak to those who were "in charge of the transcribing". If the journal forgot to put their names in the authorship, clearly Vikram Sampath cannot be held responsible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the letter sent to RHS by the trio? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Truschke had uploaded it. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the journal forgot to put their names in the authorship - Sampath has literally copied entire sentences off Bakhle, Chaturvedi et al; that is about a half of the essay. If he had indeed attributed them, that would have been a very weird speech to hear.

I am not buying Sampath's arguments but I do not attribute any malice either. This is an endemic problem to S. Asia - graduates from quite decent universities feel that they can copy lines off random books as long as they throw a proper citation in the bibliography. See Sanjeev Sanyal's defense (1) where he makes the exact same point: what's all this hullabaloo about when Chaturvedi is cited! TrangaBellam (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please! I am from South Asia. I wouldn't claim that I never cheated, but I was clear in my own mind when I was cheating and when I wasn't. The idea that they don't know what is plagiarism is bull. They just think they can get away with it. Nobody will know. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point.

Meanwhile, Sampath is playing to the gallery: he has filed a defamation suit in Delhi HC. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't take it lightly. It means that if any of the critiquing scholars enter India, they can get arrested. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Am I to believe that a Big Five publisher did not bother to run the print-draft past our ubiquitous plagiarism detector? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism and defamation suit details has been added. Reporting at The Wire is quite credible LINK and it is used to expand this article with due diligence. In case, if there is any difference in opinion then I would suggest to use our access at The Wikipedia Library to cross-verify the current (and future findings). Since this issue is quite controversial, please do expect edit war at this entity's page. Will not be surprised if a page protection is requested for. -Hatchens (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poor drafting and I suggest that we maintain the status quo until there is more clarity (not in a legal sense) on this developing situation. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote the section. I hope that nobody has any issues. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why have the "plagerism" allegations listed in the summary @TrangaBellam?

I have read several Wikipedia articles, but none highlights the "alleged" allegations which are widely contested. Shouldn't Wikipedia edits be free of bias? Tsachin (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several Wikipedia articles -

other stuff exists but Tsachin, please consult How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life and Jayson Blair

.

Lead is the condensed version of a body. I have added a ton of content within the last 48 hours and they will be summarized in lead, too. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam Why shy away from listing who made the allegations in that letter to RHS? The ideological leanings of Audrey T, Rohit C and Ananya C don't align with Sampath's (I expect that this isn't disputed). This gives important context. Additionally, I notice that TrangaBellam has used his/her/their admin powers to vandalise my personal talk page with warnings. I don't take my edits personally and expect that others wouldn't too.

Please sign your posts using ~~~~. The two messages on your talk-page state explicitly that they are not warnings: such awareness-messages are necessitated by policy.

There is no shying away; we do describe them in the section on plagiarism. I do not see any reliable source that describes the ideological leanings of Truschke/Chakravarti/Chopra and compares it with Sampath's; even if they exist, how is that relevant? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is relevant because it gives context as to why these three academics with no known interaction with Sampath decide to subject his work to plagiarism softwares and then go public with a letter they sent to the RHS. Note that the academics who were supposed to have been plagiarised commented on the controversy only later when reached out by media, primarily thewire.in. Unless you suggest that his summary should focus on the allegation without context about the academics making it, we should have the context in the summary. To highlight an example, the page you authored for Audrey T focusses on her supposed harassment by suspected right wing online accounts in the Summary. We should treat both similarly - i.e., either highlight the accusations or highlight the harassment or both in the Summary.Tsachin (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose an update to the Summary in line with my points above as below. If you object, please could you explain the rationale for each objection:

In February 2022, three US based academics (Audrey Truschke, Rohit Chopra, Ananya Chakravarti) accused Sampath of plagiarism in a publicly released letter to the Royal Historical Society ^[1]; Sampath denies the charges and has responded with a lawsuit against the three.Tsachin (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate your sealioning. The recipient of their allegations—RHS or Deutsche Welle or Joe Biden—is undue for our lead.

You might retarget your efforts on summarizing the extensive information, that I added to the article recently. But you are under no compulsion. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I do not appreciate your allegation and name calling. You showing up on my personal page and pasting notices appeared as an attempt at subtle threat which is unbecoming of a good faith editor (I do not find any wikipedia "policy" which states that other editors should do this, though I am happy to be corrected). I wanted a good faith discussion to understand what your objections are. The wording I have put together is completely based on facts and evidenced using a source you use often (thewire.in).

The recipient of the allegation and the people making those allegations are important context and are relevant here. You making a frivolous comment (Joe Biden etc) about it is unwarranted. Please might I ask that you stick to why you object to the change to the summary? If you don't have any clear objection, I will proceed to make the change. Tsachin (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE

. You have been repeatedly told that five (not three) academics have accused our subject of plagiarism.

I am under no obligation to satisfy you esp. when three other longstanding editors (1, 2a, 2b and 3) do not find anything amiss with my line. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No editor is under any obligation to another. I wanted to have a collegiate discussion on this matter, thus haven't proceeded to make the edits before we agree here.

I acknowledge the discretionary sanctions policy you have shared.

I do not see how mentioning and evidencing the source of the allegation (publicly released RHS letter by three not five academics) is incorrect or irrelevant. Subsequently there have been more academics (Gaurav Sabnis et al) so the count can be said to be higher than five. However, that is not relevant. Tsachin (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you are refraining from

edit-warring

.

For our lead, it boils down to the overall picture. Who raised the allegations, who seconded them, and who thirded (sic) them falls under nitpicking.

Who is Sabnis? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the point here, but to answer your question: Gaurav Sabnis is a tenured professor specializing in social-media marketing at Stevens Institute of Technology ^[2]

I think we have reached the point where we disagree -- regarding whether highlighting the allegation without context is appropriate. This comes right after the sentence highlighting his fellowship at the RHS. In addition, the lawsuit by Sampath is not against all others who joined the accusations after the first three made public their letter to the RHS. As such, the two sentences read together give a slightly misleading picture of who made the allegations and who the lawsuit is against. In any case, given your objection to further details in the lead, I propose a slightly curtailed version below:

In February 2022, three US based academics accused Sampath of plagiarism in a publicly released letter to the Royal Historical Society ^[3]; Sampath denies the charges and has responded with a lawsuit against the three.Tsachin (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is US-based a rational qualifier?

For the umpteenth time, the mode of accusation is irrelevant for lead and you cannot wash away Chaturvedi and Bakhle.

Accept that the consensus is not in your favor and move on; I won't respond anymore. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not wishing away Charturvedi and Bakhle just as I wouldn't wish away others who have joined the allegations. As you mentioned, those who seconded and "thirded" the allegation is detail that can come later. The lawsuit that is mentioned isn't against Charturvedi and Bakhle and others who came out in support thereafter.

If the consensus is against me, please might I request that you allow other senior editors of the said consensus to revert the change that I shall make. Else it is just you vs me and we end up in the

edit-warring territory. My proposal is fact based (whether you agree that the facts are relevant or not) and is evidenced.Tsachin (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You can just ping them—Kautilya3 and Vanamonde93—to check whether they prefer (underlined parts denote insertion):

• Current version:

  In February 2022, multiple academics accused Sampath of plagiarism; Sampath denies the charges and has responded with a lawsuit.

OR

• Proposed version:

  In February 2022, three US based academics accused Sampath of plagiarism in a publicly released letter to the Royal Historical Society; Sampath denies the charges and has responded with a lawsuit against the three.

  TrangaBellam (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last comment in this thread and I am off to expanding the lead from the rest of body. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not used either of the articles to write anything and claims of vandalism are ludicrous, to say the least. If you have a policy compliant argument about how they are not reliable sources, please respond. TIA. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preemptive warring! Lest you might get any bright ideas! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not adding anything unless this gets more traction in media or the issue is settled. I wonder whether the Delhi HC will issue a ruling anytime soon. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The hearing is scheduled for tomorrow. You can be sure that Hindutva itself will come and add what the court says (and rule out eerything else as "defamation"). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like clock work, they do it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay, why is the current source not a decent one? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added Reichman's article. More details about the publication: 1. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do watchers feel about this edit? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3, Vanamonde93, Joshua Jonathan, Akshaypatill, and WikiLinuz: I will appreciate your opinions. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go. No

WP:CENSORSHIP. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, seems reasonable. The allegations are generating enough coverage that they require inclusion; per BLP we need to be very careful about what's in Wikivoice, and this formulation is solid from that perspective. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that edit. It seems DUE in the lead, given that we have multiple sources reporting the accusations. However, I fear it may transgress BLP

WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 19:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

NOTPUBLICFIGURE? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BLP's primary requirements have to do with quality of sourcing, due weight, and use of Wikipedia's voice. Sampath is likely not a highly public figure, but he's a widely published author; he's not unknown. The allegations in question are discussed in several solid news pieces; I don't think leaving them out is an option. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, fair enough. He's definitely popular among RW. Maybe my threshold of being a public figure was way off the charts, nevermind. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 06:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TrangaBellam I saw that you have added the name of Ramachandra Guha as on of the signatories in the footnote in [2] . The provided source doesn't even mention the name of him. Moreover Ramachandra Guha himself refuted the claims of signing any such document. [3]

Kindly look into this and revert the edit. >>> Extorc.talk(); 12:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the entire note. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change 'Multiple academics have since affirmed the charges of plagiarism; in an open letter, they further accuse Sampath of having mobilized right-wing allies in harassing Trushcke and others while mounting an intimidatory lawsuit.[19][20]' to

'An open letter was published in which multiple academics have since affirmed the charges of plagiarism however this was disputed by some of the prominent names mentioned in the letter as niether having signed it nor having heard about it'

Source : https://twitter.com/Ram_Guha/status/1497841519536984065 https://twitter.com/pbmehta/status/1497899460361428996 1+1Equal10 (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: Please provide a

WP:SECONDARY source for this. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 18:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Removed the line based on (what appeared to be) a recent update. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AryaGaan: Truschke, Chakravarti, Chopra, Bakhle and Chaturvedi do not three academics make. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An interim order is not indicative of merits and does not belong at the lead. Indian Courts appear to court an extremely defensive posture in defamation issues to the extent of allowing suits without even giving the defendants a chance to file reply. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TrangaBellam,the plagiarism accusation are by namely three academics-Trusckhe,Chopra and Chakravarti in their letter to Royal Historical Society[4],others like Bahkhle are later supporters of the accusation and not the direct accusers.

It doesn't matter what are the merits of interim order, I am merely presenting the result of the defamation suit as the former article vioates

WP:UNDUE

and doesnt comes under facts.

On the Open letter, the open letter is found to be lacking the signs of many academics,and comes under forgery and was shared by Audrey Trusckhe on Social Media.

@Kautilya3, Vanamonde93, and Joshua Jonathan: I will appreciate your opinions.AryaGyaan (talk) 13:22 28 Febraury 2021 (UTC)

Please indent your posts.

How does it matter whether their support arrived late? It was their works which were plagiarized and they affirm the charges. You are not reading the policies you cite; please read them. I am not questioning the merits of interim order - explicitly, interim orders are not indicative of the merits. I have removed our line about the "open letter" (thanks to Extorc for drawing my attention): so? (It was not a forgery but a harebrained way of using technology.) TrangaBellam (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think there's any material difference between "five" and "multiple" in the lead. Reviewing the article, though, the plagiarism allegations are taking up too much space; it's a due weight problem. I think we should summarize a bit more. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Today, Sampath had moved a fresh application to censor the "open letter" which the Court rejected and this new development is (again) all over the media - Indian Express etc. Coverage of "alleged plagiarism" is on a steady increase. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I know that. I'm not saying we remove it. But 300 words of plagiarism allegations and counter allegations in a 570-word bio is too much. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge the book with author and we will (probably) have enough content to offset the ratio. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And you can put the "Further Reading" section to use. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vanamonde93: Do you still intend to trim the section? If so, please go ahead. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was initiating a discussion, TB, not so much declaring my intentions to trim, but I'll try to work on it a bit later. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've trimmed a little content. Given how much you've added to the biography, I think it's okay now. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It is fine. Btw, I wish for a second opinion on using Bhattacharya's review - the publication medium is not very decent. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And our lead needs an expansion in light of all the new content. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That source is best avoided, I've removed it. Party organs are not a priori reliable. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  How about this review? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't think so...from an established scholar, the publication might be okay, but this is a first-year PhD student. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  First year PhD students review books routinely but what's bothering me is that the forum has a single editor. There are acclaimed names in the "Advisory Board" but they appear to be uninvolved in editorial process. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think anybody publishing in a reputed journal or other media would be fine; a respected scholar publishing on a website with somewhat less oversight might be acceptable in limited circumstances; but an unknown person publishing in a forum without much oversight is a combination we should avoid. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions are welcome on how to add Rohan D'Souza's commentary to our article. DUEness is obvious given D'Souza's credentials. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Plagiarism accusations, especially when raised by multiple academics and covered in MSM, is a grave charge. We have established a local consensus for the current version of the line in lead.
• We need a secondary source for "Eisenhower Fellowship" since it does not appear to be a notable award.
• We need reliable sources for his employment at Citi Bank and GE Capital.
• Until the article includes other criticisms of Sampath, there is no need to create a separate subsection for plagiarism under an "umbrella section".
• No
  coatracking about Savarkar's debated nature esp. in lead! TrangaBellam (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It is easy to edit a Wikipedia article which might not point a fair picture of a person, specially of one who has done far more for the written word and achieved far more than the user(User:TrangaBellam) making edits is going to achieve in literary field.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshikamal (talk • contribs) Shifted from top of the page by TrangaBellam (talk).

Kautilya3 and Vanamonde93 - Courtesy pings. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the FRHS fellowship from lead. They have a few thousand fellows and accept almost anybody who has published a book (academic/trade/..) on something that can be reasonably connected to history.

I have also removed the phrase Sampath denies the charges since the part about lawsuit implies it. I am being

WP:BOLD and if either of you disagree, please reinsert it. I offer no objections. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It goes without saying that all copyedits etc. are welcome. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Working through it. I think we need to make his denial explicit. The lawsuit implies it but doesn't make it certain. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi TB, I would prefer if both of them are retained. FRHS, because it is his only credential as a historian, and because it crops up in the news. The bit about "he denies the charges" is needed for completeness I think.

As to the rest of the lead, it reads too much like a timeline or life history. I can reword things to make it look more like a summary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits and I have no objections to including an explicit denial. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not convinced about FrHS. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TB, can you send me a copy of the DH source about the Wadiyars that isn't online? I'm not too happy with how we're phrasing it at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I accessed the source from his own website. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Family, God, and Kingdom: Vamsavali as Local Royalist Literature in Clio and Her Descendants: Essays for Kesavan Veluthat; ed. Devadevan, Manu V.; Simmons, Caleb; Primus Books; 2018; p. 606. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.deccanherald.com/content/584342/alumni-back-sampath-say-symbiosis.html TrangaBellam (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a COI editor hired to represent Sampath, with some edit requests for this article.

Lead

• A citation is needed for the description "popular historian". I looked and was unable to find a suitable one; if none exists, maybe this should be revised to "historian".
• Update "PhD in ethnomusicology" to "PhD in ethnomusicology and history" per the "Early life and education" update below.

Early life and education

• Update

Sampath was born into wealth; his father was a Tamil banker and mother, a Marathi housewife.^[1][2]

to

Sampath was born to a Tamil banker and a Marathi housewife.^[1][2]

WP:BLP

.

• Update

In October 2017, Sampath received a doctorate in ethnomusicology from the School of Music at University of Queensland, Australia.^[a]

to

In October 2017, Sampath received a doctorate in history^[3] and ethnomusicology from the School of Music at University of Queensland, Australia.^[b]

Career

• Update

He went on to join Hewlett-Packard, where he stayed till July 2013.^[4]

to

He went on to join Hewlett-Packard, where he stayed till July 2013,^[4] when he received a full scholarship for a PhD at the University of Queensland.^[5]

• Update "has also been a former senior fellow" to "was a senior fellow" – "has been" and "former" are redundant of each other.
• Add to end of section:

Sampath, composer Ricky Kej, and scholar Rajib Sarma produced a documentary film, Who is Baul, about the mystic Baul tradition of Bengal, directed by Sairam Sagiraju.^[6][7]

Archive of Indian Music

Add a new subsection under "Works and reception":

In 2011, while working on his biography of Gauhar Jaan,^[8][9] Sampath created the Archive of Indian Music to preserve and digitize old gramophone recordings.^[5] He was inspired by previous visits to similar archives of European music.^[10] The archive is a private non-profit trust created in collaboration with Manipal University's Manipal Centre for Philosophy and Humanities.^[11] T. V. Mohandas Pai also donated seed capital to the project.^[12][9]

The archive encompasses a variety of musical genres and includes recordings from as early as 1902.^[13][14] It included almost 15,000 records as of 2021, with 7,000 digitized.^[8] Since 2013,^[13] much of the archive has been accessible for free on SoundCloud.^[8] In 2015, while serving as the Executive Director of the Southern Regional Centre of the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, Sampath donated the entire collection of the archive to the institution for free public access.^[15]

Wadiyar Dynasty

• Delete "the lack of an academic training coupled with an equal disinclination to either the Marxist Left or the Hindu Nationalist Right apparently served him well", which is not substantiated by either of the cited sources.^[16][17]

V. D. Savarkar

• Update

In contrast, Swati Parashar, a professor at the Gothenburg University, found the book to be a "must-read"^[18]

to

In contrast, Swati Parashar, a professor at the Gothenburg University, found the book to be a "must-read" and called it "one of the first comprehensive attempts to document and contextualise the life of the biggest 'Hindutva' ideologue",^[19]

Feels like this should be given

WP:DUE

weight alongside the preceding paragraph.

• Add to end of section:

In The Telegraph, TCA Srinivasa Raghavan described the book as "a straightforward, no-fuss narrative without hyperbole and hero worship".^[20] Saradindu Mukherji wrote in Firstpost, "Sampath is thorough in his handling of the sources, both secondary and primary."^[21]

Controversies

I propose adding this as a subsection, with the new "Bangalore Literature Festival" subsection (below) and "Plagiarism allegations" as another subsection.

Bangalore Literature Festival

Add new subsection of "Controversies":

In 2015, some writers who were invited to the Bangalore Literature Festival raised objections to an article Sampath, the event's founder and director, had written opposing the Award Wapsi campaign occurring in India at the time.^[22][23] In response, Sampath resigned from his role with the festival, stating that he did not want his presence to discourage authors from attending.^[24] In response to the resignation, MA Deviah wrote in Firstpost, "the irony is that Vikram Sampath can fearlessly express his opinion anywhere he likes, except at the Festival, which he helped create, thanks to the intolerance of the 'tolerant.'"^[25] The Economic Times wrote, "Sampath's move comes with a wave of protest and disappointment in Bengaluru's literary community, with friends, fellow writers and historians asking him to reconsider."^[26]

Plagiarism allegations

• Add to end of section:

Truschke and others circulated a new open letter in support of the scholars making the plagiarism allegations; however, two of the signatures, from Ramachandra Guha and Pratap Bhanu Mehta, were forged.^[27]

Commenting on the allegations, MP Swapan Dasgupta said, "The entrenched historians have always portrayed the right-wing as a bunch of illiterates, incapable of writing, comprehending and judging seriously. In all honesty, Sampath has written two volumes. And rather than any substantive argument, there are frivolous charges of plagiarism on him. It is basically a way of saying, how dare you intrude into our terms."^[5] In ThePrint, Aseem Shukla wrote, "by every appearance, Sampath was targeted for scrutiny because some fellow historians disapproved of the subject of Sampath's best-selling biography, the story of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. ... All three accusers have a long history of relentlessly denying the existence of Hinduphobia, and clashing with Hindu American groups they label 'right-wing' or 'Hindutva'."^[28]

Further reading

I see no reason why this should contain only negative links when so many positive articles on Sampath's work exist in major publications. I propose adding

• Mukherji, Saradindu (7 January 2022). "Why Vikram Sampath finds himself in the line of fire for probing suppressed histories". Firstpost.
• Shukla, Aseem (4 March 2022). "Vikram Sampath's brutal targeting wasn't academic activism. It was antithesis of restraint". ThePrint.

Thanks for your time/help! Mary Gaulke (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to request

• Saradindu Mukherji was one of the Modi-Regime appointees in its bid to saffronize ICHR and Firspost (post-2019) is not a reliable source (cc:@Tayi Arajakate).
• WP:NEWSORG
  goes,

  When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. Please keep in mind that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources, and this is policy.

• As you say, Swapan Dasgupta is a
  Member of Parliament
  — a Hindutva-leaning (or fwiw, left-leaning/centrist/..) politician's ravings on academic issues don't matter.
• Please consult
  And BLPs do not have C-sections
  . The first two lines about BLF shall go into career. The rest, junked.
• Raghavan's review need to be added; Parashar's review can be expanded but only to include the comprehensiveness. Biggest Hindutva ideologue etc. is
  coatrack
  .
• The line about his new film belongs.
• I am undecided about "full scholarship" - will concede to the opinion of others.
• No objections to the section on music-archive but I will take a relook. Need to be trimmed.
• That his doctorate was in ethnomusicology is held by UoQ's thesis listing, You cannot cite Sampath's blurb — which are always self-written — from the launch-event of his new film to dispute the accuracy.

• Maybe, enquire of Sampath to contact the university and have a new subject tag added? Or, he can just un-embargo his thesis and we can check the finer details.

• About the line on Wadiyars:

  A management graduate, Vikram admits [..]: "Since it is not a historian's point-of-view, I was more worried as to how eminent historians would react".[1]

  The driving motive of the 700-odd-pages tome was a “non-historian perspective”. Vikram had no Left bias, nor was he fuelled by a Hindu nationalist slant. [2]

• The lack of academic training as well as the lack of LW/RW bias is already sourced. The phrase "apparently served him well" is sourced to this article, taken from Sampath's own listing of press coverage:

  He calls himself a rookie at history and says it has its benefits. "I come with no baggage and have approached the subject with a rationale bent of mind."

• See archives #Popular historian for discussion on "popular historian". TrangaBellam (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC) correction by Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Fwiw, these are my only comments. I won't participate further, and have alerted WikiProject India of this discussion. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, popular historians are those that write for lay readership. They could be academic historians but more often they are not. In normal English the term "historian" is often used for both academic and popular historians, but in scholarly literature, the distinction is made (but may not be exactly in those terms). For example, here is a line from Ian Talbot's review of a book by Praveen Swami:

The work does not suffer from the lack of historical depth and historiographical awareness displayed in some journalistic accounts of the Kashmir.

So the reviewer pointing out that it is a journalistic account but also that it is historically competent.

In Vikram Sampath's case, unless we see academic reviews that say similar things, we have to label him as a popular historian. His PhD was from a School of Music, and the department showed no expertise in professional history. (Granted that every profession does study history of its concepts and developments, but that does not qualify as history in general. For example, there are loads of "history of mathematics" books written by mathematicians, which are blatantly wrong in historical matters.) So I would be opposed to calling it "history and ethnomusicology". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify, 2019 is just a rough cutoff for when Firstpost became unusable, its quality has fallen through 2013 to 2019, starting from the Network18 takeover around which time, most of their editorial staff was laid off and has since then undergone number of funding cuts, relying largely on freelancers to the point that now many of their reports aren't even written by professional journalists. Otherwise reading through the request, I'll essentially agree with TrangaBellam's response. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sampath's claims about being a "historian"

He has clarified it himself https://mobile.twitter.com/vikramsampath/status/1447206910915010569 103.199.180.151 (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To further support his claim, please check the "Acknowledgement" in preview pdf of https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780367822026/indian-classical-music-gramophone-1900%E2%80%931930-vikram-sampath . This is adaptation of Vikram Sampath PHD thesis as an academic book. @Kautilya3@TrangaBellam. Vikram Sampath had advisors from both the schools- Prof Margaret Barrett from School of Music & Prof Adam Bowles from School of History. 103.199.180.151 (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note- I only have access to preview. If anybody has complete access then please consider adding more changes to this page. For now there is enough evidence to change "Popular Historian" to "Historian" in this page. @Kautilya3 103.199.180.151 (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unconvincing since you wish to remove "popular historian". Barrett was the principal advisor. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam Have you verified this with university rules regarding interdisciplinary studies? This is a strange argument that you can't be a historian if your Principal advisor is not from the department of History in an interdisciplinary subject.I wonder how R.Guha is a historian then, his Phd thesis (or fellowship) was about Environmentalism focusing on Chipko movement but his main interests are Modern Indian History. 103.199.180.158 (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my replies at this thread. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not satisfied. Would you please clarify on this @TrangaBellam. In the preface of book adaptation of Ram Guha's thesis - "The Unquiet Woods: Ecological Change and Peasant Resistance in the Himalaya (Oxford India Paperbacks),1991" Guha mentions -

Second, I am not a historian but a sociologist trying to write history. This is a work of historical sociology, in which I am, as compared to most historians, more consciously theoretical and comparative in my approach. Here I am on slippery ground, for historians have in general a sharp scepticism of the pretensions of sociologists.

103.199.180.158 (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take this to R. Guha's t/p. Why are you expecting me to satify you on whether Ram Guha is a historian? This page is about Vikram Sampath and as countless reviews/remarks show, he is far from being a proffessional historian. That's the last you will hear from me. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be changed to "Phd in Ethnomusicology and History"? As I can see in the above mentioned book, Dr.Sampath had advisors from School of History and his thesis contains historical analysis of the topic. Mixmon (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I offer no objections. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then change it, the article is protected for me. Mixmon (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done TrangaBellam (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in lead? "Sampath was in Karnataka." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahinshah121 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - corrected. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]