Talk:Ram Puniyani

Absurd Claims

I just removed a claim that he won the Nobel Prize for Biotechnology, a fact that could not be confirmed from the Nobel Prize website. (Incidentally the wiki also called it the "Noble (sic) Prize". This is an absurd claim, please offer more proof. The assertion about "Secularism" below (anti-Hindu etc) - is just plain silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.11.95 (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This article written by Anti Hindu and information is incorrect

THe information about Mr. Ram Puniyani is based uponhis own publicity material. HE is basically hindu hate monger and called secularists (as all anti hindu people are known india). HE never ever criticized any practice of any other religion. He is suspected to be beneficiary of Congress party and Al Qaida. No proof of his al qaida links are known —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaifazam (talk • contribs) 08:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ram Puniyani is a very biased person. Today he came to our institute to teach conflict resolution but started bashing BJP, RSS and hindu organizations. People like him who belong to the so-called "civil soceity" are hatching a conspiracy in the country to brainwash them in order to justify islamic terrorism. He writes books full of venomous and derogatory remarks against Hindu organizations and they are full of wrong information. His book "Terrorism: Myth vs Facts" is a classic example. In the book, there is a chapter - 'Is RSS a terrorist organization?' he has given the name of Terrorism Research Center as an agency which declares RSS a terrorist organization. This is totally absurd. First of all, there is no mention of RSS anywhere in the website (mentioned below). Secondly, the organization is NOT related to US govt. Have a look : www.terrorism.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushalanurag (talk • contribs) 14:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ram is very dedicated secularist

Ram has made valuable contribution to upheld secular values of a modern society. Because of his brave activism many Sangh Parivar members are disturbed and always tried to personally attack him, instead of countering arguments put forward by him. He is one of the best communicator in India. As a citizen of India he has all rights to fight for secular values upheld by Indian Constitution. Like Swami Agnivesh, Anand Patwardan, K.N Panikar and Shabnam Hashmi, Ram also belong to a school of activists who is fighting for religious tolerance and national integration. They are the heroes of our time.....

One more thing i just wants to clarify.... criticizing RSS doesn't means Anti-Hindu.... RSS do not represents the majority of tolerant Hind people in this country.....if RSS is representing whole of Hindu society, BJP should have been ruling India, a country which has more than 82% of Hindu population. RSS's militant ideology will never win the heart and minds of Indian people. RSS is as harmful as Lashkar-e-Taiba.

 —Preceding Biju Mohan comment added by 59.145.161.100 (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC) 

Category

Any particular reason for the exclusion of the subject from the Category:Indian secularists, given that the subject is well-known in secular activism? Mar4d (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Being a "secular activist" is not the same as being a "secularist." I see that there is a category called Secularists, and its subcategories include secularists from Islamic countries (where it is a clearly defined concept) or from European countries (where it seems to mean some kind of radical leftist, or atheist). In India, which is a secular country by Constitution, calling somebody a "secularist" usually has a negative connotation, that they are in some way trivializing the complex debates on the role of religion/culture/nationalism in the political life. I am a secular activist. But I don't want to be called a "secularist." So, this is not something we want to do. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you want to rename the category to "Indian secular activists," it will be perfectly fine to add it to this page. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll amend the category nomenclature accordingly. Mar4d (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Kautilya3 The websites that I found are primary, see WP:BLP, did you find reliable secondary or tertiary sources? Rupert Loup (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't. That is why no citations have yet been added. But it is clearly non-controversial factual information and so there is no need to delete it. Somebody that has a print copy of a book can always cite its back cover which would have the biographic information. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I notice that you have already deleted it, along with the banner that said "contentious material about living persons" may be deleted. Please state what you find "contentious" about it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It was tagged since 2013, Wikipedia articles must not contain original research WP:OR, right now this article relies too much in primary sources. We need secondary sources to meet WP:NOTE. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 maybe there are relaible sources in Hindi? Given that he's Indian. But I can't read those languages.

Yes, the tag has been there since 2013, and many people haven't had a problem with it. So, what problem do you have with it? Is there any information there that you find dubious? Are you here to build Wikipedia or to destroy it? Do you go around deleting such uncited material from every article, or do you pick and choose what you don't like? A time will come when somebody will look at these issues, and the results may not be pleasant to you. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, s/he isn't totally wrong in removing unsourced content from BLP tagged for two years. Simplest is, like you claim, put sources. Do you bully people with contrary opinion like this? --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 see WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. "Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks" WP:NPA. Respect and civility is one of the Five pillars of Wikipedia. Again, Wikipedia does not publish original research, the content must be verificable. Unsourced material don't help the project and I'm against unsourced material regardless of the subject. Rupert Loup (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ram Puniyani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120906140926/http://tiss.edu/tiss-attachements/events/list_of_/at_download/file to http://www.tiss.edu/tiss-attachements/events/list_of_/at_download/file
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091120171917/http://www.iptindia.org:80/main/ipt.php?Page=Report&Report=40 to http://iptindia.org/main/ipt.php?Page=Report&Report=40

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed unsourced content from here.

This is just to notify the users that I have removed unsourced content from this article. I have tagged artilcle by giving citation needed, full citation needed and verifiability tags and templates on the article in August of 2019. It's been more than one month and no one cared to improve the article by providing references. The proof of burden lies on the person who had created or added these topics of information, so please prove it. Some tags have been since 2013 and details have not been verified yet after 6 years. Some not notable and promotional works have been also removed. I have removed the content under WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:UNSOURCED policies and here is exact quotation:

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source . Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article.

After some time, I will also remove some more information which are not verifiable and can be used in circular reporting. If anyone have problem with removal of material then kindly discuss the issue here by pinging me and citing policies. Regards,-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)