Talk:Kancha Ilaiah

His activities to create communilism

Currently he actively writing articles to create commulism between different sects. He is Christian but always he writes about Hindu's and how to create differences between sects in Hindu's. Any one who attacks caste system is anti national and definitely bad. Caste system so good as it keeps the top at the top and bottom at the bottom!

religion

how is there no description about the religious affinity of the above mentioned person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.186.185.58 (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

BIAS and UNDUE article lede

Wikipedia policies are clear. Edits and article must be UNBIASED and not "netralise" the "valid" criticism but brushing it away or buying it down below the depth of article. This applies even for the WP:BLP articles. This article's lede did not include the summary of criticism, which creates WP:UNDUE imbalance and attempting to preserve this imbalance by reverting without adding the summary of criticism is both WP:POV pushing as well as [[[WP:DISRUPTIVE]] pattern of being "uncollaborative"/"non-cooperative" because wikipedia's core principal is "collaborative and iterative enhancements".

To address the BIAS in the article, I took the pre-existing content from criticism section in the article, summarised the "important" points which were earlier missing from the lede. I did not introduce any new source. Summarising the existing content with pre-existing sources in the article is no synthesis, it removes the WP:UNDUE imbalance that article had by not showing all key points in the lede. Any attempts to revert edits, which remove this UNDUE BALANCE and BIAS is WP:POV pushing. If the point is that criticism should be attributed and not generalised, I will agree if the criticism is from a one specific individual. In Kancha's case, his numerous colleagues from his own university have criticised him.The same criticism by several people is sufficient to be used as a "generalised" statement and hence does not need to be attributed specifically. Having said that, I still used the attribution while reinstating my reverted edits.

If you have any concerns, do a direct revision of my edits. But ensure, you do NOT NEUTRALISE the VALID CRITICISM even in the BLP. Instead ensure that you are being ITERATIVELY COLLABORATIVE and your further edit (if you chose to paraphrase my edit) is UNBIASED and not pushing political POV (e.g. portraying a controversial figure in a different light by hidign away that criticism from the lede). 58.182.176.169 (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP. The cited sources should directly support the statement avoid WP:SYNTH. Re this edit, it is added that "He is known for his several controversial views and theories, some of which could inflame sectarian discontent or prejudice." But the cited source does not directly support such claim. His critics have called him a traitor because his writings were "intended to divide society" is added but only TG Venkatesh called him as such, not "critics". MOS:LEAD summarizes what's already given in the body, hence, if you'd like to add that several people criticized him for so and so, the please find a source which says "several people criticized him for so and so" and add it both lead and the body. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ab207, I am currently re-editing the article. I will factor in your opinion while reinstating my edits with further modifications. This is my first time to edit this article. I also noticed there are several pre-existing statements in the article which are not directly supported by the source, i.e. they violate the argument you have put forth above. Many are the poor and unacceptable sources, e.g. claims from his own interviews/claims had bene presented in the article as the definitive and [implied] as generalised/generally accepted view of others about him. If you have been watching the article, then why have you allowed those edits to be inserted or be retained in the article. Selectively applying the policies is POV pushing, and if such pattern is replicated across several articles then it becomes WP:GAMING the system. At this stage I am not implying or alleging this is what you have been doing because I have not reviewed your editing pattern across articles. But if you are watching the article, then it is your responsibility that you consistently apply the same set of policies to the pre-existing text and new edits, and not be selective/subjective because then it becomes "preserving the POV" intentionally or unintentionally. Since I have specifically drawn your attention to his, please be careful about it on this article and other related articles. Thank you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's be clear that presence of poorly sourced information is not excuse to add more such information, hence my revert. Also, there are nearly 3,000 pages in my watchlist and its impossible for anyone to keep track of every statement present in those articles. But I can assure you that I'd be wary of additions to the lead and the infobox particularly in the BLPs.-- Ab207 (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with 58.182.176.169 because you are adding some critical statements said against him by people on social media with less reliable sources. Your only aim is to defame him and BLP policy violation. 103.146.203.35 (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)