Talk:Irfan Habib

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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 not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

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.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

Contents 1 Reasonless Reverts 2 Controversy Section 3 Controversy Section again 4 rm controversy section 5 Shourie's criticism 6 now on BLP noticeboard 7 WikiProject class rating

[edit] Reasonless Reverts

User:Bharatveer,

You have reverted the article without giving any reason (you have a habit of doing this). In effect, you have replaced the link to the category of Marxist Historians by one to Muslim Historians, and deleted the section giving links to articles by Prof Irfan Habib. Both things removed are relevant to an entry on Irfan Habib, and I do not see any grounds on which they can be disputed.

Certainly, Irfan Habib falls more naturally under "Marxist Historian" than "Muslim Historian" as Marxism informs his work and Islam does not.

Amberhabib 05:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not add that category myself. I just retained that category when I reverted the article to its previous version.

BTW, Are you in anyway related to Irfan Habib.Are you Amber Habib??-Bharatveer 11:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy Section

User:Atif nazir,

Your reasons in removing the controversy section is not convincing.You also removed another link saying it is redundant. I have restored them both. Also I have retained the ext .link you have added to the article.Bharatveer 04:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Amber habib,

See this Arun Shourie From the link "The compliments duly returned : "The first and foremost (sic.)," writes Tasneem Ahmad, "I express my profound sense of gratitude,very personal regards and respects to Professor Irfan Habib, who encouraged and guided me at every stage of the work. In spite of his very pressing engagements and pre-occupation, he ungrudgingly spared his valuable time to examine with care every intricate problem, arising out (sic.) during the course of work."

SO i am going to revert it and also re insert that arun's claims went unchallenged.Bharatveer 08:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Bharatveer,

A thanks for encouragement and guidance doesn't imply that the other is the PhD guide, which is a much more specific and formal role. Ahmad also thanks Satish Chandra for being his teacher and going through the work; and Nurul Hassan for inspiring him. Does this make all of them his PhD guides? Since the PhD was submitted in Rajasthan and Irfan Habib was Professor at Aligarh, he obviously could not have been the PhD guide.

--Amberhabib 07:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the references of Phd Student; but retained that he has written a preface to the published book.Also the fact that shourie's claim went unchallenged.Bharatveer 07:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but writing a foreword for a book doesn't implicate one in any omission by the author. There is nothing for Irfan Habib to challenge. If you want to say Tasneem Ahmad didn't defend himself, this is not the right place. --Amberhabib 11:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It does implicate when one claims to have "guided" and "corrected" a plagiarised work.Bharatveer 13:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Bharatveer, Irfan Habib did not claim to have guided or corrected the work. In any case, how is Habib supposed to know a book is plagiarised (if it was) when the original had not been published? --Amberhabib 11:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Bharatveer,

First of all, this controversy (if at all true) is an insignificant part of the works of Prof. Irfan Habib. There is no need for it to cover 1/4th of the article and addition of the external link also.

What about Arun Shourie? He himself had been controversial on the topic of Islam, christianity & missionaries, Ambedkar and Marxists. His provocative and slanderous books had been mostly controversial, especially the recent book "Worshipping false gods". To be on the neutral side, I would like to remove his reference, which has been brought in totally out of context.

- Atif 14:12, 6 July 2006

Looks like you equate "controversy" to "criticism". If a person has written his viewpoints about certain topics, that doesn't make him of questionable authority as long as he maintains integrity. And that's why Arun shourie's writing are so important for any criticisms. However, I accept that the controversy section should have written about more important topics, like biasnesses, partiality in Irfan's works. But currently, I am only reverting the Arun shourie part currently. Yes, that should not take 1/4 of the article, but that means, you should expand the major sections of article, not deleting any section.

Its not me who is equating "controversy" to "criticism", its the contributor who added the "controversy" section and expanded it. If its called criticism by Arun Shourie, then the section should be called as "Criticism" on Prof. Irfan Habib's article. I have consolidated the section to scholarship.

While I was editing the article Bharatveer reverted back the changes (08:16, 8 July 2006) without explaining the reasons to do so. It shows an irresponsible behavior on part of any Wikipedia contributor.

Atif 8-July-06

I have removed the statement that Shourie accuses Irfan Habib and Tasneem Ahmad of "various unethical and fraudulent actions", because in all the references provided so far there is only one claim by Shourie of unethical action by Tasneem Ahmad, and none of Irfan Habib.Amberhabib 11:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy Section again

See the discussion above and decide. I have retained your elaboration but controversy section stays.Bharatveer 08:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Bharatveer, About your latest claim borrowed from Shourie. Shourie's charge was that grants were sanctioned but not used. However, he cleverly omitted to tell his readers that a grant being sanctioned is not the same as money being given. The way government grants to academics work is that once the money is sanctioned, you have to do the work before you get it. Typically, a grant is sanctioned, you proceed with the work, and when you have finished it you ask for your money. In a year or two, after an audit of your bills, you may get it. If you don't do the work, you don't get the money. Sometimes, you don't get it even if you have done the work! In case an advance payment is made, and you don't deliver, you have to return the money. If you don't, it is deducted from your pension benefits. So Shourie's claims are plainly hot air. --Amberhabib 11:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Reasons not good enough to delete the controversy section.Bharatveer 12:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to delete the controversy section. I just want you to not exaggerate what Shourie says. For Irfan Habib, Shourie has a single citation of a sanctioned grant (of Rs 27000) for a project that was not completed. Shourie does *not* however say that this money was disbursed. As I have pointed out above, sanction of a grant is not the same as disbursal of money. Amberhabib 10:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rm controversy section

per WP:BLP#Biased or malicious content, no mention of what specific criticism or charge has been leveled against Habib. also, no mention in section of denial by Ahmed and the subsequent enquiry set up makes this pov. Doldrums 12:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shourie's criticism

to include this in the article, it needs to address Habib specifically, should be neutrally worded, clearly attributed, and not be disproportionate in terms of length. see WP:BLP. any reliably sourced response to the criticism by Habib or others who defend him should also be noted to serve WP:NPOV. quoting the text in the cited source which substantiates the edit is also useful.

additions to the article which fall far short of this standard may be removed per WP:BLP. for eg, here i reverted content which is partly unsourced, non-neutral (the guilt by association tone, the scare quotes around 'scholarly'), not correctly attributed (Shourie is not "independent journalists and historians"). Doldrums 07:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] now on BLP noticeboard

reported. Doldrums 17:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 18:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)