Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru University/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1

WP:INDIA Banner/Delhi Addition

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag TALK2ME 03:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

What is the link to website doing in the intro para? It has been provided in External Links section according to template. Removing from there 59.180.66.111 (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Mohit

'Andres Oppenheimer of the Miami Herald refers to it as the "most politicized of all major Indian public universities". Crtics have attacked the large amount of public funds spent on JNU, with little apparent benefit to the Indian society. The critics assert that much of the "prestige" of JNU is hype generated by alumni in the media with JNU being essentially a mutual admiration society. Its graduates are not readily employable in India's booming IT and manufacturing economy'.

The above view is not neutral. JNU has a culture of debate and student activism, but that does not detract them from serious academic activities. It maintains a highly selective yet "progressive" admission policy. The allegation of "JNU being ... a mutual admiration society" is difficult to substantiate. An international assessment like THES league table 2006 was not conducted by JNU alumni. Foreign language and MCA graduates from JNU have good placement records in private firms. Social science graduates too hold their own ground in the academic job market in India and abroad. The IITs and IIMs, no doubt, contributed to the IT boom. But JNU is envisaged to play a different kind of role in policy reseach (eg. foreign policy) towards human security while promoting Nehruvian values and humane understanding in a muticultural society like India. No doubt, JNU was a child of the 1970s during the heydays of Indira Gandhi's socialism. With the benifit of hindsight, it may have to redefine some of its roles for post-Reform India.

Though its original social visions are still valid, JNU may have to adopt more market methods to excel and maintain its academic autonomy. To some degree, academic autonomy is linked to financial autonomy. While state funding is necessary, it is time that JNU generates its own untapped resources. It is time to learn the art of fund-raising, offer better scholarships, cut unproductive expenditure (esp. bureaucracy), and market its knowledge capital more aggresively. For instance, distance education and publishing are potential areas where JNU can earn extra cash to upgrade its inadequate infrastructure. JNU certainly needs to attract private endowments for professorial chairs, travel grants and fellowships from its own alumni and other private donors. Market expansion in higher education will ensure more accountability and productivity. Total dependence on public funds and the tax-payers' money sooner or later breeds complacency and poor social auditing. We know academic wallahs are a bit shy about such money matters. But intelligent institutions need to adopt "best practices" to survive at a time when everyone competes for limited Government funds. Till now, JNU did a very poor job in marketing and advertising itself - From ex-JNU student

Not only is the view "not neutral", it is also blatantly flawed. An University in which more than 75% of the students are part of liberal arts and language programmes, will not cater to an IT and Manufacturing economy demand, will it? JNU doesn't have a management programme to prepare graduates to take up managerial roles in the New Economy! Yet, today, students from the Economics Center and language schools are increasingly being recruited by various IT/Marketing/Finance Consultancies for their respective niche skills in Market analysis/Econometrics/ Language specializations. The speciality of JNU is its liberal arts and humanities concentration, as part of the School of Social Sciences. This school is rated by THES as among the top 60 in the world. Most graduates from this school either are absorbed by the mainstream media or by the Civil Services and a vast number of them turn out to become leading academicians, helping in social science research or in consulting with various governmental/non-governmental agencies. Bureaucrats with a JNU background are renowned for their pro-people approaches and sensitivities. Academicians from JNU have typically become world renowned for research depth in social sciences. Several Op-Ed writers in newspapers, media houses and NGOs are from JNU. Lastly, the Leftist orientation of the Student Polity is not an accident, but something which has been cultivated by rigorous democratic activism over the years. No questions have been raised about the virtually foolproof electioneering process followed in JNU, run by students exclusively. The system of debates and discussions add lustre to the democratic environment considerably.

It is the marxist orientation of JNU graduates, many employed in the media and civil service, that has so hobbled the growth of the Indian economy and kept hundreds of millions in abject poverty. Ideologies discarded in their countries of origin are kept alive at JNU as generations of students are brainwashed into believing that opposing development is "pro-poor" and marxist style redistribution of wealth will remove poverty. The thuggery of JNU student union activists needs no further mention.

The final sentence of the previous paragraph reveals the nefarious attitude of the writer toward the Democratic processes in the Student Union Elections in the JNU Campus. As for the writer's concerns about poverty, funnily enough JNU Students in Economics and Political Science would give him/her reams and reams of accredited research papers to show how Poverty has actually increased ever since policies of liberalization, globalization and privatization and withdrawal of state have been followed by successive governments since 1991. Its only because of the intervention of JNU scholars such as Profs Prabhat Patnaik, Utsa Patnaik, Zoya Hasan, Jayati Ghosh and others such as Prof Jean Dreze of DU who worked with students from DU and JNU to monitor NREGA implementation, that schemes such as the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act came about which have provided succour to millions of landless labourers driven to abject poverty in the countryside. Pro-active Government intervention in the health and education sector, protection of rural credit and provision of minimum support prices are arguments that have been elucidated academically by Prof Utsa Patnaik, confirmed empirically and reported eloquently by Journalist P.Sainath (a JNU Alumnus) in The Hindu Newspaper, and have been accepted as a crisis by the Current Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh (a Visiting Professor to JNU). Note the commonality ...its easy: JNU. Progressive bureaucrats such as Y.K.Alagh, ex-President K.R.Narayanan (who was known to have a deep and enduring commitment to the underprivileged, particularly the Dalits) have all had deep associations with the JNU as Vice Chancellors and people deeply integrated with policy making and running student affairs in the University. All this and more go on to establish the fact that the cutting edge socio-politico-economic thinking in JNU has infact gone on to ensure that JNU remains one academic institution in India which has played an enduring progressive role that is originally envisaged for all premier universities in the World.

Funny how economic liberalization works so well in China, raising hundreds of millions from poverty but in India, social scientists from JNU find the opposite, despite plain evidence to the contrary. Make-work programs like REGA that do nothing to permanently raise the living standards of the poor are touted by JNU while SEZs are obstructed. The Chinese are building their country while JNU drones are building socialism. No wonder India remains poor.

It is a lack of history training and a lack of a good understanding of China that is preventing the writer of the above lines from viewing the Chinese situation holistically. Let us be very clear: The reduction in poverty in absolute terms was a venture that was taken up by the pre-Deng era and was greatly successful. Deng consolidated upon the social programs by instituting land reforms (a key demand of the Left and the JNU scholars particularly) once he came to power and economic reforms were tilted to achieve growth after having largely eliminating poverty before. India has neither eliminated poverty nor has it created reforms such as Land Reforms effectively and have shifted onto neoliberal growth without enough homework. Mini-steps such as NREGA are minor ways of controlling the nefarious effects of neoliberal economic reforms.

Funnily even in China today, the Chinese PM Wen Jiabao has talked and has acted upon enunciating policies that have been measured to decrease rising inequality and take China away from the notion of High-Growth led trajectory but effective redistribution on health and education.

Again the writer above displays the arrogance of an "empty pot" reminding one of the age old adage.."Empty pots make....you know what I mean!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.234.65 (talk) ; Multiple comments added from 26 February - 16 March 2007

Image

Hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.97.162 (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

article needs the major improvement

The stats say that there are around 5000 students studying at JNU. Does it not occur to some of them to actually write something good on Wikipedia about their own 'prestigious' university? In particular, I make an appeal to the JNU students/alumni that read this to please improve the article by writing sourced information. As you may know, Wikipedia is first reference to gather information for the majority of people; this makes it even more important to present a factually correct and concise description here (you do want many bright student to get motivated and join JNU, don't you?). For an example, see the page on MIT. Pratik.mallya (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

more pictures

Please upload more pictures. PratikMallya Talk! 23:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to do so. Pictures that are uploaded need to be "free" (public domain), so pictures taken by other WP editors or those donated to Wikipedia are ideal. If you need help in learning how to upload pictures, please see Wikipedia:Uploading images, and feel free to ask further questions at the WP:Help desk. Note that Wikipedia is a fully volunteer project, so we have to rely on editors to provide pictures that they think belong in articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Notable faculty should be removed?

I think the entire "Notable faculty" section should be removed. What makes those specific faculty more notable than others at the school? This section is not common in other university articles, as far as I know. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru University/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Updating is must because special center for Biotechnology of JNU has been made School and School of International Studies is the oldest school since 1955. This information should be given.

Substituted at 02:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

References for the subsection "2000 Violence during mushaira (poetic symposium)"

Can anyone provide references from mainstream Indian newspapers to support the claims in this section? I searched but could not find anything. --Gaurav (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Note : The heading off the section "2000 Violence during mushaira (poetic symposium)" has been changed to Thrashing of Army Officers in 2000 by User:Captain Spark. --Gaurav (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The Tribune editorial cited in this section clearly mentions that the event was anti-war and not anti-India. But Wikipedia does not mention this. Here is an excerpt from this editorial :
"The basic theme of any Indo-Pak mushaira usually covers the unhappy turn of events which resulted in the Partition, the common music,dance and language of the people and denunciation of the politician-engineered hostilities which have embittered relations between the two countries. The mushaira on the JNU campus was no different. Fahmida Riaz, who has faced criticism from the fundamentalists and personal harassment from the Pakistani establishment for her liberal and India-friendly views, must herself have been surprised at the unexpected reaction to her anti-war poem." --Gaurav (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@Captain Spark: Your reverting of this edit violates WP:LABEL. Moreover, the aforementioned Tribune's editorial clearly says that the poems were anti-war and not anti-India. --Gaurav (talk) 07:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: What do you think about this? --Gaurav (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This article by Daily Mail states:

Outrage

This is not the first time JNU has been the object of popular anger and public scorn. In 1999, in the midst of the Kargil war, leftist students in JNU organised an India-Pakistan mushaira. Abuse and worse was heaped on India and its defence forces.

When two brothers, both soldiers, who were present, protested, they were set upon. It needed one of them to pull his revolver to escape the mob. Captain Spark (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Spark: Only Daily Mail says that the poems were anti-national. The Hindu clearly says that the Army officers "interpreted" it as a criticism of India (Note that Hindu does not say it was a criticism of India). As I have mentioned above, the Tribune says that the poems were anti-war and not anti-India. We should, therefore, not ignore other articles and base the section only on what Daily Mail says. --Gaurav (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not surprised. The tone of the edits is all too familiair. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
There is another Daily Mail article by a different writer. which cites Gone are the days when it would organise a ‘cultural programme’ at the height of the Kargil war in 1999 and invite Pakistani artists to virulently abuse India, and get away with it. More so if two army officers present there are assaulted just because they choose to protest against such anti-India outbursts, to the extent that they could escape only after one of them takes out a pistol and fires in the air. Captain Spark (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@Captain Spark and Joshua Jonathan: Daily Mail gives the following disclaimer at bottom of the page "The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline". Therefore, we should cite "news reports" rather than "opinion articles". --Gaurav (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. And check all the edits being made by the Captain. Sigh... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Moreover, WP:NEWSORGs are rarely reliable sources for history. Even BBC's coverage of history has tons of errors. As for the Daily Mail, the less said the better. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@Captain Spark: Please provide some reliable sources. Otherwise, we will have to remove these claims. --Gaurav (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Gauravsood, This is the fifth time you have mentioned me today giving me red notification. Which part you want to remove? (changing Anti-India part) or you want to remove the two sections completely as suggested by Joshua. Better remove the two sections completely and let there be peace. I found the article written in an extremely biased manner by an editor User:Tandonneha. I edited this page after that. And don't give me another red notification. Captain Spark (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Captain Spark, I found problems with what you had written, so I just tried to engage in a dialogue. I did not mean to trouble you. --Gaurav (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I checked, it's actually five times not three, within 6 hours. Captain Spark (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources for "Kashmir ki azadi tak jung chalegi, Bharat ki barbadi tak jung chalegi"

Apparently, IndiaToday wrote

"Anti-India slogans like "Kashmir ki azadi tak jung chalegi, Bharat ki barbadi tak jung chalegi" were reportedly raised at the protest meet."

and not that those slogans were "caught on video." What's the real source for "Kashmir ki azadi tak jung chalegi, Bharat ki barbadi tak jung chalegi"? The earliest source that I can find are:

"ABVP JNU - Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/ABVPJNUOfficial/
Feb 9, 2016 - Bharat ki barbadi tak, Kashmir ki azadi tak. jung rahegi, jung rahegi. ... Supporters raise banners thanking JNU students for backing Kashmir struggle. ... Rishabh Patel AAj TAK keh rha hai aaj ek report mein. ye masoom gumraha ho gaye hain(aise ... Kejriwal k tote sale. mai toh chahata inme se koi 1 inhi ki *%$@# mai goli ..."

Are these the sources of the IndiaToday article? Indian nationalist Tweets and Facebook messages? For my information: what do the students at the video shout? And what do "jung chalegi" and "jung rahegi" mean? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: 1) "jung chalegi" and "jung rahegi" mean "war will continue".
2) There is now some skepticism whether these slogans were raised. Let me search. I'll reply in some time. --Gaurav (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
See this news : Zee News producer quits: Video we shot had no Pakistan Zindabad slogan --Gaurav (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
(ec) IBTL, India Behind the Lens, was a pro-Modi news web site that ran during the last election campaign. After the elections, they shut down, but their twitter-feed continues. The video is apparently a private video shared by some Hindu nationalist member/sympathiser.
"jrung chalegi" means battle will go on. "jung rahegi" means the same thing: the battle will stay on. These people are evidently supporting Kashmiri separatists. They are asking for "Kashmir ki azadi" (freedom for Kashmir) and "Bharat ki barbad" (the ruin of India?). The latter is certainly anti-national. I was quite surprised when I first read about it. This is some kind of an ultra-left wing. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The people in video you provided are indeed shouting "Kashmir ki azadi tak jung rahegi jung rahegi, Kashmir ki azadi tak jung rahegi jung rahegi, Bharat ki barbadi tak jung rahegi jung rahegi, Bharat ki barbadi tak jung rahegi jung rahegi" which means "the battle will go on till Kashmir gets independence, the battle will go on till India is ruined". But, how do we know that this video was not staged by some right-wingers? --Gaurav (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. Isn't that a little bit far sought? Or am I a naive westerner? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: Even I don't know if this video was staged or not. But, since we have already seen a doctored video, how can we trust that this one is real? Moreover, it is shot in the dark with no faces visible. How can we be sure that this was actually shot in the JNU campus? --Gaurav (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: I am not claiming that these slogans were not raised. I'm just saying that this video is not a good evidence. --Gaurav (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry; I fully understand your point. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Latest news report casts doubt as to whether the people at the rally were even JNU students. I personally don't want to add this into the article, until others consider this new information, but there is new video said to exist, and supposedly the questions being raised seem valid, based on the new video. I defer to the judgment of others. Maslowsneeds (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"Thrashing of Army Officers in 2000"

Let's do the job, and check the sources:

  • "In April 2000, two army officers were thrashed by leftist students in JNU campus." Source: Sharma, Bharat Das (2000-05-06). "Editorial". The Tribune, Chandigarh, India. Retrieved 2016-02-23.
This is what the source says:
  • "the incident itself in which three brothers, two of them officers in the Army, were beaten up by students" - the word "trashing" is not being used;
  • "The Army officers and their civilian brother apparently led the protest against what they perceived to be anti-India views of the Pakistani poetess."
  • "So they [the officers] could hardly appreciate the poets’ urge for peace in the subcontinent."
  • "Had the three brothers not strayed into the auditorium out of curiosity while driving past the JNU campus the mushaira would have gone down as yet another attempt by thinkers and writers of the two countries to establish and strengthen bonds of trust and friendship between the people of the subcontinent."

I'm afraid that this already says enough... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is a more detailed story in Rediff. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The paragraph as it currently reads mention an incident that happened during a university function. I really don't see a controversy or an encyclopedic merit for inclusion in the article. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"JNU Porn Scandal"

This was just some random tabloid reporting at the time. It did not have much coverage and certainly no enduring notability or encyclopedic value whatsoever. WP:UNDUE, Support removal. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Split proposal

Clear concencus. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The section 2016 sedition controversy is too long and is expected to get longer. I propose that it should be split into a new article. -Kenfyre (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Indeed, exactly what I had been thinking... - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I was also thinking the same. --Gaurav (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely a good idea. - Nirinsanity (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support In future this section will expand --Bongan® →TalkToMe← 18:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose POV fork.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely a good idea for comprehensive coverage. --Bhadani (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support A new article is warranted. Givemeplease (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Should be done quickly. Adamstraw99 (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JNU Reputation and Rankings

False information was posted on Wikipedia JNU webpage about its ranking and reputation. I updated the information by getting correct data from reliable and respected sources. My update was:

JNU does not find any place in the top 1000 universities of the world for the year 2015 as reported by the Center for World University Rankings.[1] A total of 16 Indian universities have been mentioned in this ranking. Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi is at the top among Indian universities with the world rank of 341. JNU does not find any mention in the top 700 universities by the QS World University Rankings 2015/2016.[2] The university has not been ranked. A total of 10 Indian universities have found a place among top 700 universities of the world. With world rank of 147 the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore is at the top.

References

  1. ^ "CWUR 2015 - World University Rankings"
  2. ^ "QS World University Rankings 2015/16"

Not only is this information relevant, true and verifiable it contradicts the recent public posture by Indian politicians, editors and activists that JNU is academic institute of international repute.

Repeatedly deleting this information by editor is high handed, disruptive, vandal and against the philosophy of Wikipedia.

Ashok Rajpal (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Ashok Rajpal

You created a separate section called 'Reputation and Ranking' and filled it with lists that JNU is not on. Why is this noteworthy? JNU is also not on the list of all mosques or the list of tallest skyscrapers but there is no need for these facts to be mentioned. You have pushed the same information twice within the past few hours and thrice in the last week. They were reverted by me and another editor with good reasons. I mentioned my reasons in my first revert of your changes. You also labelled the reverts as 'vandalism' which is an unjustified and unproductive label. Givemeplease (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

POV

Joshua has been trying to push his own POV that anti-Indian comments were not made in the mushaira. Joshua made this edit summary of synthesis and pov pushing. Either he has not read the article or trying to push his own POV. The eighth paragraph of this article by Deccan Chronicle states "The JNUSU under Leftist control has a dubious reputation. In 2000, it organised a mushaira, inviting poets from Pakistan, at which India was ridiculed and anti-India statements made. Two soldier veterans of the Kargil war objected and were beaten up. They were hospitalised. Sacrifices made by Indian soldiers in war with Pakistan count for little among our intellectuals at JNU." The word anti-India is mentioned. It is also mentioned that they were hospitalised.

Daily Mail article states in the section titled "outrage, This is not the first time JNU has been the object of popular anger and public scorn. In 1999, in the midst of the Kargil war, leftist students in JNU organised an India-Pakistan mushaira. Abuse and worse was heaped on India and its defence forces. When two brothers, both soldiers, who were present, protested, they were set upon. It needed one of them to pull his revolver to escape the mob.

Joshua is exclusively quoting from tribune editorial and Rediff.com source that the army officers didn't have serious injury. Along with the Deccan Chronicle source above The Hindu mentioned that they were hospitalised. Another Hindu article states in the third paragraph, They were overpowered by security personnel after a few minutes of panic and then thrashed by the students. Later, they were whisked away, allegedly bleeding. But obviously Joshua won't mention the word bleeding in the article, but would mention that the anti-war poems were wrongly interpreted as anti-India from the same source.

It is alright to quote in the article what Noam Chomsky, Orhan Pamuk and Akeel Bilgrami said about 2016 JNU controversy, but I can't mention what B. C. Khanduri commented about the issue in Parliament, Sir, two army officers had been mercilessly beaten up on 29th evening at the Jawaharlal Nehru University. [1] . He removed my sourced contents as POV pushing

Joshua wrote this line in this article The army officers fled from the scene after one of the officers fired in the air from this source, while the source mentions Gone are the days when it would organise a ‘cultural programme’ at the height of the Kargil war in 1999 and invite Pakistani artists to virulently abuse India, and get away with it. More so if two army officers present there are assaulted just because they choose to protest against such anti-India outbursts, to the extent that they could escape only after one of them takes out a pistol and fires in the air.

Rediff.com is a website founded in 1996. It published an article in 2000 when it was 4 years old. Daily Mail is considered unreliable compared to Rediff.

Joshua is selectively choosing those content and sources which he likes and rejecting that he doesn't like.


I was told by another editor that non-English reliable sources are allowed in Wikipedia. But if you can't read the language written in Hindi, you can read the URL written in english and what it states by IBN-7 and Rajasthan Patrika . Can you read the url in English?


References

  1. ^ "Parliamentary Debates". Google Books. 2016-02-24. Retrieved 2016-03-03.

Captain Spark (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You're selectively quoting from sources to portray the JNU-students as fanatics.
  • "anti-Indian comments were not made in the mushaira" - this has been discussed before; the army-officers were offended by what they saw as anti-Indian poems. It's a matter of their interpretation, not of fact, and this should be clear.
  • this diff removed "as their poems had anti-Indian contents", which wa sindeed ot in the source.
  • "It needed one of them to pull his revolver to escape the mob." - according to the army-statement, the pistol fell out of a bag. Conflicting statements, yet you prefer the one that fits your opinion.
  • Going to a hospital does not necessarily mean that someone is seriously injured.
  • What's the relevance of B. C. Khanduri's statement, except for showing the exaggeration?
  • "The army officers fled from the scene after one of the officers fired in the air" matches "they could escape only after one of them takes out a pistol and fires in the air."
  • Which editor told you were that "non-English reliable sources are allowed in Wikipedia"? Not User talk:Cordless Larry#sources. See WP:NOENG: "Citations to non-English sources are allowed on English Wikipedia. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." There's plenty of coverage in English sources.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to mention JNU students as fanatics, I want to mention that anti-Indian comments were actually made by Pakistani poets in that event. There are 3 sources, one from Deccan Chronicle and two from Daily Mail which states anti-Indian comments were made by Pakistani poets. You are giving preference to Rediff, Tribune and The Hindu sources. Out of these tribune source is not a news but an editorial, Rediff is an entertainment portal. Only The Hindu source is reliable. You are trying to remove that anti-Indian comments were made. I am opposed to that only. If I have sources that Pakistani poets made anti-Indian comments, then it shouldn't be removed.
I gave sources for all my comments, but you are the one who is pushing POV. Due to your 4 year old account, you are getting support from others.
You wanted to know which editor told me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DESiegel#Non_English_sources
Joshua and his friends should explain why these sources are wrong 1, 2, 3, 4,5 All of these sources mention that Pakistani poets made anti-Indian comments. Captain Spark (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

DEsiegel also wrote: "The answer is, whichever seems more reliable on such a topic."

So, what we've got is opinion-pieces and local newspapers. See WP:CHERRYPICKING. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

So anyone writing against your view becomes biased writer. Congrats! But you choose an article from those so called biased writers to write this line The army officers fled from the scene after one of the officers fired in the air. Captain Spark (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
So, we should remove that line? NB: I didn't choose sources; I checked the sources which were already there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
The articles published in Rediff, tribune and The Hindu are also OPINION PIECE, so you are cherrypicking them. So much trust for Rediff.com than Daily Mail IBN-7 and Rajasthan Patrika? Yes it's HINDi, but the url is actually English lines with sense, http://khabar.ibnlive.com/news/desh/involvement-of-jnu-students-in-anti-national-activities-453840.html , http://up.patrika.com/special-news/jnu-students-had-badly-beaten-up-two-of-army-major-who-fought-kargil-war-13371.html Captain Spark (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Joshua terming IBN-7 as local newspaper shows his lack of knowledge.Captain Spark (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
If we just have "opinion pieces" and no news, then the this should be written as per WP:ASSERT.--Gaurav (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Rajasthan Patrika is not local newspaper only. It's more than that. http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/02/29/catch-news-shoma-chaudhur_n_9345600.html Captain Spark (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
The hindi language sources provided by you have these problems:
1) नया नहीं है जेएनयू का 'राष्ट्रविरोध', वामपंथ के गढ़ में चलती है एक अलग 'सरकार' - Even the title is an opinion.
2) #JNU में बुरी तरह पीटे गए थे कारगिल के हीरो - Its written more like a tabloid. --Gaurav (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Jingoism at the JNU- Even in your favourite source, the title is an opinion as the writer is using his own analysis. The sources supported by you people also written by a human being which reads like a personal analysis, especially the rediff and tribune sources.
Rediff.com was founded in 1996, which is more popular due to rediffmail, less for it's news. And articles published by Rediff.com in 2000, 4 years after it's foundation, can't be considered as the best source. Captain Spark (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Tribune source titled Absurd and unfortunate (the heading itself gives away the personal opinion of the writer, as according to him, the incident was Absurd and Unfortunate) is an editorial which is biased version of the editor. The writer admits that it's unfortunate, so it's their personal comment. It's confirmed that, when you people use an editorial from tribune, it becomes a reliable source. Had I used an editorial to quote, then you people would have come with the excuse that editorials are biased. Are you guys JNU students? Captain Spark (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The write-up in the article at the moment only states facts. Even if they came from editorials or opinion columns, our editors have taken only facts from them. Are there other facts you are bringing to the table? What are they? - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Facts are that anti-Indian comments were made. And there are sources, which are not liked by others as they find that, the writers are biased, term that the articles are opinion, tabloid news, local newspapers, what not!. Captain Spark (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Thats why I said above : "If we just have "opinion pieces" and no news, then this should be written as per WP:ASSERT". That means claims made by "both sides" should be written as per WP:ASSERT. --Gaurav (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@Captain Spark: I have looked at the English sources that you have given. Not only are they opinion columns, but they are all written in 2016 whereas the events happened in 2000. None of them say how they know about the events that happened in 2000. They don't appear to be news reporters. So, how can we know that what they say is a "fact"?
Secondly, other facts mentioned by the news reporters and editors, such as the Army officers carrying guns, making some kind of scene which necessitated the Security to overpower them etc. are not mentioned by your columnists. So it cannot be said that their interest is in telling us facts. If they tell us facts, they need to tell us all the facts. Rather, they are telling us their opinions, which they formed by reading or hearing whatever they chose to, and believing whatever they chose to. In such a situation, the reports are not reliable sources. They represent hearsay, beliefs, and opinions. Certainly not facts. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's an overview of my reverts:

  • diff: non-English source; unverifiable.
  • diff: POV; ste army officers disturbed the meeting.
  • diff: POV-pushing; what's the relevance of B. C. Khanduri's comment: "Sir, two army officers had been mercilessly beaten up on 29th evening at the Jawaharlal Nehru University." Is this a statement of facts, or an opinion? "Merciless" is clearly not a neutral statement.
  • diff: "as their poems had anti-Indian contents." - Not in source; WP:SYNTHESIS, POV-pushing.

Regarding the "anti-Indian comments were made": which "anti-Indian comments were made," according to which source? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky, Orhan Pamuk and Akeel Bilgrami called it a "shameful act of the Indian government" "shameful" is clearly not a neutral statement. Captain Spark (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The statement is attributed to the commentators. It is not presented as fact. Givemeplease (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
The comment by B C Khanduri can also be written as attributed, but POV pushers won't agree.Captain Spark (talk) 10:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Is Khanduri's opinion as noteworthy as Chomsky's? Is there not a conflict of interest? Also, we cannot frame the events in Khanduri's terms. You are free to add that Khanduri described the beatings as 'merciless' in a separate sentence. I won't object. Givemeplease (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Givemeplease, I must admit that you are very talented editor. You opened your account on 26 February 2016. Yet you know so many things about Wikipedia. I just learned only a few things about Twinkle and you make such difficult edit as saving twinkle preferences on 1st March. I opened my account three weeks before you but you see I still don't know how to save Twinkle preferences. You are giving Twinkle warnings to users. You never asked any question in teahouse or Help Desk before making such edits. You are editing like a very experienced editor. Who are you? Captain Spark (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
*blushes* Thank you! I am just a person who edits wikipedia. Givemeplease (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, just to clarify: are you rejecting sources based solely on the fact that they are not in English? I saw your "non-English source; unverifiable" comment above. I presume you are aware of WP:NONENG, which allows the use of non-English sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

1) I have read the Hindi language sources. They are also "opinion pieces" published in 2016 whereas the actual event happened in 2000.
2) Moreover, India has a large number of English language newspapers. It would be very surprising that something is reported by the Hindi press but not reported at all by the English press. --Gaurav (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: WP:NONENG says: "Citations to non-English sources are allowed on English Wikipedia. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." There are plenty of English sources on this topic, and the editor in question seems to be inclined to cherrypick those sources which frame the events as being triggered because supposedly "anti-Indian comments were made." I'd like to see sources, in English, which specifically state which "anti-Indian comments were made." There's a huge difference between quoting scholarly sources in a non-English language, or quoting opinion-pieces from Indian newspapers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
You would like to see those sources in English. Well this article is not written in Latin, but as written by a retired army officer it's dismissed. Captain Spark (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies, Gauravsood0289 and Joshua Jonathan. I now see that this was discussed in some detail further up. That's fine; I was just concerned that sources were being dismissed solely on the basis of language. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: actually I'm quite willing to go through all those sources again, and also other sources, if they are provided. The army response was interesting: the gun dropped out of a bag. With other words: there was a gun involved (and an owner, of course), but sources give quite different accounts of what happened with this gun. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

2015 saffronisation controversy

In 2015, students objected to efforts to create a course on Indian culture on the basis that the course was an attempt to saffronize education. Because the proposed courses were "rolled back," this roll-back may be material to the determined ill-will from right-wing groups against JNU students in the 2016 sedition controversy. Is it worthwhile to add information about the 2015 saffronisation controversy to provide context to the 2016 sedition controversy ? Maslowsneeds (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Maslowsneeds: I think Wikipedia should mention about the 2015 saffronisation controversy. There are other instances also which can provide context:
  1. See intolerance debate and saffronization of Indian Science Congress.
  2. We can also add BJP leader Subramanian Swamy's Sep 2015 comments in whcih he called JNU students and professors naxalites. See this and this.
  3. We can also mention about similar protests in other institues. See FTII controversy, ICHR controversy, Suicide of Rohith Vemula and IIT Madras student group ban. --Gaurav (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Let's see what other people have to say. I think information about the saffronisation news articles should be added, but let's see if other people have other facts. Maslowsneeds (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm making some edits about the Saffronisation row, but I'll be filing it under student activism, because it was an example of students opposing the efforts -- and succeeding. I'll let others weigh in, once the edits go up. Maslowsneeds (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This is completely undue.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, but we will let others chime in. It's clear and convincing that because JNU students defied right-wing efforts to accept saffronisation in education, that the students' success in resisting is material to right-wing efforts to attack JNU and to demonise the students. A prominent alumnus and a prominent government official stated as much. But do let's hear from others. Maslowsneeds (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Its their POV that its saffronisation. These are the same people who cheer Jihadi terrorists. Imagine if American students cheered Osama bin Laden.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson, Some people in the US believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but they are not booked for sedition. So, your argument doesn't work. --Gaurav (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
If American students cheered Osama bin Laden, they would be expelled from university and arrested by the FBI. The argument completely works.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know where you are coming from by continuing to invoke this Osama bin Laden argument. It seems like it's just an ad hominem attack on students and state officials, because nobody in the citations I noted in the edits has supported Osama Bin Laden. Who in their right mind would support Osama bin Laden ? Yet, you continue to invoke this argument. Because your previous attempts to invoke this inflammatory attempt at reasoning have been rejected in respect of your past vandalism of this page, it seems that you should alter your tactics. Maybe try truth and reasoning ? Obviously, you are running some agenda here. I think that is pretty clear to everybody. Sadly, it's also material that you didn't even chime in to contribute to the discussion on this topic in all these days after I first noted an invitation to discuss this topic. Instead, you lurked until after the edits were made to spring into action. How is that a demonstration of substantively contributing to meaningful dialogue ? Maslowsneeds (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Maslowsneeds, please stop with the claims of vandalism. You have already accused me of vandalism twice.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)\
  • Support - I think Maslowsneeds addition of the Saffronisation section is perfectly in line with the article. (And, comparisons with Osama bin Laden is ridiculous, to say the least.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I support Maslowsneeds addition as it provides context. --Gaurav (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Things are being misrepresented here. A student union opposing something, does not mean all JNU students opposed it.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson. We will not say that "JNU students" opposed it. We will rather say that "JNU Student's Union" opposed it as mentioned in this news report. Do you still have a problem with this? --Gaurav (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I support this compromise, so that the edits can be restored. Maslowsneeds (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree that the Saffronisation section is both relevant and fair, especially if 'JNU Students' is replaced with 'JNU Student's Union' as required. Givemeplease (talk) 06:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
@Maslowsneeds: This article also provides some context. I can provide many articles (both opinion-pieces and news) which also say the same. --Gaurav (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@Gauravsood0289: O.K., I will read it and look for news articles. I agree that this should be explored some more. The main Saffronisation article should probably be expanded with some examples. It will take me a few days to circle back. Cheers. Maslowsneeds (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks --Gaurav (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Ranking

Muhandes, what is the issue with stating the ranking in the lead? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the entire article. This is a relatively rich article with plenty of well sourced facts. If from the 80 or something facts mentioned in the article, one chooses to mention only one favorable fact about an award given last week, it seems to give undue weight, together with a bit of recentism and borderlining promotion. I moved it to the article, where it still stands out, but at least it's not the first thing one reads about the university. --Muhandes (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 27 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. After two relistings there is consensus in this discussion to rename this article. Happy Holidays to All! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi → Jawaharlal Nehru University – No other institution bears the same exact name. Malayy (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 23:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. ToThAc (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The lack of alternate articles at the same title is a good argument, but sometimes it's less confusing to disambiguate if there are articles with similar-but-not-identical titles. Given all the other titles at Jawaharlal Nehru University (disambiguation), I would expect that people would sometimes abbreviate them to "JNU [Place]" and leave off the "Agricultural" or "Technological". Instead, move the disambiguation page to Jawaharlal Nehru University. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
    • The terms "Jawaharlal Nehru University" and "JNU", when used, by far refer to this institution. The technical universities are known as "JNTU [Place]" or "JNT University [Place]", and rarely if ever "JNU [Place]". Also, the agricultural university's name is officially "Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya". Not to mention Jawaharlal Nehru University is one of the most prestigious universities in India and is constantly in the news. I have never heard it have to be distinguished from these other lesser-known universities, which, again, do not even bear the same name. Malayy (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. By far the primary topic associated with Jawaharlal Nehru University and that already redirects to this article. --regentspark (comment) 01:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support A simple news search easily verifies that whenever "Jawaharlal Nehru University" is mentioned, it is always this institute. It already redirects here anyway, so there is no possible harm, the dab page is still there if someone makes a mistake. --Muhandes (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Any institution in the world may be named after Jawaharlal Nehru; that does not mean that they are all under the same umbrella. JNU in Delhi is what is the Jawaharlal Nehru University, and that's all. Algebraical (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  23:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  23:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 09:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  23:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect data about University being most expensive

In opening paragraph, it states that after fees hike, JNU becomes most expensive University in India. This is factually incorrect data with reference to First post, a media known for exaggeration and anti-government fake news. INR 68000 is not annual fees for hostel. Request to look up and remove that line. Harpatel (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide valid source with regards to annual fees. I will personally remove and fixe it out. But without a reliable source, cannot do something. Thank you. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 18:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Jawaharlal_Nehru_University/Archive_1"