Talk:Vikram Sampath

Edit war

Why is an edit war going on here when there is clearly no consensus on proposed changes? I guess it's been happening for several weeks now. Mixmon (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue should be taken to WP:DRN Mixmon (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

You are too late. See the discussion above. The edit warring (including by you) is just WP:DE at this stage. >>> Extorc.talk 19:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOCONSENSUS. When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal Razer(talk) 19:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes I've seen that and you'll have to fulfill last demand made in the discussion before moving forward which is person-specific reliable source calling him biographer. Mixmon (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It was already fulfilled, so right now the real issue is with your WP:STONEWALLING. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Vikram_Sampath. >>> Extorc.talk 20:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Only if you ignore the previous arguments like in this comment Mixmon (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Pursuant to a request at WP:RFPP I have fully protected this article for 2 weeks to stop an ongoing edit war. I also have reverted to the Feb 19th version of the article as the last one prior to the start of the edit war. Please note that all prior edits and citations remain in the edit history, and can be restored if consensus develops here on the talk page to do so. Given that the article has required full protection twice in the last few weeks I encourage editors reach consensus on the talk page, by a RFC if necessary. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

An editor's request on my talk page suggests that there are more appropriate versions of the article than the one to which I have reverted. Please weigh in here. In the event I am unavailable I have no problem with any administrator implement a decision they deem to have reached consensus. Thanks. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with what @Razer2115 said in your talk page. Mixmon (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you also talking about selective agreement? The edits that actually had consensus also include the ones you are reverting. There is no need to unilaterally restore your preferred version. Dympies (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

That was wholly unnecessary; the revert back to a months old version only undid a host of undisputed work so I've gone and restored them now.

The edit warring and content dispute as far as I understand was over whether the first sentence should describe him as a "biographer" or "popular historian" and whether one of the sentence in the lead should be "In 2019 and 2021, he wrote a two-part biography of Savarkar that was held to be an uncritical work by most critics" or "In 2019 and 2021, he wrote a two-part biography of Savarkar that received praise for its thorough detail, but was also criticised for its uncritical treatment of Savarkar". There doesn't even seem to be any difference between what was in 19 Feb version and 2 April version, unless I'm missing something. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 COI edit requests

Hello! As noted above, I'm a COI editor here with a few requests on Vikram's behalf. I'm resurfacing some key items from above, some of which received a favorable response but seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle.

• Add to end of "Career" section:

In 2014, as part of his work with the Karnataka Tourism Vision Group, Sampath compiled a report with recommendations for increasing tourism to Karnataka. President Pranab Mukherjee selected Sampath as a writer-in-residence at Rashtrapati Bhavan in 2015. As of 2017, Sampath represented India in the International Society for Music Education.

• Add new "Women of the Records" subsection of "Works and reception":

Women of the Records, written by Sampath and published in 2021, covered the history of female Indian recording artists in the early 20th century. The book comes with a CD of recordings co-produced by Sampath and Ricky Kej.

• Add new "Bravehearts of Bharat" subsection of "Works and reception":

Sampath's Bravehearts of Bharat: Vignettes from Indian History, published in 2022, is an anthology of 15 non-fiction stories on the theme of under-appreciated figures from Indian history, including Lachit Barphukan, Chand Bibi, and Lalitaditya Muktapida. Sampath has stated that one of his goals for the book was to shift the "Delhi-centric" perspective of Indian historiography. As part of a panel discussion marking its launch, Vinay Sahasrabuddhe praised the book.

Thanks for your time and feedback. Mary Gaulke (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Partly done: I don't see any issues with the additions to the career section. The "Women of Records" and Bravehearts bits have previously been declined by TrangaBellam. Please don't re-submit edit requests that have previously been declined. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 09:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I took TrangaBellam's responses as ambiguous ("Nothing against" and "more soon"), so was hoping to get more clarity on what's needed here. Mary Gaulke (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Which source?

@TrangaBellam: Which source has been misrepresented? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

We need multiple (not one) high quality sources to qualify someone as a Hindu Nationalist in wiki-voice. That said, can you please quote the relevant bits from the two sources that supported your line —

Fact-checkers have found multiple instances where Vikram Sampath promoted disinformation.

Please be mindful that this is a WP:BLP. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove unfounded plagarism section

Hi, this is Vikram Sampath's office. I've read and noticed some extremely distressing, defamatory and disappointing content in this article titled "Vikram Sampath" on Wikipedia. I want to say that I'm very disappointed about the inclusion of the unfounded allegation of plagiarism in this Wikipedia article authored by some individuals. On many occasions I have already clarified that the baseless allegations are completely false that was set up against me and my career, also the Indian courts have prohibited those who blame me and make plagiarism accusations against me from spreading and disseminating the unfounded information about me. The court has also ordered social media platform to remove any references to these accusations.

In this regard, Mr. Vikram Sampath's office advises you to remove the defamatory plagiarism section from this article as soon as possible. I hope Wikipedia editors will take appropriate action.  

Cc: JSutherland (WMF)

WMFOffice

JJMC89

09-11-2024

Oo Vikram Sampath (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Oo Vikram Sampath: Could you please provide the exact sentences you object to, and want to be removed. IND123456 (talk) 11:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Oo Vikram Sampath "has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of DavidWood11 (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely." Shahinshah121 (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Plagiarism

• (Copying my comment from elsewhere) First, neither Bakhle nor Chaturvedi have accused Sampath of plagiarising them in his 2019 book. Bakhle addresses the plagiarism of a 2010 article by her in a 2017 article of his, though she suggests "unintentional result of shoddiness in writing and publication" and not duplicity from Sampath. Chaturvedi simply doesn't say anything about plagiarism in Sampath's 2019 book, but does imply so for the 2017 article. The Vikram Sampath#Plagiarism Allegations section, I will note, is written rather badly in its representation of the sources. The fact that Bakhle hasn't accused Sampath of deceit or that she does not say anything about the book, is notably omitted. Chaturvedi is even more thoroughly misrepresented, to the point of falsifying his statements: our article says "Chaturvedi expressed his disappointment at Sampath's lack of ethical standards" cited to this and this article, the first states Chaturvedi saying "it is very disappointing to learn about this situation" and the second article doesn't even mention Sampath. Such cherry-picking and misrepresentation in a WP:BLP is rather concerning.

I have thus made both Chaturvedi's and Bakhle's comments reflective of what they actually said. Please remember, this is a WP:BLP, and sources should absolutely not be misrepresented to make them appear more critical than they are (sources should not be misrepresented anywhere at all, but especially so on a BLP). UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, per above, I will request explicit quotations from the sources cited in the Vikram Sampath#Critics section. If someone can verify and include brief quotes from the articles cited, that would be great. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I added quotes and citations that you requested.

Bakhle and Chaturvedi both said that Sampath plagiarised. You say that one was not clear whether it was intention or not. It's plagiarism both ways. Shahinshah121 (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

No, you didn't. The {{Quotation needed}} tag was located next to Hew et al., you had to provide a quote from Hew et al. which supports the content it is being cited for. You simply added a new line cited to a completely different source that appears later in the paragraph (Bhattacharya). That is misleading, whether it was unintentional or deliberate I can't say. But please be more careful. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh and the Deccan Herald article you added for "largely negative reception in academic circles" does not say that. It says, the book "has invited the ire of several left-wing historians", naming them in the next paragraph: "Ananya Chakravarti, Rohit Chopra and Audrey Truschke." None of the three have written any published reviews of the book, and their accusations of plagiarism are already covered in the Vikram Sampath#Plagiarism Allegations. Whether this misrepresentation was also deliberate or not, I can't say, but again, please be careful when adding content to a WP:BLP. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I think "largely negative reception in academic circles" covers "has invited the ire of several left-wing historians." I would not put in "left-wing historians" because of WP:NPOV, but you can amend to quote "invited the ire" if you want. You cannot ask for a citation and then be upset when you get one. Shahinshah121 (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes that wording by you makes sense and should stay. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP. You are claiming that the biographies had "largely negative reception in academic circles". Per Cambridge dictionary, 'largely' means 'almost completely'. Can you show me, where in the article you cite, does it say that Sampath's work has received an almost completely negative reception in academia? The work has 43 citations from various academics. The article you cite says that 3 'left-wing historians' were angry at it. You want us to use these three to mean that almost all academics received the work negatively.

BTW, you still have not provided the quotation from Hew et al. (2024). Please provide a quotation specifically from the source being cited for the claim, or remove the source if the claim is not supported by it. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

When a quotation needed tag is used, a full quotation is supposed to be added to the citation itself or provided on the talk page, so that other editors can compare the article content with provided quote. I have now added the quote from Hew et al. (as well as from Bhattacharya and Ahmad) within the citation(s). I've also sought further feedback at WP:BLP for the SYNTH and POV concerns elsewhere. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2026 (UTC)