Talk:Banaras Hindu University/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Propose merge from medical college article, IMS-BHU

I propose a merge from the medical college article into this main university article. Whatever is in the college's article is very little and can be a decent section in this article instead. Kavadi carrier 01:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Its a separate institute with a big Hospital in BHU campus and it also have separate selection criteria so it needs an dedicated page.
Do not merge. Vjdchauhan 06:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Both the BHU article and the BHU IMS article need a lot of work, and as they stand they could be one article. However, when they are fleshed out, they will need to be in separate articles as they have a separate history, purpose, and future.

do not merge Bluerasberry (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Polishing the article

This is a great school but the article needs some work. It is hard to get a sense of what is unique about this university based only on the good description of its early history which is in here. What is special about this school nowadays? Any notable student organizations, cultural programs, something besides typical academia? Bluerasberry (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Date of BHU founding

The Bhu article, which I have redirected here, said: "It is thus one of the oldest universities in India. Set up in 1929 by Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya the ancient city of Varanasi on the banks of the Ganges in the Northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh." Why does this article say 1916 but the other one said 1929? I have no idea which one is correct. Remes 23:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am a student of BHU at present, and I can say affirmly that founding of BHU was in 1916, as it is evident byBHU website itself. www.bhu.ac.in. The first Vice chancellor was appointed from 1916- Sir Sunderlal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.97.99 (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

History section copy paste problem

this a a straight copy from their web age. I removed it by commenting it out to prevent it displaying, though it is still visible in the edit box. It must be rewritten entirely DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I am removing the copyright notice because the web page cited seems not to exist on their site or in Google cache. In any case I am rewriting the section right now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright

This article has been the subject of NUMEROUS copyright violations and it's getting very old. If this continues the article will be protected making it difficult for everyone to contribute. Please stop copying and pasting form elsewhere. In addition to the incidents noted above, most recently text from a webpage, which was specific to a college within the university, not even the university itself was pasted into the article replacing all other material. The article has been reduced to a stub and the appropriate infobox added. Please continue editing this article but do so responsibly with your own words rather than stealing material found on the web. Dont forget to cite your reliable sources.--RadioFan (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If there is are any repeat offenders for copyright violations then I am not aware of who the offenders might be. I oppose page protection because this article continually attracts new users to Wikipedia. The issue is that this article is for an Indian school and concepts of piracy and copyright are not as established in India as they are in other English-speaking countries. Instead of page protection or deletion of almost all article text as you have done, I support reverting individual instances of copyright violation and sending personal messages to all who transgress the rules. If the violations are getting tedious for you then please post on the talk page when there is a problem. As best I can tell, there was one post by DGG stating that there was a problem with the history section which was identified a month ago, and no one has posted on the talk page about any other problems.
Here are the changes which you made from the stable version of the article; I appreciate that you spent a half hour here but I do not understand at all why you deleted so much. I am reverting everything and am re-writing the history section. Blue Rasberry (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
User:RadioFan again deleted the entire page for reasons which are not clear to me. At the time I had a construction template on the history section and was working on it. Now it is done and I think that nothing in the history section can be said to violate copyright. I removed the construction template and the copyvio template. If there are further problems then please bring them to this talkpage. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
As stated above, there were numerous copyright violations and additional questionable sections that appeared to be copied from elsewhere but could not be tagged as copyright violations immediately. I thought it best to stub it and give a fresh start, providing some guidance to the often new editors creating these problems. If you are comfortable with the content in the article and that it was created by you or contributors and is not copied from elsewhere, thats great. Carry on.--RadioFan (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I vouch for the history section and will be watching the article otherwise. Thanks for spending time on this. I am arranging the page to include your additions to the institute sections, so that everything you designed to create the stub will also be incorporated into the current article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed people from list of alumni

I removed persons from the list of alumni if they did not have a wikipedia entry. Does anyone think any of them should go back? Here are those people: Bluerasberry (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

After a year and a half, some more! Blue Rasberry 20:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
After another eight months, more. Blue Rasberry (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am checking in after some time. I am seeing that some of the red-links above are turning blue as articles are created for these people and I am happy about that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed all names from article

I just removed all the names from the article. The names comprised a huge portion of the total article and I thought it was distracting to the university article and did not give fair prominence to the names, so I put the names in their own article here - List of Banaras Hindu University people - and made a section in this article linking to that one. I also made appropriate categories and modeled it all after the way it was done in List of Harvard University people. Any thoughts on this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Kashi Hindu Vishwavidyalaya

Can someone please explain how, if at all, "Kashi Hindu Vishwavidyalaya" is related? I saw the term mentioned in similar context. --Muhandes (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It is an oddity, but the school has two different official names. The name you mentioned is its Hindi-language name, and the English-language name is Banaras Hindu University. Most people call the school BHU and I would recommend that after the lede the school be referenced as BHU. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sameer from kachhwa mirzapur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.191.254 (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Banaras Hindu University. 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.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Banaras Hindu University. 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.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Banaras Hindu University. 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.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Use of Bharat Ratna

I read somewhere, and found on this site "https://www.thequint.com/news/india/what-are-the-perks-offered-to-a-bharat-ratna-awardee" that "Unlike other awards and contrary to popular perception, the Bharat Ratna Award does not carry any monetary grant. The award cannot be used as a prefix or suffix to the recipient’s name (italics mine). But an award winner may use the following expressions in their biodata/letterhead/visiting card to indicate that he/she is a recipient of the award. The allowed expressions are ‘Awarded Bharat Ratna by the President’ or ‘Recipient of Bharat Ratna Award’"

If true, I suggest that proper changes may please be made at the earliest. chami 04:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Muhandes (talk) 06:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to Merge, no objection raised. Muhandes (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I propose that Faculty of Social Sciences, Banaras Hindu University be merged into Banaras Hindu University. I think that the content in the Faculty of Social Sciences, Banaras Hindu University article can easily be explained in the context of Banaras Hindu University, and the Banaras Hindu University article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Faculty of Social Sciences, Banaras Hindu University will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. I also suspect that there is not enough evidence of notability to keep Faculty of Social Sciences, Banaras Hindu University. Muhandes (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2017 (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.

Merger proposal 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to Merge, no objection raised. Muhandes (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I propose that Institute of Management Studies, Banaras Hindu University be merged into Banaras Hindu University. I think that the content in the Institute of Management Studies, Banaras Hindu University article can easily be explained in the context of Banaras Hindu University, and the Banaras Hindu University article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Institute of Management Studies, Banaras Hindu University will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. I also suspect that there is not enough evidence of notability to keep Institute of Management Studies, Banaras Hindu University. --Muhandes (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2018 (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.

Merger proposal 3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus for merge.∯WBGconverse 14:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I propose that Faculty of Visual Arts, Banaras Hindu University be merged into Banaras Hindu University. I think that the content in the Faculty of the Visual Arts, Banaras Hindu University article can easily be explained in the context of Banaras Hindu University, and the Banaras Hindu University article is of a reasonable size that the merging of the Faculty of Visual Arts, Banaras Hindu University article will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. I also suspect that there is not enough evidence of notability to keep Faculty of Visual Arts, Banaras Hindu University. --Muhandes (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that instead of merging it here, instead we create a separate page for 'Faculty & Institutes' or 'Academics' of BHU, where pages related to all Faculties, Institutes & Centres can be merged. So, it will also be easy to provide information of different faculties & institutes. Seomelono (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
@Seomelono: What you are suggesting is to split the Institutes section into, say Institutes of Banaras Hindu University. I do not oppose that suggestion, but it does not contradict my proposal to merge Faculty of Visual Arts, Banaras Hindu University. Even if you did the split, I would suggest to merge Faculty of Visual Arts, Banaras Hindu University into the split article. Faculty of Visual Arts, Banaras Hindu University simply does not merit an article. Do you oppose this statement? --Muhandes (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Pinging @Seomelono:, please respond. --Muhandes (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Why does Faculty of Visual Arts, Banaras Hindu University does not merit an article? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
@AKS.9955: I'm not sure if you are asking this seriously or not but I'll answer anyway: it obviously fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. There is not a single source provided to show it is notable. I'd rather achieve consensus here that it should be merged, but it we can't, I'll just post it for page deletion and be done with it. --Muhandes (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@AKS.9955: Please answer, do you still have issues with this merge? Should I post it to page deletion instead? --Muhandes (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Muhandes: No issues with me. Seomelono (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2018 (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.

What's wrong in this ? Dear Editor, Please help

The Nizam of Hyderabad, Mir Osman Ali Khan also made a donation of ₹1 lakh for the university.[1][2][3]

Hello Muhandes, Regarding your statement: [clarification needed]

  • The cited links don't show the date whatsoever, that shouldn't be a strong reason for it's removal from the page?!
  • However, I can remove the ==donation== heading as per your advice.
  • Have added 2 more citations supporting the same.

Muhandes awaiting your reply.

Bluerasberry can either of you please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.58.238 (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It's odd that you address me, I never removed the statement about donation. I just moved it to the history section, surely you agree this relates to history? And as an historical fact, surely you agree the approximate date of this is crucial? Regarding the number of references, I don't see why we need more than one source for such a minor fact. As for removing the fact, you should ask the editor who removed it. Without dating this fact has very minor impact on the article, so I would not argue on its behalf. It could either be left alone or removed for all I care. --Muhandes (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "A 'miser' who donated generously". thehindu. May 24, 2013.
  2. ^ "Nizam gave funding for temples, and Hindu educational institutions". missiontelangana. May 28, 2013.
  3. ^ "Nizam gave funding for temples, Hindu educational institutions". siasat. Sep 10, 2010. Retrieved July 8, 2018.

Unreliable source

This source was used in the article: Government of india donated rs 15 lakh and nizam of. Retrieved 19 August 2018.. The document is published as part of a coursehero course on web data structure, surely not a reliable source. I presume this is from a real book, and that book may or may not be reliable but without knowing what book it is, I don't see how this source is reliable, so I removed it.--Muhandes (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Banaras Hindu University women's rights protest

I just created Banaras Hindu University women's rights protest. I am posting this into the article but not sure how controversies best fit here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Bluerasberry I have a suggestion on which I need opinion. Why in the main articles of Indian universities as BHU, JNU (Delhi), Hyderabad University controversies are included while there are no controversies mentioned on the articles of Stanford, Harvard etc? Of course these universities are incomparable in terms of overall set-up & other things but still! Also separate articles for individual controversies may be created, as you have already done. Seomelono (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@Seomelono: I think for any large university it should be easy to find a few protests and make articles for them. Students are supposed to protest. I encourage you to make protest articles for any university you wish - it is a great idea. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 16:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Removal of the name of maharaja of benares

Dear PrincessPersnickety why are you removing the name of maharaja of benares ?? did he not gave the land for the establishment of BHU . then why are you removing his name? this is a planed conspiracy of removal of his name . you have removed him from the painting of the opening ceremony but he and his son are still there in the picture clicked by the people and is kept in the museum . because of you people who keep removing content no one believes in wiki so stop making false edits and give citations before you make changes . hopeing other wikipedians to help me out

reference The Inception of Banaras Hindu University: Who Was the Founder in the Light of Historical Documents? by tejakar jha

Well, I am sure your edit is going to be reverted again. You can verify the statements or at least tighten your texts with good grammar and add 'citation needed'. Mranmolv1 (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Anonymous poster (who I assume is 106.66.7.180), you have to ping users if you want them to see your messages. I reverted the changes because you removed sourced information and changed content with no explanation. I can assure you I have no interest in whatever "conspiracy" you think is going on. My interest is in improving Wikipedia. It's very simple - if you don't provide a source for your claims, they will be removed. Princess Persnickety (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Where is BHU Logo/Seal?

I can no longer find the BHU Seal or Logo on the wiki. Someone may please add it. Sources: https://bhu.ac.in/aboutus/seal.php https://intranet.bhu.ac.in/BHU%20LOGO%20March%2014Com%20Center/GAD%20Not.pdf

User4edits (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It got deleted and I am not sure why. I requested it to be restored at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#File:BHU_Logo_Durga.png. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Can you please use the seal/logo from the following document and update it? https://intranet.bhu.ac.in/BHU%20LOGO%20March%2014Com%20Center/GAD%20Not.pdf Thanks, User4edits (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@User4edits: I think that link only works for people connected to BHU's network. Do you have another copy? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: It shall open once you pass the Https security warning. Anyway, here is the archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20211112125507/http://intranet.bhu.ac.in/BHU%20LOGO%20March%2014Com%20Center/GAD%20Not.pdf . User4edits (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Please expand In popular culture section

Banaras Hindu University has been and continues to be frequently portrayed in various popular media cultures. Please help expand this section. Thank you. User4edits (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

NIRF rankings

@Mikeblas: you reverted the NIRF 2020 ranking update commenting “unreferenced” inspite of the references being there. May I know why.???

@DEFCON5: Hi, I saw that you made the above comment, unsigned, however. Can you please re-update the NIRF 2021, and other rankings? (Also see this) Thanks,User4edits (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:BHU which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Unclear image of "founders"

@Gaurav 3894: Hi, you are updating image on the article, which has seven people, as 'founders' however, the article and all sources cite only 4 main founders vis.Madan Mohan Malaviya, Annie Besant, Maharaja Rameshwar Singh of Darbhanga Raj, and Prabhu Narayan Singh. Can you cite the source for names of other people as "Founders" and who they are? This image seems to be a British colonial apologetic behaviour to put some English rulers over the actual founders. Looking forward to your answers. Regards, User4edits (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@User4edits: hello , First lets talk about the two british people so the middle person is lord hardinge , he was the one who had laid the foundation stone and he also helped in the passing of bill {his name is given in the article kindly read } the second is  Harcourt Butler who was the then education minister and was the one who presented it in the Imperial Legislative Council{also given in the article } now the third man is sir sundar lal and kindly re-read the article you will find his name name . now lets talk about where this was published . it was published in saraswati patrika (which was anti- British and promoted independence ) . Hope I have answered your questions . regards Gaurav 3894 (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gaurav 3894: Thank you for your reply. However, please note that BHU was founded on a initiative of the fourfive founder mentioned in the infobox. The two English gentlemen have very little to do with the founding except for administrative functions they performed under the office they were holding. Laying foundation stone, does not make, someone the founder. Similarly, presenting a Bill (which by the way, I myself have included in the History section) does not make someone the founder. I shall be starting a WP:RFC for this, meanwhile, you can collect sources which prove strongly the founding role of the two English gentlemen. Regards, User4edits (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Please note that the image puts Lord Hardinge on a pedestal above others, and Harcourt Butler on that as of others. While I appreciate you uploading the image on Commons, I believe, the way you're placing it is not the right way, as it undermines the efforts of the five founders, and builds false equivalence. I shall not comment about the magazine and why did it publish it in the said manner. Regards, User4edits (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC about 'founders' of the Banaras Hindu University

Can Lord Hardinge, and Harcourt Butler be termed as the founders of the university, for they laid the foundation stone, and presented the bill in parliament, as then Education Minister and Viceroy respectively? Please see Related talk User4edits (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it is entirely reasonable to include Butler as a founder, along with the others listed in the related discussion (Malviya etc). Presenting the bill in Parliament is related directly to the legal basis and financial footing of the university, and it is grossly incorrect to reduce it to 'administrative' work, as initiating a bill in a legislature is in no way "administrative" but quite frankly political, and implies a level of personal commitment and effort towards the creation of the university. "Laying the foundation stone" has a weaker claim to founding as it seems to be a purely symbolic act - unless Hardinge had an authoritative role in approving or establishing it, you can forego his inclusion as a founder and merely mention the foundation stone as part of the university's history. - Naushervan (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@Naushervan: Thanks for your comments. If presenting the Bill in the parliament equates to founding the university,
Will the bill presenting parliamentarian be founder of the Aligarh Muslim University for presenting the Bill?
Will the bill presenting parliamentarian be founder of the Jawaharlal Nehru University for presenting the JNU Act Bill?
Will the bill presenting parliamentarian be the founder of the several New Central Universities for presenting the Central Universities Act 2009 Bill?
Regarding "Financial footing", please read about the History of BHU, as it was not funded by the government, but by crowdsourcing.
Regarding, "Political" will, please read about the History of BHU, as the then political masters, tried all to stop the foundation of the university by putting irrational conditions, let alone supporting politically.
Furthermore, no reliable sources in the history of over 100 years cite them as the "founder", and especially not on that of equal pedestal of the five founding members. Thank you, User4edits (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
You've made your views amply clear in the related source and the RFC - I hope you don't intend to repeat them in response to every comment. That would be neither productive, nor helpful towards building consensus. - Naushervan (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems odd to me that neither of you resorted to the obvious way to prove your point: reliable, secondary sources. I'm sure that with such strong opinions you both have your pet sources that agrees with you. Let us know what they are so we can help you judge based on the strength of the sources. --Muhandes (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I am going on what has been cited in the article, I have no particular additional sources to add, and I find your usage of language such "pet sources" to be completely unhelpful. I encourage to be WP:CIVIL as this is unproductive. - Naushervan (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
You are right, my wording was inappropriate and I apologize (and I stroke it down). This is not an excuse, but I suppose we all have these days. If it helps, at least I was equally uncivil to both sides, so apologies to both.
However, I do stand behind the essence of my words. There are two sides to this argument, but neither of them have provided any evidence in the form of reliable sources. The purpose of RFC is to attract more opinions, but without sources, what are we supposed to base our opinions upon? You are the experts in the subject, not us. There are currently 209 sources in the article, so saying "what has been cited in the article" is not very helpful. I think providing two or three major sources which list those people as founders (or don't list them) would have helped the procedure much more. --Muhandes (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment @Muhandes:. However, it is less about reliable sources, than the following points:
1. The point of contention is that does laying foundation stone, or presenting the Bill (as member-education, Governor General's council) equate to founders who worked tirelessly for years, with funds, humanpower, and ideas?
2. All sources cited in the article only mention the five founders as having contributed significantly to the foundership of the university. The contention arises from an image[1] which is captioned on the article as "Founder members" and placed replacing image of Mahamana who is the synonym of the BHU in entire country, and in almost all forms of literature. Therefore, the onus is on the editors commenting against the sources, to cite reliable sources for the same (semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit).
3. As suggested by one editor above, the two British gentlemen contributed politically or financially to the university, is completely incorrect. In fact, the then government was setting preconditions to the five-founders in order to let them establish a university, and they were struggling for the same.( Please see chapters 10 and 11 of the book History of BHU[2]). Similarly, they were putting preconditions on collecting entire sums for the university. Therefore, this debunks the myth that they contributed to the university. (If anything, a sub-section called 'Challenges' on this could be put in the History section)
4. To sum it up for the unaware, a rough analogy would be: Clement Attlee was one of the founders of Independent India, as Mahatama Gandhi and Subhash Chandra Bose, for British PM Attlee presented and got the Indian Independence Act 1947 passed.
Please also see Academic imperialism. Regards,User4edits (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
For me the compelling argument is [a]ll sources cited in the article only mention the five founders. If this is correct, then it is obvious to me that we will not go against all the cited sources and list anyone else as founder. --Muhandes (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


@User4edits: Just think without their help in administrative work the bill would have never passed . you gave the example of nehru ji but there was a difference. Nehruji had presented the bill into parliament of newly formed SECULAR India but Butler had presented it to to a council who had no intention of giving education to its colony . So there was a difference. one more thing if you are asking opinion of other then why are you arguing ?? regardsGaurav 3894 (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Gaurav 3894: Brother, please understand that I am not undermining the two British gentlemen's efforts. But in fact, it was I, who put Harcourt Butler on this article and his contribution. But you need to understand that by putting that image you are implying that Hardinge contributed more significantly than others, and Butler as equivalent to others (which is absolutely incorrect). I once again thank you for uploading the image on Wikimedia (from which I have used Sir Sunder Lal's image on this page). However, I request you to please understand that the university is a brainchild of Mahamana, further conceptualized with ideas and enormous dedication of the five founders, and built with funds crowdsourced from all over the Indian subcontinent.
Regarding "education to colony", it is a very complicated subject. Anyway, I would suggest you read selective portions of the most-compelling literature on the BHU -- this book[3]. I hope you will understand, Thank you, User4edits (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No they are not founders unless expressly named as such. Laying a foundation stone is an especially thin claim, since this is usually done by some unconnected, high-ranking individual, but neither should be described as founders unless WP:RS say so unequivocally. Enablers are not necessarily founders, nor vice-versa.Pincrete (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions for splitting the article

The article is currently at 160kB, 60kB above WP:SIZERULE. Although model article University of Oxford is also exceeding the limit at 190kB, I invite suggestions on splitting the article. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Banaras Hindu University/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 02:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


I will take this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Quick-fail

This article is eligible for quick-failure. It is a long way from meeting criteria 1), 2), and 3b). The layout is extremely flawed and does not conform to MOS:LAYOUT - there are large numbers of one-sentence subsections, which could easily be condensed into concise, coherent paragraphs, but have not been. This is compounded both by the inclusion of unnecessary detail (the article does not need to explain the details of extremely common administrative positions, for example), and the extensive unsourced material/original research within the article (a significant percentage of the history and campus sections remain unsourced). By comparison, the organisation and administration and academics sections are far more well sourced, with the proviso that the sources are nearly all primary, and thus are only borderline WP:RS Finally, there appear to have been some content disputes on the page in recent days.

With all this in mind, I am compelled to quick-fail the article. The nominator will need to fix the problems outlined above before nominating it for GA again. If you have any questions, please ping me here or on my talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29
Hello, Thank you for taking the time out to review.
Here are my key takeaways:
  • Redunce one-sentence subsections as much as possible.
  • Reduce unnecessary detail
[] minute/common admin positions
[] What else?
  • Enchance WP:RS where possible
  • Note about the content dispute:
There has been only one dispute about adding yet another common administrative post, that too a copyright violation which has also been deleted from the logs.
I would be really grateful if you expand the above with clear ideas and directions.
Thanks, the nominator, User4edits (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Not just one sentence subsections. One paragraph subsections too. Take the Research centres section - it could be combined into around two coherent, concise paragraphs. None of the different centres are really important enough to warrant their own subsection. In addition to administrative positions, remember that you don't have to define commmonly accepted university terms, such as departments, faculties, etc. Remember also that templates such as {{see also}} or {{further}} are not placed in the middle of the section, but rather at the start, just under the header.
Reliable sources are a big one - necessary for GA. There is currently substantial unsourced text/original research. A large proportion of the sources that are here are primary - the work of BHU itself. This means that the article is only borderline neutral (GA criterion 4), and the next reviewer would probably highlight that before approving the article. The prose is also unclear in some places, and would also need improvement. However, the referencing and the layout are the big problems right now.
I would also suggest removing citations from the lead, per WP:LEADCITE. Nothing here is controversial enough to need lead citations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

User4edits

It's related to the map format edit by you. I feel Map form should exclude non relevant issues, and references. Further, is there really any need to include map format as in Oxford University article. The article looks good and is easy to navigate for all as it is. As for splitting, what do you have in mind. And as for the GA nomination and review, I think that the target audience will be willing to read about the minute details shared, and academic positions described. Basing an article on a University based outside India and which well documented sources, the purpose of this encyclopaedia will be defeated. Though primary research is not allowed on Wikipedia, atleast consider the ground reality of the location where this University is based. Even students studying here are often times not clear about many things. I support your effort to improve the quality the article, but disagree on the pace that you are doing it. Seomelono (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seomelono (talk • contribs)

@Seomelono: I have added map as per Oxford University, anyway it is hidden, and opens only when clicked on. I am yet to add further locations (Institutes, and Offices) on the Map (you can contribute too). I didn't quite understand the middle part of your message. Regarding splitting, I am not sure how to go ahead, as this is a complex university. Entities of the University which have a separate article for them are already very briefly described here. Perhaps creating articles for Faculty of Social Sciences, Banaras Hindu University and other institutes or faculties which do not have their article is a way. Again, I did not understand the pace that you are doing it bit of your message. Thanks, 17:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

User4edits The middle section was related to GA nomination, and the review that was given. For example, to make the changes as suggested by the reviewer, will require referencing from reliable secondary sources, but either such sources are not readily available, or the information is not publicly available, and so primary research/source is used. Hence, if those primary research materials are removed to improve the quality of the article, the purpose of encyclopaedia to give information to general public may get defeated. That is why I suggested that it is good to improve the article per a model article but not so fast as to make the article less useful. I hope this clears my intent. As for creating separate article, say Faculty of Social Science (as you suggested)- if I remember correctly a separate article did exist but was either merged in main article or deleted some years back, citing the reason that article is small, and has repetition, and of not particular importance to warrant a separate article. And I partly agree on that. If not much can be written about separate entities based on secondary sources and not primary research, we should consider not to create separate articles. Seomelono (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Seomelono Understood. Regarding the part of former creation and merger of some Faculties/Institutes, I don't agree with repetition or small size as I have not seen the previous article. We already have separate page for 4 out of 6 Institutes listed, 4 out of 8 faculties, 5 out of 5 colleges, and 4 out of 4 schools. If we create the standalone articles for 2 remaining institutes and 4 remaining faculties, we can manage with a standardised one-line info and See Also note for them. This way, we can add more information on other research centres.
We can split the History section. Like History of the University of Calcutta, that way more encyclopedic information could be added about the history of BHU.
I had also proposed GA Nomination for VC-BHU, you may want to see that, and see if it could be done anything better.
Thanks, User4edits (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Non-notable sections

User4edits, do you really believe that the clubs and societies section is notable enough to satisfy WP:NSTUDENTLIFE? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: We are discussing including appropriate and reliable clubs and societies in the Article, and not creating Fancruft Articles for them, for which I believe yes they are satisfactory given the limitations of WP:RS on the related subjects in India. Rest, I am looking forward to hear the views of other editors towards WP:CONSENSUS. Also, I would advice you in general to not blank entire sections without having a discussion on the TalkPage. Outright removal with personal understanding of WP policies doesn't reflect very good for editing on Wikipedia. You are a senior editor, and I respect you for that, and expect your kind understanding. Thanks, User4edits (talk) User4edits (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
User4edits, discussion first is not required (see WP:BRD). For WP:RS, remember that The Times of India is considered reliable only for completely factual events—any politically related sourcing from it should not be used. I do not see the relevance of WP:BURO, but I am happy to see that you are dedicated to constructive, collaborative editing. Since I have more time now, I intend to implement the changes I suggested at the GA review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29 I am aware of WP:TOI and I use it only for factual non-political events for which there are no other WP:RS or conflicting RS. I am dedicated to constructive contributions on WP, and look forward to engaging with you to make this a WP:GA, in this endeavor, over the next few days. I shall be replacing WP:PRIMARY sources with secondary sources wherever possible. Also, please note that this is a reputed public university, and for many factual details (for ex a policy, or course, etc.) shall be difficult to find a secondary source. Nonetheless, I shall try.
Meanwhile, I invite you to give me more feedback on TOOMANYHEADERS.
Let's make this a WP:GA. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal 4

No consensus to merge. Soni (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2023 (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.

This page has several non-notable subtopics that have been given their own article. Yesterday, I redirected several of them (Arya Mahila Mahavidyalaya, DAV Post Graduate College, Mahila Maha Vidyalaya, Vasant Kanya Mahavidyalaya, and Vasanta College for Women) to this article. User4edits has reverted all of these changes.

In the edit summaries, they cite WP:UNIN as their justification; they seem not to have read the full policy, in which case they would have encountered WP:NFACULTY. On my talk page, they cite WP:OTHERSTUFF, a logical fallacy. I do not believe that any of the above colleges have sufficient notability in reliable, independent sources, to be established as separate articles on Wikipedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

A merger proposal without a suggestion first to improve the references sounds like another way of having your way without WP due process. Please remove the merger tags and replace them when general notices for the references to be improved. If in several months time, they have not, you may try a merger proposal. It is a second step, not the first. Pinging also @User4edits and AirshipJungleman29: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
A quick, cursory, look at the colleges shows their faculty to be notable, their work appearing in several publications brought out by scholarly publishers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
That is very gratifying, @Fowler&fowler:. Please let me know which publications those are, so we can add them to the article as soon as possible? As an aside, could you please point me in the direction of the WP due process which states that a suggestion to improve references must be made first? It is sure to contain information I could use to improve my editing style. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
It does not have to be as soon as possible. I will do it in my own good time.
Lame sarcasm will not get you anywhere. It hasn't thus far. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
shrugs it seems to have got me beyond a demand to follow a policy which doesn't exist. I await your constructive response. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As per above, as standalone articles exist for colleges of Universities, and as the parent article already exceeding WP:SIZERULE. User4edits (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Banaras_Hindu_University/Archive_1&oldid=1220720833"