Jump to content

Talk:Shashi Tharoor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeShashi Tharoor was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 18, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed

Untitled

[edit]

Backed from outside this man is a shame on the land of Gandhi. Never compromise on our values.

need more citations on some awards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.19.176 (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saibaba man

[edit]

Despite his carefully nurtured image as a suave and balanced intellectual Shashi Tharoor is a propagandist of obscurantism, miracle-belief and all kinds of superstitions. See Shasi Tharoor's articles on Saibaba [1] and Mariam Thresia [2] in his own web-site.

The rationalists of India have come out criticizing Tharoor's nomination for the post of UN Secretary-General. [3]

According to the rationalists, Shashi Tharoor's nomination is bound to become a major embarrassment for India. He is an articulate and avowed propagator superstition, miracles, and ridicules the scientific outlook of India’s policy, enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

If he becomes the UN Secretary-General, he will cause serious damage to the reputation of the august world organisation. Aparna

By no means do Shashi's articles smack of being a supersititous fool. Please learn to read carefully and view things in the whole - look at the bigger picture. If anything, it is your allegations that seem totally irrational. Shashi is a man of balanced faith - you on the other hand seem to be people of no faith at all - except that of making a mountain out of a moelhill. Infact I smell a deeper controversy here ...hmmmmmm

The article simply presents two contrasting ideas- its a metaphor and not to be taken literally. No wonder he did not win the election, though, he has more opposition from within his own country than he had from Pakistan- They opposed him on principle, never made any personal remarks against him. Tell me, Aparna, who do the 'rationalists' deem fit enough to represent India at the UN? Yechury , Karunanidhi and Karat are all non-believers and they don't seem to be any more enlightened about their country and their people. Reading a hundred books on rationalism and atheism doesn't make a good diplomat.--Sayitaintsojoe (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how come there are no comments by you on Pratibha Patil's discussion page? Her midnight revelations with a devi not irrrational enough for you? --Sayitaintsojoe (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And..theres a rationalists association. Wikedly funny. what do you do there? pray to a poster that says
 ; q ≠ 0 ?
--Sayitaintsojoe (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

[edit]

The quotes need to be trimmed. It now occupies half the length of the article. Tintin (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be transwikied to Wikiquote, and only a link to it must be given here.-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK08:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More importantly, the quotes should be referenced. False and defamatory quotes may go undetected without references. Andries 21:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the quotes on the Saibaba episode seem out of context without producing the entire article he himself wrote and thats widely available. Besides the "controversy" has already been mentioned in the page. I took the initiative to remove those quotes and to add Shashi's responde to the "controversy".

Shashi Tharoor and Satya Sai Baba Controversy

[edit]

Tharoor has been critisized by certain rationalist for his views on Sathya Sai Baba. For more details click on - Sanal Edamaruku. Here is an excerpt from the article.

When the world media came out to expose Indian godman Satya Saibaba, and his so-called miracles as well as his outrageous behavior towards many young devotees were documented in television clippings, the UNESCO distanced itself from Saibaba[citation needed] and cancelled a planned common project with him. Shashi Tharoor, however, did not hesitate to rush to the godman's rescue by singing his praise in international newspapers. In International Herald Tribune (dated 3 December 2002)[verification needed], Tharoor declared Saibaba’s conjuring trick of “producing holy ash” to be a miracle. He certified that Satya Saibaba did materialize gifts for his devotees from thin air and boasted that he himself was the recipient of a gold ring with nine embedded stones. The secret of the godman’s magic was already exposed by rationalists and his hand-sleight tricks were caught red-handed by television cameras and shown in television documentaries around the world. But Shashi Tharoor remained his staunch defender.

The following article at Tharoor's personal website is probably what bothers many people. That such an intelligent person can praise a "godman" in public.

Quotes out of context and repeated though already referenced..

[edit]

The following quotes seem out of context and the whole context is already referenced earlier in the page in the section about the Saibaba controversy. I see no reason why they should be there and am deleting them...

Sourced " "A private audience with the ocher-robed guru was astonishing at several levels. Sai Baba uttered insights about my family and myself that he could not possibly have known. Most startling, he materializes gifts from thin air - in my case a gold ring with nine embedded stones. He slipped it on my finger, remarking, "See how well it fits. Even a goldsmith would have needed to measure your finger." published by The International Herald Tribune December 3, 2002 available online " "It was as if he had heard what I wanted," she said. But a skilled magician can do that, and it would be wrong to see Sai Baba as a conjurer. He has channeled the hopes and energies of his followers into constructive directions, both spiritual and philanthropic." about Sathya Sai Baba in the article Meanwhile: Old mantras and new software side by side published by The International Herald Tribune December 3, 2002 available online

Kakhaga 13:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)kakhaga[reply]

I do not see why they are out-of-context. They should have been moved to wikiquote, not deleted. I find it slightly upsetting that only the sourced quotes were deleted, while the unsourced ones stayed. It should have been the opposite. Andries 18:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sathya Sai Baba Controversy

[edit]

I deleted the information from "Shashi Tharoor and Sathya Sai Baba Controversy". This section was referenced from an online email bulletin from a rationalist site. It has not been referenced using reliable or reputable sources and violates WP:BLP. A section can be written, however, saying that Tharoor visited Sathya Sai Baba and witnessed what he considered to be materializations yet claimed that he was not a devotee. SSS108 talk-email 02:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. A lot of of the section was sourced by an interview with Sashi Tharhoor which is an acceptable source. Andries 05:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, do tell us how belief.net qualifies as a reliable or reputable source? As far as I can tell, the interview was not published in any other media besides this internet site. And you are incorrect. A lot of what was deleted came from the non-reputable Rationalist site. It did not come from the interview you are referring to. How does this interview qualify as a reputable source when it is only an online source that has not been published in newspapers, magazines or other reputable media. Until you back it up with reliable sources, I will delete it again. The article does not even have a date. SSS108 talk-email 06:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Belief.net SSS108 talk-email 06:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108 talk-email 06:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC), does Shashi Tharoor's own website not count as a reliable source? Heck, most of the content on this page has been sourced from there. I found the Beliefnet interview I linked to on his website]. And in complete fairness, he also lists the Sai Baba article on his website. And why, single out the Saibab article for the quotes unless you are pandering to the slandering by the "Rationalist" site ? Tharoor has written over a hundred articles for the Hindu and the one on Saibab was only one of them. The quotes read without reading the entire article are misleading. Kakhaga 13:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kakhaga, I am not singling out the Sai Baba quotes. I agree with you that reading the quotes without reading the entire article is misleading.
The point is: Online email bulletins from a rationalist site are not reliable sources. Just because information is listed on Tharoor's personal site does not instantly qualify it as being reliable as per Reliable Sources. The Hindu article can be referenced and cited. SSS108 talk-email 14:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108 talk-email 14:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC), I was referring to the Beliefnet interview given by Shashi and listed on his website. Kakhaga 03:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kakhaga, kindly tell me how the interview on belief.net (which was not published by reputable media) qualifies as a reputable and reliabe source as per WP:BLP. Once again, just because the link is given on his personal site, does not qualify it as being a reputable or reliabe source. The interview needs to be reported by a verifiable secondary source. SSS108 talk-email 17:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using the subject as a source In some cases the subject may become involved in an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email. Or, they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or blog, or an autobiography. When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed.

Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:

It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies. It is relevant to the person's notability; It is not contentious; It is not unduly self-serving; There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject. A blog or personal website written by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is not used as a source. Kakhaga 15:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability:
  • "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed."
If you add the material from the belief.net site, it can be removed by any editor, at any time, even if other editors believe that this will affect the quality of the article. The belief.net article has not been published by reliable or reputable sources. That is the point I am making. You can always make a RFC to get other's opinion if you want. Sincerely, SSS108 talk-email 16:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is listed on the subject's website then it can be added. A source provided by the subject is more or less assumed to be reliable for the article about the subject. Andries 16:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not listed on his website. A link is. There is a difference. SSS108 talk-email 16:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be more of a personal issue between two or more editors here. Please try to resolve this issue on each other's talk pages instead of drastically editing the article without proper discussion. The Beliefnet source fulfils reliability conditions using online and self-published sources as far as I can see:
  • "Reliable sources tend to state explicitly who their sources are. Thus quotes with attribution are more reliable than 'anonymous sources,' particularly when anonymous sources are speaking towards their own interests."
Also:
  • "The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief are in themselves reasons not to use a source." [4]
It is unclear to me why the Rationalist site is an unreputable source. If no satisfactory explanation is given and no further reasons to justify the drastic editing of this article are given, then this article is going to be reverted back to how it was. Please edit responsibly and without personal agendas. Ekantik 02:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ekantik, you are mistaken. Sources must be referenced to reputable and reliabe sources that have been published by reputable media. Online bulletins and online sources that have not been published by reputable media can be deleted at any time and do not have a place on an encyclopedia. There seems to be a systemic problem with many editors adding this type of information on Wikipedia and others think it is allowable. It is not. Since you are under the assumption that this is a personal issue (it isn't), I suggest you file a request for comment. SSS108 talk-email 04:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing the Rationalist website, as requested by SSS108 on my talk page, I would argue that the website it is not a reliable source for anythig else than the website itself, or the author of the website, as it is a primary, partisan website and this is a biography of a living person (See: WP:BLP and WP:RS]. Another issue that I would want to raise, is that this article contains too many quotes. Please keeop one or tow quotes abnd move the rest to Wikiquote. Of course, if the article/opinion was referred to, discussed or described in a reliable source, the article/opinion could then be added, with proper attribution, to a WP article.

Thanks Jossie. I agree that the page has too many quotes too. For those who want to know, I asked both Jossie and Pjacobi to comment on this thread. See [5] [6] SSS108 talk-email 19:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the BeliefNet site, Jossie? Is that a reliable source as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Partisan.2C_religious_and_extremist_websites? Ekantik 04:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ekanti, the belief.net article is not reliable for the section you just cited. It is not reliable because it has not been published by a reliable secondary source (such as reputable media newspapers, magazines, books, documentaries, tv programs, etc). The belief.net article was published on the internet only. SSS108 talk-email 06:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I split this discussion off the discussion about quoting out of context into its own separate section. Ekantik 01:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shashi Tharoor achievements

[edit]

Please do not remove Shashi Tharoor's Academic achievements (in the early life part) as these are important achievements. This is not for praising the person, but just facts. Whatiknow (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They still need reliable sources. In the first paragraph, only his undergraduate degree is referenced (including coming 1st, etc). In the second paragraph, not only is there a lot of trivia (this is an encyclopedia and most of the article should be what reliable sources say about him, not his club activities decades ago), it is largely unsourced. The only thing sourced in that paragraph is where he got his PhD and at what age - nothing in the article mentions a 'Fletcher record'. Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Shashi Tharoor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this article is decent, but I did find a number of concerns:

  • The WP:LEAD should be a summary of the article. while this one isn't too bad, it feels more like a listing of things he does now (he is x. he is y. he is also z. etc.)
 Done --MK 11:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Free use rationale added to the image page --MK 11:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He studied at Montfort School in Yercaud and Campion School in Mumbai, attended high school at St. Xavier’s Collegiate School in Kolkata, Bachelor of Arts degree in history from St. Stephen’s College, Delhi ." Sentence isn't grammatically sound. Should be ", and attended high school.." and a couple other issues are in that sentence.
 Done Fixed --MK 09:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He then completed a Ph.D. at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, Massachusetts, at the age of 22, a Fletcher record." 'record' doesn't sound right. instead just say he was the youngest to earn a PhD, plus that should be cited.
 Done Section re-written. Cite added --MK 09:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the UN career section is unsourced. Both sentences in the first paragraph should be sourced, as well as a few others in that section.
 Done --MK 11:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tharoor's was an exceptional UN career, rising as he did from the P-2 level to the highest possible rank of Under-Secretary-General in a mere 23 years." Avoid POV. If it is exceptional than the readers should be able to figure it out themselves from the accomplishments.
 Done Makes sense. Fixed --MK 11:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tharoor resigned from the post of Under Secretary General on February 9, 2007 and left the UN effective 1 April 2007." Combine with the earlier paragraph and cite.
 Done Don't see the sense in merging with prev. para. Cite added -MK 11:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On June 15, 2006, the Government of India announced its backing for Tharoor’s candidacy as Kofi Annan’s successor for the post of UN Secretary General." Cite needed.
 Done --MK 10:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when he won 10 votes to Ban's 12[10] 14 September,[11] 28 September[12] and 2 October," Huh? I'[m not getting the random date insertions.
 Done These are the dates of the 4 straw polls. In any case they have now been removed as they appeared confusing. Perhaps a bullet list. --MK 10:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the vote, Tharoor withdrew his candidacy, telling reporters he was “confident that Ban will win.” " Quotes need cites, always.
 Done Re-worded and cite added accordingly --MK 10:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually going to stop here for now. I'd like to see these issues fixed over the next few days, meanwhile I will review the rest of the article. If the issues are not fixed in 5 days from the review's conclusion, or if I find severe problems later on, then I'll fail the article. If everything's worked on and resolved, then I'll pass it at that time. Until I finish the review, here's some issues to start fixing. He does sound interesting, so hopefully this article will become one that ends up infinitely better after going through the GA process. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given what's currently happening in the news with him, I'm worried about the article's stability over the next couple days; clearly a lot has been changed on top of what you modified. I'm taking the weekend off from reviewing but will finish it Monday. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he just resigned, so now the article's going to have a huge spike in viewing and editing for a while, failing the GA stability requirement. In short, the other issues I had with the article were the bullet points in the degrees and the controversies section (prosify all that) and some areas where references were lacking; at a minimum it should be one per paragraph. I'll have to fail the article currently, but after all this dies down in a couple weeks, you're more than welcome to re-fix everything and renominate it at GAN. I'll admit, I've never had to fail an article due to something like this before, heh. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At his age of 54 years as on date, he has already married twice and is now planning to marry a woman who was already married twice. While both of his ex-wife are alive, the proposed babe has one alive

[edit]

At his age of 54 years as on date, he has already married twice and is now planning to marry a woman who was already married twice. While both of his ex-wife are alive, the proposed babe has one alive - Why do people remove this phrase and indulge in edit wars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.97.83 (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's a subjective opinion and moral commentary, and has no place in Wikipedia. Cheeni (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry I didn't notice this discussion here before removing the words. My problem with this is that, apart from being unsubstantiated, it does not coherently express its views. Nor is it in language becoming of an encyclopedia. The "proposed babe"? Sorry for taking the moral high ground, but I believe that not only does this sentence make no sense, but also that the woman concerned is entitled to a little more respect.

On a side-note, considering that this topic will go through a lot of revisions in the near future, as further facts are uncovered, rumours refuted, etc. - Will it not be helpful to protect this article, or in some way ensure that only "verified" news gets published? Muxdevil (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I think it's a good idea to semi-protect this story for a while Cheeni (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to know exactly when Mr. Tharoor left wife#1 and when he married wife#2. I heard that it took place when there was a mini-scandal in the UN regarding his trying to get the future wife#2 accomodation next to his own. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.220.8 (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://tharoor.in/archives/st-for-sg/biography/about-shashi/. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications 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, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

minister of state for ministry of human resource and development

[edit]

shashi tharoor again the minister of state for ministry of human resource and development — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aabrahamsamrajponmani (talk • contribs) 16:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References for Literary Works and Publications

[edit]

Does his Official Site qualify as a correct source?

Also, places where his columns in various news papers is mentioned, is it okay to put just a link to one of his works? or is it necessary to add more?Pratheek Rebala 18:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Pratheek Rebala — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratheekrebala (talk • contribs)

Violated article

[edit]

This article has definitely been violated in past by some newcomer. At a glance article is full of hoax and unrequired materials which is absolutely no related to encyclopedia at all; especially controversy part. Seems like a blog and Day to day news happening in person's life has been added. I guess list of controversy written is just to portray person in bad or defame way. Being not an encyclopedia oriented I'll remove the whole part. Add only if it's proven Thanks and well wishes. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 16:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies sections are present in the aticles of politicians who have indeed made controversial remarks, activities etc. This is very much encyclopedic and the articles of politicians who have received wide-spread coverage for controversial things do have this section. there is nothing wrong in it. e.g. [7] , [8] and many more... --Adamstraw99 (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Shashi Tharoor. 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 06:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Online interview in reddit

[edit]

Tharoor just did a great online interview today.

  • "Hi I'm Shashi Tharoor. Ask me Anything on India, politics, foreign affairs, history, and more! • r/india". reddit. 29 March 2017.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shashi Tharoor. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shashi Tharoor. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies too much controversial

[edit]

Controversy section section seems nothing more than barely regular happening in Tharoor life. To my knowledge, in Indian politics such controversies keep on happening. Section Saudi Arabia visit and controversy Tharoor said something and opposition party demanded an action, regular functioning of polity in India. Please suggest how this section is playing significant part in this article. Because I am thinking of removing them one by one.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 13:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have omitted controversies which seemed no less than Regular event happening in Tharoor life. I would like to discuss before someone restore the contents.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 14:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Length of Article

[edit]
If every person of his level of importance had an article as long as this Wikipedia would be monstrous indeed. Can't it be cut down? Seadowns (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Why I Am a Hindu into Shashi Tharoor

[edit]
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 is that the articles are not merged. The rationale provided by the oppose votes was that the book meets WP:NBOOK, and deserves a separate article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

correct form of author's name; one of his many books, no evidence it's one of his particularly important one. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose:The book is an important contemporary work in the Indian context and has been reviewed in multiple publications. I have expanded the reception section of the article.DEFCON5 (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging some ininvolved editors to close this. @Fowler&fowler:, @DaxServer:, @Kashmiri:

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.

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

[edit]

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) 08:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shashi_Tharoor&oldid=1210666298"