Talk:A. Tom Grunfeld

Criticism Section

I have removed this as a BLP violation based on the majority of the sources being unreliable and the whole thing being WP:UNDUE and out of context of the subjects full life and works. It should not be restored without rigorous sourcing and a clear consensus to do so. Any OTRS volunteers should see ticket #2010100910008992 17:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Powers and Norbu on Grunfeld's work

Just why, exactly, does that material from Norbu and Powers not belong in the article? These are reliably sourced - Norbu and Powers are both published authors, and the Powers material is from an academic press. The material is also immediately relevant to Grunfeld's main work, the reason why anyone would want to read an article about him. What is the reputation of his work? What are his credentials, and what relevant credentials is he criticized for lacking? These are questions that deserve to be addressed here. Bertport (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Only if you reflect both sides of the coin and put the criticism into a context that reflects the entire totality of his works and life history, otherwise this looks something like a WP:COATRACK instead of a WP:BLP. Frankly speaking and looking at the history of the article you seem to be very fixated in rubbishing this guy and his reputation. Please don't use Wikipedia as a battleground or to push a POV - especially on a BLP. I serious wonder whether you can be objective about this person at all? Perhaps your undoubted energy and commitment would be better placed working on some different articles where you will feel less need to portray a particular attitude to the subject??? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about me, it's about this article and its subject. What is the other side of the coin? On what basis do you think that this does not reflect the totality of his notability? If it's an incomplete context, shouldn't one address the problem by providing more reliably sourced information that completes the context, rather than removing the little reliably sourced, relevant information we have? Bertport (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A. Tom Grunfeld. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100704094653/http://www.tibetwrites.org/?Acme-of-Obscenity to http://www.tibetwrites.org/?Acme-of-Obscenity
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301175732/http://www.asian-studies.org/eaa/Grunfeld-14-2.pdf to http://www.asian-studies.org/EAA/Grunfeld-14-2.pdf

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

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) 21:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)