Talk:Historiography of India

Removed quotes
The following quotes fail to meet notability standards. See WQ:Wikiquote. --MonstrumVenandi (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The medieval period of Indian history has been a source of propaganda for historians with ideological predilections. .... But the tradition of tailoring and embroidering the past for influencing the course of future developments did not die with the departure of the British. The burden of carrying forward this admittedly unscientific historiography has now been enthusiastically assumed by their Marxist prototypes. Being victims of ideological myopia, the Marxist historians of India have cared to see only that aspect of reality which falls within the range of their narrow vision. Those aspects of reality which fall beyond it have been either left unexplained or treated merely as an extension of that which they have perceived and, therefore, utterly unworthy of their serious attention.
 * Prabha Dixit,, quoted in Devahuti, D., & Indian History and Culture Society. (1980). Bias in Indian historiography. Delhi: D.K. Publications. p. 201


 * Of quite a few casualties of the standards of academic integrity at the hands of self-styled 'secular' academics, those in the field of medieval Indian historiography happen to be the worst.
 * Harsh Narain,  The Ayodhya temple-mosque dispute: Focus on Muslim sources  (1993)


 * Therefore, certain attempts made by some ultra-Marxist historians to justify and even whitewash tyrannical emperors of the medieval India may be tactical for purposes of popular secularism but totally unwarranted. Aurangzeb's misdeeds need not be given a face-lift...
 * Seshadri, K. Indian Politics, Then and Now: Essays in Historical Perspective. Pragatee Prakashan. p. 5.


 * Professor D.P.Singhal asserts that, contrary to the general belief, Indians in ancient times did not neglect the important discipline of historiography. On the contrary, they were good writers of history. He states: “Ancient India did not produce a Thucydides, but there is considerable evidence to suggest that every important Hindu court maintained archives and geneologies of its rulers. And Kalhana’s Rajatarangini, written in twelfth century Kashmir, is a remarkable piece of historical literature. Despite his lapses into myths and legends, Kalhana had an unbiased approach to historical facts and history writing. He held that a true historian, while recounting the events of the past, must discard love (raga) and hatred (dvesha). Indeed, his well-developed concept of history and the technique of historical investigation have given rise to some speculation that there existed at the time a powerful tradition of historiography in which Kalhana must have received his training.”
 * Singhal, D.P. ‘Battle for the Past’ in Problems of Indian Historiography, Proceedings of the Indian History and Culture Society, Ed. Devahuti, D.K. Publishers, Delhi 1979. quoted from Lal, K. S. (1992). The legacy of Muslim rule in India. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan. Chapter 3

Mass deletions
The page does contain quotable quotes by the likes of R.C. Majumdar, and many quotes that are quoted in secondary sources which proves that they have quotability.

There is no reason for mass deletions. IF you believe some quotes should be trimmed you could also add the cleanup template.

This is also an academic topic, so there can also be some quotes that are by academics.

The quotes is also quoted by a secondary source. These are generally assumed to be quotable, as it proves that another published source has judged them to be quotable.DanielTom once said something to the effect that that would be a good benchmark to decide on quotability. The majority of quotes I added to theme articles are quotes that are quoted by somebody (X quoted by Y), although I have not always marked this, partly because another editor was against this practice of adding this bit of information. On wikiquote these are usually considered to be good enough to be quoted.

Also "pov" is not a reason for deletions, if an editor believes there is a bias, then different quotes should be added to balance the article, not quotes removed which could be censorship.

Wikiquote is not censored.

Removing quotes based on your perceived bias ("pov concerns"), because you don't like the alleged pov or opinion of quotes, is not ok. The deleted quotes also have a wide variety of opinions and are not just about one topic or pov. The first step to solve bias in wikiquote is to add quotes with differing pov's, not to mass delete quotes.

See this comment:

I put the quotes back, because they were properly sourced. If one is worried about imbalance, then one can add more positive and flattering quotes to balance it back out. Removing quotes because they may be seen as unflattering to a subject by some is considered to be POV whitewashing and goes against the impartial spirit of Wikiquote. Remember, the inclusion of a quote does not necessarily mean the endorsement of its content by Wikiquote. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 22:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Or see this note on Burning Library's userpage :
 * The name "BurningLibrary" is a reference to a growing pessimism on my part that we may be headed towards a dystopian age of censorship and disinformation. I am gravely concerned that if we lose the ability to communicate freely with each other, we lose the only chance we have. Of course, one hopes that there is a way to avoid this outcome. User:BurningLibrary

And another admin has said that if a subject is notable and has made notable quotes relevant to a particular page, we have no limitation to the number of quotes by that subject that can be included in this compendium. ᘙ (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Consider the following: "Ideological commitment, or at least a predisposition towards the Left having become a necessary qualification for appointments, for prominence, the entire discipline came to shut its eyes to a pile of evidence on a whole range of issues." -- this is incredibly dull. I could go on. Ficaia (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)