Jump to content

Talk:V. S. Naipaul

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



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Knight Bachelor prefix

[edit]

I can see nothing in MOS:OVERLINK that would rule out linking VS Naipaul's Knight Bachelor prefix, and it is indeed the common standard across the vast majority of articles to do so. I would understand if it was the sort of prefix with both prefix and suffix, i.e. KBE/DBE, or a knighthood of a particular order (KCB/KCMG etc.) but as it's a Knight Bachelor, I believe it should stand - in fact, linking helps to clarify what order of knighthood, if any, the honour was in. Happy to be pointed to a section of the Overlink style-guide that clearly states opposite. OGBC1992 (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to link it behind "Sir", which would fall under MOS:EASTEREGG. The Knight Bachelor award is already linked further below in the infobox. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I can see too much logic behind some of the claims in MOS:EASTEREGG, particularly the argument that "If a physical copy of the article were printed, the reference to [in this case, Naipaul being a Knight Bachelor] would be lost" as it seems to leave the door open to some incredibly clunky and poorly-written articles when piping would allow for much more smoothness. But perhaps that's a debate for a different time and a different place. Take care. OGBC1992 (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And @Fowler&fowler, apology accepted, although it was not only needlessly unkind but also irrelevant to the matter in hand. Letting bygones be bygones now though - cheerio and take care. OGBC1992 (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Gillon Aitken?

[edit]

In "The Strange Luck of VS Naipaul" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn_gpiE3cWA 14:43 Naipaul's literary agent Gillon Aitken is interviewed, and Naipaul's voiceover "before Gillon I had been involved with Fred for an agent [...] my earnings quadrupled or quintupled." So this seems somehow a somewhat important aspect. I am seeking alignment in Talk whether to add some on this in this page "Agents"... Erik.Ykema (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of Bhumihar ancestry

[edit]

I have reverted the recent changes to the article introduced by Sudhanshu malviya 2000, Thatonewikipediadude and $govindsinghbabhan$ regarding Naipaul's supposed Bhumihar paternal background because:

  1. This information is poorly sourced to trivial mentions in news articles/interviews compared to the current citation to the highly acclaimed authorized Naipaul biography by Patrick French
  2. Also this information is likely WP:UNDUE. French, for example, devotes several pages on Naipaul's ancestry yet the only place he mentions "Bhumihar" in the whole book is in a footnote where he quotes the then lede from Naipaul's wikipedia article!
    • Fwiw, that claim was originally added to this wikipedia in this edit by an IP editor back in 2006, without citing any source; other (unsourced) edits by that editor don't engender trust. Since the unverified claim persisted in the wikipedia article for years, it created the risk of it being spread around the web and thus we need to be particularly watchful for WP:CIRCULAR citations.
  3. Finally, some of the new sources being cited are non-specific about whether they are talking about Naipaul's maternal or paternal ancestry, while another seems to have muddled the two sides (since, as French details, it was Naipaul's maternal grandfather Kopil who hailed from a village near Gorakhpur).

(TL;DR)  If someone has high quality sources for Naipaul's supposed bhumihar background, please present and discuss them here and establish consensus for any corresponding change to the article. Pinging Fylindfotberserk who has previous (partially) reverted the addition. F&f has too, but their involvement is not needed at the moment. Abecedare (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this well-researched rationale Abecedare. Savi Akal's memoir (The Naipauls of Nepaul Street) makes it pretty clear that while her paternal grandfather, Nyepal, came from India with his mother ("Mai"), she didn't know any more about his origins. Her paternal grandmother, Poolkareah, was originally from Patna.
Gorakhpur, mentioned by the IP editor back in 2006, is where Capildeo came from. Guettarda (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. I hadn't come across that book before. It's also consistent with what V. S. Naipaul said in his Nobel Prize lecture: I know nothing of the people on my father’s side; I know only that some of them came from Nepal. Abecedare (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Abwww.indiaspeakdaily @govindsinghbabhan@Fylindfotberserk@Sudhanshu malviya 2000
Reports that Naipaul’s पूर्वज (ancestors) from Gorakhpur were Bhumihar Brahmins, and that his grandfather was sent to Trinidad as an indentured laborer
States “उनके पूर्वज … थे और जाति से भूमिहार ब्राह्मण थे” – i.e. Naipaul’s ancestors were from Gorakhpur and by caste Bhumihar Brahmin
A Bhumihar-community blog entry lists “V. S. Naipaul: Nobel laureate for literature, whose Bhumihar Brahmin ancestors had migrated from Gorakhpur … to Trinidad”.Also following is the description of the author to show that his blog is legit.
"An English diarist and naval administrator. I served as administrator of the Royal Navy and Member of Parliament. I had no maritime experience, but I rose to be the Chief Secretary to the Admiralty under both King Charles II and King James II through patronage, diligence, and my talent for administration." Thatonewikipediadude (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thatonewikipediadude: These links are non-RS. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thatonewikipediadude you can't refer to a blog website or even an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. |govind| (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ik,tgats why i gave descriotion of the author,i tagged coz i wanted to know your stand on this matter,so? Thatonewikipediadude (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thatonewikipediadude That "description of the author" is proof that it's not to take seriously, given that Charles II died in 1685 and James II died in 1701. Guettarda (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare there was no need to revert the edits. Look at the sentence, the term "were" signifies confirmation so I have changed it to "may be", again I have used the term "said to be" for a little unconfirmed fact. I have not deleted anything (any citation), so no need to bring anything back as you said. The news reference should only be replaced when some scholars contradict the fact, shown in the news.
Good faith!
Thank you. |govind| (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should either remove the sentence or make solid statement and not talk about possibilities in this article, Thatonewikipediadude (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concede defeat,no proper source on the web to prove my point,but i am still waiting for a sourcr that proves otherwise Thatonewikipediadude (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:V._S._Naipaul&oldid=1288573902"