Talk:M. Karunanidhi

Article concerns

Birth name

There is no reliable evidence that suggests his birth name is Daksinamoorthy. I request that this claim is removed from the article. --Ravi (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

In his speech here, he clearly declares that Karunanidhi is his birth name given by parents. There is no mention of any other name. --Ravi (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

On a quick search of English language sources, I found Britannica and Outlook magazine say that his original/birth name was Muthuvel Dakshinamurthy. Both of these, in normal course, would be regarded as reliable. Is there a reason to mistrust them in this particular case? Abecedare (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Britannica is a tertiary source and doesn't provide the primary/secondary source for the claim it makes regarding the birth name. The Outlook article says: //The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam itself has come a long way as has its chief, from being Muthuvel Dakshinamurthy (his original name) to Muthuvel Karunanidhi—the Tamil name he assumed after being indoctrinated into Dravidian ideology (rejecting the "Sanskritic-brahmanical" name his parents had given him).// which is totally incorrect based on the video statement given by the subject himself here. So, considering this being a very controversial politically motivated claim against a living person, please provide a primary or secondary source which proves that his birth name was Dakshinamurthy. Else, please remove that claim. --Ravi (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Telugu ancestry

All the sources cited regarding his Telugu ancestry are unreliable and rehash of perpetuating news magazine articles without any primary source. Please remove this claim from the article. --Ravi (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Although many Tamils would like to deny this, there are multiple sources - which do you think is/are unreliable? - Arjayay (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

All the given sources are unreliable. What is needed is proof of official records or ethnographic studies that mention the caste he belongs is Telugu speaking. Instead, what we have here is mere mention that he is Telugu speaking from various news articles without any credible source to back it up.

Please note that according to WP:BLP,

"Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; "

and that Context matters:

"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. "

None of the given sources match the quality required to establish this very controversial claim that he has Telugu ancestry.

• Swarajya - This article itself contradicts the claim it makes: "It is not clear whether this is true; Karunanidhi’s stated caste is Isai Velalar which is clearly a Tamil caste." How can this be a source?
• Hindustan Times - Passing mention of Telugu background with no source to back it up.
• Vikatan - Interview by a political rival with obvious conflict of interest to show the subject in a poor light.
• News18 - Only a passing mention of Telugu background. No proof given.
• The Pioneer - Nothing more than racial profiling. No proof.
• Dinamalar - ANother passing mention of his ancestry. No proof. This article is not even a news article but a politcial commentary.

Fake news doesn't become the truth if you keep reproducing it across many newspapers.

I request you to keep the Unreliable Sources template until this discussion is resolved. --Ravi (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

For reference, here is the text that was recently removed from the article along with the attached sources: He has Telugu ancestry.

I'll review the cited sources (and others) in the next day or two and add my comments then. In the meantime, may I request that other disputed text (especially if it is sourced) not be deleted from the article till it has been independently reviewed. Except for instances of gross BLP violations, of course, in which case it would be helpful to mention the removal and provide a link to the edit here on the talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Connections with LTTE

I request to remove the following lines. Why mention the interim report when final report had no such allegations?

"The interim report of Justice Jain Commission, which oversaw the investigation into Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, indicted Karunanidhi for abetting the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).[30] The interim report recommended that Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi and the DMK party be held responsible for abetting Rajiv Gandhi's murderers. The final report contained no such allegations.[31]"

--Ravi (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Corruption charges

I request to remove the following lines.

"He has been indicted by the Sarkaria commission for corruption in allotting tenders for the Veeranam project.[26] Indira Gandhi dismissed the Karunanidhi government based on charges of possible secession and corruption. In 2001, he was arrested on the charges of corruption in the construction of flyovers in Chennai.[27] He and his party members were also charged under four Sections like IPC 120(b), IPC 167, IPC 420 and IPC 409."

Why mention the indictment when the enquiry was over and no charges were proven? In a political career spanning 80 years any one accuse for anything. What matters is if one's misbehaviour in the court and if a sentence was given. None of the corruption charges against him were proven in the court and were most accusations and preliminary arrest were politically motivated. --Ravi (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

INB

@Balablitz and Titodutta: Let me know under what circumstances I should proceed after announcing in INB. Also, let me know how long I should wait for a discussion to initiate or be resolved. --Ravi (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Section order

Is there a guideline that sections should be presented by chronological order only? His primary achievement is in politics. He has been a legislator for 60 years of his life. Can the sections about his political career be presented at the beginning of the article followed by his other engagements like films and literature?--Ravi (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)