Talk:Pratibha Patil: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:23, 21 September 2013 editQwyrxian (talk \| contribs)57,186 edits →Controversy over President Patil's foreign trips: already tehre← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:57, 27 February 2014 edit undoSitush (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers260,192 edits →Controversy sections: new sectionNext edit →
Line 42:		Line 42:
	I'm beginning to think that the reverts are simply editorial high handedness, the result of unthinking ]. I'd like to hear from editors on what they think on this matter and, hopefully, see a restoration of the matter now reverted. ] (]) 10:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)		I'm beginning to think that the reverts are simply editorial high handedness, the result of unthinking ]. I'd like to hear from editors on what they think on this matter and, hopefully, see a restoration of the matter now reverted. ] (]) 10:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	:Please note that I have re-added the information, and worded it neutrally as required by policy. Are you saying that you still object to the new version? Note that you cannot call it a controversy, because the majority of sources do not. ] (]) 12:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)		:Please note that I have re-added the information, and worded it neutrally as required by policy. Are you saying that you still object to the new version? Note that you cannot call it a controversy, because the majority of sources do not. ] (]) 12:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

			== Controversy sections ==

			Dedicated controversy sections in BLPs has long been frowned upon and there are numerous discussions about this, including at least two relevant threads right on this talk page. Continually attempting to insert such sections is a violation of ], ] etc. If any such incidents are in fact notable, are in fact more than just allegations made by opposition politicians and the press and are in fact verifiable to a standard that complies with ] then they should form a part of the whole article, not be consigned to a POV-magnet separate section. This is standard practice and I'm becoming fed up of frenzied attempts to breach it. Take a look, for example, at the Activities section in the current article. - ] (]) 20:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:57, 27 February 2014

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

India: Maharashtra / Politics Top‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Maharashtra (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as High-importance).
	This article was last assessed in May 2012.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

First female governor

Sarojini Naidu, Kumudben Joshi, Ram Dulari Sinha and Fatima Beevi had also served as Women Governors before, much earlier than Pratibha Patil. Hence, Pratibha Patil was not the first and only woman governor in India.

That is very interesting, given what the current sources say. Can you provide sources for the info? - Sitush (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, I don't know how I missed this point, Sarojini Naidu was the first woman governor of a State but PP was the first woman gov of Rajasthan --sarvajna (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC). Yes; subsequently, Prabha Rau also served as (woman) Gov. of Rajasthan and recently (in April 2012) Margaret Alva has been appointed as Rajasthan Governor. (Mrs. Alva had earlier served as Governor of Uttarakhand).68.193.2.168 (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The above mentioned four women were respectively the Governors of UP, AP, Kerala and Tamil Nadu States at different periods of time. Their biographies / particulars are available in Misplaced Pages itself. ( Madame Pratibha Patil, was, no doubt , the first woman Governor in (for) Rajasthan State). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.2.168 (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sharda Mukherjee (wife of Late Air Chief Marshall Subroto Mukherjee) had also served as a (woman) Governor of Andhra Pradesh State, during 1977-78. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.2.168 (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Mrs. Sharda Mukherjee had also served later on as Gov.of Gujarat. There were yet other women Governors in India after Sarojini Naidu. Her own daughter Padmaja Naidu (W. Bengal), Vijayalakshmi Pandit (Maharastra), Jyothi Venkatachalam (Kerala) and Serla Grewal (Madhya Pradesh).These four women had served very much earlier than Madame Pratibha Patil, the first woman Gov. of Rajasthan.68.193.2.168 (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

So it looks like the article as written is now formatted correctly, right? It no longer says she was the first female governor in India, just the first female governor of Rajasthan. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Clemency

I've been having a conversation on my talk page (see User Talk:Qwyrxian#Makarandg) about additions to the controversies section. Yes, we've discussed this before. And I still hold that almost all of these alleged controversies need to stay out, usually because there isn't even verification that they are actually a controversy, much less that they are of lasting encyclopedic importance.

However, one that might possibly be worth considering are her grants of clemency. She has, apparently, granted clemency more often and at a much higher rate than prior Presidents. She also granted clemency to a dead person, thus implying a possible lack of oversight. Two relevant news sources are and (and I'm sure there's more that could be searched up). So, do we think this info should be added to the article? If so, where, and how much? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

A part of one of those sources makes little sense to me: "The large scale of presidential pardons is seen as surprising. That is because India has not yet abolished the death penalty." The oddity is that if India did not have the death penalty then obviously she would not be able to commute it. But perhaps I am misreading something. In any event, it would be handy to know why she has done this so often; for example, she might be acting to protect India's image abroad vis-a-vis major trading partners such as Europe. I'd be surprised if she pardoned people without giving some sort of reason. - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Controversy over President Patil's foreign trips

This addition on Pratibha Patil's foreign trips has been reverted several times now by Qwyrxian and Sitush. To avoid an edit war, I'm raising the issue here.

It was originally reverted on the grounds that the image didn't have any accompanying text which was since added. The second issue raised then was that foreign trips are indeed normal affairs and not controversial. When more sources on the matter -that calls it a controversy- were added, I was told "In fact, it wasn't a "major controversy"; it was mentioned a couple of times in a few newspapers, mainly because her political opponents tried to make it seem like there was a controversy when, in fact, it was normal. None of the sources actually indicate that there was any lasting controversy." and while the administrator - who seems very pressed for time - peruses the sources, "Nobody has a right to know anything on Misplaced Pages. Period.".

My issue with the reverts is this: 1) the matter is fully sourced from a range of 8 national media outlets, no less 2) the sources maintain that it became controversial and that the Government of India itself came out clarifying for the President and 3) it is neutrally phrased, giving the official reasoning for why the the trips were necessary or normal and 4) if one particular editor would like to peruse sources but has no specific grievances with the quality or the content of the sources, should the reading public be kept away from such info till such time as the editor concerned finds time to go through it all. Finally, whatever happened to AGF?

I'm beginning to think that the reverts are simply editorial high handedness, the result of unthinking immediatism. I'd like to hear from editors on what they think on this matter and, hopefully, see a restoration of the matter now reverted. Ashwin147 (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I have re-added the information, and worded it neutrally as required by policy. Are you saying that you still object to the new version? Note that you cannot call it a controversy, because the majority of sources do not. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Controversy sections

Dedicated controversy sections in BLPs has long been frowned upon and there are numerous discussions about this, including at least two relevant threads right on this talk page. Continually attempting to insert such sections is a violation of WP:BLP, WP:DUE etc. If any such incidents are in fact notable, are in fact more than just allegations made by opposition politicians and the press and are in fact verifiable to a standard that complies with WP:BLPCRIME then they should form a part of the whole article, not be consigned to a POV-magnet separate section. This is standard practice and I'm becoming fed up of frenzied attempts to breach it. Take a look, for example, at the Activities section in the current article. - Sitush (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Categories: