| Revision as of 16:23, 21 November 2008 editRegentsPark (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,689 edits →Controversy section: second thoughts.← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:26, 21 November 2008 edit undoRegentsPark (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,689 edits →Controversy section: moreNext edit → | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
| (ec):::I think it is a little early for taking this to ]). It is always better to attempt to resolve issues through dialogue, than to escalate things. So, here is my attempt to figure this out. That the controversy exists is undeniable since Ms. Shah herself has issued a statement in connection with it. So the questions are: is it notable; if yes, how should we write it up; and which source, if any, should we use. Notability is straightforward. If Ms. Shah is notable, it is because she is a member of the Obama team. A controversy that surrounds that membership is surely notable. Your objection is partly that since it is not covered in the mainstream US press, the news itself is non-notable. But, notability in India is itself an acceptable topic for wikipedia and non-coverage by US sources does not mean that the notability does not exist. The nature of her notability in India (the fact that she is ethnically Indian, I doubt if the other members of his transition team get the same coverage in India) is tied up with the nature of the controversy. About sourcing. Perhaps the TOI is not the best source for things but, if the intent is to show that there is a furor over the appointment, then it does work as a source (as also do msn, indian express, etc.) Finally, about the way it should be covered. I think that the way it was covered earlier was inappropriate because it implicitly associated her with the rightist groups when there is no evidence that this association actually exists. That was the purpose of my restatement above. My suggestion is to include a simple statement about the controversy, linking to any reasonable source that indicates that there was a controversy, and linking to her statement as a response, and definitely including the word categorical (her statement is very clear). --] <small>(])</small> 16:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | (ec):::I think it is a little early for taking this to ]). It is always better to attempt to resolve issues through dialogue, than to escalate things. So, here is my attempt to figure this out. That the controversy exists is undeniable since Ms. Shah herself has issued a statement in connection with it. So the questions are: is it notable; if yes, how should we write it up; and which source, if any, should we use. Notability is straightforward. If Ms. Shah is notable, it is because she is a member of the Obama team. A controversy that surrounds that membership is surely notable. Your objection is partly that since it is not covered in the mainstream US press, the news itself is non-notable. But, notability in India is itself an acceptable topic for wikipedia and non-coverage by US sources does not mean that the notability does not exist. The nature of her notability in India (the fact that she is ethnically Indian, I doubt if the other members of his transition team get the same coverage in India) is tied up with the nature of the controversy. About sourcing. Perhaps the TOI is not the best source for things but, if the intent is to show that there is a furor over the appointment, then it does work as a source (as also do msn, indian express, etc.) Finally, about the way it should be covered. I think that the way it was covered earlier was inappropriate because it implicitly associated her with the rightist groups when there is no evidence that this association actually exists. That was the purpose of my restatement above. My suggestion is to include a simple statement about the controversy, linking to any reasonable source that indicates that there was a controversy, and linking to her statement as a response, and definitely including the word categorical (her statement is very clear). --] <small>(])</small> 16:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :(Or, on second thoughts, just leave it out. We can always add something if the controversy continues. I don't agree with the 'it's gotta be in the US news' view but I'm not sure that the article is enhanced by this information in the first place.) --] <small>(])</small> 16:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | :(Or, on second thoughts, just leave it out. We can always add something if the controversy continues. I don't agree with the 'it's gotta be in the US news' view but I'm not sure that the article is enhanced by this information in the first place. It'll probably show up in a few US sources in a couple of days and then you'll have your reliable source, but, at this level of controversy, I'm not convinced we should bother adding it at all.) --] <small>(])</small> 16:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:26, 21 November 2008
Template:Community article probation
 | Biography Start‑class   | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Somebody posting propaganda and out of context
Somebody has used the controversy section to peddle tired old propaganda which has been refuted many times. The following statement is false and out of context
REMOVED
Gowalkar was not referring to Nazi "race pride" but referring to the German experience of lack of assimilation of ethno-religious entities into each other. The editor has souught to create guilt by association because:
1) Nazi genocide of Jews was NOT known to Gowalkar and was only discovered after Allied forces had entered Germany in 1940s. Note: The above statement posted out of context was made in 1930s when Nazi concentration camps were not even known to British and Americans. There is no way Gowalkar could be associated with the kind of "Nazi race pride" that led to the genocide of Jews. The editor here has simply exploited the popular ignorance to post propaganda.
2) The Hindu following of VHP is mostly unaware of Gowalkar's commentary and do not associate VHP with him. Even Gowalkar's comments made in 1930s are taken out of context to demonize RSS and VHP, and any Hindu organization involved in social work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyashodak (talk • contribs) 15:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Career
The rediff.com article provides a quotation from an unidentified jury member. This quotation is out of context and does not belong to career section.
Removed BLP violating content
WP:BLP violating content is not allowed on any page of Misplaced Pages. I have removed it from here, too. Whoever adds poorly sourced info about a living person may be be blocked. Jehochman 19:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Controversy section
Keep propaganda and unrelated material out of it. Only facts. And don't remove this section by labeling the groups who have concerns, and then dismissing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proudbharati (talk • contribs) 03:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Counterpunch is not at all a reliable source. Whoever keeps adding that propaganda site will be blocked. The Times of India does not look particularly reliable, so I have removed it, but I am open to discussing that. Suggest the matter be opened at the reliable sources noticeboard if somebody wants to use that source. Thank you. Let's work methodically and get this right. Due to the frequent attacks on this article, I will be providing strict enforcement of biography of living persons policy. Jehochman 03:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Timesofindia is probably one of the most reliable from India. Counterpunch sounds dubious. Docku: What up? 03:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Times of India is one of the leading (and oldest) newspapers in India. M an as at yahoo.com (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think the TOI source is reliable, at least in this instance where there is a lot of coverage about her alleged associations with the VHP (, , , and many others) but the text, as written (and now deleted) reads as if this association is certain (the word 'despite' is particularly inappropriate). Ms. Shah has denied these allegations in a press release by the Obama campaign and the 'guilt by association' charge seems plausible enough that the text in the article should be clearer that the controversy is around the allegations and not around a possible membership of the rightist organizations. Something like "There were allegations in the Indian press that Ms. Shah had connections with rightist Hindu groups, however, Ms. Shah and the Obama transition team categorically denied these allegations." Whatever the actual text, the existence of this controversy is well documented and is present in the public domain and should be included in the article. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 14:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- If this were the case, why has the controversy not been covered by any US sources? Obama's appointments have been subject of intense media coverage, yet no one has presented evidence that US media sources have covered these apparently dubious allegations. It seems rather peculiar to have this sequence of events: 1/ somebody makes dubious accusations about a US official, 2/ foreign media covers dubious accusations and publishes denials, 3/ US media completely ignore the situation as the equivalent of trolling, 4/ Misplaced Pages publishes the dubious accusations and denials can labels it a "controversy". If there were a notable controversy, it would be covered by media in the country where the subject resides. I think this content about a controversy is a WP:UNDUE violation at best, and a WP:BLP violation at worst. In any case, given the history of obviously inappropriate information being added to this article, I think we should exercise more than usual caution. Before using TOI as a source, I'd like to see either an requests for comment or a discussion at reliable sources noticeboard. With biographies of living persons, we should discuss any dubious content or sources before they are added. Jehochman 15:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Something isn't reported in the US press doesn't mean it didn't happen. What I wrote was well referenced and totally neutral. Stop accusing others of having an agenda. It is against Misplaced Pages policy. I am hopeful that you yourself are not trying to further an agenda. M an as at yahoo.com (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why are there so many single purpose accounts, such as the one immediately above, appearing at this particular article to push the same point of view. If a US administration official does something newsworthy, it will be reported in the US media. Misplaced Pages is not for propaganda or defamation. Jehochman 15:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have been on wikipedia for quite some time even though I am not frequent. Check my history. Please use more civil language and assume good faith. Do not use futile arguments as above ("If a US administration official does something newsworthy, it will be reported in the US media".) M an as at yahoo.com (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
(ec):::I think it is a little early for taking this to WP:RFC). It is always better to attempt to resolve issues through dialogue, than to escalate things. So, here is my attempt to figure this out. That the controversy exists is undeniable since Ms. Shah herself has issued a statement in connection with it. So the questions are: is it notable; if yes, how should we write it up; and which source, if any, should we use. Notability is straightforward. If Ms. Shah is notable, it is because she is a member of the Obama team. A controversy that surrounds that membership is surely notable. Your objection is partly that since it is not covered in the mainstream US press, the news itself is non-notable. But, notability in India is itself an acceptable topic for wikipedia and non-coverage by US sources does not mean that the notability does not exist. The nature of her notability in India (the fact that she is ethnically Indian, I doubt if the other members of his transition team get the same coverage in India) is tied up with the nature of the controversy. About sourcing. Perhaps the TOI is not the best source for things but, if the intent is to show that there is a furor over the appointment, then it does work as a source (as also do msn, indian express, etc.) Finally, about the way it should be covered. I think that the way it was covered earlier was inappropriate because it implicitly associated her with the rightist groups when there is no evidence that this association actually exists. That was the purpose of my restatement above. My suggestion is to include a simple statement about the controversy, linking to any reasonable source that indicates that there was a controversy, and linking to her statement as a response, and definitely including the word categorical (her statement is very clear). --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 16:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- (Or, on second thoughts, just leave it out. We can always add something if the controversy continues. I don't agree with the 'it's gotta be in the US news' view but I'm not sure that the article is enhanced by this information in the first place. It'll probably show up in a few US sources in a couple of days and then you'll have your reliable source, but, at this level of controversy, I'm not convinced we should bother adding it at all.) --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 16:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)