Jump to content

Talk:Jignesh Mevani

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

Use of abusive and dirty words

[edit]

Mr. Jignesh is known for using abusive and dirty words for women. He uses very bad words even for honorable prime minister.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] He tries to remain unapologetic even after suggestions to apologize.[8]

References

  1. ^ https://satyavijayi.com/shame-jignesh-mevani-insults-prime-minister-india-using-bad-words-really-shameful-indian/
  2. ^ http://postcard.news/massive-anger-errupts-jignesh-mevani-called-pm-modi-b-b/
  3. ^ http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/ahmedabad/used-foul-words-for-women-mevani-sorry-for-remark-after-tape-goes-viral-4739573/
  4. ^ http://indianexpress.com/article/india/dalit-leader-jignesh-mevanis-abusive-audio-clip-goes-viral-4739183/
  5. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYf1HoLBSQM
  6. ^ http://www.tfcmedia.in/mod-mentally-aged-go-himalayas/
  7. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys0GRWCsQBg
  8. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8TwLzhHVBA


One of the sources itself shows the individual in question apologized for using "foul language" and offered an unconditional apology EvonMusk (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest this be added especially since article covers details on Mr Mevani's finer aspects of life too. Amitized (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above material is being removed again and again

[edit]

The above material is being removed again and again from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrey Juthani (talk • contribs) 08:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "controversy" section?

[edit]

This page has gone through a massive (and impressive) transformation since I edited it a few months ago and one of the sections that is now "missing", if you will, from the earlier version is the "controversy" of Jignesh Mevani allegedly accepting money from what appeared to be the PFI? Always found that section fishy but i just want to know why that was removed (imo it should've been, but i just need clarification)


this is the section that now stands removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvonMusk (talk • contribs) 12:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EvonMusk, thank you, I was the one that expanded and cleaned up the article during the meantime. My goal to improve it to the quality of a good article and its still not there yet. The section on tenure and political position is still incomplete which I haven't come around to expanding.
Controversy sections are usually discouraged per WP:CSECTION and in the case of this article, it was filled with BLP violations where unreliable sources were used and ephemeral allegations were given undue prominence. From what I gathered from sources during the expansion was that during his election campaign, Sambit Patra alleged that PFI had terror links, that PFI had allegedly donated money to him and that by virtue of this he also allegedly had "terror links". Note that his campaign due to lack of funds was using crowdfunding through the internet to raise money. I have summarised these and placed it within the section called election. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I echo Tayi Arajakate's comment. --Gazal world (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that controversy section is discouraged, but tiniest of his activities are filling up the page unnecessaarily. Arent we trying to get overall consistency across BLP? Entire content here looks like he is personally drafting it. Heavily biased. Propose adding close connection notice to this article. Amitized (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you find unnecessary in the article? And don't throw aspersions like that around, the article is in line with how good articles on legislators are usually drafted. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Small example, see the sub section on Anti-fascism[edit], all citations lead to JM's interviews and first person account and views. Hence content drafted on basis of these appears as his own voice. I'd recommend a review of this and be taken off because wiki doesnt recommend first person view to be a part of content. Will review more of the article and share a log. Amitized (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's a sub-section within a section on his political positions, the entirety of which depends on his views, whether expressed in interviews or otherwise. The ideological stances and policy positions are a key part of biographical articles of legislators without which they are incomplete, a similar format is reflected in practically any good article (e.g, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ingeborg Steinholt, Vernon Jones, etc etc) and honestly one shouldn't have to explain this. I am not sure what you mean by "wiki doesn't recommend first person view" but I can safely say that it has no basis in actual policy; if you read something like that on a policy page, you've most likely misunderstood it. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's really good to know Tayi, I wasn't aware of the Sambit Patra angle. Anyways, wonderful work on the article! 14:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jignesh_Mevani&oldid=1212657501"