Talk:Mamata Banerjee

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mamata Banerjee C.M W.B.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Fake degree

I am astounded that the following information is missing from the controversy section:

https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/indiascope/story/19991101-dragon-lady-751964-1999-11-01

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Aqp1Go7CAAAbDKq?format=jpg&name=small

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/why-varun-mamata-faked-a-foreign-degree/articleshow/4360093.cms?from=mdr

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sushree Mamata Banerjee assumes the charge of the Minister for Coal and Mines in New Delhi on January 9, 2004.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

About recently added controversial content

Manasbose Why are you re adding the controversy related information on Mamata Banerjee [1] diff diff While removing similar kind of content on Dilip Ghosh (politician) [2] [3] diff [4] [5]. Your edit reeks of political bias, to me. Care to explain why this double standards for the 2 leaders of rival political parties? User:ତୁମ୍ଭର ପିତା ଓ ରାଜା has removed them So please do not add them again. Discuss your edit and content on the talk page first without WP:EDIT WARRING. --Walrus Ji (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Because those are not regular speeches but scams and mismanagements of her government. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | edits)} 15:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't make this solely regarding his comments. Her party's criticism will have to go to the article of TMC. ( ତୁମ୍ଭର ପିତା ଓ ରାଜା (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Manasbose, your sneaky attempt to restore the disputed content has been reverted. The controversial content is sourced from poor sources and has already been disputed here. Please stop your edit war. --Walrus Ji (talk) 08:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

content detailing controversial aspects of her governance were longstanding, no rationale or discussion offered for removal of cited content, no consensus exists for the deletion of referenced content deemed fit for inclusion here. Acousmana (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a separate page for her Government. This is her biography. Understand the difference first. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not a sufficient rationale. She is the party leader, this activity took place on her watch, it is her responsibility, and reported as such in the relevant sources provided, uncontroversial to detail this material - such as we do for many political leader BLPs. Acousmana (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Critical commentary removed

Should we keep content relating to controversial aspects of Banerjee's governance in the article? Acousmana (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Controversy surrounding aspects of Banerjee's governance appear to be well documented per this section. Banerjee is the founder and leader of the All India Trinamool Congress - and current chief minister of West Bengal, she is the principal authority, it is quite literally her party, WP:RS references seem to reflect this, but should we use them here? Acousmana (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Remove as explained in thread above it does not belong here. Additionally it is a bunch of accusations that violate WP:BLP rules. Walrus Ji (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: BLP applies, relevant information with regard to her administration of government. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep There is no BLP violation. Although subsections should be merged to a single or a few sections if possible. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment this RFC doesn't appear to be worded in a neutral manner, and is pointing to a specific outcome. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Addressed, please review. Acousmana (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on RFC's and how to properly format one. This RFC isn't neutrally worded, it leads to the outcome you want. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Sir Joseph's assessment that this RfC is not worded neutrally. Walrus Ji (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Addressed, please review. Acousmana (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep : There is no BLP violation. The removal is pure whitewashing of the subject. Most criticism of government/department are included in the officeholder's article. In addition to the nomination, the subject herself is also involved in one of the controversy as per reliable sources. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | edits)} 15:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  This is BLP violation and the addition of this content is pure tarring and feathering of the subject. Walrus Ji (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• I have restored the text since the only opposing editor (Walrus Ji) is blocked indefinitely. Acousmana you can withdraw this RfC too now by removing the template since you had enough outside opinions. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, done. Acousmana (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"unexplained content addition"

I accepted a pending edit that was a revert with the edit summary "unexplained content addition". Adding sourced content doesn't usually require an explanation; however, the first several references that I checked failed to support the content, so I accepted the pending edit. Editors more familiar with the article topic are welcome to review the content and sources that were removed and determine whether any of it should be returned to the article. (The content was initially added just before an admin protected the article.) Schazjmd (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Manasbose: Please look into this matter urgently. IP Address User:81.250.246.39 added vast information in the "Political Views" section, much of the sources failed verifications. It seems like a promotion / advertisement of the person. I tried to revert but User:ତୁମ୍ଭର ପିତା ଓ ରାଜା again reverted it. Please immediately look into this matter. Most of the sources failed to verify regarding the content. Thanks--Adinew56 (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bop34: why did you revert my edit. Read the comment of the earlier editor regarding this issue.--Adinew56 (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Adinew56, Yes sorry, I should've looked closer at the talk page. My mistake. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 18:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

recent results

I made a similar statement in my contribution, but the results in Nandigram are going to a recount. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, I'd delete everything relating to that until we known for sure that the race has been won. jonaththejonath (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

It looks like Adhikari has won. I'd wait until tomorrow to edit though. Jonaththejonath (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

please add mid-day meal, unemployment and other issues

Pro-s: mid-day meal Con-s: unemployment, TET, SSC, drop in quality education.

Thanks. 2409:4060:2010:A453:0:0:5EB:F8AD (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Why does this article not include a date of birth?

It is deeply odd that there is no DOB here for this person. Why? Is it secret? In which case that should be referred to surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.10.242.9 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean, if you now the DOB you can add it or at least make a semi-protected edit request. There's no rule against that. Jonaththejonath (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

But a reliable source is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Second term

Please add more content in Second term section. Major events in the state during that time can also be covered there. Peter Ormond (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2021

Please add the following report on the May 2021 election in West Bengal. It is taken from BBC.com. Link given below.

With almost all the results counted, the Trinamool Congress party (TMC) led by the state's Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has won more than 200 seats in the 294-seat assembly.

However, she lost her own seat in the election. "Victory was soured by the loss of her seat in Nandigram to a former aide turned BJP defector. She has said she will challenge the result in court but may have to run again to remain chief minister".

The results are set to make Ms Banerjee the leader of West Bengal for a third time. She is also India's only female chief minister.

Source : https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56964703

Accessed May 3, 2021

Change requested by SGPen. Thank you. SGPen (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: while that seems like a perfectly good article to use, the text you placed there is taken straight from it. If you meant for it to be copied directly as is, that would be a copyright violation. If you meant that something else should be written about it, can you suggest some text, and where it should go? It's not clear what changes you want to be made. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2021 (2)

she won the election with a increases majority gaining from congress/ left. 2600:1700:78E0:B2A0:31F2:6197:B48:691E (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ritenerek⋆:) 15:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2021

Succeeded president rule is untrueKillemol (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Killemol (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

. Killemol (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done restored to stable version. user warned Run n Fly (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2022

Change the age of mamata banerjee to 67 years 2409:4071:248A:6DDF:0:0:6FB:8B0 (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It will automatically update. Cannolis (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Literature and other works

Mamata is also popular for her works in Bengali literature, her poems are published and she has written over 113 books. For this contribution,she has been given Bengal Sahitya akademi award.

She is also a self taught painter. Her paintings are auctioned several times.

She also is a lyricist and composes lyrics for songs. Her songs are usually based on 'Durga Puja' and 'Motherland'. Her song 'Ma Go Tumi Sarbojonin' sang by Shreya Ghoshal is one of her most famous song. Ku423winz1 (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Medium importance?

How does a major female politician of the world with hundreds of articles about her in just the seven major English-language newspapers in the US and the UK (NY Times; Washington Post; LA Times; SF Chronicle; The Times, London; Guardian; and Independent) diff get to be of medium importance on Wikipedia's vaunted "importance" scale. I would like someone who knows about Indian politics to debate me about her importance. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a reason that she was among Time's 100 most influential people in the world in both:

• 2021.
• 2012
• and had dozens of stories about her in Time and Newsweek Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Dozens of stories in Le Monde if you think it is only the Anglosphere (diff) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Among India's South Asian neighbors:

• Thousands in the major English-language Bangladeshi newspaper, The Daily Star: diff
• Hundreds in the major English-language Pakistani newspaper, Dawn. dif
• Dozens in the two major English-language newspapers in Nepal diff

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Finally, the Indian. Won't even bother with the echo chamber, only the three English-language Indian newspapers of record listed in Britannica: The Statesman (founded, Calcutta, 1817), The Times of India (founded, Bombay, 1838) and The Hindu (founded, Madras, 1878).

• The stories about Mamata Banerjee are in the hundreds of thousands.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Academic books published by the major international university presses: over 500
• Academic books published by the other major publishers (such as Routledge, Academic Press, Springer, Pergamon, ...): nearly 500

• In Britannica's 32 biographies in the category "People known for Human rights," she is listed along with Gandhi, Frederick Douglass, Andre Sakharov, Vaclav Havel, Mary Robinson. See here.

WikiProject importance

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) seems to hold some exaggerated beliefs regarding the subject's importance to various WikiProjects. My preferred parameters can be seen here. I'd also like to note there's been recent disruptive editing on this talk page regarding this very topic by a number of IPs, which led to them being blocked and the page being protected (by me).

Pinging previous participants: (Angelika789—CX Zoom—Venkat TL—Fowler&fowler) DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 22:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Please see my post in the section above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Please also don't write nonsense about my "exaggerated beliefs" I have written the FA India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

First of all, both your comments here and the number of sources you're posting indicate to me you're confused about what 'importance' really means here. It isn't a person's overall importance, otherwise everyone on the top 25 report will be listed as top importance for every WikiProject. Importance here refers to how important they are relevant to the mentioned WikiProject. Each WikiProject may slightly differ but they generally follow these rules of thumb:

WikiProject article importance scheme

Importance	Criteria	Example
Top	Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field.	Kindergarten
High	Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent.	Factory Acts
Mid	Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area.	0.999...
Low	Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article.	G cell

I'll list your opinions and why your stated importance to the WikiProject is overstated. Before I begin, know that importance scales can be inconsistent due to unknowing editors not realising how the scale is used, and there's usually no real review for them.

• WPBIO/Politics and Government - High: High importance is generally reserved for presidents and prime ministers. Not state leaders.
• WPIndia - High: The main WPIndia importance scale seems to vary greatly and has no real structure. You may like enlist their help for a more definitive answer.
• WPIndia/Politics - Top: Mamata Banerjee is not of the same level of overall importance to Indian politics as Vallabhbhai Patel or the Union Council of Ministers.
• WPIndia/West Bengal - Top: It's possible. If you believe Mamata Benerjee is of lasting importance similar to the other topics and they're crucial to West Bengalian history, I'll let this one run.
• WPPOL - Top: Come on.
• WPWHIST - High: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History/Assessment#Importance scale. Banerjee has not "had an international or pervasive impact on history."

DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 23:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Banerjee has not "had an international or pervasive impact on history." Obviously clueless WPians are talking through their hat. Has a top 25 had a thousand books refer to them published by academic publishers? See section above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Btw, I did not mean you DatGuy, but the people on that WikiProject. Regardless, I have scratched the comment, and apologize. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

And those are just the ones with limited preview. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Please give me a link to the high importance biographies on the Women's Project. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

We are talking about the major female political leader of the world's largest democracy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually, if you don't mind @DatGuy: Please give me links to the lists of all high importance biographies in each of the projects you have listed above. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: see

Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???
80	1,261	7,803	44,382	6,267	8,956

for instance. Then replace "Women's History" with your desired WikiProject. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 13:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Your Ted Cruz example is very much an "other stuff exists" argument (though that talk page suggests that he is low-importance but whatever). If you want to die on that hill, I can pretty much point you to Sanna Marin, Magdalena Andersson, and Jacinda Ardern who have recieved low, low & high politics-importance ratings respectively, even though they've also been extensively covered, often more so than Banerjee. Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Assessment pretty much says that Top-importance is reserved when "Subject is extremely important to politics, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field." No she's not extremely important. She is nowhere near that. Importance assessment is generally done on the basis of long-term significance. No one's gonna remember her 50 years later unless she becomes PM or something. But "[she's] major female political leader...", Yeah so that is why WP:WikiProject Women & WP:WikiProject Women's History exists. As for politics, Indira Gandhi is a Top-importance politics article. You can't just come out of nowhere and claim that her and Banerjee belong to the same tier. And DatGuy has already given a brief summary of what I'd say for the rest of the ratings. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 01:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Noting that I changed the importance of Political positions of Ted Cruz after F&F raised it here as I considered it to be exaggerated. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 13:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Top importance she might not be, but she is surely high importance. CX Zoom is making unsupported grand judgments that their level of contributions to India-related topics does not grant (not that any level of contributions grants us the right to such grandiloquence: "No she's not extremely important. She is nowhere near that. ... No one's gonna remember her 50 years later unless she becomes PM or something."). Looking at just the A's in the Women's project high importance, Mamata Banerjee is more important than:

• Hikmat Abu Zayd, the first female cabinet minister in Egypt;
• Jessie Ackermann missionary of the Temperance Union;
• Clara Leach Adams-Ender first chief of the US Army Nurse Corps;
• Sophie Adlersparre a women's rights pioneer of Sweden;
• Marcela Agoncillo seamstress of the Filipino flag;
• Edith Ainge an American suffragist;
• Julia Alapai, high chiefess of Hawaii;
• Florence E. Allen, US Appeals Court judge;
• Gracie Allen of Burns and Allen;
• Alliance Girls High School in Kenya;
• Amat Al Alim Alsoswa a Yemani journalist;
• Marcia Anderson, the first African-American major-general of the US Army reserve;
• Angrboða, a figure of Norse mythology;
• Charlotte Bolles Anthony a suffragist and third-cousin of Susan B.;
• Kris Aquino, TV and socialite daughter of Corazon;
• Danièle Aron-Rosa, a French-Tunisian opthalmologist;
• Winifred Asprey and American computer scientist and one of 200 women to have earned a doctorate in math in the US in the 1940s;
• Bibi Khanoom Astarabadi, Iranian writer and women's activist;
• Queen Letizia of Spain, the current one;
• Winifred Atwell, Trinidadian post-war pianist in Britain.

That's almost half the As. And I've been generous giving passes to the Abbasid harem, and so forth. Other stuff exists is a WP essay that doesn't know what it wants to say. At some point continual negative evidence begins to mean something. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you DatGuy for the links and for reassessing the politics of Ted Cruz. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

So how about:

• WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=High;
• WikiProject Women's History|class=B|importance=High;
• WikiProject Women|class=B|importance=High?

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd say:

• Women's History - High
• Politics - Low
• Women - WikiProject Women doesn't use the importance scale

Thanks. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 00:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

OK. That's fine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done for the above as well as my earlier comments that you didn't oppose. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 13:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Teacher recruitment scam

There is strong allegations against her government regarding selling government job of teacher and non teaching stuff in exchange of money since 2014. Number of ministers, party officials and administrators is under custody for executiong this ratchet. Siddhertha Adhikary 1993 (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Siddhertha Adhikary 1993: If you would like an edit to be made to this article, please provide the text which you want to be added, and a reference to support your claims. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Criticism and controversies

In the realm of Indian politics, controversies arise on a daily basis. It's unnecessary to include every single daily controversy or news item unless the individual in question has been convicted by the Indian Judiciary or has served a considerable amount of time in jail. Also, Having a separate controversies section in articles isn't ideal. Instead, the pertinent issues should be addressed within the relevant sections of the individual's career articles, rather than consolidating them into a section that may incite negativity. Criticism and controversies section will be trimmed heavily in due time. Do no revert or engage in edit wars. I would request editors to discuss here on talk page before adding them. Thank you. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 12:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, there were too many controversies mentioned on the article before their removal. I think incidents that do not personally involve the subject of the article should not be included, however statements or incidents that happened with a direct interference of the subject should be included to balance the neutrality of the article. Xoocit (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

[6] This seemed to be an attempt to whitewash the page by removing all the negative appearing content. Let me remind that most of them are supported by source and we shouldn't choose only positive appearing things to make this article appear like a resume. Admantine123 (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Loveforwiki, I have restored some sections and if you get time feel free to cross examine the sources for other stuff that I left. Go through the edit [7] made by user to see what else need to be restored. I would like to bring the attention of other editors like Ravensfire as well. Editors shouldn't choose the side of their favourite politicians to make them appear godly. Admantine123 (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Admantine123 Thank you for your input on this matter. As I mentioned in my initial comments, no politician in India escapes criticism and controversy during their tenure. If we start adding every instance of criticism or reaction to issues, the balance of content will be skewed, leaving little room for other important information.

I believe that controversies should be covered within the context of each politician's tenure (premiership/ Chief minister), specifically those that involve legal proceedings in which they were convicted or acquitted. For example, consider the controversies surrounding Rahul Gandhi's disqualification, Narendra Modi's role in the 2002 Gujarat riots, or the Delhi liquor scam linked to Arvind Kejriwal. In the case of Akhilesh Yadav, there have been instances where users included remarks made by Mulayam Singh Yadav in controversies. This highlights a broader trend: while there may be many criticisms of a politician, not all of them are significant enough to warrant inclusion in a balanced encyclopedia entry.

I want to emphasize that experienced editors remove content for valid reasons, not out of favoritism towards any politician.

I propose that we limit the "Controversies" section to those instances where Mamata Banerjee (or any other politicians have) has faced legal action and been either convicted or acquitted by the Indian judiciary. This will ensure that the content remains relevant and encyclopedic. Thank you.25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 14:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, because most of the politician do not face any legal actions for whatever the say or do due to loopholes in our judicial system. This doesn't mean that we can not include it. There are ample amount of sources to get them included which fulfills WP:V and that's enough. Let me give an example, Donald Trump never faced any judicial action for his inciting and controversial statements. Yet those things are added in his article. They form a part and parcel of one's biography. Plus, these are not minor incidents which have been mentioned as of now. They are covered holistically by the newspapers and were part of national news headlines in India. Although, I agree with your recent revert, where you reverted day to day commentary by a new user.Admantine123 (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for responding @Admantine123.

That should not be a concern for Wikipedians like you and us if Indian politicians are acquitted because there are loopholes in your (Indian) judicial system. Regarding the sources, most of the sources included are from newspapers and online media. Indian media has been criticized for being biased toward one party, particularly in supporting the ruling BJP. Therefore, it’s a good idea not to consider media trials as definitive evidence. Newspapers and media outlets publish news because that’s their role, but we shouldn’t include everything just because there is a source for it.

As for Donald Trump, he faced two impeachment trials during his presidency. The reason this is included is that these impeachments were significant historical events, making Trump the only U.S. president to be impeached twice.

If you consider this balance of perspectives, I would not oppose adding controversies for which Mamata Banerjee (or any other politician) has appeared in court, regardless of whether she was acquitted or convicted. However, we should not support including criticism solely to present her/ any other WP:BLP in a negative light. I hope this helps! Thank you

25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 14:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Rarely any powerful politician goes through the judicial system. Having a myopic view and limiting criticism of the concerned politician to the times when they are indicted would mean excluding a lot of crimes.

Particularly with the rape case, ample sources were provided from reputable sources like The Hindu and others to eliminate a particular right wing bias I'm against of personally. Please reconsider to have a broader view and reverse my edit to include her truly deplorable statements against rape victims(and women in general) in the front section. Let's improve upon the article instead of whitewashing and picking favorites. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any personal biases against any politician, but since you and one other editor removed the so called sourced controversy part here, this was used as a pretext to whitewash Yogi Adityanath article by an editor. Yogi Adityanath has been in controversy related to teacher recruitment scams and bulldozer politics, and if forms an important part of his tenure as CM. I added it there and someone removed it and argued with me on talk page about your edit where you removed similar stuff on Mamta Banerjee. Hence, we need to be even for all biographies. If they are sourced it's ok. Although, I agree with your points on Indian media. But that's particularly true for digital media, print media criticise all politicians. Admantine123 (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

While most of the Indian media do have a bias for Modi this is not the case with every Indian media. Newspapers like The Hindu, Statesman, The Wire does criticise Modi and BJP in general.

Such a bias is present in American media too, with Fox News praising all things Republican. Last I checked even Fox news is accepted as a "credible source" on Wikipedia.

Also I don't see the need to drag BJP and Trump and whatnot into the discussion. It's about highlighting the wrongdoing of Mamata Banerjee.

In a seperate talk discussion I have infact advocated to include criticism of Modi to include Ladakh issue and Manipur issue. You all can engage in a constructive discussion there (and possibly merge the required criticism) Caesarian Cobol (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Admantine123 I apologize if my points are not sounding clear to you. Let me break it down for better clarity.

There is no harm in adding points such as the 2024 Kolkata rape and murder or the Tata Nano Singur controversy specifically. However, points like the Saradha Group financial scandal, which involves her cabinet ministers, or the Narada sting operation, which involves politicians from AITC, should be reconsidered. Allegations of Syndicate Raj are merely allegations, and the 2022 coal scam case involves Rujira Banerjee, the wife of Abhishek Banerjee. The 2022 cattle smuggling case involves Anubrata Mondal, a leader of the Trinamool Congress, while the 2022 West Bengal School Service Recruitment Scam involves Partha Chatterjee. Allegations of 'Muslim appeasement' are common accusations made by the BJP against other parties, including the INC and the Samajwadi Party. Lastly, the 2024 Sandeshkhali violence does not directly involve Mamata Banerjee but rather politicians from her cabinet or her political party. This is similar to including Mulayam Singh's remarks on rapes in the article about Akhilesh Yadav, solely because he is his son.

My recommendation is to add controversies to those article to which they are directly related. Controversies involving politicians from the Trinamool Congress can be included in their BOP articles. We should not include everything associated with Trinamool Congress or its politicians; we should only add points that directly involve Mamata Banerjee. Another example is the 2G controversies related to the INC or the Commonwealth Games. Please check the Indian National Congress article to see how controversies are included there.

Regarding your edits that were reverted on Yogi Adityanath, please involve us; you can ping me on the talk page, and we can reach a consensus on whether to include the points you have mentioned. As for your point about not including crimes committed by Indian politicians, I apologies but we cannot include each and every crimes committed by them, as Wikipedia is not a complaint forum, blog, or news portal to list their misdeeds.

I hope I have made my points clear. Please let me know if you have any doubts. Thank you 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 14:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that in the cases where her party members are involved; they should be added to their respective articles by copying and pasting. Admantine123 (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

== [[Special:Contributions/2409:40E1:100A:6EF4:505B:CFFF:FE5A:8299|2409:40E1:100A:6EF4:505

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2024

It has been mentioned that she has been criticised for her actions in reaction to a brutal rape and murder of a post graduate trainee doctor at the R.G.Kar Medical College and Hospital. The name of the hospital is spelt wrongly. Change “RK Khar to R.G.Kar Medical College and Hospital “ Drtanoybose (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)