Jump to content

Talk:Markandey Katju

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

July 2008

[edit]

I've rearranged some info and tagged the bottom section - its level of praise is a bit much for an encyclopedia I think. --Avytipat (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on db bio

[edit]

Speedy deletion cites assertion of notability, article states topic's importance and notability. --Mr Accountable (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning Caste

[edit]

Dear Editors!
There has been a discussion on India Portal related to mentioning of caste of subjects. The point is that mentioning caste of people, who have nothing to do with their caste, is found to be unnecessary by few editors. Hence the caste of the subject person needs to be deleted from the biography. I am not deleting the caste as of now but am only posting this here so that the regular editors of this article are well aware of it beforehand and no edit-wars take place. For details of discussion held on the portal please refer Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Mentioning_caste_of_Individuals. Your views if any are welcome there or even here.
And.... as the reasons of exclusion of caste pointed out were "irrelavant to notability of subject person", "privacy of the subject person", "inclusion of caste is like branding individuals", etc. other information included in the article which also fall under these cases will also be removed after discussions. Examples of it included religion, non-notable spouse's and children's and parents' information, previous occupation, lived in places, non-notability related educational qualification, etc.
Your views on this are also welcome here or at the India portal. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not here, please. There is a community discussion taking place at WT:INB and I would advise people to read the entire discussion before forming an opinion because the above summary is incorrect. Nothing more need be said here. - Sitush (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I am giving below a link about his views on a subject: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1819876/report-pakistan-a-fake-country-will-reunite-with-india-one-day-markandey-katju --Bhadani (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soham321

[edit]

User:Soham321 is adding unverifiable information to a biographical article such as this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Markandey_Katju&diff=549066184&oldid=548898236 which have been explained to him as being unverifiable and not even relevant here, since they talk about his grandfather and are not the subject of this article. The user has been warned on his talkpage multiple items by me and other editor but he continues his POV pushing edits and reverts edits made by others. The user is requested to use the talk page to discuss edits before committing them. Failure to do so will lead to case being opened with wiki adminstators. Thanks. --Neelkamala (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva Nath Katju, former judge of the Allahabad High Court and former President of the Vishva Hindu Parishad, was the father of Justice Markandey Katju. This information is relevant because it gives the background of Justice M. Katju. The Wikipedia biography of Markandey Katju also mentions that his grandfather Kailas Nath Katju was a Congress member and a minister in Nehru's cabinet, chief minister of Madhya Pradesh, Governor of West Bengal and Orissa, etc. The Vishva Hindu Parishad is an organization closely allied to the BJP and hence the fact that Katju's father Shiva Nath was its President belies the assumption that Katju comes from a family of Congressmen. The source of my information about Shiva Nath Katju is the book by Manjari Katju who is the grand daughter of Shiva Nath Katju and the niece of Justice Katju. I have given the OCLC reference of the book. If you use google appropriately you will find the contents of the page in Manjari Katju's book where she identifies Shiva Nath Katju to be a former President of the Vishva Hindu Parishad. (Shiva Nath is sometimes spelled as Shiv Nath). Manjari Katju's book is a revised and condensed version of her doctoral dissertation submitted to the School of Oriental and African Studies at University of London. Manjari Katju is currently a Faculty at University of Hyderabad.

In my opinion User:Neelkamala and User:MohitSingh have been deleting or reverting my edits for which I have provided copious references because of their own agenda. In the case of User:Neelkamala this has been alluded to by User:Lanet303 in the edit page. I note that User:Lanet303 has also been served a warning by User:Neelkamala.

I will also note that User:Neelkamala and User:MohitSingh seem keen to paint Katju as a controversial figure. Case in point is the statement (which I edited out) that Katju had criticized Javed Akhtar and Gulzar even though this was a pure speculation of the journalist whose article had been referenced. Katju's claim that husbands should listen to their wives was made in a lighter vein according to the Times of India article but the word "controversial" was added to describe the statement in the Wikipedia biography of Katju.

Katju's stand on Pakistan (eventual reunification of India and Pakistan) has support at least in India and I gave the references to this. But it was made to appear by the two worthies ( I do not distinguish between them) that his view on Pakistan has only been met with widespread criticism. These people do not seem to be interested in any balance in the article; their only objective seems to be the pursuit of their agenda.

I notice also that User:MohitSingh and User:Neelkamala are responsible in part for the poor, one sided, biased and "all over the place" Wikipedia article on congress leader Digvijay Singh. Both of them are again seen editing the Wikipedia page of BJP leader Arun Jaitley where they come across as Jaitley supporters. Whether the two are working in tandem is a matter of speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soham321 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soham321 is apparently new to Wikipedia as it appears that his only edits are on this page. He has been adding unnecessary details about a particular event or episode. I had added enough content regarding the Arun Jaitely issue but he had been trying to add unnecessary data. He is requested to not to paint a particular picture of him. Plus I do not need to justify that I am acting in an unbiased manner as I have been in past, praised for removing vandalism from this page which Soham321 can verify from here. He is also requested not to mock other users by using terms such as worthy etc. I hope he may understand the situation.--Mohit Singh (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed to read MohitSingh's complain about me. It is MohitSingh, and his fellow traveller Neelkamala (the two have been active together and taking the very same position not only on this page but also on the wikipedia pages of Arun Jaitley and also of Digvijay Singh) who are guilty of repeatedly violating Wikipedia Biographies of Living persons (WBLP) guidelines. The WBLP guidelines says that one must be very careful to always maintain a neutral POV when writing about a living person. But MohitSingh and Neelkamala have both violated this guideline on several occasions on this page. Here are a few examples: a Times of India article quoted Katju and mentioned that he had made the remark 'in a lighter vein' but Neelkamala twisted the remark and added in his own word 'controversial'. MohitSingh added in the word 'controversial' when referring to Katju's sharing of emails with Pakistani Foreign Secretary Ahmed with the Nation newspaper. There is no controversy because Ahmed says he has forgiven Katju for this. In other words, the matter is closed. MohitSingh is creating a controversy where none exists. MohitSingh and Neelkamala are quick to question anything i write even when i am giving copious references. (It was particularly amusing when they questioned what i had written about Shiva Nath Katju and then subsequently decided not to refer to him again after my long explanation. ) But MohitSingh wrote on this page that Katju had criticized Gular and Javed Akhtar when Katju had done no such thing. It was the reporter who was 'guessing' that Katju was referring to these two poets when he had criticized excessive media attention on two literary figures without taking their name. Another case in point. MohitSingh wrote that Katju's remarks on Pakistan were 'controversial' (a favorite words of MohitSingh and Neelkamala) and were 'criticized' in India and Pakistan. But the fact is that Katju's remarks were welcomed by many people in India and Pakistan, particularly since many people in India and Pakistan share Katju's view. I gave three references in this connection. The leading RSS ideologue P.Parameswaran who welcomed Katju's statement on the eventual reunification of India and Pakistan and whose views were widely reported in mainstream media unlike what MohitSingh is now claiming. Also BJP leader LK Advani made a statement (after Katju had expressed his view on Pakistan) that reunification of India and Pakistan is a part of the ideology of the party he represents. Earlier RJD leader Lalu Yadav had also said exactly the same thing as Katju. Regarding whether Katju's views on Pakistan were welcomed in Pakistan i will point out firstly that the readers's comments section in Katju's article ('The truth about Pakistan') published in a Pakistani newspaper (The Nation) contained many statements by posters who were agreeing with Katju and who were identifying themselves as Pakistanis. Notice the sentence "Katju's views on Pakistan have come in for both criticism and praise in India and Pakistan". I am not denying that his view on Pakistan havs been criticized by many Indians and Pakistanis. At the same time i am stating that his view on Pakistan has also been welcomed by many people in India and Pakistan and many Indians and Pakistanis share his views on Pakistan. Mistakes made by newbies to wikipedia like me can be excused. It is more difficult to excuse blatant violations of Wikipedia policy by experienced Wikipedia posters like MohitSingh and Neelkamala. Soham321 (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The citation you provided for the claim of Markandey Katju's relative being a past VHP president is unverifiable. I have informed you about this twice already in the edit summary and once here on the talk page. The burden of proof to prove your claim lies on you. Keep in mind you are already violating talk page guidelines by making personal attacks and ad hominem attacks against me and User:MohitSingh. Assuming bad faith and alleging other wiki editors are part of a conspiracy will only lead to further administrative actions. --Neelkamala (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the OCLC reference to the book where it is mentioned that Justice Shiva Nath Katju was the President of the Vishva Hindu Parishad. I also gave the page number of the book where this claim is made. I then gave background information on the author of the book and also about the book (it was a PhD thesis at University of London) in the talk page. Explain to me what else I have to do to meet your burden of proof. Should we go for dispute resolution on this issue? Soham321 (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take very strong exception to the continuous remarks being made by User:Soham321 against me. I do not have to prove my neutrality and contribution towards this page or Wikipedia in general.If he may note, I have made more contribution to this page and have added more data and have provided more references to data which have been in favour of Justice Katju. I request him not to make such remarks in future. Not to mention, I have been praised for protecting this page from vandalism in past. Those vandalism were against Justice Katju which can be verified from here .--Mohit Singh (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not made any personal ad hominem attack against MohitSingh. I have given specific examples showing that he keeps inserting erroneous and incorrect information and seeking to create a controversy using the word 'controversial' or 'controversy' where in fact there is no such controversy. I have also explained why User:MohitSingh is in violation of the WP:WBLP guidelines because he has often violated the neutral POV which is a must for wikipedia articles of living persons as per wikipedia rules; i gave specific examples of this in my earlier responses to MohitSingh. I would point out that as per wikipedia rules, any wikipedia article has to be a collaborative article. If User:MohitSingh wants to write his version of Katju (for instance MohitSingh's unsubstantiated and erroneous claim that Katju's views criticizing the two nation theory, and advocating eventual reunification of India and Pakistan, were criticized in India) than i would humbly submit that wikipedia is not the place for such writings. User:MohitSingh, or any other user, cannot claim ownership of any wikipedia article as per wikipedia rules and hence i have the right to question User:MohitSingh if he makes unsubstantiated or erroneous claims about a living person, or if he fails to adopt a neutral POV when making any statement about a living person, in violation of the Wikipedia rules. Regarding MohitSingh's claim that he has fought against vandalism in the past, i have not looked into his claim, but i will point out that It is possible that a wikipedia poster may behave responsibly on some occasions and irresponsibly on other occasions. Soham321 (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stand on Pakistan

[edit]

I had added enough and unbiased content. Soham321 has added unnecessary data which is even wrong. It was not that Katju's view on the issue discussed in this topic (illegitimate nation) which was praised in Pakistan but the fisherman issue which can be read from the referenced news article. Also the news tag line in Indian Express article was probably in sarcasm as is apparent from rest of the article which cannot be seen in isolation. The view of RSS ideologue P Parameswaran is not relevant as it appears that it has been a google serach to find out this praise as this has never been considered of much value by Indian Media. I had purposefully ignored several other information from the cited article to maintain neutrality. But Soham321 appears to take a different stand. I am again cleaning up that section.--Mohit Singh (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references provided by User:MohitSingh in his edit do not make any claim whatsoever about Katju's views criticizing the two nation theory and arguing for the eventual reunification of India and Pakistan being criticized in India. I would suggest that he himself make the requisite correction or else give the appropriate reference to a credible news article which says Katju's views on this issue were criticized in India. In my opinion the leading RSS ideologue P.Parameswan's statement welcoming Katju's views on Pakistan should be on this page since it was widely reported in the media. I also see no reason why we cannot mention that BJP leader L.K. Advani echoed Katju's views on Pakistan, without naming Katju, soon after Katju went public with his views on this issue. RJD leader Lalu Yadav is also in agreement with Katju on this issue. These are important political leaders who are sharing the views of Katju on Pakistan. So MohitSingh's edit that Katju's views on Pakistan was criticised in India is clearly incorrect. I urge MohitSingh to himself correct his mistake on this issue otherwise we can go for dispute resolution. Soham321 (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

User:Soham321 while editing the Arun Jaitley episode has removed the internal links from the terms like Arun Jaitley, Bihar, Gujarat etc. He is requested to not to commit such mistakes.--Mohit Singh (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Jaitley article clearly mentions Katju's criticism of three non-Congress ruled states--Gujarat, West Bengal, and Bihar--in its second paragraph, although in the first paragraph it only refers to Katju's criticism of two states. User:MohitSingh had earlier deleted the reference to West Bengal perhaps he has not studied the entire article. While correcting MohitSingh's error, i removed the internal links to Bihar, Gujarat, etc.. I am new to wikipedia and i urge MohitSingh and others to take this into account when they complain about my removal of internal links to Bihar, Gujarat, etc. Soham321 (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took into account that you were Wikipedia that is why I remarked that you may please take care of not removing internal links while editing. This happens when you completely remove the earlier existing data and replace with your own as if you edit the earlier existing data, one does not remove internal links. As you say you are new to Wikipedia and hence commit mistakes, I would recommend going through all the help guides available at Wikipedia before making further edits.--Mohit Singh (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. I corrected your error when you replaced three non-Congress states to two. I have explained several times now why this is an error. Jaitley refers to Katju's criticism of three non-Congress govts (West Bengal, Bihar, and Gujarat) in his article criticizing Katju in the second paragraph of his article, but to only two in the first paragraph (Gujarat, and Bihar). I am not sure why you are deliberately removing the fact that Jaitley refers to Katju's criticism of West Bengal also in his article criticizing Katju. Anyways, the point is that when i am rectifying your error i am not putting back the internal links since i am a newbie to wikipedia and do not fully understand the technical details. I will try to put the internal links in future, but i am afraid i might make some technical mistake in doing so in the immediate future. You are free to put back the correct internal links yourself. Seriously, i think you are making a hue and cry over a trivial issue, while not recognizing the fact that you keep replacing correct information with erroneous information.Soham321 (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Jaitley Issue

[edit]

User:Soham321 has surprisingly been adding information which does not form a part of the BLP. The issue is over when both the concerned person's views have been written. But the user has added independent views of several journalists and politicians. It is also surprising that he has claimed me to be biased but has himself added information in an disproportionate manner to justify his view point. I have removed that information. User is requested to first discuss the issue here and then edit those particular section.--Mohit Singh (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Katju-Jaitley spat was widely reported in the Indian media for several days. It deserves to be written about in some detail since it involves issues concerning the public interest (for instance whether retired judges should be given post-retirement jobs in government) . In fact i will be adding further details on this issue. I have no objection if a separate wikipedia page is created on the Katju-Jaitley spat and a link to it is given in the wikipedia page on Katju. Soham321 (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear [[[User:Soham321|Soham321]], You are again requested to use a cordial language. Wikipedia is not a space for creating articles which are not of much relevance. As mentioned, you can create an article but that shall be liable to deletion as per wikipedia policy. Also, you are requested not to add any data which is unnecessary as the same may again be reverted back. Any further disruptive action of yours may force to invite the attention of wiki administrators to this page.--Mohit Singh (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you have already been banned. I humbly request not to make disruptive edits after your 24 hours blockage is over.--Mohit Singh (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got blocked since I am a newbie to Wikipedia and was not completely familiar with details of the 3 revert rule. Soham321 (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:MohitSingh has deleted Katju's rejoinder to Jaitley's criticism. This was an article Katju had written in The Hindu and I had given it as reference. I request MohitSingh to put it back unless he would prefer to go for dispute resolution. Further, Jaitley's article criticizing Katju had referred to Katju's criticism of two non Congress state goats in its first paragraph but it referred to Katju's criticism of three non Congress goats in its second paragraph. In an incorrect edit Mohit Singh has changed three states (which include West Bengal, Bihar, and Gujarat) to two states. I request MohitSingh to make the change back to three states unless he prefers to go for dispute resolution.Soham321 (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong to quote Katju for his words and not Jaitley. This gives a very different picture. For example when Jaitely said that those two Governments are popular, you write "in his opinion which were popular" and when you talk about Katju, you quote his exact words. This affects the neutrality.--Mohit Singh (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When Jaitley's article criticizing Katju can be given as a reference, what is your problem in including Katju's rejoinder (which appeared as an article in The Hindu) to Jaitley's criticizm?. Furthermore, i did not write the words 'in his opinion which were popular'; those must have been written by you or Neelkamala or someone else. In fact Jaitley had quoted a sentence from Katju's article in his criticism of Katju and i thought this sentence was important since it occurred in both Katju and also Jaitley's article but for some reason you deleted it. Soham321 (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:MohitSingh also deleted the reactions to the Jaitley-Katju dispute of senior Congress leader Digvijay Singh and senior journalist and former Times of India editor Dilip Padgaonkar. In my opinion those opinions should be a part of this Wikipedia page since they involve issues of public interest. Soham321 (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Public Interest? How does Digvijay Singh's opinion help public interest? Wikipedia is not a location to give space for everyone's opinion. It has been very wrong on your part to include only those reactions like the one from RSS ideologue, Singh and Lalu which were in support of Katju and not those which were against him. Therefore to keep that section precise and concrete I do not think that there is a need to include opinion of every political leader.--Mohit Singh (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Digvijay Singh's view is important because it involves a public debate over whether judges should be given post-retirement jobs in government. Digvijay has pointed out that Jaitley himself gave post-retirement appointments to several judges, and yet he is publicly complaining now that judges should not get post-retirement jobs. Soham321 (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Dutt issue

[edit]

The Supreme Court of India has categorically stated in its judgement that Sanjay Dutt was not involved in the Mumbai blasts, and that he had procured the weapons for self-defense. I am giving the article of former Union Law Minister Shanti Bhushan as a reference in the main article in this connection. The categorical finding of the Supreme Court means that it is erroneous to make the claim as some news reports have done to suggest that Dutt was involved in the blasts in any way. I also removed the reasons given for his request in this wikipedia biography. The reason for this was that in subsequent television interviews with Rajdeep Sardesai, Arnab Goswami and others Katju clarified that some of the reasons he had given for asking for Dutt's pardon were 'incidental' while the primary reason was that he had already spent 18 months in jail, this is a more than 20 year case, it took him 5-6 years to restore his career because he was ostracized and socially boycotted, he could not leave the country without taking prior permission, etc. so that cumulatively he has already undergone the punishment.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Markandey Katju. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Markandey_Katju&oldid=1207925875"