Jump to content

Talk:Karnataka video clip controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Porngate)

Attack and BLP

[edit]

user:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington made the assertion in the edit history that this was an attack page and that names should be omitted per WP:BLP and because the page title is inappropriate. I say that the only name for this incident used by reliable sources is "Porngate" and all the reliable sources agree that the resignations of these three men is related to the accusation that they were watching porn in the state assembly. Where is the BLP violation? What in this article is not backed by multiple reliable sources? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request you to revert yourself on the articles on the former Karnataka ministers/MLAs. Porngate is not a suitable title for the article and possibly fails the notability test for events. It is not a good idea to link to pages and make allusions to a scandal in a BLP when verifiable sources can only present speculation and analysis, with the subjects of the articles disputing the fact that they were actually watching porn videos. Once the articles develop further, then the content may be restored in a manner that qualifies for a WP:BLP. Also, it is not a good practice to re-insert material back in to a biographical article without appropriate conclusion of a discussion. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reinserted the material along with an explanation on the talk page. I am making the assertion that there is nothing to be debated here. Are you disputing that the sources are not reliable? Have they not been summarized in a way complying with NPOV? If you think there is a BLP violation, can you propose a re-write of the sources in a way which you feel is better? What about the media coverage leads you to suggest that this event does not meet WP:N? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think the onus of re-writing the articles lies on you, since you are the one inserting the content. Yes, the material is well-sourced, but I have issues with the manner in which it has been presented. You have included the fact that they were watching pornographic clips, but you have not stated that they have also denied the claims made against them. This is inappropriate, and editorial discretion must be applied when inserting controversial content about living people. The onus falls on you to be careful about what you insert, not on the users who point that out to you. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I did my best. I thought it was good enough. I did not understand why you were removing content and labeling this as an attack, and so far as I know this is the first time you have said why. Almost none of the cited sources give the official's point of view, but now I referenced one which said that they were studying the way that foreigners have sex at raves. Is this sufficient? I am happy to do more, but it really would be helpful if you offered suggestions for improvement. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The video

[edit]

Where can the video be found? Sources say that it is under review by multiple government agencies. I presume that somewhere it was published online, otherwise it would not have been distributed to government officials. Does anyone know who owns the copyright to the video or where it is distributed? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The video is likely copyrighted by the media houses that own it and will not be available under a free license. I see that you have added information about the rave party that was reported in February 2012. Is there a current source linking the video created at that party with the one which the MLAs were watching? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to contact the media house which owns the video if they are identified, and I already wrote the party organizers. I added a source saying that the party was being investigated for public sex, and then another source which said that the video was made at an internationally-organized party which happened at the same place and same time. I do not have a source which says that the video was made at the Zouk Party. Perhaps I am violating WP:SYNTHESIS by connecting the Zouk party to the party in question. Check these out:
Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is WP:OR. Please remove the references to the Zouk incident. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed for now. I will check in later. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the entire first sentence. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reinserted it with a reference. This source says that the Spring Zouk party was the source of the Porngate video. Cool? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a very good source. It will be better if you can corroborate it with more sources. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there is some controversy regarding the clip that was being allegedly watched. The MLAs themselves are claiming that it was a foreign video from Iran. I think on this basis the introductory reference to the St Mary's rave party ought to be removed. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move page

[edit]

I suggest that this article be moved to 2012 Karnataka video clip controversy. That is most appropriate at this point of time because it is neutral and does not suggest that the video clips were pornographic. The matter has not been investigated yet, and until a court or a legislative panel categorically rules and censures the MLAs, the assertions are only allegations. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The media and all reliable sources seem to be calling this event "Porngate". Do you disagree that that Porngate is the most used name? Are there other names for this event in media sources? There is even a reference in the article noting the extensive use of this name on Twitter and online in general, so even the use of this name is sourced. Are you making an argument that despite the sources, the article should not have this title? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the move as the Reliable sources including 6 well known and widely circulated Newspaper in English has used the current name. 2 popular Media Channels have also used the same. Even the name has a public popularity as suggested from the twitter trends. The current name is the most apt. Amartyabag TALK2ME 15:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your lack of knowledge about policy is apparent from your citing "twitter" as a means to gauge the suitability of the title. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While, Twitter itself is not a RS ie, you cannot quote Twitter as a source for one fact, but according to WP:NEO, "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society." The evidence of usage of term by the larger society apart from the newspaper, can be gathered from the Twitter and the same is backed with another secondary RS. Amartyabag TALK2ME 03:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like you are selectively reading the policy out of context.
"Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term."
This speaks for itself. Porngate is a neologism coined three days ago and Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a newspaper. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The standalone "Porngate" is not suitable as at this point of time it does not seem that this event has any historical or lasting significance. Since the coverage that the event has received is mostly sensational, the notability of the article is also in question (Will this event have a lasting effect?) Therefore, it is essential that we include distinguishing information into the title. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Karnataka has 60 million people in it and these men were high-level government officials each with special honorary posts beyond just seats in the assembly. It is my opinion outside of the sources, but I would say that these men had more power over more people's lives than the prime ministers of most countries, just because Indian politicians influence huge numbers of people. The scandal itself is significant, but it is also significant completely unrelated to the scandal that three high-ranking officials resigned at the same time. Unrelated to the video, and unrelated to the resignation, it is also newsworthy that all three officials were reprimanded by their own party in a critical election time which will greatly influence the campaigns. Unrelated to all those things, the media has even covered the media coverage of the event as the discussion itself this represents a new way for Indian people to use the internet to get involved in their government. This event is independently notable for multiple reasons. If you dispute the notability of this article and event then please give a rationale. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A resignation of three public functionaries alone would never have warranted the creation of an article, but that content would have been merged into the article on the current administration. I have listed some examples for you below, these incidents were widely reported with a "-gate" suffix, but not named as such on Wikipedia:
Note that the media likes to report in a manner that sells their news to the public. We are not in the business of sensationalism, we are in the business of writing an encyclopedia. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The events you list above are less covered than the Porngate event. Here are even more gate events - List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. Right now the sources in this article show that "Porngate" is the term used by the Deccan Chronicle, The Indian Express, Hindustan Times, Business Standard, Deccan Herald, and India's newspaper of record The Times of India. Other sources show some top level politicians using the term. What is your standard for coming to accept a term as non-sensational? Are you asserting that regardless of the usage in reliable sources, this term is sensational? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The controversies that I have listed above are even more widely-covered and reported in the international media. The name "Porngate" is very derisory to the living people who are referred to in the article. The dust around the event has not even settled. We should always exercise caution when deciding upon a name. I have provided enough evidence of the "gate" term being misused by even reputable media houses in the past. The article that you have linked to states:

The suffix is used to embellish a noun or name to suggest the existence of a far-reaching scandal, particularly in politics and government. As a CBC News Online column noted in 2001, the term may "suggest unethical behaviour and a cover-up".
Stanyer links the widespread use of -gate to what the sociologist John Thompson calls "scandal syndrome"

The effects of this event are not far reaching. There are accusations of impropriety, but nothing illegal happened. There is no "cover-up" either. It is simply the Indian media which is spinning the news (as they usually do) and we should not follow their example. Encyclopedia, not tabloid. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One may make the argument that the most prestigious newspapers in India have what Westerners call a tabloid journalism standard, but these are the sources that 1 out of 6 people in the world see as normal. Regardless of whether anything illegal happened, three powerful people were condemned by their own political party and they immediately resigned. This is not about an accusation in the media which the officials ignored. Major political figures are charging that illegal activity happened - I just added a statement for imprisonment by Anna Hazare.
The effects of this are far reaching in politics, tourism industry, and discussion of sex in India. This is not a trivial event.
I am especially interested to hear your opinions on the quality of the sources and the summarization of the sources. If you think a particular source does not meet WP:RS, then please say so. If something in the article from a RS does not meet WP:NPOV, then please say so. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no basis for filing criminal charges. One out of six people don't read the Times of India or other English newspapers. Anna Hazare also thinks that flogging people for drinking liquor and amputating public officials for corruption is a good idea. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely correct on all these points. If you need me then let me know. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

Porngate → 2012 Karnataka video clip controversy – The current name of the account is absurd, the reasons for which I have presented above. The alleged behaviour of three living people is in question so BLP standards will apply. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blue Rasberry, most of the entries on that "-gate scandals" list are the subjects of articles which are not themselves named "-gate". Under the circumstances, I'm going to need a very good argument for keeping this name. DS (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No move Right now the sources in this article show that "Porngate" is the term used by the Deccan Chronicle, The Indian Express, Hindustan Times, Business Standard, Deccan Herald, and India's newspaper of record The Times of India. The Times of India even uses the name Porngate in its televised newscasts - see here. Other video newscasts are available which describe their videos with this title - News X and TV9. Here are other print sources. Google news Various sources are reporting that Porngate is the name of the event because that is the term people are searching on internet sites like "Twitter". Daijiworld Bhaskar Most sources and all of India's most respected news sources use the term "Porngate". I have not identified another term for this event in any source. The alternative title, "2012 Karnataka video clip controversy" will not encompass all aspects of the Porngate event because that title does not acknowledge these repercussions which this event has already had:
  • Most Indians are generally not comfortable with rich foreign students coming to India to have public sex, use drugs, and party on the beach. This has been a political issue for years. This issue is now a part of Porngate and not part of the "2012 Karnataka video clip controversy". Here is an article talking about Indian values and Porngate; the party was notable before the video clip controversy and now is a part of Porngate. India Today
  • The ministers who resigned were high ranking and had posts beyond just typical seats. Their leaving will have effects. The description of the impact of their leaving is part of the Porngate event, but would not be a necessary part of an article called "2012 Karnataka video clip controversy". Here is a political cartoon emphasizing that the involved politicians had special posts - cartoon Many articles are already saying that this event is going to have effects on coming elections.
  • Indian people do not know what to do about pornography. This issue is forcing people to talk about porn and sex. It would be appropriate to incorporate the public's reaction with regards to modern sexuality in an article called Porngate; such intimately related discussions would not be a good fit in an article called "2012 Karnataka video clip controversy". Here is are two Porngate sexuality articles unrelated to the political implications of the video clip controversy - Economic Times First Post
Calling this the "2012 Karnataka video clip controversy" would give this article a title which excludes many aspects of the Porngate event. Porngate is not about only the video clip or the controversy around the video clip. Porngate is the best name for describing all of these issues and it is the name which multiple media sources are using for everything related to this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am very concerned about your ideas for using Wikipedia as a tool for advocacy — Wikpipedia is NOT a soapbox. It is highly presumptuous of you to say "Indian people do not know what to do about pornography. This issue is forcing people to talk about porn and sex." I am Indian and I find your statements very insulting and condescending. If advocacy is your agenda, then perhaps you ought to re-consider your motivations for editing Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. I meant no offense but I apologize for causing it and I stand by what I said - India is one of the most contentious places in the world for both demanding and distributing pornography and simultaneously for forbidding it, and as my sources show this issue really is making people talk about porn. I provided sources written by Indians which openly question Indian sexuality outside the context of this event but which explicitly say they were raised because of this event. I deny advocating on any side; if I have added NPOV content then please raise the issue. If you want to talk to me personally then come to my talk page or email me your phone number and I will call you wherever you are in the world. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably better to move this, at least for now. Better safe than sorry. Also, in contrast to the local media, it seems that the international media isn't talking about anything called "Porngate"; see for example: BBC, The Guardian, New York Times, Al Jazeera. --KFP (contact - edits) 20:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd concur with the move. There's no reason we can't keep the redirect and mention "widely known as", etc, in the lead; that's pretty common practice for this sort of thing. The general title is a more neutral name, it's adequately descriptive, and it serves as a placeholder until we've found out what the permanent name will be - bear in mind that this event is only a couple of days old.
The argument that we should use "Porngate" because "it's not only about the controversy" doesn't quite seem to make sense - if these other aspects are relevant when we call it "Porngate", they are still relevant to the event when we call it "video clip controversy" or "Karnataka video scandal" or "February 2012 Karnataka ministerial resignations". If they're not relevant to those, they shouldn't be included in the article just because it has "porn" in the title. A seemingly broader name isn't an argument for including undue original synthesis discussing attitudes to pornography or sexuality in India. Shimgray | talk | 23:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd strongly support a move. This issue is quiet recent, from the scope of encyclopedic value of this relatively minor state-level controversy, there is no reason to call this Porngate. It does not have nearly the reach or notability to equate it to other similar titles. This controversy won't be relevant within a few months, let alone an year, reserving this notable title for a controversy, from a single state in India, is a stretch. I support the move to a more descriptive title, the kind suggested above to avoid recentism, and make note of its actual description. Theo10011 (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved

[edit]

I have moved the page to 2012 Karnataka video clip controversy as there are strong precedents for this, and consensus for the move as well. Vivekvc (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Vivekvc. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just missed the move. Hey... why is it moved to "2012 Karnataka video clip controversy"? Were there any more video clip controversies in Karnataka before? Or are we expecting few in coming years? I was gonna suggest "Karnataka video clip controversy". Thats it. If at all 2012 is needed in the title, suffix it. Prefixing it has disadvantage. Few years from now when i wanna read about this i will have to type in the search box as "2012 Karnataka vi..." and then the dropdown will help me. But for that i will have to remember what year it happened in. Thats not user-friendly. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am amenable to this request. But let's wait for 48 hours before we do that to get some more opinion on this first. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well... wait more. Why are all articles throughout wikipedia named that way? 2010 Salta earthquake, 2010 Chabahar suicide bombing, 1996 NFL season, etcetera? How inconvenient is that! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is because we have multitudes of articles on similar events happening around the world. The more specific the title of the article, the more likely it is to accurately reflect verifiable facts. In this particular case, "Karnataka video clip controversy" would have to be moved to "2012 Karnataka video clip controversy" if perchance something similar happens in the future – inside or outside the legislative assembly. The guideline on naming conventions for events is also helpful (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)). In this particular case, there is no established name since the event is still very young and is continuously being reported on. This is simply prudence. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine, to include the year in the title. But why prefix? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to think that it is to keep the title clean. If you inserted the year at the end then you would also have to include a comma (see Singapore general election, 2011 for example). — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Add brackets like all film articles do. Devdas (2002 film), Devdas (1955 film), Devdas (1953 Telugu film), Devdas (1935 film), Devdas (1936 film), Devdas (2012 film), Devdas (1937 film). -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is not conventional. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which forum do we go then for making it so? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can initiate a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events) – ask for a clarification and propose modifications to the guideline. Please remember that any major changes will have rippling effects for the rest of the project, so expect inertia and resistance. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! Am getting used to that inertia and resistance. There we go....Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(events)#Year_in_the_title. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Developing the article further

[edit]

I think there are a few issues with the article, but they will be resolved as we expand it. I have created a page here (Talk:2012 Karnataka video clip controversy/Research) to gather all the available links to news reports and opinion pieces available on the subject. It would be great if interested users helped me expand this list so that we could use them to insert facts. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations from news reporters

[edit]

I have an issue with multiple direct quotations from non-notable journalists. See WP:NEWSORG. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel about proposing a summary of the articles rather than using a quotation? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please propose your summary here. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems good enough for now to me. It would be better with summaries, but the article is better like this than it would be without the statements and references. I say just leave it like this until more time passes and it becomes apparent which articles are best to cite. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karnataka_video_clip_controversy&oldid=1156205656"