Jump to content

Talk:Siddharth Varadarajan

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

Peacock?

[edit]

I don't agree the original entry was problematic but have made some editing changes so that the enryty is shorter.

Citizenship

[edit]

Sorry am new to wikimedia and dont know how to explain the change.

He is not the "American editor of the hindu" but the editor of the hindu. He is known as the editor. His nationality, where he studied, who he married and where he lives are all secondary.

One could add later that he was born in America of Indian parents who moved back home where he then grew up and lived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 26725lk (talk • contribs) 19:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All information in articles biography articles needs to be supported by reliable sources to allow for verification - in this instance the content you are removing is supported by this source which states "Asked if Varadarajan can be made editor since he is a US citizen, Ram said: “I don’t think there is any bar.”". WP:MOSBIO explains that citizenship is included in the lead sentence of articles, and Varadarajan's citizenship is American according to the source. If you have concerns regarding the accuracy of the sourced statement and quote, please raise your concerns on the article talk page in order to discuss the details with other editors. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the OP was saying that the phrase "the American editor of" was incorrect, as it implies there are other, non-American editors. In any case, the lead sentence should introduce the nationality and chosen careers of the subject, not a specific position. That is, ... an American such-and-such ... who. I believe I have corrected the problem, as well as properly sectioned the article. Yworo (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, any help in clarifying the information for readers is certainly appreciated.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSBIO allows for permanent residence to be used as well, and doesn't require citizenship to be used. Even Varadarajan refers to himself as an "Indian editor", having grown up in India, and everything that he is notable for has been done while he has been resident in India. So, there's very little reason why his citizenship (acquired as he was born in the USA to Indian parents, a country that grants automatic citizenship to persons born there) should be mentioned in the context paragraph rather than his permanent residence. 123.201.148.59 (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP and NPOV policy

[edit]

As the subject of this article is a living person, material added must meet the reliable sourcing criteria for biography subjects. Recently editors have been attempting to include unsourced or poorly sourced information regarding a specific individual's attempts to discredit Siddharth Varadarajan based on his citizenship. As the only source provided has been to a primary source (i.e. a letter) hosted on a user-generated website it has been removed. In addition to the sourcing issues, the material also violates NPOV policy as it puts undue emphasis a minority opinion. An excerpt from the relevant policy states (note: bolding mine):

"Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject."

Any inclusion of material that violates BLP policy by including unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material will continue to be removed from the article unless there is consensus reached on the talk page, or via the appropriate noticboard, that it should be included.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Siddharth Varadarajan. 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) 08:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship in the lead

[edit]

An American citizen residing in India does not make him an Indian journalist! the fact that his cotizenship was removed from the lead even after citations is plain wrong. Proposal: "Siddharth Varadrajan is an American journalist residing and reporting in India" Vidit Bhosale (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is he widely described as an "American journalist" in the reliable sources? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Widely described" doesn't supersede facts documented by reliable sources in Wikipedia's policies and doesn't change his citizenship and nationality altogether. Wikipedia isn't about what most people think rather about what the fact is. Until any other reliable source can disprove the claims given documented by a reliable source, that vital information shouldn't have been removed and I propose reinstatment. Vidit Bhosale (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an issue of facts, but of WP:WEIGHT. Do the sources routinely describe him as an Indian American journalist? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not an issue of facts? Citizenship is objective. By this logic, Narendra Modi is not a hindu because sources don't 'routinely describe' him as a the Hindu Indian PM. Proposal: "... is an American Journalist residing and reporting in India" whixh objectively and factually correct. Weight doesn't supersede facts. Vidit Bhosale (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." (WP:WEIGHT). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're fast, Fowler&fowler! Anyway, what is the history of this page? I see this section about the lede of the page, but my additions were to the body and infobox, not the lead. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 07:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notion of US citizenship as a statement of fact is inadmissible anywhere in the article. According to WP guidelines, the location where a person achieves notability is important. In his case, it is India, not the US. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both American and Indian newspapers seem to consider him an Indian journalist.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is relevant: I'm not intent on calling him an American journalist anywhere: the short description still called him an Indian journalist, and lead still only had India after my edits. My edits only inserted a fact, which was at the center of the Swamy saga, cited to a source considered reliable on Wikipedia, in the personal life section and the infobox. I haven't yet checked the November 2022 edits, but I suspect the "consensus" there might have been about the lead rather than censoring anything about his American citizenship from the article. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 16:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you or someone else has inserted "American" in the citizenship argument in the infobox. I have removed it again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot be put into the info box. Doing so would run counter to Wikipedia's mission to be a reliable compendium of factual information. I am incredulous that you (TryKid) are repeatedly referring to him as "American," especially in such a conspicuous place as the info box. Pinging and requesting help from @RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, Abecedare, and Titodutta: Please see this page's talk page Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I put "United States" as the citizenship argument, the same wording used in the body. Not "American". Of course, citizens of the United States are called Americans. But you know better than me, that citizenship and nationality are two different things. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 08:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The existing citation for US Citizenship is a report about a court case against The Hindu newspaper filed by Subramaniam Swamy of the BJP. Newslaundry is not a reliable source, especially not when it is the only source carrying this bit of news. You are welcome to post it at WP:RS/N. If true, this should be explosive news—worthy of the attention of the major international newspapers with a bureau in India or the major Indian newspapers. But there is nothing except the right wing rags. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSPS declares that [t]here is consensus that Newslaundry is generally reliable. It's hardly a "right wing rag", many were concerned about bias in the opposite direction during the linked discussions of it's reliability. As for "explosive news" and "worthy of attention..." you are much better informed than me on the attitudes of international media on what and how they decide to cover anything, their "omissions and commissions", but I don't believe their silence amounts of anything. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 13:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newslaundry in general is a reliable source today. I'm less sure about this piece from 2013, a year after it was founded: it's written in a manner that resembles a gossip column. There's also the issue of due weight, if a single source is the only one reporting this, and also the issue of timeliness; lots of things may change about citizenship in 11 years. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not actually a single source. Livemint, buried deep in the article, and Jansatta also corroborate it. The reporting on this issue was/is rather muted as Indian media houses and newspapers had (and to a large degree still have) a tendency to not talk about or report on one another's affairs: this was one of the main reasons Newslaundry was founded, to report on the reporters, to talk about Indian media industry more openly. As for timeliness, well, we have to use the sources available to us until newer sources provide an update. For what it's worth, the Jansatta piece is from 2020 2022. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 17:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also the Business Standard, already cited in the article: [t]he deputy press registrar has shot a letter to Kasturi and Sons Ltd (KSL), the publisher of The Hindu, seeking clarification about the appointment of Siddharth Vardarajan, a US citizen, as the newspaper’s editor. There might be a few other papers reporting on the case involving Vardarajan's citizenship.
    What's sad about this whole discussion is the brazenly partisan POV-pushing by Fowler&fowler, who is regularly seen accusing "Indian nationalists" of doing the same. Compare his pronouncements here to those given at Akshay's page: here and here. Consistent application of policy be damned: at one page he insists that citizenship should not even be mentioned in the infobox, attempts to remove it altogether from the personal life section, but at another he demands that it should be mentioned in the very first sentence of the lead, in the infobox, and with a dedicated paragraph in the lead. Nevermind "high quality tertiary sources" or major regular reporting not saying anything on citizenship then.
    He did not even miss adding demeaning commentary to a BLP page then: Wikipedia's policies apparently do not apply to a page if the subject is "third rate". I've tried to bring some consistency to the application of policy bringing the two pages, with some success; but it really is sad to regularly see veteran editors enabling this kind of behaviour. regards TryKid [dubious – discuss] 18:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siddharth_Varadarajan&oldid=1208142120"