Jump to content

Talk:Teesta Setalvad/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Be Neutral

Please! Happy editing :)

Mikeslackenerny 10:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Minority/Marxist

  • Civil Rights vs. Minority Rights? There is a distinct difference, and as per Teesta's involvement, the word minority rights describes her work better. Civil rights movements often seek to ensure that individual rights are not denied on the basis of membership in a minority group. However, when minority privlages are asked for (say, for affirmative action), then one crosses the line between civil and minority rights. See wiki article on minority rights.
  • Marxist educationist - Her program Khoj teaches Indian history, which is sensitive to depections of the actions of minorities. This stance, as opposed to a realistic depection, is considered that endorsed by the marxist/leftist school of Indian historians (JNU group). Hence the tag Marxist.

Mikeslackenerny 10:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you'll need citations for all of that. Of those that you have recently added, the Hoot story is already linked, the Indian Express doesnt mention Teesta by name, the cpim one wont open, and the mail-archive.org one is not a permissible references per WP:RS. I am reverting your changes. In future, please discuss these issues on the talkpage before making major changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) 04:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
Added another citation for that which mentions her by name. Is there anything else you would like to contend? And the CPI(M) website opens just fine. Try again. Mikeslackenerny 06:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I have tried again. Your link may be faulty.
Please note that you have not replied to my concerns about the other links, as well as what I view as misrepresenting their contents. Nothing the Hoot interview states that "she has extremist views", which is a statement for which you will need to find several reliable sources and at least one scholarly one.
I have moved your one admissible new link, the HT report on the Nandigram letter, to the appropriate section and rewritten the reference in keeping with the actual text of the link. Hornplease 07:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You have a very peculiar slant on how articles are to be re-written. Please tell me what else you find contentious. Dont revert the entire thing with weasel explainations.Mikeslackenerny 08:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I have explained above. You cannot link to mailing group archives; you cannot link to partisan websites; you cannot interpret links to say "extremist views" when they say nothing, and you definitely cannot put that in an article without multiple reliable sources etc. Please read WP:BLP, it indicates you can be reverted constantly if necessary. Hornplease 08:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The recent edits are better, but we simply cannot use the words you have, only the HT's restatement of them. Hornplease 08:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Since you've called my good faith into question, I've reported this issue on the appropriate board, and other editors will be along to examine my actions. Please note that WP has no 'moderators'. Hornplease 08:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The 'women's organisations endorsed only 1 advert. It is not written that they recieved any on the 1.5 cr corpus. These organisations have their own fundings. Please justify your wording. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikeslackenerny (talk • contribs) 09:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
Err, it is not known that it went all to CC, either. In fact, the question states 'the campaign costed fifteen crores'. I have no objection to the rest of your changes. Sorry, I do. Once again, unless you can find a reliable source that states that Teesta identified as a 'left intellectual' - and mentions Teesta by name - we will have to retain the HT's 'pro-left' wording. Hornplease 09:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
[1] See the very end. Is this better? Also, she signed a letter saying she is one of a group of those who have long been associated with the Left movement. Why is this not enough. It is there in HT link.Mikeslackenerny 09:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you please read this link? I have told you twice now that the HT link does not say that, it merely says pro-Left, and that that is the wording therefore that we can have in the article. Hornplease 09:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The IE link is acceptable. But we must follow the wording exactly. Hornplease 09:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me quote what the HT link says:

The statement said that those signing the statement "have long been associated with the Left movement in the country, feel deeply pained and anguished by the loss of lives and injuries suffered during the police action in Nandigram." Now who has NOT read the article? Mikeslackenerny 09:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, OK, I withdraw that. Not that it's relevant, given that the IE link is available. Hornplease 11:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Justify

she has publicly criticised the Communist Party of India (Marxist) on occasion. Where? There is no such in the HT link. It is more of an apology.

Also, please justify the women's org part above

Mikeslackenerny 09:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

For the women's org part, see above. For the CPI(M), change the wording if you like. I just read the HT article, which made it sound like they were criticising the firing ("can never be justified"). If you believe that isnt equivalent to criticising the CPI(M), change it to 'actions taken by the CPIM". Hornplease 09:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Request reread the article. (Full text here:[2]) There is no criticism of CPI actions. No condemn or deplore, only feeling pain and anguish. I believe that is an apology. Please cite source that has Teesta or CC criticising CPI/Left front. If uncited, I shall remove the critcise reference in a while.Mikeslackenerny 10:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I am only interested in parsing the Hindustan Times article, which is the only reference that meets WP:RS; even if the text of the petition is hosted elsewhere, the point of WP:RS us that we cannot trust that text.Hornplease 11:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
In particular, the HT article states that the 'intellectuals' said that 'the violence cannot be justified'. That is a criticism of an action taken by the CPI(M). I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand. Hornplease 11:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No where has the article said that the CPI was responsible for the attack. In fact it calls for an independt inquiry. So the violence cannot be justified is just a platitude, like women should not be raped. Not a criticism by any stretch of imagination.Mikeslackenerny 11:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets read the HT article again, shall we?:

  • "Nobody belonging to the Left world would ever justify repressive action against peasants or workers who are the basic classed of the Left. The tragedy at Nandigram on March 14 was an entirely unanticipated, unjustified and unfortunate turn of events, whose exact origin and course should be established through a proper enquiry," they said in a statement, signed by eminent Jawaharlal Nehru University-based professor, Prabhat Patnaik.
Seems like a defence of the CPI(M). More?
  • The Left Front government, the group added, have announced a number of initiatives and measures to try and attempt to mitigate the victims’ sufferings. "The Left Front government meanwhile has announced the removal of the police force from Nandigram, has reiterated its policy that no land will be acquired for industrial purposes without the consent of the peasants and other people concerned, has put on hold all land acquisition," the statement said.
Hmmmm. Methinks some 17 intellectuals are doing some damge control. Pray, what does the above paragraph read to you?

Mikeslackenerny 11:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that they feel that the government was not responsible for repressive action? I think they're trying to say that it got out of hand, not that the original action was not repressive. They defend the removal, right, but who sent the cops there in the first place? I can't see it as anything but criticism of that action, modified with expressions of approval for subsequent action. Hornplease 14:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hornplease, if this was criticism, it is an obvious eyewash. I disagre with your saying so, and that is your POV. Mikeslackenerny 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Possibly, but could you respond to the specific point? viz., that even if the letter goes on to make excuses for the firing/praise subsequent behaviour, the specific 'unjustifiable' remark is criticism? Failing any agreement on this, we should perhaps consider changing the wording to note that she criticised the firing. Hornplease 17:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Civil rights/Minority rights activist

I am going to put the phrase minority rights activist in the intro. See http://pd.cpim.org/2006/0129/01292006_teesta.htm Mikeslackenerny 11:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That link still doesnt work for me. No matter; as a party website, it isnt reliable as a source for anything but the party's own activity. The HT link clearly refers to her as a civil rights activist. Hornplease 14:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Note also that your 'felicitation' is a minor district committee of the CPI(M), not the party itself, as your text seems to imply and as such is hardly encyclopaedic. Hornplease 14:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Link is an article written by Setalvad in the CPI(M) mouthpiece. Not suere why you cannot access it. Can you see if you can get the Google cache of it. The CPI(M) felecitation is one of many appearences by Setalvad in CPI(M) functions. I will bring forth further references on that too. Mikeslackenerny 15:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over false cases

R.K.Raghavan clearly said that he cannot confirm whether the contents of the report were true. He said that he's answerable only to Supreme court. That's why I'm removing the content saying, 'A report in the Hindustan Times established clearly that the allegations made in the TOI report were cooked up.' Please include the valid references showing that Mr.Raghavan did say that the allegations made in the TOI report were cooked up. 24.0.22.145 (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


I think article should also mention that one of the person who has worked with Teesta, Rais Khan, has accused her for fake affidavits. I have attached one link but there are many others.

http://deshgujarat.com/2011/04/20/prime-witness-was-%E2%80%98coerced%E2%80%99-by-teesta-pioneers-revealing-report/ 116.74.10.242 (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Setalvad.jpg

Image:Setalvad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

reverts

LyricsMag and IP user, please discuss here. Actually mostly IP user, since you are adding unsourced information to the article and inserting your political biases in here.Pectoretalk 18:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Teesta Setalavad's personal details

The article fails to mention anything about the religious affiliation of Ms. Setalavad. Is she Hindu, Muslim or atheist? I think the information is relevant and could be useful to put things in greater perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.78.28 (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to show that is has been seen as relevant by reliable sources. We don't automatically list people's religious affiliations. Dougweller (talk) 07:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you exactly mean. Doesn’t religion play an important role in influencing the course of an individual’s life and his choices in this world and, by choosing to disregard it, aren’t we in effect, ignoring the elephant in the room? For instance, didn’t the fact that Osama bin laden was an orthodox Wahhabi Muslim, prove to be a determinant factor in the further course of actions he undertook in his life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.79.122 (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


I guess the answer is yes for some people and no for others. You'd need reliable sources saying that her religion plays a big part in her life for it to be relevant to a Wikipedia article by our guidelines and policies. See WP:RS. They'd have to be pretty good ones as we are very careful with our biographies of living people. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If that’s the policy of Wikipedia, it is fine. But, what is the yardstick by which one measures the role of religion in an individual’s life? Hence, I still believe that the religious affiliation of any person of some significance is an object of curiosity for people and Wikipedia should not shy away from providing such information. After all, what’s the Wikipedia then for? Consider the recent talking point in the US about the religious status of President Obama. That being the case, in even a much advanced nation like the US, could India be any different? I mean to say that this is a piece of information of some relevance which could complete the whole puzzle i.e.the personality of an individual, in its totality and that a robust religious life or for that matter, even the lack of it could say something about the concerned individual. (59.88.79.23 (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC))

Non-rebuttal of my response

Since I'm mentioned in this page, I thought I should correct the para that mentions me. Speaking of my "attempt to pick loopholes" in the 2009 story about Setalvad "cooking up" evidence, someone inserted this sentence: However, this rebuttal has been addressed by other news reports which clearly mention the incidents in question as being the story of an assault on a lady to the dumping of dead bodies into a well by rioters at Narora Patiya and the reports on Police botching up investigation into killing of British nationals. (The "other news reports" referenced are actually just one: http://news.oneindia.in/2009/04/14/gujarat-riots-special-investigation-team-activist.html)

For one thing, this referred news report is dated April 14 2009, whereas my referenced Kafila article is dated April 19 2009. Clearly an article that appears 5 days before mine does is not "addressing" the issues I raise.

For another, this (quoted) line is simply a repetition of the original report that I was responding to. It does not say anything about the questions I asked about the original report.

Therefore I have removed this sentence.

Also corrected two minor typos.

Deecubed (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Accusation of misappropriate of funds

Not everything mentioned in a news site belongs here. I removed this the first time as it was something that hadn't been given much publicity in the news. That still holds, but also see [3]. Among other things, it says "Official representatives of the Gulberg society we are informed have already written to you today stating that the letter-head of the society has been forged by some residents and the claims being made by them are patently false since nothing has been parted from them." Dougweller (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, since when did we start using blogs as RS or blogs to defend some removal here on wikipedia? --sarvajna (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, since when? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not an RS and I'd never use it in the article . But it does suggest there may be a problem within the society. Is there a court case yet? Have the police made any formal charges? Or is this just a letter which may or may not be genuine? Our BLP policy applies here and you need something better than the sources that have been used, and evidence that this is significant. An activist gets attacked all the time and I don't see this latest as anything special - at the moment. Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Dougweller, your comments make me laugh, I never said that you are using it in article, so from today are we using blogs to have discussion on talk page??I have a blog/website of my own, so you want something about Teesta on my blog, I can have it in 2 minutes.is this just a letter which may or may not be genuinewell lot of reliable sources have covered this, do you have any source which say that it is fake? I know about BLP but BLP does let us cover criticism, may be you would want to read the article of Narendra Modi. --sarvajna (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Are you using the wordpress blog to delete what Zeenews has reported. Wikipedia is merely reflecting what Zeenews and other sources have carried. Please quote relevant BLP clauses in support of your argument without recourse to use of a blog that you or me or anyone could have written. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The BLP says If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.You say An activist gets attacked all the time and I don't see this latest as anything special - at the moment well it is special this time because this activist is attacked by people who were once represnted by this activists. --sarvajna (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The issue is whether this is noteworthy and well-documented. You haven't shown that yet. I ran into a similar problem. A threat of a lawsuit was made against a university. I was going to put that into the article but was persuaded that although I could source it, that it wasn't yet noteworthy or well-documented. It never was, although this accusation might turn out to be noteworthy and well-documented. We need this to become more than just an accusation, for a start. Dougweller (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure I can provide you multiple sources which mentions this issue if that is what is needed currently at my work place and cannot access a lot of things . --sarvajna (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well documented accusations

The uncontested fact is that following the accusations Setalvad was barred from attending the commemoration programme[4]

People are on camera accusing to the effect "ye assooke paise hai ye kafan ke paise hai, trust banaya, paise jama kiye... hame kuch bhi nahi mila, ye hamare sath vishvasghat hai" (Rough translation from Hindi: It is money collected in the name of tears and coffins, we have been cheated, we were not aware of the existence of the trust)

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Missed this the first time. Niti Central has already convicted her - doesn't look like a source we should be using. The Sunday Guardian piece[15] looks balanced and reports her reponse. [16] mentions the police response and that the chairman of the society says there's been confusion. And maybe [17] which talks about differences among the riot victims. We need to make sure anything added to the article is balanced and doesn't look as though it's finding anyone guilty. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Punjabiyar's version that DW reverted has been restored, the EL covers allegations of financial impropriety, that haven't been covered in the article. If it is inappropriate as an EL it ought to be used in the article as a source. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Raised at WP:BLPN - this is an old report that tells us something may be raised. Dougweller (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

File:TEESTA SETALVAD 1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:TEESTA SETALVAD 1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:TEESTA SETALVAD 1.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Teesta Setalvad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Teesta Setalvad. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Teesta Setalvad. 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) 02:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Teesta Setalvad. 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) 15:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Teesta Setalvad. 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) 06:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2022

Please give access to edit this page based on supreme court of India judgement to include that she has cheated the establishment for 20 years with fake news and fake activism. 72.83.64.184 (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Cannolis (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2022

She is also accused of conspiring to fabricate facts and doc ..

Read more at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/92469882.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst Myfirsts (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2022 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Teesta_Setalvad/Archive_1&oldid=1163297542"