Talk:Tuhin Sinha

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: template

@DaxServer@Jayen466 About [1], I noticed the talkpage edithistory after I (re) added the template. Rant or not, it fits the template hand-in-glove. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I still don't think it's a "press" source even tho its published in a press website. But I'm fine with it — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I don't think it's eligible for this. Despite the WP article being mentioned, which is what of course the template is for, the News18 article does fall under WP:SOAPBOX within the context of this article. It is more or less a writing by the subject - WP mentioned or not - and we don't link to every other writings of the subjects in their articles. If Sinha had published the article, say on Medium or on a personal blog, I don't think you'd consider adding it with this template. The only difference here is that it's published in News18. If this is published by another editor, then I'd definitely add that.

I was also looking for the news articles about the case and I could only find OpIndia, Republic World and Lawbeat [2] and couldn't find anything else literally. Is there any coverage about this case and if so, that could be sourced into the article - or perhaps we need to wait as the case proceeds and see if it's picked up by RS — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:SOAPBOX quite fits with regarding putting this template on this talkpage, but that's me. If he did so himself it would be a different matter (I'm not him). Having it here on the talkpage just says "This bit of media-coverage exists", and it may provide helpful context for future editors who notice it (or just some annoyance and/or amusement, I'm ok with that too). Personally I learned a new word.

I would not have put this here if it was from his personal blog (or a blacklisted site), but it wasn't so I did. There is no requirement that the media org mention has to be nice/WP:RS (though this is of course a WP:RS for Sinha's opinion). WP will survive whatever consensus emerge on this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Jayen466, FYI, this WP-article now also mentioned (in passing) in Swarajya (magazine), "Why Do I Not Trust Wikipedia, And You Should Not Either". I was about to add it at Wikipedia:Press coverage 2022, but blacklisted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Removed Sources

I have removed a multitude of sources from the article. Shall anybody wish to restore any of the source (and accompanying content), our policy on the onus of inclusion mandates of them to justify the reliability of the source at this t/p or at WP:RSN or at WT:INB. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: You've removed a bunch of sources that unquestionably meet WP:RS, beginnning with multiple articles in The Hindu – a newspaper of record per WP:RSP. Could you please explain what justification you have for this? Regards, Andreas JN466 15:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Like this? If so, which part of my edit summary is unclear? Also, what brought you to create this article that should have been salted at the last AfD? You have created a whooping three articles in the last six years; so, not a prolific content creator either. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First of all let me say that you appear to be making this unnecessarily personal. What led me to create this article was that I spotted the "Why I sued Wikipedia" piece when looking for press articles to include in the Signposts's "In the Media" section. When I looked at the first AfD, I thought it was strange that the article was deleted given that there was only one delete !vote (and the nominator has since been indeffed as a sock!!) and there was plenty of coverage in reliable sources. I thought let's save the WMF and this guy some money and fix what clearly had gone wrong. I said so at the time in the Signpost Newsroom: "Why_I_sued_Wikipedia"_in_ITM

"Why I sued Wikipedia" in ITM This is an In brief – could one of you write it up? I've recreated the biography whose deletion the article subject, Tuhin Sinha, has been complaining about – he clearly passes WP:N, and the whole thing is a waste of lawyers' fees for both the WMF and the biography subject. However, that means I shouldn't write the Signpost coverage as well. --Andreas JN466 11:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

So here is an answer to "Why". Now can you please explain why articles in The Hindu should not be RS, given that we are told to treat it as a newspaper of record? Regards, --Andreas JN466 15:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I have not removed any reference from "The Hindu"; see my reply to Bluerasberry. You claim to have missed the second AfD on the subject? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

You have removed two in fact, and have removed all content based on these references ...?? Andreas JN466 15:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That citation still exists in the reception section along with another from The Hindu; someone more competent than the original drafter, who understands how to paraphrase content, needs to use them and write the corresponding content.

Copied from my reply to Bluerasberry. In other words, the two reviews by Reshma Kulkarni over the Hindu are indeed RS; just that, someone needs to paraphrase the content rather than insert long quotes. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with quotes that are marked as quotes. Andreas JN466 15:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:QUOTEFARM - not a policy but a decent guide. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:Quotations – also a good guide. In review sections, I think it makes sense to use quotes to convey the original flavour of the cited pieces. I am happy to accept that people may have different preferences but simply deleting content others have written rather than trying to improve it seems a little over the top? Andreas JN466 15:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I will rewrite it. And it will indeed have quoted phrases like at Vikram_Sampath#Works_and_reception. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not claiming that I missed the second AfD. I notice that the first AfD was started by an editor now indeffed as a sockpuppet and that they seemed to have a real bee in their bonnet about this article subject. The second AfD did not seem to be based on any actual source research. Andreas JN466 15:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I will start with a couple of counterpoints and see how that goes.

• special:diff/1119258378/1119258498 Removed book review on claim that WP:TOI The Times of India is not reliable. TOI is a newspaper of record in India and has been one of the most important newspapers in the world for nearly 200 years. The complaints about its reliability are with accusations that at times it is under political or advertiser influence, but those are exceptions. For book reviews and the arts, reviews are as good as they come.
• The Hindu is also highly respected.. book review in the Hindu - whats the issue? Bluerasberry (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Where did I have any issue with The Hindu review? That citation still exists in the reception section along with another from The Hindu; someone more competent than the original drafter, who understands how to paraphrase content, needs to use them and write the corresponding content.

No, TOI reviews are not as good as they come. The OP had used an anonymous micro-review and further, that our subject is an important figure (national spokesperson) of the ruling party, TOI's reliability is obviously suspect for the precise reasons you mention. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't give a fig which party the article subject supports. He is an Indian writer, and a review in the Times of India is part of his reception, which is what the Reception section is supposed to be about. Andreas JN466 15:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

No, we are under no compulsion to include anonymous micro-reviews from a publication which has been credibly accused of being underhandedly involved in political advertisements under the guise of news just because they exist. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Fwiw, I do neither care about Sinha's political affiliation. If someone proposes to include anonymous micro-reviews for publication of anybody in the political scene - left or right or center -, I will adopt the same stance. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe, Jayen466 and Bluerasberry can enlighten me on how the former determined ShaadiTimes.com (a matrimonial website!; no editorial policy can be located) or IWMBuzz.com (which the Indian Cinema Task Force Project finds to be an unreliable source) or TheViewsPaper.net (a now-defunct website; no editorial policy can be located) or HelterSkelter.in (online zine - ?) as reliable sources? How did you come across these defunct websites? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  They were cited in the article before it was deleted and were the best to be had on that book. Helter Skelter in particular looks like a quite nice literary magazine. India is India ... In the interests of promoting diversity, and countering systemic bias, the Foundation is even looking at using oral testimony for cultures less well covered than U.S. culture. A magazine like Helter Skelter seems a considerable step up from that. If we want to cover Indian topics, we need to use what Indian sources are available. These are book reviews ... not brain surgery. Andreas JN466 15:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  Btw, IWMBuzz is a top-3000 website in India. It's clearly widely read and a valid part of popular reception. Andreas JN466 16:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  RSN is that-way. There is a consensus on the unreliability of IWMBuzz and you cannot override the consensus on personal whims. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  There is no entry for IWMBuzz at WP:RSP. The most recent RSN entry is here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_361#Reliability_of_IWMBuzz.com. It said, IWMBuzz.com is used in about 300 articles, sometimes for simple non-controversial verification (filmographies, ratings, awards given by the source itself) but other times for subjective PR-puffing statements for which they have a conflict of interest. I feel that a cautionary yellowlisting at perennial sources with links to the above discussions is warranted, to raise awareness of potential issues. No such yellow listing has happened. I looked into what was said and was satisfied that the piece was not overstating the facts; there was a second source (an interview) as well, and frankly, given that the subject is well connected to the India government, it did not seem a far-fetched claim that he was well clued into possible developments regarding Kashmir and anticipated in his writing what might happen. It seems like the sort of thing we'd be happy to mention in any author's bio. Regards, Andreas JN466 16:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  You would do well to pay heed to Vanamonde93's latest comment at WT:INB and, maybe, my note about this article being under the purview of AC/DS. I won't engage further. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Jayen466 also seems to be oblivious of WP:DUE, having used Sinha's own columns to fill content with Sinha's views on random topics. I wonder how did he chose the particular columns from the corpus of such a prolific columnist. Further, interviews are most-often considered to be not independent of their subject but the OP feels this softball interview to be so critical to serve as a review! TrangaBellam (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  Per WP:ABOUTSELF, such sources are a reliable source for the subject's own opinions and such sourcing is used without controversy all over Wikipedia. I'd add that there were a very small number of those in the article before you edited it. Regards, Andreas JN466 16:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  A columnist like Sinha has their own opinions on infinite topics of significance (or insignificance) and to state the obvious, all of such opinions do not belong at an encyclopedic biography. It is this precise constraint that disallows us to select a few opinions at random and mention them in our article (irrespective of being allowed by ABOUTSELF) because such cherry-picking will always run afoul of DUE unless guided by a secondary source, which we lack in this case. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Jayen466 also seems to believe TheWordPinaccle (now-defunct blog; used to be run by a random freelancer and business tech guy; no editorial policy) or The Punekar (now-defunct blog; used to be run by a SEO consultant, a fitness consultant, and another random woman; no editorial policy) or The Swaddle (an independent publishing house which appears to be quite professional but does not disclose the name of editors or editorial policy) to be RS. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  Tbh, I can be convinced otherwise about The Swaddle. Their journalism is quite decent (personal POV; rather immaterial) but I cannot find out anything about their editors except the founder woman. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  All the Swaddle source (an interview) supported was a publication date, which arguably does not need a source anyway.

  Note that you might want to weigh in here at RS/N as well (reception of the 2022 tribal warriors book). Regards, Andreas JN466 17:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Related conversation

This article is currently also being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#An_interesting_lawsuit. --Andreas JN466 20:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Gandhi passage

Let's look at some of the recently deleted sources and passages. How about this one:

In 2017, Sinha filed a plea against Rahul Gandhi, then vice-president of the Congress Party, in the Delhi High Court, alleging Gandhi had violated the Special Protection Group Act and put himself in danger by giving his security detail the slip; the court refused to rule on the matter, saying security was a matter for the government.

I believe that was adequately sourced; The Hindu is to be treated as a newspaper of record per WP:RSP. If this were an American writer, and the New York Times reported on an equivalent lawsuit in the U.S., I believe having that passage in the writer's bio would be uncontroversial. So, what do people think – should we restore it? --Andreas JN466 13:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there any objection to restoring the passage? --Andreas JN466 12:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Please have this re-inserted in our section on Sinha's political career. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done --Andreas JN466 09:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Road safety anthology

The following passage was recently deleted:

In 2016, Sinha acted as project advisor on the national #HaveaSafeJourney (#HASJ) awareness campaign, a joined road safety initiative by the Mahindra Truck and Bus Division and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. This involved a writing contest for short stories related to road safety issues, which were published the following year as a book and promoted by Sinha. Notable writers contributing stories to the project included Anand Neelakantan, Kiran Manral and Pankaj Dubey; Gadkari, as the Minister of Road Transport and Highways, provided the foreword.

The sources were:

1. An article in Indian automotive magazine Motorindia (an edited version of a Mahindra press release
2. An article in The Telegraph
3. A "Micro Review" in the Times of India (it's called a "Micro Review", but it's actually 465 words long).

Note that the initiative and the associated short story collection were also covered elsewhere, e.g. in The Wire. Any objection to restoring this content? It seems adequately sourced. --Andreas JN466 12:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

A biography is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sinha does not appear to be even the editor of the book and neither the TOI source nor The Wire reproduction mentions Sinha. Excluding the churnalism, there's a lone source from The Telegraph's T2 tabloid. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The Times of India source includes the following paragraph:

There are also notes by Anand Mahindra, Tuhin Sinha, author of several books and part of the Steering Committee of #HASJ, and the publisher (Amaryllis Publishing) who share some statistics of road accidents and point out that change has to start from the citizens and road safety needs to be imbibed into our national conscience. They feel fiction is a great way to face this issue as stories are more impactful than statistics in conveying the message.

I occurs to me that this might actually be a better fit in the "Political career" section as well. Regards, Andreas JN466 17:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

How about going with "As of 2017, he is an advisor to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways." (Telegraph) and skipping the rest? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmm ... he did contribute an introductory chapter to the book (as mentioned by the TOI), which identifies him as a Steering Committee member. So I think a mention of the book is fair enough.

How about something like this: In 2016–2017, Sinha was on the steering committee of the national #HaveaSafeJourney awareness campaign; this included a writing contest and the publication of an anthology of short stories on road safety. Improvement suggestions welcome ... Andreas JN466 14:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I see you added him at Mahindra Truck and Bus Division. Nothing about HaveaSafeJourney at Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. Per sources mentioned, I think just mentioning he is/was with the ministry is better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Andreas JN466 23:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Re your question in your edit summary here, I'd inserted this based on the above discussion with User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång and provided a link to this talk page section in my edit summary. Andreas JN466 17:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

So, any objections to reinserting this now? Multiple sources are available – the Times of India, The Telegraph, as well as the book itself. Andreas JN466 11:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Wikimedia Foundation court case

Mention of the court case has now been in and out of the article a few times.

When I originally added it, it was sourced to Lawbeat. Yesterday, User:X-Editor inserted it using Sinha's own article as the source. Overall, the following press articles have mentioned the dispute (listed in descending order of acceptance as a source in Wikipedia):

1. "Page Not Found: Why I Sued Wikipedia", news18.com, 20 October 2022 (by the article subject, in a publication cited in about 1,000 other Wikipedia articles)
2. "Delhi Court issue summons to Wikimedia Foundation against deletion of author & BJP spokesperson Tuhin Sinha's page", 22 September 2022, in newsbharati.com (a publication cited in 22 other Wikipedia articles)
3. "Delhi Court summons Wikimedia Foundation over deletion of Wikipedia Profile of BJP Spokesperson Tuhin A. Sinha", 26. September 2022, in lawbeat.com (a site cited in 2 other Wikipedia articles)
4. "BJP spokesperson Tuhin Sinha sues Wikipedia for wilful deletion of his wiki profile", 1 October 2022, in Republic World (a publication deprecated in WP:RSP)
5. "Why Do I Not Trust Wikipedia, And You Should Not Either", 1 November 2022, in Swarajya (magazine) (blacklisted per WP:RSP)
6. "Wikipedia editors delete profiles of those who praised ‘The Kashmir Files’, had earlier vandalised movie page: Here is what we know so far", 22 March 2022, in OpIndia (blacklisted per WP:RSP)
7. "Delhi court issues notice to Wikimedia Foundation over deletion of author and BJP spokesperson Tuhin A Sinha’s Wikipedia page", 22 September 2022, in OpIndia (blacklisted per WP:RSP)

What do you think? Personally, based on overall media coverage of this case, I am leaning towards inclusion, with Sinha's own piece cited as an ancillary source (along with Newsbharati and/or Lawbeat).

At any rate, I think we should keep this list up to date and/or perhaps run an WP:RfC if we can't find agreement here. Regards, --Andreas JN466 10:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

What are we to do with the publications in blacklisted or deprecated sources? newsbharati.com is not a reliable source. Besides, what part of Garberg's revert-summary did you fail to understand? You are inching closer to a TBan. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing about newsbharati on RSN, but looking into it I do agree with you that it doesn't meet WP:RS (I wish I had looked a bit more deeply before). Struck above. --Andreas JN466 14:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

(Sources deprecated or blacklisted here are still read by people out there. My reason for mentioning them above was merely to illustrate the fact that quite a lot of people will by now have read about the controversy and might reasonably expect the matter to be mentioned here.

More generally, if there is criticism of Wikipedia coverage in reliable sources (and news18 at any rate qualifies as RS), I tend to think it's best to err on the side of inclusion; it looks more diplomatic in my view and prevents people getting the impression that we are censoring our critics. YMMV.) Andreas JN466 14:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

And I tend to go the other way on including WP-stuff in non-WP articles. WP-editors, I think, sometimes overestimates the DUE-ness of WP-stuff, because we tend to be a bit passionate about it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with that too. I have two contradictory instincts here. Andreas JN466 01:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Like me when I find some interesting WP:RS news about WP but with WP:OUTING in it... And even if this "thing" isn't included in the article atm, I'm interested in hearing how it develops/turns out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, me too (on both counts). Andreas JN466 14:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jayen466 Update: "Sinha’s Wikipedia issue seemed to find resolution a month later when an editor recreated his article. The court case remains ongoing, though, as the matter of compensation is still outstanding." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Per the offered sources I'm at exclude. Recent newsflash/navel-gazing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Newsbharati.com is not a reliable source [as everyone here agreed]. I'll remove/replace the citations in other pages. The News18 article, despite the general reliability of the news org, is a WP:PRIMARY source [from the subject WP:BLPSS), and can only be used, if at all, as described in that guideline[s]. It doesn't matter how much reach it has, it's a primary source. Also, @Jayen466: citing OpIndia, which publishes fake news, among other things, and regularly doxes and demonizes WP editors, as a valid source for inclusion of content is rather unfortunate and very much disrespectful to our fellow editors — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

References

22 yards review

Another item removed from the article recently was this Metro Plus review of "22 yards" in The Hindu. As we are all agreed that The Hindu should be treated as a newspaper of record, surely we can add a brief summary of this to the Reception section. Would you like to propose something, TrangaBellam? Regards, Andreas JN466 14:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you believe that if you go on repeating the same thing over and over, you will get your way? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Daddy review

I can't really see any good reason why the review of Daddy in The New Indian Express was deleted: [3] Any objections to restoring some material based on this? --Andreas JN466 14:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This is not a review - go to RSN. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer:, will appreciate your opinion. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The review is by Meera Bhardwaj ([4]), who reviewed books for The New Indian Express for several years and was quite capable of nuanced criticism ("a story that could have lived up to its full potential with just a bit more care", "some stories are interesting, some are pretty boring") or of panning books she didn't like ("contrived and predictable", "not an interesting read", "lacking thrill", "disappointing", "hardly lucid"). See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#news18.com. I see no reason to assume that positive reviews she wrote, like the one under discussion here or this one, are automatically untrustworthy just by dint of being positive. Maybe she just liked the book? --Andreas JN466 16:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Please do not discuss the same issue in multiple venues. I will let the RSN discussion run its course. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your request TrangaBellam, but I'm unfortunately out of depth here :/ — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I intend to restore this material. As a review by a longstanding reviewer in a major Indian daily, it is WP:DUE. --Andreas JN466 11:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Where do you see the consensus in favor? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

All I see at the moment frankly is me being in favour and you being against.

I will just mention here that Meera Bhardwaj, the author of this review, is an award-winning journalist who was chief copy editor at The New Indian Express at the time [5] and was one of the interviewees in a peer-reviewed academic study on Indian women in journalism.[6] I have no idea why you would argue her voice, published in a top newspaper, is "undue". --Andreas JN466 10:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jayen466 In such case, you can go for WP:3O — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I might go for an RfC instead; 3O is always a hit-and-miss affair. I am just still hoping TrangaBellam might see sense. Andreas JN466 10:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Do a RfC. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

That is not a "peer-reviewed academic study" but a publication from one of the many journal-mills from India. I do not know what inherent qualities are possessed by any "Chief Copy Editor" to review books, either. I agree with Abecedare's succinct observation (reproduced from RSN):

This is such a poorly written "review"! Just count the number of redflag and/or superlative claims in it that cry out for a tag: "credited with inventing the genre of political thrillers in contemporary Indian writing", "moved away from his usual genre" (IIRC, in one of the earlier interviews you had linked to, Sinha had said that he intentionally tried to pen his first three books to be in different genres), "One of its kind", "first-of-its-kind book released in recent times" (what does that even mean?!), etc. Also the whole third paragraph is such a cliche-ridden over-generalization. Reads to me as a breathless fluff piece.

I have nothing against positive reviews like Reshmi Kulkarni's take on Of Love and Politics but to use Bharadwaj is scraping the barrel. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll just add my reply to Abecedare here as well for the record:

Well, his usual genre was fiction; this was his first non-fiction book. As for "One of its kind" etc. I took that to be referring to its being a book about parenting from an Indian dad's perspective. I agree with you that the diction sure is flowery and not what we'd expect to find in a UK or US paper, but that applies to much of what I read in Indian newspapers (not just the book reviews). So I am not sure what it means – beyond the fact that a woman who wrote hundreds of reviews for an RS newspaper appears to have liked the book and said so. I agree it should be used as a source for a reviewer's opinion on this book rather than as a source for more general factual claims of the type you mention ("inventing the genre").

--Andreas JN466 18:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Paraphrasing reviews

[..] What really depressed me though was Shruti's fond endorsement of an arranged marriage for Sharad Malviya's daughter towards the end of the book. Is this the author's way of saying nothing changes, not even the mindset of a woman who's an icon for emancipation? When all's done and dusted, Shruti Ranjan is a woman who's lived life on her own terms, who's agreed to an arranged marriage only after a love affair goes sour, who's turned a traumatic rape into a political triumph, who's walked away from a failed marriage with very little regret. Yet she's still tied to the three men in her life with her happiness fluctuating in direct proportion to her relationship status. She defines herself by her men so strongly that the only thing that shakes her out of depression after Sharad Malviya's death is the need to support his daughter. So despite Sinha's obviously sincere attempt to get under the skin of the modern Indian woman, I'm left at the end wondering if the author, rather than his protagonist, has learnt any lessons.

Andreas' relevant summary is that the reviewer didn't care for [..] the apparent endorsement of an arranged marriage in the plot. A perfect example of missing the forest for the tree :') TrangaBellam (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Would you like there to be a stronger emphasis in the summary on the fact that the author, in the reviewer's opinion, didn't really understand women, even though he had obviously made a sincere effort to do so? Andreas JN466 18:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Have you heard about Bechdel Test? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Please, if you want to highlight that aspect, edit the text. Andreas JN466 18:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Looking at paraphrasing of reviews may be a good idea. The review of The Edge of Desire in The Hindu ends,

Still The Edge of Desire is worth at least one read to understand the quirks of fate, the machinations of politics and what a combustible combination the two can make.

TrangaBellam's summary of that passage is: she found the work to be a one-time-read which to mind reads a little more dismissive than the original.

As for bemoaned the "absence of an able-bodied leadership" more than "giving voice to gender crimes", I think that part of the summary will leave most of our readers flummoxed. What does this even mean, bereft of context as it is there? I believe we can do better. --Andreas JN466 18:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Not at all dismissive.

You have a fair point about the line being bereft of context to a reader not familiar with Indian politics; this line has a subtext which I cannot be explicit about. In the early 2010s, an increasingly hawkish media put its spotlight on multiple rapes committed across the country and blamed the incumbent Congress (INC) government for "lack of leadership and intent" to tackle the "menace"; for sources, you can consult the voluminous scholarship that exists on the media coverage of the 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder. Political analysts observe that BJP (Sinha's party) weaponized the discourse set by media to position Narendra Modi as a strongman who was willing to tackle such societal issues with a stern hand and in the process, gained significant support from the urban intellegentia; two years later, in the 2014 Indian general election, BJP would win an unprecedented super-majority of seats decimating INC. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

RAPA award

Per indiantelevision.com the TV film Phir Se, a RAPA Award winner in 2005, was based on a story by Sinha. I would like to add a mention of this fact to the article. Any views?

Background

For reference, RAPA awards were a fixture of Indian radio and later also TV broadcasting for several decades, from the 1970s to the late 2000s. RAPA wins were/are routinely mentioned as a biographical detail of people active in that era, both in Indian newspapers and in books.

• Google Books: [7]
• Mentions in The Hindu, India's newspaper of record: [8][9][10], The Indian Express: [11], The Statesman: [12] The Telegraph: [13] (obituary, "won a RAPA Award and MTV awards"), etc.

The fact that Phir se won the award almost two decades ago is also still mentioned on an extant page of tellychakkar.com. --Andreas JN466 10:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Daddy book review

Is Meera Bhardwaj’s review, published in The New Indian Express, of the non-fiction book Daddy: The Birth of a Father suitable for the "Reception" section of the author's biography?

Previous discussions: on this talk page, at RS/N (permalink) --Andreas JN466 23:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. The New Indian Express is a major Indian daily, and a review in a paper like that is significant enough to include. --Andreas JN466 23:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• No: Bhardwaj was the Chief Copy Editor of NIE and not the book reviewer. I agree with Abecedare's succinct observation (reproduced from RSN):

  This is such a poorly written "review"! Just count the number of redflag and/or superlative claims in it that cry out for a tag: "credited with inventing the genre of political thrillers in contemporary Indian writing", "moved away from his usual genre" (IIRC, in one of the earlier interviews you had linked to, Sinha had said that he intentionally tried to pen his first three books to be in different genres), "One of its kind", "first-of-its-kind book released in recent times" (what does that even mean?!), etc. Also the whole third paragraph is such a cliche-ridden over-generalization. Reads to me as a breathless fluff piece.

  I have nothing against positive reviews like Reshmi Kulkarni's take on Of Love and Politics but to use Bharadwaj is scraping the barrel esp. when we know the propensity of paid news in India. An essay found from WT:INB might be of further aid. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, to an extent. I gather the source of this dispute is the following content that was removed:

Reviewing Sinha's non-fiction book on childcare, Daddy (2015), The New Indian Express described it as "a very well-written book" for "new-generation fathers who share responsibilities and enable and empower their working wives", noting that the topic marked a departure for Sinha as an author "credited with inventing the genre of political thrillers in contemporary Indian writing."

There appears to be no consensus on reliablity for The New Indian Express, and as such, WP:EXCEPTIONAL comes into play. The first half of the sentence is fine, but the last half (starting at "noting that") is an exceptional claim and would require a better source in order to be used. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

Discussion

Andreas, I will prefer that all rebuts etc. be confined to this section to prevent the Survey section from spiraling into mile-long mutual bickering. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed on keeping discussion in this section.

What troubles me is that you're essentially proposing that we should ignore all unequivocally positive book reviews in Indian newspapers, even top newspapers like this one. I don't believe there is a consensus to that effect – nor am I convinced that practising such a rule will on balance reduce bias. Throwing out all reviews where a reviewer genuinely loved a book is apt to introduce a bias of its own. (This applies even more if such a rule is applied in an arbitrary and selective manner.)

Wikipedia is meant to reflect coverage in reliable sources. From previewing a few pages of the book at issue here and reading other online reviews, I find no special reason to assume that it was unworthy of a positive review. It seems quite charming. Regards, Andreas JN466 13:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

As for Abecedare's comments that you quote, what they apparently failed to understand was that this was Sinha's first non-fiction book, as well as a rare book about parenting from an Indian dad's perspective. The relevant comments in the review didn't strike me as strange, given the context.

Lastly, Bhardwaj wrote dozens if not hundreds of book reviews for the New Indian Express, many of which were critical of the books reviewed. (I gave examples of critical reviews earlier.) This was not someone who merely churned out puff pieces. Regards, --Andreas JN466 13:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

What you fail to understand is that Bhardwaj's claim of Sinha being the inventor of genre of political thrillers in Indian literature is ludicrous. I can list about a dozen works in the genre but on the top of my mind are Manohar Malgonkar’s The Garland Keepers (1980) and Uma Vasudeva's Shreya of Sonagarh (1993). I do not expect reviewers to have read every single literature published from India and unacquiantance with such works is not to Bhardwaj's discredit; however, it is riduculuos to expect that events like The Emergency (India) —a prolonged span of semi-autocracy in an otherwise vibrant democracy with no histories of coup etc.— won't have given rise to the genre, if it did not already exist by then!

That Sinha's Daddy was a rare book from an Indian dad's perspective is equally misplaced in its disregard for the vernacular literary scene. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I already said, above,

I agree it should be used as a source for a reviewer's opinion on this book rather than as a source for more general factual claims of the type you mention ("inventing the genre").

(Emphasis added.) Andreas JN466 16:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

No; the sheerr volume of false (but always superlative) claims made in the review is clear evidence of poor standards. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)