Talk:Mahua Moitra

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Mahua-moitra-wiki-bio.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

February 2021

Today a speech by Moitra was added by an IP here and was restored by Loopzinc (probably same user) [1]. I find the content (speech) WP:UNDUE -

On 8th February 2021, Mahua Moitra stated in the parliament "The sacred cow that was the judiciary is no longer sacred, It stopped being sacred the day a sitting chief justice of this country was accused of sexual harassment, precided over his own trial, cleared himself and then proceeded to accept the nomination to the upper house wihtin three months of retirement, replete with Z+ security cover"

It is just a speech given in the parliament that serves nothing to the career section of the article. We should note that all parliamentarians give speeches that we do not write in the articles since Wikipedia is not a WP:CATALOGUE. The GA status articles like Narendra Modi, do not have these kind of contents in the article. At most this speech of hers an be added in the "Controversy" sectin since it has caused a minor controversy in the house itself as can be seen here, even then it will be WP:UNDUE. Pinging @NedFausa, Ravensfire, Newslinger, Tayi Arajakate, Jonathansammy, Manasbose, ChunnuBhai, and Walrus Ji:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, Agree with User:Fylindfotberserk. Adding a parliamentary speech by an MP, is UNDUE . There is no action being taken now, so it should not even by part of controversy section. ChunnuBhai (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

First of all thank you for participating in the discussion and contributing to the Wikipedia community.

I would like to disagree that the above excerpts from the speech are either UNDUE or CATALOGUE, the excerpts from the speech pertains to an important issue and are an objective truth closely related to the duty of a parliamentarian and not an opinion or a view of some group of people. I can concede on the part that the excerpts should be placed under the controversy. I have already given the reason why these excerpts are important part of the personality who is a public representative.

Further I would also point out that you are canvassing users(even who are indefinitely blocked). It would have been better that you presented your opinion and arguments based on the reply I gave for reverting the edit made by you, rather that inviting other people who are not involved in this particular edit.

Speeches made in public reflect the personality of the person, their ideas and their ideology. I am open to arguments which can argue that speeches do not reflect the personality of the person. Biographies of people rely heavily on the public speeches made by them to understand their personality.

Further the above excerpts qualifies the Wikipedia's three core content policies are :

   Neutral point of view (NPOV) - excerpts are an objective truth
   Verifiability (V) - Speech is widely available 
   No original research (NOR) - Not a research

The arguments presented by another user that " It is just a speech " do not by itself in my personal opinion make it ineligible for getting a place on the article.

I would wait for some time for others to present their view on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loopzinc (talk • contribs) 17:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Tell me what purpose that quote serves apart from being a quote. That's why I pointed WP:CATALOGUE. Politicians give speeches and talk about stuff in the parliament all the time. We do not catalogue those in an Encyclopedia article, which Wikipedia is BTW. See Narendra Modi article for example. The person has delivered a lot of speeches in the parliament. The only reason a speech like that would have been useful if it was coupled to some bills or some major controversy the article subject is a part of. We do not add kadi ninda in articles. So such thing in Rajnath Singh's article either. It is not about neutrality or POV. It is simply unnecessary and WP:UNDUE - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

And please no need to regurgitate the note left by another user on my talk page. I pinged users who frequent Indian politics articles for opinions. It will save us time, instead of the two of us going to-and fro in it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You, are not interpreting the WP:UNDUE policy correctly, It pertains to the type of views which are held by a small minority and do not have a place on Wikipedia. Whereas the above excerpts are an objective truth. I have already argued the relevance of the speeches with respect to the personality of the person. The above excerpt expresses the viewpoint of Mahua Moitra. You are unnecessarily reverting my edits and are asking questions which you do not have the right to ask, neither do I. I would not block your additions to the article which are backed by verifiable sources. You are entitled to your ideas and ideology, but restricting my addition to the article is against the NPOV policy of Wikipedia

"And please no need to regurgitate the note left by another user on my talk page" - Sir, that is again an objective truth, Also you are loosing your cool, I am open to your viewpoint, but your tone has started to get offensive, lets be civil here and avoid words like "regurgitate". Thank you again for participating in this discourse which is getting recorded on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loopzinc (talk • contribs) 18:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Even by the standards of Indian politics, it seems a pretty striking statement. I would have thought, as a general position, that including a number of such statements is quite normal in a politician's bio, and where we do not do so it reflects a lack of research rather than anything else. But I think others can better judge whether this is due or not in an Indian context. Claiming it breaches WP:CATALOGUE is rather implausible. User:Fylindfotberserk, you need to ask yourself: if this article was being prepared for WP:FAC, would one expect to see this point in it? If the answer is yes (which I'd imagine it would be), then why exclude it now? Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not about NPOV, this is about WP:NOT. This Wikipedia page is not the subject's personal blog or her personal website. We do not catalogue speeches given in the parliament unless they are part of a major event, which makes it unnecessary. I can add a list of speeches given my Miss Moitra in this article. Wikipedia articles are not forums or blogs. You should not to be "accussing" another user of something, echoing a different user's almost exact comments (mentioning that indeffed user), it isn't a WP:CIVIL thing to do in the first place. Talk about I've opened a discussion at WP:INB as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Just copypsating part of a speech without much context in a BLP article is cataloguing in my opinion. I mean, we can add a list of such comments in every politician's article, but do we (in Manmohan Singh, Narendra Modi for example)?. As I said above, I can list a number of her speeches and statements that are more remarkable that this in the article. I've opened a discussion at WP:INB. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

(ec above) Please calm down, you are getting incoherent! I never said it was "about NPOV". One point does not make a "catalogue"! "I can add a list of speeches given my Miss Moitra in this article" - good, why don't you? Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC).

@Johnbod: In the above (edit conflict) 'NPOV' part, I wasn't referring to you. I do not see many Indian politician articles having quotes like these without context. I've provided a few examples of articles above. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think Fylindfotberserk is correct. There's no point in including random quotations without context, that's not just true for politicians, but in general. On top of that, Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say. If a reliable source reports and comments on a statement by a politician, that means it's probably relevant to include. It doesn't seem like that is the case here. Lennart97 (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, context and widely covered/reported by independent sources. A good example would be this section in the Rajnath Singh article, a quote (in cyan box) has been added since it triggered a controversy and the whole thing was part of a larger event. Mitra's speech at best can be added in the "controversy" section (as I've posted in my first post) since it caused a 'furore' and a privilege motion could be moved against her, but the remarks made by her has since been expunged. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Following is the wide coverage on this particular excerpt -

1. Hindustan Times

2. Scroll

3. The Hindu

Not every excerpt in parliament gets equally wide coverage and hence this excerpt qualifies to be in this article, I hope we are reaching a consensus here. I concede that the wide coverage it is getting would make it suitable for the Controversy section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loopzinc (talk • contribs) 08:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

References

• I don't think the speech itself violates WP:CATALOGUE. Speeches from representatives are often means of illustrating their political positions and any well developed articles should include them when they receive adequate coverage for it in reliable sources. In general, this article could undergo significant expansion in this respect. For example, see Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez which is another GA status article and a more equivalent comparison. Indian articles on non-executive representatives tend to be in rather poor states and this is one of the few which has the potential to become a well developed article. The presentation of the speech itself in the form quoted is awkward and without context, which would need to be fixed. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Loopzinc: That's what I was saying all along and most people here and at WP:INB agreed to that. A speech without a context has no place in the article, this particular one has no business in the "Career section" and it can only be added in the "Controversy" section since that was the outcome of the speech, an 'uproar' in the house with a privilege motion set against her. However note that the speech has been expunged [2], but it is being shared in the social media making it "kind of due". Just to let you know, @Vanamonde93 and Kautilya3: also have similar feelings about presenting the quote as is and without context [3], so I would like to invite them here. If we add it in the "controversy section", we can frame something like this:

Crticising the current government in the parliament on 8th February 2021, Moitra stated "The sacred cow that was the judiciary is no longer sacred, It stopped being sacred the day a sitting chief justice of this country was accused of sexual harassment, precided over his own trial, cleared himself and then proceeded to accept the nomination to the upper house within three months of retirement, replete with Z+ security cover". The speech was duly 'expunged' after it caused an uproar in the house with ministers and member of the ruling party calling it 'objectionable' and accusing Moitra of violating parliamentary rules. On 11 February 2021, BJP leaders Nishikant Dubey and PP Chowdhary moved a privilege notice against Moitra.

Even then, I'm not comfortable mentioning the quoted speech since it hasn't been covered as it is in the secondary sources and is only available as a video in social media. Not to mention it being expunged. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

References

@Fylindfotberserk: Following are the secondary sources for the particular excerpt I want to add -

1. The Quint

2. Scroll

3. Live Law

All the above sources specifically mention that particular part of the speech. Also I am inclined to adapt the suggestion by User:Tayi Arajakate, that this article can be formatted on the lines of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, which includes a specific section for political position. This excerpt is an opinion and a political position of Ms. Moitra on judiciary in India based on the facts which are already in public domain [[4]]

Also to make some edit to the addition suggested,

Crticising the judiciary and the current government in the parliament on 8th February 2021, Moitra stated "The sacred cow that was the judiciary is no longer sacred, It stopped being sacred the day a sitting chief justice of this country was accused of sexual harassment, precided over his own trial, cleared himself and then proceeded to accept the nomination to the upper house within three months of retirement, replete with Z+ security cover". The speech was duly 'expunged' after it caused an uproar in the house with ministers and member of the ruling party calling it 'objectionable' and accusing Moitra of violating parliamentary rules because it mentioned a person in "high authority" although the statement is based on facts which are matters of public record. On 11 February 2021, BJP leaders Nishikant Dubey and PP Chowdhary moved a privilege notice against Moitra.

References

@Loopzinc: Nice. So we'll use these secondary sources following the quote. As for the things you appended, the text → although the statement is based on facts which are matters of public record, which reads like a commentary (editorializing), needs to be reworded since the sources do not explicitly write it like that. Words like "although, however, furthermore, etc" should be avoided as per MOS:EDITORIAL. As for the content, I'm OK with it being included in the "Controversy section" with these corrections to the green text above. I agree that a section on her "Political positions" can be expanded as well in the future, however we should add more context and substance, history, etc, alongwith the quote more inline with this, and possibly without the part about the repercussions. In any case, we have to highlight it in the 'controversy section' as well especially since a motion is being moved against her and it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: You have valid point with respect to MOS:EDITORIAL. The whole idea is provide the context to the excerpts, and why it was opposed by the treasury benches and why they were supported by the opposition. I propose a reformulation of the above edit,

Crticising the judiciary and the current government in the parliament on 8th February 2021, Moitra stated "The sacred cow that was the judiciary is no longer sacred, It stopped being sacred the day a sitting chief justice of this country was accused of sexual harassment, precided over his own trial, cleared himself and then proceeded to accept the nomination to the upper house within three months of retirement, replete with Z+ security cover". The speech caused an uproar in the house with member of the ruling party calling it 'objectionable' and violating parliamentary rules because it mentioned a person in "high authority". Member of opposition supported the speech as it was based on facts which are matters of public record. The remarks were finally expunged from the records. On 11 February 2021, BJP leaders Nishikant Dubey and PP Chowdhary moved a privilege notice against Moitra.

References

If we have consensus on this edit, I will edit the main page tomorrow.

@Loopzinc: It is fine by me. Lets wait for a day or two, if somebody wishes to add/improve on this. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Loopzinc: Hi, thanks for adding that. I have filled the references and have replaced this source with the Quint source which had the exact quote mentioned. I hope it is fine. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: The Quint source is more appropriate, thanks for updating the references Loopzinc (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Loopzinc: You're welcome. This time you pinged me right (I mean I got a notification). Looks like you need a proper welcoming . See your talk page . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Smt. Mahua Moitra official portrait, 2019.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Scandanavian residence

It is a bit strange to say that someone has lived in Scandanavia instead of naming the countries where they lived. Scandanavia is a geographical region. If she has lived in multiple Scandanavian countries, the names of the countries should be specified. It is like instead of saying that someone has lived in Spain and Portugal, we say that person has lived in Iberia, or instead of saying someone has lived in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, we say that person has lived in the Deccan plateau. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.92.6 (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)