Talk:Pegasus Project revelations in India
Latest comment: 2 years ago by 14.139.114.213 in topic List of traget section shall be deleted
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pegasus Project revelations in India article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Regarding removal of the entire page
editAll the claims are backed up by sources. Why was the entire page deleted? The only comment left was the page is full of political rambling. This maybe the case but please form consensus and fix the issue. Deleting the page is not warranted. --ShellPandey (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- @ShellPandey: Just because you have a source does not mean it requires inclusion. See WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAP and also WP:STONEWALLING. Do you have any argument against the fact that most of the article includes nothing but "political rambling"? If not then you should revert yourself. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
If there is infact a NPOV issue, which is what the original comment had an issue with, please point out the changes to be made (or even better make them yourself).
All the information is factual, and has plenty of sources. I do not believe that WP:UNDUE applies here because if the allegations are true, then the implications would be widespread. Even if they are not, the discussion of allegations is large enough to be documented in my opinion.
However, if you still feel this is not something that must be documented, go ahead and do what you must.
--ShellPandey (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, WP:SOAP doesn't apply hear since this is neither propoganda, nod opinion. No citation can be claimed to be an opinion piece. Nor is it self promotion, nor is it advertising. I'm not sure how that would apply here. ShellPandey (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Seems like you intentionally omitted the part of WP:SOAP which say "Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." I can see why you omitted it because this article is entirely all about it. --Yoonadue (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- How exactly does scandal mongering and promoting things that are "heard through the grapevine" apply here. The entire article is corroborated with multiple journalistic citations. This article isn't exactly about living people, but of a political scandal and it's investigation. I am not sure if you are referring to BLP, but BLP does not apply here because the Pegasus Scandal isn't a living person. If you have more to add, I am all ears! PS: I did not omit SOAP, there is a comment where I make my justification on that point 3 days before the last comment of yours. I mentioned the same point there! --ShellPandey (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
List of traget section shall be deleted
editList of targets section shall be deleted as the alleged targeting is not yet proved. 14.139.114.213 (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)