Talk:Praful Bidwai

Copied/Continued from user talk pages

From WP:BLP:

Strongly negative content can be added if it is relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one.; ...insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on guilt by association.

Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used...

Please explain how your link to these various obscure critics and random opinion sources satisfy the above. Unless you do, I will be forced to remove them.

If this is central to this individual's notability, you should be able to find "a multitude of reliable third-party references." Note that this would not be necessary if the accusations were less serious. Hornplease 06:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Lemme elaborate. I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. I'm just sayin' that Rosser and Bhatnagar are hardly "random people". Rosser is a notable academic in such areas (politics I guess) and Bhatnagar is a notable personality (as the chief editor of a important periodical). Dunno much abt this Sundaram chappie so a removal of his opinion might be in order. What do you think? Birdsmight 07:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Rosser does not quite count as notable on her own steam; this has been discussed on WP before; the reference you provide is to a polemical website, which is not permissible per policy; and the sole reference to Bidwai is that he is one of the people who writes for a media distribution organisation that Rosser says also sent out anti-IDRF literature. Nowhere near good enough, on those several grounds.

I confess I had not heard of Bhatnagar's periodical; a closer look at it suggests that it is an online periodical; in addition, I looked through a few articles and I find it hard to classify as anything but a 'partisan website'. Finally, it merely mentions Bidwai in passing as one of a group of people who used the term 'genocide' for Gujarat. I really don't think that that counts as 'spreading misinformation' rather than holding a disputable opinion about the scale and nature of the events.

Sourcing criticism of Bidwai that meets wp:blp should not be difficult; surely someone in outlook or india today has criticised him.

Finally, if you have doubts about any of this, please seek another opinion on the BLP noticeboard. Hornplease 08:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A second look at Bhatnagar's website reminds me: wp:blp, as I quote above, says 'material used in self-published website should never be used'. Bhatnagar's website counts as such. Hornplease 08:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Does "partisan" necessarily mean unreliable as far as Rosser is concerned? I don't see anything in BLP that bans her opinions from the Bidwal page, particularly given the fact that the material is a reproduction of documentation from the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The University of Texas at Austin (and so has some academic standing). As far as the Michael Moore comparison and your "polemical==inadmissible claim", websites like http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/ are, by construction, polemical. Yet it is referenced as a criticism of Moore.

Partisan groups are routinely quoted as criticisms of people, for instance,Bernard Goldberg's criticism of Michael Moore in Michael_Moore_controversies#Criticisms_by_conservative_authors (Fox News would certainly count as "partisan" in that case).What about this [1]? Partisan? Perhaps. But certainly notable given that they are the one Bidwai targets for his attacks on Hindus. These are the best quotable criticisms of Bidwai, and some criticism obviously belongs in his page, given his inherently inflammatory remarks against Hindus. Birdsmight 08:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use the word 'ban'. I don't want to ban anything, but wp policy enjoins on all of us to determine what meets the bar for inclusion.

Rosser's discussion is on a website called letindiadevelop.com. This is a fairly clear partisan website. Also, as I said, the reference to Bidwai is that he write for SACW, nothing else. This does not meet the bar.

(You raise an interesting point about Fox. Fox News may be partisan, but it doesnt quite qualify as a 'partisan website'. crooksandliars.com or its equivalent on the right might. Fox News is a large news corporation with editorial oversight.)

Partisan groups can be quoted, if their opinions are reported in multiple reliable sources. So if several reliable sources say "Bidwai is an ass, or at least the BJP say so", please include it.

Goldberg wrote a highly notable book that, IIRC, topped the NYT bestseller list. This is automatically notable. (Sadly, that means even Ann Coulter and Moore are notable.)

michaelmoorehatesamerica.com is the website of a notable film.

Finally, please note that if you find somethinig else that is a violation of policy, that is not a justification. In fact, you should remove that :).

Very simply, the onus is on you to find major criticisms that tackle him by name and directly, and are in multiple reliable sources. If Bidwai can get published in RS, then surely his critics can. Hornplease 09:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the issue is a bit more complicated than literal adherence to wp policies. the issues here are as follows:

1. Bidwai has made some heavily incendiary remarks against Hindus, targeted at Hindus in a broad sense, that have encouraged violence against Hindus and encouraged discrimination against Hindus. These remarks border on hate speech. That much is clear
2. Those remarks have provoked a response from certain parties who have been bold enough not to be intimidated by Marxist threats and intimidation tactics
3. For the sake of balance in the article, those responses need to be stated on the grounds of quotability and notability. Since Rosser has academic qualifications her criticism is certainly notable enough for mention.
4. Rosser does not make ad-hominem attacks against Bidwai, so libel issues don't apply. She is not defaming him, merely criticizing his position.We can talk about Bhatnagar separately (he is, in fact,a prolific contributor to multiple periodicals, and heads io, which is more than an "online publication").Birdsmight 09:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
5. wrt your statement "If Bidwai can get published in RS, then surely his critics can". In an ersatz-democracy like India, that is not the case. Birdsmight 09:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
6. As far as Bhatnagar is concerned. He had a discussion with Bidwai "I accosted Praful Bidwai also who had implied that all the alleged social and economic disasters in India are because of Hindutva and Hindu BJP-led governments. He first tried to evade, run away and ignore but, when squarely confronted, admitted that he did not blame BJP for all the ills, the Congress party was also guilty." so that interaction makes it notable (it's certainly not inherently disparaging to the man so there is no libel here). Perhaps it needs to be reworded a bit, but certainly not removed.Birdsmight 09:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Taking your points one by one:

1. Bidwai has made some heavily incendiary remarks against Hindus, targeted at Hindus in a broad sense, that have encouraged violence against Hindus and encouraged discrimination against Hindus. These remarks border on hate speech. That much is clear

Possibly, but you'd have to source that.

1. Those remarks have provoked a response from certain parties who have been bold enough not to be intimidated by Marxist threats and intimidation tactics

Right. But those responses would have to be reported on in reliable sources.

1. For the sake of balance in the article, those responses need to be stated on the grounds of quotability and notability. Since Rosser has academic qualifications her criticism is certainly notable enough for mention.

We are not interested in balance per se, which could be subjective. We are interested in the balance of reliable sources.

Several individuals have academic qualifications. That does not make them automatic experts on everything. If Rosser was a tenured academic in South Asian Political Science, or if she was writing in a peer-reviewed journal, then her words would be given due weight.

1. Rosser does not make ad-hominem attacks against Bidwai, so libel issues don't apply. She is not defaming him, merely criticizing his position.We can talk about Bhatnagar separately (he is, in fact,a prolific contributor to multiple periodicals, and heads io, which is more than an "online publication").Birdsmight 09:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter if you feel that the attacks are not ad hominem. The problem is that they are not in a reliable source. They are in a partisan website. Simply put, that is not allowable in this biography. There's no way around it.

I don't see this Bhatnagar website as anything but a self-published website, and a partisan one at that.

1. wrt your statement "If Bidwai can get published in RS, then surely his critics can". In an ersatz-democracy like India, that is not the case.

Unfortunately we on wikipedia can't do anything about that. There are multiple reliable sources outside India to choose from as well, even if you believe that India does not have a free press.

I'm sorry, but I think that your case has not been made. If you are concerned, take it to the BLP noticeboard. Hornplease 09:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the content of this, it is not sufficiently well sourced, and must go. WP:BLP is not negotiable. Hornplease 09:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP is not being violated here as there is no defamation of character. Birdsmight 09:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid then that we are at an impasse, since I maintain that Rosser does not violate BLP, although Sundaram and Bhatnagar might. There are two options. Noticeboard or mediation. Which do you want to do first? I do not think I am under any obligation to "make my case" to you as such, only to an accredited wikipedia committee, with whom I am prepared to argue my case.Birdsmight 10:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You say:BLP is not being violated here as there is no defamation of character..

No. BLP is a policy applying to all articles. We do not judge if there is defamation. The policy applies to all articles, whether or not you or I think that defamation is occurring. I have pointed out to you above the multiple way in which your sources violate BLP, regardless of whether you think they are defamatory or not. I must ask you to remove them now, pending finding alternatives. Hornplease 09:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Rosser does not violate BLP. can you explain how letindiadevelop.com is a reliable source? Hornplease 10:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As per this discussion, I am removing the contentious sentences. Please search for alternatives. Hornplease 11:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Exclusively targeting BJP?

Someone put this:- "He is also accused by some of exclusively blaming the BJP, a right-wing political party, for economic issues that are also the responsibility of other parties, and of whitewashing the activities of NGOs in certain sectors."

In this article, Bidwai criticizes CPI(M), a Marxist political party, for violence in Nandigram. Incidentally, Bidwai is understood to be a Marxist himself. Moreover, there was no reference. So I am removing this. -- Panchhee 11:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

political views

reg. this revert, the description of the International Peace Bureau as a "leftist group" is unsourced. the description of Bidwai's activism as leaning "heavily towards Marxism" is unsupported by the Newstoday article cited. The other source cited, a passing mention in an appendix, about a list-server discussion, of a report by a partisan group is not a reliable source for making contentious statements about a living person.Doldrums 06:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed some libelous stuff from unreliable sources

[2] Please discuss here before adding them back. Haigee2007 (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you please explain why this is not a reliable source? Lagrange613 (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I reverted Haigee2007's obviously bad faith removals. The sources are all fairly reliable and from mainstream outlets. There is an active discussion in the Indian media of Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai's associations with anti-Indian activists like Bidwai and numerous other, and so it bears mentioning in this article as well.14.139.223.67 (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Praful Bidwai. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040225220148/http://www.ipb.org/fotos/macbride_bidwai-vanaik.htm to http://www.ipb.org/fotos/macbride_bidwai-vanaik.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061025111207/http://ipsnews.net/new_focus/praful/ to http://ipsnews.net/new_focus/praful/

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) 06:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)