Talk:Tehelka

POV

lot of content is clearly POV. Please wikify and remove POV with facts.

I removed a lot of wholesale deletions from the article and irrelevant information, such as the alleged political affiliation of the father of the editor of the magazine. I will be wikifying the article, removing POV and inserting facts. Ashankar (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Indian numbering system

This article uses the indian numbering system, talking about crores and lakhs. Is there any rule on wikipedia about numbering? Shouldn't these numbers be replaced by standard numbering, even if it is India related? --Pinin (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Jain testimony on Armoured Recovery Vehicles

The Tehelka-Jain dialogue gives some key issues at the heart of the Operation West End sting operation. It is informative of the nature of the sting operations Tehelka was doing. Pls discuss before removing. mukerjee (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

What is disputed? if nothing is than the tag should be removed.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Tejpal's crime

I've been doing up this article and I don't think Tejpal's crime deserves another section in this article under "controversies", I've merged it with the "History" section instead. We can't go into excessive details as per WP:BLPCRIME and moreover it's too early to judge how badly it affect Tehelka as a whole. It's best that we wait till things get more clear. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Since this a major issue, creating a separate section would be correct. Do agree, we need to maintain balance and just keep to factual reports Prodigyhk (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It's too early to do that yet. There has been sudden global coverage but it has been still kept to the minimal, again WP:NOTNEWS. Things which suddenly get notability, lose it just as fast (WP:RECENT). Adding another "controversy" section seems very crude, since it hardly counts as a criticism or as an editorial controversy for Tehelka as a whole. If anything, as the details develop it more likely goes to his individual article (have to be strict there too because of BLP issues) than here, going by the way the case is going. Anyway, all we can do is be cautious and wait. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue is also about the company, since they had not followed the right legal procedures to handle this matter. So, this issue would be included within the company. In any case, since you are working on this article, shall respect your request. Prodigyhk (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess you're right on that part. After all this media attention dies down, it would be worth checking for sources especially on whether the legal procedures were followed. If you do find something at that time before I do, please feel free to add it. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Section "Corporate Details"

Ugog Nizdast Notice that you have remove this entire section [1]. The details provided in this sections are the basic data as reported from the company records. There is no "sensationalizing" as claimed by you. Since, this article is about a company, including details of its ownership, management, revenue and profitability is acceptable. If you have any specific issue on this section, please raise in the talk page Prodigyhk (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This edit, no I didn't remove the section, I said that I converted the list to prose, to mean what the report was saying and gave it WP:DUE weight in the last para of the "History" section. In any case, the rest of the minute details about each shareholders percentage is rarely relevant in any article like this. I meant "sensationalising" for the media report which was cited, which usually happens when there is huge temporary media attention on any controversial subject (WP:RECENT). -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Have some patience, as per WP:BRD you don't revert till the discussion gets over. I'm waiting for your side of the argument and won't revert till then. This isn't even a contentious case, ask any experienced editor or look at any good articles, and you will see that much lists and details are not included. I even summarised what you added into statements, I didn't remove your content. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Corporate Information are important to be included in all articles about companies. Since these boring numbers it is best to just lay it out clear. We will create unintended errors/bias when rewritten in prose format. Shall in any case, rework based on your input on improvement. Since you do not find it a contentious case, do I take it that you agree we keep this section ? Prodigyhk (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Look, the only case where corporate details are to be included in such a format are probably for large national/multinational companies. That's a place where shareholder details are clearly important. In this case, there are various reports immediately after his controversy, linking his company to another subsidiary company whose major holder is another big conglomerate which was investigated by some fraud; my point is, such reports bound to come up just because of this temporary attention. It's corporate details are not relevant for any other reason...check with any good quality news agency article here, they don't mention it.

This is clearly not a widely discussed issue, at least not enough to include all these minor details. Since I observed it being discussed to some extent in multiple sources, I've summarised what it was trying to say into that last para and that's more than enough focus we can give this idea. Do you agree? I assume you've read my summary of it when I merged the lists. Tell me if I've left out anything. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

A separate section is required, as it is important corporate details. Not correct to push it as a small note withing the history section. The section as you may have noticed is written with minimum bias and just as a report on financial data. So, when you ask to remove data that you think is minor, we will be seen as censoring and adding bias. Let us present the data and allow the readers to decide.Prodigyhk (talk) 07:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

How is condensing a list of details, which I've provided ample reasons and guidelines for not including here, into a statement biased? You need to provided a reasons what makes this case exceptional for it to be added, only then it warrants another section. In fact, ironically, presenting all this data, which is irrelevant for this article, will make it seem to the reader that the content is hinting at something; for this reason I specified clearly why it is of interest. If you want I'll ask another experienced editor for a third opinion. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about a company and it is relevant to include details about its corporate structure, ownership and revenue. There is no attempt to "hint" anything here. To maintain fairness, had also included Sibal's denial that he is a shareholder. If you have any specific names of owners you want removed from this section, please provide reason why you find that owner's name is irrelevant to this article. We can raise this issue on Wikipedia_talk:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics and request for other editors to join in this discussion. Prodigyhk (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I've indicated in my edit what all was not relevant and explained in all my above walls of text. It was not my intention to indicate that you purposefully tried to make the content "hint" at something but rather presenting it in such a way makes it so. Anyway, I've posted at the noticeboard here. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion

Having looked at the previous detailed section, I tend to agree that its detail is excessive for an article of this type, and that a summary is better. Wikipedia is not meant to be an exhaustive listing of minute details, but rather a tertiary source summary giving an overview to the reader. We could, of course, use as a reference or link an annual report or the like, which would provide that detail for readers interested in drilling down. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your time, now we can go ahead. Besides, after I gave it some days, I've come up with plans for expanding it further. I think the financial details had an obvious solution and the real content dispute was on whether another section was required, which I now think is clear. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Seraphimblade The "minute details" are shown under "held by family and friends of Tejpal". The details presented are of the main players in the company, including the former editor Shoma Choudhary. Prodigyhk (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section

As we discussed in the first topic, I've given it time for the media attention to die down and I think I have now enough material to make a valid criticism section. The main thing was to separate the actual relevant content from the media sensationalising, I did that by mainly relying on reliable international news agencies—that clearly indicates whether the viewpoints are notable enough. The section will mention its political criticism, corporate bias and the main Tejpal controversy along with this and other following reports. I shall make the new section and re-do the lead (again)...besides all the minor work which I have left pending. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Prostitutes

Have included a sub-section detailing the prostitutes used in the sting. It is a notable detail, as this was its unique methods for news collection. If any concerns, raise it here for discussions.Prodigyhk (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Restored the WP:STATUSQUO version. First let me make it clear that I do not object general expansion about this. What I do object is the WP:UNDUE weight given to it, by:

• Mentioning it in the lead.
• Giving a block quote focusing on what Samuel said ("he himself had to address..."). Note the per Manual of Style/Block quotes, only long quotations (more than 40 words) are put in such block quotations.
• Focussing on details such as "condoms been provided", "...not made any request for this service and was upset with this" and "filmed them having sex"; this all needs to be trimmed. I think a separate sub-section called "Hiring of prostitutes" isn't needed, this would be just three-four sentences, making it too small to deserve a separate section. It could well go to "Effects" which could do with more text.

I will gladly let you proceed with the expansion once we address these issues. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Ugog Note

* Detailing the use of prostitutes by journalists is not WP:Undue. This was the only media organization that had done this.

* A separate sub-section is important since this part of the investigation was discussed as much as the corruption scandal.

* A summary of all important items in the body, requires to be included in the lead.

* Samuel quote is important as he was the lead reporter in this case and the present Managing Editor

* "condoms been provided" - this is not details. IT just explains the level of service provided by the journalists.

* "...not made any request for this service and was upset with this" - That one of the officials did not require this service and was yet provided the same by the reporters need to be included to be fair to the defense official concerned.

* "filmed them having sex"; this need to stay, since this is what the reporter did.

If you have no other concerns, gladly do include back the contents you have removed. Prodigyhk (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• I didn't say use of prostitutes is undue weight (I'm okay with mentioning it), I said the amount of details given to it is. I find it UNDUE because compare the length given to it: a subsection of at least ten-twelve lines, why this is even more than the para explaining the modus operandi of the sting operation and the later effects. One of the sources goes into details like x number of people can be seen, one moves out-of a camera, a call girl can be seen, one indicated that he wasn't comfortable, they filmed them, gave condoms, etc etc; WP:NOTNEWS, we don't go into such details as the news sources do.
• I find that "Also, the transcripts..could have well succeeded.." seems to be only backed by Frontline. This statement is a REDFLAG if no other sources can support it we cannot state it in the pedia's voice as though it's a fact. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, so if we are to put it, we state "According to Frontline, ...".
• This is about making compromises, and okay, you've convinced me about the lead mention and the remaining. I done that and restored part of what you added with the refs that support it. However, regarding the remaining points and the above first one, we both disagree. If you're still inclined to add the remaining content, we probably have to go for some form of dispute resolution or get a fresh pair of eyes to look at it. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism for focusing on the BJP

Alright, long story short, this part was added by me around a year ago because I felt that, from what all else I added, there was nothing negative in it for NPOV's sake. I was inexperienced at that time and I may have overlooked things, that's what I thought when Vanamonde removed it. After seeing that AmritasyaPutra agreed with it being kept, looks like we have to dig deeper to see which one of you is right. On a positive note, I'm happy that both of you are here to spot check this article. Let's begin, since I've added it I don't feel like doing anything, AmritasyaPutra, would you check the sources given and see if it backs it up? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I had checked the sources and they back it up. The wording can be improved a little. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Original research

There are four sources in the criticism paragraph that discuss political bias. One of them mentions taking the side of the Congress; not a single one mentions targeting the BJP. Until such a source is found, the sentences saying so are original research, and should be removed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be good if you merge this in previous section, this is the same topic. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

So continuing from above section and this, we have to just reword it from "targeting the BJP" to "siding the Congress"? Anything else? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, if we have consensus for that, that is what I had done; I left the statements about supporting the Congress untouched. See the diff. The only other removal I made was of "agenda driven journalism and taking sides" which is very weaselly; whose agenda? what sides? who is making the criticism? Ugog Nizdast; apologies, I had not noticed the earlier section (for whatever reason; I think I had this page open long before I commented) which is why I opened a new section. I did not mean to sound pointy. Since AP is claiming that the sources do support the content, I would have him find a quote where targeting the BJP is specifically mentioned. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. Regarding the weasel wording, it maybe permitted in rare instances where the sources itself make the statement and if we're sure it's a notable viewpoint. WP:WTW emphasises that there are exceptions for their usage. I'm not sure about it in this case now but before I make any move I want to see what AP has to say. Same with the "taking sides and agenda driven" part; so only these two remain to be sorted out. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I've did some further digging into the other sources used for the C-section and now I remember what exactly happened. It turns out both of you were right (in a way). Other than misplacing the inline cites here and there, I think these are the sources which made me write that statement. No doubt, if we are to add it again, it has to be reworded and properly supported. Here are the refs and quoted accordingly:

• "The case has taken on strong political overtones...the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party."
• "But critics accused it...accused it of openly taking sides"
• "The jury is...a frequent target of its probes"

Busy right now, I'll continue later. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks, friend. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: I conclude that "agenda-driven, openly taking sides" and "siding with the Congress party" all mean pretty much the same thing. It will be shortened. Same goes for the BJP link, in addition there's no explicit mention that it was criticised for only targeting them. The BJP did protest against it during the 2013 incident and that's mentioned here. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tehelka. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131203231852/http://photogallery.indiatimes.com:80/news/india/shoma-chaudhury-of-tehelka-magazine-resigns/articleshow/26513941.cms to http://photogallery.indiatimes.com/news/india/shoma-chaudhury-of-tehelka-magazine-resigns/articleshow/26513941.cms
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131014172605/http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/tehelka-sting-how-bangaru-laxman-fell-for-the-trap/1/186303.html)Firstpost to http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/tehelka-sting-how-bangaru-laxman-fell-for-the-trap/1/186303.html)Firstpost

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)