Talk:Yogesh Chander Deveshwar

Have deleted `Succession at ITC’ section and added relevant content with proper cross references in Career section of Y C Deveshwar’s profile.

==I smell corporate vanity== Kabir p (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Have deleted `Succession at ITC’ section and added relevant content with proper cross references in Career section of Y C Deveshwar’s profile. The reasons being that it is not relevant to a Biography of a Living Person and there seems to be a mala-fide attempt at showing the individual in poor light. This is evident from the following:

"Succession at ITC" was termed that way because previous editors objected to "controversy". The section heading may not be apt.It has been changed. The content is relevant because it directly pertains to the individual concerned.Kabir p (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

1. The section inserted is judgmental and has no relevance in a biography page. ITC is a Board-goverened company and all Board appointments are decided upon and approved by the Nominations Committee of the Board. [1]]. No single individual can decide on succession and therefore it is not correct to make it seem the prerogative of the current incumbent.

The section was referenced from a respected Business Magazine. It is not judgemental.It mentions key facts that have been removed and replaced by a corporate PR piece. Besides,the individual concerned appears to head the committee you mentioned. Surely, he must have some say in the matter? Kabir p (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 2. In the `Succession at ITC’ section, user Kabir p makes selective references to articles and interviews, creating an impression which is neither factual nor relevant in a BLP:

If the references were indeed selective, then should they have been completely removed by you? Insert other articles to suport your argument in that case.Kabir p (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Kabir p states: “In an interview with CNBC TV 18, Deveshwar when questioned about succession said that it was acceptable for 80 year olds to run conglomerates implying that he would like to stay for another 17 years as Chairman of ITC.”

This is a non-neutral inference from the interview with “judgmental language” as defined in NPOV guidelines for BLP. It attempts to mislead readers. Actual quote in the interview says:

“This is something that I do not decide myself. We have a board; we have a nominations committee. So we will see; we will see the readiness. We will see whether I am still fit and healthy, whether the state of the company is such that it still requires me…

``You never ask people, people who (are) running hotels business at the age of above 80 years. There are people who are running conglomerates at the age of near 75 years.” [2]

Happy to insert the entire quote.Please go ahead. Even so, he comes across as combative(in response to a genuine question) and implies that he would like to continue till 80.Kabir p (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

From the above quotes from the interview, it is evident what Deveshwar said was that the Nominations Committee of the Board will decide on the matter after taking into account various aspects of the matter.

Thus, the comment by Kabir p, “he would like to stay for another 17 years as Chairman of ITC”, is a judgemental non-neutral inference.

Not judgemental.Subtracting 80 from current age as mentioned in article.Kabir p (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

In another instance, Kabir p states:

“In the same interview, he compared himself to the Prime Minister of India-Dr Manmohan Singh,” which is inaccurate and misleading.

The actual reference to the PM in the CNBC TV 18 interview goes like this: ``Our country is being run by (a) very vital Prime Minister. If you stand with him, he walks so briskly—there is glow on his face. So age is just a biological age—it’s a number.’’

Again this is a wrong inference from an interview with “judgmental language” as defined in NPOV guidelines for BLP. The author suspects that Deveshwar claimed to be on par with the PM which is mischievous and misleading. Points to malicious intention.

The actual reference as mentioned above is accurate. What this fails to mention is that it was part of the same reply on succession.Followed from the piece on "You never ask 80 year old people".Clearly it was a comparison. How this points to malicious intention, I cannot fathom.Kabir p (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

3.User Kabir p deliberately ignores new widely published material which could have given a balanced perspective on the issue [3][4]

This was an appointment in 2010. How does that change facts mentioned before?Kabir p (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

4. Kabir p has no previous editing history in wikipedia and is only focussing on vandalising one BLP page [5]

I did not want other contributions vandalised.

It is you with no previous editing history. You cannot reference articles properly and even after you finish "referencing articles", the references don't show. Please study the "Getting started" page more carefully.

Also, why always post from a DynamicIP or a static IP if you have a long history of wiki contribution?Kabir p (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Such repeated non-neutral intrusions and motivated statements not only violate the WP policy, but also tend to be defamatory, which WP actively discourages, and therefore should be barred.

WP discourages 'corporate vanity' which you are repeatedly indulging in.You seem to have taken great care to remove any hint of criticism.Kabir p (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Dynamicip (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Undid malicious edits from Dynamicip of a well referenced piece-reference from Forbes no less

Kabir p (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

POV-check

This controverted material seems to have the germ of something notable that should be included in the article, but I leave that judgment to other editors. THF (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Succession controversy

I looked through the Forbes article, and most of the basic facts—his salary tripling others', the lack of board appointments—check out to the story. However, the wording of the section is non-neutral: terms like subverted and controversy are the creation of a Wikipedia editor; Forbes doesn't describe the situation as such.

While it may be appropriate to discuss his plans to continue at the helm of ITC, I think it's a violation of WP:NPOV to term anything about it a controversy, based on the sources presented.

I encourage all editors with an opinion on how to properly cover the facts of the matter in the article to discuss it here. However, since this is a biography of a living person, I think we need to not have the most recent version in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Article has been modified. However, I notice that many of the other sections are improperly referenced. Shouldn't they go too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabir p (talk • contribs) 09:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yogesh Chander Deveshwar. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20071220190358/http://www.itcportal.com/newsroom/press_releases_02nov06.htm to http://www.itcportal.com/newsroom/press_releases_02nov06.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)