Jump to content

Talk:Rajiv Dixit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request changes on 15th-June '13: Criticisms

[edit]

No criticism found against him in the net.

Dis/Misinformation in lede

[edit]

Apologies if I'm overlooking something, but having the content about his spreading dis/misinformation in the lede is the one major area of dispute from the discussions above that remains unresolved. I've been waiting for Abecedare to return, but I think we've waited long enough.

[1] "The sources don't appear reliable for the specific information. The content appears to present a minority viewpoint deserving little or no coverage. The information should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice without better sources. The information does not belong in the lede without both better sources and broader coverage."

Basically, I agree with all of Abecedare's concerns, and I don't believe they've been addressed very thoroughly nor in a way that demonstrates consensus for inclusion. --Hipal (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AllanNonymous where is sourece for the above content. If no source present then we have to remove this content. Thank you Aditya Bijarniya (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was also noted for spreading disinformation.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Dwivedi, Avinash (30 November 2017). "राजीव दीक्षित (पार्ट-2): जिसने भारत में शुरू किया फेक न्यूज और पोस्ट ट्रुथ का दौर". Firstpost (in Hindi). Archived from the original on 7 June 2019.
  2. ^ "रामदेव के साथ काम करने वाले राजीव दीक्षित, जिनकी मौत को लोग रहस्यमय मानते हैं". LallanTop - News with most viral and Social Sharing Indian content on the web in Hindi. 2017-06-18. Archived from the original on 2017-08-18. Retrieved 2024-07-15.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
That is the content in dispute. --Hipal (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating your refuted point of views will not help you. Rajiv Dixit was noted for spreading disinformation, was a conspiracy theorist. This is a permanent fact. If you are really serious about sourcing then take it to WP:RSN because here you are the only person who is unnecessarily disputing the quality of these reliable sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be sourced, I canot verfiy how good those soruces are so that is a question for wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for these soruces to be raised at RSN. Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RSN discussion. After looking closer, I think both should be considered unreliable. Anyone know why LallanTop is duplicated? --Hipal (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and trimmed it down given the discussion at RSN. --Hipal (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSN discussion saw 3 editors,[2] which includes you, Ratnahastin (who entirely disagreed with you) and Slatersteven (who only suggested specific focus on the reliability of sources). Nobody would consider it as consensus for your mass removal. I have removed the unnecessary tags since you are still alone with calling these reliable sources unreliable. Orientls (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RSN was tried and there's no consensus that they are reliable. Work to create consensus, or leave it to others.
At RSN I noted that the LallanTop piece didn't verify much of the information. I'll elaborate more: I don't see how it verifies anything of "He was also noted for spreading disinformation."
At RSN I pointed out the previous RSN discussion about FirstPost, so let's not misrepresent what level of consensus there is against it's use. --Hipal (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you must read WP:1AM given you are the only user opposing sourced content about this fake news peddler.
Secondly, I had already provided you the translations of the text to show how it verified the cited information. You replied: "Verification is not the issue."[3] You don't have to create excuses for removing the sourced content. Capitals00 (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verification is an issue. Can anyone explain how it verifies the information?
Consensus is not a vote. If you're unable to work cooperatively with others and assume good faith, best to leave this dispute to those who can. --Hipal (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same can be said of you, you are right, there is no consensus as to the status of these sources, but it is long-standing content (as far as I can tell) thus the WP:ONUS is on you to get support for your edit, I do not see that. Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically Hipal is correct they fail, verification, as they do not say disinformation, rather they say false claim, so let's change it to that. Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for handling the verification problem.
From what I understand of Abecedare's original cleanup efforts, it's long-disputed, long-edit-warred content. Consensus is based upon policy. We don't appear to have much adherence to policy here when we have to clean up verification problems months after the problems were identified, and to be done by a new editor after the ones arguing against change fail to address it. --Hipal (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was not dealt with by a new editor, it was identified by a new editor and fixed when it was pointed out, the rest distracted from that. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point remains: Adherence to policy seems secondary to keeping the content unchanged. --Hipal (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be time for others to chip in, as I am in danger of bludgeoning, note that untill I say yes assume I am saying no. Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to find when "disinformation" was first added: It looks recent[4], but this alludes to a previous edit. I'm not finding any earlier addition. Note that the addition was made after a revert to a stable version.[5] --Hipal (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related: Refs readded with related content, refs removedref added with related contentref added with related content --Hipal (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See version before this all dispute started.[6] That version said Rajiv Dixit is a "conspiracy theorist". Unless you restore that version, you should not be selectively creating your own version.
You are alone with disputing these reliable sources even after discussing for over 1 month. You should avoid tagbombing this article. Capitals00 (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The disputes have been going on for years. Abecedare did an excellent job of cleaning up the article. I reviewed all of Abecedare's changes, discussed a few areas of concern, and now am addressing the one main area of dispute that Abecedare put aside for later. To suggest we throw out all that work at this point is grossly inappropriate. Sanctions apply.
You are misrepresenting the dispute over the two sources. Please stop.
"Tagbombing" indicates assumptions of bad faith. Please retract. --Hipal (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some edits indicating stable versions:
Note the disputed information is in none of these versions. --Hipal (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you totally omitted the versions throughout 2018 - 2023 and very selectively presented the versions from 2024? Ratnahastin (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the entire article history for edits indicating stable versions. If I missed any, please identify them. --Hipal (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the April 10 revert to the list above, which reverted to the March 5 version, and identified the editors for all the reverts after February 18. --Hipal (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Location in the lede

[edit]

Why does anyone think "He was also noted for spreading false claims" belongs in the first sentenceparagraph of the lede? --Hipal (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "paragraph": --Hipal (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It belongs in the lead and on the first paragraph because Rajiv Dixit was noted for spreading disinformation, and was a conspiracy theorist. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to two poor sources. The first paragraph should only include information verified by a majority of the very best sources. Otherwise it is a POV violation. --Hipal (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not poor sources but reliable sources stating the facts. What you are doing is called WP:DE. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't care what the majority of the very best sources say? Or you don't agree that they demonstrate stronger weight? --Hipal (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources say he never spread disinformation? If you don't have those then you don't need to dispute that he is noted for spreading disinformation and was a conspiracy theorist. Ratnahastin (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources say he never spread disinformation? Irrelevant, and I don't believe anyone has suggested that.
You didn't answer my questions. Please do so. --Hipal (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are simply wasting people's time by pushing your views that have zero basis. Capitals00 (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[7] --Hipal (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As editors are unable to answer basic questions about giving proper weight in the lede, we certainly have POV problems. Please stop removing the tags indicating so, or we could just remove the disputed content while we work to form a clear consensus. --Hipal (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POINT. Maintenance tags cannot be misused. Capitals00 (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't address the content policy concerns. It appears you're dismissing content policy as unimportant. --Hipal (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have no valid concerns. Just calling reliable sources "poor sources" without presenting a rebuttal is disruptive editing. Capitals00 (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[8] --Hipal (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to the end of the lede, only as a compromise while we see if anyone can come up with a policy-based argument for it being in the lede at all. --Hipal (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should simply drop the stick now. Capitals00 (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your three answers are all versions of WP:IDHT. You don't appear to respect content policy at all, so I'll be reverting. --Hipal (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the one who is calling reliable sources "poor sources" and edit warring against every editor to sideline the biggest facts about this fake news peddler. You are engaging in that WP:DE and you are alone (see WP:1AM). Capitals00 (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fake news peddler This personal opinion of yours seems to be what's driving your comments, rather than content policy. --Hipal (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be starting an RFC, do not make any changes until I do. Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to discuss the content in the article body, then go to NPOVN, but getting the lede addressed by an RfC would be helpful. --Hipal (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC can we say he peddaled false hoods in the lede

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus against including this claim. The reliability of the provided sources has been credibly impugned, with no refutation given. Additionally, even if they were reliable, it is not clear that the claim would constitute due weight. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simple enough can we say "He was also noted for spreading false claims." in the lede or words to that effect? Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Discusion

[edit]

(invited by the bot) The underlying question is whether the material and characterization in the body of the article is correct. Is this just ginning up a few instances where somebody interpreted what he said as false? And regarding what he said was it intent to deceive or just careless hyperbole? And in all cases was it enough to be an overall characterization of him? I tried looking into it but had trouble translating the sources and ran out of wiki-minutes. If answer to all of this ends up that what's in the body of the article is correct on this, then in that hypothetical case, it would be appropriate to have a sentence in the lead. North8000 (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THis is the biggest issue (and why it may not have ben dealt with at RSN, trying to judge sources in a language we do not speak. It makes verification all but impossible. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first source in the lead, Firstpost does verify the content, but on the other hand, our article about Firstpost says in the lead - It has posted misinformation on multiple occasions. The second source from The Lallantop is sketchy and appears to be tabloid journalism; a couple of headlines from that source: In this village, girls automatically become boys at the age of 12 - where previously there were female parts, testicles start growing - and - Brothel Madam: I have saved 5 thousand marriages from breaking, am proud of being a prostitute.
I would look for better sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO anyone who asserts "He was also noted for spreading false claims." needs to make the case for that, for inclusion in either the body of the article or the lead. And if there is no decision for inclusion, then it should not be in either. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: It has been covered on the second paragraph of Rajiv_Dixit#Ideology_and_rhetoric. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had already seen that. IMO if that's all there is,such a broad claim should not be anywhere in the article. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the sources that have provided him significant coverage. For most, he was not known to anyone anything better than being a fake news peddler. Capitals00 (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaidnoway: Evidently, this article from the FirstPost was added to this article when this media was independent and reliable. Since last few years, it has been forced to spread disinformation in favor of the ruling government (see Godi media). That's why that article from the FirstPost that we are talking about was also deleted and today we use archived version. Such old articles of the FirstPost are still usable but the new ones are not. Just like Lenta.ru who's old articles are still WP:RS. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a claim like this - "He was also noted for spreading false claims" - I would expect to see it widely reported in multiple reliable sources, and if they can't be found, it shouldn't be included. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaidnoway: That old FirstPost article is one such reliable source. Another one is LallanTop who mentions many false claims by Rajiv Dixit including that "9/11" was an "inside job" and concludes that many of the claims he made are false. It is not "tabloid journalism" like you assumed above but an IFCN verified fact-checker.[11] Then we also have some more reliable sources,[12][13][14] that have fact-checked false claims of Rajiv Dixit. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my position clear, it shouldn't be included. Don't ping me again. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @DaxServer: (re:05:20, 27 April 2024) and @Ivanvector: (re: 16:38, 10 April 2024), both of whom removed the disputed content and references from the lede prior to the discussions started by Abecedare in June. (Abecedare has been on break since Aug 1). --Hipal (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to ping) I reverted the addition back in April because the sources provided were grossly inadequate to be calling someone a conspiracy theorist in Wikipedia's voice. Orientls reverted me less than a day later. I'm not familiar with the subject and haven't been following the discussions, but at a glance this article does read to me more like a hit piece a hostile government would write to discredit someone than it does a neutral Wikipedia biography. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only candidate for a "hostile government" here actually depends on the fake news invented by Rajiv Dixit.[15] Capitals00 (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like propaganda, is what I meant to say. I wasn't meaning to suggest that any government actually wrote it (although a lot of Indian media is suspect) but that if a hypothetical government was going to write a negative propaganda piece about an activist they didn't like, it would look like this. What concerns me about it is that the claim that he was "noted for spreading false claims" has no context, and reads like a news comment troll dropping "this is fake news!" on something they don't like. In the body we say that he is "noted for pioneering the trend of disinformation in India", but his name doesn't appear in that target article even once. It doesn't reconcile with my sense of verifiability, and seems like an unsupported opinion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content is entirely verified by the cited sources that have existed on this article since mid-2019.[16] Not every fake news peddler has to be notable enough to get a mention on that article. More notable fake news peddlers like Swarajya (magazine), Organiser (magazine) and more are not listed there either. Have you checked the lead of Graham Phillips (journalist), Peter C. Gøtzsche, John Honeyman and others? The lead of this Rajiv Dixit article is not any different from those articles but in fact, it is watered-down in comparison. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the politics here: Rajiv Dixit was known primarily as a proponent of swadeshi-economics, which the Modi's party originally embraced but then shifted from (Bharatiya_Janata_Party#Economic_policies). Dixit appears to be a scapegoat for justifying or attacking the policies and political shift. --Hipal (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That made no sense. You can cite a single BJP member who has criticized Rajiv Dixit, just like I have cited where they rely on the fake news invented by Rajiv Dixit. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't identify who was making the comments, nor is it relevant, beyond that much of the attacks and praise about Dixit are politically motivated. --Hipal (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector You might also want to take a look at the R. C. Majumdar page. There's a similar issue, with three or four editors pushing the same narrative and misrepresenting extremely poor sources. The problem isn't limited to just two or three pages. Their way of arguing is also uncannily similar: labeling X as 'something' and then asking, 'Can you provide any source that says X is not 'something'?' This is known as the shifting the burden of proof fallacy, also called an argument from ignorance. I trust you'll ultimately do the right thing. 2409:4089:8283:54F2:84D8:1B27:B011:E793 (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The argument from ignorance fallacy is parodied well in WP:GREENCHEESE. The opinion of internet news sources shifting to follow the changing opinions of whoever's in power at the time is good evidence for why articles constructed by cherrypicking from those sources will always fail NPOV, especially for people who any state might ever have had any incentive to try to discredit. Articles like this should be based on the highest quality scholarly sources, and this one isn't. That's really my only input here: bad sources = bad article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am very much inclined to vote No. It should definetelly not be in the first paragraph and should probably be rephrased as "Dixit was accused on multiple occasions of spreading misinformation regarding x and y topics." Vague accusations should never be used. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitals00:: You claim, This information has been confirmed by at least 5 reliable sources that he was a profilic a fake news peddler. What are those sources and where is the consensus that they are reliable? --Hipal (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are [17][18][19][20][21]. Four them of them are fact-checkers. Consensus exists across Wikipedia that they are reliable. Capitals00 (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding.
The Lallantop reference is not reliable for reasons given. Those reasons are uncontested, as discussed above #RS summary.
FirstPost ref is not reliable for the reasons given. Those reasons are uncontested as discussed above.
The Quint article does not verify the content in question.
The BoomLive article does not verify the content in question.
The Factly article does not verify the content in question.
The last three articles only discuss specific claims that Dixit made. While we might cover those claims and state they are incorrect, it would be an V, OR, and POV violation to use these sources to support the topic of this RfC. --Hipal (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are all still discussing this as if the definition could be added in this form, but it really shouldn't. "spreading false claims" should be specified, similarly to MOS:CRIMINAL. What false claims are we talking about? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check the lead paragraphs of Graham Phillips (journalist), Peter C. Gøtzsche, John Honeyman and others. This article was not doing anything new. Capitals00 (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raymond3023: We cannot make changes to this encyclopedia based on Google search results. Instead, we need reliable sources. Can you please give us your search results so we can determine if they contain any references that we can use? --Hipal (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will remind everyone, that is is down to the closer to determine the strength of the arguments, not any of us. Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question is already flawed, you cannot use a vague definition as "spreading false claims". You have to be specific about which false claims, per wikipedia policy ( MOS:CRIMINAL ). Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is specific about that on the lead of many articles like Graham Phillips (journalist), Peter C. Gøtzsche, John Honeyman and others. In any case, do you agree with this new edit? I am sure it addressed your concerns. Capitals00 (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis is misleading. See how the article on False or misleading statements by Donald Trump is written. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's misleading is ignoring the facts presented on why sources are unreliable and/or fail verification, and making comparisons to articles where such source problems do not exist. The facts remain uncontested. --Hipal (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajiv_Dixit&oldid=1260832814"