Talk:Sagarika Ghose

Merge

Please merge this article. The two are the same person; Ghose-Sardesai is Sagarika's married name.

Rimi talk contribs 11:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

__ agree ___

should be merged, it is the same person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.211.255 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 23 June 2007

Vandalism

User from the IP address 122.176.195.17 is indulging in excessive vandalism on this article by removing "Criticism on twitter" section repeatedly. Please block all edits from this IP address. This user has removed this section 5 times without any explanation. Hence, this user should be blocked from making further changes to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corruptcongress (talk • contribs) 21:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not vandalism but a content dispute and as such the 3 revert rule applies to both parties. Keith D (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Twitter unreliable?

CNN had in the past fired one of its journalist Octavia Nasr based on a controversial tweet. Was CNN acting based on an unreliable source? The logic that twitter is unreliable is preposterous.--Corruptcongress (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop. Twitter is a quote from a person, but it is not a reliable source for the intent or outcome or response (or lack of response) for an action. By attempting to compare past and current twitter incidents and point out that one resulted in the employee getting fired, while another did not is original research by you and is campaigning for action to be taken.  7  04:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 7; the inclusion of these claims is inappropriate WP:OR WP:RS.  Chzz  ►  09:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected the page for a while to allow parties to discuss the inclusion/exclusion of the twitter text. Five days of back and forth is no way to proceed - discuss on this talk page and decide what to do. But please bear in mind that this is a biography of a living person. Keith D (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Many people believe that below section should be included on Sagarika's page - Please suggest alternative wordings so that this section could be included on Sagarika's page. --Corruptcongress (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know very well whether it is the right place or not but i think Criticism on twitter regarding indian male comment should be included in the article. as it is real incident. --Mihir_be_ce —Preceding undated comment added 10:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC).

Criticism on twitter

• Ugly Men Controversy - On 29th January 2011 Sagarika Ghose tweeted the following on a social networking site Twitter "Notes from Bangkok airport: Indian males as a species must be the ugliest in the world! The ones on Twitter sound ugly too!" which was heavily criticized on twitter and was on top trending for 3 days in India.Her sexist and racist tweets were reported to TeamCNN and TeamCNN was asked if CNN endorsed her views. Though CNN network did not tender an apology on her behalf but tweeted back the following on 31'st January 2011 - SG issued this apology:"My comments on Indian males was never intended to offend or hurt. Am deeply sorry if it did. My sincere apologies"

• Hindu Religion Slander - On 23rd September 2010 Sagarika Ghose tweeted the following on a social networking site Twitter "whether or not lord rama is the rightful owner or a divine encroacher is a question unlikely to be settled in a hurry". The screen shots of this tweet are still available across the internet. She was severely criticized for this tweet for being insensitive to Hindu religion and disrespectful towards the most revered Hindu deity.

CNN had in the past fired one of its journalist Octavia Nasr based on a controversial tweet, however Sagarika Ghose continues to serve as the deputy editor and prime time anchor on the news network CNN-IBN.

editorialised content

Hi. This is Sagarika Ghose. This is to bring to your notice that a user is repeatedly inserting editorialised non factual content into my Wikipedia bio, such as I am perceived to be a "racist"", and "biased" anchor. These are not terms that have been placed on me by a court of law or by any established investigation. Anonymous internet users of a certain political ideology have long targeted me on different social media forums and are now inserting defamatory and editorialised content about me on the Wikipedia site. Please note that if such content continues to appear on the Wikipedia bio, I will be forced to lo0k at my legal options against what I consider defamation and public character assassination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.57.107 (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by rightwing forces

Hi. This is Sagarika Ghose again. I logged on to my Wikipedia bio last night on 7-04-2013 to find that once again all the information had been removed and highly editorialised content had been inserted, including how I was being referred to as "bitch" in certain circles. I protest most strongly at the repeated editing and interference in my Wikipedia bio by vested interessts trying to detroy my professional credibility and my good name. This is not only sexual harassment on the web, it is also a form of molestation and stalking, both punishable offences in the new laws on crimes againt women. I have taken the liberty of re-inserting all the relevant professional and personal information about myself, information that I feel is factual, not motivated. The Wikipedia bio is referred to by many and urgent steps must be taken to protect public figures from repeated attempts at character assasination by anonymous criminals. Kindly ensure that steps are taken to so that any motivated person seeking to destroy my reputation does not repeatedly vandalise my bio!

Contents of any Wikipedia article are essence of Google search results. In initial search result pages Google shows twitter related links. I had added two lines with refs. Some user thought that it is not encyclopedic and removed it. No objection.

Now I have tried to improve the article little bit. But article need refs. I may try to find refs. I was unaware of article history and this talk page. If I see vandalism I will request admin to protect the article. neo (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to professional edits by anon IP, I have given enough sources for this article to be good article candidate. Sagarika Ghose is bit controversial but very good journalist. This article is on my watchlist as long as I am on Wikipedia. neo (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Insertion of gratuitous and sexist descriptions of my dress on TV

Hi, this is Sagarika Ghose again. Once again an anonymous user inserted "She wears sleveless blouses and lipstick while anchoring on TV." A number of female anchors wear lipstick and saris on television. I find this kind of insertion of my dress not only gratuitous and sexist but once again an attempt by the same anonymous rightwingers seeking to destroy my professional credibility. Dress codes of television anchors are not normally mentioned in their Wikipedia bios. Have taken the liberty of removing it from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.221.237 (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

It appears that subject is frequently editing the article through anon IP. I have informed Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. neo (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Repeated attacks on social media

Hi. This is Sagarika Ghose again. BBC News Asia has just reported that I am among the women journalists and activists who are targeted by hate messages on social media platforms like Twitter. I have inserted a line about the BBC report in my bio as it is possible that those who are attacking me on Twitter are the same forces who are repeatedly vandalising my Wikipedia bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.194.134 (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sagarika. Thanks for adding that information. It would help if you added the link to the BBC article too though - I have done this for you now. I'm sorry that you have been defamed in this article in the past - I am now watching it and should notice any changes. If it continues, we can stop anonymous editors from editing the page too. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

POV and COI tag

I have tagged the article with WP:POV and WP:COI as major contents of the article are from the subject itself and because of consistent threats or warnings or complaints by the subject on this talk page which has potential to keep users away from the article or influence them and which harm neutrality of the article and aim of the wikipedia. neo (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Content removed

Hi

This is Sagarika again. I now find that major chunks of my bio have been removed, such as the articles I've written and the stories I've covered. Has this been done by you or once again from the anonymous editor? If you compare what exists at the moment to the earlier version, you'll find that a lot of lines have been removed. Is this intentional? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.194.134 (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

As you can see from the edit history of the article I removed some content that you added because it lacked secondary sources. Information on Wikipedia has to be verifiable, and from what I can tell, no one else has written that you are well known for the stories mentioned. It's not up to you or anyone here to decide what you are well known for and we will have to wait until someone writes about it before we include it. If you are aware of any newspapers, magazines that have written biographical stories about you, then please link to them here and we can consider referencing them. Things like this and this are what we need to write a good article about you. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Prerecorded interview fraudulently shown as a live debate

On November 2011, in its Prime Time show (Face The Nation), the channel broadcasted a pre-recorded interview of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar as a live television debate. The show was hosted by the Deputy Editor of the channel, Sagarika Ghose, who also happens to be the wife of the channel's editor, Rajdeep Sardesai. On public outcry, the anchor issued a public apology on Twitter, web and TV. The episode broadcasted by the channel has not been hosted on the show's homepage.

Source: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/CNN-IBN#Questions_on_ethics

Why shouldn't this controversy be included here as well since it basically revolved around her, for which she apologized too? Haresh 14:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is all about reliable sources, especially when it comes to BLP. Find reliable third party sources, write in encyclopedic way and include in article yourself. Period. neo (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

More editorialised content

Hi

This is Sagarika Ghose again. This is to bring to your notice a massive amount of biased content that has once again been inserted in my bio. The comments are clearly intended to damage my reputation by gratutious mention of Tweets and all manner of irrelevant comments. Hope you will kindly take note of these. I am taking the liberty of deleting them. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.94.34 (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You are subject and you have written almost whole article about yourself. And your critics don't know what sources to use and what to write. I am tired of this. I will find reliable sources to add some criticism. neo (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we get this article protected? Subject is writing the article and removing sourced content again and again. This is violation of Wikipedia policies. Gmcssb (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I recommend you read our policies, start with WP:BLP then read WP:RS and WP:SPS You are violating the BLP policy in restoring that content, so stop. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to read the section you blanked first, get the context and then apply the policies. Your comments above blankly quotes policies. You mean to say BBC, DNA, The Hindu, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, Rediff, are not reliable sources? I strongly disagree. Gmcssb (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you are unaware of the major news sources in India, and hence citing WP:RS. I assume you would be familiar with BBC. If you are not familiar with Indian news sources please read the articles The Indian Express, Daily News and Analysis, Hindustan Times, The Hindu, Rediff.com - these are all major news sources. As for the non-reliable/self-published sources, the action needed is to remove content which is explicitly drawing from those sources and not blank the whole section. I do not know what you mean by "petty" - that is your opinion, in my opinion a racist tweet like "all Indian men are ugly" is pretty notable.Gmcssb (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Criticism content

Can we make a list of reliable and unreliable sources for the criticism section. I think most sources (BBC, Indian Express, The Hindu, CNN, Rediff, Shobha De, etc) are reliable and notable. Rather than blankly removing all criticism, would be better to discuss what to keep and what to remove. Criticism is not always a violation of BLP. Gmcssb (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced being sourced is "what matters", or the only thing that matters; much of the criticism section is pretty petty stuff. Frivolous tweets and gaffes fail WP:UNDUE. Blackguard 22:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Not all of it. Which is why it is important to know which part of it is to be retained. Gmcssb (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

All right - here is a list of points and sources in the earlier criticism section - see under http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Sagarika_Ghose&oldid=564425722#Controversies.2C_criticism_and_ridicule. Let us agree on which ones are notable and from reliable sources -

1. Portrayal in a movie as reported by a noted film critic in India. Source Bangalore Mirror, a publication of Times of India. I think both notable and reliable.
2. Criticism on social media as reported by BBC Online. I think both notable and reliable.
3. Criticism on social media as reported by MensXP and Niti Central. I think notable but not from reliable sources.
4. Comments on critics being elderly ladies by subject from DNA. Not notable, even though from reliable source.
5. Comments on her impression in social media by Pranav Dixit in Hindustan Times. Both notable and from reliable source.
6. Use of term "Internet Hindus" and criticism. This was a major controversy in India and was reported by many news sources. Both notable and from reliable sources (Global Post, Al Jazeera).
7. Racist comments on Indian male. Racist comments by any person on a large population are notable IMHO. Source (MensXP) is not mainstream media though. Need to find reliable sources.
8. Controversy over Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's live interview. This is a notable spiritual leader in India. The controversy was reported in mainstream news media, and source is Indian Express, a large newspaper in India. Both notable and reliable source.
9. Tweets on incorrect description of Indian flag and Easter. Reported by The Hindu and Niti Central, the former a reliable source. Maybe summarize in a short sentence without details?
10. Tweet on Narendra Modi. This is a notable politician in India, but probably a gaffe again. Can omit this.
11. Censoring the social media - notable but source is not reliable. I can let it go.
12. Funny article by Shobha De - maybe a bit too much. Remove it.

Please offer your comments on all of these. I will wait till end of the week. All criticism is not a violation of WP:BLP. If we are removing criticism as reported in BBC, Hindustan Times, The HIndu, Indian Express, then we are censoring Wikipedia. Gmcssb (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This is quite clearly a content dispute, so I have filled the relevant requests for page protection request as such by fully protecting the page for a week to facilitate discussion. What's quite clear is that, if all of the criticism were to be retained, it would constitute the majority of the article. Airplaneman ✈ 01:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I agree it would be majority of the article, which is why I started this section on talk page to get a consensus on what goes into the article and what does not. In addition, one needs to find more sources on the subject about her life, works, et cetera, to add more content. On the other hand if all criticism, even that reported in reliable secondary sources, is removed from the article (as done by the subject herself repeatedly and also by Darkness Shines), it would clearly amount to censorship and violate WP:CENSOR. Gmcssb (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

All, I have created a summarized and abridged version of the controversies and criticism under here. This is in accordance with editors' view that criticism section was too long and needed to be made smaller. I have also organized it, adding a subsection called "response to criticism". Please let me know your thoughts on the same. Gmcssb (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ghose's legal threats aside, this isn't censorship – this is adhering to WP:BLP and avoiding WP:COATRACK. The paired-down edits you suggest literally double the word count on the article, and frankly many of the issues still seem petty. It's not a question of did these events happen or did people notice - this isn't contested - but is this biography incomplete without it? "Criticism on social media" – so what? If we included every Twitter user's gripes about public personalities, Wikipedia would be a celebrity message board. Is this article incomplete without Ghose confusing the English word "orange" for "saffron" on Twitter?

There are still notability, WP:UNDUE and reliability issues with the suggested edits, although it is an improvement over the previous sprawl of text:

1.) Neutral - Needs a source, but is this contested?

2. and 3.) Strong oppose. See paragraph above. I find inclusion of the payroll allegation especially troubling, considering the referenced articles are about death threats and abuse she receives online, and not about party ties. If you can find an allegation from a reliable secondary source accusing Ghose of being on the Congress Party payroll, go right ahead – but some nut on Twitter is not going to cut it. I can go online and accuse Prime Minister Singh of being from the Moon; sneaking a "Spaceman criticism" section in his bio is wildly disingenuous.

4.) Oppose – trivial; only needed if social media section is included

5.) Oppose – the article is about Internet trolling, and not a depiction of Ghose’s "impression on social media."

6.) Keep, this one’s easy - the Al Jazeera reference clearly states a controversy exists; we agree on this, though "derogatory" is taken out of context.

7, 8, and 9.) Oppose, for lack of reference - try to find a reliable source stating a controversy exists. For #8, the source leads to a human-interest editorialist, whose job is to complain. His other articles in the series include frustrations over finding good Chinese food and a Game of Thrones book review. If we’re going to create a Shankar interview subsection, we need to find sources saying there is a controversy, not evidence something simply happened and one person noticed.

The "Response to criticism" section is fine, with good references, but its use depends on how much the "Controversies and criticism" section is limited to what’s reliably referenced. Blackguard 01:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I will reply to other points later, but for #8, it was indeed covered in multiple news sources and not just one editor in HT. Please see here (One India), here (Hindi, Navbharat Times) and [here for some of them. And the CNN-IBN apology is also online here. Add the HT source (without the opinion) and we have a case of a notable event in which the subject was involved and for which she also apologized on Twitter. Gmcssb (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Here are my quick comments

(1) - I do not know if this is contested, but the author is a noted film critic in India

(2) and (3) - No source other than HT article, so can keep that out. But for the term "sickular", BBC News article is the source.

(4) is not about social media but critics of her book. The source is reliable. I have put it in, but feel free to remove. I am fine either way.

(5) Keep out until reliable source is found

(6) I have added back

(7) and (9) - keep out for now. Even though for Indian flag, the source is Hindu. But (8) has been reported by several sources including Navbharat Times, and not just the editorial in Hindustan Times. I have added it back without any criticism. Gmcssb (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I made some minor changes to the last paragraph without changing the meaning (one quote was put in twice) and it looks like the Hindustan Times reference was accidentally substituted by the BBC link. Otherwise, I'd say this is an improvement. Blackguard 23:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed an improvement. What is still striking about this article is that the criticism section is by far the most developed. Airplaneman ✈ 03:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Somebody needs to dig out sources on her life and career and add to the article. Gmcssb (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Need to understand editorialised content

Mrs Ghose, please read WP:NLT before threatening legal action on wikipedia again. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Wikipedia This is Sagarika Ghose again. Have read the Talk section and the points listed by whoever in trying to get my "tweets" added to my Wikipedia profile. What Wikipedia needs to understand is that there is an organized group of so called "nationalist Hindus" or Right- wing Hindus who despise everything I stand for, despise my journalism because it is too "liberal" for their tastes, despise liberals like me for being "soft" on minorities and want to paint us all as "anti-national traitors" who are hostile to the Hindu religion and hostile to the Hindu Right. As India enters an election year, these groups are on an over-drive in their all out offensive against liberal secular journalists, particularly women. In fact, there is an under-current of gender abuse and gender hatred in the campaign against me as well as against other so-called "liberal" women like political activist Kavita Krishnan, who was also mentioned in the BBC report, and who was threatened online by gang rape and stripping. Yes, I did coin the term "internet Hindus." But this did not create a "controversy", instead it was used as a peg for a debate by Al Jazeera TV and the term has now entered the lexicon of writing on these ultra nationalist extremist Hindu groups who operate on the internet under anonymous names. As for including my tweets on "ugly men", "easter eggs" and colours of the Indian flag, these are the fantastical ravings of a deranged mind, desperately casting around to find anything and everything to beat me with. I find it an act of appalling character assassination and damage to my reputation to allow such individuals and agencies to tamper with a public record of myself. Should such insertions continue, I will be forced to look at my legal options under sections of not only violating the modesty of a woman and her dignity in public but also stalking and criminal defamation. Since the writers are anonymous, Wikipedia would clearly be liable for such defamation. I strongly suggest that you only allow factual insertions, without any slanted editorial opinion on my tweets, or how much of a "controversy" I create, or how I am publicly "ridiculed". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.3.36 (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC) See this. Not a single edit in whole month. One week ago, due to watchlist error I had to remove 600 articles from my watchlist starting from I to Z that includes your article. And somehow edits started on your page. Sometime weird coincidences happens! Some criticism was valid but most was junk. Personally, I don't see strong criticism about you in media. Otherwise I would have added it long ago. Anyway, one 'liberal' editor watching me detected my edit on this talkpage, edit war ensued on article and now your article is protected and no user can edit it. Your article is now under watch of that 'liberal' user and hence under watch of more users. In short, you have more followers on wikipedia. Hmm... neo (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Censorship, legal threat, what's next?

So now Ms. Ghose is threatening to sue Wikipedia? And she decides what is to be written about her on Wikipedia?? Ms. Ghose, please read other biographies on Wikipedia and stop your conspiracy theories. And administrators like neo, despite agreeing that some criticism was "valid", are fine with the censorship of that "valid criticism" for around one week, as currently the article has no criticism at all? Is this not a clear violation of WP:CENSOR? I did not expect Wikipedia would do this. (I started a new section as the previous section was closed). If the administrators do not allow any criticism, even that which is reported by mainstream media sources, then I will have to raise this under dispute resolution noticeboard. Gmcssb (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Please note that User:Neo. is not an administrator. Airplaneman ✈ 23:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad - I mistook Neo for an administrator. Anyway, I agree with Neo that there is some valid criticism of the subject (as reported in several reliable sources - see two sections above for the comprehensive list I compiled), and that needs to be on this page. Your thoughts? Gmcssb (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

What concerns me is the disproportionate amount of criticism that was in the article relative to other biographical information that is arguably just as if not more important than the reactions that others have had to a select group of comments that she has made. In my view, it isn't necessary to entirely ax the criticism content, but it should be pared substantially. I haven't the time nor the will to sift through all of the content, currently. Airplaneman ✈ 17:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I had complained about her legal threats on COI board, now I realize I was supposed complain on ANI. At that time I just tagged article with POV and forgot. I don't think I will discuss what criticism should be included. She may send police to my doorsteps. Wikipedia don't pay legal expenses of editors and I don't have money and I don't want to go to jail. Thank you. neo (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well put, sir. Airplaneman ✈ 17:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks User:Airplaneman. So we agree that a concise version of the earlier criticism (from major sources) should be included when block expires. Let's see what other users have to say on this. As for Ms. Ghose's legal threats, I wonder how Wikipedia can be sued for saying what other sources have already published? She needs to sue all the sources including Hindustan Times, The Hindu, BBC, DNA, etc. Gmcssb (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Huh! Usual business for her! Shovon (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Airplaneman, please see here for a much shorter version. I have organized it with a subsection called "response to criticism". Please let me know your thoughts on the same. Gmcssb (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The controversy/criticism section looks pathetic to me. Minor squabbles of no great significance and, of course, such sections are discouraged. Your tendency to support the Hindu nationalist angle has been noted, Gmcssb: don't let it get you into bother. - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop acting like a know-all, Sitush. Your tendency to push blatant anti-Hindu/communist/leftist agenda is all over articles on Wikipedia. People living in glass houses ... Huh! Gmcssb (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Once again my Wikipedia bio is being vandalised

Hi Wikipedia This is Sagarika Ghose. Once again I find various slanted and highly editorialized comments being inserted into my bio. Such statements as "she has been accused of anti Hindu statements". The Twitter trend of #YoSagarikaso secular, are mentioned. Why on earth are these instances of harassment of me on the internet worthy of being included in my Wiki bio? Its clear that ideologically driven individuals with an axe to grind with me are inserting such derogatory and damning sentences. My so-called "anti Hindu slant" is their interpretation and can hardly be included as a fact. Wiki, kindly wake up to the repeated attacks that women perceived as "liberal" are being subject to on the internet. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.162.98 (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Good that you removed it, most of it was poorly sourced and WP:UNDUEly focused. I further trimmed down this unnecessary focus on your social media activity. Some months back, this was page was cleaned up from this old version to look like this. This new additional content was put by someone a few weeks ago, I guess I may have overlooked it in my watchlist. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you--kindly lock this page

Thank you Ugog. The repeated insertions on Twitter trends about me, my tweets, my perceived "biases" and my perceived attacks on religious nationalism, are in my opinion trivial and mischievous and not factual.There is no sourced article stating that I am guilty of such biases beyond highly opinionated blogs by certain vested interests. Issues of how I said "orange" instead of saffron, my tweets on easter eggs, on a legal dispute involving a temple, are all sourced from Twitter and seem born out of a perverse obsession with me and an all-consuming desire to character assassinate me. Many women journalists are subject to troll attacks on Twitter and it seems the trolls are also messing with my bio. regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.162.98 (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This article was better off, just take a look at Barkha Dutt and Talk:Barkha Dutt#Neutrality tag: cleanup and rework needed--hopefully someone willing might clean that up, I might eventually. Sorry, only Admins can lock pages here and per our Page protection policy only blatant and continuous vandalism/disruptive editing gets temporary protection (lock)--until that happens I cannot file a request. Unfortunately, we have a dearth of active volunteers (especially Indian editors) here and multiple biographies of famous people (especially politicians) are in such a bad state because of inexperienced new accounts, POV-pushers or their detractors and anonymous IP editing. As I said before, your bio page is on my watchlist and I'll try to maintain it. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

My edits

I added a point

" She is a frequent critic of social media masses(whom she likened to "swarm of bees" and "talentless elderly ladies who are furious that she is attractive" and "unenlightened hordes")"

With references

https://twitter.com/sagarikaghose/status/8141129179

https://twitter.com/sagarikaghose/status/499361342881406976

http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-most-of-my-critics-are-talentless-elderly-ladies-sagarika-ghose-1062473 Teja srinivas (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia is not a news source. What you added is irrelevant and adds no value to this biography page. For example, how is what she tweeted once ever affected her life? have mulitiple references aknowledged it? No. It's just a piece of trivia and I don't understand why you want to add this. Remember the ONUS is on you to explain why do you think this is relevant. Note that you are edit warring and editors who cross the 3RR rule will be blocked from editing. Besides the point, social media sites are never used as references. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

May be you don't have any clue. She criticizes masses of social media very frequently(I mean it) and had done many TV shows showcasing "mob behaviour" of social media. Even she acknowledged "I stopped posting my views due to "abuse" in social media. She is one of most credible and influential faces who battles the vices of social media. She once stated "It was very disturbing. I didn't know what to do. So for a few days I had her picked up and dropped off to school in our car and not via public transport, because I was really scared(for the safety of her daughter)."

I would appreciate if you can explain how she was not effected by her criticism especially when she trended nationally No.1 many times in social media(Twitter Trends India). The more she criticises them, the more they target. One brazen example I could give is You could also see how much her life was effected just by watching her talk page. Social media sites could be used in this case as her account was officially verified by twitter management and she herself had tweeted them. Teja srinivas (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You have virtually no consensus to make these edits. I can't repeat why this can't be added again. All I can say is, please stop edit warring for your own good. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Tyranny of "majority". You can not provide sufficient intellectual argument on why it cannot be included but. तेजा శ్రీనివాస్ 13:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

References

"Internet Hindus" mention

(moved from User talk:Ugog Nizdast#thankyou for guidance on 01:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC))

that was very informative ,,- the pages you directed me to. since im new and not much aware , i welcome your guidance and suggestion. i just added a topic "internet hindus" on one of your pages . since wikipedia is comprehensive , and extremely informative, i feel, mentioning of such an incident was necessary. that was just an addition,please dont see anything more than that. again im extremely thankful for those valuble comments. looking forward for your guidance ... Nurmengrad (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)nurmengrad

@Nurmengrad: Hi, first of all, welcome. There is nothing to worry about that, over here anyone can get into a content dispute with anyone. To explain why the incident isn't mentioned on her page, you can see the following pages WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. You can also see the old discussions on Talk:Sagarika Ghose. If you need any help with anything else, tell me. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

yes , i just want to include that "internet hindus" is a comment made by her. she famously used it on twitter. openly admits it of using it, and this was a big controversy surrounding her. she has admited of using and coining this word, openly. Should not this be mentioned on her page?. after all she has coined a new term , perhaps that may be , in future, included in oxford dictionary. i may have added biased view point, but we are free to edit. lets make it unbiased but shouldnt that term placed in wikipedia along with it's creator? Also what is important is not "tweets"but the "coinage of a new term".i'm not in any way adding news or tweets which i strongly feel are unnecessary on wikipedia, but "coinage of a term" is , however an intellectual property. also i noticed that in Talk:Sagarika Ghose she is literally vetoing editing. Can we be calojed by, or produce unbiased information on a subject and her/his life?like this way editing wikipedia is impossible. I have , many times quoted wikipedia text as "proof" on my various comments in various, online international newsletters and blindly trusted this website,but today i feel as if information is filtered by, and then added. like this way we cannot have constructive criticism.this term is her"intellectual property" not "news" .thankyou .

Please see this in light of constructive criticism.In many wikipedia pages , controversies are added .We may add , delete, and moderate, but cannot neglect to add the "subject's" viewpoint. Waiting for your response. Nurmengrad (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)nurmengrad

@Nurmengrad: Yes, I'm aware of that. To summarise the reason in a single statement, controversies like this routinely appear in the news media and we don't give coverage to them unless they are exceptionally notable and/or have affected the said person's life. Let's take the example of Digvijaya Singh: a politician known for making statements which rock the media, but as a encyclopaedia, do we give any of those events or his quotations coverage in his biography? No. Unless they can be proved to be a exceptional notable that is.

One can say that there are sources documenting it so it should be covered. But just because it's verifiable, doesn't mean it should be included.

Now in Ghose's case, I found that her statement led her to receive some sort of abuse and made her quit social media. She quitting social media came in a BBC report (so international coverage) "Why are Indian women being attacked on social media?" and that convinced me that at least this was exceptionally notable and relevant to her bio page. Whereas the "internet Hindus" controversy (whichever side you cover it, for or against) didn't seem to have much notability like the previous; beyond the normal temporary news coverage, there were just blogs and other sites still covering it. That's why there's only that mention covering this incident. This is called giving due weight. The rest of her bio covers some notable interviews, that Ravi Shankar incident, her resigning as editor etc; this is what a bio should contain. Talking about and discussing that controversy would be giving undue weight to it.

No, you misunderstand, nothing was censored because she complained, just take a look at the Ravi Shankar incident, also do you see anything praising her? Other than her two talk page posts, there was I think a older and bigger discussion above it. If you want, we can further trim the part talking about her quitting social media to just a single statement. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

no thats not necessary.I, in any sense ,dont want information to be restricted, or limited.Well her "internet hindus" debate was done on Aljazeera news channel as well, so its international coverage on this topic. Again, I leave it to you, and dont question, in any way, your probity.But there must be at least one statement on this controversy too as this was taken to Aljazeera (stream) news channel .please see that you take the liberty of adding atleast one line on this issue .Rest remains with you.But please make me aware with your decision, as this may be helpful for this "budding"editor .waiting for your response.Nurmengrad (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)nurmengrad

I'm only aware of this report: "Women, violence and Twitter in India" which is similar to the BBC report. if you're referring to it. Additionally one problem with adding even a slight mention of it is that usually attracts the wrong kind of attention with new editors wanting to put both the opposite sides of the controversy. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)(forgot to ping @Nurmengrad: -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC))

Clarification: this one about internet Hindus is at best, minimal coverage. In any other case, I would have obliged and given it a small mention but as I said above, mentioning just little of a controversy like this is not possible. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia. This is Sagarika Ghose. Unbelievable! Someone just changed my spouse to Yakub Memon, the convict recently hanged. Why are these changes allowed by Wikipedia? Have changed it back to my husband's name. Absolutely crazy and unacceptable. Thanks, Sagarika — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.164.107 (talk) 05:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sagarika Ghose. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://mutiny.in/2007/06/05/interview-with-sagarika-ghose

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)