Talk:Teesta Setalvad

Hornplease edits

Hornplease seems to belong to the same cabal of Marxists who are in a state of permanent hysteria with regards to Hinduism/Nationalism. A reader of his comments and edits would not leave even a simpleton in doubt with regards to his 'objectivity'. Same old censorship game, be it the Romila Thapar page or any other page dealing with Marxists.

He himself acts Godlike and decided what is appropriate or not. And when it suits him, he spouts nonsense such as 350 million English speakers in India and appends the link to a worthless timepass article and pretends that it is proof enough

God! Why do such people not get gainfully employed somewhere? Pity you, Hornplease. If you want, can suggest a good Doc for your illness

Be Neutral

Please! Happy editing :)

Mikeslackenerny 10:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Minority/Marxist

• Civil Rights vs. Minority Rights? There is a distinct difference, and as per Teesta's involvement, the word minority rights describes her work better. Civil rights movements often seek to ensure that individual rights are not denied on the basis of membership in a minority group. However, when minority privlages are asked for (say, for affirmative action), then one crosses the line between civil and minority rights. See wiki article on minority rights.
• Marxist educationist - Her program Khoj teaches Indian history, which is sensitive to depections of the actions of minorities. This stance, as opposed to a realistic depection, is considered that endorsed by the marxist/leftist school of Indian historians (JNU group). Hence the tag Marxist.

Mikeslackenerny 10:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you'll need citations for all of that. Of those that you have recently added, the Hoot story is already linked, the Indian Express doesnt mention Teesta by name, the cpim one wont open, and the mail-archive.org one is not a permissible references per WP:RS. I am reverting your changes. In future, please discuss these issues on the talkpage before making major changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) 04:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Added another citation for that which mentions her by name. Is there anything else you would like to contend? And the CPI(M) website opens just fine. Try again. Mikeslackenerny 06:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have tried again. Your link may be faulty.

Please note that you have not replied to my concerns about the other links, as well as what I view as misrepresenting their contents. Nothing the Hoot interview states that "she has extremist views", which is a statement for which you will need to find several reliable sources and at least one scholarly one.

I have moved your one admissible new link, the HT report on the Nandigram letter, to the appropriate section and rewritten the reference in keeping with the actual text of the link. Hornplease 07:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You have a very peculiar slant on how articles are to be re-written. Please tell me what else you find contentious. Dont revert the entire thing with weasel explainations.Mikeslackenerny 08:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have explained above. You cannot link to mailing group archives; you cannot link to partisan websites; you cannot interpret links to say "extremist views" when they say nothing, and you definitely cannot put that in an article without multiple reliable sources etc. Please read WP:BLP, it indicates you can be reverted constantly if necessary. Hornplease 08:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The recent edits are better, but we simply cannot use the words you have, only the HT's restatement of them. Hornplease 08:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you've called my good faith into question, I've reported this issue on the appropriate board, and other editors will be along to examine my actions. Please note that WP has no 'moderators'. Hornplease 08:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The 'women's organisations endorsed only 1 advert. It is not written that they recieved any on the 1.5 cr corpus. These organisations have their own fundings. Please justify your wording. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikeslackenerny (talk • contribs) 09:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Err, it is not known that it went all to CC, either. In fact, the question states 'the campaign costed fifteen crores'. I have no objection to the rest of your changes. Sorry, I do. Once again, unless you can find a reliable source that states that Teesta identified as a 'left intellectual' - and mentions Teesta by name - we will have to retain the HT's 'pro-left' wording. Hornplease 09:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[1] See the very end. Is this better? Also, she signed a letter saying she is one of a group of those who have long been associated with the Left movement. Why is this not enough. It is there in HT link.Mikeslackenerny 09:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please read this link? I have told you twice now that the HT link does not say that, it merely says pro-Left, and that that is the wording therefore that we can have in the article. Hornplease 09:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The IE link is acceptable. But we must follow the wording exactly. Hornplease 09:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me quote what the HT link says:

The statement said that those signing the statement "have long been associated with the Left movement in the country, feel deeply pained and anguished by the loss of lives and injuries suffered during the police action in Nandigram." Now who has NOT read the article? Mikeslackenerny 09:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, OK, I withdraw that. Not that it's relevant, given that the IE link is available. Hornplease 11:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Justify

she has publicly criticised the Communist Party of India (Marxist) on occasion. Where? There is no such in the HT link. It is more of an apology.

Also, please justify the women's org part above

Mikeslackenerny 09:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

For the women's org part, see above. For the CPI(M), change the wording if you like. I just read the HT article, which made it sound like they were criticising the firing ("can never be justified"). If you believe that isnt equivalent to criticising the CPI(M), change it to 'actions taken by the CPIM". Hornplease 09:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Request reread the article. (Full text here:[2]) There is no criticism of CPI actions. No condemn or deplore, only feeling pain and anguish. I believe that is an apology. Please cite source that has Teesta or CC criticising CPI/Left front. If uncited, I shall remove the critcise reference in a while.Mikeslackenerny 10:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am only interested in parsing the Hindustan Times article, which is the only reference that meets WP:RS; even if the text of the petition is hosted elsewhere, the point of WP:RS us that we cannot trust that text.Hornplease 11:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In particular, the HT article states that the 'intellectuals' said that 'the violence cannot be justified'. That is a criticism of an action taken by the CPI(M). I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand. Hornplease 11:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No where has the article said that the CPI was responsible for the attack. In fact it calls for an independt inquiry. So the violence cannot be justified is just a platitude, like women should not be raped. Not a criticism by any stretch of imagination.Mikeslackenerny 11:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets read the HT article again, shall we?:

• "Nobody belonging to the Left world would ever justify repressive action against peasants or workers who are the basic classed of the Left. The tragedy at Nandigram on March 14 was an entirely unanticipated, unjustified and unfortunate turn of events, whose exact origin and course should be established through a proper enquiry," they said in a statement, signed by eminent Jawaharlal Nehru University-based professor, Prabhat Patnaik.

Seems like a defence of the CPI(M). More?

• The Left Front government, the group added, have announced a number of initiatives and measures to try and attempt to mitigate the victims’ sufferings. "The Left Front government meanwhile has announced the removal of the police force from Nandigram, has reiterated its policy that no land will be acquired for industrial purposes without the consent of the peasants and other people concerned, has put on hold all land acquisition," the statement said.

Hmmmm. Methinks some 17 intellectuals are doing some damge control. Pray, what does the above paragraph read to you?

Mikeslackenerny 11:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that they feel that the government was not responsible for repressive action? I think they're trying to say that it got out of hand, not that the original action was not repressive. They defend the removal, right, but who sent the cops there in the first place? I can't see it as anything but criticism of that action, modified with expressions of approval for subsequent action. Hornplease 14:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease, if this was criticism, it is an obvious eyewash. I disagre with your saying so, and that is your POV. Mikeslackenerny 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but could you respond to the specific point? viz., that even if the letter goes on to make excuses for the firing/praise subsequent behaviour, the specific 'unjustifiable' remark is criticism? Failing any agreement on this, we should perhaps consider changing the wording to note that she criticised the firing. Hornplease 17:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Civil rights/Minority rights activist

I am going to put the phrase minority rights activist in the intro. See http://pd.cpim.org/2006/0129/01292006_teesta.htm Mikeslackenerny 11:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That link still doesnt work for me. No matter; as a party website, it isnt reliable as a source for anything but the party's own activity. The HT link clearly refers to her as a civil rights activist. Hornplease 14:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Note also that your 'felicitation' is a minor district committee of the CPI(M), not the party itself, as your text seems to imply and as such is hardly encyclopaedic. Hornplease 14:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Link is an article written by Setalvad in the CPI(M) mouthpiece. Not suere why you cannot access it. Can you see if you can get the Google cache of it. The CPI(M) felecitation is one of many appearences by Setalvad in CPI(M) functions. I will bring forth further references on that too. Mikeslackenerny 15:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Setalvad.jpg

Image:Setalvad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)