Talk:Radia tapes controversy

Hopelessly onesided and inaccurate article

This article is hopelessly onesided, badly researched, with many factual errors and uses questionable references. However, it is precisely these flaws that give this article its "exciting flavour". Removing/fixing them would render the article pointless.

As soon as the initial "fever" dies down, this article needs to be radically redone. Doing so now is pointless since the article has been written and (and is being protected) by a Wikipedia admin.

Achitnis (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is unprotected as of now. It was only semi protected temporarily. If an article is started by admin,it doesnt mean that it shouldn't be edited by anyone else. If you feel the article is biased, feel free to edit it. I have added information supplied by reliable sources only . Moreover the base information was added from other Wikipedia articles Barkha Dutt Nira Radia etc , which was added by others. -- Tinu Cherian - 08:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I will wait for the "fever" to die down. But for now, I am removing Barkha's photo, which clearly shows the bias of this article (she is just one of the people in the tapes). Please remember that the tapes are primarily about Nira Radia. Try and keep focus on that. Achitnis (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, please do not remove the tags until the issues are resolved. That the article is "new" is not an excuse for sloppy writing and research. Achitnis (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to add the images of Nira Radia, if you have one :P Btw remember the so called "issues" are your point of view -- Tinu Cherian - 08:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Barkha's photo makes the article one-sided. She is after all the most recognised face among the journalists named. But yes, The article should also feature photos of Nira Radia, Vir Sanghvi and A Raja —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitbhatia (talk • contribs) 09:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Radia's photo, and Raja's, makes sense. But if you want to drag everyone into this, then apart from Barkha and Sanghvi, Ratan tata and all the others who have had phone conversations with Radia should also be featured. Putting JUST Barkha's photo in the article shows the bias of the piece, and in fact, the attempt to tilt the article's focus from the main subjects (Radia, Raja) to sliming prominent people. Achitnis (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

@ AChitnis. Agreed. However, the scandal is being called Barkhagate and not Tatagate. This is because the crux of the controversy is shifting from the tapes to the silence of the media in the days after the tapes were released. Which is also why the scam is creating so much buzz. There have been many scams in India but very few where influential journalists are implicated. User:Rohitbhatia —Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC).

The term Barkhagate came out of the fact that a well known journalist is featured in the partial tapes that were released. None of the information released proves in any way that these journalists actually did anything more than speak to the subject (Radia) - in fact Sanghavi's article written after the conversation (http://www.virsanghvi.com/CounterPoint-ArticleDetail.aspx?ID=342 clearly shows that he in fact didn't write what he was "told" to write. Achitnis (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Atul, I am trying to make the article neutral & balanced. Please understand that I have no personal interest in defaming Barkha or others. Whatever I am writing are per sources which are referenced. -- Tinu Cherian - 10:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Tinu - make sure that you don't go overboard here. This article is about Radia, Raja, corporate PR, and scams. Try to stay away from the temptation of making this an article about Barkha, Sanghvi or other journalists, simply because they appear on the PARTIAL tapes. Both journalists have in fact openly criticized the govt and Raja many times over. That does not sound like someone who was taking "instructions". Achitnis (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to make the article neutral and balanced with both sides of views. Please discuss on the talk page for specific objections before blindly tagging again. -- Tinu Cherian - 11:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Tinu - remove the weaslish "many analysts", pointing at articles that say NOTHING of that sort. Else I am tagging this article again AND lodging a complaint with other admins. Similarly, just about every second statement that you "support" with references is actually your own interpretation, not actual, demonstratable fact. For example, you state that the tapes were the thing that led to Raja's downfall, when in fact there is NO proof for this - it is just your own conjecture. Fix the article, please, and do not remove the tags again - let some other, neutral admin, decide if my concerns have been addressed. Achitnis (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed "analysts" wording, that you found as objectionable. The tapes AND the CAG reports led to Raja's downfall. Please read the words carefully. Instead of blindly tagging, discuss the issues , what you see, one by one, about the article here. That becomes more constructive for both of us -- Tinu Cherian - 12:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, this article is beginning to sound like a newspaper report, instead of an encyclopedia article. Statements like "have refuted the allegations" don't belong in an article like this. The entire article is beginning to look more and more like a tabloid piece, and the entire focus seems to be - again and again - to point fingers at the journalists in question not at the actual subject of the article - Nira Radia - who without doubt was the one doing the wheeling and dealing. I know that you feel a sense of ownership of the article, but you are clearly unable to maintain its focus. Achitnis (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, could you please stop trying to discuss this article with me on twitter? Achitnis (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why should I feel ownsership of the article? I am only trying to make the article better. I can't help if you are not willing to discuss the issue or co-operate -- Tinu Cherian - 12:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know - are you having difficulty understanding what I have been writing on this page? I STRONGLY recommend that yous top editing the article, and let a neutral editor review the article for tone and encyclopedia-worthiness.Oh, and calling me names on Twitter isn't improving the article in any way. Achitnis (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I humbly request you to list the article issues one by one and we discuss on it. Taking the discussion personally will not help either. I am not taking the tag off until your concerns are cleared. -- Tinu Cherian - 12:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Very carefull go through everything I have written above, especially the part about the tone of the article, which reads like a tabloid (e.g.you speak in present-tense "have refuted the allegations"). This is an encyclopedia - the article has to make sense to someone reading it in the future. This is NOT an ongoing newsfeed. You are throwing in too much insignificant detail, thereby burying the actual subject of the article. For $deity's sake, let go for a while. Let others fix the tone and content. You could learn from that. Achitnis (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the Indian WikiProject noticeboard, requesting that an uninvolved admin review this article and the edits. I would request both User:Achitnis and User:Tinucherian to refrain from editing the page in the meantime. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record - I am not a contributor to the article, and apart from tagging it, have not edited anything in it, for reasons stated above. :) Achitnis (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

State specific concerns when tagging the article

I do not think it is too much to ask that whoever tags an article with a problem template give at least one sentence of explanation as to why the tags are in place. I just removed these tags. I know that there has already been debate about whether the tags should be on the article, and I am not saying that the article does not merit these tags. But it is not obvious why these tags are on the article and the talk page does not clearly explain why these tags are being used. Please give a short explanation for each tag before before re-adding any of these.

 {{Multiple issues
 | unbalanced = November 2010
 | pov-check = November 2010
 | disputed = November 2010
 | weasel = November 2010
 }}

Thanks. Blue Rasberry 22:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That was exactly what I was asking Achitnis. It would have been helpful if he suggests how to improve it than blindly tagging again & again -- Tinu Cherian - 04:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

After going through the article, I have no complaints about the matter as such, but what I noticed is that a lot of the article contains direct quotes either from News channel debates, or newspapers, and even Twitter. I agree that all the information in the article is very well sourced, and the actual matter of the article may not need much change. But I feel that if the use of direct speech is minimised more, the article may be better. At present, I feel that the article is like a collection of the responses the media and the people have to this controversy. Good day. MikeLynch (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Too many instances where the word 'alleged' is used. The first line stated 'Nira Radia's alleged conversations', The conversations are available for all to hear. No one is 'alleging' that she had a conversation, I guess everyone is pretty sure she did. ALso, there is no 'alleged' media blackout. It has very clearly happened. It would be helpful if the article states which publications have reported on the topic because very few have. The blackout by TV Channels is complete. Ideally the tapes should have been playing on every primetime given the Indian electronic media's penchant for sensationalism. (Rohit Bhatia (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC))

The telephonic conversations are real ( None of them have denied that it didnt take place) while the media blackout is alleged ( Thought it is evident :) ). IMHO, let us keep the media blackout as alleged , until proven, for the "neutrality" of the article. -- Tinu Cherian - 11:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Lobbying?

"The transcripts[19] and audio tapes were interpreted as lobbying by Dutt for the ruling Congress Party.[6][20]"

The referred-to articles say nothing of that sort, and this is pure conjecture. In fact, the only statement was

In a rejoinder in the case, the petitioners submitted, "These conversations were given by the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigations) to the CBI more than a year back. A copy of the taped conversations of Ms Radia with Respondent No. 5 (A. Raja), other politicians, Ratan Tata, other corporates, senior journalists and certain middlemen in a CD are annexed as Annexure P35 ¦ Some of the transcripts of the conversations which relate to the lobbying for making Respondent No. 5 as Telecom Minister are annexed as Annexure P36.

It does not say who did the lobbying. It certainly did not name Dutt (as the article says) or Sanghvi, nor do the transcripts support this conjecture - the lobbying was being done by the subject of the phone tap: Nira Radia.

And if that is accepted to be correct, it deflates the entire basis for the remainder of the article. Even worse - while the transcripts show discussion and "instructions", there is no proof at all that the journalists actually violated ethics (they may have, but there is NO proof for that). In fact, in the case of Sanghvi, it is clearly demonstratable that he did NOT in fact "take dictation", but wrote a very neutral and balanced article, seen here: http://www.virsanghvi.com/CounterPoint-ArticleDetail.aspx?ID=342.

Wikipedia is not about the truth - it is about facts that can be proved. If you use that principle to evaluate this article, a lot of stuff is going to end up roadkill. This is not a newspaper where you can hide behind "allegedly" - the second you use that in the article, you admit that you have no evidence or proof.

Also, journalists use all sorts of methods to get information out of subjects - and all one sees in the transcripts is journalists doing what they do all the time. But nowhere in the public material written/reported by them is there any evidence of violation of ethics. The conversations with Radia were meant to be private - just because they were leaked does not make them public statements that the journalists have to be accountable for.

I am not defending the journalists here - they may have violated ethics somewhere (and if they did, they should be punished), but there is no proof of that in the Radia Tapes, and twisting facts or re-interpreting doesn't become proof, either.

Achitnis (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

But in many articles , I could see , editors using the world allegedly. eg; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Ramirez_cartoon_allegedly_threatening_President_Bush.gif , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_allegedly_involved_in_Russian_apartment_bombings

Also , there are a lot of references to reputed sources Like WSJ and WP to prove the stand.
jijoy21 —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC).

Neither of the examples you quoted are articles as we understand them to be. And "allegedly" is a newpaper term, not something you should use in an encyclopedia. And encyclopedia documents provable facts, not uncertainties.

The linked-to articles in WSJ etc merely describe the controversy, but do not offer any evidence or proof of complicity. They are used as (what I like to call) "subjective references" - referring to them gives the appearance of legitimacy of a statement, but if you actually check, you will find that they don't actually support the point.

Achitnis (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

WSJ and WP articles , points out the involvement of Barkha Dutt and other journalists in the issue( I don't believe, defamation suits are unfamiliar to them so without any reason , they will not name someone in the articles ) . Also from I heard the tapes , Barkha Dutt ,was talking as a middle person between two political parties. Also , Barkha Dutt never denied that it's her voice or the discussion never took place. I quoted the links as wikipedia articles to show that, already the term "allegedly" is in use in wikipedia. I am merely pointing out that ,Burkha Dutt was acting more as a middle man.
jijoy21 —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC).

The phrase lobbying by Barkha Dutt is incorrect. However From the tapes it is clear that she was relaying information between Radia and The congress party. Words which come to my mind are go-between, mediator, intermediary, liason etc. Ganeshran (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Radia tapes did not unveil 2G scam

I have removed the following line from the article since its incorrect.

These phone recordings led to the unveiling of the 2G spectrum scam of a record $40 billion involving former Telecommunications and IT Minister A. Raja and other politicians, corporates and industrialists, government officials, middlemen and media persons, and subsequent Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) reports

Commented related ref as well here.

I think the 2G scam was known long before anyone knew of these tapes and even the resignation of Raja happened before this expose. The above statement is factually incorrect. It may be rephrased with "alleged involvement of media", but the above form is totally misleading. Srikanth (Logic) 17:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I had copied the extract from another Wikipedia article Nira Radia, from which I forked this article on the controversy. Having said that the tapes were known as early as April 2010, when The Pioneer and Mail today broke out those stories. Nira Radia has sent legal notice to the Pioneer on the article "Tapped & Trapped" published in April 2010 on their newspaper. -- Tinu Cherian - 04:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

But i guess 2G scam was out in open long before 2009 elections. So essentially radia tapes didnt do any expose with respect to scam, just added more references to scam. Srikanth (Logic) 05:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Point taken -- Tinu Cherian - 06:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to rename the article

What is the focus/subject of this article?

Is the focus of this article the fact that Radia spoke to specific people (from the article it appears that the most important people are the two journalists), or is it about the wheeling, dealing and lobbying by Radia? The tapes do no indict anybody per se, and far more damning conversations have been revealed in them, but this article addresses none of these.

The lead paragraph instantly names SOME people appearing on the tapes, but hardly the most prominent ones. In fact, one cannot understand why it is so important to the editor to quickly name (and continue to name - count the instances) of the journalists, while totally ignoring far bigger names (including industrialists, editors, financial people, etc.) who appear prominently in the tapes.

This article continues to be what it was originally - a vehicle for slamming a few prominent people (against whom no actions other than phone conversations have been proven), while carefully refusing to discuss (or even name) other people, let alone the actual subject of the article.

I propose that we rename this article to "Radia conversations with two journalists" to make it reflect more accurately the nature of this article.

I continue to hold back from editing the article, because I clearly have a strong opinion about the fairness of this "playing-to-the-gallery" article. As I have said before - if the journalists have actually taken wrongful actions, they should be hauled up, but having conversations on the phone is neither proof, nor Wikipedia-compatible fact, of any wrongful action.

I notice that the article is now tagged by someone else other than me, so clearly I am not the only one with this opinion.

Achitnis (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Strong Disagree : Renaming the article to "Radia conversations with two journalists" is a strong POV from the above user. Kindly note the other user objected your huge tag and replaced it with this. Please note what the user said above "I do not think it is too much to ask that whoever tags an article with a problem template give at least one sentence of explanation as to why the tags are in place. I just removed these tags." Hope that explains. It is NOT the job of Wikipedia to investigate whether somebody did wrong or right but to document verifiable facts using reliable sources available. Request Achitnis to help improve the article than have a pointy discussion. -- Tinu Cherian - 04:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Tinu, you seem to be very confused now. The tags were removed by one user, and the new tags were place later by someone else. And my recommendation to rename the article is clearly a sarcastic one, given your heavy POV of continuously referring to the journalists, rather than the larger picture that this article is supposed to cover. Achitnis (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Strong Disagree : As per WP:COMMONNAME. Radia tapes search gives 381K results while Radia conversation search gives 102K results. While its not the only / reasonable measure, I still feel Radia tapes reflect the article much better for covering the subject since its not only about 2 people. Srikanth (Logic) 11:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said in reply to Tinu - I was being sarcastic, and was referring to the frantic attempts to highlight specific people throughout the article, repeatedly. The article completely buried the real big picture with "personalities". Achitnis (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

I am now editing the article to give it more structure and fairness. This is the first time I am editing this article, so I request Tinucherian to refrain from getting into an edit/revert war until I have completed. The article is badly structured, confusing, and a mess of sometimes needless links and references, and the language used in many places is far below the quality one would expect on Wikipedia. Achitnis (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have placed a draft copy of the article at Radia_tapes_controversy/draft, to avoid making too many changes in a "live" article before it is approved. I have consolidated mentions of people and incidents, many of which were duplicated all over the original article to unnecessarily bulk up the article. Some references still need to be fixed, and many have to be removed (it is unnecessary to provide multiple references for every statement, only the most valid one should do).

I invite people to check out this draft, and I will replace the original article with this version if no objections are raised. An admin can then delete the draft page.

Achitnis (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the draft to your userspace since you dont want others to edit it. I would check it out and anyone can put forth suggestions here if some needs to be changed in the main article Srikanth (Logic) 11:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't say that people shouldn't edit it :) By all means, they should have edited it. When I referred to edit wars earlier, I was referring to the original article, not this draft. I am working on a slightly flaky link right now, and am trying to fix the unclosed tags that are causing some text to vanish in the rendered version (they are there in the source). Achitnis (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed ! But I seriously suggest you work on the actual article itself, so that your will not lose information added by others. My concerns and objection was primarly regarding the earlier blind tagging and non-willingness to collabrate to make the article better. -- Tinu Cherian - 12:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If no one (including you) objects, I will replace the current article with my draft. Note that there are substantial changes and a lot of restructuring in my draft, so it is not possible to simply "merge" the two. Achitnis (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

May be you can fix up the reference links issues asap & replace it and then build on it. Please note that the article may be "re-edited" by others or me as time progresses -- Tinu Cherian - 12:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Your article read okay to me. Can you please order the list of names alphabetically / group journalists,businessman,politicians together instead of having them in a random order? Thanks. Srikanth (Logic) 12:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I used the order of the original article, but it makes sense to group them logically. I still have problems fixing those 3 references, the article is really littered with references, making it really hard to debug. IAC, shall replace the article, so that someone can help fix it. Achitnis (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)