Talk:Shami Chakrabarti

Investigation claim

I have done a search on the web for the claim that she was investigated and found nothing. Unless someone objects, I plan to remove the claim. Eiler7 19:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If no credible references can be found for this, the claim should be removed. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't find anything on LexisNexis. —Whouk (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In light of the official policy, I am removing the claim. See WP:V for more details. Eiler7 15:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral POV

I do not believe this article is written from a neutral POV, and is biased favourably towards Chakrabarti. --163.1.38.194 09:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. This article is neutral.--84.9.46.37 16:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article seems to be biased, and I think its the lyrics of the song that give that impression - perhaps they should be replaced with a link to the appropriate page on a lyrics site? Davfleming 18:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the lyrics and replaced them with a link, I would argue this makes the article conform to neutral POV. Davfleming 19:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why my IP address has become linked to this thread, and only looked her up because she is currently,as I type,on Radio 4's "Any Questions". However she appears to have been promoted beyond her capabilities, and has made absolutely no contribution to tonights programme. She dodged the first question saying " I'm not an economist" despite graduating from L.S.E. --86.143.109.62 (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(Belated reply) Your IP address is possibly dynamically assigned by your ISP (unless you specifically requested a "static IP" a dynamic IP address is likely to be what you have) so another user may well have had "your" IP address in the recent past. Incidentally, graduating from LSE doesn't make you an economist; Chakrabati studied law at LSE. I'd go further and argue that even graduating with an economics degree doesn't make you an economist: I have a history degree but would never describe myself as an historian (I work in IT). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Guardian article

I can find no article in March in the Guardian in which Shami Chakrabarti refuses to condemn the terrorist attacks. Can others please check. Nicolharper 14:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sister?

Is SC related to Reeta Chakrabarti? 81.107.44.230 (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, she isn't. See Telegraph interview Fifth from last question. Grievous Angel (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Useful and educational as this clarification may be, I found it offensive that somebody thought it would help to put up a "She is not related to Reeta Chakrabarti." on the page (I believe the protocol is to confirm somebody's relation in case it exists, not assume that all non-white persons sharing the same surname are automatically related unless expressly clarified otherwise). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.30.155 (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Dangerous detail?

I am concerned that we should not publish detail which identifies the family of someone whose work and prominence exposes them to personal risk. The lady said on Radio 4 that she has been officially advised to work under her maiden name for her family's safety; and in this case there is negligible public interest in her surname or husband's identity.

(Please would someone Wikilearned explain to me how to find the appropriate policy or procedure to cover this point? If you agree, perhaps you could also expunge the surname from past pages) Jezza (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish. If she wants a reclusive life she should withdraw from public life. Anybody in the U.K. who purports to tell us how to live should live by the same rules as our polititians. Who is she in danger from? "Disgusted" from Tunbridge Wells? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.109.62 (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently from the police in vestigating Damien Green. I expect they get most of their information from wikipedia.--Streona (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a question of WikiPolicy, not opinions of the lady. W:BLPNAMES says "Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." There is no significant value in the husband's name, he is a low-profile figure, his name is totally irrelevant to understanding the subject, and so his privacy, let alone safety, should prevail.Jezza (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually he's considered to be quite a significant figure, her "hero" and someone with a very similar profession to her. It's not as if Chakrabarti is some sort of private individual who never mentions him either, if she's going to seek publicity by giving in-depth interviews to national newspapers about her family life then this makes a very strong case for including such material here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Involvement in the SDP

It is a cast iron fact that Chakrabarti took an active role in the British Social Democratic Party. She actually said as much during one of her appearances of the BBC comedy quiz show Have I Got News For You? and in due course I will attempt to locate the precise edition in order to provide a source, although it will not be easy. I and many others - including Shirley Williams, Dr David Owen, Sue Slipman and Daniel Finkelstein - remember her very well as an enthusiastic SDP activist. Why then, on 8 March 2010, did Meeplet choose to delete this fact with the words "deleted because information incorrect"? To deny this aspect of Chakrabarti's political socialisation is to deny a fundamental part of her history and identity. Her early thinking was, in fact, very mainstream SDP - a party which was right wing on economic issues but left wing on social issues. Multiculturalist (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The valid reason for deleting it is that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). You need to find a reliable source (WP:RS), and I'm afraid blogs don't cut it on that score. If we accepted blogs in general as sources, we'd end up with loads of nonsense in WP. Rwendland (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Shami Chakrabarti has said that she was never a member of the SDP or an SDP activist. Walkwounded (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

She has said nothing of the sort.Multiculturalist (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have heard her asked directly at a public meeting (prompted by Guido Fawkes inaccurate post) and she has denied it - surely you have to have some verifiable facts before you make statements about someone? Walkwounded

The fact she was active in the SDP is verifiable - and is properly referenced and sourced. If you're ever at a public meeting with Shirley Williams then ask Shirl - she'll confirm this! The two of them got on like a house on fire. Multiculturalist (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that 'ask Shirl' is how it works - this is starting to come across as something personal and malicious. If the woman herself denies it and it isn't verifiable the same way everything else is, it should stay off. [user: Walkwounded] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkwounded (talk • contribs) 23:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that 'I have heard her asked at a public meeting' is how it works, either. You have once again removed properly-sourced information about her involvement in the Social Democratic Party. Why do you consider a reference to her SDP past as 'personal and malicious'? If that sort of behaviour concerns you then it is curious that you did nothing to remove Sabgerno's erroneous comment that she became pregnant while working at the SDP Headquarters. Multiculturalist (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Multiculturalist, can I draw your attention to these elements of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy:

1. Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person ... "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.
2. Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; ...; that relies on self-published sources ... the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals
3. Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or blocking the violator(s)
4. and from Wikipedia:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth

On this basis I shall remove this content you have added until you provide a WP:RS for it, rather than a blog entry as the source. If you persist in restoring it without a WP:RS I will remove it without further comment, and I encourage other editors to do likewise. If this is continued I will ask for admin intervention - can I remind you again of 3 above. Rwendland (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has now reinstated a reference to her membership of the SDP, this time with a credible source (not sure how you found that link, Shakehandsman, but well done). It is only a brief reference and, I would argue, a proportionate one. Hopefully, we can all agree that this particular matter is now closed. Multiculturalist (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

A good credible source. But as the SDP decided to dissolve (1987) when Chakrabarti was 17 or 18, this must of been a sixth-form interest (it actually dissolved a year later, but unlikely to get new members that year). I really do think this is barely worth mentioning. Rwendland (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You do not have to wait until "17 or 18" before joining a party. She joined just after her sixteenth birthday, and attended the 1985 & 1986 SDP conferences. (At the latter, she was interviewed for a broadcast of the BBC's World Service). She was also Vice-Chair of the London Region Young Social Democrats and was well known to party leader David Owen and party president Shirley Williams, so the extent of her involvement was significant. For the record, the party did not vote to dissolve until towards the end of 1987 (via a members' ballot and the Portsmouth conference) and did not formally do so until early 1988. Multiculturalist (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to get involved in this but the Essex link doesn't seem to mention the SDP? Not sure what's happened here.Aceblaster —Preceding undated comment added 09:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC).

It's in the second sentence: "She was previously an active member of the Social Democrat Party and then worked as a barrister at the Home Office before joining Liberty in 2001."Multiculturalist (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually the material disappeared from the original ref and I replaced it with a different page from the same site.--Shakehandsman (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It has now disappeared from that page as well. Is it just me, or is someone deliberately trying to destroy any reference to her involvement in the SDP, and if so why? I hope Rwendland and Shakehandsman will not allow those who are trying to remove factual information to now remove the short sentence highlighting her previous membership of the party, otherwise where will this all lead? That she was involved is now surely undisputed, it's just that we may no longer have a "reliable" source.Multiculturalist (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There seems to have been a website redesign leaving no copies of Annual Reviews before 2007-2008. Printed copies will still be available in various libraries of course. You can still see the old design in Google's cache at the moment e.g. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:es6Tm7CVbjYJ:www.essex.ac.uk/review/05_06/finance.aspx+site:www.essex.ac.uk+Annual+Review,+2005-2006&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk NebY (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want an even better source, and something which looks very interesting, try Zerbanoo Gifford's book "The golden thread: Asian experiences of post-Raj Britain" (Pandora Press, 1991) which contains a profile and information from a contemporary interview. (Zerbanoo Gifford was an active member of the Alliance, though from the Liberal Party.) Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, she knew Zerbanoo. I see another left-winger who cannot bare to accept that his/her hero was once involved in the hated SDP, has decided to re-write history by claiming that Sharmishta was only "briefly" a member. That's a value judgement, so I've added the actual dates she was a member in order that readers can make up their own minds. She was actually a member for nearly one third of the party's existence.Multiculturalist (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Your inclusion of dates for membership is much better than "briefly". I have restored the clause you removed "but left before she was 18", as that is relevant. Apuldram (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but it seems a bit superfluous as the party had merged with the Liberals a few months before her 18th birthday so she could not have remained a member even if she had wanted to. Anyway, have left your amendment intact. Multiculturalist (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry case

People should be aware of the recent SPI relating to editors of this page. Quite a few recent contributors are now banned and it may well be worth reviewing some of their edits more closely (at the very least some material is unsourced and their additions elsewhere breach copyright). The relevant SPI is here [1]--Shakehandsman (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In keeping with this, people should be aware that the section about her links with LSE is misleading and, I suspect is primarily inspired by an attempt to embarrass LSE because of the Gadaffi controversy.She did not sever her links with the School. She was a keynote speaker at an LSE public event in JUne 2014 ( http://www.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2014/06/20140603t1830vSZT.aspx).