Jump to content

Talk:Anjana Om Kashyap

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

December 2019

[edit]

@Winged Blades of Godric: Hi, I ran some scripts and added date/accessdate in these edits, but part of those got reverted without any change to the respective date and language templates, after your edits. Was it because of edit-conflict? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fylindfotberserk, yeah; apologies :-( ∯WBGconverse 17:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Winged Blades of Godric: That's totally OK sir . I'll not interrupt. I'll run these scripts after a day or two. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic part

[edit]

I have problem with opening line has been noted for her pro-Bharatiya Janata Party bias and propagation of Hindutva centered ideologies. in the lead. I found only one source that it The Caravan which called her as this type of actor and another source just trivially name calls her as establishment friendly. I have observed through the internet and it is not widely believed that she has pro-BJP bias. If there is consensus on the subject that she indeed propagates these ideologies then and then it should be here, otherwise it is just opinion and reception by two authors and should not be included in WP:BLP; these are . In case of Arnab Goswami, it is widely believed and his pro-BJP journalism is widely criticised but I don't see same weightage here. It seems someone has been noted just due to opinion of Nikita Saxena which is absolutely WP:UNDUE. Opening discussion, if consensus is not reached then will move to another level of DR- noticeboard or RfC.-- Harshil want to talk? 10:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's because no source has covered her, any significantly. Another RS; there have been some similar observations at a FountainInk piece as well, need to dig that out. ∯WBGconverse 14:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Winged Blades of Godric, if someone has not covered her significantly then this should be sent to AfD. Right? Harshil want to talk? 08:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nah; percentage of sources covering her in significant details that allude of her pro-establishment/BJP bias matters. That percentage is quite high, over here. ∯WBGconverse 10:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anjana Om Modi

[edit]

User:Winged Blades of Godric should this be included ? DBigXrayᗙ 09:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray, what do you say? The Caravan piece mentions that, as well. Propose a line, please; I can't think of any :( ∯WBGconverse 15:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should specially since this gaffe and the subsequent discussion on her political leanings, that was covered in the newspapers. I dont have access to Carava, may be you can post the quote below. Here is a draft. Feel free to tweak. Once we agree I will move it to the article.

On 29 November 2016, while hosting the Show Halla Bol, in the beginning Kashyap introduced herself as 'Anjana Om Modi', after which she corrected herself. The video clip of the gaffe became viral in social media, where the viewers referred to this incident as an evidence of her political leanings in support of the Modi government ([jansatta])

--DBigXrayᗙ 15:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

[edit]

See Wikipedia:How_to_create_and_manage_a_good_lead_section#References_in_the_lead? and MOS:LEADCITE. You have been long pointed to the guidelines in your user-t/p. ∯WBGconverse 10:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric, Please add the refs that is being asked here. For controversial claims it is expected to add ref even if it is in the lead. per WP:LEADREF. that will reduce edit wars and headache. DBigXrayᗙ 10:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

birth place and caste

[edit]

"Anjana was born to Omprakash Tiwari, in the Bhumihar caste, at Ranchi (then part of Bihar)."

Source cited for this statement is Saxena, Nikita (1 December 2019). "How Anjana Om Kashyap, a star of Hindi news television, sells the new normal". The Caravan. Delhi Press. Retrieved 6 December 2019.

But the article does not mention anything like this: https://www.magzter.com/article/News/The-Caravan/Making-News

Reception

[edit]

@Tayi Arajakate: It will take a lot more than only making an unexplained revert after making your first edit ever to this page. Read WP:BMB and be careful with restoring sock edits because you become responsible for any disruption the sock has caused once you restore sock's edit. We cannot allege person of "Communal Provocation" without any substantial sources focusing on it, given it is a crime in real life and Wikipedia is not a court, neither we can use "storypick" for claiming that the person spreads fake news. You need to read WP:NOCRIT as well and refrain from creating POV sections. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Storypick is fairly reliable and is supported by AltNews in that case. I don't see how WP:BMB is even relevant here, it doesn't mean you should revert all edits of sockpuppets including good ones. The text under the section for "Communal Provocation" is reliable sourced as well excluding the title of the section that is, an appropriate heading would probably be something akin to "Pro-Hindutva" but the text itself isn't accusing her of any criminal activity. Neither WP:NPOV or WP:NOCRIT mandate that sections for criticism where it is appropriate should be outright removed. Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BMB clearly means that you are allowed to revert all edits of a sock whether they are good or bad. I am sure that I only reverted edits because they seemed blatant violation of NPOV. There is no need to engage in cherrypicking just to collect some information for justifying a POV section opposed by WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:NOCRIT. WP:INDISCRIMINATE should be noted as well and the "criticism" already exists at Anjana Om Kashyap#The Caravan in a pretty netural manner. There is no need to repeat it. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BMB states that one isn't exempt from being banned for making good edits (alongside bad ones), not that their good edits should all be reverted. Reverting every single edit of a sockpuppet is explicitly not recommended per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. From what I can see, you seem to have reverted every single edit of this account on this page regardless of anything else, including those which are reliably cited and over which multiple other editors had edited. For example, this and this. This edit was re-instated by someone who isn't the sockpuppet as opposed to IP editors trying to remove it. This isn't cherrypicking, the WP:BLP violations are solely in their latest edit which would be appropriate to revert. Having a section renamed as "Criticisms" isn't something barred for BLP pages, especially when all the content in the "Reception" is evidently just criticisms. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You ignored "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban," written on the same page. We can ping DMacks but I don't think he will agree any more than the fact that he made this edit only for reverting a vandalism than taking responsibility of poorly written edit by a sock made which was made here. "Reception" has always got potential of becoming NPOV but "criticism" is just a POV magnet. Your recent revert here by claiming WP:STATUSQUO is also misleading because you restored edit made by a blocked sock and it was nothing more than smearing and nitpicking against the subject who is known for factually reporting the events. That incident is from 2 years ago, do you have any recent sources blaming Anjana Om Kashyap for that incident? If not then it does not belong here because Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no position on the content. On its face, it was cited, and was written in a reasonably neutral tone about the cited details, so the removal was not justified as explained. If the content is not well-supported by the cites (any sort of WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, etc. problem), feel free to hash it out among yourselves. DMacks (talk) 05:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Their older edit do not seem to be in violation of any ban per the SI report. WP:BANREVERT also does not mean that it is necessary to revert every single edit of a blocked user which is what you seem to be doing or even in violation of a ban, which is also illustrated upon in the same section. As for the edit itself, it is cited to reliable sources and is regarding the subject matter (e.g: Anjana Om Kashyap's journalism; the point of her notability). It doesn't matter how old or not an incident is as long as it has received attention from secondary sources which in this case it has, if you have any reliable sources that provide a contrary perspective on the incident or provide incidents with positive reception then you are free to present them. Smearing would be if it were to be uncited or falsification of some form. Not to mention, that specific incident is also not the only one of its kind.[1] Personally, I did find the presentation rather aggressive (which I tried to resolve in this edit) but removal would amount to whitewashing. If you believe that the subject is "otherwise known for factual reporting" – something that's assumed of journalists; then you are again free to provide reliable sources which do state so. Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised that you still don't understand what WP:BANREVERT means, neither you understand what is WP:UNDUE. Removal of obvious smearing is called NPOV, not whitewashing. It does matter how important the incident which  would largely depend on the coverage. Consider WP:DR if you are still not convinced because I don't feel like repeating same thing given you have confirmed that the years old incident was trivial just like another trivial incident you have mentioned now. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BANREVERT is in reference to reverting edits of editors who had made such edits while evading a previous ban, which isn't the case here. It is clearly stated even in your own quotation from the section. Importance isn't determined by if an incident is old or new, that is a very odd argument. If an incident has been given exclusive coverage by independent and reliable sources and is pertaining to the subject matter then they are important enough for inclusion, which is the case here. It is again not a smear unless if the citations were to be false. WP:UNDUE would apply if there were any other significant viewpoints which is why I asked you if you have any evidence to the contrary, from what I could gather it seems uncontested. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted a request at WP:DR/N regarding this. P.S: In case, you think Alt News is not reliable, you should take that to RfC. For the matter it is accredited by IFCN (RSP entry). Otherwise, I don't see how it can be disputed considering the scope of their coverage. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter at all whether the source is reliable or not when the content is contrary to WP:NOTNEWS by being 2 years old, and there is a lack of any recent sources blaming the subject for that incident. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you are saying that the incident has to keep receiving coverage from reliable secondary sources after years as well, then that's just an extraordinary ask considering even the subject herself may not be able to fulfill that at all times. Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Chaudhari, Pooja (8 May 2019). ""I will slap Modi" – Aaj Tak, ABP, News18 misreport Mamata Banerjee's statement". Alt News.

There is a case at the DRN regarding this page.

[edit]

This message is to inform interested editors of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the inclusion of misreporting by the subject of the article. The subject is a journalist. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. Any editors are welcome to add themselves as a party, and you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Anjana Om Kashyap". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 06:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC) (DRN Volunteer)[reply]

Reference 2

[edit]

It seems that the page is about Saxena's article and not about Kashyap. I don't think that a single op-ed piece should be given so much importance. Plus it is behind a paywall and can't be even checked easily. Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anjana_Om_Kashyap&oldid=1207922624"