Talk:Bhupinder Singh Hooda
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to .If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
crime under Hooda government
The Hooda government, is batteling scams and controversies including the Robert Vadra-DLF land deal, the Gopal Kanda episode, Jat agitations for reservation, series of rapes, attacks on Dalits and rising incidents of crime.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_chautala-arrests-changes-contours-of-haryana-politics_1790111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- We can not put in all the politically-motivated noise, allegations and gossips. We can certainly put in the court cases and inquiries by the independent bodies such as CVC, CBI, etc. This is how WP:BLP guidelines work. For example, can not allege he is scamster unless already convicted in the court, but can certainly include in the article that he or his administration has been alleged of scam in the xyz court case. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Allegations under his leadership
The corrupt Hooda government is battling several scams and controversies: These include, but are not limited to:
1) The Robert Vadra-DLF land deal ;
2) forest scams ;
3) Series of rapes, attacks on Dalits and rising incidents of crime. ;
4) Mr. Hooda licensed a staggering 21,000 acres of land in just 8 years since he assumed office in May 2004. It is alleged that roughly 1,350 acres of land acquired from poor, unsuspecting farmers at a low rate in the name of ‘public interest’ were later licensed to builders after bestowing out-of-turn favours and concessions that helped the land value increase exponentially. Rajsector3 (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you persist in violating WP:BLP policy on this talk page, you may be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- How is the OP violating BLP? Hooda has 6 CBI inquiries and/or cases. Those scam cases should be added. BLP do not prohibit inclusion of reliably-and-independently-sourced court cases. Today, I also added his scam cases to this article, all within BLP guidelines. Today is my first ever edit and post on this article. I am not related to OP, AndyTheGrump, Hooda, congress, or any other party, i.e. I have no COI. Are you related to Hooda, his or congress's supporter/sympethiser (COI question)? Read my other comments on this talkpage. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Alleged Second Marriage
The INLD leader alleged that the woman had complained to a court in Dehradun December last year in 2013 claiming that she was married to Hooda and had a son from him. The woman even filed an affidavit in this regard before the court. Complainant had accused Hooda of cheating her. The complaint moved by the woman had already been dismissed by the Dehradun court as withdrawn. Rajsector3 (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please explain why you are posting this here - and note that Wikipedia policy regarding living persons applies to the entire webspace, not just articles - you must not assert allegations as fact, as you did in the section header, which I have amended. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I explain here that above contents were added previously and removed by the person who removed it is wand to see only good aspects and it all were mentioned with references and like this how it is possible to edit when someone removes content only for the reason to see the praise only and not the criticism which is true with sources.Rajsector3 (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Judging from your edit history, you appear to be under the misapprehension that Wikipedia is a platform for political soapboxing. It isn't. It is an encyclopaedia, and we are under no obligation to report every bit of unsubstantiated tittle-tattle, as WP:BLP policy (amongst others) makes clear. The supposed claim of a second 'marriage' was withdrawn by the claimant - and as such is of no relevance to article content. I have just brought another of your articles up at WP:ANI, and I will clearly have to raise this matter too if you aren't prepared to comply with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Did your come across his other article randomly for which you reported him to ANI? If not, did you report him for that another unrelated article only after you were became upset with him here on this talkpage? and went to his talkpage and edit history to look for stuff against him? then it is potentially a case of revenge and stalking. Do not violate guidelines while punishing others for violations. I am not alleging this is the case at this stage, as I have not investigated it. I as an unrelated person to both of you, am reminding us all to please be aware of both sides of the coin. Warnings, revenge, etc are no substitute for the "cooperative collaboration". An eye for eye, makes the whole world blind. We all must be kind to each other, mentor, guide and teach the lesser experienced editors on equal respectable terms, instead of ANI them due to ego, revenge, or to enforce own POV on article while keeping others edits out, thus smartly/undetectedly gaming of the system by experienced editors against inexperienced ones who are not yet experienced enough to present their case well in ANI, etc. Please start afresh, in a mutually-encouraging and collaborative manner. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Misrepresentation of References/Out of Context
The content under the heading Personal life is wrong: He has also a court case running against him for Illegal Second Marriage. From that second marriage he also has a son and his name is Rajat. He molested and sexually abused a the than congress worker of Dehradun. Her name is Shashi. Later she filed a case in the court under Sec. 9 (restoration of conjugal rights) of Hindi Marriage Act in Dehradun Courts ''Italic text Firstly, the references clearly say that it was an allegation by the opposition. Secondly, the case ended as the woman withdrew the case. Thirdly, it has been clearly mentioned in one of the references that the lawyer who filed the petition on behalf of woman has nothing to do with it.
The content under the headings Scams and Frauds and Name in Robert Vadra and DLF Land Deal is false too. Just on the basis of some allegations that too from opposition political parties, one cannot show the subject in wrong light.
The content under the heading HCS Recruitment Scam is again a misuse of references. Nowhere in the references it is mentioned that 60% jobs were given to his relatives or close associates.
Wikipedia is not about political wrestling or drawing conclusions but is built upon facts & figures. I therefore request the editors to come on a common platform and give a rethink to the above mentioned content so that it can be duly removed. Also, I request Wikipedia to block/blacklist the person who is indulging in such unethical editing practices. Katyaan (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed - the material was a gross violation of WP:BLP policy, and I have accordingly removed it. We do not report allegations as fact - ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for prompt action! Would be nice to work with like minded people. But what to do with people who misuse Wikipedia? Can't they be blocked for violation?Katyaan (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- They can, if they persist in doing so - but the material in question seems to have been added by an anonymous IP, some weeks ago, and given that most IPs are dynamic, blocking it would be a waste of time. If there is a persistent problem, a page can be semi-protected, so only registered contributors can edit, but I don't think this can be justified currently. I've now got the article on my watchlist, and I suggest you do the same. If such policy-violating material is restored, delete it - and consider reporting the matter at WP:BLPN if the problem gets worse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for prompt action! Would be nice to work with like minded people. But what to do with people who misuse Wikipedia? Can't they be blocked for violation?Katyaan (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Disagree: This is not the place for whitewashing the court cases. Reliably and independently sourced scam cases should be included. If any editor has added scams, give him/her goodfaith. Instead of creating hurdles and artificially high barriers (disruptive reverts/edits) to their edits to keep out scams, use collaborative-incremental edits to refine their edits by fixing the issues with edits on scams. When ploys are used (such as, creating artificially high barriers for unfavorable content, but very lenient low barriers for the inclusion of accolades), to edit out the multiple scams, then disguising those ploys as the wikipedia principals (such as, BLP principal used as a ploy to keep only the favorable edits and keep out the unfavorable edits), then this ploy-disguised-as-principal becomes a deliberate case of gaming the system. If there is a violation, then cite the specific passage of policy and show the corresponding text in the edit that violated that the guideline (copy paste both on the talkpage for others to independently review). Do not just vaguely pipelink to guideline article without showing to the editor exactly what mistake they did. Editor can not learn and fix, if they are not give the "specific and actionable" feedback, because lazily and vaguely hyperlinking the guideline to an editor to shut them up is gaming the system. Lastly, remember 5 pillars of wikipedia, treat other editors with respect and use collaborative-iterative edits. Which also means, do not use ploys to revert/edit out others work, instead collaborate by iteratively rephrasing and enhancing their work if they made mistakes. This is the right spirit of wikipedia. If this spirit is broken, then everything else is just a ploy to game the system. If a less experienced editor is intimidated or pushed out by issuing warnings, threats of taking them to notice boards, by throwing wikipedia guidelines on them, or some such behavior, even if it is done smartly to evade detection, the gaming the system will still obviously stand out. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia rightfully already has several existing articles on multiple scam court case of living persons from congress: Wikipedia guidelines on biography of living persons are clear that court cases against them can be reported subject to other wikipedia guidelines, take for example National Herald scam against Hooda's bosses Gandhi family, several other Gandhi family scam cases, Robert Vadra's multiple scam cases, or Lalu Prasad Yadav clan's multiple scam and conviction cases, they all exist on wikipedia permissible under the current guidelines. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Deliberate dilution or removal of scams from wikipedia is punishable for Gaming The System: This is a reminder to all editors that any deliberate removal, dilution or editing out reliable sourced scam content permissible under WP:BLP is gaming the system. If deliberate dilution and removal of scams goes on then, yes, it must be reported to WP:BLPN for gaming the system. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- COI: I am not related to Hooda, his opponents or the any prior IP who edited it. I have no COI. His political supporters could be in violation of WP:COI guidelines, specially if they engage in canvassing to form group here, to deliberately keep out the reliably-sourced permissible content on scam court cases and investigations. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Treat IP with EQUAL respect: Furthermore, be reminded as per wikipedia guidelines treat all editors equal and in good faith. IP, registered users/ and admins, all have same the rights and subject to same conditions of proper use of wikipedia. Admins just have more tools, even they can be blacklisted for gaming the system. Refrain from making comments that directly or indirectly, or even remotely, imply as if IP editors are some kind of disgusting अछूत. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- All editors, please start afresh, drop your past conflicts, build wikipedia in collaborative-iterative manner (rephrase and enhance, not revert), without keeping scams out: As of now, I am not implying or accusing anyone of these violations. But it is important to serve these reminders. If anyone engages in such repeat behavior, then the violations (COI, gaming the system, disruptive edits to dilute scams, vandalism to remove scams, etc) will become self-evident.
The comment(s) below were originally left at several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section., and are posted here for posterity. Following
|This reads like an election campaign mailer.|
Last edited at 09:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Scams added, do not vandalise
I have added 6 CBI cases against Hooda. Please note this is within the wikipedia gudielines for the biography of living persons. Please ensure that his haters do not violate wikipedia guidelines. his blind followers must also ensure to not remove the reliably-sources factual content on his scam court cases. Since Hooda is a political person, do not add "opinion" pieces even from the reliable sources. Keep the nonsense noise out, "he said, they said" etc. Only add the content which has been submitted in the court. Noise made by his supporters and haters outside the court stays out of this article.
Order of importance:
- Court verdict is of highest importance.
- Affidavit filed by the independent investigating agencies such as ED, CBI etc are 2nd most important. Do not add outside noise such as "these independent agencies are biased" that is just nonsense opinion and not a fact admissible in the court. You can add the allegation of bias if Hooda has filed a counter-case alleging bias against these investigative agencies, otherwise keep out the nonsense political noise. Only the court facts.
- Affidavit filed by the other parties to the case, including Hood and his opponents.
- Keep out opinions of media, statements made by Hooda and his followers and haters out the court. This type of edits will be deleted.
WARNING: Anyone trying to deliberately dilute, delete, rephrase in a manner that is not in line with the source and court's verdict will be violating wikipedia guidelines of vandalism, biase, POV, etc and such content will be reverted/deleted and repeat culprits will be permanently banned. Discuss any changes here, build consensus and then apply the edits.
NO COI (Conflict of Interest): I am neither his follower, not his hater. I just want accountable transparent and corruption-free governance and factual unbiased (not neutralised) documentation of facts on wikipedia based on the reliable and verifiable sources. If you are his follower or political opponent, then you might be violating wikiepedia guidelines of conflict of interest if you edit this topic, those people with COI should refrain from editing this article. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned references in Bhupinder Singh Hooda
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bhupinder Singh Hooda's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "indianexpress.com":
- From Farmana: 65 graves point to largest Harappan burial site next door to capital, Indian Express 3 March 2009. Access date 7 January 2011.
- From National Herald scam: "Deals at National Herald: Who got what, when, how". The Indian Express. 10 December 2015.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
×== Violation of BLP ==
The content within Criticism and scam cases violates the BLP policy. All the content mentioned here is under investigation and looks more like political vendetta. Nothing has been proved and no conviction has happened. Moreover, the cases are against previous government and not an individual. The content should be removed. Edwige9 (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- There is no violation of WP:BLP. Exactly which part of the BLP policy has been violated. Please show the exact subsection and passage in the BLP policy to support your claim. The section WP:WELLKNOWN clear states the following:
- "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.
Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred."
- Further WP:BLPCRIME section states that
- "This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN."
- The WP:BLPCRIME criteria does not apply to the "well known public figure", and the subject of this acrticle is a "well known public figure", because he was the Chef Minister of the State of Haryana for 10 years from 2005 to 2015. You can not use that as an excuse to remove the text allowable under BLP.
- All the sourced material is from the several reputed independent newspapers, investigated by the multiple premier investigating agencies of the government of India, wellknown public figure accused has been chargesheeted in multiple cases, not just one case. Allegations, investigations, legal notices and court summons, individually chargesheets in court (at least 2 cases out of 6 under investgation cases against him, in [Gurugram-Manesar IMT land scam]] and AJL-National Herald Panchkula land grab scam), etc all are specifically against the subject of this article as an "individul" for the acts he did in his "individual capacity" of the Chief Minister of Haryana. His various alleged scams are parts of several stand-alone independent wikipedia articles that have been on wikipedia for a long time and have withstood the scrutiniy of time and fellow editers, removed text was in a way summary of those several wikipedia articles. All this very well meets the BLP criteria for inclusion of the material on the "well known public figure". You should have used BLP template to raise and discuss such large chunks of the article, before removing it. Objections raised by you do not stand, because they vaguely mention BLP policy, but your reasons for removal of the text are not supported by the BLP policy.
- Removal of the well sourced text which meets the BLP guidelines comes across as pushing a WP:POV political agenda to protect the favorite corrupt political parties or politicians.
- Hence, all this removed text from the "Criticism and scam cases" section must be restored. Meanwhile I am inserting the BLP template here to draw attention.
- Removed text that needs to be resotred is in this link
|This page is being discussed at the biographies of living persons noticeboard, since it includes information related to a biography of a living person. Please discuss policy compliance issues there. (December 2018)|