Talk:Binayak Sen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

POV[edit]

Please stop deleting significant information from notable sources. Please refer to the Wikipedia tutorial on Neutral Point of View. "The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it." Removing information just because it disagrees with one's viewpoint is not the way forward. Thanks 92.21.156.152 (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is highly biased towards one side and demonises the other. Someone should try and restore the balance in the articles. Just a passing thought, why these champions of human rights never raise their voice against the killings by the terrorists (Indian Law recognises Naxalites as a party)? Food for thought, may be. Please do not remove the tag before balance is restored. Shovon (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

comment on POV: This appears to be a factual entry about Dr. Binayak Sen. Please provide any relevant facts about Dr. Binayak Sen which are missing from the entry. Otherwise please remove the POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.6.186 (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

comment on POV: One _expects_ terrorists to create terror. But one does not expect the State to create terror. This is why human rights activists are more critical/vocal about abuses by the State. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.234.66 (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, removing the POV. I am trying to get reliable information on Dr. Sen's activities which led to his arrest and subsequent denial of bail even by the Supreme Court. Normally, the Supreme Court does not go by the Govt. version, so there might be some serious charges levelled against him with adequate proof. Also, Naxalite movement is a serious threat to a large part of India. The human rights activists, who are crying hoarse over the arrest of Dr. Sen, conviniently keeps quiet when Maoists gun down police personnel or civilians opposed to them. That's why I had put up the POV tag, as this srticle cites references from all these sites only. Shovon (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shovon, Please refer to the Wikipedia tutorial on Neutral Point of View. "The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it." Also, Wikipedia guidance: "marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article". Please add any relevant verifiable facts about Binayak Sen which are missing from the article. Thanks 92.23.50.218 (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have not subtracted anything from the article. Another user edited the whole article and re-wrote almost all of it. But, as a matter of fact, I must say that very less amount of material is actually available from neutral sources. Please note that when I say, neutral sources, it excludes sites such as Amnesty and PUCL. The main problem is, maintream media in India has not covered this arrest in a major way. Lastly, because the Supreme Court of India denied him bail, so there must be some amount of truth in the charges with adequate proof. Of course, you may differ and this is my assumption only. Shovon (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Shovon and Bharatveer, I share with you the faith you have in the judiciary of India, especially the Supreme Court. However the real point is being missed in these debates. The fact of the matter is that Dr. Binayak Sen was held in detention for months and before even being charged for an offence, let alone be tried. There is clear evidence on part of the authorities to delay trial proceedings as much as possible on every pretext. The real problem here is that the normal methods and interpretations of the Indian Penal Code have been discarded for a perverse logic of victimisation perpetuated by the Chattisgarh Public Security Act. The Act basically treats someone arrested under it guilty until proven innocent, which is the opposite of what is considered fair in a legal regime. Details of the problem with this law, (which do not even mention Binayak Sen, and therefore should assure you of being non partisan) are available in a number of sites, including http://www.cgnet.in/N1/CHRIpsa/document_view. When the law itself violates norms of justice and fairness, in the name of national security, it is only natural that the judiciary, including the supreme court can also fall prey to it. This is a new law enacted in 2005 to fight the Maoist terrorism, which violates all sense of basic individual freedom, civil liberty and human rights. I condemn in the strongest terms possible the Maoist doctrine of indiscriminate violence. I am not and never have been a naxlite/Maoist and have no sympathies with them, or expectations from them. But I am and have always been an Indian. So when I see the Indian state victimising its own citizens through laws which are unfair, bring international criticism and shame to the country, I feel it is my duty to protest. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but kindly in the process do not misrepresent the concern for where India is headed if it can enact flagrantly unfair laws and victimise innocent people as a mere case of petty politicking.

To all contributors above: Please note that Wikipedia is not the place to publish one's personal opinions. Please also remember to sign your message with 4 tildes. Thanks 92.23.50.218 (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about the personal opinion bit (and be sure, I don't allow my personal opinions & prejudices to spill over to the main article pages). But isn't it ironical that a person like Noam Chomsky, who in all probabilty does not know anything about the ground realities in India, airs his personal opinion and gets media attention because he is famous and which in turn can be cited and so can be included in Wikipedia. Regarding the "The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it.", there's no point adding the same thing and including the same stuff over and over again.

I also share your concern about the draconian laws like POTA and Chattisgarh Public Security Act, but you know "Desperate times call for desperate measures". Why the Naxalites got a foothold in the first place, can be debated and as a fellow Indian I am pretty sure you also know the reason. But you have to agree that they are a threat to the life, security and the rule of law itself. In order to effectively counter them, you have to pay them back in their own coin. As for the excesses by the Salwa Judum, please refer to the number killed by them as against the number of Salwa Judum activists killed by the Maoists. I believe you will get a clearer picture as to where the affiliations of people like Dr. Sen lie. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shovon. Please refer to Wikipedia guidelines: "Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal)."
Please find any such referenced material about Binayak Sen which is currently missing, and add it. If no further relevant referenced material can be found, please remove the POV. Thanks 92.23.50.218 (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Clean up required[edit]

This article requires clean up .Currently this page looks more like a publicity page for PUCL.-Bharatveer (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This Article seems thoroughly biased and one sided--Puruvara (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been raising the same concern for quite some time now. One example of such bias is Noam Chomsky's statement. How in the earth, he is able to tell that the charges against Dr. Sen are baseless? May be, we can do away with the courts and judges and install Noam Chomsky in that place. Shovon (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia guidelines on improving articles: "The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it." Thanks 92.23.50.218 (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the one of the core principles of maintaining a neutral point of view should not be violated, and anything which does may be revmoved/altered. Wikipedia is not for for personal opinions(with absolutely no value judgement on the good work that Binayak Sen is doing). Prashanthns (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it appears utterly one sided and reads like a propaganda broadsheet. There is little doubt that naxalite terrorism is a long standing national security threat in India (not to mention an public safety issue), going on 40 years now. The government's case will be presented in teh upcoming trial (the judiciary is hardly dead in India) and in the meanwhile why does this article read as if the case was already decided in Binayak's favor? Hulahoo (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia guidelines: "Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal)."92.9.238.103 (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of complete "public statement"[edit]

Is this required? It should either be removed or suitably shortened.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Why? 92.9.63.96 (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not -Bharatveer (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Clean up[edit]

This bio requires some serious clean up.-Bharatveer (talk) 11:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please think how different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal). No use removing material which is contrary to one's point of view. 92.10.189.72 (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Please refer to Wikipedia guidelines on improving articles: "The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it." Thanks 92.23.138.132 (talk) 12:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
You need to understand the policies better. for your kind information, a single meaningful line is much better than 20 lines which do nothing but push a ceratin POV. Shovon (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
No use removing material just because it is contrary to one's point of view.92.20.144.174 (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons . From this "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article....." -Bharatveer (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Please add any important referenced information which has been omitted. It may be that the majority of material in secondary sources is contrary to your viewpoint. That is not a reason to remove material. Thanks 92.9.247.59 (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Please refer to Wikipedia guidelines on improving articles: "The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it." Thanks 92.9.139.84 (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not.-Bharatveer (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
You may not like the majority of what secondary sources say. That is no reason for removing material. 92.20.16.190 (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
"Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ."-Bharatveer (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Stop removing material just because you do not like what secondary sources say. Thanks 92.8.2.0 (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Single Purpose Account[edit]

There's a user using a range of IPs 92.x.x.x, who it seems, only edits this article. The article badly required a clean-up, which has now been completed by Bhartaveer. After going through the article, I believe that no information has been deleted from the article and only the redundant sections have been done away with. So, my request to the IP would be to first discuss the reason as to why he/she thinks this to be vandalism (although it clearly is NOT) in the talk page before filing another ANI request or so. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A person on Wikipedia may certainly use a certain IP if they want to allow others to know where they live. Otherwise they can use an alias. Obviously this person may be interested in the biography of a living person. Try looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons "If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." Shovon- have you added any 3rd party published references to this particular biography? Karnajora (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS[edit]

References for this article needs to be verified. http://www.binayaksen.net/2008/05/nobel-winners-call-for-release-of-dr-binayak-sen/ is a personal website and as such it is not WP:RS.-Bharatveer (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Bharatveer (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Binayakse.net is not a personal website. I am a member in the editorial committee. As clearly mentioned on the About page it is platform set by Following well popular civil society Organizations .
Indian Health Front, INSAF, Kerala Independent Fishworkes Federation (KSMTF),movingrepublic, ODAF, PEACE, New Delhi, Peopleswatch, Theeradesa Mahila vedi Third Eye Films , Visualsearch

--AniVar (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing WP:RS tag based on provided information —Preceding unsigned comment added by AniVar (talkcontribs) 11:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Anivar Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.From this "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. Please use NPOV while editing WP.-Bharatveer (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't removed COI or WP:RS. I only inteded to remove Selfpublish. With valid reason's stated above. But while it was removed by someone else before i can change it. I know COI very vell. and not intended to touch on it. I am Removing Selfpublish note now --AniVar (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:SELFPUBLISHED#Self-published sources and Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Support of 22 Nobel laureates[edit]

BBC attributes the soource of the news "support of 22 Nobel Laureates" to "Press released by Free Binayak Sen campaign". From http://www.binayaksen.net/2008/05/nobel-winners-call-for-release-of-dr-binayak-sen/ , the following names are given as "John Polanyi (Chemistry 1986), Francois Jacob (Medicine 1965), Roger Guillemin (Medicine 1977), Charles Townes (Physics 1964), John Polanyi (Chemistry 1986) Peter Agre (Chemistry 2003,) Claude Cohen-Tannoudji (Physics 1997), Robert Curl (Chemistry1996), Johann Diesenhofer (Chemistry 1988), Paul Greengard (Physiology or Medicine 2000), Eric Kandel (Physiology or Medicine 2000), Sir Harald Kroto (Chemistry 1996), Yuan T. Lee (Chemistry 1986), Craig C. Mello( Physiology or Mediicne 2006), F. Sherwood Rwoland (Chemistry 1995), Jens C. Skou (Chemistry 1997), PHILLIP A. SHARP (Physiology or Medicine 1993, HAROLD VARMUS (Physiology or Medicine 1989), SIR JOHN E. WALKER (Chemistry 1997), TORSTEN WIESEL (Physiology or Medicine 1981) and the world-renowned economists Kenneth J. Arrow (Economics 1972) Finn Kydland (Economics 2004)."

It seems that one good guy named John Polanyi got a lil excited and offered his support twice for our Binayak.-Bharatveer (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
It was a mistake in Press Release Text. Thanks for pointing. I corrected it. But the same page you pointed also links the PDF of the statement see Nobel winners statement --AniVar (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Physicians for Human rights, another Nobel winner also released a separate statement later for the release of Binayak sen see their website [1] It also need to be mentioned in article. It is 22 + 1 Nobel winners

List of 22 Nobel laureates

PETER AGRE Chemistry 2003 KENNETH J. ARROW Economics 1972 CLAUDE COHEN-TANNOUDJI Physics 1997 ROBERT CURL Chemistry 1996 JOHANN DEISENHOFER Chemistry 1988 PAUL GREENGARD Physiology or Medicine 2000 ROGER GUILLEMIN Physiology or Medicine 1977 FRANCOIS JACOB Physiology or Medicine 1965 ERIC KANDEL Physiology or Medicine 2000 SIR HARALD KROTO Chemistry 1996 FINN KYDLAND Economics 2004 YUAN T. LEE Chemistry 1986 CRAIG C. MELLO Physiology or Medicine 2006 JOHN POLANYI Chemistry 1986 RICHARD J. ROBERTS Physiology or Medicine 1993 F. SHERWOOD ROWLAND Chemistry 1995 JENS C. SKOU Chemistry 1997 PHILLIP A. SHARP Physiology or Medicine 1993 CHARLES TOWNES Physics 1964 HAROLD VARMUS Physiology or Medicine 1989 SIR JOHN E. WALKER Chemistry 1997 TORSTEN WIESEL Physiology or Medicine 1981 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.139.84 (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please give the source.-Bharatveer (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Stated Above --AniVar (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

WP policies[edit]

Please read WP policies regarding NPOV. It seems some people are making it look like propaganda material. They are even removing cited refs ("Sen was an active political activist of Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha from the early eighties") repeatedly.-Bharatveer (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia guidelines: "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims." The statement above appears to be original research, contrary to the verifiable and widespread description of the subject as a human rights activist.
Please avoid conjectural interpretation. Also, the use of "was" and "from the early eighties" is language that invites conjecture from the reader about whether the subject "is now" whatever the original research claims him to be.92.20.203.157 (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Not only that, they are repeatedly also removing the tags from the article. I would actually like to get a neutral third party option on this and hence haven't edited the article for a while. I have also requested Ragib to have a look at this. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The Jonathan Mann Award contributes importantly to the notability of the subject, as based on coverage in The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, BBC, Washington Post, The Hindu, The Times of India, etc. etc. Why condone the repeated removal of this central point from the lead section?
Also, please note that this repeated deletion of valid encyclopedic material appears to have stopped. Further, self-published material written by the subject is permitted by wikipedia when it is relevant to the notability of the subject. Therefore the tags regarding conflict of interest and self-published material seem inappropriate. 92.20.203.157 (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to request all to sit back for a while, take a deep breath and edit some other article for some time. Meanwhile, let us get a third party opinion from an Admin on this. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop deleting significant information from notable sources. Please refer to the Wikipedia tutorial on Neutral Point of View. "The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it." Removing information just because it disagrees with one's viewpoint is not the way forward. Thanks 92.21.156.152 (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Attention, Vandalism checkers[edit]

Please see that cited references like this (Sen was an active political activist of Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha from the early eighties.AIDPublication is being removed repeatedly.-Bharatveer (talk) 10:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The claim above appears to be original research, contrary to the verifiable and widespread description of the subject as a human rights activist. Even the reference does not describe the subject as the claim above does. 92.22.67.105 (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
copied from section above: Please refer to Wikipedia guidelines: "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims." 92.22.67.105 (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
copied from section above: Please avoid conjectural interpretation. Also, the use of "was" and "from the early eighties" is language that invites conjecture from the reader about whether the subject "is now" whatever the original research claims him to be.92.22.67.105 (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see (from the ref cited)"The orphaned cmm bravely struggled on, ably led by Janak Lal Thakur and Niyogi’s other colleagues. Sen and his wife Ilina stayed on in the area, working both with the cmm as well as in the field of health, and later began work with the civil liberties movement." This reference is very reliable source (WP:RS) and it supports my edit (Sen was an active political activist of Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha from the early eighties). There is nothing "conjectural" in this statement. This is important to this bio.-Bharatveer (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no mention at all of "political activist", whereas the majority of third-party sources describe the subject as a human rights activist. "Political activist" may be your strong point of view, but it is original research which is open to accusations of libel.
Further, it is good to see that you have in the past few days stopped deleting vast amounts of valid information from third-party sources. Deleting vast amounts of information which disagree with your strong point of view is not the right way. It may be that you do not like what the majority of third-party sources write. But that is not a reason to delete vast amounts of material. Thanks. 92.8.109.2 (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha is a political party. The AID publication makes it very clear that he worked for CMM and later shifted to "Human rights" activism. What is your point in removing this reference? Do you suppose this reference is not "reliable" or is it that you just dont like his being a political activist? I deleted mainly repetitive parts( FYI, Jonathan Mann award appears not less than 4 times in this article).-Bharatveer (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The Jonathan Mann Award contributes importantly to the notability of the subject, as based on coverage in The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, BBC, Washington Post, The Hindu, The Times of India, etc., see sections above. Repeated removal of this central point from the lead section is unjustified.
Repeated removal of the Jonathan Mann Award from the lead section and insertion of your original research claim about "political activist" is unjustified. Third-party sources state only that the subject helped set up the CMM hospital, as a doctor. Even you state that he is a human rights activist, contrary to "was from the early eighties" a "political activist". You may feel strongly about your original research, but it invites the charge of libel.
You might not like the way that the subject is presented in third-party sources, but that is not a reason for deleting vast amounts of reliable information which contradicts your point of view as you repeatedly did. 92.8.109.2 (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Then keep Jonathan Mann award once in lede and another in the body. What is the use of this award being mentioned a "1000" times. Will it in "any way" increase the respectability of the subject?? I hope some WP editors will come across this "farce" and edit it accordingly.-Bharatveer (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons- "We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.[2]" . Please discuss here whether this bio follows any of these guidelines.-Bharatveer (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The source cited by Bharatveer definitely establishes the fact the Dr. Sen was an activist of Chattisgarh Mukti Morcha. As, the morcha is a political forum, so definitely was a political activist. I don't see any reason why it should be excluded from the article.

According to my knowledge, this article suffers from the following lacunae -

  1. It is written like an advertising piece resulting in deitification of the subject of the article.
  1. Overuse of a single achievement like Jonathan Mann Award, multiple times
  1. No official view has been included in the article.
  1. The article is too long and can be edited down to a more readable form.
  1. There is definitely a case of WP:COI as some people who are campaigning for release of Dr. Sen are also actively editing this article and are averse to any changes which do not suit their design.
  1. The source binayaksen.net, does not satisfy the criteria for WP:RS.
  1. A range of IP from UK seems to be a single purpose account, as she doesn't edit any other article and has been acting as the owner of the article.

I would request an uninvolved third party experienced user to look in to these matters. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"In 1981, inspired by Niyogi, Sen and two other doctors came to work among Chhattisgarh’s mine workers. They were instrumental in setting up the modest but impressive Shaheed Hospital, built and maintained with voluntary labour from the miners. By the mid-80s, the hospital had grown from 15 to 50 beds with its own operating theatre." This is what this third-party article, published in the periodical Tehelka, says. Nowhere does it mention "activist" or "political activist". That is unverified original research.
By contrast, many third-party sources describe the subject as a human rights defender, civil rights activist, human rights activist etc. You point of view may resent the fact that the subject is depicted in a favourable light by the majority of third-party sources. If so, the solution is not to concoct conjectural original research. Nor to remove vast amounts of important third-party information which is contrary to someone's point of view.
The question is whether the article fairly represents what third-party sources write. Original research and unverifiable claims which suit someone's point of view will not change that. Thanks 92.8.109.2 (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Article needs cleanup[edit]

This article needs cleanup, badly! I have done some minor stuff, as I see that there is some edit warring going on. However, the article does not comply with any WP standards at all. It reads like a newspaper article ("John Doe stated that ...", "the police declared that ...", etc). Almost all (or even all) of these quotes can and should be deleted. There are more encyclopedic ways of formulating things! Also, the form of almost all references is rather appalling, but I have not done anything about it as this would take hours. (A helpful tool to do this can be found here. I don't want to get involved in the disagreements displayed here, so I am not even watchtlisting this page and will not return here either, this is just a bit of well-meant advice. --Crusio (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have many topics that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information. The use of quotes appears to ensure that the third-party sources are accurately reported. 92.23.190.102 (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Binayak Sen is not Vinayak Sen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.190.102 (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

False Informations[edit]

There have been a number of blatant lies spoken in the earlier edits in the Binayak Sen page. It has been said that there were no evidence against him but one oh his own supportive websites accept the fact and show that there were many marxist and naxal related documents found at his residence.

The document appears to be having been edited to favour one side as is clear by posting only those comments by the people who were in his support but the statements by the Police, State Government, Central Government and the different courts which had denied him bail were not given "any" weight.

The Evidences that had been provided by me (with reference from one of the Binayak Sen's supporter's website were again re-editeed and removed.Superbmohit (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Religion: It is recorded that Dr Sen is a hindu. Some comments on Facebook and Twitter believes he is of the Christian faith. Is it absolutely certain he is a hindu?Awmyth (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no relevance of this issue to the Wikipedia article.Shankargopal (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the heading saying "Interest in the case and possible links with missionaries" as the sentence that followed it said nothing about missionaries, and no source was cited. Apart from being in violation of Wikipedia guidelines, such allegations are a serious matter in the context of the attitude taken by certain right wing groups in India and at least require sources.Shankargopal (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Official Judgment[edit]

User:Dougweller rightly pointed out that scanned copies of original judgments may not be acceptable. However for incorporating the charges against him, can Indian Kanoon be used? This website uses the judgments directly from www.judis.nic.in website of Government. This is the most authentic and free website for judgments. Almost all the legal websites use this website for quoting or citing any judgment on any online article. In the present case, the punishment mentioned in the scanned copy put by me is exactly same as that mentioned in this website. I strongly suggest that the same be used.--MohitSingh (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No - you would need a reliable source like a newspaper or book to present the outcomes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)