Talk:Manu Sharma

Reversion

I have reverted this version [1] for three reasons:

1. Blogs links are not encyclopedic
2. Fair use images are unwarranted
3. Addition of extra text on this page is a duplicate of the court case. That text belongs to Murder of Jessica Lall. This is a biography page.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 08:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good reversion (and good work on improving the article generally). The editor who added the link, text and image is someone who has ignored BLP and copyright policies for a while, despite numerous warnings. J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Manu Sharma/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I will be reviewing this article for GA. I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of copy editing the article before I knew I was going to review it. Please feel free to revert everything I did - mostly grammatical fixes. As far as the article stands now, I have only one issue:

• "Villagers and sugarcane workers have alleged that Manu used his political connections and his pistols to terrorise villagers, and sometimes defaulted on payments." - this sentence - I don't understand what villagers and sugarcane workers these are or how this situation (terrorising villagers, etc.) came about.

Otherwise, the article seems to be of GA quality. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

To answer the questions: 1. The villagers spoken about here are from Bhadson, the farm he owned. Basically, he used his clout to instil fear into the villagers (as what's given in the sources). Using this clout, and pistol brandishing he managed to evade payments due. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentence has been fixed and the article passes GA.

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):The pose is clear and well organized. b (MoS):No obvious MoS issues

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):A well-sourced article c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):Good coverage of available information b (focused):Remains focused on article subject.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

An interesting article. Good work in resuscitating it! —Mattisse (Talk) 16:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion

I do not agree that this article meets the GA criteria, on several grounds, not least of which is the clarity and quality of the prose.

• "He was educated at the elite Mayo College in Ajmer, after which he was asked to leave." What is that supposed to mean?

• "Sharma is known to be asthmatic and was given special attention in his childhood." What kind of special attention?

• "Sharma is known to be asthmatic ... Manu initially thought ..". Why the inconsistency?

• "Villagers and sugarcane workers in Bhadson have alleged that Manu used his political connections and his pistols to terrorise villagers, and sometimes defaulted on payments." What pistols? What payments?

• "Since the late 1990s, Sharma also built up the Picadally hotel chain ...". Isn't even grammatically correct.

• "... eyewitness (in their initial testimony) said that they saw him fire twice ..."

There are just some examples of where this article falls short of the GA criteria; there are many, many more.

I have delisted this article, as I do not believe that it is a credible GA. If you disagree with my decision then please feel free to raise your concerns at WP:GAR. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Delisting as GA

Sorry that the article was delisted. I disagree with many of the reasons given and think that any others could have been easily fixed. I enjoyed the article very much as it provided an interesting insight into an aspect of Indian political life not normally encountered. It contained the information relevant to what I wanted to know without unnecessary detail that would have detracted from the article's focus on how this forensic incident was handled in India. Thanks for resuscitating it. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think 1a can be easily fixed, but if the reasons are that it is not "comprehensive" enough, I would have to disagree. As an encyclopedia, we hold ourselves responsible to reliable sources, so if no reliable sources are available, the comprehensiveness criteria should be relaxed. I'm not too worried about the GA demotion. All in a day's work. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness is not mentioned in the GAR, so I am guessing that is not the issue. (Often the "comprehensiveness" complaint comes from the article not meeting some stereotyped idea of what should be in a GA, e.g. that a obscure Olympic athlete article does not contain enough Personal history.) Perhaps it just needs a prose fix-up. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Status of appeal

An OTRS complaint ( # 2009042010061033 ) was filed regarding this article and the status of Manu Sharma's appeal. I have reviewed the article contents and the sources. The listed reference source was: http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=570289, and editor User:Mamta dhody additionally recommended review of original source documents at Indian supreme court website, which include (dates in day-month-year) latest order of 12/05/2008, previous orders of 11/4/2008, 02/04/2008, 27/11/2007, and 22/02/2007.

The issue was whether Manu Sharma's appeal was dismissed, or pending.

On review, Damta dhody's statement appears to be correct. The Outlook India article and the original source documents at the supreme court of india website agree - There were two parts to the appeal, the first a request for bail and release from prison, and the second the primary appeal of the criminal conviction itself.

Both sources agree - the request for bail was denied, as no good reason was given and the primary appeal of the conviction will be heard in reasonable time. Quoting from Outlook India:

"'No case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is made out,' a Bench headed by Justice C K Thakker said, while dismissing Sharma's petition."

"The court said the appeal against the conviction is already admitted and likely to be heard within a reasonable time."

Similarly, the order from 12/05/2008:

"No case is made out by the applicant-appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Application for bail is dismissed. It is clarified that the Court may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the matter one way or the other and all the observations made in the judgment should be taken as confined to dealing with the prayer of the applicant-appellant under Section 389 of the Code. As and when the main matter i.e. criminal appeal will come up for hearing, it will be decided on its own merits without being inhibited or influenced by the observations in the judgment."

Please assume good faith that overenthusiastic new editors may have some factual accuracy to claims of mistakes in articles, particularly BLP articles. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This page should be deleted

The person don't hold high importance and please consider to delete this biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.17.49 (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Court documents

• Note: Cross-posted from my talk page as the information is relevant to the article.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Please undo the "per WP:BLPPRIMARY)" as the edit is well researched from the actual case file which I have given as Reference.Rest is up to you.I wanted the actual case file on the article created on Manu Sharma,to give it authenticity.The facts are not straight.Mamta Jagdish Dhody (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The material you are trying to add is already summarized through the use of secondary sources. Your addition of court document excerpts is both excessive and against Wikipedia policy which is very clear on the subject: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person".--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I differ -this article clearly points only to a criminal case .This is not a Biography.It contains only what happened in a particular case ,which has again re-opened at the High Court of Delhi. If it was a Biography with a mention of some criminal activities by a person,which was debatable ,I would have not included this edit. It is maligning a person on Wikipedia by making him a criminal based on a single judgement.The entire article is based only on one case.Manu Sharma is not a habitual offender nor a terrorist.Please remove the article itself before some one sues Wikipedia .Then you block the judgement.Strange editor.Mamta Jagdish Dhody (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect, the article is a biography of a living person. This is evidenced by that fact that 1) it's a biography article and 2) the person is living. If the article itself does not convince you, please see the category tags and project tags on both the article and its associated talk page. You can differ as much as you like, however you cannot change facts to suit your purpose. There is an article that specifically covers the crime at Murder of Jessica Lal, however this article also falls under the BLP umbrella as many of the individual's involved are still alive. The court case is already covered extensively in the Manu Sharma article through the use of secondary sources as is required by policy. Edit warring to restore verbatim sections of the court documents violates this policy.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank You ! Meanwhile let me inform you on a personal level that I am Intervenor in person to this case (I.A.9098)linked to Indian Intelligence,and I tried to bring truth in the eyes of the public.You are an editor at Wikipedia.Just for your interest as to how people like us work,I am sending you a link.Can you judge from sources quoted by you on the Jessica Lal murder case , as to how the links below ,are connected to the case ?Mamta Jagdish Dhody (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC) 1. http://www.dpsbhilai.in/contents/aboutus/principal-mess.php . 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki . 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_missionaries 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubting_Thomas 5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Gandhi 6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alamos_National_Lab 7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_McMillan 8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W88 9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Cox_Report_controversy

All Helpful Wikipedia articles.So I cannot differ with u people.

Well, as an intervenor in this case you should not be directly editing the article at all. Wikipedia depends on verification through reliable sources, not via individuals attempting "to bring truth in the eyes of the public". --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2014

Pkraji (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Pkraji: To request an edit, you need to specify what you want change and what sources support the change. —C.Fred (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2014

Musabahmadkhan (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Admin,

This page is of Manu Sharma and here the use of Venod Sharma is of no use. Yes, Venod Sharma is Manu Sharma's father but the controversy's of Manu Sharma might create a lot of problem for his father Venod Sharma too. Also, this way instead of spreading information to the folks you are intentionally degrading Venod Sharma's reputation also. So, I believe that wherever the name Venod Sharma is appearing on this page you must remove that. Wikipedia is for good sake of the people not to degrade them without any reason. And here there is no solid reason by which we can say that the use of Venod Sharma is important on this page.

Why are we using the name Venod Sharma on this page?

Hello Admin,

I would like to ask you that on Manu Sharma's Wikipedia page why are we adding the Venod Sharma's name? This way indirectly we are degrading the reputation of Venod Sharma that has no link with this case. Manu Sharma is involved in a very big scam and hence the same information has been added to this page but while using Venod Sharma's name to this page we are creating wrong perception of Venod Sharma that is against Wikipedia policy I guess. Wikipedia doesn't include the Biography of a living person but here the image of a living person is being indirectly affecting regularly. So, its a request please remove the name Venod Sharma and the reference links related to Venod Sharma from this page and may include or update this page using any of the information of Manu Sharma as it belong to him only.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.134.112.203 (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.96.248.251 (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Admin,

Its a page of Manu Sharma who has been involved in a very big scam and the use of his father's name Venod Sharma is indirectly affecting Venod's life also. Wikipedia does not give the biography of a living person but here the use of Venod Sharma's name might degrade his reputation in front of others. Wikipedia is to give the real and factual information to the people instead of showing this that who is the father of whom. I agree that the use of a person biography is important but if the person is already involved in a scam then by using other person's name with his/her may create a lot of problem for that person too who hasn't done anything wrong. Venod Sharma is not at all involved in this case then there is no use of using his name on this page in which except Manu Sharma's scam nothing else has been updated. So, its a request to please remove the name Venod Sharma and the reference links related to Venod Sharma from this page and may include or update this page using any of the information of Manu Sharma as it belong to him only.

Thank you

Not done: - Although changes you wish to bring about in the present article is not very clear, it appears that all you want us to do is, to remove the name "Venod Sharma" from the article, who is father of the subject of the article because you see it as degrading the reputation of him. Please note that, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we have some policy and guidelines we act in accordance with. I do not see any disrespect or attempt to disrespect him in the article. He is mentioned in the article only twice, and only as the father of the subject, no where else in the crime committed. An ambiguous edit semi-protected request*. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

The use of this name Venod Sharma on this page is showing this page in the google search results of Venod Sharma. This way the personal as well as political career of Venod Sharma is affecting. Its not necessary to add a family's biography or name on this page. Manu Sharma doesn't has its own identity. He is known because of this case only that is completely negative and hence the use of his father's name on this page is indirectly creating problem for Venod Sharma. Also, I know that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia that should deal with the aspects of one subject but here its not like that. Why only venod sharma's name is involved in it? Because he is great politician. Why his mother's name or any other sibling's name has not been involved?

Here, the page is of Manu Sharma and hence only his information must be added to it then why are we using Venod Sharma's name to this page. Also, on Wikipedia itself I have seen it many times that many of an individual's page doesn't include the name of any of his family member.

The name of Venod Sharma on this page is creating a lot of problem. Whats the use of using his name on it? This page might be created to give information about Manu Sharma's case. Also, the Biography of a living person should not be involved in it this way you are indirectly violating your privacy policy. Also, its a very serious matter and if Wikipedia will not resolve it then I will contact Google to de-index it from google search result. Being a responsible citizen its my duty to stop whatever is going wrong. I am not asking you to remove this page as its based on facts although I am asking you to remove the Venod Sharma's name that has been intentionally added to page and hence misguiding people as if Venod Sharma was involved in this case. I hope now all your doubts might be clear and the name Venod Sharma will soon be removed from this page.

Thanks

Not done: - As you now know that, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Also note that, information present in Wikipedia articles are solely based on information present in secondary, independent and reliable sources. We are not violating the privacy policy because the person in question is a notable person and the father of the subject. As you say, [..]misguiding people as Venod Sharma was involved in this case. I'm not sure, how(?).. You can re-read the article, he is mentioned only twice and as a father of the subject of the article, once in the lead and other in the "Personal life" section, not anywhere in the "Murder and Conviction" section. So, that's it. I still do not see any disrespect given to Mr. Venod Sharma by referring him father of Manu Sharma, what he really is. And, the article mentions Venod Sharma as the father of Manu Sharma because reliable sources say so.

I'm aware that, there's a states assembly election about to happen in couple of months. Well, Wikipedia is not a place to play politics. If you find something, really ungracious (see, WP:UNDUE-WP:HARASSMENT) you may ask us to edit the page. Do not use {{edit semi-protected}} template unless you have really something to change to improve the present article. I'd however say, take this opportunity to learn Wikipedia. See, Five pillars of Wikipedia. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you understand the problem. This Wikipedia is appearing with the keyword "Venod Sharma" on Google. Why because the name Venod Sharma has been used on this page. And hence the people are relating the manu sharma and his case with venod sharma that is indirectly affecting his personal as well as professional life. The use of the name Venod Sharma on this page is not as much important as it is to remove Venod Sharma's name from this page.

Not done: -If a page appears on Google search, that is related to Google, not Wikipedia. If people are making wrong assumptions, that is related to those people, not Wikipedia. I suggest you to not repeatedly use {{edit semi-protected}} template for this reason, or I'm afraid to say, you'll find yourself reverted. If there's something that can be done to improve the present article, then propose your changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Admin,

I would like to remove the name Venod Sharma from this page as its a page of Manu Sharma and the usage of Venod Sharma name is not much important over here. As per the Wikipedia's policy we cannot include the biography of a living person. And hence here the biography of Venod Sharma is not at all important so please remove the name "Venod Sharma".

Thank you

Not done: Please read the actual policy governing biographies of living persons. Also cannot comprehend your reasoning for removing the name of Manu's father from Manu's page. Cannolis (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

{{delete | [Manu Sharma is not a notable person. He was involved in a criminal case. Neither he is a great personality nor he is the owner of any big firm or organization. He is just a layman who murdered a lady for which he has already been punished. Then on what basis his Wikipedia page has been created online. There are many criminals exists then why only his page has been created. Wikipedia should give equal importance to everyone. If anybody can put information on Wikipedia then anybody's Wikipedia page can also be made over here. There must be some rules and regulations that Wikipedia must follow. Everyone knows that Manu Sharma is not at all a popular person although he is just a criminal and by posting his information like this online we are indirectly promoting him. Who knew Manu Sharma before no one but if such information or pages will be made online then everyone will get to know about that yes Manu Sharma might be a a very popular personality. I don't think that there is any use of promoting this page anymore. Here, on this page the Jessica Lal's murder case information has been mentioned so the page must be of Jessica Lal Murder case rather than of Manu Sharma. Being a normal user of Wikipedia its my duty to report the issue that we all face and analyzes by seeing this page. If you think this page must be there online then please give me some genuine and solid reasons that ye this page must be present online and its really very beneficial for folks. Also, please if you can then prove me that the page has not been created for the promotional purpose. And if possible please remove this page] }}

And if I am wrong then please give me the reason for that...

I've opened your deletion request for discussion here. Note that Wikipedia's usual inclusion criterion is spelled out here, which is more or less that we don't make judgements about who should be a notable person, merely what people have attracted notice. Special considerations are given to the biographies of living people, spelt out here. WilyD 11:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Original statement

"The court has acquitted them because the Delhi police failed to sustain the grounds on which they had built up their case. The police failed to recover the weapon which was used to fire at Jessica Lal as well as prove their theory that the two cartridges, emptied shells of which were recovered from the spot, were fired from one weapon". As a long retired appellate judge I have to say, I've never read such a nonsensical statement in all my time. Thank God there are courts of appeal and justice was served. 213.114.44.178 (talk) 10:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manu Sharma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607192411/http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=239728&version=1&template_id=40&parent_id=22 to http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=239728&version=1&template_id=40&parent_id=22
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19990506/ige06079.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tehelka.com/story_main16.asp?filename=Ne030406Manu_Not.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=570289
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Manu-Sharma-granted-5-day-parole/Article1-769854.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)