Jump to content

Talk:Rajiv Dixit

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

Request changes on 15th-June '13: Criticisms

[edit]

No criticism found against him in the net.

RFC can we say he peddaled false hoods in the lede

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus against including this claim. The reliability of the provided sources has been credibly impugned, with no refutation given. Additionally, even if they were reliable, it is not clear that the claim would constitute due weight. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simple enough can we say "He was also noted for spreading false claims." in the lede or words to that effect? Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Yes - The subject is known for spreading disinformation and it is a totally undisputed fact. Orientls (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - The two references used are poor (summary below, Vishal(2016) unreliable, Dwivedi(2017) an opinion piece). Neither should be used, let alone be used in Wikipedia's voice in the lede. As no other source currently used even suggests something along the same line, it appears to be a minority viewpoint that is not due any weight, especially when stripped from the political context that is apparently driving it. --Hipal (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What content belongs in the lede should be a WP:POV discussion, where editors point out the quantity of high-quality sources clearly verifying the content in question, and how they clearly demonstrate it is of high prominence to the subject of the article. If this is a prominent but minority viewpoint, then the proper context is needed in addition, so we can determine if Wikipedia's voice should be used, and/or some context is needed to present the minority viewpoint properly. No such discussions have taken place. --Hipal (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Not with current formulation and not on current placement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaandpolitics (talk • contribs) 22:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - This information has been confirmed by at least 5 reliable sources that he was a profilic a fake news peddler. To state otherwise is disruptive. The lead before this recent content dispute said for years that he was a "conspiracy theorist".[1][2] More whitewashing is not needed. Capitals00 (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: What is this even about? False claims about what? Needs more context. The way it is currently is useless --FMSky (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per Capitals00. A quick Google search also shows that promotion of fake news is the modus operandi of this individual. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per UNDUE, the sources are weak and questionable/unreliable. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It is already detailed on the section "Ideology and rhetoric". Those who are disputing the sources have clearly no idea about this topic area. Azuredivay (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No (Summoned by bot) UNDUE, the sources are weak and questionable/unreliable. per Isaidnoway. Insufficient and insufficiently clear sourcing for such a damning but vague, condemnation of a BLP subject. Pincrete (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Per discussion below. Looking at the opposes above, many of them have been already addressed by Slatersteven right here. As for the rest, it is absurd to deem these reliable sources as unreliable without any basis and it is also absurd to wrongly label this subject as a "BLP" despite the fact that subject has been dead since 2010. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discusion

[edit]

(invited by the bot) The underlying question is whether the material and characterization in the body of the article is correct. Is this just ginning up a few instances where somebody interpreted what he said as false? And regarding what he said was it intent to deceive or just careless hyperbole? And in all cases was it enough to be an overall characterization of him? I tried looking into it but had trouble translating the sources and ran out of wiki-minutes. If answer to all of this ends up that what's in the body of the article is correct on this, then in that hypothetical case, it would be appropriate to have a sentence in the lead. North8000 (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THis is the biggest issue (and why it may not have ben dealt with at RSN, trying to judge sources in a language we do not speak. It makes verification all but impossible. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first source in the lead, Firstpost does verify the content, but on the other hand, our article about Firstpost says in the lead - It has posted misinformation on multiple occasions. The second source from The Lallantop is sketchy and appears to be tabloid journalism; a couple of headlines from that source: In this village, girls automatically become boys at the age of 12 - where previously there were female parts, testicles start growing - and - Brothel Madam: I have saved 5 thousand marriages from breaking, am proud of being a prostitute.
I would look for better sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO anyone who asserts "He was also noted for spreading false claims." needs to make the case for that, for inclusion in either the body of the article or the lead. And if there is no decision for inclusion, then it should not be in either. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: It has been covered on the second paragraph of Rajiv_Dixit#Ideology_and_rhetoric. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had already seen that. IMO if that's all there is,such a broad claim should not be anywhere in the article. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the sources that have provided him significant coverage. For most, he was not known to anyone anything better than being a fake news peddler. Capitals00 (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaidnoway: Evidently, this article from the FirstPost was added to this article when this media was independent and reliable. Since last few years, it has been forced to spread disinformation in favor of the ruling government (see Godi media). That's why that article from the FirstPost that we are talking about was also deleted and today we use archived version. Such old articles of the FirstPost are still usable but the new ones are not. Just like Lenta.ru who's old articles are still WP:RS. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a claim like this - "He was also noted for spreading false claims" - I would expect to see it widely reported in multiple reliable sources, and if they can't be found, it shouldn't be included. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaidnoway: That old FirstPost article is one such reliable source. Another one is LallanTop who mentions many false claims by Rajiv Dixit including that "9/11" was an "inside job" and concludes that many of the claims he made are false. It is not "tabloid journalism" like you assumed above but an IFCN verified fact-checker.[3] Then we also have some more reliable sources,[4][5][6] that have fact-checked false claims of Rajiv Dixit. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my position clear, it shouldn't be included. Don't ping me again. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @DaxServer: (re:05:20, 27 April 2024) and @Ivanvector: (re: 16:38, 10 April 2024), both of whom removed the disputed content and references from the lede prior to the discussions started by Abecedare in June. (Abecedare has been on break since Aug 1). --Hipal (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to ping) I reverted the addition back in April because the sources provided were grossly inadequate to be calling someone a conspiracy theorist in Wikipedia's voice. Orientls reverted me less than a day later. I'm not familiar with the subject and haven't been following the discussions, but at a glance this article does read to me more like a hit piece a hostile government would write to discredit someone than it does a neutral Wikipedia biography. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only candidate for a "hostile government" here actually depends on the fake news invented by Rajiv Dixit.[7] Capitals00 (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like propaganda, is what I meant to say. I wasn't meaning to suggest that any government actually wrote it (although a lot of Indian media is suspect) but that if a hypothetical government was going to write a negative propaganda piece about an activist they didn't like, it would look like this. What concerns me about it is that the claim that he was "noted for spreading false claims" has no context, and reads like a news comment troll dropping "this is fake news!" on something they don't like. In the body we say that he is "noted for pioneering the trend of disinformation in India", but his name doesn't appear in that target article even once. It doesn't reconcile with my sense of verifiability, and seems like an unsupported opinion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content is entirely verified by the cited sources that have existed on this article since mid-2019.[8] Not every fake news peddler has to be notable enough to get a mention on that article. More notable fake news peddlers like Swarajya (magazine), Organiser (magazine) and more are not listed there either. Have you checked the lead of Graham Phillips (journalist), Peter C. Gøtzsche, John Honeyman and others? The lead of this Rajiv Dixit article is not any different from those articles but in fact, it is watered-down in comparison. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the politics here: Rajiv Dixit was known primarily as a proponent of swadeshi-economics, which the Modi's party originally embraced but then shifted from (Bharatiya_Janata_Party#Economic_policies). Dixit appears to be a scapegoat for justifying or attacking the policies and political shift. --Hipal (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That made no sense. You can cite a single BJP member who has criticized Rajiv Dixit, just like I have cited where they rely on the fake news invented by Rajiv Dixit. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't identify who was making the comments, nor is it relevant, beyond that much of the attacks and praise about Dixit are politically motivated. --Hipal (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector You might also want to take a look at the R. C. Majumdar page. There's a similar issue, with three or four editors pushing the same narrative and misrepresenting extremely poor sources. The problem isn't limited to just two or three pages. Their way of arguing is also uncannily similar: labeling X as 'something' and then asking, 'Can you provide any source that says X is not 'something'?' This is known as the shifting the burden of proof fallacy, also called an argument from ignorance. I trust you'll ultimately do the right thing. 2409:4089:8283:54F2:84D8:1B27:B011:E793 (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The argument from ignorance fallacy is parodied well in WP:GREENCHEESE. The opinion of internet news sources shifting to follow the changing opinions of whoever's in power at the time is good evidence for why articles constructed by cherrypicking from those sources will always fail NPOV, especially for people who any state might ever have had any incentive to try to discredit. Articles like this should be based on the highest quality scholarly sources, and this one isn't. That's really my only input here: bad sources = bad article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am very much inclined to vote No. It should definetelly not be in the first paragraph and should probably be rephrased as "Dixit was accused on multiple occasions of spreading misinformation regarding x and y topics." Vague accusations should never be used. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitals00:: You claim, This information has been confirmed by at least 5 reliable sources that he was a profilic a fake news peddler. What are those sources and where is the consensus that they are reliable? --Hipal (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are [9][10][11][12][13]. Four them of them are fact-checkers. Consensus exists across Wikipedia that they are reliable. Capitals00 (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding.
The Lallantop reference is not reliable for reasons given. Those reasons are uncontested, as discussed above #RS summary.
FirstPost ref is not reliable for the reasons given. Those reasons are uncontested as discussed above.
The Quint article does not verify the content in question.
The BoomLive article does not verify the content in question.
The Factly article does not verify the content in question.
The last three articles only discuss specific claims that Dixit made. While we might cover those claims and state they are incorrect, it would be an V, OR, and POV violation to use these sources to support the topic of this RfC. --Hipal (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are all still discussing this as if the definition could be added in this form, but it really shouldn't. "spreading false claims" should be specified, similarly to MOS:CRIMINAL. What false claims are we talking about? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check the lead paragraphs of Graham Phillips (journalist), Peter C. Gøtzsche, John Honeyman and others. This article was not doing anything new. Capitals00 (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raymond3023: We cannot make changes to this encyclopedia based on Google search results. Instead, we need reliable sources. Can you please give us your search results so we can determine if they contain any references that we can use? --Hipal (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will remind everyone, that is is down to the closer to determine the strength of the arguments, not any of us. Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question is already flawed, you cannot use a vague definition as "spreading false claims". You have to be specific about which false claims, per wikipedia policy ( MOS:CRIMINAL ). Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is specific about that on the lead of many articles like Graham Phillips (journalist), Peter C. Gøtzsche, John Honeyman and others. In any case, do you agree with this new edit? I am sure it addressed your concerns. Capitals00 (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis is misleading. See how the article on False or misleading statements by Donald Trump is written. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's misleading is ignoring the facts presented on why sources are unreliable and/or fail verification, and making comparisons to articles where such source problems do not exist. The facts remain uncontested. --Hipal (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajiv_Dixit&oldid=1263631461"