Jump to content

Talk:Uddhab Bharali: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 13: Line 13:


* [[User:Beccaynr|Beccaynr]], my friend, with due respect, I want to say that, as Mr. Bharali is a public figure, the recent incident and the POCSO Act are too not so lightweight. I would recommend including the section. If the judiciary found him not guilty, then that too be added and the outcome will be a neutral one. Let's be neutral here. None is above the law. - --<span style="background:#5d9731; color:white; padding:2px;">[[User:Arunudoy|<span style="color:white">Arunudoy</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Arunudoy|<b style="color:white">talk</b>]])</sup></span> 04:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
* [[User:Beccaynr|Beccaynr]], my friend, with due respect, I want to say that, as Mr. Bharali is a public figure, the recent incident and the POCSO Act are too not so lightweight. I would recommend including the section. If the judiciary found him not guilty, then that too be added and the outcome will be a neutral one. Let's be neutral here. None is above the law. - --<span style="background:#5d9731; color:white; padding:2px;">[[User:Arunudoy|<span style="color:white">Arunudoy</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Arunudoy|<b style="color:white">talk</b>]])</sup></span> 04:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
::Thank you for your reply, {{u|Arunudoy}} - the [[public figure]] article linked to the [[WP:PUBLICFIGURE]] policy includes in its definition a person "often widely of concern to the public", and based on my research, Bharali does not appear to fit this definition. He does not appear to routinely be in the news in the manner a politician or celebrity would, and instead is [[WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE|relatively unknown]] by comparison, so per BLP policy, we should {{tq|exercise restraint and include ''only'' material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.}} His notability is currently based on his work as an inventor and his philanthropy. If this changes with a criminal conviction, then the policy states it can be included, but because this is a BLP, especially for someone relatively unknown, {{tq|material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care}}. I also agree a neutral point of view is important, and the NPOV policy includes a section about [[WP:PROPORTION]] that states {{tq|news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially concerning recent events that may be in the news}}, which I think emphasizes the concern about including this information in this article now. Similarly, the [[WP:NOTNEWS|Wikipedia is not a newspaper]] policy seems to weigh against adding breaking news reports, and [[WP:NOTSCANDAL]] includes, {{tq|Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard}}. Overall, I think the policies read together encourage caution at this time. [[User:Beccaynr|Beccaynr]] ([[User talk:Beccaynr|talk]]) 04:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:55, 25 January 2022

September 2018

Fixing this, appreciate non-reverts until cleanup is complete Mallikarjunasj (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per my research, while Bharali appears to be notable per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, he does not appear to be a public figure, so per WP:BLPCRIME, recent allegations should not be included in the article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Beccaynr, my friend, with due respect, I want to say that, as Mr. Bharali is a public figure, the recent incident and the POCSO Act are too not so lightweight. I would recommend including the section. If the judiciary found him not guilty, then that too be added and the outcome will be a neutral one. Let's be neutral here. None is above the law. - --Arunudoy (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, Arunudoy - the public figure article linked to the WP:PUBLICFIGURE policy includes in its definition a person "often widely of concern to the public", and based on my research, Bharali does not appear to fit this definition. He does not appear to routinely be in the news in the manner a politician or celebrity would, and instead is relatively unknown by comparison, so per BLP policy, we should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. His notability is currently based on his work as an inventor and his philanthropy. If this changes with a criminal conviction, then the policy states it can be included, but because this is a BLP, especially for someone relatively unknown, material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. I also agree a neutral point of view is important, and the NPOV policy includes a section about WP:PROPORTION that states news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially concerning recent events that may be in the news, which I think emphasizes the concern about including this information in this article now. Similarly, the Wikipedia is not a newspaper policy seems to weigh against adding breaking news reports, and WP:NOTSCANDAL includes, Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard. Overall, I think the policies read together encourage caution at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy