Talk:Tehelka

message: lot of content is clearly POV. Please wikify and remove POV with facts.
I removed a lot of wholesale deletions from the article and irrelevant information, such as the alleged political affiliation of the father of the editor of the magazine. I will be wikifying the article, removing POV and inserting facts. Ashankar (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: This article uses the indian numbering system, talking about crores and lakhs. Is there any rule on wikipedia about numbering? Shouldn't these numbers be replaced by standard numbering, even if it is India related? --Pinin (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Indian numbering system]] 

message: The Tehelka-Jain dialogue gives some key issues at the heart of the Operation West End sting operation.  It is informative of the nature of the sting operations Tehelka was doing.  Pls discuss before removing. mukerjee (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Jain testimony on Armoured Recovery Vehicles

message: What is disputed? if nothing is than the tag should be removed.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: I've been doing up this article and I don't think Tejpal's crime deserves another section in this article under "controversies", I've merged it with the "History" section instead. We can't go into excessive details as per WP:BLPCRIME and moreover it's too early to judge how badly it affect Tehelka as a whole. It's best that we wait till things get more clear. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too early to do that yet. There has been sudden global coverage but it has been still kept to the minimal, again WP:NOTNEWS. Things which suddenly get notability, lose it just as fast (WP:RECENT). Adding another "controversy" section seems very crude, since it hardly counts as a criticism or as an editorial controversy for Tehelka as a whole. If anything, as the details develop it more likely goes to his individual article (have to be strict there too because of BLP issues) than here, going by the way the case is going. Anyway, all we can do is be cautious and wait. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue is also about the company, since they had not followed the right legal procedures to handle this matter. So, this issue would be included within the company. In any case, since you are working on this article, shall respect your request.  Prodigyhk (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you're right on that part. After all this media attention dies down, it would be worth checking for sources especially on whether the legal procedures were followed. If you do find something at that time before I do, please feel free to add it. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tejpal's crime 

message: Having looked at the previous detailed section, I tend to agree that its detail is excessive for an article of this type, and that a summary is better. Wikipedia is not meant to be an exhaustive listing of minute details, but rather a tertiary source summary giving an overview to the reader. We could, of course, use as a reference or link an :annual report or the like, which would provide that detail for readers interested in drilling down. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much for your time, now we can go ahead. Besides, after I gave it some days, I've come up with plans for expanding it further. I think the financial details had an obvious solution and the real content dispute was on whether another section was required, which I now think is clear. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seraphimblade  The "minute details" are shown under "held by family and friends of Tejpal". The details presented are of the main players in the company, including the former editor Shoma Choudhary. Prodigyhk (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: As we discussed in the first topic, I've given it time for the media attention to die down and I think I have now enough material to make a valid criticism section. The main thing was to separate the actual relevant content from the media sensationalising, I did that by mainly relying on reliable international news agencies—that clearly indicates whether the viewpoints are notable enough. The section will mention its political criticism, corporate bias and the main Tejpal controversy along with this and other following reports. I shall make the new section and re-do the lead (again)...besides all the minor work which I have left pending. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: Alright, long story short, this part was added by me around a year ago because I felt that, from what all else I added, there was nothing negative in it for NPOV's sake. I was inexperienced at that time and I may have overlooked things, that's what I thought when Vanamonde removed it. After seeing that AmritasyaPutra agreed with it being kept, looks like we have to dig deeper to see which one of you is right. On a positive note, I'm happy that both of you are here to spot check this article. Let's begin, since I've added it I don't feel like doing anything, AmritasyaPutra, would you check the sources given and see if it backs it up? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I had checked the sources and they back it up. The wording can be improved a little. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

text: It would be good if you merge this in previous section, this is the same topic. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So continuing from above section and this, we have to just reword it from "targeting the BJP" to "siding the Congress"? Anything else? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if we have consensus for that, that is what I had done; I left the statements about supporting the Congress untouched. See the diff. The only other removal I made was of "agenda driven journalism and taking sides" which is very weaselly; whose agenda? what sides? who is making the criticism? Ugog Nizdast; apologies, I had not noticed the earlier section (for whatever reason; I think I had this page open long before I commented) which is why I opened a new section. I did not mean to sound pointy. Since AP is claiming that the sources do support the content, I would have him find a quote where targeting the BJP is specifically mentioned. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. Regarding the weasel wording, it maybe permitted in rare instances where the sources itself make the statement and if we're sure it's a notable viewpoint. WP:WTW emphasises that there are exceptions for their usage. I'm not sure about it in this case now but before I make any move I want to see what AP has to say. Same with the "taking sides and agenda driven" part; so only these two remain to be sorted out. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Alright. Thanks, friend. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I conclude that "agenda-driven, openly taking sides" and "siding with the Congress party" all mean pretty much the same thing. It will be shortened. Same goes for the BJP link, in addition there's no explicit mention that it was criticised for only targeting them. The BJP did protest against it during the 2013 incident and that's mentioned here. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism for focusing on the BJP 

message: There are four sources in the criticism paragraph that discuss political bias. One of them mentions taking the side of the Congress; not a single one mentions targeting the BJP. Until such a source is found, the sentences saying so are original research, and should be removed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good if you merge this in previous section, this is the same topic. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So continuing from above section and this, we have to just reword it from "targeting the BJP" to "siding the Congress"? Anything else? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if we have consensus for that, that is what I had done; I left the statements about supporting the Congress untouched. See the diff. The only other removal I made was of "agenda driven journalism and taking sides" which is very weaselly; whose agenda? what sides? who is making the criticism? Ugog Nizdast; apologies, I had not noticed the earlier section (for whatever reason; I think I had this page open long before I commented) which is why I opened a new section. I did not mean to sound pointy. Since AP is claiming that the sources do support the content, I would have him find a quote where targeting the BJP is specifically mentioned. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. Regarding the weasel wording, it maybe permitted in rare instances where the sources itself make the statement and if we're sure it's a notable viewpoint. WP:WTW emphasises that there are exceptions for their usage. I'm not sure about it in this case now but before I make any move I want to see what AP has to say. Same with the "taking sides and agenda driven" part; so only these two remain to be sorted out. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Alright. Thanks, friend. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I conclude that "agenda-driven, openly taking sides" and "siding with the Congress party" all mean pretty much the same thing. It will be shortened. Same goes for the BJP link, in addition there's no explicit mention that it was criticised for only targeting them. The BJP did protest against it during the 2013 incident and that's mentioned here. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Tehelka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131203231852/http://photogallery.indiatimes.com:80/news/india/shoma-chaudhury-of-tehelka-magazine-resigns/articleshow/26513941.cms to http://photogallery.indiatimes.com/news/india/shoma-chaudhury-of-tehelka-magazine-resigns/articleshow/26513941.cms
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131014172605/http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/tehelka-sting-how-bangaru-laxman-fell-for-the-trap/1/186303.html)Firstpost to http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/tehelka-sting-how-bangaru-laxman-fell-for-the-trap/1/186303.html)Firstpost
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified