Talk:Binayak Sen

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Clean up required

message: Is this required? It should either be removed or suitably shortened.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? 92.9.63.96 (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not -Bharatveer (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of complete "public statement"

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not.-Bharatveer (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Clean up

message: 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)
thread_title: Single Purpose Account

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Please give the source.-Bharatveer (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stated Above --AniVar (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Support of 22 Nobel laureates

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Binayak Sen is not Vinayak Sen  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.190.102 (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs cleanup 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Official Judgment