Talk:Rajdeep Sardesai

message: I do not think News Trader is a valid profession. Rajdeep has not claimed to be so.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:5D00:5C5:8833:877B:D008:3279 (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Are there any links to prove this? "CNN-IBN is currently the leading news-channel in India." This looks like one  of the guys at the company wrote this. There is another popular and older new channel called NDTV ( from which Rajdeep branched out ) and I'm sure without providing any links, this must be considedred POV. I think we need to remove this line (atleast until that time).
-Kumar.
I think this page frequently edited and maintained by one of the employ in CNN-IBN, so the guy deleting recent allegations against Mr. Rajdeep. I think this article not suitable for wikipedia standard. This article is the CV of the person written by himself.this must be considedred NPOV -drm   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drm 1976 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 19:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: "Most of the reports of Rajdeep and his chaneel CNN-IBN are heavily biased in favour of the Indian National Congress."
No citation or proof for the above statement provided. Thus removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.166.213 (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal Due to Lack of Citation

message: :Image:Thebigfight.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Thebigfight.jpg

message: I am not sure about wikipedia's policy on using Youtube videos as a reference. While it is an accepted form (WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK), there still exists another clause (WP:NOTRELIABLE, WP:NOTRS, WP:QS) especially as the video does not come from an official source. Views are welcome. Vistaindia (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A year later, I can see there was some coverage, although the story seems to have been "journalist heckled, assaults heckler, Twitter is both angry and supportive, journalist apologises" - no arrest, no resignation? --McGeddon (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That just shows it as belonging to WP:NOTNEWS. Plenty of additions happening violating WP:BLP. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madison Square Garden Incident 

message: Mr. Rajdeep Sardesai abused one NRI with foul language at Madison Square Garden on 28Sep2014. Mr Sardesai started pushing and became physical with the same person.
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=477128325760154
Xyzsusa (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2014 

message: 2.50.25.146 (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not requested a change.If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2014 

message: Substituted at 03:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Per previous discussion on this #Madison_Square_Garden_Incident, the incident is not notable enough (just his blog apology) for coverage here (WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE). 
Here's the  adding it back. 
From the source (DNA) provided, it's an incident where there are only barely notable allegations from both sides, the source itself don't support either side nor does his lengthy apology. This is tilting towards WP:BLPGOSSIP because of the lack proper coverage beyond social media and WP:BLPSTYLE given this source getting misrepresented. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really mean "unless"? MPS1992 (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York incident  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rajdeep Sardesai. 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/20150128091154/http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/ramnath-goenka-foundation/2006_winners.html to http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/ramnath-goenka-foundation/2006_winners.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So what stops from "controversy" as a section to be part of a BIO as we know Rajdeep Sardesai been part of plenty of controversies? What stops new York incident to be added here. Replies here just doesn't justifies why the same cannot be added when foreign sources like the New York Times wrote about it. I though of writing criticism but "Controversies" still sounds neutral. Following incidents and corresponding references:
* New York incient - it's an incident where no way we have a clue who was wrong - Indian Anchor’s Scuffle in New York Draws Supporters and Critics - New York Times, Rajdeep Sardesai expresses regret for scuffle in New York - Business Standard
* Pranab Mukherjee's premature demise -  - Zee News 
* Sania Mirza's pursuit of motherhood - Jennifer Aniston, Sania Mirza and the pursuit of motherhood -  Live Mint, Sania Mirza’s tongue-in-cheek response - Deccan Chronicle
* General criticism on violation of journalism principles - Little support for Rajdeep Sardesai's defence of tainted journalists - Deccan Herald
* Defamation case against Rajdeep in SC which was refused by SC - SC refuses to take up defamation case against Rajdeep Sardesai, IBN-7, says freedom of speech, tolerance must in a democracy - First Post
* Rajdeep leaving social media - Rajdeep Sardesai not quite right on social media - First Post, Rajdeep Sardesai Threatened With Police Complaint For Inviting Activist Nandini Sundar To His Show - Scroll
I won't be surprised to see repeated messages citing controversy section should not be part of WP:BIO. If you still feel "Controversy" doesn't demands a section, can definitely accommodate under "Career" section. Putting a state not to add some content without having relevant justification doesn't makes sense. Open for discussion before I plan to add it under relevant section basis discussion outcome. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 15:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Many editors feel that Controversy sections place undue emphasis on negative events, which makes it more difficult to maintain a dispassionate, neutral point of view. I think I explained this above. There is no prohibition on them, but you should also keep in mind that Indian articles are littered with these sections, often because people are attracted to gossip and like to wag fingers. Ex: someone dresses a certain way and that offends Group X, and that becomes a Controversy section. A female actor shows her back in a film, sexually repressed people are outraged and that becomes a Controversy section. So if there is a way to incorporate criticism into the article in a better way, we should consider that. We should also be thinking of the long-term value of the content we're adding. Will we care in ten years that Sardesai made a boneheaded gaffe when asking a woman when she would settle down? Potentially. If the above content can be written in such a way that the 5 Ws are adequately presented, and that it's written in a neutral tone, then it could be incorporated. Part of reason why some of this content was removed before, was because it was written with zero regard for neutrality. The editor above wanted to editorialise rather than dispassionately present the details. So that was a problem. The content you've linked about the defamation suit seems very vague to me. I'm not sure how much time should be spent mentioning that, but in a paragraph that points out some of the times his reporting faced criticism by peers and members of the public, it might be worth briefly mentioning. But we should present all of the key details, including the disposition of the lawsuit. Wasn't it dismissed? And then, even amidst all this content, have we also spent enough time mentioning the good aspects of his career? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I second Cyphoidbomb. Indians love gossips and same can be seen in OpIndia's and Delhi Riot's Wikipage. BeeJayPeeSocks (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the support, but my comments weren't mean to be hostile toward Indians. Westerners are also influenced by outrage and sensationalism, but at the English Wikipedia, more editors are interested in Western articles and are more likely to bring balance to Western articles. Without that heavy community scrutiny, greater care must be employed to Indian articles so that we're still in line with the neutral tone of the rest of the encyclopedia. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , while I agree we may not build an overall new section, but definitely we can integrate few of this issues under career section. IMO, it is far from neutral now and adding few of this would make it neutral. I do understand the point about the defamation case and hence let me find more links on that. rest all issues cited above have plenty of links while i have at max shared two. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: Is Rajdeep Sardesai a narcissist? Sneh Vatsa (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you infer that? This is an article talk page not a forum. See WP:TALK#USE. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal View 

message: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be reverting or undoing my contributions at :Rajdeep Sardesai. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with me and other editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubhams123 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In Special:Diff/1016701902, you added the line  Neither of the citation provided state that he published fake news, one of them doesn't even mention the term and the other states that he was accused of it, making your addition both defamatory as well as a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Being temporarily taken off air is also not a significant enough controversy for addition in the lead. Tayi Arajakate Talk 05:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintaining neutrality of page 

message: Cricinfo have info about his stint in cricket, should we added infobox cric in lead or write a sub-s?  Tesla car owner (talk) 06:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  His cricket career