Talk:Medha Patkar

message: Medha Patkar's wikipedia entry should be restored. It was flagged as having a possible copyright issue with SAWNET bio of Medha Patkar but Wikipedia entry and SAWNET bio were written by the same person "Aravinda Pillalamari". SAWNET does not have copyright issues and authors of bio's on their website own the copyright.
:Although the author apparently established an account on Wikipedia and copied her material here, I was unable to contact her using the email address provided. If she comes back, she is welcome to put the material back up, but should clear up the permission question. Fred Bauder 17:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: This is not NPOV. And this belongs to the Narmada Bachao Andolan article, not here.
Also, a court notice is different from a court judgement. 
Supreme Court Notice to NBA was the source given.
And "Accusation for being a foreign mole" is not clearly not NPOV.
I don't know if that is 'not clearly not NPOV'--but I do know that "Accusation for being a foreign mole" is not good English, and that this message is puzzling and unsigned.Drmies (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Accusation for being a foreign mole 

message: Patkar deserves a better entry than this--her main cause isn't even mentioned in the main part of the article. If anyone is moved by the spirit, let them act on it! Or I may give it a try soon.Drmies (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  biography 

message: Source #1: The website of the NBA (Medha Patkar's organisation) containing a scan of the referred letter, and its true text. (this is the primary document)
Source #2: An article by a well known journalist Francois Gautier analysing the aforesaid primary document. (this is a reliable secondary source) for the factual claim made a former MP and Minister for Power Dr. Urmilaben Patil, wrote to the Government of India, complaining about "NBA's active opposition to all large hydel dams and especially the Sardar Sarovar Project" and provided material that Medha Patkar had "managed" the Supreme Court in collaboration with foreigners
Source #3 : An Indian Express news report that NBA made false statements in SC and stood discredited. (Patkar is named in the story)
Source #4 : PTI (a reputed news agency), accessed through Rediff.com
Source #5 : Deccan Herald (a reputed news paper). Landirenzo (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Source 1 is a legal document, which is explicitly forbidden by BLP. Source 2 is an SPS; not RS. Source 3 only mentions her as the leader, not as directly involved. Likewise 4. Moreover, if youtube is not a legitimate source for an NDTV interview, rediff is not, either. Source 5 also only mentions her as the leader. Why don't you try this site? They would welcome you with open arms. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Source 1 is not a legal document, it is a letter. The fact that the letter is "published" on the NBA's website means NBA admits/acknowledges that it exists. There is a secondary source (Gautier) (Source No.2), which refers to this letter and reproduces the claims made in the letter (source 1). Source No. 2 is emphatically not SPS (SPS means published by NBA/Patkar), and it is an RS (written by a senior journalist based on disclosed primary sources). Hence, WP:BLPPRIMARY allows it to be used, and the letter is neither a public record or a legal transcript or court record. NBA has never denied the emails mentioned in the letter or explained them. Sources 3,4,5 are all examples of reliable media reporting on the extended "controversy" over NBA's lies in the Supreme Court of India. The NBA is synonymous with Medha Patkar and all these reports treat them as such. Rediff is only the access-point for the PTI news report.Please don't sidetrack this issue with other encyclopedias, and abide by Wikipedia's policies. Landirenzo (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Blatantly incorrect. An SPS is the "publication of any book or other media by the author of the work, without the involvement of an established third-party publisher" and the Gautier source is very explicitly an SPS. Medha and the NBA being synonymous is a prime example of WP:OR. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supreme Court related content 

message: I will not edit the article until this time tomorrow, but we might as well talk now. So, first couple of points:
1) She won the Goldman environmental award in 1992. This is beyond dispute; it should be added.
2) I believe that the report of the commission, with her name in it, is sufficient sourcing for stating that she was a member of the commission. If not, then this  should be sufficient to supplement it. What do you think?
3) In general, I believe these [repub.eur.nl/pub/18981/wp242.pdf]  sources are a decent beginning for all NBA related information. What are your thoughts?
4) This  reference should be good enough for information about her early life, as well as for the degrees she has earned. 
Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The only usable reference is [repub.eur.nl/pub/18981/wp242.pdf] and even that has to be used carefully and responsibly, and after we both agree on what can be inserted from it. Landirenzo (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What are your objections to the Wall Street Journal and the Encyclopedia Britannica, and that for factual, non-controversial information? Or are you disputing the fact that she has a masters degree, and that she received said award? Also, precisely what is your objection to a book published by Cambridge University Press? Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Th WSJ content is on a blog, and not subject to editorial review process. E.Britannica's primary/secondary sources are not disclosed, so in their absence the entire article is simply an opinion/fiction  of its single contributor. When Wikipedia itself is not treated as a reliable source I can't accept that EB is. The CUP book has a 1 line passing mention of NBA and does not cite its primary source/s. Landirenzo (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept leaving out the WSJ. The CUP book, however, contains 6 separate references to the NBA. Also, being a CUP publication, it reaches literally the highest standard Wikipedia has for sourcing and verifiability. We can leave out EB if you are dead against it. If all you are going to do here is to raise objections to the sources I provide, this is not going to be very productive. You need to come up with something.Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:TERTIARY to exclude CUP and EB. Why don't you read the actual secondary sources cited in CUP like "Fisher"  to see the real face of NBA :-) and Patkar. Lets include the whole of pages 196-198 suitably paraphrased to avoid copyvio. Landirenzo (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why in heaven's name are you reverting me when I correct the link to the google book? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

text: We shall not include those pages, as they make allegations about the NBA unsupported elsewhere. They are also out of date, and even at a cursory reading, remarkably POVish. Collaboration between the NBA and the FD? And the Morse commission? Are you seriously expecting that to pass BLP criteria? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to seriously understand the differences between primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources like Fisher (1995). Your admission that "the CUP publication reaches literally the highest standard Wikipedia has for sourcing and verifiability", means that Fisher (not CUP) is the best kind of source to be used in this article, as its primary sources are identified and are closest in time to the events. Obviously we would have to give much higher weightage to a source from the 80's or 90's for claims for that period, than a book written in 2000+. The allegations were made, were repeated in reliable secondary sources (which are further cited) and they seem unrefuted. This meets WP:BLP eminently as far as I am concerned - Fisher is a reliable secondary scholarly source. The fact that Fisher details  many POVs and new facts on NBA/Patkar, makes it even more necessary to include them all, see WP:NPOV. Landirenzo (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break 1 

message: As it is clear that there are a few differences in perception which may prevent us from editing with consensus, I propose as follows.
There is now a surfeit of sources which show that NBA/Patkar are habitual liars. These are (a) The SC cites (n) Fisher (1995) and (c) [repub.eur.nl/pub/18981/wp242.pdf]. Since our first reverts were over the sub-section "Controversy over "misleading" and "managing" the Supreme Court of India", I suggest that you reword this sub-section carefully, and use the 5 available references, so readers get the full sense of Patkar's methods, but keep it NPOV and comply with other WP:5P. We can then move on to the other aspects. Landirenzo (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Any reasonable individual would begin with non-controversial, purely factual information. In this case, such information would consist of her place of birth (which you removed), her upbringing (ditto), the awards she has earned (ditto) and her role in the formation of the NAOM and the NBA. None of this needs be controversial. Instead, you wish to start by inserting material about how Patkar is a "liar." If you do not adopt a more constructive attitude, I intend to seek dispute resolution. You do not have consensus of any kind on your side, so you could hardly say that was unnecessary. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed place of birth because at 1 place it says she was born in Bombay and at another that she was born in Mangalore. So I removed both. If you cannot accept that this is a BLP article you had better stop editing at Wikipedia and stop your POV pushing. Persisting in promoting a bogus and self styled "World Commission on Dams" without sufficient RS will surely get you booted off.  There is no shortage of RS to show that Patkar's NBA is a congenital liar, and has been declared so by India's highest judicial authority with an abundance of RS to back me up. The reason I am insisting on sorting this issue out first is because it is the cause of action for our interaction here. Landirenzo (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to proceed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Medha Patkar. 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/20090605222756/http://www.blonnet.com:80/2006/11/26/stories/2006112604380300.htm to http://www.blonnet.com/2006/11/26/stories/2006112604380300.htm
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 12:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Medha Patkar. 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/20071113140421/http://www.rightlivelihood.org/narmada.html to http://www.rightlivelihood.org/narmada.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) 08:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified