Talk:Sagarika Ghose

message: Please merge this article. The two are the same person; Ghose-Sardesai is Sagarika's married name.
Rimi talk contribs 11:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: User from the IP address 122.176.195.17 is indulging in excessive vandalism on this article by removing "Criticism on twitter" section repeatedly. Please block all edits from this IP address. This user has removed this section 5 times without any explanation. Hence, this user should be blocked from making further changes to this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corruptcongress (talk • contribs) 21:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not vandalism but a content dispute and as such the 3 revert rule applies to both parties. Keith D (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: CNN had in the past fired one of its journalist Octavia Nasr based on a controversial tweet. Was CNN acting based on an unreliable source? The logic that twitter is unreliable is preposterous.--Corruptcongress (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop. Twitter is a quote from a person, but it is not a reliable source for the intent or outcome or response (or lack of response) for an action.  By attempting to compare past and current twitter incidents and point out that one resulted in the employee getting fired, while another did not is original research by you and is campaigning for action to be taken.   7  04:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree with 7; the inclusion of these claims is inappropriate WP:OR WP:RS.  Chzz  ►  09:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Twitter unreliable? 

message: I have protected the page for a while to allow parties to discuss the inclusion/exclusion of the twitter text. Five days of back and forth is no way to proceed - discuss on this talk page and decide what to do. But please bear in mind that this is a biography of a living person. Keith D (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: Hi. This is Sagarika Ghose. This is to bring to your notice that a user is repeatedly inserting editorialised non factual content into my Wikipedia bio, such as I am perceived to be a "racist"", and "biased" anchor. These are not terms that have been placed on me by a court of law or by any established investigation. Anonymous internet users of a certain political ideology have long targeted me on different social media forums and are now inserting defamatory and editorialised content about me on the Wikipedia site. Please note that if such content continues to appear on the Wikipedia bio, I will be forced to lo0k at my legal options against what I consider defamation and public character assassination.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.57.107 (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  editorialised content 

message: Hi. This is Sagarika Ghose again. I logged on to my Wikipedia bio last night on 7-04-2013 to find that once again all the information had been removed and highly editorialised content had been inserted, including how I was being referred to as "bitch" in certain circles. I protest most strongly at the repeated editing and interference in my Wikipedia bio by vested interessts trying to detroy my professional credibility and my good name. This is not only sexual harassment on the web, it is also a form of molestation and stalking, both punishable offences in the new laws on crimes againt women. I have taken the liberty of re-inserting all the relevant professional and personal information about myself, information that I feel is factual, not motivated. The Wikipedia bio is referred to by many and urgent steps must be taken to protect public figures from repeated attempts at character assasination by anonymous criminals. Kindly ensure that steps are taken to so that any motivated person seeking to destroy my reputation does not repeatedly vandalise my bio!
:Contents of any Wikipedia article are essence of Google search results. In initial search result pages Google shows twitter related links. I had added two lines with refs. Some user thought that it is not encyclopedic and removed it. No objection.
:Now I have tried to improve the article little bit. But article need refs. I may try to find refs. I was unaware of article history and this talk page. If I see vandalism I will request admin to protect the article. neo (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to professional edits by anon IP, I have given enough sources for this article to be good article candidate. Sagarika Ghose is bit controversial but very good journalist. This article is on my watchlist as long as I am on Wikipedia. neo (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated vandalism by rightwing forces 

message: Hi, this is Sagarika Ghose again. Once again an anonymous user inserted "She wears sleveless blouses and lipstick while anchoring on TV." A number of female anchors wear lipstick and saris on television. I find this kind of insertion of my dress not only gratuitous and sexist but once again an attempt by the same anonymous rightwingers seeking to destroy my professional credibility. Dress codes of television anchors are not normally mentioned in their Wikipedia bios. Have taken the liberty of removing it from the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.221.237 (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insertion of gratuitous and sexist descriptions of my dress on TV 

message: It appears that subject is frequently editing the article through anon IP. I have informed Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. neo (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of Interest 

message: Hi. This is Sagarika Ghose again. BBC News Asia has just reported that I am among the women journalists and activists who are targeted by hate messages on social media platforms like Twitter. I have inserted a line about the BBC report in my bio as it is possible that those who are attacking me on Twitter are the same forces who are repeatedly vandalising my Wikipedia bio.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.194.134 (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Sagarika. Thanks for adding that information. It would help if you added the link to the BBC article too though - I have done this for you now. I'm sorry that you have been defamed in this article in the past - I am now watching it and should notice any changes. If it continues, we can stop anonymous editors from editing the page too. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated attacks on social media 

message: I have tagged the article with WP:POV and WP:COI as major contents of the article are from the subject itself and because of consistent threats or warnings or complaints by the subject on this talk page which has potential to keep users away from the article or influence them and which harm neutrality of the article and aim of the wikipedia. neo (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and COI tag 

message: Hi
This is Sagarika again. I now find that major chunks of my bio have been removed, such as the articles I've written and the stories I've covered. Has this been done by you or once again from the anonymous editor? If you compare what exists at the moment to the earlier version, you'll find that a lot of lines have been removed. Is this intentional? Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.194.134 (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see from the edit history of the article I removed some content that you added because it lacked secondary sources. Information on Wikipedia has to be verifiable, and from what I can tell, no one else has written that you are well known for the stories mentioned. It's not up to you or anyone here to decide what you are well known for and we will have to wait until someone writes about it before we include it. If you are aware of any newspapers, magazines that have written biographical stories about you, then please link to them here and we can consider referencing them. Things like this and this are what we need to write a good article about you. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content removed 

message: On November 2011, in its Prime Time show (Face The Nation), the channel broadcasted a pre-recorded interview of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar as a live television debate. The show was hosted by the Deputy Editor of the channel, Sagarika Ghose, who also happens to be the wife of the channel's editor, Rajdeep Sardesai. On public outcry, the anchor issued a public apology on Twitter, web and TV. The episode broadcasted by the channel has not been hosted on the show's homepage.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN-IBN#Questions_on_ethics
Why shouldn't this controversy be included here as well since it basically revolved around her, for which she apologized too? Haresh 14:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is all about reliable sources, especially when it comes to BLP. Find reliable third party sources, write in encyclopedic way and include in article yourself. Period. neo (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prerecorded interview fraudulently shown as a live debate 

message: Hi
This is Sagarika Ghose again. This is to bring to your notice a massive amount of biased content that has once again been inserted in my bio. The comments are clearly intended to damage my reputation by gratutious mention of Tweets and all manner of irrelevant comments. Hope you will kindly take note of these. I am taking the liberty of deleting them. Thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.94.34 (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are subject and you have written almost whole article about yourself. And your critics don't know what sources to use and what to write. I am tired of this. I will find reliable sources to add some criticism. neo (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can we get this article protected? Subject is writing the article and removing sourced content again and again. This is violation of Wikipedia policies. Gmcssb (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)I recommend you read our policies, start with WP:BLP then read WP:RS and WP:SPS You are violating the BLP policy in restoring that content, so stop. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Maybe you are unaware of the major news sources in India, and hence citing WP:RS. I assume you would be familiar with BBC. If you are not familiar with Indian news sources please read the articles The Indian Express, Daily News and Analysis, Hindustan Times, The Hindu, Rediff.com - these are all major news sources. As for the non-reliable/self-published sources, the action needed is to remove content which is explicitly drawing from those sources and not blank the whole section. I do not know what you mean by "petty" - that is your opinion, in my opinion a racist tweet like "all Indian men are ugly" is pretty notable.Gmcssb (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  More editorialised content 

message: Hi Wikipedia
This is Sagarika Ghose again. Have read the Talk section and the points listed by whoever in trying to get my "tweets" added to my Wikipedia profile. What Wikipedia needs to understand is that there is an organized group of so called "nationalist Hindus" or Right- wing Hindus who despise everything I stand for, despise my journalism because it is too "liberal" for their tastes, despise liberals like me for being "soft" on minorities and want to paint us all as "anti-national traitors" who are hostile to the Hindu religion and hostile to the Hindu Right. As India enters an election year, these groups are on an over-drive in their all out offensive against liberal secular journalists, particularly women. In fact, there is an under-current of gender abuse and gender hatred in the campaign against me as well as against  other so-called "liberal" women like political activist Kavita Krishnan, who was also mentioned in the BBC report, and who was threatened online by gang rape and stripping. Yes, I did coin the term "internet Hindus." But this did not create a "controversy", instead it was used as a peg for a debate by Al Jazeera TV and the term has now entered the lexicon of writing on these ultra nationalist extremist Hindu groups who operate on the internet under anonymous names. As for including my tweets on "ugly men", "easter eggs" and colours of the Indian flag, these are the fantastical ravings of a deranged mind, desperately casting around to find anything and everything to beat me with. I find it an act of appalling character assassination and damage to my reputation to allow such individuals and agencies to tamper with a public record of myself. Should such insertions continue, I will be forced to look at my legal options under sections of not only violating the modesty of a woman and her dignity in public but also stalking and criminal defamation. Since the writers are anonymous, Wikipedia would clearly be liable for such defamation. I strongly suggest that you only allow factual insertions, without any slanted editorial opinion on my tweets, or how much of a "controversy" I create, or how I am publicly "ridiculed". Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.3.36 (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See this. Not a single edit in whole month. One week ago, due to watchlist error I had to remove 600 articles from my watchlist starting from I to Z that includes your article. And somehow edits started on your page. Sometime weird coincidences happens! Some criticism was valid but most was junk. Personally, I don't see strong criticism about you in media. Otherwise I would have added it long ago. Anyway, one 'liberal' editor watching me detected my edit on this talkpage, edit war ensued on article and now your article is protected and no user can edit it. Your article is now under watch of that 'liberal' user and hence under watch of more users. In short, you have more followers on wikipedia. Hmm... neo (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to understand editorialised content 

message: So now Ms. Ghose is threatening to sue Wikipedia? And she decides what is to be written about her on Wikipedia?? Ms. Ghose, please read other biographies on Wikipedia and stop your conspiracy theories. And administrators like neo, despite agreeing that some criticism was "valid", are fine with the censorship of that "valid criticism" for around one week, as currently the article has no criticism at all? Is this not a clear violation of WP:CENSOR? I did not expect Wikipedia would do this. (I started a new section as the previous section was closed). If the administrators do not allow any criticism, even that which is reported by mainstream media sources, then I will have to raise this under dispute resolution noticeboard. Gmcssb (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that User:Neo. is not an administrator. Airplaneman  ✈ 23:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, my bad - I mistook Neo for an administrator. Anyway, I agree with Neo that there is some valid criticism of the subject (as reported in several reliable sources - see two sections above for the comprehensive list I compiled), and that needs to be on this page. Your thoughts? Gmcssb (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  What concerns me is the disproportionate amount of criticism that was in the article relative to other biographical information that is arguably just as if not more important than the reactions that others have had to a select group of comments that she has made. In my view, it isn't necessary to entirely ax the criticism content, but it should be pared substantially. I haven't the time nor the will to sift through all of the content, currently. Airplaneman  ✈ 17:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

text: I had complained about her legal threats on COI board, now I realize I was supposed complain on ANI. At that time I just tagged article with POV and forgot. I don't think I will discuss what criticism should be included. She may send police to my doorsteps. Wikipedia don't pay legal expenses of editors and I don't have money and I don't want to go to jail. Thank you. neo (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put, sir. Airplaneman  ✈ 17:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks User:Airplaneman. So we agree that a concise version of the earlier criticism (from major sources) should be included when block expires. Let's see what other users have to say on this. As for Ms. Ghose's legal threats, I wonder how Wikipedia can be sued for saying what other sources have already published? She needs to sue all the sources including Hindustan Times, The Hindu, BBC, DNA, etc. Gmcssb (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh! Usual business for her! Shovon (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

text:  Airplaneman, please see here for a much shorter version. I have organized it with a subsection called "response to criticism". Please let me know your thoughts on the same. Gmcssb (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The controversy/criticism section looks pathetic to me. Minor squabbles of no great significance and, of course, such sections are discouraged. Your tendency to support the Hindu nationalist angle has been noted, Gmcssb: don't let it get you into bother. - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship, legal threat, what's next? 

message: Hi Wikipedia
This is Sagarika Ghose. Once again I find various slanted and highly editorialized comments being inserted into my bio. Such statements as "she has been accused of anti Hindu statements". The Twitter trend of #YoSagarikaso secular, are mentioned. Why on earth are these instances of harassment of me on the internet worthy of being included in my Wiki bio? Its clear that ideologically driven individuals with an axe to grind with me are inserting such derogatory and damning sentences. My so-called "anti Hindu slant" is their interpretation and can hardly be included as a fact. Wiki, kindly wake up to the repeated attacks that women perceived as "liberal" are being subject to on the internet. Thank you!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.162.98 (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good that you removed it, most of it was poorly sourced and WP:UNDUEly focused. I further trimmed down this unnecessary focus on your social media activity. Some months back, this was page was cleaned up from this old version to look like this. This new additional content was put by someone a few weeks ago, I guess I may have overlooked it in my watchlist. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once again my Wikipedia bio is being vandalised 

message: Thank you Ugog. The repeated insertions on Twitter trends about me, my tweets, my perceived "biases" and my perceived attacks on religious nationalism, are in my opinion trivial and mischievous and not factual.There is no sourced article stating that I am guilty of such biases beyond highly opinionated blogs by certain vested interests. Issues of how I said "orange" instead of saffron, my tweets on easter eggs, on a legal dispute involving a temple, are all sourced from Twitter and seem born out of a perverse obsession with me and an all-consuming desire to character assassinate me. Many women journalists are subject to troll attacks on Twitter and it seems the trolls are also messing with my bio. regards  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.162.98 (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was better off, just take a look at Barkha Dutt and Talk:Barkha Dutt#Neutrality tag: cleanup and rework needed--hopefully someone willing might clean that up, I might eventually. Sorry, only Admins can lock pages here and per our Page protection policy only blatant and continuous vandalism/disruptive editing gets temporary protection (lock)--until that happens I cannot file a request. Unfortunately, we have a dearth of active volunteers (especially Indian editors) here and multiple biographies of famous people (especially politicians) are in such a bad state because of inexperienced new accounts, POV-pushers or their detractors and anonymous IP editing. As I said before, your bio page is on my watchlist and I'll try to maintain it. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you--kindly lock this page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Sagarika Ghose. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://mutiny.in/2007/06/05/interview-with-sagarika-ghose
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified