Talk:Manish Tewari

Edit request from Rush00121, 25 August 2011

Manish Tewari is currently being sued by Anna Hazare's lawyers for defamation [1] Rush00121 (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: As I read the source it does not say that the lawsuit was filed only that they said they were going to file it. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk before you keep on adding same thing all over again

Please Read before keep on adding same thing all over again.--Sandy (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Read what, exactly? The article on criticism that has nothing whatsoever to do with the content on controversy that you removed? Content, I should note, which is not criticism: it is a factual recounting of the controversy surrounding this very public figure, just as many biographies and other similar articles have similar sections. Controversy is not criticism, and there is nothing on this talk page that has anything to do with the controversy being cited that you deleted. Also I didn't add the content, I merely cleaned it up, removing that which was not appropriate, fixed formatting, verified the content sources, and added references where needed. Suggestion: try doing some reading yourself, such as the article edit history, and of the content you are removing, before suggesting others do so. Please read WP:EW, and WP:BLP, particularly the section WP:WELLKNOWN, which states,

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

• Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe were divorced."
• Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he actually did.

Per the above guideline, I am undoing your deletion: the content in question is reliably sourced, factual, and relevant, and there was no justification for removing it, as it fits within policy. Please do not remove it again without providing evidence of strong consensus against it from multiple unbiased editors and an admin, and be sure to cite the relevant Wikipedia policies you are adhering to that justify deleting such content. If you feel you can improve it, then Be Bold and do so, but that does not include removing valid, properly sourced, and relevant material. besieged^talk 21:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I was of opinion that first a consensus be made about Controversy section of this article.But recently it was re added.Ok.Manish tiwari was official spokesperson of INC who would defend his party,attack on opposition(specially notable ones) on regular basis.Every spokesperson does that.He was the connecting point of INC and media.So I am failed to understand that why that and only that statement(so called allegations) able to maintain space on this article. The above policy clearly states that while adding something specially controversy section one should take care of notability.I don't think such biased and non notable thing has space on Wikipedia. Specially if WP:NPOV taken into consideration.Other editors please tell your opinion.--Sandy (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No, consensus is not required for an article to have a controversy section, nor is consensus required for material to be added to it, so long as that material is factual, backed by reliable third-party sources, and is not libel or slander. WP:NPOV is not relevant in the way you're trying to use it here, unless you mean the section on due and undue weight, which not only does not really apply, but is also counter to your assertion, as it starts by saying,

• Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources... (emphasis mine)

which implies coverage should be thorough and not limited strictly to one groups' favorable viewpoint while ignoring others. Yet, this is still an irrelevancy, because this section is not a "viewpoint" or a matter of opinion, but rather documented fact, and if any bias is to be called into question, based on your edit history and talk page, I have to believe said bias to be yours in not wanted anything negative to come to light about a particular Indian politician, or that you may have an outright conflict of interest.

I also have to assume at this point that you need to read or re-read the article on notability, since it is used to define whether or not a person or other subject deserves to have an article on the Wikipedia in the first place, not to determine what content does or does not belong in an article whose subject was already deemed notable: that instead, in this case, is governed by WP:MOSBIO and WP:BLP. Once again, I refer you to the following policy guidance:

• If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

Just because you, he, or some other politician doesn't like what he said or what he claimed, it did in fact receive widespread media and social attention, and those same comments are based out of and founded on the results of a formal inquiry by the "Sawant Commission", a government-appointed body, which is definitely notable, and the statements are well documented in multiple sources. Q.E.D., claims of bias and non-notability are not relevant whatsoever, since by all appearances, it happened, was well documented, received significant attention, and it was controversial enough that history revisionists are trying to remove any trace of it from the Wiki. One of the inherent drawbacks of being a public figure is an inherent lack of privacy.ha ha ha.

Wikipedia is not censored.besieged^talk 16:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Manish Tewari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091005000723/http://manishtewari.info:80/ to http://www.manishtewari.info

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Manish Tiwari.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)