Talk:Barkha Dutt/Archive 1

Can some one mention her religion in the article ?
It seems she is married to a Muslim. Will it not affect her coverage on Jihad, Terrorism and relation with Pakistan and Muslims ? Can she be neutral ? Her first name "Barkha" is an Arabic-Islamic name. I think allowing forign money(FDI) in Indian news media was a disaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.51.92 (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Indian Cristiane Amanpour
I think the term "Indian Christian Amanpour" smacks of an overtly western worldview. A whole lot of people don't know who Christian Amanpour is and a whole lot don't think Amanpour is a good journalist. To keep the narrative neutral and not biased to a specific worldview, I suggest deletion of this line.


 * If an analogy with western journalists has to be made, I would say she is India's Geraldo Rivera. Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Prabha Dutt
I have added citation needed tag. If she really "extensively" covered the war, then she must be a very brave woman considering that she gave birth on 18th December 1971 .Bharatveer 15:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Its most likely to be 1965 war.Bharatveer 07:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Images
I would request anybody who can upload images to upload a suitable one for this page. Thanks. Rajatjghai 17:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Elitist Page-3 journalist
POV: I think she is an elitist page-3 journalist (actually most of English/Hindi Indian electronic news Media program/journalist are quite elitist in nature) and 'We the People' is a very elitist program e.g. when it discusses 'Women in Indian Military' the whole focus of debate as well as hers is on officer posts not on non-officer category role/posts, debate on job reservation focuses on higher rank posts only. Same goes for most of the other debates as well. I haven't seen it discussing bigger issues like 'Naxal problem', 'Indian farming scenario', 'Hindu-Muslim divide', 'Sachar Committee' etc I wish to put this in criticism section but most probably it will attract POV deletion, may be someone else can put this in Neutral language. Vjdchauhan 11:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal life
There is nothing much about her personal life. Who is she married to, How many kids she has etc. last i heard she was married to a muslim. No links on the web for that

12:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)yourdeadin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourdeadin (talk • contribs)

WP:INDIA Banner/Delhi Addition
Note: WP India Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate, please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag   TALK2ME  15:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms
1. Removed the reference to Prannoy Roy being related to Prakash Karat. This is not relevant to the discussion of her alleged leftist ideology because her employer's political leanings do not reflect hers in any way. 2. Removed the statement illustrating her leftist leanings by saying that she championed talking to the terrorists during the Mumbai attack, firstly because it is not clear which Mumbai attack is being talked about (2006/2008?) and secondly because championing that idea is not an indicator of leftist leanings.

3. Removed 'accused of being liberal and secular' from criticism. They are not exactly criticisms...they can be more appropriately defined as adjectives.Philker (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

4. Added list of five specific instances where Barkha did compromise the rescue operation (during the Mumbai terrorist attacks of November 2008). This is not judgement-based, there're specific examples and quotes and citations where available.

WHO IS VANDALISING THIS PAGE:

Please have a look at the changes being made by someone called Nilakar. He/she seems hell bent on editing out all content tha balances out entry. For example mention of Facebook anti-Barkha page permissible, but a link to the fan page was removed by him. His comments on General Maliks book also reveal his bias. IWhy should the the Army Chief's comments be deemed "mere opinion" He also edited out the introductary paragraph on Barkha Dutt that listed her programs and awards. Clear example of vandalism. he should be sued.(Withoutsleep (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

No one should be allowed to Vandalise. and difference of opinion can be included in the page itself (Jeevanjoseph1974 (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC))

Gen Malik merely states his opinion in the book. That's there for you to verify. And it's irrelevant except in the context of Admiral Mehta's accusation. Fan listing is irrelevant as well since Facebook fan pages are not considered authentic source material. And vandalism and editing out content are two different things. Nilakar (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

General Issues
Barkha dutt supporters are not letting the fact come out that she sued a blogger when he blogged about shoddy journalism during mumbai carnage.All Links are deemed as "untrustable" Here is another link.Waiting for bloggers to include this fact http://wikileaks.org/wiki/NDTV_censored_blogger_over_criticism_of_Mumbai_terrorist_attack_reporage,_27_Nov_2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.244.100 (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this article is being vandalized by people who have a personal dislike of Ms. Dutt. No material on the internet or on television suggests that Ms. Dutt has been asked to resign, or that Ms. Dutt's work was considered anti-Hindu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwath Rabindranath (talk • contribs) 00:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with this comment earlier (Jeevanjoseph1974 (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC))

i would like barkha to stop discussing kashmir issue bcoz u dont belong to this place & hardly know being biased wont let u any entry to kashmir.plz do smthing constructive rather than dng tat wat irritates oters specially kashmiri pandits to whom does kashmir belong most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.21.132 (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Discretion in Language
There is little doubt that Barkha Dutt is a leftist and that she may gloss over the nuances associated with fighting chauvinism/extremism, such as collateral. However, the main page cannot be a sounding board for discussion about her. The place for that is here. I suggest we modify the language of the last paragraph and cite the sources for the Kargil controversy, after Admiral Mehta has repeated the incident which led to the dismissal of a Colonel.--Sayitaintsojoe (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism: Responsible Journalism
Shaila Said:

Barkha dutt is not honest which is the first requirement.She denied breaching security quadron at the taj and she denied forcing people to talk to her.Both these are lies and can be proved by video tape.She also has anti-bjp pro congress agenda.She uses the word politicize for discouraging any criticism against congress for which she was reqrded a padmasri and NDTV boss roy made sonia and mm singh indian of the year and invited Chidambaran as chief guest.She was always bringing up kandahar but not the rubaiya episode when covering 26/11 to work he political agenda in favor of congress and against BJP.

I request Ms Dutt to go and watch some of her footage and then talk. I clearly remember her giving an "exclusive" live report from right in front of the taj, just after the seige had ended. A security personnel could be clearly seen telling her to move away but she did not pay any heed. She had clearly broken the security cordon there. It was absolutely disgusting to watch how obsessed she was with being on camera. She also would force people to talk to her about the hostages and give their details away at the risk of death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.106.213 (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I happen to saw some of the point written about Ms Barkha earlier, it seems like some of supporter doesn’t like to see any thing bad about her.

Any way point is Ms Barkha must admit the Criticism and try to understand and respect the journalism.

All the New channel are more of doing business with the emotion of people instead of making people aware of incident or reporting the incident and in unfortunately in our country there is no law who control them or not strong enough.

It is like channel are more violent and ugly, I completely understand this is the might be face of our country. But did you ever realise what effect it might have in society or small child sitting in his home and trying to understand the hurdle of world and suddenly any thing can come across in your TV Screen. I am not suggesting you shouldn’t put the new in TV but I am surprise they way is been reported.

When BBC news telecast they warn when any disturbing news comes on screen but NDTV or Star News or other news channel in our country make sure that disturbing footage will keep repeating it without any warning.

Or might be our reporter think these are daily news for us or everyday thing so has to be like that.

Top of that reporter like Ms Barkha Dutt (as I understand Ms Dutt is one of senior correspondence and new reporters tends to follow there seniors even though that is not the excuse for irresponsible reporting) are not helping the situation even leaving the situation worse.

Hitesh Guleria

She is waste fellow. I hate her. Im moving out of NDTV because of her only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.46.55.31 (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversies debate
proof of barkha dutt suing a blogger http://wikileaks.org/wiki/NDTV_censored_blogger_over_criticism_of_Mumbai_terrorist_attack_reporage,_27_Nov_2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.244.100 (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Please note that legal notice was served by Barkha Dutt specifically. This information is correct and needs to be on Wiki also check the same information on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDTV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.81 (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

also here is the copy of official apology issued bu kunte http://www.naavi.org/cl_editorial_09/apology_kunte.pdf It clearly states that he had accused Barkha of shoddy jouralism and apologised to her specifically

I, Chyetanya Kunte, hereby tender an unconditional apology to Ms. Barkha Dutt, Managing Editor, English News, NDTV Limited and to NDTV Limited, for the defamatory statements I made regarding Ms. Barkha Dutt and NDTV Limited, in my post titled "Shoddy Journalism," — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.81 (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The Hindu link quotes a Chyetanya Kunte, a Netherlands-based engineer and not a Senior journalist. The article does not criticize Barkha Dutt specifically except for this quote by an engineer.--Anshuk (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Senior journalists have criticized the Mumbai blast coverage and Ms Dutt came in for specific criticism for having given away details of positions where potential hostages were possibly hiding from terrorists. Hindu

Now, if a Mainstream Paper quotes someone who happens to be a blogger does Wiki rules say that be cited? I don't see such a rule.~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilakar (talk • contribs) 09:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The blogger was only quoting about the insensitive behavior of Barkha Dutt. This has already been mentioned in the article with 2 better citations.--Anshuk (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

So, quoting a blogger is alright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilakar (talk • contribs) 09:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source quotes a blogger, it should be fine.--Anshuk (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that social networking was a major source of citizen journalism. But we need a better reliable source (not facebook) to quote in wikipedia articles. FaceBook is not reliable.--Anshuk (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Social Networking was a major source of live Citizen Journalism during the Mumbai Terror Strikes. Those participating Citizen Journalists have criticized Barkha Dutt for what they called shoddy journalism. They have also formed a group to demand Ms Dutt's removal. FaceBook

If Social Networking is accepted as a major source of Information, citing a Social Network site in itself can only be the most direct of such information! The group cited has over 2500 members and all of them are Citizen Journalists which the other Wiki entry cites. So, I do not understand how else such information can be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilakar (talk • contribs) 07:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They were a major source of citizen journalism on the Mumbai terror attacks. But they are still not a reliable source as per wikipedia policies. Give me some time.. I am trying to find a mention of this facebook entry in a major newspaper/source. --Anshuk (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not able to find any article in google news which specifically talks about Barkha Dutt getting any criticism on FaceBook. There are articles which decry the entire media fraternity but that can not be used to source a criticism on every journalist's article in the media business. --Anshuk (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have taken this text as is from the sify link provided by you. Please don't manipulate words.--Anshuk (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In a talk show on the Noida double murder case aired by NDTV, members of the audience and experts invited by Barkha, referred to India TV as the purported broadcaster of the pornographic MMS instead of India News, and it was left to Deepak Chaurasia, Senior Editor, Aaj Tak to clarify.'India TV did not air Aarushi photo'

That was hardly any manipulation. There was a complaint. And copy pasting Sify distorts context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilakar (talk • contribs) 08:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please point out the passage or sentence which proves that this act by Chaurasia was a complaint and not a clarification.--Anshuk (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's the first paragraph of the story! Do you even read before editing? The story starts, "India TV, a news TV channel run by journalist Rajat Sharma, has complained to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting that its fair name and goodwill were being compromised because of regulatory permission given to a company called Information TV, to run a 24-hour news channel by the name of `India News'." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilakar (talk • contribs) 08:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me first request you to be civil and not lose your cool. The complaint was by India TV against a regulatory permission given to a company called Information TV. Here we are talking about a clarification given by Chaurasia to NDTV. The article clearly states it as a clarification. I don't think Chaurasia lodged a complaint against NDTV to Ministry of Information.--Anshuk (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The complaint was made for the general condition where people mistook India TV for another. That misconception was aired on NDTV. And deducing this is comprehension -- asking people to read generally means asking clearer comprehension. Given that is the area of contention, it hardly constitutes uncivil behavior. If anything, it adds detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilakar (talk • contribs) 08:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you even read before editing? was definitely against wp:agf and wp:npa. The complaint was not made for any general condition. The legal complaint that the source talks about was against a regulatory permission given to a company. I don't think there was any complaint against NDTV by anyone. Chaurasia was clarifying, what seems to be a very popular, misconception. --Anshuk (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Asking a question does not breach good faith. But calling something manipulative does. So, you, in my opinion, stand more accused of that breach.

And Gen Malik's book does not prove anything. It merely puts forward a theory. And how is a proof decided? So, it's only fair to say she cited Army sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilakar (talk • contribs) 08:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Per your latest update, Chaurasia complained. The source talks about India TV lodging a complaint against Information TV. Chaurasia gave a clarification.--Anshuk (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Accused of being power lobbyst for Congress and link with Niira Radia. The audio is recorded by CBI for the 2g specturm scam. This caught her dealing with Coporate lobbyst. Listen to the tapes on YouTube which also involve another high ranking journalist Vir Sanghvi - YouTube Radia Barkha Tapes

The conversations are reported to have happened in May 2009 when the new UPA ministry was being formed at the centre. The transcripts provided below may exclude some interruptions or inaudible parts in the conversation but have been reproduced verbatim from the sites mentioned above.

http://mediacrooks.blogspot.com/2010/11/barkha-dutt-nira-radia-tapes-power.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.182.16 (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is Barkha Dutt's proximity to UPA being hidden
 * Both the Radia Tapes and their independent analysis points to the relationship between Dutt and the UPA government. However all references to this are being deleted, making the page a hagiography, no an encyclopedia entry.
 * Puck42 (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi
There is a lot of fighting over this page, but no talking, which is disappointing. Further edit warring without justification will be met with blocks. Meantime, I've semi protected the article so the anon's can't edit it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this. Cynique (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert of edit
I have reverted this edit on the ground that the lead of an article is supposed to summarize the article, not be a catalogue of the subject's achievements. See WP:Lead. &mdash; Ravikiran (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Member of India's National Integration Council
She is not member of India's National Integration Council. List of members can be downloade from http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/NICmaterial020707.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dks10 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Biographers should display maturity
Biographers play a major role in shaping history and should therefore display some basic level of maturity, neutrality and composure. Like one of the admins rightly pointed out, the section Criticism was completely unnecessary and uncalled for. The section also diminished the credibility of the article to a great extent! Some features of it, however, needed to be merged with the rest of the article, which I tried my best to fulfill.

In my opinion,

1) Wikipedia is referred to by a large number of people, globally. Therefore while editing pages display of mature neutrality is necessary! 2) This is not someone's personal blog page!... People who get to have their biographies written in wikipedia (without getting removed shortly ;) ) are obviously widely known (famous/infamous) and records of their views, on a number of subjects, are commonly available in the public domain. One may agree or disagree with all or most of those views or even like or dislike the subject (the person whose biography it is); nevertheless, such biographical articles should be free from personal opinions and observations! If display of personal opinion is important, please use the discussion page of the article or that of your own profile. Alternately, you may also start your own blog and express your ire or display your affection about someone or something there!

Respectful,...

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Barkha's Photo


Just added this image in the article... Changed the requited template to needs-photo=no ... Checked and verified the copyright of the image (refer to the file page)... Could not find a better image with the required copyrights ....

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This picure, where is the actual link, also it is so bad as to be better removed, we are not desperate for a picture and picture, a poor representation is imo worse than no picture at all. Looking at the flikr users pictures any some of his other dubious copyright claims IMO it is flikr washed and a copy vio so I have removed it. Please be aware we have no need of a picture and if we are going to add one it should not be a low grade picture of a dubious claim. Off2riorob (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to establish contact with her... and ask her for a picture!

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a standard problem with many flickr images, many people upload using licenses that aren't applicable. This particular image appears to be used in some other promotional material too (see this). Amartya Ray, I will delete this image now. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting SpacemanSpliff. To Amartya. yes, contacting the subject is one method of finding one, I have tried a few times in regards to other articles and the response is hit and miss, best of luck. As a side note it is better if she (or whoever the copyright owner is) uploads it themselves, rather that sends it to you for uploading. Off2riorob (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay cool... If it has to be deleted, it has to be deleted! I've twitted her... Let's see if she answers... http://twitter.com/wwwPoet/status/22797044617

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Added a photo from flickr that has been released under creative commons. Suraj (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 121.242.23.216, 20 October 2010
Barkha Dutt is expert in communicating with others, but she is often accused of being pseudo-secular. She is also many times seen as a supporter of Nehru-Gandhi family.

121.242.23.216 (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Did you want these statements to be added to the article? If so, they need reliable sources to go with them. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  06:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

2G scam
New information has to be added as the person is involved http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/11/19/phone-taps-draw-media-into-2g-spotlight/ Request to remove the lock on this article.--SpArC (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Duranvskp, 30 November 2010
I want to add a line in the Nira Radia Barkha dutt tapes controversy saying that although she might have acted along to get the information, she never reported that information that DMK is using a Corporate Lobbyist to have A. Raja as telecommunications minister. That story was never reported leaving a doubt lingering in our minds.

Duranvskp (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Requests need citations to support them WP:RS Personally I am unsure if this point is noteworthy but I will look at a citation if you present one. Also, you should more exactly specify the sentence you wish to add. Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Request to remove the protection
There is a great need yo end this protection because it seems Barkha Dutt and her protege are blocking free flow of information here. Currently she is under many scrutiny and hence the need to keep the page unprotected for free flow of information, with frequent check-ups. AddybossAddyboss (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Article is unprotected on Dec 12, if you have an addition, if you leave it here and it complies with wiki policy and guidelines I will add it for you. Off2riorob (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

blatant misuse of school grounds
Very Respected Burkhaji, You take up wonderful issues in your public discussions and many such discussions have created great impact and policy changes. In Mumbai and may be elsewhere school grounds are blatanly misued for wedding and other functions where exclusive privilege of children is marred by functions going late into the night and subsequent shifting of decor and washing of utensils create utter nuisance. Administrators and trustees have often malafide intentions with complete disregard to safety of students. On one side in broad daylight cooking goes on with gas cylinders and on the other side few feet away children playing. some schools rent out only on week days when the school is shut but some rent out even on week days when the school is on and poor children play while decoration material is strewn all over.Why can't NDTV team do research on this subject which will hundreds of school children in a situation when school grounds are limited  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.143.140 (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of CIOL as source
CIOL.com (link) does not qualify as a reliable source according to Wikipedia's content guideline on identifying reliable sources. Please see the sub-section on news organizations:


 * "When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[2] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Book reviews too can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces."

In this case, Sudhakaran is a non-notable journalist, along with the fact that CIOL.com is not a mainstream source of news information, and therefore the citation fails the test for verifiability. In the case of biographies on living persons, the guideline is to remove contentious material specially when not backed with appropriate and mainstream sourcing. Please remember that any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  20:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The link cited is not an opinion, its a news report which was published in the CIOL site which is a technology news site run online by the cybermedia group which prints magazines like PCQuest. The controversy is about sending legal notice to a blogger, hence a Indian technology reporting new site will be an RS.

"Ms. Dutt served legal notices to a blogger, Chyetanya Kunte, who allegedly had criticized her reporting the Mumbai mayhem, through one of his blog posts titled "Shoddy Journalism". Many Indian bloggers have expressed their sharp dissatisfaction towards her and her employer, NDTV for attempting to censor their right to freedom of speech by way of such legal actions[22]"


 * I have rephrased the wordings removing the words which indicate the content on the blogpost which might be BLP concern, but removing the entire section citing BLP issue affects the neutrality of the article.  Srikanth (Logic)  21:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as there are no multiple, high quality sources to back up the assertions made in your edits, the section cannot be introduced again. Please review Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid for reporting poorly sourced details about lives of individuals. Thanks. —  Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  21:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Responding because someone raised this issue at WT:INB. Three points:
 * If you post something such as that at WT:INB then it would be courteous to note here that you have done so
 * WT:INB is not the ideal forum - try WP:RSN if reliability is questioned, or WP:BLPN if it is purely a BLP issue
 * I tend to agree with NHN. Find some additional sources, and preferably of a better quality. - Sitush (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I support Nick's removal of the content. Neither the original issue nor the filing of the case has received any significant coverage in mainstream reliable sources, at least not that I've seen. CIOL is a specialty media house and their pieces can be used as RS for technical stuff, this however is a claim that doesn't find any mention in other RS and is unrelated to their subject expertise, so it's not something to be used. If there are other RS (and if it's an issue that passes WP:NPOV/WP:BLP, we should find some reporting of it on Hindu/ToI/HT/IE for sure). &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Televisionpoint.com
Can someone please explain why this is a reliable source? It reads like a paean, has no specific date, no specific byline, does not appear to be mainstream and in its usage does not support the statement that she has twice won an award from the WEF. Surely the WEF produce their own press releases etc? - Sitush (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, not reliable standing alone. I tried searching WEF archives, but couldn't find any mention. Consider using this instead – . — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  22:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This page has been posted in the "Young Global Leaders" section of the WEF site – . — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  22:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Likewise, www.india-server.com ought to be removed. Her sister info is sourced to her twitter (which appears to be verified), but I've always found sourcing to twitter/facebook etc to be problematic. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am not happy about that Twitter thing. And I am not even sure that the point matters, unless her sister is notable enough to have her own article. - Sitush (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing Blogger controversy
Would this be considered as a reliable source? The mainstream coverage of the issue is close to nil much like the media blackout during Radia tapes controversy, however doesnt mean the issue is insignificant.  Srikanth (Logic)  08:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * With a name like "Countercurrents" and judging by the stuff listed on the left-hand menu, no. It is really pretty simple: per WP:V and WP:RS, we need stuff to be verifiable using (multiple) independent reliable sources ... and, as I think is noted in the earlier thread, "mainstream" is a part of that. If it ain't covered by mainstream then it ain't notable etc. Even if it is! - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely not. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked this here after seeing 293 links (many could be external links), but I saw quite a few used as references, including a GA. Thanks for clarifying.  Srikanth (Logic)  08:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Woah. Cleaning those up will take an hour or two. There may be the odd one that is valid (eg: an article about the site itself), but the rest should go. - Sitush (talk) 09:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Kunte's Aplogy http://www.naavi.org/cl_editorial_09/apology_kunte.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.81 (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Barkha Dutt is unmarried
Are you wikipedia administrators dumb or what ? no wonder Wiki Admin [redacted] was called a [redacted] by Barkha Dutt in Jaipur literature festival.she is unmarried and said it so many on twitter as well.i even tried to remove this malicious information that she is married to haseeb drabu but another [redacted] wikipedia editor reverted.how can you allow such malicious information to linger on for so long.108.59.252.58 (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that you have already removed the unsourced information. Please be civil while addressing other users, as Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. This policy can be enforced through blocks against users who repeatedly violate it. I have redacted your statement to remove the personal attack against another administrator. As of now, your edit on the article stands. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  12:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you editor Sitush Nick for removing this inaccuracy.Otherwise Barkha Dutt would continue her rants against wikipedia abusing not just [redacted] but entire wikipedia organisation.wikipedia should not allow such malicious information to be cited on their pages.Wikipedia's credibility in India is anyways at an all time low considering that mainstream tv journalist like Barkha Dutt,Arnab Goswami and Rajdeep Sardesai (representing left right centre all political hues) have collectively criticised wikipedia(barkha has abused at jaipur literature festival which recieved quite a few giggles) for malicious information and slander.why doesn't wikipedia spend some money to hire good non neutral editors and review their pages regularly.criticism is one thing malicious info is another.108.59.252.58 (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't added or removed that Barkha Dutt is unmarried or not.. Neither do i ever add any unsourced information ... Then why would I be responsible for that edit? I am just one of scores of Wikipedia admins in the country.  Please understand that the Wikipedia is/can be edited by anyone.. not just admins or regular editors.  --  Tinu  Cherian  - 08:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It was added here by User:Satyakijeet. I'll check their other two or three edits, just in case. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The blogging controversy involving chetanya kunte
I would like to add the blogging controversy involving chetanya kunte and Barkha Dutt. I believe it has been added before and later deleted as I notice in the history and the talk pages here. I believe there was a significant outpouring in the social media community then (mostly blogs.. twitter was yet to make an entry and facebook was not as prevalent as it is today). I feel that this controversy need to be added to make this a well-rounded article.

In view of the fact that none of the respected media houses carried this incident, how do I add this incident to the article ?

I do not want to add this fact and then get it reverted. I believe none of the sources provided by Google will get classified in what wikipedia considers as "reliable sources". Can I add this incident and mention that, the fact is none of the major media houses carried this news ?

Just because major media houses did not carry this fact means, it should not be overlooked on a wikipedia article right ?

I am looking for some senior editors / admins to let me know how to go about this.98.180.212.101 (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)joy

Edit request on 18 June 2013
Could Barkha's marital status be also included in the wikipage.

117.245.65.205 (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
 * If you have details from a reliable source - (see WP:RS), please just provide the details and reactivate the request. Thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk  12:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The journalist in "No one killed jessica" is not based on Barkha Dutt
The following text in "Portrayal in popular culture" section of the page must be deleted. "In the 2011 movie No One Killed Jessica, the role played by Rani Mukherjee in the film was said to be loosely based on her." The lead actress in the movie mentioned (Rani Mukherjee) has stated that her character in the movie is not modelled on any journalist. See here http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/character-in-no-one-killed-jessica-is-the-fictional-aspect-of-the-story/1/122302.html

Vaivaswatha (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: The current text is supported by a source. Would you like to add some content about the actress's claim? (something like "... on her, although the actress herself claims the role was not modeled on any journalist.") Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality tag: cleanup and rework needed
I've placed the POV tag because quite frankly, this article seems like an attack page and a possible WP:BLP issue. Reading this, one gets the view that she is the most hated person on television; this article's layout and focus on criticism is similar to that of the Asaram Bapu page--despite she being a regular prominent news reporter and not some controversial public figure. Funny, this isn't the first time, I noticing such bias against a Indian female journalist; a coincidence that one BBC report I found in those articles "Why are Indian women being attacked on social media?" seemed to answer why.

There is an enormous criticism with stuff mainly ridiculing her, I'm still not sure what's relevant and what's not...but there's stuff like some random criticism from a tabloid which contains just a passing reference of her and a separate section about an incident where she was booed (seriously?). First, we need to sort out from all this mess some valid criticism (if any) and merge it with her career section; the Radia tapes and coverage of 26/11 seem like valid career controversies but still need to be joined with the main section "Career" (See WP:CSECTION). Second, there must be more coverage about her actual journalistic achievements, with all this we can finally have a proper balanced biographical article. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed down what I could and attempted to address the Crit-section tag. Now all is left to check is the undue weight issue in two sections. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Done some further work. Looks decent now. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2014
Spouse: Haseeb Drabu

2001:4898:80E8:ED31:0:0:0:3 (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  20:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2014
223.239.159.91 (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=477976282342025&set=vb.107229389416718&type=2&theater

Pseudo Secularism....Nothing New we can expect
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Chaitanya Kunte mention
I did a quick search engine test for this and couldn't find mention in any news media besides blogs and other self-published sources. If even one such reliable source exists, it is enough for it to be added to this page and there's no point in cite-bombing it with numerous unreliable sources. To list them, this site, "Mediacrooks" and "Centreright" are all blogs. Finally, "India Facts research center" is an unreliable publisher because its only one notable researcher is Koenraad Elst, a known fringe theory supporter. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Consider this blog: Churumuri. It is a blog written by this man: Krishna Prasad. Notice that the man is the Editor in Chief of Outlook, one of the two most bestselling magazines in India. And notice that his blog is endorsed by the New York Times as per his wikipedia biographical article which says the New York Times has put his blog on their reading list. Now consider this blog of his: "Krishna Prasad on Barkha Dutt. Indian journalists did not write about this in the print media because journalists do not like criticizing fellow journalists in the media unless the news is something like Radia Tapes, and even here no opportunity was given to Dutt for presenting her side of the story before the story was published since it was feared she would use her clout to try and kill the story.
 * You seem to imagine that blogs cannot be used as a reliable source. But consider the following material from the page on [| Wikipedia Reliable source examples]: "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer (a typical example is Language Log, which is already cited in several articles, e.g. Snowclone, Drudge Report)." In this case we have a well known professional (in the field of journalism) who is writing a blog which is in his own field (journalism).Soham321 (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Krishna Prasad is the current Editor in Chief of Outlook magazine.Soham321 (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't oppose this addition anymore as you have now provided a blog "Churumuri" written by a notable journalist. Also what you have added is factual (not an opinion) so I'm okay with this blog being used to cite it.
 * I disagree with you regarding the blogs being reliable part, all blogs count as self-published sources. The RS guideline you quoted, says only if it is hosted by university, newspaper or employer. Here we have "Churumuri" published by the author himself (self-published). It looks like like it has minimal positive reception and notability; it is subject to be nominated for deletion here anytime. We thus can't use Wikipedia as a reliable source.
 * You're wrong about the Indian journalists not publishing anything, all rival news agencies (other than NDTV that is) would have jumped at the opportunity had this been that notable :) So we better be careful using this blog to cite more serious things in future.
 * Like I said before, just one good ref is enough (WP:CITEKILL is unnecessary, one or two RSes for a fact is fine) and I may remove those non-RS citations/do some rearranging soon. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I will just point out that in the wikipedia guideline under discussion the words used are "especially if", and not "only if". Notice that i also gave another reference (Barkha's interview with Madhu Trehan where she talks about this issue). I agree with your basic contention that in general blogs should not be used in wikipedia articles (and this is in fact the wikipedia policy). Thanks for educating me on this aspect of wikipedia policy. Soham321 (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Vinod Mehta book
I notice that the following edit written by me has been deleted by :

On page 249 of his book Lucknow Boy, Vinod Mehta writes about an agreement between Barkha Dutt and Arun Jaitley in connection with the Radia tapes. According to Mehta: "Arun Jaitley says he was on the verge of referring to the Radia intercepts in the Rajya Sabha when Barkha came to see him and pleaded with him not to mention the conversations in his attack on the government."

In the edit summary SpacemanSpiff mentions that this is a "Contextless quote". But surely it is not contextless considering there is a clear reference to the radia tapes in the quote, and the edit is being placed in a section titled Radia Tapes controversy. Unless there is some other reason not to do so, this edit needs to be reintroduced into the main article. Soham321 (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * First this is a WP:BLP, and the above mentioned quote affects at least two living persons and any such statement should be sourced to a reliable news services and have received reasonable coverage, not to the opinion of one individual in his autobiography. There's no larger context for the statement itself -- if there's discussions about this particular event in reliable sources and we cover it in the article, then the statement of Mehta might be of value, but without that, no -- see WP:QUOTEFARM. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Marital status and religion: BLP vios
Just for future reference. This article is prone to BLP violations, such as edits concerning her marital status and religion which are usually always unsourced or weakly sourced. Stay alert and revert. &#x2011;Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Barkha Dutt. 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/20091003212816/http://www.hindu.com:80/2008/05/11/stories/2008051154800800.htm to http://www.hindu.com/2008/05/11/stories/2008051154800800.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110919014003/http://www.hindu.com:80/2010/04/13/stories/2010041356461200.htm to http://www.hindu.com/2010/04/13/stories/2010041356461200.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080723194940/http://www.csmworld.org/public/asia21.htm to http://www.csmworld.org/public/asia21.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)