Talk:Charanjit Singh Channi

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Charanjit Singh Channi.png

Controversies section
I note that the controversies section has repeatedly been blanked; this is prima facie pretty obvious vandalism. It is, however, legitimate to worry that the article at present gives WP:UNDUE weight to allegations against Channi.

In this connexion I have shortened some of the descriptions, included his responses, and deleted one case. The latter was an allegation that a university deliberately lowered standards for him; the allegation was unsourced, even though his failure in a PhD qualification exam was not. I judged that merely failing an exam was not really worth including.

However, that doesn’t really solve the problem. I think that we should still leave most of the allegations up. Here are a couple of options open to us:
 * 1) doing nothing,
 * 2) whittling down the allegations further, or
 * 3) finding something else to include.

I would point out that all these allegations are encyclopædic and probably ought to be mentioned, which rules out (2): it is not our job to rectify the nature of the coverage available to us. Some may still be worried, and I’d encourage them to take up (3) instead of vandalising the page by deleting perfectly encyclopædic material. Docentation (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I note that you removed much (most?) of the material in the controversies section. First, would you care to elaborate here? Your justification is rather terse and it is less than friendly to simply ignore the talk page.
 * Second, you cite the essay WP:CRIT. This would seem to entail two things: first, not having a ‘criticisms’ section, and, second, not omitting any material in reliable sources of a positive nature. Notably, neither of these entails deleting the material; it was also possible to move the material into a section on his political career. If positive material has been omitted, you should add it, instead of deleting material germane to his political career which ought to appear in the article.
 * Third, you cite WP:BLP; I have no idea which part you are applying here. All the allegations are (a) couched as allegations, not statements of fact, and (b) appear in perfectly respectable news sources. It does not contradict WP:BLP to mention that some politician has been accused of corruption or whatever. The controversies section primarily contained (in my view) three particularly important allegations, viz., that he—
 * illegally constructed a road after receiving the advice of an astrologer about the layout of his home,
 * associated with illegal miners, and
 * sent unwanted lewd messages to an IAS officer.
 * This is exactly the sort of material one finds on pages about politicians both living and dead all over Wikipedia and I doubt it is the intention of WP:BLP to preclude even mentioning allegations. Docentation (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In the absence of any response I have taken the course of action suggested above. Docentation (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a newspaper to write down all the allegations of a person's political opponents. WP:BLP doesn't support that addition that's why it is removed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * you continue to barely explain your edits even though the justification for them is unclear.
 * ‘Wikipedia is not a newspaper to write down all the allegations of a person’s political opponents’: well, given that there aren’t very many of them, I think we should mention them all. This is different from, say, trawling through every single joke made at Rahul Gandhi’s expense and producing a massive list of a hundred BJP IT cell memes about potatoes. There are three relatively well-sourced allegations with a host of newspaper articles to back up the fact that the allegations were made. And as for ‘political opponents’, in the case of the alleged sending of lewd messages, it’s wrong to smear the IAS officer as a ‘political opponent’ just because other political opponents might want to exploit the case for themselves: women’s allegations are not the same as political point-scoring and should not be treated as such.
 * You continue to merely link to WP:BLP without explaining what precisely within it justifies your edits after I point out that you are merely gesturing at BLP. It is impossible to work out what your argument here actually is. The talk page exists for a reason.
 * What is ‘that addition’? What distinguishes the material you removed from the material you didn’t? For BLP purposes all the allegations are roughly on the same grounds: Channi allegedly did something, he denies it or otherwise has some response, and we report both.
 * On WP:NOTNEWS, I hardly see why the material you actually removed falls foul of this guideline. To address your omissions in order:
 * it is certainly encyclopedic to point out that Channi is thought to be close to Sidhu but that tensions arose later; compare other articles mentioning political alignments—
 * Friedrich Merz: ‘Merz…is repurted to be a member of the Andean Pact, a powerful network formed by members of the CDU youth wing in 1979 during a trip to the Andes’,
 * David Cameron: ‘[w]hile Leader…Cameron was accused of reliance on “old boy networks”…some of Cameron’s senior appointments…are forme members of the Bullingdon Club…’, and
 * the One Nation Conservatives (caucus) (and indeed all sorts of other caucuses) have their own articles;
 * it is also encyclopedic to mention a clearout of some allies of Amarinder Singh; cf. Premiership of Margaret Thatcher: ‘ as the leader of the "dry" faction she purged most of the One Nation "wet" Conservatives and took full control’.
 * Note also that none of this concerns ‘allegations by political opponents’: this is political commentary from the press.
 * Given your previous insistence on not actually discussing edits and merely gesturing at policies I am inclined to think that a reversion here would be justified, unless you actually give some sort of meaningful reply. Docentation (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Dalit and Sikh
I note that you remark that Channi is ‘not Dalit Sikh because Sikh religion don't believe in castism’. How else is one to refer to someone who is both Dalit and Sikh? Dalits don’t appear in the Bible, I imagine, but one can be a Christian and a Dalit; it seems natural enough to refer to such people as Dalit Christians, and doing so doesn’t imply that Christianity ‘believes in casteism’. I should also add—though it is not really germane here—that there seems to be evidence of casteism amongst Sikhs in published scholarly sources. Docentation (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Renaming ‘Minister…’ section to ‘controversies’
I note that you renamed the ‘Minister of Technical Education and Industrial Training’ section to ‘Controversies’.
 * separate line was not making any sense: Would you care to elaborate on what you mean?’ It made sense to me when I wrote it and I can’t spot what about the old version didn’t make sense.
 * section is about the new title:
 * all the allegations were made when he was minister, which is why I put them under the old subsection name;
 * it mentions his appointment, which was not a controversy, so the old title matches everything there whereas the new title doesn’t; and
 * there are good reasons not to have a section named ‘Controversies’ (see WP:CRIT as mentioned by TheWikiholic above—I already pinged them about something else so will refrain.)

Docentation (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * yes i agree with the point that this section has some content not related to "controversies" but almost 90% of this section is about the controversy of the person, so i think you may create a separate section for his appointments or other "non-controversy" related topic, but for this section "Controversies" is the best suitable title. Pyaarkarona (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see your point. However, ‘Minister of Technical Education and Industrial Training’ matches 100% of the content, because, well, all the events described took place while he was minister. And 100% seems better than 90%. Add to that that generally speaking ‘controversies’ sections pose something of an issue and it seems to me that the former is better. What do you think? Docentation (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "In 2017, he was appointed Minister of Technical Education and Industrial Training in the second Amarinder Singh ministry" except this line, rest material is about his "controversies", ya i agree that all these events happen when he was holding the minitrial post. but i am sure that many more events other than "controversies" must have happened in his office holding tenure. but this section talks about only the controversies which took place at time of his office holding tenure. so i think controversies would be more precise term as of now, but ya if you add some more events of his office holding tenure other than only "controversies "then, i think it would be better to use previous heading.Pyaarkarona (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Controversies
I have removed this section. Reason being, contains two paragraph mentions how a home is constructed and later destroyed. In a nutshell sequence of events happened in person day to day life. In India, media houses published lots of material depicting what the issue was/is related to a person. Users are advised not to put it here creating controversies section saying ref has significant mention. Having a controversy section seems ambigous here unless a person is convicted with respect to controversy mentioned here.-- 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 06:47, 30 September 2021 (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: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Charanjit Singh Channi.jpg