Talk:G. N. Saibaba

Inclusion of Word Naxalite in the Introduction
As the Person Dr. G.N. Saibaba is proved guilty by the sessions court on count for their maoist link and granted life imprisonment by Session Court in Maharashtra. . He is been charged and convicted under section 13, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the UAPA Act. As Such, it seems that the naxalite reference can be added to the article. I will like to get the views of the other editors on this regards. Pranhita (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Few points I would like to make: The article in its current form does not mention whether he has exhausted all his constitutional rights of appeal. Even if convicted, what were the specific points for conviction? Is he labelled by reliable sources as a "naxalite" or with links to naxals? So we can say he was convicted or charged under xyz sections as that would be neutral. Naxalite is a POV and considering this is covered under BLP rules, there needs to be strong references to support such a claim. Vikram Vincent 08:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the Input. However, do see the article where the judgement done by judge at the sessions court specifically mentions the accused belong to CPI(Maoist) as well as RDF . Also, as per Wikipedia WP:BLPCRIME can't be inserted until a conviction is secured which is done in this regards. Thereby, it is clear to mention the naxalite reference. A Murderer is Defined by his conviction, whether or not he challenges the same in upper court or till the presidency.Also, can we say "member of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), a banned Maoist party in India" as in case of kishenji ? Your Views ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranhita (talk • contribs) 10:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * My understanding is a court record would be WP:BLPPRIMARY which states, Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Per WP:BLPCRIME, post conviction you can say the person was convicted of xyz crime however unless the reliable secondary source clearly says he was a 'naxalite' that would not be acceptable. For example, consider this source and guess the problems of using the claims made in it :-) Vikram Vincent 11:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * He was arrested on 9 May 2014, on charges of having Naxalite–Maoist links. Saibaba denied a charge that he runs an organisation which was acting as a front for CPI-Maoist. Vikram Vincent 12:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, as the persons only major notability is his arrest for having alleged Arrest for having Naxalite Maoist Link under UAPA and being accused under UAPA Tends to bring notability in itself as also mentioned by you in another article , the undo should be reverted. Pranhita (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, . Here the objection was to the use of "naxalite" or a variation of it. Stating in the lead that he was "convicted under the UAPA Act" would be factually correct. Vikram Vincent 12:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If there are multiple sources mentioning the alledged naxalite links being the reason behind his conviction done as the convicted under the UAPA Act will be vague as it involves various different scenarios such as terror activities, Khalistani Activities etc., thereby it is specifically mentioned to be allegedly in the introduction. Do see the article and changes made by you for reference . Reverting the article without concluding the talk issue shows bad faith. I advice you to revert the changes till the talk page concludes the same. Do Check Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point Pranhita (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the WP:RS have used the word 'naxalite' which was what you were warned about edit warring with an IP. Vikram Vincent 14:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , from WP:ARBBLP, In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached. Vikram Vincent 15:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * do check the article  as they clearly mentions the term naxalite. Also, the edit undo by the ip is without specifying any reason and has only one edit basically in that regards which is  why its been reverted by me. Pranhita (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I did read the links. From The Hindu, "Delhi University professor arrested for alleged Naxal links" was an accusation by the police. For the Economic Times I will apply WP:TOI since it is reflecting a Govt POV rather than objective reporting. Vikram Vincent 15:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Accusation was proved by the conviction of the subject on the Session Court. Also, as per it clearly mentions allegedly.  WP:BLPCRIME clearly states the term can be added once conviction is done. So, Whether a conviction is Done? Yes it is. And whether there is a change in the status of conviction ? No . Thereby, the edit can be easily reverted. Also, the only significance of the subject is his being arrested under UAPA and so is added under the introduction . The same is specified even by you at  . Pranhita (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to convey by quoting from Umar Khalid with the diff edit summary "Being accused under UAPA tends to bring notability in itself". Since you have already initiated a discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#G.N._Saibaba I will wait for others to intervene. Best! Vikram Vincent 16:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the content that was added. It is starting to look like POV pushing. There is no mention of some of the claims being made in both the references used. I think you need to be careful about what you write in a BLP. Vikram Vincent 13:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

article has been copy edited
Feel free to improve the page. Vikram Vincent 09:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)