Talk:Kodiyeri Balakrishnan

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Kodiyeri sir is not an atheist. He is a Hindu and there has been instances of conducting Hindu rituals at his house (Theeta commie (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)).

No Valid reason cited for deleting Controversies section
The edits made by [] were reverted without any reason, accurate sources were cited and the question raised in the edit summary by editor reverting the changes is not a valid reason. Editors are not allowed to do any original research WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and wikipedia is not a place for promotion.

RamRaghubn (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not representing the references correctly:
 * 1) Both references are clear that the claims on the ownership of the vehicle were allegations by other political parties. You're presenting the allegations as if they were facts. If every allegation by any political against another politician would warrant a section in Wikipedia, how would the encyclopedia look like?
 * 2) The last sentence of the passage is completely WP:OR, speculative and argumentative. --Soman (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , this also constitutes a WP:BLP violation. Please go through the very policies and guidelines which you yourself are referring to. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 17:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The edit identified by 1 was never an original research. I was quoting the statements from the two cited sources. If you feel that the page has to be maintained as Promotional, please do confirm that's what is intended. Also, have a question to you  Tayi Arajakate  and Soman (talk), are you indirectly issuing a WP:NOEDIT order on me ? WP:BLP never say that you should not have a Controversies / Criticisms in the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RamRaghubn (talk • contribs) 22:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you've already been adequately explained how that addition constitutes original research. You have represented allegations by other parties as statements of fact in the first line as well as added an unsourced second line. The policy on biographies of living persons quite clearly states that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" which is what has been done here. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 01:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for finding time to explain to me why this is original research. However, I am not convinced. Also your allegation about the second line is not sourced is not true, the second line was directly sourced from the article which I originally cited in my edit.  To quote - "He claimed a case against the car owner was registered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in 2013.". Since there was no evidence of original research, I would like to know whether there can be a consensus to put the edit back in there. I don't think any wiki-editor can deny making an edit however, one may suggest an alternative way of forming the sentence in the page. In case you need more links and references, citing more credible sources establishing that the ownership of the car resides with Karat Faisal  and he was indeed found guilty by DRI for Gold Smuggling .  RamRaghubn (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , your added second lines states that "Though the incident sparked a political controversy, no police investigation on alleged ties of Kodiyeri Balakrishnan with Karat Faisal was conducted." which is neither supported by the quotation or your reference. Moreover the quotation you've used to state in wiki-voice the registration details of the car in the first line is a claim made by an IUML politician. The NDTV article is only reporting on the same accusations while The Times of India is not really a reliable source especially on controversial issues.
 * Look, I'm not going to bother anymore if you keep asserting the same thing with this kind of misrepresentation of sources. Not to mention the whole thing is undue if nothing more came out of this other than using a person's car who was fined in a case years ago, that too allegedly. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 03:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not going to bother anymore if you keep asserting the same thing with this kind of misrepresentation of sources. Not to mention the whole thing is undue if nothing more came out of this other than using a person's car who was fined in a case years ago, that too allegedly. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 03:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

, I've reverted your recent edits on the article. They do not concern the person directly and are allegations against his children, neither of whom are public figures and have not been convicted. Please attempt to discuss this before making an addition considering it is the same addition which was being forwarded in the disruption beforehand. The removal of tags was also not appropiate, there is still a substantial portion of the material in the article which lack inline citations. Tayi Arajakate Talk 10:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! I am only following the style that is commonly used. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._A._Haris#Controversies There are several prominent people pages which have this section, in fact too many to list. I think the reverts to *only* this page is not reasonable. Thanks Vikram Vincent  11:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have initiated a discussion here so that I can understand which is the correct approach to adding content on controversy involved with family members that are widely reported in the news. Vikram Vincent  12:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)