Talk:Mohammad Hamid Ansari

Untitled
Welcome! Please help expand the article. Do support your claims with credible sources. Thanking You,  Altruism To talk  13:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This page has been deleted as a copyright violation - please do not restore the same, copyrighted version - it will just be deleted, and the page may end up getting salted. Collect the facts from sources, then rewrite them in your own words.  Cheers, Wily D  14:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

choice of lingos for name
why is his name written in telegu? hindi and urdu i can understand (he's from UP, mother tongue Urdu) but telegu? If anything his name should be written in Bengali, he's been born and brought up in calcutta and even did undergrad there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.224.206.237 (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversies
Unfortunately, i removed the controversy tab since there was no proper referencing. Abhinav619 22.08, 4 January 2012

Any relationships ?
Any relationship between Vice President Ansari with - Abdul Hamid Ansari, Congressman and founder of Inquilab Publications in 1938 and - Khalid_A._H._Ansari chairman of Mid-day ?Prodigyhk (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mohammad Hamid Ansari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120512215803/http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Ansari-almost-missed-V-C-post-in-AMU/Article1-852273.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Ansari-almost-missed-V-C-post-in-AMU/Article1-852273.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070628141937/http://ncm.nic.in/current_commision.html to http://ncm.nic.in/current_commision.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717022425/http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=768969 to http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=768969
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512072336/http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Hamid-Ansari-retained-seat-as-Vice-President/Article1-909519.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Hamid-Ansari-retained-seat-as-Vice-President/Article1-909519.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130913022525/http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Thiruvananthapuram/Vice-president-Hamid-Ansari-forced-to-suffer-a-fool/Article1-1121206.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Thiruvananthapuram/Vice-president-Hamid-Ansari-forced-to-suffer-a-fool/Article1-1121206.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Controversy
One editor removed the links in the controversy by citing the reason that it is not reliable source. After I read the complete article WP:RS and WP:BLP, I came on conclusion that Sunday guardian live and Times Now news both are the reliable and established media group. Also, I didn’t do any original research but I just added the links from newspaper website. Even I didn’t add Swarajya’s article, because some editors think it’s propaganda portal. Now, Times now and Sunday Guardian are also not reliable? What’s the reference for stating this? From where, this conclusion was drawn?

Another thing is I mentioned term “accused”, I didn’t say that he did this thing by putting Wikipedia as primary source. I didn’t cite any self published source as reference. What’s wrong in mentioning that person is accused? It’s reported in the reputed newspapers and websites. I think it’s not violation of any policy and those edits must be reverted without taking it personally.

—Harshil169 (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Check WP:RSN archives. Times Now/Republic and a few others may not be used for supporting claims that are politically controversial. Sunday Guardian Live is a travesty of a newspaper. &#x222F; WBG converse 07:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I checked the archives but they are more than 100 and without classified. Can you post the link or the conclusion in which it was 'concluded' that Times Now/Republic are not allowed in politically controversial claims. Because as far as I read, online portals such as wire, quint, opindia, print have been prohibited here as they're just portals. [This isn't case of Swarajya even] Also today, EurAsian times even covered the news which is very established network, used for middle east and Asia news, also not blacklisted. Can I use it or can you cite me link where it is also prohibited? --Harshil169 (talk) 07:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You can use the search feature, putting the string in quotes:-) At any case, see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248. The sole changes after that thread was that The Wire got branded as a RS, decent enough to not need attribution. More around surrounding locus can be located over User:Winged Blades of Godric/Indian Media. Quint and Print are not prohibited at all. OpIndia is.
 * TSG has not been yet discussed but it is owned by MJ Akbar, a former BJP Minister. Obviously biased.
 * Eurasian Times is a decent source but a single source is not enough for mentioning gossip-allegations over WP:BLP. If more sources do pick it up, it will get included. Best, &#x222F; WBG converse 07:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the core of the argument is not that it is a news portal. AltNews is very much a RS:-) &#x222F; WBG converse 07:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes....you are saying right. Its not a personal opinion. Alt news is a fact checker. It gives evidence and all. Its a RS. While im controversies its preferable to stay away from these TN And republic in controversial items since there is a biased view for that. I agree with you .Edward Zigma (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding times now, I can read only yours opinion on the page. I didn’t find any type of conclusion on the page which says that this sites are prohibited on Wikipedia, it loooks merely personal opinion and I respect it. Thanks for notifying but if any consensus will be there which prohibits the sites then I won’t add it. Try to come on conclusion with discussions. —Harshil169 (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Some people seem to be bent on adding back dubious allegations. If it persists it may be time to get page protection for this article 49.36.129.216 (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I am new to this but the Sunday Guardian is an Indian paper in London owned by MJ Akbar, a reputed journalist and former editor of Asian Age in Delhi. One would think they have unique connections in and insight into India issues. And the charge reported is made not by Akbar or the publisher, it comes from a former R&AW agent who is identified and pictured. The past affiliation of TSG's owner doesn't negate the quality of the source. If the source was dubious on fictitious (etc.) it would be a different matter. Sooku (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Controversy with the Controversy section
There has been a blanking and subsequent revert of the blank of the controversy section, involving and, there has been another blank on the controversy section by an anon (157.35.52.222) so I reverted based on the previous revert. If anyone objects to the revert, I think it would be best if you replied to this section, but just reverting back is also probably fine. Just pinging everyone so we can generate consensus here.  Just ' i ' yaya  06:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Personally, with my limited understanding on the matter, I think there is enough reliable sources on the topics covered, but editors reverting seems to have the issue with the section being labeled as controversy.  Just ' i ' yaya  06:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I am involved here. I just edit only on infoboxes. Please give me a reference on my edit so that I can remember and answer you back again Justiyaya.

Thanking you,

--Jyoti Roy (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @TTP1233 It may have been an accidental revert, but Special:Diff/1031056250 seems to have reverted Special:Diff/1030184746 which was the edit that first removed the Controversy section.  Just ' i ' yaya  16:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * , it is correct, that I had made an accidental edit. This edit was of changing the article photo. I think during this revert, I didn't noticed the controversy portion which lead to changes in this manner. I will not do this mess again. Regards,
 * --Jyoti Roy (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @TTP1233 Okay, no huge problem, interpreting this as no opposition for the removal of the controversy section, undid edit with Special:Diff/1046244946.  Just ' i ' yaya  17:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi there. In India, media houses published lots of material depicting what the issue was/is related to a person. Users put it here creating controversies section saying ref has significant mention. So having surces seems ambigous here to certain extent unless a person is convicted with respect to controversy mentioned here.-- 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 14:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @25 Cents FC Ah, I think I see what your talking about, thanks for the clarification.  Just ' i ' yaya  14:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)