Talk:Shehla Rashid/Archive 1

Coverage
[Copied AfD comment]

She has been covered prominently much before. The Hindu Business Line in 2011 ran a detailed profile of her, along with other Kashmiri women who are vocal about the human rights situation in Kashmir, her role in ensuring fail trial to prisoners, her activism to save the Dal Lake and her participation in youth leadership programme. A Kashmiri magazine, Kashmir Scenario, in 2013, ran a powerful and in-depth interview of her, documenting her activism related to Internet rights, against acid attacks and for human rights in Kashmir. She was at the forefront of demanding legal reform of cyber laws in 2013 following Shaheen Dhada's arrest in Mumbai. Quite clearly, she has been active for the past several years and has been prominently covered even in the absence of any controversy. In 2013, when an all-girls' band in Kashmir was facing harassment, she was again at the forefront of ensuring justice for them. Her role in organising support for them was covered by prominent Indian publications, including the Hindustan Times, Rediff, Times of India. She has been the leading face of the Occupy UGC protests and later, the Rohith Vemula movement during which she sat on indefinite hunger strike in JNU. Even hostile media publications such as Zee News documented her role in visualising the Occupy UGC movement and pioneering the decision to "camp" at UGC for fellowships. She led the protests to MHRD, several times, taking on Smriti Irani and calling her assurances as eyewash. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.141.58.141 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2017
vikas.munshi 13:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikas.munshi (talk • contribs)
 * The line, "She is one of the few Kashmiri women who are vocal about the human rights situation in Kashmir" is unsubstantiated.
 * It gives the misleading impression that there is a 'human rights situation' in Kashmir. I find this a baseless and unsubstantiated. Also, how do we know that she is 'one of the few'?
 * My proposed replacement, "She is a Kashmiri women who is vocal about her perceived alleged human rights situation in Kashmir"
 * Yes check.svg Done Agreed, the source doesn't state she "is one of a few" or anything similar. Stickee (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

controversy
she put up facebook post to deny that she told anything insulting phrophet mohammed (pbuh) Shiham khader (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

PM assassination issue
On PM assassination issue, Shehla Rashid claiming a conspiracy theory said, "Looks like RSS/Gadkari is planning to assassinate Modi, and then blame it upon Muslims/Communists and then lynch Muslims ". When Gadkari threatened legal action, she issued a clarification saying it was merely a sarcastic tweet. Later speaking to a TV channel, Rashid claimed that she had mentioned Gadkari's name 'randomly' as means to show how JNU students feel when they are targeted. She further claimed that the purported letter planning to assassinate PM Modi is fake.
 * Ref: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-shehla-rashid-claims-her-tweet-was-sarcastic-after-gadkari-threatens-to-take-legal-action-over-pm-assassination-claim-2623832

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4900:5a2d:51a9:8745:9f7d:6dd0 (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Twitter chatter is not wikiworthy. If something happens, like charges filed, then we might consider it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Image
, something wrong with the image? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The subject has behaved badly.Payasam (Mukul Dube) (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , "subject has behaved badly" is not a valid reason for image removal... please elaborate what is wrong with image because activists, political leaders are viewed differently by supporters and opponents and more reasonably, BLPs in Wikipedia do keep images of the subjects... thank you. Adamstraw99 (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Is the photographer's wish to withdraw a photograph not a valid reason? Please say what is "BLP". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Payasam (Mukul Dube) (talk • contribs) 10:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , Biographies of living people are called BLP in Wikipedia... and which photographer's wish is to delete the image? you are generating new questions instead of giving appropriate reason for image deletion.. earlier you said subject behaved badly now you say photographer wish... what exactly is your problem? Also kindly use  to send notifications to other editors otherwise they can't get notification.. thank you. Adamstraw99 (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Language
I meen Hindi main bhi jankari di jaye Jaan nisar anjum (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * , ye English Wikipedia Hai. Wikipedia anek bhashaon me hai. Aap apni bhasha ke hindi Wikipedia me jankari de sakte hain aur praapt bhi kar sakte hain--> yahan --> https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%96%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%83%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A0 --Adamstraw99 (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Student Status
Is she still a student ? I vaguely remember reports stating that she has completed her PhD, if so the article should be updated with relevant source-- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * DBigXray, she tweeted on 17 Jan 2019 the following - "Submitted my PhD synopsis today.".... "Dear well-wishers, before you congratulate me for thesis submission, please note that this is not a thesis submission. Just the research synopsis. I'm beginning my Ph.D. now, with your prayers and good wishes :)" LINK DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Kanhaiya Kumar though is done with his PhD. LINK DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * DiplomatTesterMan thanks for the kind note. I stand corrected. Perhaps I had misread about her. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Though there are updates going to be required probably for this article irrespective of her completing her PhD or not :D - Former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) Students’ Union vice president Shehla Rashid Shora is likely to join the party on Sunday at the football ground located in Srinagar’s Rajbagh area. (Former IAS officer Shah Faesal to launch political party (The Hindu) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Membership of AISA

 * there's two problems with your edit. First, we need better evidence: any news piece you are referring to needs to be cited in the article. The article refers to her membership in the past tense simpy because that's how our articles are written: nowhere have we said she actually left. Second, even if this were true, this isn't how you would present the information. Her membership should be described as AISA (YYYY - YYYY), with the appropriate dates inserted. If you find a good source, I'd be happy to add this to the article myself. Vanamonde (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please search the Net for what Kavita Krishnan said to Shehla Rashid. Twitter, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Payasam (Mukul Dube) (talk • contribs) 08:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The Army's perspective on recent controversy
I have been trying to promote an unbiased para in one the most recent controversies involving Sheila Rashid. But everytime I try to bring forward what the stance of the organization which is being accused that I.e the Indian Army my edits are being reverted and when I try to improve on the addition I am being threatened that I am involved in some kind of edit war. The Army's statement is not a soundbyte. You cannot go about keeping your view point and ignoring what the other parties have to say. I have in every edit of mine tried to explain the same thing but I don't know why the admins are not getting it. @Kautilya03 told me to add an allegations made by the army and I did the same after researching on it and updated the statement made by her after army answered,that too was reverted by another admin claiming it's an overkill. Please discuss and make it clear. AnadiDoD (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

It's @Kautilya3 AnadiDoD (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There were a few problems with the content you added, not the least being that you were unnecessarily highlighting negative information in bold text. Anyone who does anything political gets involved in "controversies" because what they said offended somebody, and gets reported to the police. According to our policy on writing biographies of living people, we need to be very careful not to give undue weight to negative information, particularly statements from sources that are not independent of a conflict. That's why your edits were trimmed. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree that turning on bold was a mistake on my part and I am ready to correct it. What don't understand is why can't the allegations made by the organization she accused and also her own statements after the controversy be added. And my edit was not trimmed it was straight away reverted, a simple edit would have sufficed. And on the edit war topic if you see the page edit history I have made only two reverts that too on two different dates so please stop threatening me about the 3RR. Due respect accorded. AnadiDoD (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Because, as I said, people involved with politics make accusations and rebuttals on a daily basis. Every politician does it, and the nature of the 24-hour news cycle means that every accusation gets amplified. It's easy to overwhelm a page with accusations and rebuttals. Your additions were undue weight, and therefore, I removed them. Also; edit-warring isn't the same as WP:3RR. You can edit-war without breaching 3RR, and you can even be blocked without breaching 3RR. So, continue the discussion without edit-warring, please. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Vanamonde is absolutely right, the bolding was unnecessary. The language should also be less definitive since the matter is sub-judice and there is no conclusive info. And this can be added only if there are sufficient media coverage, which it has received only recently. It should be given only due weight with as short a description and as close to sources as possible. There is a fine combination of neutrality (covering 'both' sides) and due weight. In BLPs we err on the side of the caution to keep rebuttals as close to source as possible, bolding by an editor is a definite no no. --Jaydayal (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay I get you people don't want the what the army has to say done and what is wrong with the statement she made herself saying the allegations were based on mere conversations why that had to go. And please I have already apologized for bolding the sentence so please stop the rhetoric about it. AnadiDoD (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Shehla has quit electoral politics
As of 9 Oct 2019, Shehla has announced she will no longer participate in Electoral politics given the centre's disregard for Kashmir and because she can't legitimise suppression of her people. Someone needs to add this in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeg0n94 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol, once quit, is she still a politician or not? Again it has been removed from the first line with this edit. DTM (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is probably better to say "political and civil rights activist" and drop the "politician". It was a short-lived thing. The JKPM mention in the second line also needs to be moved out to somewhere less prominent. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with the suggestions and have made some changes to reflect this. DTM (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Citation issue
I am rather concerned about the following sentence, which was added on 1 April 2016.: The source only partially supports the sentence it is cited for. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1 April 2016 version: She has been among a few Kashmiri women who are vocal about the human rights situation in Kashmir, particularly for ensuring justice to minor undertrials and has been active since 2010 when she was part of organising a youth leadership programme in Kashmir.
 * 25 November 2020 version: Shora is vocal about the human rights situation in Kashmir, particularly highlighting the plight of minors held in custody awaiting trial, and has been active since 2010 after organising a youth leadership programme in Kashmir.
 * "During her student days at the National Institute of Technology (NIT), Srinagar, Shehla used to be an active member of a local youth organisation — One Young Kashmir (OYK) — that hosted workshops and awareness campaigns aimed at youth development."
 * "From ensuring a fair trial for inmates of Srinagar jail to raising awareness on the need to protect the world-famous Dal Lake, her tweets reflect her social activism."


 * Comment The whole thing sounds resume-ish. There is this video blog, which again is not an independent source. All other sources either quote her speech during JNUSU elections, or are a copy paste to such claims. I will support trimming down this sentence to conform to BLP.ChunnuBhai (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

4,000 or 3,000
Regarding the 4,000 or 3,000 issue. The current version of the article says:
 * Over 4,000 people joined her in a protest march on the JNU campus on 14 February led by her.

An editor tried to change this to:
 * Over 3,000 people joined a protest march led by her in the JNU campus on 14 February.

So where does the 3,000 come from? From a citation used for some other sentences in the article: I tend to agree with AnM2002 that more faith should be put in the Hindustan Times than in ScoopWhoop. So I propose that we change that particular sentence to:
 * First source . Please forgive me if I am being stupid, but I cannot see anywhere in Indian Express article that says either 3,000 or 4,000.  I did not manage to spot where it mentioned Shehla Rashid either.
 * Second source . The ScoopWhoop article says "Shehla Rashid, the Vice President of the JNU Student Union, addressed the 4000 strong crowd". Indeed, because of the second source, I can see why the first source is relevant.
 * On 14 February 2016, Shehla Rashid gave a speech to a gathering of 3,000-4,000 protesting students and faculty members on the JNU campus following a protest march.

This also has the advantage of not claiming that she led the march. Perhaps she did, but I cannot see anywhere in the sources that supports it.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I did the same thing with the 15000 one as two sources differed and one of the sources even put the Police's official estimate at 5,000. The 15,000 people was claimed by the subject herself and mentioned as it is in one of the citations. You reverted that edit so it should be changed to 5000-15000. AnM2002 (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

First information report or FIR
The article says:
 * The Uttarakhand police subsequently filed an First information report against her for disrupting public tranquility and intent to provoke breach of peace by spreading rumor.

An editor tried to change this to:
 * The Uttarakhand police subsequently filed an FIR against her for disrupting public tranquility and intent to provoke breach of peace by spreading rumours.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should say "rumours" not "rumor" (an Americanism).
 * I do not agree that the text should say "FIR" instead of "first information report". If English-language Wikipedia were intended solely for an Indian audience, then they probably know what a FIR is.  But people in England, Ukraine and the U.S.A. do not use that terminology, so at least the first time it appears in the article it needs to be explained. The policy is that we should "keep piped links as transparent as possible. Do not use piped links to create 'Easter egg' links that require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on."
 * It should say "a first information report" not "an First information report".
 * Agreed.AnM2002 (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

She worked as a software engineer with HCL Technologies
There needs to be a citation for the claim that "she worked as a software engineer with HCL Technologies". -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , supports it, though I am not sure how good a source it is.
 * quotes her as saying "After studying engineering and management, I entered the corporate world..." but not not specify the company.

Kashmir woman or Kashmiri woman
"convince voters in favour of a Kashmir woman from a non-political background" is a quotation from. The quotation is also in. So it should not be "corrected" to Kashmiri. -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)