Talk:Sonal Shah (economist)

Controversy
In December 2008, the National Journal ran a story on the controversy surrounding Shah's appointment to the transition team. Shah released a statement renouncing her former ties to the VHP of America. Link: http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20081210_7973.php

Gautham20 (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Link to VHP
Sonal shah was the national coordinator of Visha Hindu Parishad America Inc.

Wikipedia article on Sonal Shah seem to be in violation of WP:NPOV. Why is information not published in this article???? If you all agree, I like to add this information. Please let me know if you any objections. The source of this information is vishwa hindu parishad america inc. offical web page. --Indiancrusader (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

--Indiancrusader (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the article, she was a coordinator for earthquake relief donations. If this role of her becomes controversial wrt her work on the transition team then, by all means, include it in the article indicating how it is relevant. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 00:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Somebody posting propaganda and out of context
Somebody has used the controversy section to peddle tired old propaganda which has been refuted many times. The following statement is false and out of context

REMOVED

Gowalkar was not referring to Nazi "race pride" but referring to the German experience of lack of assimilation of ethno-religious entities into each other. The editor has sought to create guilt by association because:

1) Nazi genocide of Jews was NOT known to Gowalkar and was only discovered after Allied forces had entered Germany in 1940s. Note: The above statement posted out of context was made in 1930s when Nazi concentration camps were not even known to British and Americans. There is no way Gowalkar could be associated with the kind of "Nazi race pride" that led to the genocide of Jews. The editor here has simply exploited the popular ignorance to post propaganda.

2) The Hindu following of VHP is mostly unaware of Gowalkar's commentary and do not associate VHP with him. Even Gowalkar's comments made in 1930s are taken out of context to demonize RSS and VHP, and any Hindu organization involved in social work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyashodak (talk • contribs) 15:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Career
The rediff.com article provides a quotation from an unidentified jury member. This quotation is out of context and does not belong to career section.

Removed BLP violating content
WP:BLP violating content is not allowed on any page of Wikipedia. I have removed it from here, too. Whoever adds poorly sourced info about a living person may be be blocked. Jehochman Talk 19:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Zuppeandsalad (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section
Keep propaganda and unrelated material out of it. Only facts. And don't remove this section by labeling the groups who have concerns, and then dismissing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proudbharati (talk • contribs) 03:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Counterpunch is not at all a reliable source. Whoever keeps adding that propaganda site will be blocked.  The Times of India does not look particularly reliable, so I have removed it, but I am open to discussing that.  Suggest the matter be opened at the reliable sources noticeboard if somebody wants to use that source.  Thank you. Let's work methodically and get this right.  Due to the frequent attacks on this article, I will be providing strict enforcement of biography of living persons policy.  Jehochman Talk 03:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Timesofindia is probably one of the most reliable from India. Counterpunch sounds dubious.  Docku:  What up?  03:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Times of India is one of the leading (and oldest) newspapers in India. M an as at yahoo.com (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the TOI source is reliable, at least in this instance where there is a lot of coverage about her alleged associations with the VHP (,, , and many others) but the text, as written (and now deleted) reads as if this association is certain (the word 'despite' is particularly inappropriate). Ms. Shah has denied these allegations in a press release by the Obama campaign and the 'guilt by association' charge seems plausible enough that the text in the article should be clearer that the controversy is around the allegations and not around a possible membership of the rightist organizations. Something like "There were allegations in the Indian press that Ms. Shah had connections with rightist Hindu groups, however, Ms. Shah and the Obama transition team categorically denied these allegations."  Whatever the actual text, the existence of this controversy is well documented and is present in the public domain and should be included in the article. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 14:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If this were the case, why has the controversy not been covered by any US sources? Obama's appointments have been subject of intense media coverage, yet no one has presented evidence that US media sources have covered these apparently dubious allegations.  It seems rather peculiar to have this sequence of events: 1/ somebody makes dubious accusations about a US official, 2/  foreign media covers dubious accusations and publishes denials, 3/ US media completely ignore the situation as the equivalent of trolling, 4/  Wikipedia publishes the dubious accusations and denials can labels it a "controversy".  If there were a notable controversy, it would be covered by media in the country where the subject resides.  I think this content about a controversy is a WP:UNDUE violation at best, and a WP:BLP violation at worst.  In any case, given the history of obviously inappropriate information being added to this article, I think we should exercise more than usual caution. Before using TOI as a source, I'd like to see either an requests for comment or a discussion at reliable sources noticeboard.  With biographies of living persons, we should discuss any dubious content or sources before they are added. Jehochman Talk 15:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Something isn't reported in the US press doesn't mean it didn't happen. What I wrote was well referenced and totally neutral. Stop accusing others of having an agenda. It is against Wikipedia policy. I am hopeful that you yourself are not trying to further an agenda. M an as at yahoo.com (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are there so many single purpose accounts, such as the one immediately above, appearing at this particular article to push the same point of view. If a US administration official does something newsworthy, it will be reported in the US media.  Wikipedia is not for propaganda or defamation.  Jehochman Talk 15:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been on wikipedia for quite some time even though I am not frequent. Check my history. Please use more civil language and assume good faith. Do not use futile arguments as above ("If a US administration official does something newsworthy, it will be reported in the US media".) M an as at yahoo.com (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec):::I think it is a little early for taking this to WP:RFC). It is always better to attempt to resolve issues through dialogue, than to escalate things. So, here is my attempt to figure this out. That the controversy exists is undeniable since Ms. Shah herself has issued a statement in connection with it. So the questions are: is it notable; if yes, how should we write it up; and which source, if any, should we use. Notability is straightforward. If Ms. Shah is notable, it is because she is a member of the Obama team. A controversy that surrounds that membership is surely notable. Your objection is partly that since it is not covered in the mainstream US press, the news itself is non-notable. But, notability in India is itself an acceptable topic for wikipedia and non-coverage by US sources does not mean that the notability does not exist. The nature of her notability in India (the fact that she is ethnically Indian, I doubt if the other members of his transition team get the same coverage in India) is tied up with the nature of the controversy. About sourcing. Perhaps the TOI is not the best source for things but, if the intent is to show that there is a furor over the appointment, then it does work as a source (as also do msn, indian express, etc.) Finally, about the way it should be covered. I think that the way it was covered earlier was inappropriate because it implicitly associated her with the rightist groups when there is no evidence that this association actually exists. That was the purpose of my restatement above. My suggestion is to include a simple statement about the controversy, linking to any reasonable source that indicates that there was a controversy, and linking to her statement as a response, and definitely including the word categorical (her statement is very clear). --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 16:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (Or, on second thoughts, just leave it out. We can always add something if the controversy continues. I don't agree with the 'it's gotta be in the US news' view but I'm not sure that the article is enhanced by this information in the first place. It'll probably show up in a few US sources in a couple of days and then you'll have your reliable source, but, at this level of controversy, I'm not convinced we should bother adding it at all.) --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 16:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont agree with Jehochman. US press may not report on these India-hinduism-related issues as these probably dont mean as much to the American public as to Indians. It may have been different if the religion was not Hinduism. Sorry to be blunt, but, I do find your rationale for discrediting Timesofindia source unconvincing. Besides, wikipedia is not US-centric and reliable sources from other countries do and should count.


 * I agree with RegentsPark that phrasing of the sentence could have been altered to reflect the reality than totally whitewashing it completely. The urgency with which single purpose accounts are created and blocking and semi-protecting allegations thrown at established editors despite the availability of reliable sources makes me wonder if there is both pro- and ant-Sonal Shah COI involved here. Finally, I also agree with RegentsPark that may be we just wait until the controversy becomes more noteworthy (if at all it does) before adding it again.  Docku:  What up?  16:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Organizational Work
My contributions were deleted by jehochman citing unreliable sources.

Referred this to Reliable Sources noticeboard. I have restored what I wrote because the sources were confirmed reliable. M an as at yahoo.com (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You have now been blocked for this edit which did not include the Times of India, which is at least arguably a reliable source. The sources you cited included an attack site and a beta test site that has no reputation for accuracy. Your comment above is disingenuous. Jehochman Talk 17:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you reverted the piece (per WP:UNDUE) but am curious about your reasoning. I see citations to ndtv, the hindu, indicorps, and indian express; Indicorps is the organization she co-founded, ndtv is a well known news channel in India, The Hindu is, well it is The Hindu, probably the most respected newspaper in India, and the Indian Express is another well respected newspaper. I see no attack sites or beta sites - unless I'm missing something?--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 17:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

'''The Hindu is known to be a Marxist newspaper in India. It has a distinct Marxist bias in its reporting. If you use The Hindu as a source, then it also needs to be made clear that the newpapers is known to have a Marxist bias.'''--Satyashodak (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur with RP. I am not able to verify the contents the new editor added to the references he cited as I am not able to open some of them. The Hindu, Times of India, Indian express, ND TV are, in no doubt, reliable sources.  Docku:  What up?  18:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The ndtv.com link was flagged by my Firefox as an attack site, but from the message I got, this seemed due to its having a virus infestation. Indian sites tend to be more vulnerable to this, as defences are less well-developed. As far as I am aware, NDTV is the owner of the site, and is not an attack outfit – it is a major Indian news service. Jayen 466 18:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The current ndtv.com problems are described here. The Hindu article that the above edit referenced was inappropriate for this BLP, since it did not even mention the subject, as far as I could see.
 * So the passage "After the quake, she coordinated the relief effort of the VHPA. She has also worked with Ekal Vidyalaya, the one-teacher schools run in the tribal regions of India by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad" was effectively unsourced.
 * But the Indian Express article that was linked last in the above edit was a bona-fide source. The Indian Express is a major Indian newspaper. Given that they reported on these alleged VHP links, there clearly was a story there, and given that the lady is of Indian origin, it will be of interest to Indian WP readers (whose WP this also is). So I think the block was justified and should be undone, but we need a reference for the Ekal Vidyalaya connection, or drop it.  Jayen 466 18:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Regrettably, the NDTV page cited is an interview with somebody expressing an opinion. It is not a news piece. Therefore, that page is not a reliable source, irrespective of the publisher's status. Jehochman Talk 18:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That may be; it seems you were more daring than me. I didn't view the pages. Given the Firefox warning, I made a 180° turn. Jayen 466 18:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This creates an obvious problem. Even if the source would be reliable, we should not be linking to infected pages, and how can our editors verify sources if they are afraid to download the pages?  Jehochman Talk 18:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I use add-on security software to protect my machine. Part of my work involves computer security. Jehochman Talk 19:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
I really do not care what this article says, as long as controversial information about the living person is properly sourced. I have offered to unblock the editor if they agree to get consensus for future edits about controversial info. Could those of you who are obviously experienced and qualified please assist? Jehochman Talk 18:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, let him be aware we will get a consensus here before adding anything controversial to the article and not doing so will get him blocked him again.  Docku:  What up?  18:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That is what I proposed. If they agree, I will unblock them speedily.  Feel free to add a remark or offer of help at their talk page. I am encouraged by the participation of experience editors in helping to resolve these difficulties. Jehochman Talk 18:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine by me. I think the Indian Express article is the only thing worth citing then. (I don't know why it says beta, perhaps they are doing some update. But indianexpress.com is, as far as I know, the official Indian Express website.) Jayen 466 18:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can propose wording here for discussion, and then move it into the article. Jehochman Talk 18:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * RegentsPark has already made such a suggestion. I take liberty to second his suggestion, There were allegations in the Indian press that Ms. Shah had connections with rightist Hindu groups, however, Ms. Shah and the Obama transition team categorically denied these allegations. May be we can remove the Indian press.  Docku:  What up?  19:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) I think we should hold off on adding anything. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. At this point, it seems to me that this is the kind of stuff that is forgotten in a week, is out of proportion wrt the importance of the topic, and has no lasting significance. If it does, we can add it then. If we do chose to add it now, it should come with a clear statement that these are mainly unsubstantiated allegations, that she has categorically denied the allegations, and that the only reason for inclusion is that it made news in India. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I see the argument on both sides and am fine either way.  Docku:  What up? 

Source
Here is a source that seems to provide comprehensive coverage and appears to be very independent. (http://www.france24.com/en/20081115-united-states-politics-obama-indian-slammed-with-extremist-link-accusations) What do other editors think? If this is used in the article, care needs to be taken not to turn this biography into a coatrack, or giving the matter undue weight. Both concerns are covered in WP:BLP. Be very careful and try to be as factually accurate and neutral as possible in presenting this material. Jehochman Talk 20:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's an excellent source. I agree though that, given the overall length of this BLP, we shouldn't make all too much of it. Would be different if we had 5,000 words on her already; we don't. Jayen 466 22:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

''The article is of doubtful standing as it fails take note that Vijay Prashad "who fired the first salvo" has a communist background and is a well-known Hindu-baiter. The article just describes Vijay Prashad as " director of International Studies at Trinity College" and conceals his communist background and Marxist politics and social critiques. The article seeks to present a known Marxist ideologue as objective and unbiased. This is one reason to consider that this source is of doubtful integrity. Either it is a case of journalistic incompetence in not having unearthed Prashad's past and present links with Communist groups or the jounalist who wrote that article is hand-in-glove with the propaganda groups out to malign Sonal Shah. Either way it proves that it is not a reliable source.'' --Satyashodak (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have WP:RS commenting on Prashad's communist or socialist leanings, I suggest you put them to use in our article on him, which at the moment does not mention anything of the kind. Jayen 466 00:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You betcha I will. He has gotten a free ride in the alternate American media a way too long. Mainstream media has not yet noted him and he has escaped the scrutiny he deserves. He's lived off high hog of the Yankee dollar a way too long while singing the praises of the Communist governments and juntas who have always worked against American interests --Satyashodak (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Marxist/communist background of Vijay Prashad needs to be mentioned as well
Please see on the link below article written by Vijay Prashad who has a long history of association with Marxist groups. In the following article he seeks to trash Mother Teresa from a Marxist perspective.

http://www.cpa.org.au/amrarch/40vp.html

If journalists were doing their homework properly they would not have failed to make at least a passing reference that Vijay Prashad is a known communist/Marxist ideologue from Indian subcontinent and is not without a political agenda and baggage of his own. Why is this fact being concealed by "journalists" reporting on this issue?

Should we try guilt by association now by indicting Vijay Prashad as a Stalinist since his sympathies and contribution to groups eulogizing Stalin are well-documented? Think about it.--Satyashodak (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggested wording

 * I note we have a stub on Vijay Prashad, who seems to have been instrumental in starting this thing off ... Here is a suggested wording, to follow after the Indicorps mention:

References are quick and dirty, but that seems to be the current style in the article. Thoughts? Improvement suggestions? Jayen 466 00:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * CounterPunch is a biweekly newsletter published in the United States that covers politics in a manner its editors describe as "muckraking with a radical attitude".  Readers can click the links to get info on the author and the media. That may help them evaluate the credibility of the claims.  I do not see a WP:BLP problem with that formulation.  Otherwise, I am indifferent about the content of this article. Jehochman Talk 01:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

CounterPunch gives the introduction of Vijay Prashad as follows:

Vijay Prashad is the George and Martha Kellner Chair of South Asian History and Director of International Studies at Trinity College, Hartford, CT His new book is The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World, New York: The New Press, 2007. He can be reached at: vijay.prashad@trincoll.edu

It makes no mention of the fact that he is a committed Marxist ideologue and a very prominient member of Indian leftist organizations, like FOIL. This puts CounterPunch's reliability as a scholarly source into question. Why is Vijay Prashad's Marxist background being hidden from the American people?--Satyashodak (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have started updating the wiki article on Vijay Prashad and have substantiated his Communist connections and sympathies from reputable sources. Any suggestions to improve the quality of that article are welcome. I intend to keep updating it in coming days with the help of citable reliable sources

If someone intends to include Vijay Prashad's allegations against Sonal Shah in this article, then it becomes very important and relevant that his communist background and his past record of similar guilt by association accusations against Mother Teresa are also mentioned in the due context. --Satyashodak (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC) --Satyashodak (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * American readers should have an idea where in the political spectrum CounterPunch is located. Indian readers are confronted with socialist thought quite regularly, so I don't think they would have a problem orienting themselves, and at any rate, they can look Vijay Prashad up (but please let's be careful to scrupulously stick to WP:BLP in that article, and make sure there is an RS for every assertion). The fact is, Prashad's comments sparked wider debate in the Indian media. Are there any objections to including the wording as proposed above? Jayen 466 16:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

''I am very much alive to the indispensability of reliable sources and their referencing in the right context. I suggest that you watch the updates on the Vijay Prashad article on regular basis and quickly point out if any violation of wikipedia rules has occured inadvertently. I won't post anything unless I have a citation from a reliable source available beforehand. There is enough citable content on web regarding Vijay Prashad's links with journals and movements sympathetic to Marxist/Maoist causes. It is just a matter of organizing them with objectivity in a single article.

Having said that I have no problem with the above statement about counterpunch so long as a brief comment is also allowed to the effect that Vijay Prashad is a known communist ideologue and has in the past also levelled similar accusations against Mother Teresa by associating her with individuals likeBaby Doc Duvalier and Charles Keating. This is important to allow the reader to properly contextualize the source of the 'controversy'. If we don't do this we are merely allowing wikipedia to be used as a forum for FOIL's propaganda and allowing them to manufacture a 'controversy' in the minds of general populace where none exists.'' --Satyashodak (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It would also be pertinent to let the readers know that Counterpunch is a leftist newletter --Satyashodak (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't you think that to satisfy WP:SYN we'd need a source that characterises Prashad and/or CounterPunch in those terms in direct relation to their piece about Shah? The france24 piece doesn't do that. Do you have a source that does?

I think we could easily find reputable sources that describe Vijay Prashad as a leftist. To describe Vijay Prashad as leftist activist and member of FOIL is kosher by WP:SYN. It does not involve any sythesis as there are multiple verfiable sources testifying his Marxist leanings. The moot point is not to allow wikipedia to be used as forum for FOIL's propaganda --Satyashodak (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll keep an eye on Vijay Prashad. He is actually a co-founder of FOIL. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Counterpunch
Franklin Foer of The New Republic and political commentator Steven Plaut have written articles arguing that CounterPunch is biased against Israel and the USA, charging it with publishing "anti-American", "anti-Israel" and "anti-Semitic" views.

CounterPunch has also been criticised by socialist activists Tony Greenstein and Roland Rance of Jews Against Zionism, for its practice of publishing articles by writers such as Gilad Atzmon and Israel Shamir which they describe as "blurring the distinction" between Zionism and Judaism, and failing to publish responses to these articles. CounterPunch has also been criticized for publishing articles by authors such as Alan Cabal and Daniel A. McGowan who have defended the free speech of Holocaust deniers such as Ernest Zundel. According to the critics, these authors have also sought to legitimize the views of such Holocaust deniers.

Affiliation
Former Member of Vishwa Hindu Parishad, which has been accused of fomenting violence against Muslims and Christians in India. The outfit's role in the 2002 communal violence in Gujarat has been reported by Human Rights Watch which is a United States based, international non-governmental organization that conducts research and advocacy on human rights. Its headquarters are in New York City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.237.58 (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Read Criticism of Human Rights Watch here.It does not appear to be a source above controversy, unless somebody wants to reopen this can of worms. This is a very controversial source. Thanks.--Satyashodak (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: a deleted item
I included this in the info box:

"Noted for Promoting private sector philanthropy"

It was deleted with the comment that Shah was only noted for being appointed to Obama's transition team. I disagree and would like to restore the phrase. Here are few newsclips in support.

Internet News November 6, 2008

President-elect Barack Obama has tapped two prominent tech executives to serve on his transition team to build the infrastructure for the next administration...Julius Genchowski. . .Sonal Shah, who heads global development for Google.org, the search giant's philanthropic arm. . . Shah previously served as vice president of Goldman Sachs and worked for eight years with the Treasury Department. With Google, she has led economic initiatives around the world, picking up on her work with Indicorps, the nonprofit organization she cofounded to promote development in her home country of India. http://www.internetnews.com/government/print.php/3783431

Obama Taps Top Tech Leaders James Rogers 11/07/08 - 06:36 PM EST

Just days after winning the election, President-Elect Barack Obama has recruited some of the country's foremost technology minds, in keeping with his campaign promise to boost the U.S. tech sector.

Obama's transition team, announced this week, includes executives from some of top technology companies in the U.S. Sonal Shah, head of global development initiatives at Google.org has been named to the transition team's advisory board http://www.thestreet.com/print/story/10446830.html

Non Profit News Roundup April 20, 2009

April 20, 2009 Former Google exec gets White House social-innovation job

Sonal Shah, who headed Google Global Development Initiatives, the philanthropic arm of Google.com, has been named head of the new Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation in the White House, IndiaWest reported April 16 (see social-innovation job story). Shah was a member of transition team —Preceding unsigned comment added by W E Hill (talk • contribs) 23:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Tribune
As I understand, you are casting aspersions on the reliability of Tribune. yes it is a reliable source. If you are objecting to its reliability, you need to do that at WP:RSN--Walrus Ji (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC) Also please note that Tribune IS a secondary source. Not sure why you are calling it otherwise. Please explain. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)