This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would like to point out that this article is biased in several ways and I would like its neutrality to be examined. A very large part of the article focuses on the Gita Sahgal-Amnesty International controversy. However, instead of stating the story from both perpectives, Gita Sahgal is presented as a hero that dared to speak out and Amnesty International as an organization that tries to suppress her voice. Please see http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/7532 to get a different view on this controversy. It seems to me that certain media outlets (especially ones owned by Murdoch's News Corporation: Times of London, Wall Street Journal) have started a campaign to discredit the organization. Commentators like Martin Bright and Christopher Hitchens seem to have waited for this opportunity and seem to have forgotten to check the facts. Hdc-en ( talk) 13:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like to have an external view on this (somebody who did not work on this article). Epeefleche (see above) has written almost the entire article. The suspension part of the article is huge. The article has grown in size tremendously. I have the impression that this article (although it's well written) not only serve to inform people, but rather to promote Gita Sahgal and her views. Hdc-en ( talk) 17:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I fear you misinterpret what recentism is. You indicated that 75 per cent of the article is about a recent event. That is only recentism if markedly less than that percent of RS coverage of the subject is about such event. The opposite is the case, as the relevant searches will quickly reveal to you. As far as the event being minor, that's certainly not the case, and certainly not the case as to events in the career of the subject of the article.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 09:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I will be assessing this for WP India in the next few days:
review comments
I don't have time to edit this myself, or the energy for the inevitable petty battles over every word - but this article is really terrible on the whole Amnesty/Begg affair and surely violates Wikipedia stipulations on neutrality etc. Whoever wrote these sections I presume thought they were doing Sahgal a favour by grossly misrepresenting her opponents and Begg. Maybe for some readers, but most, I think, would be inclined to chafe at the obviously partisan language and go the other way. Some balance is needed here. Jamal ( talk) 03:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Also -- the piece in The Times identifies her as a former journalist. But SH changed that by deleting "former". Was wondering what the basis was for that change? Also, Begg has clearly (as reflected in the second source) championed Awlaki, not just his rights. And does not limit the Cageprisoners highlighting of Muhammad and Hamza to their "rights", either. Also, I'm unclear why SH deletedLetter to Amnesty from Denis MacShane, Member of British Parliament]. It's clearly relevant to the matter at hand. Tx.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 20:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Absent consensus disagreement, I'll set this up so that strings where the last post is older than 21 days will be archived.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 04:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
This article should (in theory) be a biography of Gita Sahgal, but in practice most of it is taken up with an account of the controversy that led to her leaving Amnesty International. Is this appropriate? I don't think this article is a case of WP:BLP1E (people notable only for one event), as Ms. Sahgal has several other claims to notability that would mean she should probably have an article even if the Amnesty controversy hadn't happened, but it doesn't look quite right to me. Would anyone else support moving the information about the Amnesty controversy into a separate article of its own, and leaving this one for the purely biographical content? Robofish ( talk) 22:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The Arabic script at the top says "Gita Sahgal" just like the English, but the Devanagari says "Nayanatārā Gītā". Why?
Benwing ( talk) 05:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
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#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa ( talk) 22:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Gita Sahgal. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.centreforsecularspace.org/about-us/team/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/02/08/392897.aspxWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would like to point out that this article is biased in several ways and I would like its neutrality to be examined. A very large part of the article focuses on the Gita Sahgal-Amnesty International controversy. However, instead of stating the story from both perpectives, Gita Sahgal is presented as a hero that dared to speak out and Amnesty International as an organization that tries to suppress her voice. Please see http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/7532 to get a different view on this controversy. It seems to me that certain media outlets (especially ones owned by Murdoch's News Corporation: Times of London, Wall Street Journal) have started a campaign to discredit the organization. Commentators like Martin Bright and Christopher Hitchens seem to have waited for this opportunity and seem to have forgotten to check the facts. Hdc-en ( talk) 13:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like to have an external view on this (somebody who did not work on this article). Epeefleche (see above) has written almost the entire article. The suspension part of the article is huge. The article has grown in size tremendously. I have the impression that this article (although it's well written) not only serve to inform people, but rather to promote Gita Sahgal and her views. Hdc-en ( talk) 17:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I fear you misinterpret what recentism is. You indicated that 75 per cent of the article is about a recent event. That is only recentism if markedly less than that percent of RS coverage of the subject is about such event. The opposite is the case, as the relevant searches will quickly reveal to you. As far as the event being minor, that's certainly not the case, and certainly not the case as to events in the career of the subject of the article.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 09:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I will be assessing this for WP India in the next few days:
review comments
I don't have time to edit this myself, or the energy for the inevitable petty battles over every word - but this article is really terrible on the whole Amnesty/Begg affair and surely violates Wikipedia stipulations on neutrality etc. Whoever wrote these sections I presume thought they were doing Sahgal a favour by grossly misrepresenting her opponents and Begg. Maybe for some readers, but most, I think, would be inclined to chafe at the obviously partisan language and go the other way. Some balance is needed here. Jamal ( talk) 03:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Also -- the piece in The Times identifies her as a former journalist. But SH changed that by deleting "former". Was wondering what the basis was for that change? Also, Begg has clearly (as reflected in the second source) championed Awlaki, not just his rights. And does not limit the Cageprisoners highlighting of Muhammad and Hamza to their "rights", either. Also, I'm unclear why SH deletedLetter to Amnesty from Denis MacShane, Member of British Parliament]. It's clearly relevant to the matter at hand. Tx.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 20:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Absent consensus disagreement, I'll set this up so that strings where the last post is older than 21 days will be archived.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 04:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
This article should (in theory) be a biography of Gita Sahgal, but in practice most of it is taken up with an account of the controversy that led to her leaving Amnesty International. Is this appropriate? I don't think this article is a case of WP:BLP1E (people notable only for one event), as Ms. Sahgal has several other claims to notability that would mean she should probably have an article even if the Amnesty controversy hadn't happened, but it doesn't look quite right to me. Would anyone else support moving the information about the Amnesty controversy into a separate article of its own, and leaving this one for the purely biographical content? Robofish ( talk) 22:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The Arabic script at the top says "Gita Sahgal" just like the English, but the Devanagari says "Nayanatārā Gītā". Why?
Benwing ( talk) 05:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
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#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa ( talk) 22:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Gita Sahgal. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.centreforsecularspace.org/about-us/team/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/02/08/392897.aspxWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)