This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
lot of content is clearly POV. Please wikify and remove POV with facts.
I removed a lot of wholesale deletions from the article and irrelevant information, such as the alleged political affiliation of the father of the editor of the magazine. I will be wikifying the article, removing POV and inserting facts. Ashankar ( talk) 18:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This article uses the indian numbering system, talking about crores and lakhs. Is there any rule on wikipedia about numbering? Shouldn't these numbers be replaced by standard numbering, even if it is India related? -- Pinin ( talk) 08:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The Tehelka-Jain dialogue gives some key issues at the heart of the Operation West End sting operation. It is informative of the nature of the sting operations Tehelka was doing. Pls discuss before removing. mukerjee ( talk) 19:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
What is disputed? if nothing is than the tag should be removed.-- Profitoftruth85 ( talk) 15:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I've been doing up this article and I don't think Tejpal's crime deserves another section in this article under "controversies", I've merged it with the "History" section instead. We can't go into excessive details as per WP:BLPCRIME and moreover it's too early to judge how badly it affect Tehelka as a whole. It's best that we wait till things get more clear. - Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 03:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Since this a major issue, creating a separate section would be correct. Do agree, we need to maintain balance and just keep to factual reports Prodigyhk ( talk) 12:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Ugog Nizdast Notice that you have remove this entire section [1]. The details provided in this sections are the basic data as reported from the company records. There is no "sensationalizing" as claimed by you. Since, this article is about a company, including details of its ownership, management, revenue and profitability is acceptable. If you have any specific issue on this section, please raise in the talk page Prodigyhk ( talk) 05:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Having looked at the previous detailed section, I tend to agree that its detail is excessive for an article of this type, and that a summary is better. Wikipedia is not meant to be an exhaustive listing of minute details, but rather a tertiary source summary giving an overview to the reader. We could, of course, use as a reference or link an annual report or the like, which would provide that detail for readers interested in drilling down. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
As we discussed in the first topic, I've given it time for the media attention to die down and I think I have now enough material to make a valid criticism section. The main thing was to separate the actual relevant content from the media sensationalising, I did that by mainly relying on reliable international news agencies—that clearly indicates whether the viewpoints are notable enough. The section will mention its political criticism, corporate bias and the main Tejpal controversy along with this and other following reports. I shall make the new section and re-do the lead (again)...besides all the minor work which I have left pending. - Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 19:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Have included a sub-section detailing the prostitutes used in the sting. It is a notable detail, as this was its unique methods for news collection. If any concerns, raise it here for discussions. Prodigyhk ( talk) 14:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Alright, long story short, this part was added by me around a year ago because I felt that, from what all else I added, there was nothing negative in it for NPOV's sake. I was inexperienced at that time and I may have overlooked things, that's what I thought when Vanamonde removed it. After seeing that AmritasyaPutra agreed with it being kept, looks like we have to dig deeper to see which one of you is right. On a positive note, I'm happy that both of you are here to spot check this article. Let's begin, since I've added it I don't feel like doing anything, AmritasyaPutra, would you check the sources given and see if it backs it up? - Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 15:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
There are four sources in the criticism paragraph that discuss political bias. One of them mentions taking the side of the Congress; not a single one mentions targeting the BJP. Until such a source is found, the sentences saying so are original research, and should be removed. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 17:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I've did some further digging into the other sources used for the C-section and now I remember what exactly happened. It turns out both of you were right (in a way). Other than misplacing the inline cites here and there, I think these are the sources which made me write that statement. No doubt, if we are to add it again, it has to be reworded and properly supported. Here are the refs and quoted accordingly:
Busy right now, I'll continue later. - Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 15:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Tehelka. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
lot of content is clearly POV. Please wikify and remove POV with facts.
I removed a lot of wholesale deletions from the article and irrelevant information, such as the alleged political affiliation of the father of the editor of the magazine. I will be wikifying the article, removing POV and inserting facts. Ashankar ( talk) 18:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This article uses the indian numbering system, talking about crores and lakhs. Is there any rule on wikipedia about numbering? Shouldn't these numbers be replaced by standard numbering, even if it is India related? -- Pinin ( talk) 08:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The Tehelka-Jain dialogue gives some key issues at the heart of the Operation West End sting operation. It is informative of the nature of the sting operations Tehelka was doing. Pls discuss before removing. mukerjee ( talk) 19:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
What is disputed? if nothing is than the tag should be removed.-- Profitoftruth85 ( talk) 15:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I've been doing up this article and I don't think Tejpal's crime deserves another section in this article under "controversies", I've merged it with the "History" section instead. We can't go into excessive details as per WP:BLPCRIME and moreover it's too early to judge how badly it affect Tehelka as a whole. It's best that we wait till things get more clear. - Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 03:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Since this a major issue, creating a separate section would be correct. Do agree, we need to maintain balance and just keep to factual reports Prodigyhk ( talk) 12:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Ugog Nizdast Notice that you have remove this entire section [1]. The details provided in this sections are the basic data as reported from the company records. There is no "sensationalizing" as claimed by you. Since, this article is about a company, including details of its ownership, management, revenue and profitability is acceptable. If you have any specific issue on this section, please raise in the talk page Prodigyhk ( talk) 05:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Having looked at the previous detailed section, I tend to agree that its detail is excessive for an article of this type, and that a summary is better. Wikipedia is not meant to be an exhaustive listing of minute details, but rather a tertiary source summary giving an overview to the reader. We could, of course, use as a reference or link an annual report or the like, which would provide that detail for readers interested in drilling down. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
As we discussed in the first topic, I've given it time for the media attention to die down and I think I have now enough material to make a valid criticism section. The main thing was to separate the actual relevant content from the media sensationalising, I did that by mainly relying on reliable international news agencies—that clearly indicates whether the viewpoints are notable enough. The section will mention its political criticism, corporate bias and the main Tejpal controversy along with this and other following reports. I shall make the new section and re-do the lead (again)...besides all the minor work which I have left pending. - Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 19:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Have included a sub-section detailing the prostitutes used in the sting. It is a notable detail, as this was its unique methods for news collection. If any concerns, raise it here for discussions. Prodigyhk ( talk) 14:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Alright, long story short, this part was added by me around a year ago because I felt that, from what all else I added, there was nothing negative in it for NPOV's sake. I was inexperienced at that time and I may have overlooked things, that's what I thought when Vanamonde removed it. After seeing that AmritasyaPutra agreed with it being kept, looks like we have to dig deeper to see which one of you is right. On a positive note, I'm happy that both of you are here to spot check this article. Let's begin, since I've added it I don't feel like doing anything, AmritasyaPutra, would you check the sources given and see if it backs it up? - Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 15:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
There are four sources in the criticism paragraph that discuss political bias. One of them mentions taking the side of the Congress; not a single one mentions targeting the BJP. Until such a source is found, the sentences saying so are original research, and should be removed. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 17:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I've did some further digging into the other sources used for the C-section and now I remember what exactly happened. It turns out both of you were right (in a way). Other than misplacing the inline cites here and there, I think these are the sources which made me write that statement. No doubt, if we are to add it again, it has to be reworded and properly supported. Here are the refs and quoted accordingly:
Busy right now, I'll continue later. - Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 15:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Tehelka. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)