Talk:Rajdeep Sardesai

Untitled

I do not think News Trader is a valid profession. Rajdeep has not claimed to be so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:5D00:5C5:8833:877B:D008:3279 (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Are there any links to prove this? "CNN-IBN is currently the leading news-channel in India." This looks like one of the guys at the company wrote this. There is another popular and older new channel called NDTV ( from which Rajdeep branched out ) and I'm sure without providing any links, this must be considedred POV. I think we need to remove this line (atleast until that time). -Kumar. I think this page frequently edited and maintained by one of the employ in CNN-IBN, so the guy deleting recent allegations against Mr. Rajdeep. I think this article not suitable for wikipedia standard. This article is the CV of the person written by himself.this must be considedred NPOV -drm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drm 1976 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nandini Sardesai was the former head of the Sociology department at St. Xavier's college. She has since retired.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 19:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal Due to Lack of Citation

"Most of the reports of Rajdeep and his chaneel CNN-IBN are heavily biased in favour of the Indian National Congress."

No citation or proof for the above statement provided. Thus removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.166.213 (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Some information given in this article doesnt have inline citations. His ancestry, his children etc are not mentioned in the contexts. pls add necessary material (Jeevanjoseph1974 (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Thebigfight.jpg

Image:Thebigfight.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Madison Square Garden Incident

I am not sure about wikipedia's policy on using Youtube videos as a reference. While it is an accepted form (WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK), there still exists another clause (WP:NOTRELIABLE, WP:NOTRS, WP:QS) especially as the video does not come from an official source. Views are welcome. Vistaindia (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

People should stop venting their anger here on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunkinghunk (talk • contribs) 12:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

A year later, I can see there was some coverage, although the story seems to have been "journalist heckled, assaults heckler, Twitter is both angry and supportive, journalist apologises" - no arrest, no resignation? --McGeddon (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

That just shows it as belonging to WP:NOTNEWS. Plenty of additions happening violating WP:BLP. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2014

Mr. Rajdeep Sardesai abused one NRI with foul language at Madison Square Garden on 28Sep2014. Mr Sardesai started pushing and became physical with the same person.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=477128325760154

Xyzsusa (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This needs to be reported in a reliable source and the context and relevance (if any) explained. - Arjayay (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2014

2.50.25.146 (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Rajdeep Sardesai/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This is the CV of the person written himself.

Last edited at 13:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 03:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

New York incident

Per previous discussion on this #Madison_Square_Garden_Incident, the incident is not notable enough (just his blog apology) for coverage here (WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE).

Here's the latest edit adding it back.

From the source (DNA) provided, it's an incident where there are only barely notable allegations from both sides, the source itself don't support either side nor does his lengthy apology. This is tilting towards WP:BLPGOSSIP because of the lack proper coverage beyond social media and WP:BLPSTYLE given this source getting misrepresented. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This not tilting toward WP:BLPGOSSIP that is solely your point of view. I would like to present all the citations on this incident. This incident is notable because it was presented as an attack on the press, and then retracted. Attacks on freedom of speech are always of public interest2602:30A:C7D7:E590:E46E:6F89:9C6D:C134 (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

You need to go and look at the each news item carefully or if you are unable to do so find another editor. First Rajdeep Sardesai reported that he was assaulted by BJP sympathizers at Madison Square Gardens The Editors Guild deemed it an attack on the press. After which videos were shown where Sardesai initiates the confrontation and get abusive, physically and verbally. The release of this counter point prompts Sardesai to issue an apology -which is long tendentious and obliquely accepts responsibility. You cannot wish away this incident or whitewash it. The piece is NOT based on youtube videos, but use reputed news articles as primary source. There is no innuendo or hearsay here. It appears that vested intersts are trying to suppres this incident.2602:30A:C7D7:E590:4038:8BD9:CDE:89A7 (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Without giving details of New York incident, the story of Raj Deep Sardesai is incomplete unless some vested interested administrator in wikipedia wants suppress it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.51.88.119 (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you really mean "unless"? MPS1992 (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rajdeep Sardesai. 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/20150128091154/http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/ramnath-goenka-foundation/2006_winners.html to http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/ramnath-goenka-foundation/2006_winners.html

When 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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversy

In this edit I removed a Controversy section added by Amitized. I explained why in my edit summary, but here are the highlights in case discussion is warranted: We don't, by default, include controversy sections. There's no requirement to do so, and many editors believe these sections place undue emphasis on negative events, which may conflict with WP:NPOV. It is totally unclear why we would care about something as vague and minor as a scuffle. The other content, "Another occasion in 2018 Rajdeep made controversial comments regarding his parliament attack coverage" was totally vague and lacking in any actual information, that it is impossible to discern why we should care about this. What were the comments? Under what circumstances were they made? Where was the subject when he made the comments? Why did he make the comments? The basic Five Ws are not being addressed here. When we add content we should ask ourselves, "Is there any academic value to be derived from this information in 10 years?" I don't think that a scuffle and a vague write-up about some unknown thing the guy said will have academic value in 10 years. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

You're right, including content that makes sense over period of time is right. Also the positivity aspect is correct though I'd need more clarity on controversy sections. Do help me with relevant link to understand. Amitized (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Amitized: Controversial content, if relevant, can be included, but should be included in an intuitive way among other content, and should include a contrary perspective if available. Please see WP:CSECTION for more information. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This Padma Shree awardee "Journalist" peddled so many fake news in his entire career, latest was on honorable ex-Indian-president's ailment, he rushed to declare that he is dead when he was trying to recover. Controversy section must be included for this Fake news manufacturer. History should be recorded as it is. ManojAvadhani (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

You appear to be commenting without understanding what I said. 1) "Controversy" places undue emphasis on negative events and sounds more like clickbait. A section about "Criticism of his journalism" or something that is more focussed, might be a better option, and would have to be amply attributed to reliable sources. 2) Whatever content goes in such a section, can't be written in a half-assed manner with insufficient context. We have to address the Five Ws, and we also have to present such content in a neutral point of view. That means we're not here to drag the subject through the mud just because we personally may not like his work. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

How to enable "Criticism of his journalism" section? Tried but in vain. Any pointers? ManojAvadhani (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any edits by you on the article talk page? Take a look at Cyphoidbomb's post at the top of this section, read WP:BLP carefully. Then, if you still feel a section on "Criticism of his journalism" is required, come back to this talk page and present your case with reliable sources. All the while, please bear in mind that wikipedia has very strict policies on what we say or write about living people and statements such as the one above (the fake news one), without excellent sources to back you up, can lead to your being blocked. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

This was just unconscionable. "Knee-jerk reaction"? "Face palm"? Apparently Majov, you don't quite yet understand what neutral point of view is. We write content in a dispassionate tone and we're not here to issue our personal critiques or snarky zingers about article subjects. I thought I made that fairly clear. "Journalism mishap" is an opinion. We do not present opinions as facts. If you can find that his peers criticised his work, then that could be presented like: "After Sardesai prematurely reported that Prime Minister Pranab Da had died, Sardesai was criticised by members of the press, including Person X, Person Y and Person Z." That's a big difference from you issuing a judgment like that this "was a face palm to his journalistic credibility". Also, while it was nice that you noted that he apologised, it would have been better to indicate that he apologised for not fact-checking, which tells us what specifically he was copping to, rather than leaving the reader to infer that he apologised for making a mistake. Also, we don't use slang and we don't use euphemistic speech. A person doesn't "pass away", they die. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Controversies

So what stops from "controversy" as a section to be part of a BIO as we know Rajdeep Sardesai been part of plenty of controversies? What stops new York incident to be added here. Replies here just doesn't justifies why the same cannot be added when foreign sources like the New York Times wrote about it. I though of writing criticism but "Controversies" still sounds neutral. Following incidents and corresponding references:

• New York incient - it's an incident where no way we have a clue who was wrong - Indian Anchor’s Scuffle in New York Draws Supporters and Critics - New York Times, Rajdeep Sardesai expresses regret for scuffle in New York - Business Standard
• Pranab Mukherjee's premature demise - [1] - Zee News
• Sania Mirza's pursuit of motherhood - Jennifer Aniston, Sania Mirza and the pursuit of motherhood - Live Mint, Sania Mirza’s tongue-in-cheek response - Deccan Chronicle
• General criticism on violation of journalism principles - Little support for Rajdeep Sardesai's defence of tainted journalists - Deccan Herald
• Defamation case against Rajdeep in SC which was refused by SC - SC refuses to take up defamation case against Rajdeep Sardesai, IBN-7, says freedom of speech, tolerance must in a democracy - First Post
• Rajdeep leaving social media - Rajdeep Sardesai not quite right on social media - First Post, Rajdeep Sardesai Threatened With Police Complaint For Inviting Activist Nandini Sundar To His Show - Scroll

I won't be surprised to see repeated messages citing controversy section should not be part of WP:BIO. If you still feel "Controversy" doesn't demands a section, can definitely accommodate under "Career" section. Putting a state not to add some content without having relevant justification doesn't makes sense. Open for discussion before I plan to add it under relevant section basis discussion outcome. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 15:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Many editors feel that Controversy sections place undue emphasis on negative events, which makes it more difficult to maintain a dispassionate, neutral point of view. I think I explained this above. There is no prohibition on them, but you should also keep in mind that Indian articles are littered with these sections, often because people are attracted to gossip and like to wag fingers. Ex: someone dresses a certain way and that offends Group X, and that becomes a Controversy section. A female actor shows her back in a film, sexually repressed people are outraged and that becomes a Controversy section. We should be thinking of the long-term value of the content we're adding. Will we care in ten years that Sardesai made a boneheaded gaffe when asking a woman when she would settle down? Potentially. If the above content can be written in such a way that the 5 Ws are adequately presented, and that it's written in a neutral tone, then it could be incorporated. Part of reason why some of this content was removed before, was because it was written with zero regard for neutrality. The editor above wanted to editorialise rather than dispassionately present the details. So that was a problem. The content you've linked about the defamation suit seems very vague to me. I'm not sure how much time should be spent mentioning that, but in a paragraph that points out some of the times his reporting faced criticism by peers and members of the public, it might be worth briefly mentioning. But we should present all of the key details, including the disposition of the lawsuit. Wasn't it dismissed? And then, even amidst all this content, have we also spent enough time mentioning the good aspects of his career? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)