Talk:C. C. Patil

Insertion of new section

I object to the inclusion of the section "Opinion on women's dress" to this article. This is giving undue weight on particular comments along with the use of highly POV section headers. If you are not interested in developing the article in a fair manner, then please stay away from it. We have to be careful whenever editing biographies of living persons. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I added four sources so far and I could add more. This is important for three reasons - women's rights, the right to protest with a Slutwalk, and its connection to the Karnataka video controversy. All of these connections are made in multiple reliable sources. Can you please clarify how WP:UNDUE applies? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop revert-warring over content. This is a biography of a living person and content disputes should be resolved before material is added. Please see WP:BLPBAN as well. This is a warning. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. What's up? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you please take this to WP:BLPN? This way you can get a neutral opinion and we don't have to argue over the content. I have already explained to you what WP:UNDUE means on Talk:2012 Karnataka video clip controversy, and I don't want to do that again because you are obviously not going to accept what I am going to say. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not be angry. You can talk to me anytime on my userpage. If you want to have a conversation I told you that you can call me anytime or I would be happy to call you and talk on the phone. We could even Skype if you like that and it saves you time. I truly do not understand what you are saying so it is not a matter of me not accepting what you have to say. I posted the issue here. Thank you for helping with the article; I appreciate the time you are spending on this. I have never argued with you and I do not consider our conversation to be an argument. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not angry and I don't wish to talk over voice. It is obvious that you haven't understood what I have explained before, and that is why I suggested that you ask for a third party opinion on the noticeboard for discussing BLP issues. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thank you. It is true that I have not understood what you explained before. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mine is not a third party opinion, but CC Patil is almost exclusively known in relation to these two incidents (the women's dress issue and the recent porn scandal); so non-inclusion of these incidents will not be good (their inclusion is not undue). However, more information about the man himself can be inserted (like his election, previous posts held, his political career etc.) Lynch7 17:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Connection to Slutwalk

A user requested more information about Patil's connection to the Slutwalk. Here are some articles:

• The Hindu organizer of Slutwalk petitions Patil on his statements on women
• India Times a Slutwalk organizer responds to Patil's statements
• Economic Times editorial stating that Slutwalk supporters will not vote for him
• Telhelka this is the article I originally cited. It states that Patil is minister for Child and Women welfare, and that his government denied the Slutwalk on moral grounds, and that the denial of the slutwalk was for similar reasons to Patil's statements.
• The slutwalk website self-publishes its protest materials on Patil.

I assert that some connection between Patil and Slutwalk is newsworthy and suitable for Wikipedia inclusion because it has been covered in mutliple reliable sources. Is there a counterargument to this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Watch out for wp:synth and stick closely to specific clear content in reliable sources. As its such a small article with almost nothing about his broad political positions - watch out for WP:UNDUE or WP:WEIGHT - Youreallycan 19:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

How does this sound - "Patil's comments were part of the motivation for activists' petition to organize a Bangalore Slutwalk event in 2012." One sentence of that sort summarizes all the sources, I think. How do you feel about that? Fair weight? NPOV? Could any or all of those references be tied to such a statement? Do you think such a statement best is on Patil's page, on the Slutwalk page, both, or neither? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"Patil's comments were part of the motivation for activists' petition to organize a Bangalore Slutwalk event in 2012" - can you cite it if asked to clearly do so? I would personally never use five citations to do so - if it was citable it would more belong on the slut-walk page - "part of the motivation" - this is also an issue - you need ot ask yourself, who was it that asserts this and then cite that person doing that... Youreallycan 20:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, this is original synthesis. And even if we found a source that said that the Slutwalk events were motivated by CC Patil's comments then inserting some non-notable activist's opinions in Patil's biography would be undue. This biography is very short, it has to be reasonably expanded before more weight is given to criticism. Also, mentioning a non-notable event like "Bangalore Slutwalk" is inappropriate when a simple "protest" would do. Can you please focus on adding factual information before giving weight to criticism? That would allow us to assume good faith that you are actually interested in contributing to building NPOV articles. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I want to let this issue sit for a while. If it is notable then it will come up again in media published in the future. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)