Talk:Pratibha Patil

Controversy over President Patil's foreign trips

This addition on Pratibha Patil's foreign trips has been reverted several times now by Qwyrxian and Sitush. To avoid an edit war, I'm raising the issue here.

It was originally reverted on the grounds that the image didn't have any accompanying text which was since added. The second issue raised then was that foreign trips are indeed normal affairs and not controversial. When more sources on the matter -that calls it a controversy- were added, I was told "In fact, it wasn't a "major controversy"; it was mentioned a couple of times in a few newspapers, mainly because her political opponents tried to make it seem like there was a controversy when, in fact, it was normal. None of the sources actually indicate that there was any lasting controversy." and while the administrator - who seems very pressed for time - peruses the sources, "Nobody has a right to know anything on Wikipedia. Period.".

My issue with the reverts is this: 1) the matter is fully sourced from a range of 8 national media outlets, no less 2) the sources maintain that it became controversial and that the Government of India itself came out clarifying for the President and 3) it is neutrally phrased, giving the official reasoning for why the the trips were necessary or normal and 4) if one particular editor would like to peruse sources but has no specific grievances with the quality or the content of the sources, should the reading public be kept away from such info till such time as the editor concerned finds time to go through it all. Finally, whatever happened to AGF?

I'm beginning to think that the reverts are simply editorial high handedness, the result of unthinking immediatism. I'd like to hear from editors on what they think on this matter and, hopefully, see a restoration of the matter now reverted. Ashwin147 (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I have re-added the information, and worded it neutrally as required by policy. Are you saying that you still object to the new version? Note that you cannot call it a controversy, because the majority of sources do not. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

User Sitush just left a message on my talk page before reverting this article again.I was amazed to see he was asking me why am i adding controversial text(with references) to congress people only. He now wants this discussion to shift on me getting biased on the innocent congress ministers. I once again want to clarify, i do not endorse any political party and i request all of you if you want to test my neutrality, just reply this message with allegations raised on narendra modi or arvind kejriwal with references. I'll love to add those to their pages.Reverting a genune edit(with reference to each claim) and trying to shift the debate from allegations to a Modi-Congress fight is not expected from wikipedia editers like Sitush.--KakaDesi 05:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Controversy sections

Dedicated controversy sections in BLPs has long been frowned upon and there are numerous discussions about this, including at least two relevant threads right on this talk page. Continually attempting to insert such sections is a violation of WP:BLP, WP:DUE etc. If any such incidents are in fact notable, are in fact more than just allegations made by opposition politicians and the press and are in fact verifiable to a standard that complies with WP:BLPCRIME then they should form a part of the whole article, not be consigned to a POV-magnet separate section. This is standard practice and I'm becoming fed up of frenzied attempts to breach it. Take a look, for example, at the Activities section in the current article. - Sitush (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Misinformation in early life section ?

As per Jalgaon district article in 1906 Khandesh district was split into 2 and renamed as West Khandesh and East Khandesh district, East Khandesh includes Jalgaon district. East Khandesh got renamed in circa1960 as Jalgaon district. Nadgaon, the birth place of this subject in in Jalgaon district that means in 1934 when P. Patil was born she was born in East Khandesh district of British India and not in Jalgaon district, It should be changed - X : She was born in Jalgaon district, Maharashtra. Y : She was born in East Khandesh district (Now Jalgaon district) of Bombay state, British India. Success think (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)