Talk:Swati Chaturvedi

Award winning/abusive troll

User Rifatwikism has been attempting to delete the term "award-winning" from this article and attempting to add the statement that "Swati Chaturvedi is an abusive troll" to this article. The editor's edit summaries seem to suggest that a University of Melbourne reference is PR material, and therefore cannot be used to include the term "award-winning". Also, the user has given misleading edit summaries while adding the term "abusive troll" to the subject's description. I invite the said editor to discuss the issues here for resolution and to not add contentious material until there is consensus to do so here. Thanks. Lourdes 14:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Response by Rifatwikism -- the term "abusive troll" is not misleading as Swati Chaturvedi has sent out numerous abusive messages from her verified Twitter account. Some of such abusive messages can be seen here http://www.opindia.com/2015/06/foul-mouthed-twitter-user-files-fir-against-loud-mouthed-slanderer/ - these messages were posted by her and is clearly abusive, for example she has often called people "dumb fuck wits" and addressed senior journalists as "ass". It is clear case of abuse unless the editors believe these terms are not abusive. I will insist that "abusive troll" is retained, though will not add again till editors debate. Similarly, my insistence that "award winning" is entirely PR claim is also based on facts. There is no information about the details of the award, the date on which it was awarded, by whom, and for what achievements by Swati. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rifatwikism (talk • contribs)

Hello Rifatwikism. Please read our no original research policy. Wikipedia doesn't trust your personal interpretation of a person; it requires reliable sources to confirm that she is an "abusive troll". If you have such reliable sources, then please place them here and show that they call her an "abusive troll". If you don't have such reliable sources, stop adding the statement immediately. Also, if a reliable source (in this case University of Melbourne) says that the subject is "award-winning", there's no requirement that the particular award(s) need to be listed before the subject is described as an "award winning journalist". Verifiability is again one of the pillars of Wikipedia, and the University of Melbourne source provides the required support for entitling the subject as "award winning". Thanks. Lourdes 14:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The link given by me clearly calls her "foul mouthed", which is synonym for "abusive". She is a journalist and obviously majority of journalists will not expose her, but minority views must be incorporated (which is part of pillars of Wikipedia), which are given by new media, of which one link I shared. Thanks - Rifatwikism

Which link are you referring to? Can you please show it here? Thanks. Lourdes 16:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

UN Concerns on Death threats

UN Experts Concerned Over Lack of Action on Death Threats to Journalist Swati Chaturvedi

This needs to be updated in the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent expansion and my revert

I reverted a recent expansion of the article by 201.17.149.161 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) since, in addition to sourcing concerns raised by Ravensfire in this previous partial revert, a spot-check showed other sources added that were either unreliable (eg, officechai.com) or that didn't mention Charurvedi (eg, this AltNews article). And the tone of the material added was entirely too gossipy, especially for a WP:BLP.

Can editors more knowledgeable about the subject than I take a look to see whether any of the material I removed should be re-instated? Pinging @Tayi Arajakate and Newslinger: who have edited this article previously and @Kautilya3 and TrangaBellam: who, IIRC, have edited in this general area. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Abecedare, good catch! I wasn't watching this page. But now I am. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The caste information is not adequately sourced. Scraper sites are flat out not reliable sources, so toss them out. The twitter source does not mention a specific caste, and we need a source where Charurvedi explicitly mentions the caste. There's other information sourced to the scraper sites (sigh, and I usually catch that and missed it here). The feud section is, as Abecedare noted, not adequately sourced and has other issues. "Her most notorious feud..." needs an explicit source for that statement. Ideally, not a clickbait that's mostly twitter post after twitter post. That's churnalism, not actual journalism. For BLP, I don't like the idea of specifically repeated her accusations about a person of whom we don't have an article.

Concur with removal. Ravensfire (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, more or less agree with this. Removal's fine, giving a lot of leeway, at best some of the very basic biographical information like place of birth could be sourced to her own self published material i.e Twitter account but none of the rest is salvageable without reliable secondary sources that directly support the material where it fails on all accounts. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)