Talk:Suhel Seth
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
This article is written well (42.109.203.38 (talk) 03:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC))
Needs Sourcing[edit]
Please help make this article better by adding in reliable sources, citations etc. Thanks The Oath Breaker (talk) 07:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Removal of unreferenced information, puffery, weasel words[edit]
I have cleaned up a whole lot of unreferenced nonsense and a lot of puffery or non-notable things like Seth finds an honourable mention in a book, or he founded debating societies or acted in school plays. Please note this is not his personal website or CV, but an encyclopaedia. We only rely on trustworthy third-party sources, not trashy websites like Filmibeat! Editors of this page, please make yourselves aware of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy at WP:COI and then read the reliable sources policy at WP:RS, before editing this article again in vain! MaysinFourty (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @MaysinFourty:, you are right, this is an encyclopedia and articles need to be neutral and adhere to WP:NPOV. However, your deletion of infobox parameters, text referenced from reputed sources like the Times of India, Indian Express; deletion of whole sections like Early Life/Education, Career, Books, filmography to show only the controversies section and updation of that section as "Controversies and sexual harassment allegations" does not show neutrality. I understand from the article that this person has been accused of sexual harassment, however please refer to WP:BLPCRIME, which clearly states "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that he has been convicted by a court of law. If he indeed has been, I would request you to add that and that would be the end of the matter. Moreover, alleging that fellow editors have a WP:COI and terming their edits as "rubbish", "garbage" and "spam" in the edit summary is just not right WP:INDCRIT. I would request you to please review and correct as required. Cheers, Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Georgethedragonslayer, I request you to please read the section again. Nowhere does it say he has been convicted. The section is reporting on the "allegations", which were amply covered by the Indian media. So please do not patronise me by making insinuations about compromised standards of neutrality. As a matter of fact, the subheading of the section did not even have "allegations", and simply said "Sexual harassment", until I added the word in this edit. So please slow down and look at the history, before passing judgements. Finally, it is your prerogative to add whatever you want in the article, provided it is backed up by the most reliable and independent of sources, not Page 3 trash (I'm sorry if this offends you, but a spade has to be called a spade) that celebrates the Actor, Published Author, Philanthropist, Columnist, the Media Maverick Suhel Seth. For someone who runs a marketing agency, the sources will obviously undergo deeper scrutiny. Once again, any information added has to be from established, independent sources and stand the test of encyclopaedic relevance. They cannot be interviews/gutter press/columns/blog entries/short speaker profiles/event coverage/lit fest appearances etc. Your additions, and mine, and in fact, anyone else's -- must be examined in that light. I hope that is of some help! Best regards, MaysinFourty (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Why you are talking about COI when you yourself alleged of COI on your talk page? Stop disrupting this page and stick to stable version until you get consensus for your edits. Most of the content you removed is reliably sourced after all. 42.106.5.240 (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Three editors have disagreed with you. 42.106.5.240 (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Georgethedragonslayer, I request you to please read the section again. Nowhere does it say he has been convicted. The section is reporting on the "allegations", which were amply covered by the Indian media. So please do not patronise me by making insinuations about compromised standards of neutrality. As a matter of fact, the subheading of the section did not even have "allegations", and simply said "Sexual harassment", until I added the word in this edit. So please slow down and look at the history, before passing judgements. Finally, it is your prerogative to add whatever you want in the article, provided it is backed up by the most reliable and independent of sources, not Page 3 trash (I'm sorry if this offends you, but a spade has to be called a spade) that celebrates the Actor, Published Author, Philanthropist, Columnist, the Media Maverick Suhel Seth. For someone who runs a marketing agency, the sources will obviously undergo deeper scrutiny. Once again, any information added has to be from established, independent sources and stand the test of encyclopaedic relevance. They cannot be interviews/gutter press/columns/blog entries/short speaker profiles/event coverage/lit fest appearances etc. Your additions, and mine, and in fact, anyone else's -- must be examined in that light. I hope that is of some help! Best regards, MaysinFourty (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome to add the information with independent and reliable sources. Please read WP:RS. If you continue editing this way and pose empty threats, you will face a permanent block, IP. And I will now be gathering evidence against your edits, because I smell a WP:SOCKPUPPET. MaysinFourty (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nearly all of the sources including Filmibeat which has been used on thousands of Wikipedia articles,[1] meets WP:RS. Regardless of what you smell, you absurdly meet WP:CIR and WP:UPE. 42.106.5.240 (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- A source being used in other articles doesn't make it an RS. iMDb is used in millions of articles but it is not a reliable source for biographical information. Further the puffy spam content you re-added isn't reliably sourced. is a far cry from an rs and should be blacklisted,Crunchbase is a listing, this is PR spam and I could go on. It should be restored to the reliably sourced version prior to this IP (and others) spam campaign. Praxidicae (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
