Jump to content

Talk:Safoora Zargar: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Safoora Zargar/Archive 1) (bot
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Notice|
⚫
{{Old AfD multi |date=21 May 2020 |result='''keep''' |page=Safoora Zargar}}
⚫
{{WikiProject India |class=B |importance=Mid}}
⚫
{{WikiProject Biography |class=B |listas=Zargar, Safoora |living=yes}}
{{info|
'''Page views of this article over the last 365 days:'''<br />
'''Page views of this article over the last 365 days:'''<br />
{{ PageViews graph |365|Safoora Zargar|en.wikipedia.org }}
{{ PageViews graph |365|Safoora Zargar|en.wikipedia.org }}
}}
}}
⚫
{{Old AfD multi|date=21 May 2020 |result='''keep''' |page=Safoora Zargar}}

⚫
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| blp=yes|listas=Zargar, Safoora|
⚫
{{WikiProject India|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProject Women}}
⚫
}}
{{contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|blp|protection=semi}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
Line 17: Line 20:
}}
}}
{{archives}}
{{archives}}


== UN rights panel slams detention of Safoora Zargar - should the article mention it? ==

An article was published in The Hindu, on Saturday 13 March 2021, about how the United Nations Human Rights Council Working Group against Arbitrary Detentions has criticised the Indian government concerning the Zargar case.
*{{Cite news |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/un-rights-panel-slams-detention-of-safoora-zargar/article34061744.ece |title=UN rights panel slams detention of Safoora Zargar |work=[[The Hindu]] |date=13 March 2021 |first1=Suhasini |last1=Haidar |access-date=14 March 2021}}
⚫
Should we include this in the article? Last year we had stuff in the article about the international reaction to the case and editors deleted it.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 19:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
: A properly sourced reactions section is definitely usable. [[User:Vincentvikram|Vikram Vincent]] 03:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

http://livelaw.in/news-updates/safoora-zargars-arrest-detention-was-to-curb-her-dissent-un-human-rights-council-171170 [[User:Vincentvikram|Vikram Vincent]] 05:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' The Political activism section is already so much long, and I guess further additions would be "undue". If you've ideas otherwise please let me know. ─ [[User:AafiOnMobile|<span style="color:SteelBlue">The Aafī on Mobile</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:AafiOnMobile|<span style="color:#80A0FF"><sup>(talk)</sup></span>]]</sup> 09:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

== Online vilification ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-valign=top
! Previous stable version
! Indianite's [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Safoora_Zargar&type=revision&diff=1012225936&oldid=1012128711 version of 08:09, 15 March 2021]
! Vincentvikram's [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Safoora_Zargar&type=revision&diff=1012249135&oldid=1012225936 version of 11:49, 15 March 2021]
|-valign=top
||After the arrest of Safoora Zargar, several people on social media started sharing unrelated images and screen captures from videos falsely claimed to be Zargar.<ref name=Alt-06May20>{{cite news |first1=Pooja |last1=Chaudhuri |title=Unrelated image, pornographic photo shared to target JMI scholar Safoora Zargar |url=https://www.altnews.in/unrelated-image-pornographic-photo-shared-to-target-jmi-scholar-safoora-zargar/ |access-date=21 May 2020 |work=[[Alt News]] |date=6 May 2020}}</ref> She was three months pregnant at the time of her arrest.
The most viral allegation which targeted her pregnancy alleged that she was pregnant by Hindus at Shaheen Bagh. The people shared a couple sex video claiming that Safoora Zargar was in the video, but the fact checking website [[Alt News]], revealed that all the allegations made were fake and baseless.<ref name="bbc11May2020">{{cite news |first1=Geeta |last1=Pandey |title=India Coronavirus: Pregnant student Safoora Zargar at risk in jail |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-52608589?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cmmqq736zwyt/delhi&link_location=live-reporting-story |access-date=21 May 2020 |work=[[BBC News]] |date=11 May 2020}}</ref> The video was taken from [[Pornhub]] and the woman in the video was PornHub model Selena Banks.<ref name=Alt-07May20>{{cite news |first1=Pooja |last1=Chaudhuri |title=Porn clip shared on social media falsely associating it with JMI activist Safoora Zargar |url=https://www.altnews.in/porn-clip-shared-on-social-media-falsely-associating-it-with-jmi-activist-safoora-zargar/ |access-date=31 May 2020 |work=[[Alt News]] |date=7 May 2020}}</ref>

Other social media posts targeting Safoora Zargar for her marital status and pregnancy occurred, with large numbers of individuals claiming that she was unmarried and that her pregnancy was discovered when she was lodged in Tihar Jail.<ref name="bbc11May2020"/> [[The Quint]] fact checked all the allegations, which were revealed to be fake.<ref name="quint2">{{cite news |first1=Himanshi |last1=Dahiya |title='Unwed & Pregnant': Trolls Target Safoora Zargar With Fake Claims |url=https://www.thequint.com/news/webqoof/unwed-and-pregnant-trolls-target-safoora-zargar-with-fake-claims |access-date=21 May 2020 |work=[[The Quint]] |date=7 May 2020}}</ref> It has been suggested that the online campaigns against her were [[misogyny]]<ref name="thehindu-6May2020">{{cite news |title=Ensure medical aid to Safoora Zargar, panel tells DG (Prisons) |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/ensure-medical-aid-to-safoora-zargar-panel-tells-dg-prisons/article31521630.ece |access-date=21 May 2020 |work=[[The Hindu]] |date=6 May 2020}}</ref><ref name="thequint1"/> and Islamophobia.<ref name="thequint1">{{cite news |first1=Devika |last1=Mittal |title=Why 'Propaganda' Against Safoora Is A Step Back for Women's Rights |url=https://www.thequint.com/voices/women/safoora-zargar-jamia-millia-islamia-anti-caa-patriarchy-misogyny-women-harassment |access-date=21 May 2020 |work=[[The Quint]] |date=9 May 2020}}</ref> Delhi Police hadn't taken any action against the online vilification campaigns and trolls as of 20th May 2020.<ref name="newindianexpress">{{cite news |first1=Rahiba R. |last1=Parveen |title=Jailed anti-CAA activist Safoora Zargar trolled, Delhi police take no action |url=https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/delhi/2020/may/08/jailed-anti-caa-activist-safoora-zargar-trolled-delhi-police-take-no-action-2140654.html |access-date=21 May 2020 |work=[[The New Indian Express]] |date=8 May 2020}}</ref>
|| Safoora was the target of slut-shaming by social media profiles with a history of supporting the [[Bharatiya Janata Party|Bharatiya Janta Party]], after her arrest. Right-wing trolls shared pornographic images falsely claiming to be featuring Zargar. The vilification campaigns claimed that Zargar, who was in the second trimester of her pregnancy while in jail, was unmarried and made lewd remarks about her pregnancy. The claims have been widely debunked by reputed fact-checking portals.<ref name="Alt-06May20">{{cite news|last1=Chaudhuri|first1=Pooja|date=6 May 2020|title=Unrelated image, pornographic photo shared to target JMI scholar Safoora Zargar|work=[[Alt News]]|url=https://www.altnews.in/unrelated-image-pornographic-photo-shared-to-target-jmi-scholar-safoora-zargar/|url-status=live|access-date=21 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308032242/https://www.altnews.in/unrelated-image-pornographic-photo-shared-to-target-jmi-scholar-safoora-zargar/|archive-date=2021-03-08}}</ref><ref name="Alt-07May20">{{cite news|last1=Chaudhuri|first1=Pooja|date=7 May 2020|title=Porn clip shared on social media falsely associating it with JMI activist Safoora Zargar|work=[[Alt News]]|url=https://www.altnews.in/porn-clip-shared-on-social-media-falsely-associating-it-with-jmi-activist-safoora-zargar/|url-status=live|access-date=31 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201021043601/https://www.altnews.in/porn-clip-shared-on-social-media-falsely-associating-it-with-jmi-activist-safoora-zargar/|archive-date=2020-10-21}}</ref><ref name="bbc11May2020" /><ref name="quint2" /> Many comments were found to be "outraging her dignity and threatening her family" and are said to reek of [[Islamophobia]] and [[Misogyny]].<ref name="thehindu-6May2020" /><ref name="thequint1">{{cite news|last1=Mittal|first1=Devika|date=9 May 2020|title=Why 'Propaganda' Against Safoora Is A Step Back for Women's Rights|work=[[The Quint]]|url=https://www.thequint.com/voices/women/safoora-zargar-jamia-millia-islamia-anti-caa-patriarchy-misogyny-women-harassment|url-status=live|access-date=21 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308145347/https://www.thequint.com/voices/women/safoora-zargar-jamia-millia-islamia-anti-caa-patriarchy-misogyny-women-harassment|archive-date=2021-03-08}}</ref> The [[Delhi Commission for Women|Delhi Commission for Women (DCW)]] sent a notice to Delhi Police demanding information about measures taken to remove the posts and status of arrests of accused but the Delhi Police has failed to take any action in this regard.<ref name="thehindu-6May2020" /><ref name="newindianexpress">{{cite news|last1=Parveen|first1=Rahiba R.|date=8 May 2020|title=Jailed anti-CAA activist Safoora Zargar trolled, Delhi police take no action|work=[[The New Indian Express]]|url=https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/delhi/2020/may/08/jailed-anti-caa-activist-safoora-zargar-trolled-delhi-police-take-no-action-2140654.html|access-date=21 May 2020}}</ref>
|| Safoora was the target of online-shaming by social media profiles. The claims have been widely debunked by reputed fact-checking portals.<ref name="Alt-06May20">{{cite news|last1=Chaudhuri|first1=Pooja|date=6 May 2020|title=Unrelated image, pornographic photo shared to target JMI scholar Safoora Zargar|work=[[Alt News]]|url=https://www.altnews.in/unrelated-image-pornographic-photo-shared-to-target-jmi-scholar-safoora-zargar/|url-status=live|access-date=21 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308032242/https://www.altnews.in/unrelated-image-pornographic-photo-shared-to-target-jmi-scholar-safoora-zargar/|archive-date=2021-03-08}}</ref><ref name="Alt-07May20">{{cite news|last1=Chaudhuri|first1=Pooja|date=7 May 2020|title=Porn clip shared on social media falsely associating it with JMI activist Safoora Zargar|work=[[Alt News]]|url=https://www.altnews.in/porn-clip-shared-on-social-media-falsely-associating-it-with-jmi-activist-safoora-zargar/|url-status=live|access-date=31 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201021043601/https://www.altnews.in/porn-clip-shared-on-social-media-falsely-associating-it-with-jmi-activist-safoora-zargar/|archive-date=2020-10-21}}</ref><ref name="bbc11May2020" /><ref name="quint2" /> Many comments were found to be "outraging her dignity and threatening her family" and were said to reek of [[Islamophobia]] and [[misogyny]].<ref name="thehindu-6May2020" /><ref name="thequint1">{{cite news|last1=Mittal|first1=Devika|date=9 May 2020|title=Why 'Propaganda' Against Safoora Is A Step Back for Women's Rights|work=[[The Quint]]|url=https://www.thequint.com/voices/women/safoora-zargar-jamia-millia-islamia-anti-caa-patriarchy-misogyny-women-harassment|url-status=live|access-date=21 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308145347/https://www.thequint.com/voices/women/safoora-zargar-jamia-millia-islamia-anti-caa-patriarchy-misogyny-women-harassment|archive-date=2021-03-08}}</ref> The [[Delhi Commission for Women|Delhi Commission for Women (DCW)]] sent a notice to Delhi Police demanding information about measures taken to remove the posts and status of arrests of accused but the Delhi Police failed to take any action in this regard.<ref name="thehindu-6May2020" /><ref name="newindianexpress">{{cite news|last1=Parveen|first1=Rahiba R.|date=8 May 2020|title=Jailed anti-CAA activist Safoora Zargar trolled, Delhi police take no action|work=[[The New Indian Express]]|url=https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/delhi/2020/may/08/jailed-anti-caa-activist-safoora-zargar-trolled-delhi-police-take-no-action-2140654.html|access-date=21 May 2020}}</ref>
|-valign=top
|colspan=3|{{talk-ref}}
|-
⚫
|}
=== Discussion ===
There seems to be a dispute over what should be mentioned in the section on online vilification. Please can we discuss any changes that people want to make.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 18:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
: LOL that is nice! :-) [[User:Vincentvikram|Vikram Vincent]] 18:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
::*The stable version was, as far as possible, apolitical. This is consistent with [[WP:NPOV|the policy of having a neutral point of view (NPOV)]]. Indianite's version is very firmly political, and anti-BJP. It fails to achieve NPOV.
::*I am not convinced that jargon such as "slut-shaming" or "online-shaming" is helpful. Such jargon implies that Zargar has done something shameful. Surely it better to say what the facts are, which is what the stable version did.
::*Indianite's version explicitly mentions the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) who sent a notice to the Delhi police cyber cell, who appear to have ignored it. If there were sources saying that the actions of the Delhi Commission for Women had led to some arrests, then there would be a good reason to mention them. But there are not. So why delete good factual stuff to mention them?
::<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 19:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

:Old stable looks good. I hadnt seen that prior to my modification. [[User:Vincentvikram|Vikram Vincent]] 19:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

:: Firstly, I want to admit that I should have discussed the issue here before making the edit.
::Second, regarding the edit I made, all the changes were based on the information from the sources already mentioned. I made the changes in order to condense the article (as I felt there were certain lines implying the same thing), to remove editor's [[Wikipedia:No_original_research|original research]], and to include more information about the leanings of those who conducted the online campaigns - something which the sources mention very explicitly. It should be noted that the earlier version mentioned the name of the website and pornstar featuring in the fake posts but not the details of those who were behind them. This [https://web.archive.org/web/20201021043601/https://www.altnews.in/porn-clip-shared-on-social-media-falsely-associating-it-with-jmi-activist-safoora-zargar/ AltNews Source] mentions details about who was behind the incident. This report is also cited in the [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-52608589?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cmmqq736zwyt/delhi&link_location=live-reporting-story BBC source]. Similarly, the [https://www.thequint.com/news/webqoof/unwed-and-pregnant-trolls-target-safoora-zargar-with-fake-claims#read-more Quint source] also links one of the claims to a BJP member. Another [https://www.thequint.com/voices/women/safoora-zargar-jamia-millia-islamia-anti-caa-patriarchy-misogyny-women-harassment Quint Source] doesn't mention BJP but uses the term 'right-wing' to describe the trolls and thus my usage of the term in the edit. All these (4 of 7) sources mention details about those who targeted Safoora, so I felt it is a detail worth mentioning. Alt News and Quint [[List_of_fact-checking_websites#India|are IFCN signatories]] and BBC is considered to be [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources|a reliable source]]. Thus, the edit did not reflect original research or editorial bias.
::Third, I agree with [[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] that it is better not to use the terms 'slut-shaming' and 'online-shaming'.
::Fourth, the earlier edit said "she was pregnant by Hindus at Shaheen Bagh" - something I could not verify in the sources mentioned in the article.
::Fifth, I may not have done a good job at reducing the length of the paragraph and I am sure other editors can make it much more up to the point, with all necessary facts.
::Thank you making Wikipedia a better place and have a good day. --[[User:Indianite|Indianite]] ([[User talk:Indianite|talk]]) 03:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
:::Regarding the Delhi Commission for Women, [https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/give-her-a-condom-sexist-trolls-target-pregnant-jamia-student-arrested-under-uapa-2606669.html this 5 May 2020 news story] criticises the Delhi Commission for Women for staying silent on the issue of online abuse of Zargar.

:::Regarding party politics, it is true that there are sources mentioning people linked with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) who made abusive social media comments about Zargar. Early versions ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Safoora_Zargar&oldid=955706998 9 May 2020] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Safoora_Zargar&oldid=958182069 22 May 20]) kept party politics out of this to preserve a neutral point of view. I think editors did this, to ensure that the focus was on Zargar (the article subject).

:::I have deleted "she was pregnant by Hindus at Shaheen Bagh". I suspect that the source of this was in Hindi; no citation was given for it.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 07:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
Line 76: Line 29:
:: Thanks for informing me. I have provided "permission" proof many times in the commons, but I don't understand why the admins there don't understand that. They keep asking more and more. Last time, they asked me for permission of [[Masrat Zahra]] and Sagrika Kissu for using their pics. Both of them had uploaded the pic in public domain and they left those pics for 'free to use'. But I was still asked for permission and I contact them and motivated both of them to email that permission format, then later commons admin replied with another form and made it hard for getting permission after having permission from real owner.
:: Thanks for informing me. I have provided "permission" proof many times in the commons, but I don't understand why the admins there don't understand that. They keep asking more and more. Last time, they asked me for permission of [[Masrat Zahra]] and Sagrika Kissu for using their pics. Both of them had uploaded the pic in public domain and they left those pics for 'free to use'. But I was still asked for permission and I contact them and motivated both of them to email that permission format, then later commons admin replied with another form and made it hard for getting permission after having permission from real owner.


:: In short, the above pic of [[Safoora Zargar]] is also uploaded with permission and I have added the link there too. But still they asked for permission. So I think instead of having the headache, I prefer they should delete it. That is better option for me. Thank You ❤️. — [[User:TheChunky|<b><i><span style="text-shadow:3px 3px 4px darkgray;"><span style="color:#0000A0">The Chunky urf <i> Al Kashmiri</i></span></span></i></b>]] [[User talk:TheChunky|<sup><i><span style="color:green">(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)</span></i></sup>]]
:: In short, the above pic of [[Safoora Zargar]] is also uploaded with permission and I have added the link there too. But still they asked for permission. So I think instead of having the headache, I prefer they should delete it. That is better option for me. Thank You ❤️. — [[User:TheChunky|<b><i><span style="text-shadow:3px 3px 4px darkgray;"><span style="color:#0000A0">The Chunky urf <i> Al Kashmiri</i></span></span></i></b>]] [[User talk:TheChunky|<sup><i><span style="color:green">(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)</span></i></sup>]] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 10:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)</small>

== Gulfisha Fatima ==
⚫
{{ping|Aafi}} Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Safoora_Zargar&curid=63892752&diff=1216394333&oldid=1216394277 this edit], the article entitled [[:Gulfisha Fatima]] was deleted because it was a copyright violation. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 19:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

:@[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]]: I did notice it. I removed it because nobody would be eventually seeing it. It could be mentioned elsewhere as a redlink in the body. But [[WP:SEEALSO]] doesn't permit it: "The "See also" section should not include red links." ─ [[User:Aafi|<span style="color:SteelBlue">Aafī</span>]] [[User talk:Aafi|<span style="color:#80A0FF">(talk)</span>]] 19:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:02, 30 March 2024

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) 10:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheChunky: If you want the file preserved, you need to take action on Commons.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for informing me. I have provided "permission" proof many times in the commons, but I don't understand why the admins there don't understand that. They keep asking more and more. Last time, they asked me for permission of Masrat Zahra and Sagrika Kissu for using their pics. Both of them had uploaded the pic in public domain and they left those pics for 'free to use'. But I was still asked for permission and I contact them and motivated both of them to email that permission format, then later commons admin replied with another form and made it hard for getting permission after having permission from real owner.
In short, the above pic of Safoora Zargar is also uploaded with permission and I have added the link there too. But still they asked for permission. So I think instead of having the headache, I prefer they should delete it. That is better option for me. Thank You ❤️. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) — Preceding undated comment added 10:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gulfisha Fatima

[edit]

@Aafi: Regarding this edit, the article entitled Gulfisha Fatima was deleted because it was a copyright violation. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: I did notice it. I removed it because nobody would be eventually seeing it. It could be mentioned elsewhere as a redlink in the body. But WP:SEEALSO doesn't permit it: "The "See also" section should not include red links." ─ Aafī (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Safoora_Zargar&oldid=1216403270"