Talk:Safoora Zargar: Difference between revisions
→Online vilification: create discussion heading to facilitate comments, and added signature |
→Discussion: fixed it |
||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
|- |
|- |
||
|} |
|} |
||
== Discussion === |
=== 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) |
Revision as of 18:39, 15 March 2021
This article was nominated for deletion on 21 May 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
India B‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Biography B‑class | |||||||
|
Page views of this article over the last 365 days:
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
lead section
Hi AafiOnMobile! A lead section should be short and convey the simplest aspects which is what I have done. I moved the remaining content to to next paragraph. Can you please explain a bit more your revert. Thanks Vikram Vincent 13:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have tagged the article lead as too long. Vikram Vincent 13:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- got a call while I was fixing it. Sorry for the trouble. Fixed it. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
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.
- Haidar, Suhasini (13 March 2021). "UN rights panel slams detention of Safoora Zargar". The Hindu. Retrieved 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.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- A properly sourced reactions section is definitely usable. 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 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. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 09:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Online vilification
Previous stable version | Indianite's version of 08:09, 15 March 2021 | Vincentvikram's version of 11:49, 15 March 2021 |
---|---|---|
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.[1] 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.[2] The video was taken from Pornhub and the woman in the video was PornHub model Selena Banks.[3] 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.[2] The Quint fact checked all the allegations, which were revealed to be fake.[4] It has been suggested that the online campaigns against her were misogyny[5][6] and Islamophobia.[6] Delhi Police hadn't taken any action against the online vilification campaigns and trolls as of 20th May 2020.[7] |
Safoora was the target of slut-shaming by social media profiles with a history of supporting the 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.[1][3][2][4] Many comments were found to be "outraging her dignity and threatening her family" and are said to reek of Islamophobia and Misogyny.[5][6] The 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.[5][7] | Safoora was the target of online-shaming by social media profiles. The claims have been widely debunked by reputed fact-checking portals.[1][3][2][4] Many comments were found to be "outraging her dignity and threatening her family" and were said to reek of Islamophobia and misogyny.[5][6] The 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.[5][7] |
References
|
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.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)