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 editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Files used on this page or its Wikidata item are up for deletion
Line 72: Line 72:
* [[commons:File:Safoora Zargar.jpg|Safoora Zargar.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-03-16T10:03:51.531835 | Safoora Zargar.jpg -->
* [[commons:File:Safoora Zargar.jpg|Safoora Zargar.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-03-16T10:03:51.531835 | Safoora Zargar.jpg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by TheChunky|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 10:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by TheChunky|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 10:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|TheChunky}} If you want the file preserved, you need to take action on Commons.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 18:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:56, 16 March 2021

WikiProject iconIndia B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBiography B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


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)[reply]

A properly sourced reactions section is definitely usable. Vikram Vincent 03:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

  1. ^ a b c Chaudhuri, Pooja (6 May 2020). "Unrelated image, pornographic photo shared to target JMI scholar Safoora Zargar". Alt News. Retrieved 21 May 2020. Cite error: The named reference "Alt-06May20" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c d Pandey, Geeta (11 May 2020). "India Coronavirus: Pregnant student Safoora Zargar at risk in jail". BBC News. Retrieved 21 May 2020.
  3. ^ a b c Chaudhuri, Pooja (7 May 2020). "Porn clip shared on social media falsely associating it with JMI activist Safoora Zargar". Alt News. Retrieved 31 May 2020. Cite error: The named reference "Alt-07May20" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b c Dahiya, Himanshi (7 May 2020). "'Unwed & Pregnant': Trolls Target Safoora Zargar With Fake Claims". The Quint. Retrieved 21 May 2020.
  5. ^ a b c d e "Ensure medical aid to Safoora Zargar, panel tells DG (Prisons)". The Hindu. 6 May 2020. Retrieved 21 May 2020.
  6. ^ a b c d Mittal, Devika (9 May 2020). "Why 'Propaganda' Against Safoora Is A Step Back for Women's Rights". The Quint. Retrieved 21 May 2020. Cite error: The named reference "thequint1" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  7. ^ a b c Parveen, Rahiba R. (8 May 2020). "Jailed anti-CAA activist Safoora Zargar trolled, Delhi police take no action". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 21 May 2020. Cite error: The named reference "newindianexpress" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

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)[reply]

LOL that is nice! :-) Vikram Vincent 18:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stable version was, as far as possible, apolitical. This is consistent with 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?
-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Old stable looks good. I hadnt seen that prior to my modification. Vikram Vincent 19:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 AltNews Source mentions details about who was behind the incident. This report is also cited in the BBC source. Similarly, the Quint source also links one of the claims to a BJP member. Another 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 are IFCN signatories and BBC is considered to be a reliable source. Thus, the edit did not reflect original research or editorial bias.
Third, I agree with 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. --Indianite (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Delhi Commission for Women, 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 (9 May 2020 and 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.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Safoora_Zargar&oldid=1012505915"