Talk:Radia tapes controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Runaway train[edit]

This article has become a runaway train - it is unreadable, has way too much detail, and has the tone of a daily report/newspaper. It needs immediate trimming and sanitation, so that is still qualifies as an encyclopaedia article. Also, an amazing amount of sock puppetry to be seen. Someone seems to be hellbent on turning this article into a cesspool of PoV and inundating everyone with details. That really needs to stop immediately. Achitnis (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radia_tapes_controversy#Arrests[edit]

Radia_tapes_controversy#Arrests

This section needs keeping up to date , its not correct to tell people that a person was arrested on Feb 6 without then telling them what happened - were they kept without bail, or bailed without charge or charged and bailed - please update this section, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the most untrustworthy article in Wikipedia?[edit]

This is horrifying. Almost every reference I've checked fails verification, with citations that say they point to a news story by author A, title B, date C but when checked point to a different story by a different author, appearing on a different date under a different title and not supporting the statement in the article. For example, I found <ref name="Media">{{cite web | url = http://www.mediacrooks.com/2010/11/nira-radia-real-hero-whos-behind-tapes.html | title = Indian media's mighty stand exposed on wrong side of 2G spectrum scam | publisher = [[International Business Times]] | author = November 23, 2010 }}</ref> in the lead. As a footnote that renders as:

^ November 23, 2010. "Indian media's mighty stand exposed on wrong side of 2G spectrum scam". International Business Times.

Looks official, doesn't it? It should link to http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/84868/20101123/nira-radia-tapes-2g-scam-media-involvement-barkha-dutt-vir-sanghvi.htm but last Monday Maniiyer728 (talk · contribs) re-linked it to an anonymous blog piece titled "Nira Radia – A Real Hero : Who’s Behind The Tapes Conspiracy?" (diff). Of course, I've restored the previous link—but it turns out it fails verification anyway, because it doesn't mention any of the businesses (Neucom, Noesis Strategic Consulting Services and Vitcom Consulting) for which it is the citation. Such misleading use of sources is particularly worrying given the potential to libel living people. The article needs a comprehensive review to ensure accuracy and ongoing supervision to keep it that way. - Pointillist (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2G spectrum scam merge[edit]

A lot of material should be moved from here to 2G spectrum scam. For instance, Radia tapes controversy#Arrests and Chargesheets pertain to the larger 2G spectrum scam rather than the more specific Radia tapes aspect. Similarly, a significant part of Radia tapes controversy#Public Accounts Committee (Parliament of India) and Radia tapes controversy#Investigations can be moved there. Raised at Talk:2G spectrum scam too. Oops daisy (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support that. In principle, the material in Radia tapes controversy should be restricted to the calls and the context around the recording: e.g. the legal basis for it and the claims about Nira Radia being an agent of a foreign power. All the broader stuff about the alleged scam belongs at 2G spectrum scam. This is analogous to the distinction between Watergate tapes and Watergate scandal. - Pointillist (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, support both comment above, those charges are more correct on the 2G page, although this is not a BLP it should still focus on the issues connected to the name in the title. Off2riorob (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged Oops daisy (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems[edit]

A major contributor to this article, Joyaaioxom, has been blocked indefinitely for repeated copyright infringement. Most of his major edits are copyvios of the cited sources, see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Joyaaioxom; this is no exception (see e.g. [1] from [2]). I have blanked this article for a copyright investigation. Per Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors, content from repeated copyright violators may be presumptively removed.

Upon conclusion of the investigation in a week's time, it is likely that the article will be reverted to this version. Interested contributors are invited to salvage the possibly infringing content provided that they rewrite it in their own words (see Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing for some advice on this). You may utilize a temporary workspace to do so. MER-C 13:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with this resolution. Content has been deleted, but a rewrite would be much easier than sorting out violations. Now that this issue has settled somewhat it is easier to write the history of the event and track the changes to the article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Radia tapes controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Radia_tapes_controversy&oldid=1209941920"