Comments:India: Karnataka closed for a day for protests over Mahadayi river share
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Thank you for fucking up the NPOV, and shifting the focus, and incomplete information||11||05:19, 30 January 2018|
Thank you for fucking up the NPOV, and shifting the focus, and incomplete information
Thank you so much to add the out of context BJP reaction to the article, and following the lead of other Indian news orgs, to dump everything into one article, making Wikinews no different from the shithole companies, which are politically biased to the core. Thank you for choosing the article, written by the user who wrote on Wikinews because xe hated Indian media, to tell how this project is a collaboration and multiple authors can actually write together even though one author has no clue about the political conditions between two parties, that too, leaving facts hanging, and endorsing the bullshit BJP and Congress spread and that is the only thing they do, way more than the work any party actually does.
Oh, I see how it is, now. Your POV is the NPOV, right? One sentence that mentions a complaint from the BJP in 6 of 8 sources which you listed amounts to "fucking up NPOV". Well, tell me, then. Why was BJP's opinion left out of the article? Is that neutral?
Yes it is. Indian media is full of political bias. The article is to inform about the problem between states, the history, what happened, what schools and transportation services did, what people not affected by the river (who rely on different river) did after ex-CM’s comment, what city ambassador said, and how people supported the idea of bandh. It had nothing to do with opinions of political parties. There were bands for water issues during BJP government, and they were during Congress government. The farmers suffer, politicians blame each other, media exploits the childish debates go get more views and make money by mixing need to call for a protest and what politicians blatantly accused each other without any proof. And just like the Indian media, who cares for views by adding political opinions in almost every single news article, English Wikinews did the same.
So why was the bandh on the same day as Amit Shah's rally? Why is the next one on Narendra Modi's day in Bangalore? Are you really telling me that is not anti-BJP action? Anyway, who are they protesting against, then? Karnataka needs water, but the river also starts there. People want canals. So who are they protesting against? In my view, the ruling BJP party. You are young. Soon you will learn that everything is a political opinion. It's harsh but true. P.S. I almost went to Goa last year, but if you cut off the water, let me know. Thanks.
People want the central government to interfere. When there was BJP in state and congress at centre, there were bandhs. In 2016, when there was no rally there was bandh; Shah’s role was only because of the upcoming state election. They do not care for the state until the election season. His mere presence in this state was for the election and that constitutes for an entirely different focus. Why it happened on that particular day? I don’t know. January 26 is National holiday. Saturday is many people’s day off, and there would be relatively less activity and that would not appear as a protest. I believe that is the reason they had to shift from Saturday to Thursday.
BTW, if (as you say) the overwhelming majority of Karntaka is in favor of fixing the water situation and they need the central government to make it happen, how does a bandh help? Especially, when it is local. To me it just seems like it hurts the local economy. Wouldn't it be more efficient to send a bunch of people to New Delhi with banners and flags?
- Small changes can greatly improve things. When the original objection was raised here, there would still have been time to make a surgical adjustment to the article to improve it.
- Leaving information out of an article is a dubious way to achieve neutrality; on the face of it, leaving out the BJP's objections because you don't agree doesn't seem neutral. If you are deliberately leaving out something under such circumstances, it'd be a good idea to leave a note on the collaboration page explaining it — not only for the reviewer (though I missed this issue during review, alas), but also for some third party such as came along in this case.
- I don't think the outcome is direly problematic.
- The objection at the start of this thread would have been more useful all around if it had confined itself to discussing ways of improving the neutrality of the article, treating SVTCobra as a colleague who shares that goal (which they are). It's even possible that SVTCobra also would have done better to have more confidence in the neutrality of the article to start with, which suggests that in fact the article may have suffered (somewhat) from the two of you not having enough confidence in each other.
- Most of this thread would have seemed to me more appropriate on the collaboration page.
Yeah, I didn't bring the discussion here. I think it may have been due to the logged-in user protection thing. Though I don't think it applies to collaboration pages, but I may be wrong. Anyway, it is not unusual to see a young person ideologically driven. It's probably useful for the world that they have this passion. But passion can lead to oversights and missteps, and that's what old people like me try to correct. I did what I did out of concern for NPOV. If I had wanted to shred the article, I probably could have done so. It would not have been hard to find sources to cast this in a different light.
I realize you were concerned about neutrality. I had reviewed the article, though, and I didn't think there was a problem, or I wouldn't have passed it. As I say, I don't think the final outcome here is disastrous. I'm just wondering — this is a subtle effect — if your lack of faith in acagastya's grasp of neutrality made you more inclined to perceive a problem in this case.
TBH. 100% honest. It was the disappointment when not all cities in the state observed bandh. It was sincere (but betrayed a POV) and described as a "flop". Don't know if you recall that message.
Having an opinion does not imply non-neutral news writing. An intelligent person generally does have an opinion, but if they understand how to write neutrally for Wikinews, their opinion should rarely get in the way of their writing, and they'll usually know when it's a problem. (I remember brianmc declining to write about the Scottish independence referendum.)