Talk:Wikinews interviews India's first female Paralympic medalist Deepa Malik

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Journalist notes[edit]

The preferred way to handle this sort of thing would be to email it to "scoop at wikinewsie dot org"; scoop exists primarily to handle materials that should not be distributed publicly. --Pi zero (talk) 03:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Done that but the inbox is full. Bidgee (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Bidgee: It looks as if you didn't attach the recording to your email to scoop, but the (short, text-only) message you sent did get to scoop. Any time you send a message to scoop, you're likely to get some full-inbox messages because scoop is a mailing list and some of the people on the list haven't cleaned out their inboxes. However, I do keep my inbox sufficiently clear for incoming material. --Pi zero (talk)
It was attached, not too sure why it didn't. What do I need to do to have this published? Bidgee (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Phone interfaces can be very cantankerous. My guess is that's where it didn't get attached as you'd intended.

This discussion about scoop isn't holding up the review process. I (or some other reviewer) simply hasn't been able to engage in a review of it yet. --Pi zero (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, since you say it should be deleted once it's served its purpose, and I've got a copy of this on my laptop which I can use during review, I've deleted it. If there's a problem with my copy I can undelete it temporarily. --Pi zero (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Athletics - Women's Shot Put - F53 Final - Results.pdf

RR = Regional Record

I can verify that I've seen the private twitter messages by Laura sent by Deeva, I think it is also public on Deeva's twitter account. I've also seen Indian media questioning her having a personal career and the suspension of the Paralympic Committee of India, and how it impacted her personally. Bidgee (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4248480 [Passed][edit]

At last it has fully registered on me that that odd word "dependability" had the intended meaning "dependance". --Pi zero (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit protected[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please add Category: Women. Thanks. 06:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC) —preceding comment added by Hmlarson (talkcontribs)

Done --SVTCobra 19:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Remove the ambiguous category:women. (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Explain how it is ambiguous, please. --SVTCobra 20:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
one would not add category:men for all those interviews with men. Gender categories are too broad, and not suitable for this article.
•–• 20:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Generally, I agree. That's why I declined the same user's request for a random Hillary Clinton article to be included. But since Deepa Malik is India's first woman to win a medal, I thought it was appropriate. --SVTCobra 20:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:India is fine, women isn’t. Like if Clinton was elected president, women would not be appropriate category. Nor would be women’s rights, since there is no law against it in the US. Saudi Arabia allowing women to drive can have women’s rights, because it was about equality, however inclusion of four female in law council must not have that category since women were not denied — and yet making claims about what is equality and what is not is potentially biased and has CoI, and must be dealt with extra thoughts.
•–• 20:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't have the category at all. But it has been explained to me, that consensus these days is more categories the better. If Hillary was the first US president, I think I would have included it (since we have the category). But I was going to bring up later, that the mere existence of this category should demand Category:Men to exist for parity and equality's sake. --SVTCobra 20:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Don't we already have a community discussion ongoing on this question, somewhere else? --Pi zero (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
maybe at the category talk page, or the Law council article talk, probably {{flagged}}. More categories the better does not mean one should create and populate ambiguous categories. (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
actually, on both the pages. But I think, pizero, you might be thinking about the IRC chat — you had said in a PM “Category:men doesn’t not exist”, something similar what is written above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 21:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Two especially vexatious categories in our hierarchy are Category:Women and Category:World.

Trying to reconstruct this, the other primary locus of discussion afaik is Category talk:Women; the other article discussed (but not discussed at that article) would be this. --Pi zero (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)