Talk:Uddhab Bharali

September 2018

Fixing this, appreciate non-reverts until cleanup is complete Mallikarjunasj (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME

Per my research, while Bharali appears to be notable per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, he does not appear to be a public figure, so per WP:BLPCRIME, recent allegations should not be included in the article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Beccaynr, my friend, with due respect, I want to say that, as Mr. Bharali is a public figure, the recent incident and (Redacted) are too not so lightweight. I would recommend including the section. If the judiciary found him not guilty, then that too be added and the outcome will be a neutral one. Let's be neutral here. None is above the law. - --Arunudoy ^(talk) 04:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Arunudoy - the public figure article linked to the WP:PUBLICFIGURE policy includes in its definition a person "often widely of concern to the public", and based on my research, Bharali does not appear to fit this definition. He does not appear to routinely be in the news in the manner a politician or celebrity would, and instead is relatively unknown by comparison, so per BLP policy, we should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. His notability is currently based on his work as an inventor and his philanthropy. If this changes with a criminal conviction, then the policy states it can be included, but because this is a BLP, especially for someone relatively unknown, material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. I also agree a neutral point of view is important, and the NPOV policy includes a section about WP:PROPORTION that states news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially concerning recent events that may be in the news, which I think emphasizes the concern about including this information in this article now. Similarly, the Wikipedia is not a newspaper policy seems to weigh against adding breaking news reports, and WP:NOTSCANDAL includes, Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard. Overall, I think the policies read together encourage caution at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

On balance I am sided with Beccaynr. If re-inserted unless clear consensus reached I will be minded to raise a BLPN. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• I propose for "Controversy" section. --Arunudoy ^(talk) 06:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• 'Object: Per above. seems like an attempt to Bludgoen through. BLPN raised, which could go either way. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)