Talk:Durga Shakti Nagpal

Why this page

There is no reason to delete this page. Its not against the national security or any humiliating stuff. Its just the truth that is put here. She is not a celebrity but from the number of hits you received from this page, you know how important this page is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chalapaka (talk • contribs) 17:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Durga Shakti Nagpal is no flash in pan phenomenon

The Indian Administrative Service to which Durga Shakti Nagpal belongs is mostly a demoralized lot. People like her are not too many and set the bar for new entrants to Indian bureaucracy. She is also an inspirational example for Indian youth. A WIKIPEDIA entry in her name may do good to society at large. The young lady has taken a bold stand against criminal elements who draw support from political establishment, as such her example should help Indian society in keeping a check on undesirable and anti-social elements. Ashok Malik (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Need clarification of non-notability

There are many reference provided in page nominating her notability, please provide the reason for deletion of article else it will be restored. - Gaurav Pruthi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.19.39.117 (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works - there is already a large discussion going on at the AfD page (as linked at the top of the article). The result of that discussion would determine this article's fate. Thanks! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 18:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Tags

The tags for copy editing and layout improvement have been added. Can some editors point out the problems here on the talk page so I and other editors can improve the article. Since I have already extensively edited the article, i feel i might not recognise the errors that everyone is talking about, so this needs fresh set of eyes. The help would be appreciated. Thanks! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 21:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This article surely needs a lot of improvements as many experienced editors said on the AfD discussion page. I have started on a few modifications. The following are some areas I can think of where more improvements can be made:

1. Readability from an international perspective: Wikipedia is not an Indian encyclopedia - language should be improved so that everyone can understand the article. Including abbreviated designations, etc. without explanations are not helpful.
2. Excessive detail: there is too much of detail given in some cases. Every single thing that Nagpal did in her career need not be included. Some sections need to be shortened.
3. NPOV - the alternate view (that of the villagers is limited to one tiny paragraph currently with less visibility. - Aurorion (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for you improvements. I usually edit in military history articles, and i am inexperienced in BLPs. 1) I tried to mention the full form once, when used first, and abbreviated/used acronyms subsequently. 2) I think her career, specially the places she was posted to, should be mentioned accurately here. See for example Edward Snowden. 3) The alternate view is only given by 2 sources out of hundreds, and the second source seems to be a close copy of the first. Seemed undue to me. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 23:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Just saw the post at the noticeboard. After looking at the Snowden page, I have taken the liberty of rearranging the sections myself. May do some major work too. Here are some suggestions:--

• Cut down on the phrase usage, example: "followed the order in letter and spirit".
• Currently, there seems to be a citation overkill, the lead section and the infobox usually can go without them since they just summarise what is being explained below. Usually inline citations are put at end of paras, questionable claims, direct quotes and figures.
• It still needs to follow WP:NPOV, since it relies on mainly newspapers, there are quite a bit of instances of editorialising and peacock wordings. Also the obvious local terms.
• New section-> Kadalpur, can it be expanded further?

Also, tell me how are you planning to proceed so everyone can co-ordinate accordingly. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• I will follow your lead, as I usually do not edit articles related to BLPs/politics etc., and will try to help in any way i can. I too think there is a citation overkill (specially in the lead, and in the sand mining section), but each of them says a lot of different things, so I am unable to decide which to keep. May be the info in the references can be written in more detail - that is true for the references in the sand mining section.
• I know that references are usually kept at the end of a paragraph, but i used them right after every statement of fact, so that there is no problem for other editors in verifying them. A paragraph may have info about 3 or 4 facts etc, and so keeping all the references at the end may confuse others. In my edits, I tried to remove a lot of weasel phrases, mostly to remove any concerns regarding close paraphrasing of sources - some may have been missed by me.
• I have no problem with the "Kadalpur" section, but not many sources talk about that - in fact, there were local rallies organised supporting both sides in Kadalpur itself. But they seemed more like political maneuvering and happened 5-6 days after the 29 July, and so I decided not to include that.
• The only people opposing Nagpal's actions seem to be the SP government, and its leaders. Almost everyone else says otherwise. I would prefer to wait till the government takes the final decision on her suspension before filling this article with speculation or commentary from any of the 2 sides. However, i did include reactions by particularly notable people - generally people with very high rank who have chosen to speak about the incident. Thanks for your help. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

No need to thank, I'm interested in this too and good job so far. So everything is fine then...let's get to work. I'm on the Kadalpur section currently and using the source which you've provided. Let's use the edit summaries to co-ordinate so that we don't end up clashing over the same edit. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

All right! :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

So far, so good.

This link shows that, after her marriage she changed her surname to Singh. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Where does it say that she changed her surname? The article says, "Hailing from Chhatisgarh, Durga Shakti Nagpal, 28, had always been a bright child." Anir1uph | talk | contrib 16:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Really sorry, false alarm, I'm seriously sleep deprived. I misread this, "Initially assigned to the Punjab cadre, she got it changed after the marriage as Singh was working in UP" and without thinking, posted this. My bad. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha OK! :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 03:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This edit where unsourced content was removed was actually cited to this broken link. I fixed the citation now, and have added it back.

Also, "She obtained All India Rank 20 in the UPSC Civil Services Examination in 2009", I'm feeling uneasy about the format about this sentence, especially for international standards. How about putting something more precise like "She ranked 20 out of the 875 candidates in the examination" Any thoughts? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Did only 875 people take the UPSC civil services examination in 2009? I think 875 people cleared the examination. The total number of applicant must have been in thousands. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 11:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in the merit list, she was 20th among 875. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

She ranked 20 out of the 875 candidates who were successful in the examination How is this? Also, can you find out how many people appeared in 2009 UPSC? I tried but could not find that. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 14:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll try to find it and if I do, will promptly add it. Currently I'm onto something else and since already more than one user is working on this article nicely, I will edit here later if needed. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"Suspension" section

The section on Suspension is vague and does not give the reasons for the suspension. The reason for the suspension was not for "inspecting" the mosque wall, it was for (allegedly) demolishing it. Saying that the suspension was done after an "inspection" gives absolutely no information to the reader about what was the rationale of the suspension. Also, the sentence about the "list" (what list?) of officers including Dubey and Khemka is IMO needless editorializing.

I feel my previous edits with the following content is better, clearer and more NPOV:

Nagpal was suspended on 28 July 2013, a day after she allegedly demolished a wall of an under-construction mosque in Kadalpur village, in the Rabupura area of Greater Noida. The construction of the mosque had not been cleared by the state government.

Nagpal's supporters and some media sources claim that Nagpal did not order the demolition of the wall and was not even present at the site when the incident happened. It is alleged that Samajwadi party leader Narendra Bhati, who has cabinet-minister rank as the chairperson of the UP State Agro Industrial Corporation Limited, was responsible for getting her abruptly suspended because he was frustrated by Nagpal's drive against illegal mining. Later Narendra Bhati was recorded on video boasting about getting the officer suspended within 40 minutes.

However, some residents of Kadalpur village dispute this version of events, alleging that Nagapl personally supervised the demolition of the wall. They say that her suspension was, therefore, justified.

Please discuss. Thanks. - Aurorion (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There are sources which has compared her to the other civil servants known for their anti-corruption actions. That just gives a back ground IMO.

The response given by the residents in Kadalpur village is not clear. Only 2 sources cover it, but do not give an identical story. One reference has the villagers saying Nagpal demolished the wall, but in the other reference the villagers say they succumbed to the pressure of the awesome state power etc. On top of that, we do not know if that opinion is being held by some people in the village or the entire village. And of the hundreds of news reports, only 3 reports on the unhappy reaction of resident - of course they would be pissed - Nagpal got their allegedly illegal structure demolished. NPOV is fine, but we must keep in mind UNDUE too. I think it will be helpful to add that the incident is under investigation etc. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 11:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I think that any comparison of Nagpal to other civil servants and inclusion in any "lists" of heroes or whatever can be included in the Reactions section, but not in the section which talks about suspension. I think the "suspension" section should include just the facts about the incident.

There are many more than 3 reports which give the villagers' views on the incident: examples - 1, 2. But my point was more about the incident itself, rather than judgments on whether it was fair/legal/etc. There are plenty of sources which say that the suspension was for allegedly demolishing the wall, without saying that the allegation is incorrect. I think we should remove reactions (of the general public, villagers, etc.) from this section completely, but include details of the incident: (a) that Nagpal allegedly ordered the demolition of the wall, (b) this was the official rationale for the suspension, and (c) the allegation is disputed/under investigation. - Aurorion (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree completely on both points. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, I just temporarily arranged the sections like that since it was too congested before. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"Durga" versus "Nagpal"

Usually last names are used to refer to people in Wikipedia articles. For example, Manmohan Singh is referred to as "Singh" in the article, and not "Manmohan". So can we stick to this convention please? - Aurorion (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agree. (Gokulchandola (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC))

Edit request on 14 August 2013

Abhishek Singh (IAS) S/o. of Sh. Kripal Singh {IPS}Retired DIG who belongs from Village Mai Tusauri, Jalalpur District Jaunpur Uttar pradesh) Tarundubey18 (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

 On hold I could not find any source for that, can you provide one? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this even necessary? I don't think DSN's husband's father's village and district, etc. is necessary. - Aurorion (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Her Husband transfer

Durga Shakti Nagpal's Husband transfer to Jhansi. I don't think this is false news at all.?? I have linked with two sources, one is ABP New. Is that not reliable (Gokulchandola (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC))

I think the user was quite clear in the edit summary and I agree with it. It really seems a bit irrelevant here and also what I've told you before. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Currently the section says that Nagpal and her husband live in Greater Noida. If this transfer did happen, and if her husband has moved to Jhansi and no longer lives in Greater Noida, then the section needs to be edited to reflect this. If she has also moved to Jhansi with her husband, then that should be added too. But yes, you are right, we need (more) reliable sources. Thanks. - Aurorion (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Durga Shakti Nagpal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 22:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I am starting a review of this article. North8000 (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Review discussion

The sixth criteria is "Illustrated, if possible, by images" (italics added by me). I interpret "if possible" as "if reasonably possible". Is it reasonable possible to add at least one image to the article? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking up this review. Unfortunately, no free image of the subject seems to exist. —Vensatry _(Ping) 06:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Resolved. Although you still might consider a related image. I was in the same dilemma at Calvin Rutstrum and just put in a related one. Again, this is resolved and not needed for GA. North8000 (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a sentence which refers to the people that she was opposing as the "sand mafia". The use of this term to refer to them is unsourced, and I think that this borders on a wp:BLP situation which would require not just sourcing but strong sourcing and / or attribution. Suggest as a minimum finding a source that this term has been used to refer to them, and if it is not strong sourcing, it should probably be attributed rather than in the voice of Wikipedia. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Include with in quotes and added a ref. —Vensatry _(Ping) 04:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Resolved. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The lead said that her suspension was revoked, The lead should be a summary of the body of the article; this is not in the body of the article and so should be added. North8000 (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, the revoking of her suspension forms a vital context as far as this article is concerned. —Vensatry _(Ping) 04:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you but I don't think that you understand my comment. It's fine that it is in the lead, and I would suggest keeping it in the lead. The problem is that it is missing from the body of the article. So it should also be added to the body of the article. And, for such an important element, you might include more specifics that you have in the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that the coverage is in the article. So my comment was in error. Resolved. North8000 (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

• Meets this criteria. I think that development in this area would be good, but think that it meets GA criteria. North8000 (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable

• Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

• Meets this criteria, with respect to available sources. Coverage is more concentrated in higher profile areas and less in others, but this is a result of following the available sources. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

• Meets this criteria. I thin that it follows sources which follows general assessment. North8000 (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

• Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

• Meets this criteria. Has no images, but I believe that useful images are not feasibly available, this meeting the criteria as written. North8000 (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Result

Congratulations. This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, this has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article

(This is "duplicated" here for when the review is no longer transcended)

Congratulations, this has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Reviewer

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Durga Shakti Nagpal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130914172155/http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130913/news-current-affairs/article/durga-shakti-nagpal-reinstated-quietly to http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130913/news-current-affairs/article/durga-shakti-nagpal-reinstated-quietly
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130929082233/http://www.asianage.com/india/durga-s-suspension-quietly-revoked-234 to http://www.asianage.com/india/durga-s-suspension-quietly-revoked-234
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005022948/http://www.financialexpress.com/news/dalit-writer-held-for-fb-post-criticising-akhilesh-azam-over-nagpal-suspension/1152221 to http://www.financialexpress.com/news/dalit-writer-held-for-fb-post-criticising-akhilesh-azam-over-nagpal-suspension/1152221

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)