Talk:Uddhab Bharali

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

September 2018

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

'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)[reply]