Contents

Talk:Shehla Rashid

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 March 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

Page views of this article over the last 365 days: Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 articles India: Delhi / Jammu and Kashmir Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Delhi (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir (assessed as Low-importance). Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Feminism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

• The recent controversy needs a mention under the controversies section.
• Poorly phrased last line of the lead saying "participating and organising in sloganeering" makes no sense needs to be correctly phrased. Same with the last line of political party section saying "However has now resigned from the same." Shouldn't be written in present perfect.
• line saying "and pioneering the decision to camp at UGC" suggest the writer's biased POV. AnM2002 (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• While I agree that there is a clear POV on this page, I would suggest that we need to really work on mentioning this latest revelation by her own father. @AnM2002 and RegentsPark: do you have any suggestion on how we can work on this? Sachin.cba (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sachin.cba,this diff [1] reverted by @RegentsPark:,according to me was in concurrence to BLP guidelines, we can discuss what’s wrong and proceed accordingly.AnM2002 (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if this is worth putting in the article or not but, generally, BLPs are treated with special care regarding controversial information. Make sure that the source is high quality (WP:BLPSOURCE), that the content being added is meaningful (WP:BLPGOSSIP) and in line with other elements of WP:BLP. The discussion started here is a good idea, thanks for doing that. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the very reliable source like Indian Express would be ignoring this event and Rashid would have ignored too if it wasn't important. But given the coverage and relevance here I don't see any issue with adding the following:

Abdul Rashid Shora, father of Shehla Rashid, claimed on December 2020 that Rashid took Rs. 3 crore from a businessman for joining Jammu and Kashmir People's Movement (JKPM) and Shora complained that his family is threatened by Shehla. Shehla Rashid has rejected these allegations.[2]

Sachin.cba (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This story is still unfolding with Shehla releasing statements about this issue. We may as well wait for a few days before adding, so that a balanced phrase may be formulated for this issue. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed we wait a few days more for the story to unravel completely but what about other potential POV elements all over the article any suggestions ? AnM2002 (talk) 08:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The UGC protest thing has been mentioned twice once in the lead and again in the section on activism. I propose that both of them be combined into one under the section dealing with activism or vice-versa.AnM2002 (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - the purpose of the lead is to summarise the article. It should be summarising or highlighting stuff that is in the section on activism.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1:I understand what the purpose of lead is but having the exact same lines in the main section without any additional information is not sensible.

• Inputs needed. A fellow editor Toddy1 reverted these edits [3] [4] that I made. I would request other editors to weigh in and suggest how to proceed further. My rationale behind the edits is under December 2020, reply to Toddy1[5]. AnM2002 (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really think it is better to discuss different elements under different headings.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AnM2002: I have just put back some of your proposed changes to the article, together with things that appeared to be agreed on. At the same time I added citations for some statements that were uncited. I have not changed "Shora" to "Shehla Rashid" because this was not agreed, and you may decide to propose that the article name is changed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The text says the following, and an editor tried to remove the struck-through words:[6]

Shora unsuccessfully contested the election for the student election to Gender Sensitisation Committee against Sexual Harassment in 2014.^[1]

I cannot see why anyone would disagree with that, but

• The article name is Shehla Rashid, so should we not use that name instead of Shora
• The source only mentions that she was a candidate. We need another citation for whether she was elected or not. This one would do.^[2]
• There is a missing word "the" that should be before "Gender".
• To make any sense we need to explain that the Gender Sensitisation Committee against Sexual Harassment is "the internal complaint committee of JNU"^[3] that deals with sexual harassment.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can, but no harm in using last name of the subject. AnM2002 (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May be we should move the page to "Shehla Rashid Shora". Shora seems like her real surname. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Agreed' we should move the page as proposed by Kautilya3. AnM2002 (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article was originally called Shehla Rashid Shora. On 1 February 2019, DBigXray moved page Shehla Rashid ShoratoShehla Rashid: "per WP:COMMONNAME as reported in media, She is almost always referred by the first and middle name, the use of Shora in her name is rare in mainstream media". If you want to change the article name, I suggest that you make a proposal using the process at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move. Looking at the first sixteen citations in the article, nine use "Shehla Rashid", five use "Shehla Rashid Shora", one uses "Shehla Rasheed Shora", and one does not mention her in the written text. For non-Indians, the present article name is confusing because it suggests that her family name is Rashid.

MOS:SURNAME says that "After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only". This would fine if the article name were Shehla Rashid Shora, because it would be clear to the reader who was meant by Shora. But it is very confusing if Shora is not used in the article name. Remember a lot of people skim read, and so may not have picked up that Shora is her family name. To present easily understood text in the article we have either got to call her Shehla Rashid throughout, or to call her Shora throughout and have Shora in the article name.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article in The Hindu treats Rashid as though it were her surname, for example: "In September, the court had granted Ms. Rashid protection from arrest..." and "Ms. Rashid’s tweets".-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy1 MOS:SURNAME also says "When a majority of reliable secondary sources refer to persons by a pseudonym, they should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (e.g. Sting, Snoop Dogg, the Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is used." I get that Shehla Rashid is a real name, not a pseudonym, but I think this policy would apply. If most sources call her "Shehla Rashid", then we should refer to her as "Rashid" in this article. I agree that "Shora" is confusing.VR _talk 18:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the edit I reverted, the other editor deleted:

<ref name=YouTube>{{cite web | url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_hoAs3iBSo | title=Shehla Rashid on Section 66A New Guidelines | publisher=YouTube | date=18 December 2012}}</ref>

I am sure that deleting it is the right thing to do. The statement it is cited for has other sources (which I have not checked). Youtube is sometimes useful, but needs to be used with great caution.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]