Talk:Devyani Khobragade

Sources and neutrality
The article needs quite a bit of work. Some of the sources are rather dubious, such as her own father or an interview with her. Also, every single source needs to be checked for misrepresentations - some of those were fixed already, but I just found another one, and I doubt it's the last one. The wording should also be improved; it's hardly neutral right now and has too many quotes from primary sources. Huon (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This article has a massive undue weight problem
The criticism section needs to be trimmed down substantially. As it stands, the article seems to serve mostly denunciatory purposes. Wefa (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please share some sources which could be used to develop this article as you like? What sources do you feel are not denuciatory? How can those sources be better represented?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  22:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * that is not the point. Undue Weight is a pretty clear issue. and can be remedied easily by appropriate trimming. Most of the world does not need to hear about long gone scandals of questionable authenticity. The whole "she bought an appartment" thing should be removed from Wikipedia alltogether, and your indignation that some Dalits actually earn money and make a decent living is completely misplaced here either. (FWIW, its probably misplaced everywhere, even more so here). Wefa (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not know what content you are criticizing so please forgive me for not understanding. What do you propose to remove? You seem cross with me - if you wish to talk by phone or Skype then I would be happy to talk to you by voice to try to address your concerns in a more human way. You could email me at Special:EmailUser/Bluerasberry if you wish to do this. Thanks for developing this article.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal information removed
WP:BLPPRIMARY says: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." I have accordingly removed such information and the public record it was based on. Huon (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Primary records ought not be cited but some details, like home value and personal finances, have been part of this person's public persona and media presence. The context is that the subject of this article made a public declaration of being a member of a low-income demographic and applied for a public-subsidized housing program intended for people who need assistance for underprivileged persons. The subject of this article is a dalit or "untouchable" and it is well known that this class of people get public benefits. I agree that no primary sources should be cited, but when personal finances are part of the reason why a person is in the news continually over a period of time then it may be appropriate for inclusion. So much was changed in the edits done lately that it is not immediately clear what should be kept and what removed.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  22:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can hear dog whistle phrases when bumped on them - and this very much looks like that. This stuff should be removed. Wefa (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you proposing to remove?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Children's Passport Issue
It is completely irrelevant for the biography of a living person what passport her children have. Children of binational couples always have two nationalities initially, and no amount of nationalist legislation can change that. And no, that it was mentioned in some scandal rag or blog doesn't change that a bit.

This scandal mongering has no place in Wikipedia. Im am going to remove the reference - again - unless you can come up with compelling reasons why this would belong into a biographical article. Wefa (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason this should be included is because the children's dual citizenship was reported as part of the passport/visa controversy in multiple reliable sources. I do not think it is fair that you are dismissing some of India's most popular and respected sources of journalism as scandal rags and blogs. Here are some sources which thought this topic notable:
 * Do you feel that these sources are not reliable? Do you feel that these stories do no constitute significant coverage worth summarizing in Wikipedia? Please tell me more about your concern. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * you keep behaving like I couldn't smell a turd. This is people trying to cook up another scandal,. for quite obvious reasons. Attacking an international couple for the two nationalities of their children in insincere and unwarranted. Basically, national laws by and large do not acknowledge the fact of international marriages and its legal consequences. These laws are meant to be broken, and they are politely ignored and circumvented all the time. I recently chatted to this old lady who had "renounced" her old citizenship when she took the one of her husband when she followed him across half of the earth. "Of course I never told the embassy". She simply holds two passports now, and nobody really wants to know. And she's not exactly unknown either - the embassy considers her an expat and used her in semi-official functions even though they know she was married to a high ranking officer for several decades. And the local authorities aren't exactly in the dark, either. What we have here is people searching for a reason to raise a stink, and the motivation is exactly the same as in similar cases in the US - because they dislike the fact that there is someone who successfully used the advantages the Indian version of "affirmative action" gives her. I also venture to guess those publications you quote are considered conservative in the Indian political context. We should not play this game. Unless there is a final criminal conviction on this, it should not be in the article. Wefa (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem upset. I am unable to understand what you want. I regret that my actions make you unhsppy. If you like, email me at Special:EmailUser/Bluerasberry and perhaps if we had a video or voice chat this conversation would be more friendly. I wish to summarize what the existing sources say. I do not want to talk about the political context of this here. If you like, I will help request other opinions about this. Perhaps you should just do what you like per WP:BRD and then we get other opinions about it.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Bluerasberry, this is not about my feelings, this is about very real concerns I have with this article. I have voiced these concerns in several places on this talk page, but you keep completely ignoring the factual critique and instead try to make this into a matter of personal happiness.
 * Do you feel that these sources are not reliable? Do you feel that these stories do no constitute significant coverage worth summarizing in Wikipedia? Please tell me more about your concern. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * you keep behaving like I couldn't smell a turd. This is people trying to cook up another scandal,. for quite obvious reasons. Attacking an international couple for the two nationalities of their children in insincere and unwarranted. Basically, national laws by and large do not acknowledge the fact of international marriages and its legal consequences. These laws are meant to be broken, and they are politely ignored and circumvented all the time. I recently chatted to this old lady who had "renounced" her old citizenship when she took the one of her husband when she followed him across half of the earth. "Of course I never told the embassy". She simply holds two passports now, and nobody really wants to know. And she's not exactly unknown either - the embassy considers her an expat and used her in semi-official functions even though they know she was married to a high ranking officer for several decades. And the local authorities aren't exactly in the dark, either. What we have here is people searching for a reason to raise a stink, and the motivation is exactly the same as in similar cases in the US - because they dislike the fact that there is someone who successfully used the advantages the Indian version of "affirmative action" gives her. I also venture to guess those publications you quote are considered conservative in the Indian political context. We should not play this game. Unless there is a final criminal conviction on this, it should not be in the article. Wefa (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem upset. I am unable to understand what you want. I regret that my actions make you unhsppy. If you like, email me at Special:EmailUser/Bluerasberry and perhaps if we had a video or voice chat this conversation would be more friendly. I wish to summarize what the existing sources say. I do not want to talk about the political context of this here. If you like, I will help request other opinions about this. Perhaps you should just do what you like per WP:BRD and then we get other opinions about it.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Bluerasberry, this is not about my feelings, this is about very real concerns I have with this article. I have voiced these concerns in several places on this talk page, but you keep completely ignoring the factual critique and instead try to make this into a matter of personal happiness.


 * This article has a massive undue weight problem, which is completely out of bounds for a biography of a living person. This article has relatively modest information on Khobragade, but gorges in listing every minor detail of every minor scandal anyone every tried to implicate here with. This violates both letter and spirit of Wikipedia Policy. Your argument that all these quotes have at some point been written in this or that newspaper, that is completely beneath the point. Wikipedia is not the collection of everything that has ever been written in a paper. You as editor are expected to exercise prudent judgment about what to include and to which extent. The editors of this article have mostly failed in that judgement, and they have done so such consistently and which such a clear direction (namely, to smear Khobragade) that the assumption of ulterior motives is not entirely unwarranted.
 * To remedy this situation I will now - again - trim this article down. The passport issue will go completely, as will the language course nonsense, the Adarsh situation will be mentioned but not harped on, and the quota reference in the lead will have to go, too. And please do not again revert my trimmings without discussing it on this talk page first. Wefa (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you here Wefa, I have been very concerned about the way this article is developing, particularly the efforts made to include primary sources. A trim is long overdue. --nonsense ferret  09:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A trim may be warranted but it should happen with consultation. Wefa, you just removed 14k of content without comment. Wikipedia summarizes what is published. Do you feel that the sources being cited do not meet WP:RS? Do you feel that the content of this article is not an accurate summary of the sources? You may talk with me but if you need to assume that I have ulterior motives then I can help you get other comments here. I feel that you are making a decision that cited information from newspapers should not go in Wikipedia without providing a justification for making this decision. As I have told you before, if you do not want to write here you can email me and we can talk by phone. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * do you actually read what I wrote? I precisely told you why the article needed to be trimmed. It violates WP:BLP, especially with respect to WP:UNDUE. And I will trim it again, and please stop blindly reverting me. I have discussed my edits multiple times here, while you have studiously avoided to even cursory discuss the issues I brought up. Stop this now! 18:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wefa (talk • contribs)
 * Perhaps I did not read or perhaps I have some foolish problem. In any case I do not understand. You are removing 14k of content, a huge amount, and while I cannot speak to all of it, I feel that overall it is a good reflection of the sources cited. As I understand, you have no problem with the sources and you have no complaint about how they are cited. You seem to be saying that while journalists publish things, Wikipedians should be "expected to exercise prudent judgment about what to include and to which extent" because a lot of it should not be included. Your judgment says "The passport issue will go completely" and dismiss the multiple sources I cited to newspapers because this is just an attempt by journalists to "cook up another scandal" when the subject of the article was just transgressing "laws (that) are meant to be broken, and they are politely ignored and circumvented all the time" and "those publications you quote are considered conservative in the Indian political context". The papers I cited are leading news sources, including India's newspaper of record. I hear what you are saying.
 * I was thinking of getting some other comments from the neutral point of view noticeboard. I was going to say that I want Wikipedia to summarize the existing sources and that I do not understand your position, but that yours is contrary to mine. How do you feel about my getting other comments?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you are happy to refer it for further comments, I have taken the liberty of notifying the BLP/N forum WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard where this article had already been referred in draft form. --nonsense ferret  21:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's what I wanted to suggest, too. This is a BLP, and the BLP policy and the conflict resolution process assigned to it are the overarching policy governing this article. @Bluerasperry: please read WP:BLP. Do not just scan it. Read it from beginning to end. Then, if you didnt understand it, read it again. Every single issue you wish to include in the article(or whose trimming you protest) violates one or more of the rules therein. Wefa (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur that this article, in Blueraspberry's preferred version, had severe BLP problems. Entire paragraphs of that version are irrelevant to Khobragade and only serve to discuss misconduct that wasn't actually hers but which she supposedly was "implicated" in despite a lack of sources implicating her. Other sources were misrepresented to support factually incorrect, possibly libelous claims. I have left a comment to that effect at the BLP noticeboard. And that's not even addressing the WP:UNDUE issues. Wefa's preferred version may be a little too short in places, but it's better overall and does not violate WP:BLP. Huon (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course shills go ahead and remove the only reason for the existence of this article:- 1) Her Visa Scam + breaking minimum Wage laws in America As if Indians treat and pay their servants/poor properly. As if it is not highly probable that she being an Indian was probably breaking minimum wage law. As if minimum wage of US 7$ an Hour translates to 350Rs an hour. What servant gets paid 350Rs an hour in India?? As if servant being an indian herself wouldn't mind getting even 1/2 of the minimum wage.

2) Her father(a high post government officer) literally manipulating the diplomat selection rules to benefit only her specifically. Its not like he was found guilty and fired and fined http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/MEA-bent-rules-to-favour-Devyani-Khobragade/articleshow/27744181.cms

3) She was part of the Adarsh Scam. Of course that scam was trivial. Its not that the scam toppled A Chief Minister (equivalent to US senator)

Clearly people who come to her wiki page are not there just because of the above points. Clearly people who come here are interested in some random Indian Foreign Service officer's career...its not they add about 2000 of these officers each year.

wikipedia...is not a big joke. My next post will not come from jail (assuming they kill me for this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.117.39 (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Keeping citations orderly
, this article is contentious. You just added a lot of content to it. Thank you a lot for that because I think it shows sincere intentions to develop the article according to Wikipedia's policies. I might develop your contribution further by copying your citations to the end of every sentence instead of just at the end of paragraphs - what do you think? It would be my hope in doing this to prevent future controversy if the article is rearranged or further questioned.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  14:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , please go ahead :-) R0x5r (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I will get to it. There is a content dispute happening right now which includes some of this content.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Devyani Khobragade. 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/20140419020446/http://dga.rutgers.edu/index.php/news-events/global-affairs-seminar-speakers/dr-aakash-singh-rathore/ to http://dga.rutgers.edu/index.php/news-events/global-affairs-seminar-speakers/dr-aakash-singh-rathore/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion nomination
Earlier the page was CREATED as Devyani Khobragade and nominated for deletion in 2013 and as per discussion Articles for deletion/Devyani Khobragade incident moved to Devyani Khobragade incident, as such this page Devyani Khobragade needs to be deleted.Please go through the deletion link. Jethwarp (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The rationale doesn't scan. The article was created in 2014, and therefore can't have been nominated in 2013. Also, nothing in the linked deletion suggests that the article was moved. It was closed as Withdrawn and not Move. If it had been moved, a redirect would have been left, which I am going to do. -- Auric   talk  11:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You recently proposed a redirect. Why not go through the WP:AfD process if you want this removed?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Because a redirect is better than deletion.-- Auric   talk  18:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer to leave the article to stand without merge or deletion. What should we do next, or how should we decide?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also be glad if the article was left alone. The OP has a rather convoluted reasoning for deletion and the redirect was better than the speedy they posted.-- Auric   talk  21:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have put CSD nomination again, let some Administrator, review CSD. The page Devyani Khobagade was moved to Devyani Khobragade incident as per 2013 discussion. Therefore, the consensus was that although individual is not notable but incident is, so the page renamed renamed. - Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)