Talk:Devyani Khobragade incident

Inclusion of what Khobragade's husband does when first introducing her
§ The description of what Devyani Khobragade's husband does at University of Pennsylvania is not relevant. Her role as the wife of some man we do not know, does not make sense to include when first introducing her. It may even be somewhat sexist to include it since you are implying that what the husband is more important than what she does; We don't need this in 2017.

173.68.145.230 (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

what the hell? Kuch bhi? where's sexist it that? uhh, woke intellectuals. 2405:201:6802:5072:470:676F:9487:7807 (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

what's 2405:201:6802:5072:470:676F:9487:7807 (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Name: "Sangeeta Richard" vs. "Sangeeta Richards"
This article used both "Richard" and "Richards". Sangeeta Richard redirects here. Currently, there is noo redirect for Sangeeta Richards. I get 207,000 google hits for "Sangeeta Richard" and 34,800 google hits for "Sangeeta Richards". I haven't made changes to the article regarding this, but it looks to me like the article should use "Sangeeta Richard" consistently, probably with a note on first mention that her family name is sometimes seen spelt as "Richards". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You can make it easier, if you are already aware about it. Not even first time that we are having confusion with richard or richards. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to make the change, but everything is so contentious here I thought that I would give people a chance to object or comment. Barring that, I'll probably clean up to consistently use Richard tomorrow. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Richard" is the correct name and I support your doing this.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   12:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I made the change. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Court documents
and I are presenting this RfC after discussing this issue on this talk page and at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Thank you to everyone who comments.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   02:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for posting the Rfc. Notice you had made an interesting last minute addition with the Snowden case. Look forward to an interesting weekend discussion time Prodigyhk (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * 1) Support adding documents into the article.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   02:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Not support adding primary court documents into article space. Prodigyhk (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not support adding documents, I cant see any reason why they would add any value to the article, anything of note can be referenced from secondary sources, but you dont need the actual documents. MilborneOne (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not support as per WP:PERTINENCE - Textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image. I'm agnostic, however, as to the claim that the documents are POV and should be excluded on that basis, or that it's inappropriate to use primary sources. The only reason I don't support is because it is a clumbsy way to present information. Salient extracts from the documents can be incorporated into the article and cited to the documents themselves with the introductory lead-in "prosecutors alleged that [limited extract from document goes here]" etc.; posting documents in their entirety is overkill. BlueSalix (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not support except as external link  as I agree that a picture of a document is probably not that helpful to the page. Having the DOJ page as an external link seems to me the best way to allow interested readers to access the information. Wieno (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed the heading here to better reflect the position I set out. Wieno (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting, . To clarify, the picture links to the document which anyone could read, so it is more than a mere picture.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   03:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I understand that, and clearly the article should have some kind of link to the documents. Right now that link is through what is effectively a picture of the document that links to the doc on Commons. From a formatting/aesthetical perspective, I think a better way of linking to the information is through External Links. I just don't think a picture of a document (where the text in the picture is so small that no useful information is imparted from it) is the best way to make the documents accessible to readers. Wieno (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support linking only. Using the images seems POV, and unneeded, anything contained in the documents themselves that are noteworthy should be reported through the filter of reliable media sources, rather than relying on primary sources. It would seem appropriate to use the original documents for non-controversial claims that are not covered by other sources, or as an external link. It would benefit a reader who wants to investigate for themselves so there is no reason we have to make them hunt for what is already found. Likeliest best choice is to to do just an external link. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * support as reference or external link it is certainly notable, RS and in the public domain, so there is no need to keep it outc/censor. However, extended citations of the wording may not be appropriate, but as a reference or an external link should suffice in reporting the incident.Lihaas (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support external link as consistent with WP:BLPPRIMARY "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies" and oppose including image of long documents per pertinence argument above: WP:PERTINENCE "Textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image". 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed resolution
This RfC has demonstrated that others are less enthusiastic about putting document images in the article than I am. Some people have suggested including external links, and there are not strong POV concerns with linking to this documents somehow. I still would like some link to these documents in the external links section. , if any of the below options seem good to you, then I would support closing this rfc if you would select one of them for resolution. If you chose one of these, I would add it to the external links section and close this.


 * Option 1


 * Option 2


 * Option 3


 * Option 4


 * Option 5

I prefer one or two, but any of these would satisfy me and all of them are good options.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   12:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Option 5 as an External Link. Prodigyhk (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

American Embassy School
I am reverting the following text:
 * The New York Times disclosed that Indian Income Tax and Immigration authorities had uncovered proof of work-permit, visa and income tax fraud involving family members of US diplomats at the American Embassy Schools.

There are a number of problems: GabrielF (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The phrase "uncovered proof of work permit, visa and income tax fraud..." is not neutral. They uncovered what they claimed was proof of...
 * 2) The word disclosed in the phrase "The New York Times disclosed" is not neutral. The Times reported. (See WP:CLAIM)
 * 3) The source does not indicate that the alleged fraud involved family members of US diplomats. It specifically refers to "female teachers whose husbands will also be teaching at the school".
 * 4) (minor) "Income Tax and Immigration" should not be capitalized in this context.
 * 5) (minor) Per the source, it is the "American Embassy School" not the "American Embassy Schools".


 * You did not revert with your corrections. You simply deleted the entire thing. So, I am reverting the phrase in keeping with your concerns.109.134.122.220 (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Devyani Khobragade incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131224110957/http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-12-20/news/45418104_1_work-visa-housekeeper-u-s-embassy to http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-12-20/news/45418104_1_work-visa-housekeeper-u-s-embassy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Devyani Khobragade incident. 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/20131225164018/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
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140112010403/http://web.wm.edu/so/monitor/interviews/04-2/01-may.pdf to http://web.wm.edu/so/monitor/interviews/04-2/01-may.pdf

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) 19:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)