Talk:Disha Ravi

RPP
I have requested for temporary page protection at WP:RPP Vikram Vincent 08:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Move
Should the article be moved back to Disha Ravi? DTM (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes because there are cites from before her arrest so I have moved back Chidgk1 (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * She was notable before the arrest itself so keep at Disha Ravi itself. Vikram Vincent 16:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Aright. DTM (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Question of WP:NPOV
Never worked on wikipedia before. Don't know where to put comment. So her we go, Soryy for putting in wrong place. My comments on the page: This page does not makes sense unless you give link to the original "Toolkit" That is involved in whole controversy. Neither do you provide any links to reliable sources who has seen the original toolkit. Further article says "The toolkit, which is a standard social justice organizing toolkit was alleged to foment unrest by the Indian government." Here you are CLAIMING that the toolkit is a standard social justice organizing toolkit. I do not see anything that proves it, Further you reduce actions of Indian GOVT to just an allegation WHILE indicating that it's untrue. What are your sources on this. I Doubt if there are any reliable sources on this. One of the article I saw talks about toolkit with some snapshot BUT again reliability is suspect. you can check it on opindia website which talks about poetic-justice-foundation-greta-thunberg-farmer-toolkit-skyrocket-mo-dhaliwal

It appears that you are relying on some scroll article which claims Toolkit is a routine document. Is it really a reliable source? How about actually adding the original toolkit which is at the center of storm? Unless more reliable information is available All that is happening here is what India claims "a MisInformation campaign".

Article in present form is also ignoring statements from Police indicating her roles and it also ignores Separatist khalistani movement which is associated with this. This article looks very very biased and representing one side only. Perhaps write it up in a neutral manner and put claims from both sides properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.100.195 (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi! 1. Since the toolkit in question was linked to Greta, and is obviously controversial in this case, it does not make sense to link to it directly. 2. I think you have answered your own questions related to WP:RS. 3. When dealing with biographies of living people we follow WP:BLP and strictly enforce. A person is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law and all levels of appeal are exhausted. Further, any statement by police would be a violation of the privacy of the individual and prejudiced and hence WP:DUE weightage is provided. Hope that addresses your thoughts. Vikram Vincent 10:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Vikram, My concern regarding neutrality of one statement remains. It seems to suggest that it's really a standard toolkit which does not appear to be correct and is speculative. Statement : "The toolkit, which is a standard social justice organizing toolkit was alleged to foment unrest by the Indian government.". --Amit
 * Hi, I tweaked the language on that statement to make it more consistent with the sources. The toolkit is pretty standard, and has been evaluated as such by multiple outlets (the most indepth is Scroll.in) and is described as such by a wide range of journalists and other organizers. Sadads (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, First I would like to express sincere thanks for Team who accommodated my request and is reverting quickly to my thoughts/objections. Thank you for tweaking language. PLEASE note that the indepth review that you refer to(Scroll.in) is based on second version posted by greta. Controversy is because of initial version which greta shared, Indian govt is investigating first version and has not objected on second version. You also refer to scroll review(toolkit 2nd version) in Arrest section, Not sure if you should really use analysis of 2nd version when entire controversy is about first version, May be you review it again in case you missed this difference --Amit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.100.211 (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Amit! Have you come across any sources that analyses the first version of the toolkit? If yes, then do post them here or tag the articles if they are in the references already and we can add it. It would not be appropriate for an editor to do analysis as it would constitute WP:OR. Vikram Vincent 17:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * +1 to more sources. Part of the challenge (and I spend a lot of time following activist movements) is that bits and pieces of the press and twittersphere are treating this as if its some type of unusual tactic to have a communication toolkit (that by having a toolkit, that is a sign of criminality). This is not in fact the case -- such toolkits are a common practice and other sources I have read are highlighting that (though not finding non-twitter commentary on this immediately, because they are so many new sources)-- the police started with a claim that the document because it had multiple authors associated with different activist communities, is itself a sign of sedition or collusion -- which is a very warped/misinformation way of interpreting a very basic organizing tactic for social movements with a heavy communication component. The lead of the article only summarizes the general broad swath consensus information from the event -- the increased detail is in the section, that describes in more detail the interpretation parts. If you think we aren't summarizing broader information/perspectives in the lead, please also highlight that. Also, @Amit: you may want to create an account: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_create_an_account%3F -- it can help with privacy and information security on your end too, Sadads (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * CNN describes the toolkit as follows: "The toolkit instructs people to call government representatives, share solidarity hashtags on social media, participate in rallies, and sign petitions. It gained visibility after Thunberg tweeted a link to it on February 4, crediting "people on the ground in India," and RepublicWorld (Republic TV) offers a more detailed description: "It also urged people to participate in the farmers' tractor rally on Republic Day - which had ended in violence - killing one farmer and injuring 510 police officers. Later PFJ updated their 'toolkit' - which was again shared by Thunberg, aiming to get global attention on the ongoing farmers' protest urging people to tweet at PMO & Tomar, call or email govt representatives, sign online petitions, and on-ground action near the closest Indian Embassy, Media House, or your local Govt. office on 13th/14th February 2021. The updated 'toolkit' removed the Republic Day plan from the AskIndiaWhy's 'prior actions' - the 'plan' has now been denounced by PFJ." Beccaynr (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC) (comment updated with wikilink Beccaynr (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC))

Hi, I am sorry at this point I don't have reliable link to original document. I was looking for more information myself since controversy involves young activist and with serious charges. I came across articles like one on opindia that I mentioned earlier and also other ones which appeared different and that's when I realized existence of 2 versions but was not able to locate first version from reliable sources. Yes I understand why it's a challenge. I followed farmers movement in last 1 month and there are very polarizing views and misInformation is abundant. I will search for more informative reliable articles tomorrow and share some links. Most of the article state facts but I will read it again and suggest if any useful information is missing. Thanks --Amit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.100.211 (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I have updated Justice Deepak Gupta's statement on the toolkit since he claims to have read the doc. Vikram Vincent 06:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional sources: CBS News: "Thunberg shared the "toolkit" document on Twitter more than a week after clashes on January 26 [...] Police said they believed it was Ravi who shared the "toolkit" with Thunberg and then asked her to remove it from Twitter it after it was accidentally leaked."; Quint "Even the Delhi Police press release makes no mention of such a link between the violence on 26 January and the contents of the toolkit, which indeed only talk about lawful forms of protest, including social media campaigns. [...] The "action" sought to be precipitated according to the toolkit is not anywhere in the toolkit stated to include any sort of violence, which would mean that the tests laid down by the apex court in the Kedar Nath Singh judgment are not fulfilled either."; NDTV "Police claimed that Ms Thunberg allegedly deleted the tweet following Disha's request and later, shared an edited version of the document. They also claimed that the edits were made by 22-year-old Disha. Police sources said Disha wrote to Ms Thunberg on WhatsApp, saying, "Okay can you not tweet the toolkit at all. Can we just not say anything at all for a while. I am gonna talk to lawyers. I am sorry but our names are on it and we can literally get UAPA against us."" Beccaynr (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC) (comment moved Beccaynr (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC))
 * Another source: Quint: "As per a copy of the earlier toolkit accessed by The Quint, the document contained various guidelines under heads such as “Urgent Actions”, “Prior Actions”, and “How Can You Help”." Beccaynr (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * News Minute On February 3, Greta Thunberg had shared a tweet sharing a ‘toolkit’ or online campaign document on how to support the farmers’ protest. Although she deleted the tweet soon, since the dates mentioned in the document mentioned tweeting in January, that evening, Greta posted a new tweet sharing another ‘toolkit’ with updated details. The Delhi police registered an FIR the following day under sections 124A, 120A and 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)." Beccaynr (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

non-notable entities
It is better to not name non-notable entities while claiming relationships. Vikram Vincent 08:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2021
The toolkit had instructions for radicals to physically harm indian diplomats, and the connection of toolkit is conformed with radical khalisthanis groups and most probably with pakistgani terror funding groups ,the tooklit had instructions to "tarnish India's global image ". 2401:4900:4825:CC0D:2AF9:1C3C:864D:CEE5 (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 18:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting addtional details of the allegations filed in the case
The present article states one perspective from Scroll- that the toolkit is a "routine document".

Requesting the following addition to the article: "The government's sedition case is based on toolkit linking to material from the explicity Khalistani (Sikh separatist) Poetic Justice Foundation."

This may be sourced from any of multiple news organisations, or perhaps even from the original document temporaily shared by Greta. That may be found at: https://archive.is/9oF4n

I hope this is not denied on the basis that "the case is ongoing". An FIR has been filed, and the "toolkit" is a publicly available document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:228E:81F4:0:0:174F:8A1 (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. We must follow the Wikipedia policy: No original research, "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. [...] To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. [...] In general, the most reliable sources are:
 * Peer-reviewed journals
 * Books published by university presses
 * University-level textbooks
 * Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
 * Mainstream newspapers"


 * The linked policy has additional detail about the use of sources on Wikipedia, and states, "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." As noted in the discussion above, we are collecting sources, and have included more sources in the article about the toolkit in addition to Scroll.in. Please feel free to contribute reliable, published sources on this Talk page. Beccaynr (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The court dialogue shows claims are "conjectures" for the moment. See http://livelaw.in/top-stories/delhi-court-reserves-orders-on-disha-ravis-bail-plea-asks-evidence-linking-toolkit-jan-26-violence-170150 Vikram 07:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

see also section
Should we have a see also section? If yes, what or who would be a part of it? Vikram Vincent 10:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think yes, with Individual and political action on climate change, Climate movement, and perhaps Climate change. Beccaynr (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Clash of edits
I tried to do a copy edit - to change "was been" to "was", but when I published the change the edit history showed a much larger change. I assume someone else was editing at the same time and I was noted as the editor to make the larger change. I have reverted the edit that was credited to me in the edit history. Who ever else was editing recently, please re do your edit. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Overly detailed template
Hi ! Since the template you added lacked any explanation I'm opening this discussion. The template page says, This template is used to identify articles which, while comprehensible, contain excessive detail on trivial subjects and need to be refocused to suit a more general audience. Could you specify your reasoning with some examples. Thanks Vikram 09:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , the three major sections of the article, have too much details, which border on WP:NOTNEWS. since her arrest is a recent one, there are bound to be reactions from all sorts of people. However the whole article seems dedicated to only 1 event because of excessive details in the three sections. ChunnuBhai (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * there is a big paragraph that has copied Dr Apoorvanand's article verbatim. one whole paragraph for Advocate Rebecca John's reaction. The Court proceedings section is too detailed.ChunnuBhai (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi to follow up on the question from : What is it about an arrest for sedition and criminal conspiracy, or the reactions to that arrest that have occurred from around the world, that are, to quote the template page, trivial subjects? Which of the over 20 reactions should be ignored? If there are no trivial subjects, then this template should be removed. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

, the Arrest section may be rewritten as below. I have just cleaned up unnecessary detailed quotes from sources. No names have been deleted and all citations have been preserved.


 * I think the draft below could be a detriment to readers, because it would deprive them of encyclopedic content that would otherwise be available from the summary style prose in the article. It further appears that key context has been removed from some sections in the draft below, which also appears to be a disservice to readers. Beccaynr (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , in all the reactions to the arrest, there are only 3 broad contexts, support, oppose and legal opinions. There is no out of the box encyclopedic content or a legal argument that should deserve a special mention. All the reactions are the usual run of the mill attack-on-freedom-of speech, foreign-conspiracy, violation-of-constitution type of arguments. No context of the reactions have been removed in my draft. ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the reactions to the arrest have more depth and nuance, and while articles always benefit from review and polishing, I am concerned that trying to simplify a complex situation can be a disservice to readers and dilute the summary style prose of the encyclopedic content. Your simplification of the legal arguments is of particular concern, and seems to support being careful and erring on the side of detail when articulating what members of the legal community are saying, so readers do not misunderstand. Beccaynr (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

also, this is a BLP. Excessive quotes from the reactions makes the entire article look like BLP1E. ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I quoted that section from the template since it has a specific constraint which i s contain excessive detail on trivial subjects and need to be refocused to suit a more general audience. The points you raised do not address this main criteria. Those sections are related to the subject and the case and open to a general audience. For example, a deviation which would fot into the constraint would be if we focused on the details of the #MeToo movement or purely on dissent etc which should have a separate page since a reader would come to this page to read only about the subject and her specific details. since the reactions are by notable people and related to th subject they have a place on the bio.. The size of the quotes we can discuss individually. It will be better to keep drafts on $user/subpage rather than here on the talk page as it is cumbersome to deal when on a mobile device. Vikram 15:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's not get into anymore BLP1E discussions for the moment as we already went through an extensive AFD with no consensus. Vikram 15:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I have removed the draft due to the impact of its excessive size; it can be accessed from the page history (diff) and transferred to a user subpage, and individual quotes can be further discussed here. Beccaynr (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Which name to use or doesn't it matter?
The hatnote says to use Disha but the article uses a mix of Disha and Ravi. So I think either all the "Ravi" should be changed to "Disha" (except for direct quotes) or the hatnote should be removed. Because at the moment the contradiction looks a bit silly to the readers I think. If the hatnote is removed but names are hard for non-Indians to understand it perhaps could be explained somewhere less prominent than a hatnote. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would prefer the given name which is the first name i.e., Disha. I would have to look up what is the Wikipedia guideline on naming conventions. Do you have a link at hand? Vikram 08:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Reading through the template, I agree that the subject should be addressed as 'Disha' rather than 'Ravi'. Vikram 08:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So with Indian names there is no indication that we would deviate from the use of the surname/patronymic per Manual_of_Style/India-related_articles. You would never use a first name in any other biography name, Sadads (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I see After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only. For this subject with three names, which of them is the surname? Vikram 05:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

For info: The Economist after the first mention refers to her as "Ms Ravi", whereas for a Chinese person they would use the first name (e.g. Deng Xiaoping becomes Mr Deng on a later mention). Chidgk1 (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * +1 In this case, the international press appears to be using Ravi as the standard, Sadads (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)