Talk:Lawrence Liang

Copyvio?
The quotes taken from the essay "Shoot, Share and Create" are from a text which is in the Creative Commons license. I hope there is no copyright violation. --fredericknoronha 10:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability
There was a question about the subject's notability, and this article was tagged accordingly. I have removed that tag, because all you really needed to do was this:

Google Search for "Lawrence Liang"

Achitnis (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but where are the reliable sources in those links. The first two are Wiki and a self-published forum. As the guy is a scholar, he should follow the WP:ACADEMIC guidelines, and it doesn't seem to be the case. A google scholar search shows his publications have been cited by at most 4. That's insignificant. Google search is not enough to prove general notability either. Thus, until the article has proper citations from reliable tertiary sources, I'm reinstating the tag.--Boffob (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * have tried to make notability clearer by adding references and details of published book. Removed tag.--SasiSasi (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Lawrence Liang. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20061014204433/http://world-information.org/wio/readme/992003309/1102877551 to http://world-information.org/wio/readme/992003309/1102877551
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120426154545/http://www.altlawforum.org:80/intellectual-property/publications/articles-on-copyright-and-culture/shoot-share-and-create to http://www.altlawforum.org/intellectual-property/publications/articles-on-copyright-and-culture/shoot-share-and-create/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lawrence Liang. 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/20060823132639/http://www.altlawforum.org/PUBLICATIONS/shoot_share to http://www.altlawforum.org/PUBLICATIONS/shoot_share

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) 18:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Contentious edits
There are a few potentially contentious/libellous edits with misleading/incomplete information being added to this page. Several more experienced users have been reverting these pages. If you are an editor with potentially contentious information to add to this page, please initiate a discussion on the talk page before proceeding further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnemonic (talk • contribs) 10:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for protection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Lawrence_Liang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnemonic (talk • contribs) 03:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Reputation Whitewashing
People are whitewashing the article and deleting info on his sexual harassment inquiry finding. By that logic the Harvey Weinstein page should contain no mention of the sexual harassment allegations! In Liang's case a government university has found him guilty. As noted by Nikhil Cariappa, a suspicious attempt at repeated whitewashing is happening: https://twitter.com/NikhilCariappa1/status/979532465223036928 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamont.phil (talk • contribs) 16:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment Findings
I am reproducing what was deleted here? What is factually wrong here? He has been found guilty of sexual harassment by a government university inquiry committee, it has been reported on extensively in the media, and it as triggered a debate. In that case, please also whitewash Harvey Weinstein's page, as they are merely allegations.

/Contentious material redacted due to WP:BLP concerns. Chopps2018's version may be viewed here. / — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chopps2018 (talk • contribs)


 * He is not "guilty" of anything until a court conviction is secured against him. Until that time, contentious material about a living person may not be added to a BLP as per WP:BLPCRIME, WP:REDFLAG, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, as well as WP:UNDUE concerns. You are yet to address these issues. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  17:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Lawrence Liang Sexual Harassment
I am a professor of law. I am writing on this page as there been some discussion in legal academic circles in recent days over the sexual harassment issue mysteriously disappearing from the Wikipedia pages of Mr Lawrence Liang, the Alternative Law Forum and Ambedkar University Delhi, notwithstanding extensive media coverage. Apparently, Mr Liang's Wikipedia page has been locked from editing, and any person who makes any reference to the issue is being banned by Wikipedia. I share concerns that many people have about this development, given Mr Liang's influence and vast circle of friends in the cyber world and open source community, including the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia. While I recognise that Wikipedia has made an inestimable contribution to the spread of knowledge, it is largely unaccountable and a law unto itself. Its editors are usually faceless entities who may have zero legal knowledge, least of all about Indian law.

Let me just articulate a legal point of view. Ambedkar University Delhi was established under a Delhi government statute. It has the status of a "public authority" under Indian law, and its employees, including Mr Liang, have the status of "public servants". Following the Indian Supreme Court's decision in Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, and the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013, an employer is obliged to establish an Internal Complaints Committee to inquire into allegations of sexual harassment. Such a Committee is obliged to submit a report to the employer. It was such a Committee which recorded a finding that Mr Liang has sexually harassed a doctoral student at another university. Under the Act of 2013, a report of an Internal Complaints Committee may be publicly disseminated and/or accessed under the Right to Information Act of 2005, but without revealing the identity of the "aggrieved woman and witnesses". In all the media reports that I have read, this requirement has been scrupulously adhered to. Going by the media reports, the aggrieved lady could fall into any one of these hugely broad categories: 1) a doctoral student in law in any university in India, 2) a doctoral student in the social sciences in any university in India, and 3) a doctoral student in the humanities/social sciences in any university in India.

Wikipedia's censorship of the incident is puzzling, given the wide media courage of the issue and compliance with provisions of the Act. If it is Wikipedia's policy that only a criminal conviction of sexual harassment by a court of law can be reported, it is defensible only if Wikipedia consistently follows such a policy in the case of other individuals. This is clearly not the case. For example, the Wikipedia page of Justice AK Ganguly, a retired Supreme Court judge, stated that an internal committee (not a court of law) had recorded a finding that the judge had sexually harassed an intern, after retirement. In the case of Mr Harvey Weinstein, an entire page has been dedicated to his sexual harassment allegations (and these are allegations). It is certainly odd why Mr Liang is awarded preferential treatment by Wikipedia's editors. And if it is the case that the other cases retain such information because no one has lodged a complaint with any Wikipedia editor, then I have just done so :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington

Legal Eagle9999 (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Professor Legal Eagle9999. Thank you for the primer on Indian law, and also, welcome to Wikipedia! Let me start with a declaration that neither am I backing any horse in the race nor do I particularly care whether the allegations are true or not. However, as Wikipedia editors, we are expected to care about the policies and guidelines that are applicable on the project. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and by definition, a conservative project. Our users are expected to be particularly careful while editing biographies of living persons. This is to avoid doing inordinate harm to the lives and reputations of the people whom we write about. The [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living_Persons#Principles|

Arbitration Committee of Wikipedia]] has ruled in the following manner regarding cases concerning biographies of living persons:
 * "Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be 'do no harm.' This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached."
 * Therefore, it is crucial that these contentious additions to the article be discussed by editors on the talk page prior to their re-addition to mainspace. This is a matter of policy for Wikipedia as our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of free speech.
 * Thank you for pointing out precedents on my talk page &mdash; viz. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly, Harvey Weinstein, A. P. Abdullakutty and Rajendra K. Pachauri. One could also add Donald Trump to the list. These articles document serious allegations of sexual abuse against these individuals. However, these biographical articles are about well-known public figures. And on the other hand, the subject of this biography, while notable enough for a Wikipedia article, is a relatively unknown academic based in New Delhi. That is, he is not recognized outside of restricted and specialized academic circles. In such cases, policy on Wikipedia (see WP:BLPCRIME) requires editors to seriously consider avoiding adding accusations, allegations or investigations, until a conviction by a court of law is secured against such individual.
 * There are also substantive concerns regarding the quality of the references, and the representation of the facts contained therein, as well as with the additions recorded by earlier users such as the recently blocked Chopps2018. For example, this edit by Chopps2018 says:
 * "In February 2018, an inquiry committee at Ambedkar University Delhi, where Liang holds a faculty position, found Liang guilty of sexually harassing a female doctoral student on multiple occasions. [...]"
 * These edits do not document the fact that the AUD report was leaked and then released to the media without authorization of the committee. The committee has refused to comment on the issue due to the fact that it is bound by rules of confidentiality.
 * Furthermore, these edits do not clarify that when the alleged incidents took place, the subject of the biography was a PhD scholar admitted to another institution, and not in a position of authority or power at AUD.
 * The issues highlighted above raise serious questions regarding the accuracy of the edits as well as the quality of the sources used to back up those changes (see also, WP:REDFLAG: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources"), creating a false impression that is inordinately harmful towards the subject of the biography.
 * In addition to the above, please see Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view, which requires editors to give weight to aspects of the article that is proportionate "to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." (see WP:BALANCE)
 * I would like to remind you here that Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, a means for promotion of a particular viewpoint, or for scandal-mongering and sensationalism.
 * — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  18:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I will echo Nick word by word.BLP takes fundamental precedence. ~ Winged Blades Godric 13:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting that there are quite a few examples of "unknown academics" and their wiki pages reflecting allegations of sexual harassment (SH)- Jorge I. Domínguez, Terry Speed, Erick Guerrero, Sergio Verdú, Peter Ludlow. This was a 5 minute search, there are sure to be more such pages. Some of these cases haven't even been investigated (forget about being convicted in a court of law) and yet, I see no Wiki editors challenging the specific SH edits for those pages. Curious to know why Liang gets a free pass considering that he actually has been found guilty by a legally- formed committee.Ladybird1003 (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I missed your comment from three days ago, Ladybird. Please review WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. The crux of the issue here is not whether other biographical articles on academics include similar allegations of misconduct and harassment but whether the subject of the biography is a well-known public figure or not. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  05:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC on mention of alleged sexual harassment
Should the article include any mention of the allegations of sexual harassment against the subject? feminist (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Background information
I received this email from User:Ladybird1003 a few days ago:

Hi,

This is currently based in. I am writing to you because I and my friends need help with this case and I am hoping you can guide us? Lawrence Liang is a lawyer and well-known in India's academic and activist circles. He was recently convicted by Ambedkar University Delhi's committee for prevention of sexual harassment (CPSH) of sexually harassing a student as well as two interns at a law collective that he had founded. In India, the law requires such committees to be formed in every workplace, including universities, to deal with such matters in case the victim is unwilling to approach the police directly. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Harassment_of_Women_at_Workplace_(Prevention,_Prohibition_and_Redressal)_Act,_2013)

. If you see the source page, you can see all kinds of excuses have been given to prevent this fact from being mentioned in his page. Someone even said that he cannot be found guilty of SH since it wasn't a judgement passed by a court of law. This is a flat-out misinterpretation of the 2013 Act that explicitly allows internal complaints committees to investigate SH claims and pass judgements.

This fact about Liang is extremely important. He is still a teacher at the same university. FWIW, Harvey Weinstein's Wiki page has a full section devoted his SH allegations and he hasn't even been found guilty by any court or even a legally-constituted committee.

If there's any way you can help us with this, we would be extremely grateful. .

Some links to his conviction (all are well-known, credible Indian newspapers and portals): http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/aud-professor-found-guilty-of-sexual-harassment/article22988210.ece https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/lawrence-liang-found-guilty-sexual-harassment-survivor-says-punishment-inadequate-77670 https://www.firstpost.com/india/ambedkar-university-probe-finds-lawrence-liang-guilty-of-sexual-harassment-complainant-dissatisfied-4383195.html https://scroll.in/article/871321/why-ambedkar-university-held-law-professor-lawrence-liang-guilty-of-sexual-harassment

Hoping for your response.

Thanks,

As you may probably see from the article history, there had been a bunch of hit-and-run/meatpuppet accounts attempting to repeatedly insert such information into the article until the page was protected. Obviously these editors have violated a number of Wikipedia policies including BLP and SOCK, but if assuming good faith, perhaps instead of intentionally violating policies to irritate experienced editors, they are indeed confused by how Wikipedia works or are scared by the reaction from reverting editors. It is clear that these people feel strongly about this topic. I think this article would benefit from more discussion from more editors. feminist (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment on RfC

 * Hello, feminist. Have you reviewed WP:RFCBEFORE? I encourage you and your friends to participate in this discussion and address the BLP concerns raised above prior to starting this RfC so as not to waste the time of other editors? We must recognize that their time, a finite community resource, would be better spent resolving disputes where editor concerns and policy criteria are well-defined and laid out? —  Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  16:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not wish to participate in this discussion any more than starting this RfC, which I have attempted to word neutrally. FYI, I am not in any way involved with the subject of the article, and I do not personally know any editor who tried to insert material in this article, i.e. I do not have any "friends" regarding this topic and would refuse to act as a meatpuppet for anyone. I appreciate your work on ensuring that content in violation of BLP is inserted. I just feel that this would benefit from attention from more editors, especially admins. I get the feeling that these people who try to insert such content on this page feel that it's only a few editors who have an agenda against them reverting such content. feminist (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you have expressed your inclination to not participate in this discussion, please close this RfC in accordance with WP:RFCBEFORE so that a local discussion on content and policy may take place here. As far as I can tell, there are only single purpose accounts, sockpuppets, meatpuppets and other blocked editors attempting to reinsert defamatory material on this page without regard to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I do not see any good reason for established users to enable trolls and allow them to game the system. —  Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  16:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the problems with such accounts, I still consider it to be important for WP:AGF to be followed. I would not consider them to be trolls, thank you; they lack the WP:COMPETENCE for that. My point in using the RfC process is merely to get editors who aren't otherwise involved to take a look at this article, as they may form a different opinion. feminist (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In case you have missed out on looking at the page history of this article, I would like to remind you that these accounts have been involved in repeated addition of content that is inappropriate from the perspective of Wikipedia's official policy on biographies of living persons. This resulted in an intervention by an uninvolved administrator Swarm protecting this page in accordance with WP:NEWBLPBAN and blocking one of the sockpuppet accounts User:Chopps2018. This was after repeated warnings, to stop edit-warring and reinserting contentious material on multiple pages, and to engage other editors on the talk page, had been issued.  It was only after that this page had been locked from editing that these accounts appear to have started their WP:FORUMSHOPPING campaign. Therefore, forgive me for not being too keen on WP:AGF here, and also for being a bit shocked that an established editor is enabling their actions.  Again, you are requested to close this RFC to allow for a local discussion to take place, and to stop enabling trolls. —  Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  17:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a whitewashing, this is a BLP issue, and the problematic POV is coming from the users who are trying to add the content. No one's trying to suppress the information, I've literally never heard of this guy, but I had no choice here. The subject continues to deny the allegations, and the inquiry is still open on appeal, and any coverage needs to reflect that. That's it. That's the big issue. Unfortunately, that part was willfully left out of the content that the multiple SPAs/socks have tried to insert, which I suspect is why Nick does not show that much good faith. This is a pretty straightforward BLP issue and the discretionary sanctions for BLPs exist for specifically this reason. No one is actually trying to argue that the content shouldn't or can't be included, but the initial attempts to do so were rejected because they failed to comply with BLP&mdash;in other words, the wording requires some tact due to the still-uncertain legal status of the allegations, and it needed to be tweaked. Rather than come to the talk page to address the still-open issues with the content in question, someone duped you into starting a gamey RfC in order to circumvent the page protection. I'm gonna go ahead and delist the RfC, as the consensus to include this content already exists. Will you please respond to the user who emailed you and explain that the content has been removed pending the settlement of the wording, and that their assistance would be appreciated? S warm   ♠  01:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Swarm. I would like to clarify my position here a bit: I believe the content ought not be included at this point of time, without a court conviction being secured, in accordance with WP:BLPCRIME. I have explained my reasons in the section above. —  Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  04:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, but my underlying point is that it's not a content dispute, but strictly a BLP issue. The content should not be included as a default position until the BLP concerns are sufficiently addressed. S warm   ♠  22:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think it possible to mention these concerns- AUD report was leaked, the victim was a PhD scholar admitted to another institution, and the fact that Liang plans to appeal the decision (FWIW, he still hasn't yet appealed the decision even after 2 months has passed since the decision) AND insert the part about his conviction by AUD's committee. In fact, the first edit reg this was a very simple one-liner: "In 2018, he was found guilty of sexually harassing a university student by Ambedkar University's Committee for Prevention of Sexual harassment (CPSH)." There are other "unknown academics" whose Wiki pages mention their sexual harassment allegations. There's no reason why this fact about Liang as well as the concerns raised can't be accommodated in the page.Ladybird1003 (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * BLPCRIME states:--For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.. ~ Winged Blades Godric 10:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * CPSH is not much of a a court of law and we always err on the side of BLP, in case of relatively unknown subjects. ~ Winged Blades Godric 10:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, read WP:ACBD, which ought to emphasize the sacrosanct nature of our BLP-policy. ~ Winged Blades Godric 10:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Would like to call into attention some examples of wiki pages of academics where their sexual harassment allegations are mentioned: Jorge I. Domínguez, Terry Speed, Erick Guerrero, Sergio Verdú, Peter Ludlow. I am more than happy to edit this information on this page along with the concerns mentioned (if the protection is lifted). Or if any of the wiki editors here would want to do that, that's fine too. However, the point remains that irrespective of the report being leaked or that Liang plans to appeal, the report and the decision are still legally valid.Ladybird1003 (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:OSE.Best, ~ Winged Blades Godric 10:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment-And, I'm stupefied at Feminist's idea to reproduce the emailed-content, without any redaction and launch a RFC. ~ Winged Blades Godric 10:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Apologies if the discussion is already closed. I have had a look at the relevant guidelines, based on my interpretation, we may provide the information that the person has been found guilty by the University committee. This is undisputed and merits a mention on the page. Legaleagle86 (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

low- to high-profile figure?
Hasn't Lawrence Liang become a high-profile figure according to WP:LOWPROFILE? Some indications:
 * Google shows about 50'000 results for the phrase "Lawrence Liang"
 * He won the Infosys Prize 2017 ("Lawrence Liang" Infosys Prize gives 17'000 Google results). On the website of the prize is mentioned: "He has published widely in scholarly books and journals and is a prominent presence in public debates." (link)
 * He has published a lot of articles - in scientific journals and newspapers/magazines (list)
 * The Indiatimes stated on Jan 30, 2013: "Over the past few years, he has emerged as a spokesperson in India against concepts such as intellectual property"

Thank you for your comments on this. --Hadi (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington| Nearly Headless Nick . May I ask you, what you think about the low/high-profile of this person today? --Hadi (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, Hadi. Thank you for your patience. I would like to add my disagreement to your suggestion that the subject of the biography is now a high-profile individual.
 * The number of search engine results has no bearing on whether a person is low-profile or high-profile.
 * The receipt of Infosys award (for research) itself is not a criterion that can be used to clearly determine the profile of the individual concerned. (see also "Appearances and performances" and "Eminence" under WP:LOWPROFILE.)
 * To your point regarding the article in Economic Times, that is the newspaper's portrayal of the author, not the author himself. And even if the author were to represent himself in such a manner, that would not, in and of itself, have any bearing on his profile.  See also, "Media attention" and "Promotional activities" under WP:LOWPROFILE.
 * — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  09:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington| Nearly Headless Nick, as I pointed out below, he delivered the prestigious KC Basu Endowment Lecture at the National University of Juridical Sciences, succeeding, among others, two of the world's best known Nobel Prize-winning economists and an array of eminent public figures. Interested to know what argument you will make this time about Liang still being low profile.

Antebellum2018 (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@ Hadi: Agree with you. Another point to establish this is that he delivered the 10th KC Basu Endowment Lecture at NUJS. Who were some of the others to have delivered this lecture?? Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, Pranab Bardhan, N. R. Narayana Murthy, Nobel Laureate Professor Joseph E. Stiglitz and Meghnad Desai

Source: http://nujs-academics.blogspot.com.au/2008/12/k-c-basu-endowment-lecture.html

Yet, Liang's friends at Wikipedia will not allow any mention of the sexual harassment case and ban people. These editors should be exposed and banned from Wikipedia.

Antebellum2018 (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

So, about the SH case..
Should information about the allegation that Lawrence Liang has committed sexual harassment be included on this article in any way, shape, or form? Nanophosis (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies: I wasn't able to ping the users I had wanted to because I had to hurriedly finish this edit. Pinging them now:   . Nanophosis (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Exclude - Think from what I can see WP:BLPCRIME applies since he is not a Public figure of high office or entertainment seeking public prominence so WP:WELLKNOWN does not apply. I think the Facebook posted allegation was more significant than this board event.   I also would also view this as still in the allegation stage and not view the investigation board as a legal judgement since the wording in.news.yahoo.com says an unconfirmed leak says it was 'recommending' legal actions but itself seems to lack judgemental enforcement authority even within the University as this has not suspended or barred him from teaching.  The Indian Express calls it an 'internal inquiry', as does The Hindu.  Finally, The Wire brings up the oddity that the committee was examining a complaint from 2015-2016 before he was at AUD, and took into account even earlier accounts.  This sounds like it is beyond the period any legal charge can be filed, and was following procedures that would not be admissible in a court of law.   Kind of hard to figureout ignoring such a public accusation, but at the moment that seems as far as it has gotten or perhaps ever will go -- and WP:BLPCRIME guidelines apply.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak exclude at least for now, per WP:BLPCRIME. Not only is the subject marginally notable, these are legally unproven allegations, and even as a "public controversy" there's insufficient coverage in reliable sources.  This could change at any time, but at present we shouldn't permit it. If there's more major-media coverage than has been presented in previous threads (about the committee finding, not about the pre-finding allegations), I'd probably swing the other way. The "Well, in India it's just special" argument holds no weight. Whether some legal system somewhere considers a pariticular extra-legal process to be "good enough" has no effect on what WP considers good enough.  (Otherwise, for example, a despotic regime where El Presidente's simple accusation "You are a traitor" is enough to result in someone's apprehension and execution without any evidence would be enough to rewrite that dead person's bio here to say they were, as a matter of fact, treasonous.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC); revised: 05:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude based on WP:BLPCRIME read alongside WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and WP:LOWPROFILE. The quality of the reporting in the sources used is also of the WP:QUESTIONABLE variety (see also, this account by the Wire magazine).  My position is well-documented over several discussion threads on this talk page. —  Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  18:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude per my detailed reasoning(s) in the above sections. ~ Winged Blades Godric 05:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Include Exclude - I'm a bit confused. WP:BLPCRIME says "that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.". Hasn't a conviction been secured in this case? Why not include the info then? NickCT (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * NickCT: There have been no convictions whatsoever. This is undisputed and readily evident in the discussions above. A committee established by an educational institution (AUD), in a confidential report that was leaked, submitted its findings internally asserting that the allegations are true. The committee does not have the power to establish guilt or convict any individual, they may only prepare their findings in a confidential report and  make recommendations for internal disciplinary action. —  Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  18:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - After re-reading the sources, I now see there has been no legal conviction. Vote changed. NickCT (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Include but specifically only as to why he is only a professor rather than his previous position of Dean at AUD. He was found by his employer to have sexually harrassed someone *prior* to taking up his position at AUD. BLPCRIME is of limited use because it was not a criminal issue, it was a University exercising its rights to investigate employee misconduct. Whats interesting is they decided to ask him to step down despite the harrassment taking place at another institution and prior to his taking up the position at AUD. Its before the Indian courts (that article btw also has a mention of Wikipedia, we are being watched) so isnt getting settled before the end of the year at a minimum. But its not particularly neutral reporting to miss out such a significant event in his his professional career - the reason why he is notable. Unproven allegations or not, they have already had an effect on his professional career. And the standards of proof for professional misconduct are not the same as for criminal behaviour. (From reading some of the sources he doesnt dispute some of the actions (kissing) but the length of time!) Even if the court later decides in his favour, it would still be worth mentioning due to the impact on his career. As compared to if, there were allegations but nothing had come of them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And I really mean minimal inclusion: "He is currently Professor of Law at School of Law, Governance and Citizenship, Ambedkar University Delhi, India. He previously held the position of Dean of the Faculty of Law but was asked to step down after being found guilty of sexual harrassment by the university Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harrassment. He is currently appealing the finding before the Delhi high court." Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And another thing: BLPCRIME relies on the subject not being a public figure. WP:WELLKNOWN WP:NPF and Public figure are relevant here. The very first line of the biography states: "He is known for his legal campaigns on issues of public concern". His notability is because of two things, his academic position, and his legal campaigns. While a professor of a law dept may not be a public figure, a Dean who engages in public legal campaigns for various causes likely would be. WP:NPF contains "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability," which I believe my above example covers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you reviewed WP:LOWPROFILE? His legal campaigns were on the behalf of his employer and/or organizations he has been affiliated with, not for purposes of self-promotion. Please review the following sections: "Appearances and performances"; "Eminence";  "Media attention" and "Promotional activities". Also, "sexual harassment" is considered to be a criminal act in most parts of the world and certainly in India (see Section 354 A of the Indian Penal Code), so your stance that these are simply allegations of "employee misconduct" is a mischaracterization. Doesn't parse.  —  Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  17:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We are not saying he is guilty of the crime of sexual harassment. We are saying he has been found to have sexually harrassed someone by his employer. Which has happened, has resulted in a demotion from a significant career position, and has been covered by numerous reliable sources. We're they merely allegations that had zero impact I would say not include them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Is that the royal "We" or are you speaking for unnamed others in this discussion? He may have been found to have sexually harassed others by his employer, but as long as there are no court convictions secured, WP:BLPCRIME (read alongside WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and WP:LOWPROFILE) applies, and requires that we do not include such allegations.  Please remember that Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia (as opposed to a trove of unverified speculation and rumour), and by its nature, a conservative project.  We must get the article right, especially when it's a BLP.  The sources that you claim to be reliable do not seem to be so given the nature of their reporting (please see this account in the Wire). Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (see WP:REDFLAG). Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX or in the business of righting great wrongs.  We (any and all editors) cannot play with the lives and reputations of other people. —  Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  18:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And none of that changes the fact he was demoted from a prestigious faculty position for sexual harassment which has been widely covered in reliable sources, including the wire. Inclusion of which would be expected in any biography that includes details of his academic career. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * None of what you have stated above changes the fact that your position is in fundamental contradiction to the requirements stated under WP:BLPCRIME read alongside WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and WP:LOWPROFILE. Do you disagree? — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  04:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Since being asked to step down from from dean after being found by the AUD committee to have sexually harrassmed someone isnt an accusation of a crime, BLPCRIME is irrelevant. Its a factual description of his employment history. You can try and twist the various policies to whitewash it, but it will still not alter the fact he now occupies a lesser position in academia because he has been found to have sexually harrassed someone by the specific department required by indian law of his employer to investigate sexual harrassment. It has been covered in multiple sources, and the only way it can relistically be left out of any biography of him would be by omitting his employment history at the university in totality. Otherwise it presents a completely one-sided and blatantly whitewashed account of his employment at AUD. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Include I don't think the above exclusion arguments are very compelling. The fact is he has been found guilty of sexual harassment by Ambedkar University Delhi, and recently a petition calling for his Infosys Prize to be revoked as punishment has gotten a bit of media attention as well. In any case I think that this is actually relevant to his notability, meaning that WP:NPF does not apply (as it says "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources"), and that this issue is well documented in independent reliable sources.   Lastly, WP:BLPCRIME seems questionably relevant here since he was convicted--by a university, true, not a court of law, but that seems like a minor distinction in that the University was overseeing the investigation.  Every morning   (there's a halo...)  22:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Everymorning: Your grasp of BLP policy, specially WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NPF, appears to be rather questionable. He has not been found guilty by the University, the AUD Committee merely published its findings in a confidential report (that was later leaked to the media) on whether the alleged actions took place, and made recommendations for disciplinary action on that basis, internally. WP:BLPCRIME is quite explicit in its requirement that [...] editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. A committee established by a University does not have the authority to convict any individual, and the allegations remain allegations, rather than facts established by a court of law. (Do you even know what a conviction is?)
 * Additionally, your inference that somehow the recent coverage received by the subject of the biography as a result of the AUD inquiry is relevant to the notability of the individual, which is also why (you claim) that WP:NPF does not apply, is also a strange assertion. The subject is primarily notable (and has been, for several years) for their contributions to the specialised domains of law and social sciences. Prior to making this claim, have you actually gone through the existing sources available for the article? Also, what is the basis for your characterization of these three sources as "high quality" secondary sources? —  Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  10:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC) ::revised:: 16:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes but not in lead. cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  01:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Include the fact that there are multiple reliable sources, major newspapers covering all this means it is past WP:BLPCRIME/WP:WELLKNOWN (which speaks of how if there are multiple reliable sources covering an allegation means that it should be included); and because it has affected his career it has had significant impact on his life, and thus is important for including in the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please produce multiple mainstream, reputable and reliable sources that records these allegations for the record? — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  18:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments on RfC and other discussions
Text in question:
 * I've read through the entirety of the talk page discussion here, but I'm not satisfied - although the reason to close the previous RfC was a good reason, and the arguments against adding anything about the accusation are also sufficient, I just don't think the fate of the article should be left up to about 3 editors without any other community consensus. Yes, some of the SPA here have acted in bad faith. Yes, was wrong to start her RfC without taking the nessicary WP:RFCBEFORE steps. However, the fact that there has been little to no discussion since then besides going back and forth in edit wars is very, very worrying. Therefore, as an uninvolved editor, I'd like to start a RfC.


 * Should information about the allegation that Lawrence Liang has committed sexual harassment be included on this article in any way, shape, or form? Does this violate WP:BLPCRIME, and if it does, should an exception be made due to the nature of Indian law (regarding this legislative act and the fact that Ambedkar University Delhi was established under a government statute and is known as a "public authority") that says Indian government-established authorities should count just as equally as "courts of law"? Nanophosis (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Does this violate WP:BLPCRIME, and if it does, should an exception be made due to the nature of Indian law (regarding this legislative act and the fact that Ambedkar University Delhi was established under a government statute and is known as a "public authority") that says Indian government-established authorities should count just as equally as "courts of law"? Nanophosis (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Poster of this RfC needs to take their own advice and read WP:RFC. An RfC should be neutrally worded, while this one is hyperbolic and advocating for a particular outcome. An RfC should ask a single clear question (though an "if so, [question 2 here]" is often viable), while this one asks a question, then asks another question (with its own "if so" subquestion). So, this is just as faulty an RfC as the last one.  Nevertheless, I'll try to comment meaningfully on it so we don't have a third one back-to-back.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I suspect the SPAs have been soliciting accounts that identify themselves (through user categories) as feminists or LGBTQ allies. Can I also request you to redact the problematic parts of the RfC? — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  08:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've redacted a good portion of the RfC. In turn, I kindly ask that you redact the portion of your comment that implies I am meatpuppeting for the SPAs that have been commenting here just because I'm a lesbian. Nanophosis (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for editing your statement. I would recommend that you remove the struck out portion in totality.  Furthermore, neither have I attributed bad faith to you, nor have I suggested that you're a meatpuppet account.  And even if there were any such insinuation, your account does not qualify as per the definition of WP:MEAT. That said, it does appear, from the evidence available above, that the SPAs have been soliciting numerous users based on their self-identification (via user categories) as feminists or LGBTQ individuals. Can you please clarify if you received any emails that directed your attention to this page? —  Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  18:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't received any emails. I stumbled across this page from the hidden cleanup "pages tagged with POV" category (back when the POV tag was there, of course). I've seen recommendations that strikethrough should be used rather than deletion, which is why I didn't remove it completely, otherwise I would gladly get rid of it as I realize it was in bad faith and hyperbolic. Nanophosis (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Nanophosis. I don't think you acted in bad faith, it was just an error. I have taken the liberty to move the struck out text to this sub-section so as not avoid confusion among users participating in this RfC. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  05:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If the struck material is removed, please either remove this entire three-editor digression, as moot, or move it to an "Extended discussion" sub-thread, to keep the response area cleaner. Who may or may not have experienced or engaged in canvassing and who could be a meatpuppet or an SPA isn't an RfC matter, anyway.  Better for ANI or another noticeboard (SPI, etc.), with the proper evidence, if that WP:DRAMA is really necessary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I just moved it under another sub-section. Thank you, Smc. —  Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  05:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the ping. My only view on this issue is that the article should be tagged as being the subject of a PoV dispute. Remarkably, the tag was removed and the existence of such a dispute was denied.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comment, Andy. As discussed earlier, this is, more specifically a BLP issue rather than a content dispute. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  18:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is still a content dispute, and the nature of this one is almost entirely WP:NPOV-related (aside from a WP:RS quibble raised by someone).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, it's a content dispute, but primarily one that revolves around compliance with BLP requirements on Wikipedia. :) That is, it's not a garden-variety content dispute concerning NPOV. I have, however, raised issues such as WP:REDFLAG, WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:UNDUE above, in *addition* to the primary WP:BLPCRIME point in question. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  05:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)