Talk:Priya Ramani

Lead
Hi WP:BRD would be you Boldly adding the content to the lead. I Reverted it because I felt the weight was WP:UNDUE. Without undoing the revert it would have been better to Discuss first. However, that being said, the first part of the lead which remained after removing the section on Ramani's project was sufficient in itself to showcase the subject. The latter part appeared to give undue weightage to an issue, which while important, is related to three people and not just the subject of the bio. Hence there was no need to add it to the lead. Vikram Vincent 15:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I interpreted WP:BRD as you Boldly making an edit, and then my asking for a Discussion after my Reversion. However, I very much appreciate your point about undue weight to the other co-creators of the project and have updated the lead accordingly. Does that help address your concern? Given the other subject matter in the lead, I also think the additional project helps add some balance, and per WP:5P5, overall helps improve the encyclopedic content of the article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Concerns

 * You are dumping anything and everything, you are getting on Priya Ramani, from a Google search.
 * No summarizing, only copying quotes. See Close_paraphrasing and WP:QUOTEFARM.
 * How does my lead shift focus from Ramani's notability for MeToo? Why do you feel Ramani's acquittal does not matter? And, thus ignore what has been a quasi-milestone for feminist politics in India.
 * Why have you attributed each and every line to the reporting organization?
 * Please allow me a day to rewrite this article. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi! Please see WP:BRD. Once a change is reverted please dont revert the revert. Rather discuss. Plus, you haven't tagged the other involved editor. Vikram 20:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No tagging is necessary. He had been boldly copying tens of quotes in a peculiar manner violating Wikipedia policies (linked above) and once reverted, it is he who shall come to talk-page. Also, BRD says to not revert edits via edit-summaries, which he has been doing. I had made this post after my very first revert. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * ^ Vikram 20:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * might be better not to presume things including a person's gender. Vikram 20:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to discuss the article here, but there is currently a pending ANI posted by TrangaBellam that requires my attention. Beccaynr (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * if you scroll above you will see a discussion on lead. So the first thing to do when changing the lead was to discuss there your proposed changes. That was the existing consensus. Once you were reverted the onus fell upon you. Vikram 20:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I am sorry for assuming their gender, my apologies. I wish to know how my version of lead differs in any manner from the one in the above discussion except an addition of the fact that Ramani had won the case and stylistic changes.
 * Also, what is your opinion about attributing nearly every single line to the reporting news organization and usage of several long quotes without heeding to relevant prohibitions? See WP:QUOTEFARM. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice to see that my advice is being tended to and I am not a vandal, anymore. However, a LOT more quotes still need to be deleted. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * TrangaBellam, as an initial matter, I apologize for referring to the significant deletion that you made as "vandalism." After I had placed a warning on your Talk page following what appeared to me to be a disruptive edit to the encyclopedic content of the page, it looked to me as if you were then blanking a significant portion of the page, but I now realize that 'vandalism' is the wrong term to have used and I am glad that we are able to discuss the article now.
 * As to the lead, I restored it to focus on Ramani's notability, because per the discussion of the lead above, there had been concern expressed and consensus reached about too much focus on third parties, as well as including a brief summary of the section related to the India Love Project. You removed the summary of the India Love Project, and wrote, "In 2018, during the #MeToo movement, Ramani alleged then Minister of State for External Affairs M.J. Akbar of sexual harassment. Akbar resigned from his post but denied all accusations and filed a defamation suit, which he lost." This appeared to me to shift the focus from Ramani to Akbar, so I restored the lead. However, I agree that the acquittal should be noted in the lead, and have revised the lead to include this recent information.
 * I would also like to reassure you that I have not dumped 'anything and everything' about Ramani, but actually spent a lot of time researching the case and Ramani generally, and worked to condense more than two years of court proceedings down to the highlights, including during the AfD discussion related to this article, and I am not the only editor who has contributed to this article. For example, it was another editor who formatted the section about Ramani's notable Vogue article into a subsection of her career - the Vogue article existed before the sexual harassment allegation and has since become a distinctly notable part of her career.
 * In addition, I did summarize information, and have continued to make edits to summarize more, but there do appear to be pertinent quotes that cannot be summarized that I have not edited out, including direct quotes from Ramani and the lawyers involved in the case. I do not think these are long quotes, and I do not think they dominate the section or article at this point, because they are interspersed with prose and are directly related to the article's topic, per WP:QUOTEFARM. As you note, and I thoroughly agree, Ramani's case has been "a quasi-milestone for feminist politics in India," which is why the key points and arguments of her case seem beneficial to include in the article.
 * Also, while I did attribute many lines to news outlets, I have made significant changes to this style, and I initially did it as a newer editor during the AfD discussion. Some attributions have remained when it is the news organization itself speaking.
 * I hope the edits I have made today and my explanation here help address your concerns; if you have additional specific concerns, I would appreciate hearing them. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the lead. My desire to mention the acquittal indeed did shift the focus a bit too much on Akbar.
 * The defamation case ought be a subsection of the allegations.
 * The Vogue article hardly made much of any noise, until she blew the anonymity of her (alleged) abuser. You can easily check how many reports have covered that article prior to disclosure.
 * There still exist numerous useless quotes. I can make a request for opinion at wt:inb, if you oppose removal.
 * Why on Earth is Bhawana Bisht (of some newly founded media org) important enough to have her take on the issue be granted encyclopedic importance and quoted?
 * Why do we need verbatim statements of arguments by lawyers of both sides? Paraphrasing legal arguments (and esp. their themes) ain't easy but that can be done.
 * Once again, allow me a day or two to re-write the article without being subject to blanket reverts. I have written significant stuff including Battle of Talikota etc and not exactly a novice. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * a productive approach may be to write small pieces rather than rewrite large sections. This would allow for discussion and consensus building. Please understand that this has nothing to do with individual abilities :-) Vikram 15:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think given the significant changes that seem to be suggested by TrangaBellam, a productive approach would be for them to use their sandbox to draft a "re-write" and then we can review that. Beccaynr (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * TrangaBellam, As to your other comments, I am glad that we have a consensus about the lead.
 * As to the Vogue article subsection and the main section for the defamation case, these are written with MOS:BLPCHRONO in mind, i.e. first the Vogue article happened, and it was a significant part of Ramani's career, even though its significance later became more apparent. This was a change made by another editor and I think it serves the chronology of the article well. The next significant event was the sexual harassment allegation, which was distinct and independent from the defamation case. Had the case not happened, it would have been its own section; the case was a separate event from the allegation itself, which was independently significant. From a formatting standpoint, it also seems to unbalance the article if it was a subsection.
 * As to the quotes, Bhawana Bisht of SheThePeople.TV is an established commentator making a point about SLAPP actions, e.g. lawsuits that attempt "to censor, intimidate, and silence critics," which provides secondary source commentary from one perspective about the context of the defamation case. As to the use of verbatim statements of the lawyers, I have included them when they appear to be the most accurate way to describe the legal argument being made and add encyclopedic content and do not appear to contradict the WP:QUOTEFARM essay. I am concerned that the meaning could be lost if there is too much paraphrasing, particularly when a lawyer has used a notable turn of phrase that appears in the headline of sources being cited for the quote.
 * As noted above and previously in the note I left on your Talk page, you could use your Sandbox to draft a re-write, which could help avoid issues related to WP:REMOVECITE, because "There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption." Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Maintain a shoddy article and stonewall all changes. Bye. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * TrangaBellam, I feel that I have made substantial changes to the article based on your feedback and Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and responded to your specific concerns during this discussion, and suggested a way for you to present your proposed re-write so we could continue the discussion. If you are not willing to continue the discussion, I will consider your concerns settled for now. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I have removed all non-essential quotes and left behind only ones that are critical of the subject or add value to the narrative in context. Vikram 19:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see the Talk sections below as to specific quotes that I believe are of critical value to the narrative and encyclopedic content of the article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you have a look if your concerns have been reasonably addressed. Thanks. Vikram 07:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Page move proposal
Dear all, I think this page is a not a biography. There is no notability to the subject other than the defamation suit. It can be easily nominated for deletion. The best thing to do would be to convert it to a page on the defamation suit itself. Please discuss. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This article was nominated for deletion on 30 November 2020. The result of the discussion was keep, and I discussed this issue there. Beccaynr (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say you were lucky. The margin was extremely thin. With a wider consultation, it may not make it. The safer course is what I am recommending. And that will also give you better opportunity to discuss the case in detail. Right now, that section is way overweight for a biography page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If the section is overweight for a biography, a separate article could be created for the case, in addition to the article for Ramani. I've been editing the section down in response to concerns raised here, but it could be further expanded into its own article, especially if there is an appeal of the case. Beccaynr (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLP1E, independent and reliable sources cover Ramani for more than the context of a single event, so criteria 1 is not met. In addition, Ramani does not otherwise remain, and is not likely to remain a low-profile individual, and not simply due to her role in the case, so criteria 2 is not met. In addition, as noted in the discussion above on this Talk page and the significant coverage in national and international news, the case is significant and Ramani's role was substantial and well-documented, so criteria 3 is not met. None of the required criteria of WP:BLP1E exist, and the policy states "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of [the] three" are met, therefore a standalone article for Ramani appears to be warranted. Beccaynr (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Does it make sense to have two different pages-one for the individual and one for the case? Vikram 04:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Having read through the AFD discussion, it might be better to try to improve the sources on the subject independent of the controversy. Vikram 05:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Rebecca John quote
re: "Senior Advocate Rebecca Mammen John represented Ramani, and in September 2020, John told the court, "A true imputation made in the public good is not defamation... it is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another when it is made in good faith for the protection of his or other's interest." John also said, "Priya Ramani's alleged defamatory tweets and the Vogue article were her truth. I am saying this is my (Ramani's) truth... it is the truth, is in good faith, touching public good." "
 * The reason I had included this in the article is because it is a core argument of the case, repeated over years throughout the case, and this was the best source I found that stated the argument in a clear and condensed manner. I find it to be a compelling addition to the encyclopedic content of the article, in part because this appears to be one of the concepts that was vindicated in the case, and if it is appealed, it may be one of the issues on appeal. Beccaynr (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking whether that would be part of the "court process"? But I.understand what you are saying. I'll revert that and think about it a bit more. Vikram 19:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I think it is part of the court process because this section introduces Ramani's counsel and her major argument before the court, that then is repeated throughout the case. Beccaynr (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Ramani quote
Re: "Ramani told the court on September 7, 2020, "It was my hope that the disclosures, which were part of #MeToo, would empower women to speak up for their rights at the workplace. This case has come at great personal cost to me. I had nothing to gain from it. I am a very well regarded journalist. I live a quiet life with my family in Bangalore," and "By keeping silent, I could have avoided the subsequent targeting. But that wouldn’t have been the right thing to do." "
 * I added this to the article because to me, it appears to be a critical part of the narrative, particularly in light of the commentary about how this case has been seen as an attempt to censor, intimidate, and silence critics. Bhawana Bisht is not the only commentator cited who has suggested this. The statement by Ramani was reported as notable, and in the context of the article and her narrative, appears to be a critical part of it. Beccaynr (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. That statement is related to most women who take courage to stand up. It is not specific to the subject alone as the court submission that anchored the case. Vikram 20:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the things that I think is critical about Ramani's statement as it relates to her case is that she almost admits to what she is accused of doing, i.e. empowering women to speak up, despite the risk of subsequent targeting. One of Luthra's main notable arguments is "Harm is done by the man who instigates and ignites the flame first," while John disputes the factual and legal basis of this. I think Ramani's testimony fits well in her biography, including because it is something she said in court, it directly supports the argument made by her attorney at the beginning of the case, and it is directly relevant to one of the main issues before the court. Beccaynr (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But the question is do we need a verbatim quote versus a paraphrased sentence. The reader may look up the sources and read the details, no? (I was thinking that I'll have a look at Rebecca and Geeta's pages as well for similar issues). Vikram 04:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That idea was a reason why people wanted to delete Ramani's article, i.e. it was a dry list of links, not encyclopedic content. It was only after I brought content from the links into the article and added more that the article was kept. Similar to other articles that have significant activist context and legal importance, it seems like a detriment for readers to not create summary prose of the highlights. The key quotes help create prose and are highly relevant to the case; paraphrasing risks diluting the impact or misstating the information, and in a sensitive case like this, where attempts at silencing and censoring has been a key issue, it seems even more compelling to allow Ramani and the attorneys to speak. There is no prohibition on quotes, WP:QUOTEFARM is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and I believe quotes should be used when they add valuable encyclopedic content. Beccaynr (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool :-) Vikram 19:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Press Trust of India quote
Re: "what the Press Trust of India described as a "controversial" transfer. "
 * I think it is important, per MOS:WEASEL, to clearly indicate the attribution when a news organization is speaking, instead of stating "in what was described as a "controversial" transfer", including because it would seem to then need a "who" template. Beccaynr (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the person that PTI attributes that word to is more important than the publisher, who just appears in the citation Vikram 19:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There doesn't appear to be a person that the characterization is attributed to, but in looking at it again, I see that it is published in The Wire, and it is not clear if they wrote the subhead that uses the term, so it seems more appropriate to generalize in the way you did and cite it. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Separation and Move of Education and Personal Life sections
I'm separating the Personal Life and Education sections, in part because I have not ever seen them combined, but also because the combination in this article seems to interfere with MOS:BLPCHRONO. Also, I think that due to the notability of Ramani's career and the limited information available about her Education and Personal life, these sections should be placed toward the end of the article. Also, due to how the Personal life section only contains information about Ramani's spouse, having it at the beginning of the article may be contrary to the essay WP:NOTBYRELATION, i.e. "A woman's relationships are inevitably discussed prominently when essential to her notability, but try to focus on her own notable roles or accomplishments first." Beccaynr (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Her case moved o the supreme court
It appears that she is not out of the woods with the defamation case. From the MJ Akbar page:

"On 17 February 2021, he lost defamation case against journalist Priya Ramani who accused him of sexual harassment.[30] The Delhi court said, "a woman has right to voice her grievance even after several years" on the judgement.[31] MJ Akbar subsequently appealed to Delhi High Court. On 11 August 2021, the Delhi High Court observed that the lower court had erroneously acquitted Priya Ramani in the defamation case and admitted the appeal."[32][33]24.139.24.163 (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for saying something about the error in the M.J. Akbar article. I reviewed the sources and made edits so the information in the article is now supported by the sources - it appears that his counsel is arguing this, and the High Court has only permitted the appeal to happen, not decided in advance. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)