This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was withdrawn because of page move.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Inclusion of what Khobragade's husband does when first introducing heredit
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
§
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.
Name: "Sangeeta Richard" vs. "Sangeeta Richards"edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
"Richard" is the correct name and I support your doing this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
I made the change. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion
This RfC was closed because consensus was reached omit links to the documents on Wikimedia Commons and to only link to them as presented by the United States Department of Justice. This link is in the external links section. Thanks to all who participated. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
letter notifying the court that Devyani Khobragade was indicted on 9 January 2014 after she had left the United States. "The charges will remain pending until such time as she can be brought to Court to face the charges..."9 January 2014 indictment of Khobragade, which was issued immediately after she left the country
Dispute :Inclusion of the Court documents in a current active court case (indictment & supporting letters by the prosecution) - within a Wikipedia article.
Question to answer in this RfC:
Should this Wikipedia article link to the court documents shown here? If yes, then in what way should they be linked?
Location of dispute :Devyani Khobragade incident - The article details the events and reaction about the arrest and later indictment of Devyani Khobragade, an Indian diplomat, by the United States government. The issue received a large amount of media coverage in both the United States in India.
Details of the disputed document : When Khobragade was indicted, the Department of Justice publicized the official indictment document detailing the prosecution's allegations of crime against the defendant and a related letter discussing the document. The information in the indictment and the letter were covered by media. Per US law, the documents are public domain and are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The manner in which the documents were included within the article are shown here in the right.
Arguments for
These documents are the primary sources from which most media sources are derived, and as such, are relevant to this article and would be interesting to people visiting this article.
Everyone is clear that these documents should not be cited, used to develop text in the article, or use to prove anything. Their content is entirely covered by secondary sources. They are serving an illustrative purpose much in the same way that a photo would.
Unusually, the Department of Justice has publicized these documents for distribution. Perhaps this is because they thought that these documents are relevant to people who want to learn about the case. It seems right to use Wikipedia to offer the media files promoted by parties to the incident.
Arguments against
It seems unusual to post court documents for a contemporary active legal issue. See Edward Snowden document for the only other identified example, which also could be controversial.
The documents are accusatory and promote a POV by stating that sufficient evidence exists to charge the diplomat with a crime. Sharing an indictment on Wikipedia may violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policy.
WP:BLPPRIMARY says, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."
Wikipedia is WP:NOTREPOSITORY. "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of Public domain or other source material... Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia."
If the document is to be included, then how should it be included?
Post the images and links to the files within the text of the article, as shown in this RfC, so that people can get to the file page in one click. The two documents are posted in this RfC.
Have a link in the external links section to all files on Wikimedia Commons / Wikisource categorized as related to the incident, so that people get to the file page in two clicks. {{Commons|Category:Devyani Khobragade}}
Bluerasberry 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)Reply
Not support adding primary court documents into article space. Prodigyhk (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
I changed the heading here to better reflect the position I set out. Wieno (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for commenting, Wieno. 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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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. Prodigyhk, 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.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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:
The phrase "uncovered proof of work permit, visa and income tax fraud..." is not neutral. They uncovered what they claimed was proof of...
The word disclosed in the phrase "The New York Times disclosed" is not neutral. The Times reported. (See WP:CLAIM)
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".
(minor) "Income Tax and Immigration" should not be capitalized in this context.
(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)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Devyani Khobragade incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Category:Devyani Khobragade.
