Talk:J. Sai Deepak

Why I replaced "litigator" to "lawyer"

1. Enhanced Clarity and Accessibility Through Universal Terminology

Wikipedia, as a global knowledge-sharing platform, endeavors to disseminate information comprehensibly across diverse backgrounds and expertise levels. Prioritizing lucid and accessible language is paramount to fulfilling this mission. While "litigator" may resonate within legal circles, it presents a potential hurdle for lay readers due to its technicality and lack of universality. In stark contrast, the term "lawyer" enjoys ubiquitous recognition, immediately signifying the profession under discussion. The adoption of "lawyer" enhances article clarity, making them more inclusive and welcoming to a broader readership.

2. Synergy with Wikipedia's Core Principle of Universal Understanding

Central to Wikipedia's ethos is the imperative to render information intelligible to a wide spectrum of readers. Substituting "litigator" with "lawyer" aligns seamlessly with this foundational principle, simplifying the linguistic complexity inherent in our articles. "Lawyer," a lexicon commonly embedded in everyday discourse, demands no specialized legal acumen for comprehension. Conversely, "litigator" introduces a layer of technicality that might discourage engagement from individuals not versed in legal parlance. Opting for "lawyer" effectively democratizes access to our content, catering to the diverse tapestry of our global audience. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

A new page needs to be created for Anand Ranganathan who is mentioned in this page. Will create one and the writing style of this page needs to be recrafted (Themisislegal (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC))

OK, thanks a lot ! I will send you some links I think would get you get for information about Anand Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. But a challenge is there as there are not enough 3rd party mainstream media content regarding the person. Although he is one of the most prominent voices of Indian national television (Themisislegal (talk) 07:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC))

Indeed Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 08:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anand_Ranganathan_(2nd_nomination)

Also came across this. The consensus was to delete, so would it be possible to create a new article. Is thinking of pinging administrators to get it corrected as Mr Anand Ranganathan is one of most noted thinkers and public intellectuals. (Themisislegal (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC))

I don't think it would make much sense to create this article as the editors who sparked the deletion of the previous one would get the new one ( if its creation is approved ) deleted soon. BTW, huge props to you for finding this (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anand Ranganathan (2nd nomination) Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Catalog

@Matarisvan: See WP:CATALOG clearly. It clearly discourages lists that have only non-notable items. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

How are books & research papers that have multiple citations not notable? That is not for you to decide. WP:CATALOG does not prohibit a list of publications. You should stop edit warring. I would like to request a third opinion from another editor. You should let the article remain as it is for now, Matarisvan (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, @Abhishek0831996? You have not responded to this and continue to edit war & vandalize. A third opinion requires discussion and you don't seem open to that. Matarisvan (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

See WP: CATALOG. Wikipedia is not for maintaining list of non-notable items like you are doing. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 09:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Where does Wikipedia:CATALOG prohibit having a list of publications? As for non-notable items, we already had this discussion at the failed AfD, where the consensus was that the publications are indeed notable. Wikipedia is also not for portraying just your particular view of the article subject, but the consensus of editors based on reliable sources. You should stop editing this article until a editor joins the discussion with a third opinion, I have already asked for that at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Matarisvan (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion

The books are mentioned in secondary sources, so I believe those can stay. The papers should not be restored--unless they are mentioned in secondary sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

They are mentioned in secondary sources, have a decent number of citations and discussions around them. Should I draw up a list as supporting evidence? Matarisvan (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan Yes. Please put here or another section on the talk page titled something like "Secondary sources mentioning articles by Deepak". --David Tornheim (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

There should never be an issue with a select list of books; however, what is currently there is more of a WP:COAT issue. If they are notable on their own, create pages for them. If not, simply list and do not provide such detailed descriptions. Not sure this needs a 3O actually. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41: If you take a look at the discussion in #Watchers, you can see barbs were being traded between Matarisvan and Abhishek0831996. One of the two, I think Matarisvan, filed at WP:3O to request help. I responded.

I have been trying to refocus discussing and activity on what the WP:RS says rather than the broad generalizations in the exchange. I think both editors had good cause to take issue with edits of the other. Rather than play the blame game, I have been refocusing on what content is justified based on the WP:RS. I believe things have calmed down. If you are more involved, that would also help provide a third voice that can resolve one-on-one disagreements. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I too think that the description was unnecessary. It almost read like WP:SOAP. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @David Tornheim:. I originally sent this to AfD and there is a strong scent of COI. Being that I was heavily involved, I am only making edits that I believe would be uncontroversial should they be reviewed on a noticeboard. An example is the content I just rolled back per WP:NOTRESUME. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41: Thanks for the info. It's not clear to me why you thought the refs in that diff are not sufficiently reliable to be included in the article. I don't know the publications--they seem like mainstream sources that I would think would be reliable. If there is sufficient uncertainty and disagreement about their reliability, we could take it to WP:RS/N. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

They are reliable sources, and WP:NOTRESUME is not applicable here, because the cases are pretty significant. OP wants to strip the article bare, they couldn't get it deleted at AFD so now want to make a mockery of it. Also, the OP should not get involved in this conflict because of their inherent bias. I refuse to engage with the OP directly because first they accused me of being a sockpuppet, which failed. Now they make accusations of a conflict of interest, which I cannot bear. I have made honest contributions to multiple articles, and someone implying I am being paid to do so is insulting. I have a mind to go to Admin's noticeboard to get some help with these accusations. Matarisvan (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to engage directly if you don't wish to. I have actually stayed away from editing the page as much as possible to allow more uninvovled editors to weigh in. Note above I was asked to be more involved. If you feel I have a grudge over a deletion discussion, you have not interacted with me enough to know otherwise as I really don't give a crap as long as it is decided through discussion (which it was). I also did not say you have a COI, I said "strong scent of COI" (referring to the article history, not you). I would suggest not projecting and just take your concerns to WP:ANI if you feel I am overstepping. Jsut keep in mind that going to ANI does not alleviate the NOTRESUME concerns here. You will need consensus to add what you added. I do not know of a policy that says NOTRESUME should be ignored if something is "pretty significant." Please see WP:ONUS as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I will also add that about 50 percent of the current career section needs trimmed as well. It looks like the additions are an attempt to COAT the individual cases or give more significance to the subject for being involved. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Watchers

@CNMall41 and ChandlerMinh: This article has remained a puff piece for too long but I have finally changed it a bit. I hope you both are reading this and will watch the attempts to tone down this article's neutrality. Thanks Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Puff piece? Are you making an accusation of promotionality? Can you back that up? Matarisvan (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes this article is a puff piece and you are blocking any efforts to make it neutral. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I am making it neutral, you however a pushing a narrative. WP:CATALOG does not prohibit a list of publications. I have asked for a third opinion. Matarisvan (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you stop with these self-contradictory statements? You have done nothing other than creating this article into a bigger puff piece than what it already was. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Why can you not reply on the merits of the argument and stoop to name calling and accusations? What exactly is self contradictory about my statements? Matarisvan (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion

The books are mentioned in secondary sources, so I believe those can stay. The papers should not be restored--unless they are mentioned in secondary sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Decolonialist / short description

Abhishek0831996: Why did you delete "Deepak is decolonialist" when reverting Matarisvan? WP:RS such as this suggest to me that it is a proper adjective for his work, particularly the work as discussed in that book that you deleted from the article.
I also notice two variations on the short description:

Indian Hindutva activist and litigator

vs.

Indian litigator and author (born 1985)

Can you two explain the merits and WP:RS defending your positions? --David Tornheim (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi David, thanks for taking a look at this. My position is that mentioning he is a Hindutva activist is not necessary in the first line, especially since I say 'he is known as a proponent of Hindu causes...' in the second paragraph of the lead. His main identity is that of a litigator, which is why my phrasing is the second one. Abhishek however seems hellbent on his inclusion of a dogwhistle here, effectively telling readers to discredit this person and his ideas simply because of the tag applied to him. I have been trying to be as neutral as possible, and you can see this in the article version before Abhishek got here. Abhishek is a frequent editor on Indian culture war articles, and as such is trying to include this article in the culture war. He edits from a left liberal position, as you can see. I have not applied any political leanings I may have to this article, but Abhishek has. Right wing leaning editors haven't discovered this edit war yet, but if they do, you can be sure that this edit war will turn into a forever war, with every day seeing edits and reverts. Abhishek also doesn't want anybody to engage with the publications by the article subject, which he has deemed dangerous and thus open to deletion. To hide his political paintbrushing of the article, he has relied on accusations of promotionality, puffery and self-contradictory statements. Matarisvan (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It's better to focus on the content, sources, and quality of specific edits rather than accusing the editor of bias and bad faith editing. He or she no doubt has said equally disparaging things about your editing behavior. And neither of you will get anywhere flinging mud at each other.

Instead, let's just focus on what's in the RS and whether it merits being in the article.

I don't know enough about the subject to know whether the label "Hindutva" is something one typically sees in the RS for the subject or not. Can you provide RS that supports your version? The adjective "Hindutva" seems to be supported by the WP:RS of the first line of the article.[1] But that's only one article that is not primarily about the Deepak.

Also, as to it being in the first paragraph, that's different than the use for the short description. I believe the short description comes up on mobile phones, possibly when you hover over a name. I forget. It was something that didn't exist until more recently. But it does get significant exposure I believe. I think it is important that it can standalone -and- be a concise and accurate description the subject article. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, I got too argumentative. I will stick to reliable sources as the bases of my argument hereon. Matarisvan (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm now ok with incorporating the Hindutva label, the only thing I ask is for Abhishek to stop removing the list of publications and the second paragraph of the lead. I will post the secondary sources in another section here. Notice how Abhishek has not replied here, he knows his bullying and edit warring will no longer stand. Matarisvan (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Deepak is known for being a Hindutva proponent. He is not really known for anything else. In Hindutva discourse, hatred towards Muslims, Christians and more is counted as "decolonialist" approach because all Muslims and Christians are considered as foreign invaders in Hindutva ideology. We should avoid pushing favorable Hindutva propaganda for Deepak. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

He is not known for anything else? What about his legal career? The books? And how are the research papers Hindutva propaganda? All my life, I never knew intellectual property law was Hindutva propaganda. I'm sure this will be a revelation for David too. Matarisvan (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

And your sources? Trust me bro?

You are constantly pushing your narrative without any significant sources. By just saying that this article is "puffery" doesn't makes it "puffery", I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia doesn't work like that. 2409:40C1:49:4018:8C00:74FF:FE3D:5BF5 (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Secondary sources which mention Deepak's papers

As recommended by @David Tornheim, I will be posting the secondary sources here which mention Deepak's papers. Matarisvan (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

1. Protection of Traditional Handicrafts under Indian Intellectual Property Laws: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=8473394886833787781&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en 37 citations as per Google Scholar, published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, later citations not updated in Google Scholar: https://www.rdi.uniceub.br/rdi/article/view/9109, https://rjhssonline.com/HTMLPaper.aspx?Journal=Research%20Journal%20of%20Humanities%20and%20Social%20Sciences;PID=2018-9-4-23.
2. The Elusive Quest for the Definition of Obviousness - Patent Law's Holy Grail - 2 citations as per Google Scholar, published in the International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law. Later citations not updated in Google Scholar: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=ckjip, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2214513.
3. Section 107A(b) of the Patents Act: Why it May Not Refer to or Endorse Doctrine of International Exhaustion?: Published in the Indian Journal of Intellectual Property Law. Cited in http://www.penacclaims.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Prakash-Narayan.pdf, http://www.cedl.ac.in/download_voltwo.php?id=14, http://14.139.185.167:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/438/1/LM0220010.pdf, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3554639, http://14.139.185.167:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/68/1/LM0219012%20ITL.pdf.
4. The Novartis Decision of the Indian Supreme Court: A Pill by any Other Name would Treat as Neat. Also published in the Indian Journal of Intellectual Property Law. Relied upon as reference material by senior patent law judges: https://nja.gov.in/Concluded_Programmes/2018-19/P-1150%20TOC.pdf
5. Patents and Competition Law: Identifying Jurisdictional Metes and Bounds in the Indian Context: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44283653. Cited in https://silt.mgu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Journal_of_Indian_Legal_Thought_volume_17_1_2023.pdf, https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=11473396627401004069&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en, https://thecolumnofcurae.wordpress.com/2021/04/19/relationship-between-ipr-and-competition-laws/, https://ijlj.in/static/media/An%20Analytical%20Study%20of%20Interface%20between%20Patent%20Pooling%20and%20Competition%20Laws%20in%20India%20-%20Pallavi%20Kashyap.1e814f3c.pdf. Published in the National Law School of India Review.

Matarisvan (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Those do not appear to be WP:SECONDARY sources. Those look more like WP:PRIMARY sources. I don't think they would be WP:RS for the subject of this article. However, I still do feel the books had sufficient coverage that those can be stored. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, none of the works I linked to are written by the article subject, nor do they have any contributions from him. They are all research papers except one, so how would they be primary sources? I do think they are secondary, would you consider reevaluating them? Matarisvan (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @David Tornheim, apologies for the ping, waiting for your comments. A reviewer is willing to take on the GAR but not until the dispute is resolved. Matarisvan (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I didn't say I was willing to take on the GAR, I only stated that if I did it would result in a quickfail. This article had problems with instability even before you nominated it for GA, so I think the best course of action is to withdraw the nomination for now and wait until after any content disputes have ended before re-nominating. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

My bad, I misconstrued your words. Before this dispute, I don't think there were any major instability issues. Sure, there were minor incidents of vandalism but nothing as serious as this one. I don't think there can be a time when such vandalism doesn't happen, so waiting is out of the question. Matarisvan (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @David Tornheim, apologies again for the ping, still waiting. Matarisvan (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan: My view hasn't changed. If you want more feedback, please bring your source(s) to WP:RS/N. I suggest you follow the rules there: "supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports." --David Tornheim (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will be restoring the list of publications as approved by you, the papers won't be included. What about the lead? Matarisvan (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It's fine with me if you restore the books that are covered by secondary sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Make sure you don't modify the lead. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Why not? You are not an administrator, neither am I, if such a decision has to be made, @David Tornheim will be the one making it. Matarisvan (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

None of us alone decides. Decision is based on WP:Consensus with focus on what the WP:RS says. As for the lede, the determination for that is based on WP:LEDE. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I am willing to concede to the consensus that the papers shouldn't be displayed. On the lead, I don't understand why @Abhishek0831996 thinks my version was puffery. How exactly was mentioning his educational background puffery? I then wrote 'He is known as a proponent of Hindu and Indic causes' which is exactly what Abhishek means to say with his Hindutva activist label. I then wrote 'and an accomplished orator and debater' which was based on the two neswpaper articles linked. Abhishek may think JSD isn't making the right points, but most sources say he is making them in an impressive way, even if they may turn out to be wrong. Finally, this article is a GA candidate, so it needs at least 4 paragraphs in the lead. If Abhishek keeps trimming it to 1, how will the article ever pass a GAR? Matarisvan (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

If you are talking about restoring your version then don't. This article has suffered from puffery for far too long. Don't take it back to those times. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The book list is returning, and the lead also could. I don't see why I cannot restore my version if David greenlights it. If you have objections, you can proceed to the next step in the dispute resolution process, which is what I did. Matarisvan (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Being a GA candidate and being a GA are two different things. You don't simply recommend a page for GA in order to add "at least 4 paragraphs to the lead." Or, do it in an attempt to add anything. I honestly don't see how this would come close to meeting GA status. The comment - "before this dispute, I don't think there were any major instability issues. Sure, there were minor incidents of vandalism but nothing as serious as this one. I don't think there can be a time when such vandalism doesn't happen" - tells me we are not looking at the same page. I think it may be time for an overhaul of the page from editors who have been uninvolved. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

LEDE

@Matarisvan: Here you say that you would like to restore the lede. I believe Abhishek0831996 objects. Please show the before and after so editors can discuss whether the change is appropriate. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi David, here is my version of the lead:

Jayakumar Sai Deepak (born 23 November 1985) is an Indian lawyer, speaker and author of the India, Bharat tetralogy. As a counsel, he practices before the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Delhi. Deepak has been a counsel in multiple cases, mostly in the domains of intellectual property (IP) and constitutional law, particularly in pharmaceutical patent and trademark disputes.

Deepak first studied mechanical engineering at Anna University and then graduated in IP law from IIT Kharagpur's law school. He is most known for his arguments in the Sabarimala Temple women's entry case. He is known as a proponent of Hindu and Indic causes and an accomplished orator and debater.

Abhishek's version is the one you see currently. I am open to including the source he has used, the paper by Ashraf Kunnumal. But I disagree with trimming the lead so much. What is controversial about stating his education, the case he is most famous for and his notable book series? Matarisvan (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Before the WP:LEDE is expanded, the WP:BODY needs some work. Above you wrote, He is most known for his arguments in the Sabarimala Temple women's entry case. However, there is no WP:RS for this statement that I see in the article. The only thing I see as a ref in the article related to that case are filings before the court. That's not WP:SECONDARY RS. Unless, you can find more secondary RS, more of the article may need to be trimmed. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi David, secondary sources like court reportage have been used, the only place where they are not is the Brahmin priest case, where I'll be adding better sources soon. You should also see the Supreme Court Observer ref and citation of the final judgement in the case. Other cases all have court reports or judgements used as references, I don't see how they are secondary. Matarisvan (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @David Tornheim, secondary sources for this statement from media houses: Firstpost, Mumbai Mirror, Business Standard. I can provide more sources if needed. Matarisvan (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan: Yes. Please add those to the article in the appropriate places. Then we can revisit the WP:LEDE.--David Tornheim (talk) 06:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. Adding more sources for all the other points. Matarisvan (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi David, supporting sources have been added. Can we revisit the lead now? Matarisvan (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41: Thank you for your edit deleting some WP:OR. In the above statement, I believe I mention other WP:OR I see--that of simply showing a court filing rather than a secondary source. I am not comfortable deleting anything at this point, since I came in as WP:3O, which says Unless there's a clearly urgent problem, don't make immediate article-content changes of your own which affect the ongoing discussion. And maybe there are secondary sources to be found. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if what I removed is related to the discussion. Maybe both are dealing with OR but the removed content wasn't being discussion (unless I missed something). WP:ONUS would also trump anything listed in the 3O instructions in my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• I have already said Deepak is known for being a Hindutva proponent. He is not really known for anything else that would make him notable enough. Can you imagine him without the Hindutva ideology he promotes? It is not possible because then you would be thinking of a totally different person. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996: How many sources do you have that say that? Is that the case with a large percentage of the WP:SECONDARY sources currently in the article? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources have been already mentioned on the article. Here is another one, an academic source which describes him as "Hindutva proponent Sai Deepak". Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC on lawsuits inclusion

Should the lawsuits Deepak was a counsel in be included here (see this version)? Matarisvan (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Explainer: @CNMall41 believes the multiple significant cases the article subject was involved in should not be mentioned here, basis of WP:NOTRESUME, WP:INDISCRIMINATE & WP:ONUS. You can see the diff here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._Sai_Deepak&diff=prev&oldid=1210460551, this is the TLDR summary of what this edit removed: 2 RS citations for Sabarimala case and juristic person argument, 2 RS citations for Sabarimala priest case, specific claim in constitutional review case, Parle v Britannia, Makemytrip v Dealmytrip, Dr. Reddy's v AstraZeneca (Olaparib patent). The user mentioned here also argues that most of the lawsuits the article subject was involved in should not be mentioned here. I agree that I did not add the reasoning employed because it was too complex, but I will do so now, because the lawsuits are very significant.
• No - A lawsuit where Deepak was counsel should only be mentioned if it received significant coverage by multiple reliable sources to justify due inclusion. Nemov (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nemov: Why would it require multiple sources? Not every sentence in an article requires multiple sources. Does mention of a lawsuit demand this extra coverage? Can you site policy or guideline that says any lawsuit mentioned in an article must have "significant coverage by multiple sources"? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess that's confusing. It could be included with a single WP:RS if it's deemed notable. However, a single source saying "this person was counsel on x case" isn't notable enough to justify inclusion. Nemov (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• No - For my "beliefs", I have stated this is NOTRESUME. Per Nemov, significant coverage is required, but also coverage of what his involvement was. Simply representing parties to a case does not make it relevant enough to COAT on a BLP. I also feel this RfC is premature but here we are. Would also recommend trimming the other cases from the career section once the RfC concludes. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  There won't be any trimming, more cases will be added. I was working to add sources when you deleted 4 of them without explanation. You clearly din't read those sources, because they covered both pointers: Deepak's involvement and his arguments. Matarisvan (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Do as you wish, just know the potential outcomes. Your tone sounds a little bit like you do not wish to work in a collaborative environment. Note that any additions of cases will be reverted while this RfC continues. I would recommend reading WP:ONUS as it is up to you to get consensus to include those. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Question about RFC close

Nemov and David already agree that single or multipme RS citations with non-trivial details qualify for inclusion. I support this view, you and Abhishek do not. @Nemov, I'm a bit unsure on consensus, does it have to unanimous or is majority support for a POV enough? Matarisvan (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC) You can find everything at WP:CONSENSUS. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC) You have started a RFC. Comments should be open for a month or until there's no more feedback. Until this is closed and the question is settled, no changes should be made. Nemov (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC) Very well, will you be the admin who makes the decision on whether consensus has been established? Meanwhile, I will be setting up a sandbox and will put it up for review soon. Also, is the moratorium on changes applicable to all editors involved here, or just me? Matarisvan (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC) Also, please excuse me for asking these questions @Nemov, this is my first RfC and I'm just learning the ropes. Matarisvan (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC) I'm not an admin and it should be closed by someone who isn't involved. You can review the process here. Nemov (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yes -- Those that are mentioned in WP:SECONDARY sources. The lawsuit itself would not be sufficient. I believe the diff given above should be reverted, because it deletes what appear to me to be secondary sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

If an attorney represents someone in a case and it is mentioned in a secondary source it should be allowed on that attorney's Wikipedia page? Of course we can verify he was involved in these cases but what is the relevance other than creating a RESUME? Not everything that is verifiable improves a Wikipedia page (WP:VNOT).--CNMall41 (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It depends. I would follow WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Let's say attorney X (who is a notable attorney) is mentioned in 5 different cases in secondary sources, but with nothing more said than that they were counsel. For that, I might use a single sentence: Attorney X was counsel on these cases: case 1(ref), case 2(ref), case 3(ref), case 4(ref) and case 5(ref). And not provide anything further. To me, that would be in proportion to their coverage. Take a look at typical movie star pages that list almost every movie they have been in.--David Tornheim (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, I have not included multiple non significant cases, like Damodar Valley vs Union, Allied vs Hermes, Dr. Reddy's vs Patent Controller, Choudhary vs Delhi, among others which are far too opaque and technical to make them simple to understand. I only included cases here which had significant coverage, before I could add sources I got stuck in this dispute, prob for a month now. Matarisvan (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

On its face this seems like a logical comparison. However, I wouldn't compare movie stars and movies to attorneys and cases, especially since movies listed in credits are part of an ACTOR BIO and the majority of the films (if not all) have their own pages. That comparison may be better if the cases argued by J. Sai Deepak were notable. I think there is an issue with the RfC wording as the original wording (prior to being changed by OP) is asking in context about the listing that I removed. I see no issue with adding a sentence or two about his work as an attorney. In fact, it would be necessary since that is part of his notability. What I do not agree with, is the editorializing of his involvement. Have a look at the link provided above and you will see what I mean. It mentions he was involved in a case, then discusses the case, then discusses his arguments for that case. It is a way to fluff up the page to be more like a resume. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

CNMall41 I looked at the diff diff you mention. And at the RS. The summary of the RS was "which earned him appreciation from the 5 judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra which had heard the case." That sounds like an accurate summary of what the RS says. The title of the RS is "SC praises lawyer for spirited defence in Sabarimala case". The first sentence is the same "The Supreme Court today praised a lawyer for his spirited defence..." That is not editorializing it, it's summarizing what the RS says which is what we are supposed to do here. I don't see why the RS and the sentence summarizing it was deleted. What's the problem? --David Tornheim (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Problem was already stated. Although we can also discuss the WP:NEWSORGINDIA ref you are citing which is not going to be considered reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41: I was not familiar with WP:NEWSORGINDIA, which is a reasonable concern. I am not that familiar with Indian news media reliability in general. I will admit that the tone of that article does not sound like a typical objective news reporting. Is there any other evidence? The particular source is not listed among those mentioned in WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Is there any further information on Press Trust of India? Or on that source? I might be inclined to raise this particular source and use at WP:RS/N to see if others know more about it, but if you have more info. on that source, Press Trust of India, and problems with it or previous discussions about its reliability--that would be a better starting place and might convince me the piece should not be used. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

NEWSORGINDIA is pretty straight forward. It would be up to you to show how that particular reference is reliable since you presented it. I will say anything, Indian news media or not, that is not bylined is suspicious. This one is clearly churnalism in the least and based on a press release. It is not the reliability of the publication itself, but the individual reference. If you do go RSN, I would suggest to ask about the specific reference being cited, not just the publication. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What I would NOT like to see is an RfC worded in a manner to where it gets support for addition of cases, then OP sees that as an open door to editorialize and COAT everything to fluff up the page like a resume. If I assume correctly, you are okay with a mention of his work, but not the in-depth COAT and fluff as previously removed? --CNMall41 (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• No, not if the only sourcing is a passing mention of the attorney's involvement. This is run-of-the mill. Compare the substantial coverage of Camille Vasquez in the Depp v. Heard matter, or that of Johnnie Cochran in the murder trial of O. J. Simpson. BD2412 T 14:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• No Runs afoul of half-a-dozen policies - one can start with WP:DUE. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Fwiw, the Sabarimala block needs to remain and I perceive it as his main claim to fame/eminence. But none from the section on IP which I have deleted. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Question about page edits

TrangaBellam Thanks for your recent deletions. I didn't check all of them, but most of them I agree with. One of the problems we seem to have that brought this RfC is that we have one editor who wants to include things that do not include good secondary sources and another who wants to delete things things that appear to me to have secondary sourcing. One question that came up above is is with regard to the Sabarimala case's sourcing, particularly [2] and whether it was paid for. Your opinion on that discussion might be valuable. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC) @David Tornheim: Thanks. I don't have sufficient time but the inclusion of Sabaramila-related discourse is a no-brainer. That is perhaps the subject's original claim to fame. You can read more at Sen, Anandaroop (2023-05-04). "J Sai Deepak's India that is Bharat: Coloniality, Civilisation, Constitution . Bloomsbury 2021". Social Dynamics. 49 (2): 376–385. doi:10.1080/02533952.2023.2236899. ISSN 0253-3952. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC) Deepak's IP career is of no substance and regard? He was very well known in law circles before his activism. Also, a person's claim to fame is not the only point to be mentioned, if there is significant coverage of other events then they need to be covered too. I am not an admin, so I do not know, but the question here is whether Wikipedia:SIGCOV outweighs Wikipedia:DUE or not, or if there is no contradiction actually. Matarisvan (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Fwiw, I also think the PoW case is significant. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC) @Nemov, shouldn't any changes be made to the status quo version until consensus is arrived at here at RfC? As per your statement: "Comments should be open for a month or until there's no more feedback. Until this is closed and the question is settled, no changes should be made." How can this rule not apply to @TrangaBellam's recent deletion spree? Three IP cases had significant secondary sources but were still deleted. Also @David Tornheim, you should note that just like @Abhishek0831996, TrangaBellam is also mostly a culture war editor, and is trying to remove all traces of non culture war cases from here. This protest guide by Cal Young Democratic Socialists et al includes the cases cited here in the article, these were all cases mentioned on here till the recent deletion sprees. As such, deleting most of the cases mentioned in that guide does not seem to be a mere coincidence. Matarisvan (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Please don't ping me again about this RFC. I'm not interested in policing this discussion. Nemov (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Very well, I will not. Thank you for your comments so far. Matarisvan (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• No we do not typically cover every possible incident on Wikipedia but instead only things that are covered in good secondary sources. Jorahm (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

@Matarisvan Can you reword the statement per WP:RFCOPEN. Pretty much everything after the first sentence should be removed. If you wish, you can direct editors to the previous discussion. You can discuss the question in more detail below the opening statement in your comment. Nemov (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment. Apologies, I put the background and the 2 POVs in a reply.
• Please allow editors to comment. There's no need to argue with every comment. Nemov (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  My apologies. Can I use my previous version of the article as a staging version to add the multiple RS citations you have stipulated? I tried to do that but CNMall41 instantly reverted the changes and issued an edit war warning, I guess they did not read the change description. Overall, can you approve this staging version? Matarisvan (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

You do not need approval for a "staging" version. That is what a sandbox is for. And stop bringing up my name as if I am causing you harm or violating Wikipedia guidelines. Again, please take the conduct to ANI if you feel it is egregious. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - If no one has additional feedback, I am going to ask for this to be closed out so we can remove. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Too few criticisms in the article

Despite having extremely controversial Hindutva views, bordering even on advocacy for street violence, there is less criticism about his views in this article Nathularog (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)