Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:33, 22 February 2024

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

J. Sai Deepak is currently a Law good article nominee. Nominated by Matarisvan (talk) at 15:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.) Short description: Indian litigator and author (born 1985)

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 9 August 2023, see discussion. delete, December 9, 2020, see discussion.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why I replaced "litigator" to "lawyer"

1. Enhanced Clarity and Accessibility Through Universal Terminology

Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages's Core Principle of Universal Understanding

Central to Misplaced Pages'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/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 (Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages is not for maintaining list of non-notable items like you are doing. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 09:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Where does Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees awaiting review
• Biography articles of living people
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• B-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles