Talk:Mridul Wadhwa/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Edits 14 March 2023

I support the addition to the article today by Beforesunsethighnoon. The previous discussion became derailed. Let’s start again. @Sideswipe9th:Please explain why you object to well-sourced, highly relevant material being included in this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The short version, I'm not seeing a consensus for it. Multiple editors opposed the large quotation from Wadhwa, with Tewdar pointing out that it was synthesis of multiple sources. Multiple editors also opposed the quote from Jessica Taylor on due weight grounds. There was also an unanswered question of what section this should go in, as there were concerns that it wouldn't naturally fit in any of the existing sections as they are currently named for scope, but also that adding a new section just for this podcast would also be giving undue weight to it. All of those concerns are still valid, even if the previous discussion had died down.

If we really want to restart this discussion, even though it seemed closed to me, the synthesis and due weight concerns need to be addressed before any version of this can be policy compliant. A thorough review of the previous discussion to distil and summarise the key objections would probably be a good start as well, to ensure that we're not just treading over the same arguments again. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

No. We've been over all of that time and time again to the point of going in circles. The article as it stands now is grossly unbalanced, and multiple editors pointed that out to you repeatedly. We had several different versions and it was down to a vote, so let's start from there. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The previous discussion was abandoned because it had become incoherent, despite my best efforts to bring it back on track. This is a new discussion. You have deleted well-sourced and relevant information from this article. I am asking you to justify your revert. Why do you object to well-sourced, highly relevant material being included in this article? Sweet6970 (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I already have justified the revert in my last reply. The previous objections are still valid as no attempt at discussing them or modifying the content to resolve them have been made. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

How about we look at this from a different perspective. Consensus can change, so in the month or so since this was last discussed, what has changed to demonstrate that there is a consensus for this version? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

We've already agreed previously that full quotes prevent statements from being taken out of context, as that was the original issue with Wadhwa's. The new section is warranted as the incident is the reason Edinburgh now has two crisis centers where it used to have one. So the only point of contention left is Taylor's quote and how much of it to include. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

No, that's not the only point of contention.

In the version that was removed today, it had the same quote from Wadhwa that TheTranarchist proposed at the start of our last discussion. Tewdar pointed out that that version of the quote was a synthesis of several sources, and not actually representative of what Wadhwa said in the podcast. While TheTranarchist provided us with a transcript, it was sourced to an unreliable source, a PDF on For Women Scotland's website. An attempt at paraphrasing the quotation was made, however Sweet rejected it as a misrepresentation but did not elaborate further on how.

Right now we still don't have a reliable source that transcribes the podcast as no-one has provided one, and quotations must be verifiably attributed to a reliable source. Even if we did have a source however, the entirety of that quotation is far too long to either be considered due and not a copyright violation as a result of its length. So a paraphrasing some or all of it is likely necessary, and a consensus needs to form around a version that fairly and accurately represents what Wadhwa said.

On Taylor's quotation, there was rough consensus against including the quotation from Taylor. Only two editors, yourself and Sweet6970 favoured inclusion. Every other editor felt as though quoting from Taylor was undue. Some editors supported a mention of Taylor without the quotation could be due, while others favoured not mentioning Taylor at all. Tewdar suggested that paraphrasing Taylor could work. If you want to include a quotation from Taylor, you need to demonstrate that her commentary carries due weight, and that there is a consensus to either quote from her or to paraphrase her quote in some form.

On the placement, there was no clear consensus on where to place this content. The IP editor suggested that we include it chronologically into the harassment section. Tewdar suggested we include it in the work section. Note, the exact placement that the IP suggested is no longer possible as that section was later modified. You and Sweet have suggested that it goes in its own section. All of the suggestions made had been objected to by other editors for various reasons. So if there is a consensus that this content should be included, a consensus will also have to form around where it should be included.

Finally, there is a new issue that arose in the most recent addition. The final paragraph on the ERCC and Wadhwa issuing a statement about her words being taken out of context, along with a quotation, was unsourced. As all content on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, a source must be provided for that paragraph before it can be considered for inclusion.

However, all of these issues aside, doesn't really tell or demonstrate to us how, in the month between when this was last discussed and the content was added today, that consensus changed. In the absence of further discussion, or an RFC on this proposed addition, how did consensus for or against inclusion of this content change since it was last discussed? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Source on Wadhwa's final statement. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe: this is a new discussion. You deleted material. Please set out your own objections to the material. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS states The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.. Trying the same, or similar, content again in a month doesn't make it unrelated to the earlier discussion or earlier consensus or lack thereof. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, SFR, I don’t understand your point. Are you saying we should not start a new discussion? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying that referring to arguments made in the earlier discussion is a perfectly acceptable method of outlining concerns and the current status of consensus on the issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly this. Referring to past discussions, whether earlier on a talk page or in the archives, for their consensus (or lack thereof) and for any previous objections on content that is substantively the same as was previously discussed is standard practice. No-ones saying that we should not start a new discussion, especially if it is felt as though it will help with clarity and focus, it's just that the issues that were raised in the previous discussions are still valid and need to be addressed in this discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I find it extremely hard to believe that if Sweet6970 and I fell out of the discussion, our concerns would be treated as acceptable and worthy of still being addressed. Tewdar's suggestion was to throw both the controversy and the harassment sections out entirely, and I'm legitimately starting to think maybe that's the best option.

Again, short of that, we had several versions that were down to a vote. Again, my vote is for full quote, Tewdar, and Firefangledfeathers, in that order. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe: the discussions on this page have been the most frustrating and pointless that I can remember on Wikipedia. I really do not want to go through all that waste of time, waste of effort, and aggravation again. I would like to know exactly what your objections are to the addition of the material which you deleted. I’m thinking that it may be best to go straight for an RfC this time around. But it would be helpful to know your reasons, so we can work out what the issues are, and what are the appropriate questions for an RfC. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I have already given my reasons, in my replies at 16:41, 14 March and 00:20, 15 March. In doing so I've referred to the previous consensus, or perhaps lack of consensus based on multiple policy issues, from the previous discussion on this content in early February, and summarised the issues that are outstanding from the previous discussion.

If you want to change this discussion into a brief workshop for an RfC, instead of addressing the previously raised objections to the content, I have no problem with that. I think there's several forms an RfC on this content could take and I'd be happy to discuss them all. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

To Beforesunsethighnoon: I think that Tewdar’s suggestion to throw out both the controversy and the harassment sections is an indication of the degree of exasperation that the previous discussion induced. I am opposed to this “solution” as it would deprive the article of any significance– it would be better to delete the article entirely. How do you feel about having an RfC on the various points of disagreement? Sweet6970 (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that it would be better to delete the article entirely, opposed to both this and scrapping both sections for the same reason you are - both would result in a less informed reading public. However, that's what's happening right now. The article as it stands reads like Wadhwa's PR team wrote it personally. I wouldn't be opposed to an RfC, but I'm not optimistic, because to me, the points of disagreement boil down to "These sources are reliable and relevant, but they say things we don't like." I don't see any attempt to find a solution, only certain parties intentionally stalling as long as possible. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep your commentary focused on content, not on how you perceive the motivations of other editors. I suggest you read WP:RFCBEFORE and come up with some RFC options, or possibly make a neutrally worded post for more eyes at WP:NPOVN if you believe that is the issue. What you should not do is make borderline personal attacks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Sweet6970 asked how I felt and I gave them an answer. I do find it interesting that nobody swooped in to slap any wrists when I was being called an SPA with an anti-trans agenda, and borderline called a TERF. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Back in December? Probably because I wasn't watching the page then. It's never appropriate to speculate on the motives of another editor in such a way. Three months is a bit stale for me to give a warning for that, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course it is. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

What's on the table?

FFF's version:

In an interview on the Guilty Feminist Podcast, Wadhwa stated:

So we might have fear of men of a certain ethnicity, we might have fear of trans people, and it could be linked to an experience of trauma. I think it is, it is okay to hold those things as long as you are willing to acknowledge that, in support, we will accept that ... the other thing is that sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. And so, you know, it is not discerning crime. But these spaces are also for you. But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices.

Wadhwa's comments were criticized, including by the group For Women Scotland and sexual violence researcher Jessica Taylor. JK Rowling stated that Wadhwa's comments inspired her to create Beira's Place, a support center for cisgender women only. Wadhwa said her words were taken out context.

Discussion of what's on the table

Could folks paste their preferred versions above? I'm having a hard time trying to compare across this sprawling talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I would be fine with this as a compromise. It's very neutral. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I support FFF’s version above, as a compromise. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any opposition to FFF’s version. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that the blockquote from Wadhwa is too long, as I'd prefer if we could paraphrase/summarise most of it into Wikivoice if possible. But if the rest of you are fine with its length, then I'll not object. Aside from that, the rest of the content is fine with me. The only other point that's outstanding from the past discussions on this is where to place this. When I last reviewed the past discussions there was three suggestions:

1. Its own section
2. Part of the harassment section
3. Part of the work section

For me, the harassment section fits best chronologically. The podcast was released on 2 August 2021, and the #AskRapeCrisisScotland hashtag stuff happened as a response to it 8 days later on 10 August. I don't really think it fits into the work section. I think creating its own section would be giving this bit of content as a whole undue weight.

There is also a fourth option we haven't previously considered, but it also has one problem. We could make this a subsection of the harassment section, and slightly re-order and re-phrase the existing content surrounding this. This approach would take the last two sentences of the second paragraph of the harassment section, the content beginning In August 2021, as part of this harassment campaign... to the end of the paragraph, and add it after the sentence in FFF's version that ends ..sexual violence researcher Jessica Taylor.

The difficulty is that the only source we have that links the podcast commentary to the harassment is the Trans Safety Network analysis of the Twitter activity. While the OpenDemocracy article does link the hashtag activity to the broader harassment campaign against Wadhwa, it doesn't explicitly link the hashtag to the podcast commentary. The TSN article states Many of the recent hostile tweets referenced either a recent statement by RCS in which they called out the misinformation and abuse being directed at them; or a recent interview with Mridul Wadhwa on the Guilty Feminist podcast (emphasis mine) and misrepresentations of her words relating to “reframing trauma” in the podcast mentioned above, in which she stated that victims would be accepted regardless of any prejudice they brought with them, but that addressing that prejudice might form part of the healing process. Update: Edinburgh Rape Crisis issued a statement by Wadhwa on 12 Aug to address these misrepresentations - which again received hundreds of hostile and often transphobic quote-tweet responses on Twitter. While that source is enough to avoid original research and synthesis concerns, is that source strong enough to support this re-ordering? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hard disagree on including it in harassment. In fact, the harassment section in general is a mess that relies too heavily on TSN and OpenDemoracy; the #AskRapeCrisisScotland stuff was in response to Wadhwa's comments, but if you scroll through the hashtag, a solid portion of them don't even mention Wadhwa at all. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the fourth option proposed by Sideswipe above. The wording by FFF should remain unaltered.

I would prefer it to be in its own section, as Controversy, rather than the Harassment section. The point was made in previous discussion that there was harassment before the podcast. Also, the statement by MW, and the criticism of it, are significant, independently of any harassment.

If it is not in its own section, I think it should be in the Work section, because it is about MW’s attitude to her work.

As a separate but related point, I think the material about her relationship with the SNP is not appropriate in a Work section.

So – I suggest that we have a section ‘Career’, which would have 4 subsections: Work, Relationship with the SNP, Harassment, and Controversy.

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:CSECTION, I'm not sure it's appropriate to have a Controversy section in a BLP. Is there any other titles that might work for it as either a stand alone section, or subsection of a currently existing section? Would something like Guilty Feminist podcast appearance or Guilty Feminist podcast comments, or some other phrasing along those lines be acceptable? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Guilty Feminist podcast comments would be fine with me. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Seconding Guilty Feminist podcast comments. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there now agreement for my suggestion? Sweet6970 (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

GFPC works for me. Would the 'Relationship with the SNP' subsection just be the one paragraph? I think we could keep that in the 'Work' subsection. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I don’t understand why the ‘Relationship with the SNP’ material would be in the ‘Work’ section – her membership and candidacy for the SNP have nothing to do with her work, as far as I can see. And yes, it would be just one para – which I think should be a separate subheading (under ‘Career’ in my suggestion) because it is not directly related to anything else. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess I'm thinking of her running for the spot as an attempt at getting a specific job. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't understand. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

On a Career section, with four subsections, I'd have concerns about length for two of the subsections. Both the subsection on her roles in various rape crisis centres, and the subsection for her attempt at becoming an SNP MSP candidate in the 2021 election would be very short. No more than a paragraph each, unless there's any other materials from the citations we have that could expand either?

I'm also not sure if Work is the right subsection header for just her rape crisis and women's aid roles. Length issues aside, we'd be able to resolve that with more descriptive subsection header than just Work. Something like Equality and anti-violence sector would more clearly define that subsection, though I'm not entirely sold on that specific wording. I also agree with Firefangledfeathers that her candidacy attempt was also a type of work, just a different type of work. Had she been successful in her run and been elected, it's entirely plausible that we would have a Political career subsection under a generic Career section, if that helps you with parsing and chunking this content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not see a problem with a subsection which is a paragraph long. We should be tailoring the article to the facts, not trying to force the article into an artificial shape because of some preference for a particular format.

I disagree with the suggestion to use a title such as ‘Equality and anti-violence’: this is not neutral wording. ‘Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis’ would be better.

I don’t know what you mean by if that helps you with parsing and chunking.

Do you have a proposal for organising the material? I was hoping that we would be able to come to an agreement on how to amend the article, but it looks like the discussion is going off the rails again.

Sweet6970 (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see this discussion going off the rails to be fair. There's some disagreement over structure and section names, but nothing more than that.

Why is Equality and anti-violence not a neutral heading? The sentence that would start that section states plainly Wadhwa has worked in the equality and anti-violence sectors in Scotland since leaving university in 2005, before going on to detail what roles she has undertaken in that area. The relevant content for anti-violence is her roles in the various rape crisis centres, and the content for equality is her former role as a board member/director of the Equality Network and trustee for YWCA Scotland. As a possible subsection title, Equality and anti-violence seems to fit the content pretty succinctly and descriptively to me.

Women's Aid and Rape Crisis seems too narrow a subsection header to me, as it doesn't encompass her roles with the Equality Network or YWCA Scotland.

Section length aside, I see four possible ways to structure the content here, in no particular order.

1. A Career section, with subsections for Equality and anti-violence (or some other more descriptive wording than just Work), Political career, Harassment and Guilty Feminist podcast comments
2. A Career section, which contains the two paragraphs of the current Work section, followed by Harassment and Guilty Feminist podcast comments subsections
3. No change at all to the Work section. And add the Guilty Feminist podcast comments as a subsection at the end of the existing Harassment section.
4. No changes to the Work or Harassment sections. Add Guilty Feminist podcast comments as its own section.

Wherever we place the podcast section, it must be placed immediately after the harassment section, in order for the content to make chronological sense. The harassment section covers a time period between 2019 and autumn 2021. The podcast and controversy surrounding it took place in August 2021. I'm not sure which of these four possibilities I favour the most, only that I strongly dislike #4, and would not be in favour of it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Equality and anti-violence are political aspirations. MW is not the driving force behind these aspirations, which are entirely independent of her, and existed long before she was born. To have these words as a section title implies that she is responsible for any movement which tries to further these aspirations.

Your option 1 looks preferable, except that I do not agree with the Equality and anti-violence title. The subsection would be about her work, and the title Work is appropriate.

Sweet6970 (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

In a different context Equality and anti-violence are political aspirations sure. But they are also work sectors. It's a perfectly normal turn of phrase to say that "X is known for their work the equality sector" or "Y is an anti-violence campaigner".

In option 1 the section is titled Career, so it seems redundant to then call the first section Equality and anti-violence career or Equality and anti-violence work, because we've already defined the parent section to be related to her career and work. Now I would agree that Equality and anti-violence would not be suitable as a direct replacement for the current Work section header, but that's not what we're discussing. The proposal to use Equality and anti-violence as a subsection header has them under a Career header.

The subsection would be about her work Yes. And the very first sentence of that section reads Wadhwa has worked in the equality and anti-violence sectors in Scotland. By making the subsection header Equality and anti-violence, within a Career section, we are simply reflecting the text we already have in the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

How about Work in the equality and anti-violence sector? Sweet6970 (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Has the same redundancy issue as in my last reply, and it's also quite long for a section/subsection header. Equality and anti-violence sector would be more succinct, and avoid the redundancy problem. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I would accept Equality and anti-violence sector. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Do we now have agreement? Sweet6970 (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we have agreement for amendments to the article:

A new main section Career with 4 subsections:

1) Equality and anti-violence sector, comprising the first para of the current Work section

2) Political career, comprising the second para of the current Work section

3) Harassment, being the same as the current text in the current Harassment section

4) Guilty Feminist podcast comments, comprising FFF’s wording above.

Any comments?

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this version. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I have now made changes to the article which I believe are in accordance with what has been agreed here. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Criticisms coming out of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre

Are going to need somewhere to go and just undoing peoples edits won;t help anything. There were many things that came up last week and many that will come up next week, quite likely Mridul's resignation over them. So get ready perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetsugaku-San (talk • contribs) 18:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

So context is the renaming of the Guilty Feminist podcast comments section to "Criticisms" by Tetsugaku-San, and the reversion of it by myself. Now I reverted this because criticism sections are inherently non-neutral in biographies of living people. Best practice in this content area is to naturally weave this sort of content into either more descriptive sections, or into contextually appropriate existing sections.

So get ready perhaps? Within the article itself, the short answer to this question is no. We don't write content speculatively based on what may happen in the future. We write content about what has happened in the past. We don't know what will happen in the coming week, or the weeks to come. Now if something happens we can look at adding a new section or subsection, as contextually appropriate based on what reliable sources state at that time. For example, if as you've suggested she might resign from her position at the ERCC, then we could add a new section with a neutral title like "Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre resignation", with the exact title and content depending on the context for her resignation and the sourcing available if it happens. But we do not need to pre-emptively need to rename any existing sections based on hypotheticals.

With regards to the last few days, as far as I can tell only one reliable source has published anything about the Wadhwa, an opinion column in the Scotsman. Opinion articles cannot be used for assertions of fact per policy. Maybe that will change over the next week, however we need to take great care when considering adding content based on sourcing, as both The Times and Herald have been noted by other reliable sources as perpetrating harassment against Wadhwa.

On a related note, I would like to ask you Tetsugaku-San to please self-revert this edit and this edit. Both of these are recent edits that I reverted, and per WP:BRD they should be discussed prior to reinsertion.

• For the first edit I reverted, I said that this was both WP:UNDUE and violated MOS:GENDERID. An unreliable source (Legal Feminist), an opinion piece (The Critic), and an article by an RS that hve been party to the harassment campaign against Wadhwa (The Herald) do not demonstrate due weight. Describing Wadhwa as a "male without any kind of GRC" fundamentally violates MOS:GENDERID and per caselaw (AEA v EHRC) is wrong and irrelevant.
• For the second edit I reverted, I said that this was not an improvement, and that the specificity of which election in 2021 was important. Reverting this also reintroduces a grammatical error as she announced her candidacy as an SNP MSP 2021 should at minimum include the word in eg she announced her candidacy as an SNP MSP in 2021. While you could argue that this is implied by the use of MSP, that is a term that would be unfamiliar to readers outside of the UK. By specifying we make it clear that Wadhwa was not standing as a candidate in a local or Westminster election.

Now if you have reasons for why those edits by Melissa Highton should be restored, then feel free to make them here. But per WP:BRD I again ask that you self-revert pending a consensus for their inclusion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Note, another user has now reverted those edits. Justifications for the original removal still stand though, and this content should be discussed and consensus gained before being restored again. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit: Decided I'll just wait for someone with more patience to come along.Tetsugaku-San (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The edits[1] by Melissa Highton that falsely claim Wadhwa to be "male" and supposedly not a woman are blatant BLP violations that target the subject of this article solely on account of being transgender, the "sources" are low-quality, far-right, conspiracy theorist and transphobic websites (For Women Scotland, an extreme anti-trans group, "Legalfeminist", a well-known TERF website and associated Twitter account that promotes conspiracy theories and transphobia, Jean Hatchet, an anti-trans activist), and should be reverted on sight. Unfortunately, this article has a long history of harassment of the article subject, related to the very harassment described in the article and numerous RS. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm still on wikibreak but I logged in to point out a possibly urgent BLP issue. The article currently includes the categories Indian transgender women, Scottish transgender women, Transgender women politicians, Indian LGBT politicians, Scottish LGBT politicians. As I understand it, the subject is a trans woman so she may belong in these categories.

But per WP:BLPCAT, "the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its verifiable reliable sources". I'd argue that "unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" should also apply a gender identity although strictly speaking from the wording it doesn't.

Whatever the case, unless I'm missing something, the article doesn't say anywhere she is a trans woman nor imply it in some other way (e.g. that she was assigned male at birth), other than sort of imply by the headline of one RS. (There was an addition to the lead but this was removed.) While headlines are not RS, I'm fairly sure that the article itself which is an RS must mention some details of her gender identity, so I didn't consider this urgent enough for me to remove myself.

But if there is insufficient sourcing to establish that we should mention she is a trans woman (or whatever) somewhere in the article, perhaps because as mentioned above most sources which delve into this are from op-eds, critics and those harassing her, then the categories transgender categories need to be removed ASAP.

Likewise unless I've missed something there is no mention of her sexual orientation other than a mention of a husband, so since there's also no mention of her being a trans woman, the LGBT categories also don't belong. Indeed strictly speaking until the issue is resolved all the categories should be removed.

Related, I think if we do lack sufficient sourcing to mention that she's a trans woman, we have to consider whether to remove or at least reword the part about her leaving due to objections over her being listed on an all-woman candidates list as I feel this part is hard to understand without such knowledge.

I'd even go as far as to suggest we should consider removing the part about her being misgendered. While people are frequently subject to misgendering even when they gender identity matches that assigned at birth for a variety of reasons, I feel that it's an important aspect of understanding one of the reasons this happened. I'm fairly surprised that sources that mention this harassment don't mention her being a trans woman, my only guess is the sourcing mentioning this harassment is fairly limited.

(To be clear, I'm not in any way suggesting it makes it okay. But just like the info about her being born in India and a immigrant to Scotland helps to inform on her being subject to racist attacks without excusing it, the knowledge she is a trans woman helps to inform on her being subject to misgendering without excusing it.)

On a mostly unrelated note, IMO the section on her leaving the SNP doesn't flow very well. It first mentions she quit the partly due to attacks on her motivated by both her leadership ambitions and transphobia. It then says she will still vote for Scottish independence. It then mentions she left after an amendment to the law the SNP allowed. I assume both of these are true, she left both due to the attacks and the law change they allowed but the way it's worded just seems confusing. At the very least, I feel the independence thing should be moved after both reasons but perhaps the section can just be reworded to make it clearer that these are among the reasons.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

P.S. If she didn't ascribe the law change as a reason for her leaving but the source did mention it came after that, perhaps a better option would be to move the part about the law change to be first, so we say she left after this happened, and we then explain the reasons she gave for her leaving. Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

P.P.S. I don't want to go too far in to this, but even putting aside the misgendering, reading the section on harassment more careful I'm actually really surprised sources which discuss the harassment don't mention in some way that she's a trans woman. It just seems to me it's a very significant aspect of this, as it's extremely likely the harassment is not just because of her advocating for trans rights etc, but in fact is primarily due to transphobia directed at a trans woman. A bizarre situation all around IMO if I understand what was said above correctly and it's primarily only sources harassing her etc which mention she's a trans woman and other sources have largely ignored it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Mridul Wadwha is definitely a trans woman – see this Guardian article of 12 December 2022 [2], which includes In line with a longstanding policy of trans inclusion by the country’s official network, Edinburgh rape crisis centre has been run by a trans woman, Mridul Wadhwa, since May 2021. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not just a question of whether you can find a source that says she is a trans woman, there is also a question of WP:DUE, whether it is a defining characteristic, BLP concerns related to mentioning someone's sexuality or gender identity etc. For example, does she publicly identify in this way? It seems to me that this has mainly been made into an issue in connection with the racist and transphobic harassment of her that the article describes.

In particular, describing her as a trans woman in the lead is as absurd as starting an article about a gay man in this way: "John Doe is an actor and a gay man." Normally, sexuality etc. is something that would be mentioned briefly way down in the article, not in the lead. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

With regards to neutral sources (ie not The Times and Herald), very few actually mention that Wadhwa is trans. For them it doesn't seem that pertinent when discussing her or her work. I think the Guardian source could warrant a brief mention in the background section however, and that would satisfy the WP:BLPCAT and WP:CATV issues. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

What wording are you thinking of? Just She is transgender? Or something else? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I've no specific wording in mind right now, other than something simple like She is a trans woman because that's pretty much the depth that source goes into. Is there maybe an about self or interview source that we could use? I know she's spoken in the past before with LGBT History Month Scotland about some of her history in India, is there anything similar in her own words that we could use here from another interview or podcast source? Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

When I did a search for MW being transgender, the Guardian was the only RS that came up. I would be happy with She is a trans woman. in the Background section. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I have now added the statement 'She is a trans woman.' Sweet6970 (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)