Talk:Lawrence Liang

message: The quotes taken from the essay "Shoot, Share and Create" are from a text which is in the Creative Commons license. I hope there is no copyright violation. --fredericknoronha 10:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio?

message: There was a question about the subject's notability, and this article was tagged accordingly. I have removed that tag, because all you really needed to do was this:
Google Search for "Lawrence Liang"
Achitnis (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but where are the reliable sources in those links. The first two are Wiki and a self-published forum. As the guy is a scholar, he should follow the WP:ACADEMIC guidelines, and it doesn't seem to be the case. A google scholar search shows his publications have been cited by at most 4. That's insignificant. Google search is not enough to prove general notability either. Thus, until the article has proper citations from reliable tertiary sources, I'm reinstating the tag.--Boffob (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  have tried to make notability clearer by adding references and details of published book. Removed tag.--SasiSasi (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Lawrence Liang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061014204433/http://world-information.org/wio/readme/992003309/1102877551 to http://world-information.org/wio/readme/992003309/1102877551
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120426154545/http://www.altlawforum.org:80/intellectual-property/publications/articles-on-copyright-and-culture/shoot-share-and-create to http://www.altlawforum.org/intellectual-property/publications/articles-on-copyright-and-culture/shoot-share-and-create/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lawrence Liang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060823132639/http://www.altlawforum.org/PUBLICATIONS/shoot_share to http://www.altlawforum.org/PUBLICATIONS/shoot_share
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There are a few potentially contentious/libellous edits with misleading/incomplete information being added to this page. Several more experienced users have been reverting these pages. If you are an editor with potentially contentious information to add to this page, please initiate a discussion on the talk page before proceeding further.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnemonic (talk • contribs) 10:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contentious edits 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Lawrence_Liang  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnemonic (talk • contribs) 03:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for protection 

message: People are whitewashing the article and deleting info on his sexual harassment inquiry finding. By that logic the Harvey Weinstein page should contain no mention of the sexual harassment allegations! In Liang's case a government university has found him guilty. As noted by Nikhil Cariappa, a suspicious attempt at repeated whitewashing is happening: https://twitter.com/NikhilCariappa1/status/979532465223036928  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamont.phil (talk • contribs) 16:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reputation Whitewashing 

message: I am reproducing what was deleted here? What is factually wrong here? He has been found guilty of sexual harassment by a government university inquiry committee, it has been reported on extensively in the media, and it as triggered a debate. In that case, please also whitewash Harvey Weinstein's page, as they are merely allegations. 
/Contentious material redacted due to WP:BLP concerns.  Chopps2018's version may be viewed here./ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chopps2018 (talk • contribs) 
:He is not "guilty" of anything until a court conviction is secured against him. Until that time, contentious material about a living person may not be added to a BLP as per WP:BLPCRIME, WP:REDFLAG, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, as well as WP:UNDUE concerns. You are yet to address these issues. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Harassment Findings 

message: Should the article include any mention of the allegations of sexual harassment against the subject? feminist (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on mention of alleged sexual harassment 

message: I received this email from User:Ladybird1003 a few days ago:
Hi,
This is  currently based in . I am writing to you because I and my friends need help with this case  and I am hoping you can guide us?
Lawrence Liang is a lawyer and well-known in India's academic and activist circles. He was recently convicted by Ambedkar University Delhi's committee for prevention of sexual harassment (CPSH) of sexually harassing a student as well as two interns at a law collective that he had founded. In India, the law requires such committees to be formed in every workplace, including universities, to deal with such matters in case the victim is unwilling to approach the police directly. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Harassment_of_Women_at_Workplace_(Prevention,_Prohibition_and_Redressal)_Act,_2013)
. If you see the source page, you can see all kinds of excuses have been given to prevent this fact from being mentioned in his page. Someone even said that he cannot be found guilty of SH since it wasn't a judgement passed by a court of law. This is a flat-out misinterpretation of the 2013 Act that explicitly allows internal complaints committees to investigate SH claims and pass judgements.
This fact about Liang is extremely important . He is still a teacher at the same university. FWIW, Harvey Weinstein's Wiki page has a full section devoted his SH allegations and he hasn't even been found guilty by any court or even a legally-constituted committee.
If there's any way you can help us with this, we would be extremely grateful. .
Some links to his conviction (all are well-known, credible Indian newspapers and portals):
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/aud-professor-found-guilty-of-sexual-harassment/article22988210.ece
https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/lawrence-liang-found-guilty-sexual-harassment-survivor-says-punishment-inadequate-77670
https://www.firstpost.com/india/ambedkar-university-probe-finds-lawrence-liang-guilty-of-sexual-harassment-complainant-dissatisfied-4383195.html
https://scroll.in/article/871321/why-ambedkar-university-held-law-professor-lawrence-liang-guilty-of-sexual-harassment
Hoping for your response.
Thanks,
As you may probably see from the article history, there had been a bunch of hit-and-run/meatpuppet accounts attempting to repeatedly insert such information into the article until the page was protected. Obviously these editors have violated a number of Wikipedia policies including BLP and SOCK, but if assuming good faith, perhaps instead of intentionally violating policies to irritate experienced editors, they are indeed confused by how Wikipedia works or are scared by the reaction from reverting editors. It is clear that these people feel strongly about this topic. I think this article would benefit from more discussion from more editors. feminist (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Background information

message: *Hello, feminist. Have you reviewed WP:RFCBEFORE?  I encourage you and your friends to participate in this discussion and address the BLP concerns raised above prior to starting this RfC so as not to waste the time of other editors? We must recognize that their time, a finite community resource, would be better spent resolving disputes where editor concerns and policy criteria are well-defined and laid out? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on RfC

message: Text in question:
:I've read through the entirety of the talk page discussion here, but I'm not satisfied - although the reason to close the previous RfC was a good reason, and the arguments against adding anything about the accusation are also sufficient, I just don't think the fate of the article should be left up to about 3 editors without any other community consensus. Yes, some of the SPA here have acted in bad faith. Yes,  was wrong to start her RfC without taking the nessicary WP:RFCBEFORE steps. However, the fact that there has been little to no discussion since then besides going back and forth in edit wars is very, very worrying. Therefore, as an uninvolved editor, I'd like to start a RfC.
:Should information about the allegation that Lawrence Liang has committed sexual harassment be included on this article in any way, shape, or form? Does this violate WP:BLPCRIME, and if it does, should an exception be made due to the nature of Indian law (regarding this legislative act and the fact that Ambedkar University Delhi was established under a government statute and is known as a "public authority") that says Indian government-established authorities should count just as equally as "courts of law"? Nanophosis (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *I suspect the SPAs have been soliciting accounts that identify themselves (through user categories) as feminists or LGBTQ allies. Can I also request you to redact the problematic parts of the RfC? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, I've redacted a good portion of the RfC. In turn, I kindly ask that you redact the portion of your comment that implies I am meatpuppeting for the SPAs that have been commenting here just because I'm a lesbian. Nanophosis (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thank you for editing your statement.  I would recommend that you remove the struck out portion in totality.  Furthermore, neither have I attributed bad faith to you, nor have I suggested that you're a meatpuppet account.  And even if there were any such insinuation, your account does not qualify as per the definition of WP:MEAT. That said, it does appear, from the evidence available above, that the SPAs have been soliciting numerous users based on their self-identification (via user categories) as feminists or LGBTQ individuals. Can you please clarify if you received any emails that directed your attention to this page? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *I haven't received any emails. I stumbled across this page from the hidden cleanup "pages tagged with POV" category (back when the POV tag was there, of course). I've seen recommendations that strikethrough should be used rather than deletion, which is why I didn't remove it completely, otherwise I would gladly get rid of it as I realize it was in bad faith and hyperbolic. Nanophosis (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thank you Nanophosis. I don't think you acted in bad faith, it was just an error. I have taken the liberty to move the struck out text to this sub-section so as not avoid confusion among users participating in this RfC. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

text: *If the struck material is removed, please either remove this entire three-editor digression, as moot, or move it to an "Extended discussion" sub-thread, to keep the response area cleaner.  Who may or may not have experienced or engaged in canvassing and who could be a meatpuppet or an SPA isn't an RfC matter, anyway.  Better for ANI or another noticeboard (SPI, etc.), with the proper evidence, if that WP:DRAMA is really necessary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *That makes sense.  I just moved it under another sub-section. Thank you, Smc. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

text: *Thank you for the comment, Andy. As discussed earlier, this is, more specifically a BLP issue rather than a content dispute. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *Which is still a content dispute, and the nature of this one is almost entirely WP:NPOV-related (aside from a WP:RS quibble raised by someone).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ah, yes, it's a content dispute, but primarily one that revolves around compliance with BLP requirements on Wikipedia. :) That is, it's not a garden-variety content dispute concerning NPOV. I have, however, raised issues such as WP:REDFLAG, WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:UNDUE above, in *addition* to the primary WP:BLPCRIME point in question. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on RfC and other discussions