Talk:Monisha Rajesh

Controversies

Monisha Rajesh enters many controversies. This a theme of her career. Therefore I included controversies in her biography. She has also written about anger management what an important topic this is for her. Therefore I believe it should be included. Some may think this is negative information but Wikipedia states that negative information should not be repressed. Therefore I will restore this information in brief form. Do Editors agree? NoorStores (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

That you've restored it as "In 2022 she wrote about anger management in the Guardian" would seem to suggest that no, this isn't a major part of her biography. Guardian columnists write about lots of things that happen to them. I disagree that it belongs in the article as a part of such a short biography. Belbury (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay Belbury. I have added 5 references for the Trump incident. I can assure it was a big topic in Pakistan at the time - I have included one of those sources. Is this sufficent? NoorStores (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Racist abuse over Kate Clanchy book

Dear Mr Belbury, I agree is is most important to publish only facts. Therefore I have removed the references to Monisha Rajesh receiving racist abuse. The article you cited did not demonstrate this as a fact. It states that Ms Rajesh made this claim. It offers no evidence of the abuse . In all the verified sources I have studied I have never found evidence, only claims. Therefore I believe this should be noted as a claim and and not a fact. The claim is contested moreover and evidence offered. I believe this should also be recorded so that Wikipedia is fair and neutral. Thank you Mr Belbury I appreciate you do much work here.. Noor NoorStores (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you could clarify, given your question to me, if you are connected to Monisha Rajesh? I have been very open and hope you will be also. NoorStores (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Happy to clarify. I had never heard of Monisha Rajesh, Chimene Suleyman, Sunny Singh or Kate Clanchy before today.

It's reasonable to state the racist abuse as a fact rather than dismissing it as a mere MOS:CLAIM, in this instance. The cited Guardian source doesn't couch it as a claim, it says that these people went on to receive racist abuse from social media users. Twitter is a public space, so journalists and the writers of the open letter would have been able to see it for themselves. Belbury (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear Mr Belbury,

There are two sources other than Ms Rajesh's own opinion piece which cite the social media abuse as a fact.

Both these sources are from early-August 2021, therefore I think we can agree that to say there were 'months' of abuse is not backed up by verifiable sources.

The Lucy Knight piece - and I have just noticed this - used to have a link to statements by the publishers Picador/Macmillan. They apologised to Ms Rajesh, Ms Suleyman and Prof Singh. But the link is dead now, and I cannot find those statements at all. I am still looking on the site but if they have been taken down another source of verification gone.

There is only one long piece of investigative journalism on the furore, by Gaby Hinsliff. This does not mention the abuse so cannot be counted as verification.

The claims were contested in August, 2022. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/war-of-words-between-authors-joanne-harris-and-kate-clanchy-is-investigated-xhwpjw5ww and here https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/21/poison-pens-leading-writers-call-for-overhaul-of-uks-society-of-authors

I note that the Times article was contested by lawyers, but they did not adjust anything about the abuse. Nor was any refutation made by the three critics at that time.

Therefore I respectfully suggest that these statements are contested and are better described as claims than as proven facts. These are very very serious allegations which I feel deeply, which is why I believe we should be precise about them. NoorStores (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

There's a Gaby Hinsliff article from June 2022, I don't know if that's the one you're referring to, that says that the writers endured months of racist abuse.

I can't read the paywalled Times article you link to.

I can't see anything in the other article you link to that suggests we only have the word of Rajesh and others that the racist abuse occurred. It doesn't seem to mention the abuse at all.

There are many articles still up years later which report the abuse as something that happened, rather than something that its victims merely claim to have happened. If reliable sources consider it to have happened, Wikipedia can use the same language. Belbury (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The Times article refers to a letter in which Ms Clanchy states

Clanchy writes that the ordeal had left her close to suicide. “It is defamatory to say I orchestrated racial abuse, not just of me but of my students, disadvantaged young people of colour who found themselves objects of disgust and patronage, their words and testimony discarded for no evidenced reason. My teaching practice has been destroyed as a consequence of this libel.”

It further states that there was an investigation with detectives on the abuse. Would you like me to copy in the whole article?

Would it be best to include that the claims were contested? NoorStores (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

None of these related Wikipedia articles are alleging that Clanchy orchestrated the abuse. Does Clanchy go on to say that she believes the abuse didn't happen? Belbury (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I have read the letter referred to as it was leaked on the web. (I would not use this source). She explains that her detectives found a thread of abuse of Chimene Suleyman. She is most disgusted by this. However, this thread happened two days before Sir Philip Pullman's tweet and was not connected to Ms Clanchy. No other abuse was found of the other women. For me this was a big shock. At the time I was following twitter and I also believed this thread of abuse, which was passed around as a gif, was caused by Sir Phillip and there was much more of it. I was very upset by it at the time. I believe that Kate Clanchy has been connected with this abuse and it is damaging to her and Philip Pullman too. So I believe it is better described as a claim. I believe Wikipedia should be very scrupulous with this sort of thing. NoorStores (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, a private letter cannot be used as a source.

If multiple press sources state that something happened and Wikipedia editor NoorStores says that they once read an unpublished private letter sent to Kate Clanchy which says that it didn't, Wikipedia goes with the press sources. Belbury (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me Mr Belbury. It was not a private letter to Kate Clanchy. It was a letter from her to the Society of Authors and reported in the Times Newspaper. Therefore its claims were verified. NoorStores (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

further the abuse was connected to her because her publishers apologised for it. Also many times on twitter her critics said it. Prof Singh said Pullman sicked the hounds on her. And now the publishers apologies are gone. So I think this is contested. I have a shift now. Excuse me. Noor. NoorStores (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I apologise, I thought you meant you'd read the letter from the police. You're saying that you read a private letter written by Kate Clanchy where she quotes a letter from the police.

Does the fact that you're talking about a leaked copy of the letter mean that the Times article chose not to quote the part where Clanchy said that the police found no evidence of abuse?

Again, Wikipedia cannot use what people post to WP:TWITTER as a source. It should also not combine statements, especially not tweets, to reach a novel conclusion per WP:SYNTH. Belbury (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear Mr Belbury,

I apologise for the delay in replying to you. I am working shifts at this time.

It is a problem to me that you are unable to read the article from The Times. Therefore, you have not fully understood the content of it. Perhaps I did not explain it properly. I have attempted to make an archive copy, and also a photograph, but this is not possible from this library. Therefore I will place extracts here. I am choosing extracts about Kate Clanchy and not those about Philip Pullman.

The article was written by David Sanderson, Arts Correspondent The date is 26 September 2022

The Headline is War of words between authors Joanne Harris and Kate Clanchy is investigated

Poet fights back after becoming a ‘scapegoat for entire publishing industry’

These are the extracts. I have used ... to indicate a gap.

The author at the heart of a row enveloping the writers’ trade union has employed private investigators....

Kate Clanchy, the Oxford poet and teacher, employed the investigators to compile a forensic report concerning the social media activity of three individuals...

In a letter to members and staff of the society, which has been seen by The Times, Clanchy said she had become, as “Harris had suggested [she should] . . .”, a scapegoat for the entire publishing industry in “sackcloth and ashes”.....

The row burst into the public arena in August last year when Clanchy was accused by online commentators of having used stereotypical or derogatory descriptions of non-white and autistic children in her book Some Kids I Taught and What They Taught Me, which won the Orwell Prize for political writing in 2020. The book, released in 2019, shared students’ poetry from her time teaching at Oxford Spires Academy, east Oxford...

Clanchy writes that the ordeal had left her close to suicide. “It is defamatory to say I orchestrated racial abuse, not just of me but of my students, disadvantaged young people of colour who found themselves objects of disgust and patronage, their words and testimony discarded for no evidenced reason. My teaching practice has been destroyed as a consequence of this libel.”

At the end of the article, it states. This article was amended on December 19, 2022, following a complaint by Ms Harris.

Therefore not only is the Times a broadsheet paper which is a paper of record, but this article in particular has had a legal challenge. All the same Ms Clanchy's statements that she has been libelled by her critics and the allegation of social media abuse is defamatory is still in The Times. So I believe this challenge is verified and should be on the Wikipedia account of the incidents.

Further articles include this one from The Telegraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/what-to-read/how-society-authors-succumbed-groupthink/

A full account is on this substack.https://esoterichistrionics.substack.com/p/the-soa-is-not-okay This is where I read the letter. I have not included this source in Wikipedia as it is not appropriate. However, as you are unable to read The Times article maybe this places the items in context.

Peace

Noor NoorStores (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting that, but it doesn't seem to reveal anything new, if no reliable sources doubt that the abuse (orchestrated or otherwise) occurred. --Belbury (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear Mr Belbury,

You have removed from my contributions the notes and citations which demonstrate that was allegations of orchestrated abuse which caused Sir Philip Pullman to resign from the Society of Authors and Kate Clanchy to have her books depublished. You have also removed citations demonstrating that Prof Singh supported allegations of orchestrated abuse. The above from a published verified source states that the objects of these allegations protested about them and made counter claims. There are many verified sources on this which I have shown you. It is not the case that the only verified information is one article in the Guardian in August 2021 by Lucy Knight. Wikipedia should not be so one sided in controversies. It should be neutral.

Noor. NoorStores (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

This discussion thread is about you wanting to [remove] the references to Monisha Rajesh receiving racist abuse or to rephrase it as "claims" of abuse.

I removed your earlier lengthy description of what Rajesh said about this or that and what Clanchy or Pullman did next as undue (it was 300 words of a 600-word biography) and against Wikipedia biography guidelines for using Twitter quotes about third parties. Belbury (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

No Mr Belbury, this discussion thread is not only about Monisha Rajesh. You specifically asked me to have a discussion in this place about all four articles. You are 'moving the goalposts' as they say. You have done this several times. First you asked for a verifiable sources, I produced them. Then you said they would not do because you couldn't read them because of paywall. Pam produced copies. Then you said they were not relevant to the narrative. I pointed out that this was because you had earlier changed the narrative. Then you stated that the narrative was irrelevant to this discussion.

It is simply untrue, as Pam has demonstrated below, that the paragraph you have most recently deleted depended on Twitter. You have made the same changes on the Chimene Suleyman page and the same allegation but no citations to twitter were made at all.

All of these changes and demands have been made very fast, within minutes of my replies, on Saturday afternoon.

This is not considered editing, because you have not read the material. Nor can it or anything to do with Wikipedia, because you are replacing updated material and careful citations with old stories and deadlinks. Simply, it is bullying. You want me to right and you to be wrong and you have the power to enforce your whims.

(Personal attack removed)

Therefore, I will now close down my account.

Noor NoorStores (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• I should be concentrating on a live online choir rehearsal but ... Newsbank, free through my public library, offers full text of the Times article, which I'll paste here, without reading to see who it supports:

"Pullman quits post in 'cancelled author' row"
(Redacted)

PamD 16:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to add: if anyone quotes from that, or any other paywalled article, it's helpful to quote, in the reference, the exact wording from the article which is being used, to help other readers without online access. PamD 16:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, wrong article: Try this one:

"War of words between authors Joanne Harris and Kate Clanchy is investigated"
(Redacted)

PamD 16:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Slightly odd, if Harris is so involved, that the word "Clanchy" doesn't occur in Joanne Harris. And no signs, from the edit history, of it having been added, removed, scrapped about or anything. PamD 17:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

And, tho' more relevant to Kate Clanchy or Philip Pullmann, I've found the Society of Authors "distancing" statement here on the SoA website: "Philip wrote his comments as an individual, not in the name of the Society of Authors." PamD 17:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear Pam,

Thank you very much for retrieving these articles. I very much appreciate it and I hope you had a lovely evening at choir too.

You are perfectly correct that the Joanne Harris page lacks this information. In the last two years there is much information and news stories about Ms Harris, Philip Pullman,Kate Clanchy and free speech. I also think the Wikipedia silence on this is very strange. Perhaps you can fill some of it. I am now leaving Wikipedia. Thank you for helping me learn to make citations.

Noor NoorStores (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It's always a shame to lose an enthusiastic, literate, female, probably UK-based editor, as there aren't enough of any of these people editing (or so it feels!). Perhaps you could find another less controversial area to edit? Your PhD was about publishing, so you may know of writers who don't yet have articles but would pass WP:NAUTHOR? It can be difficult for a new editor to find their feet, but all the more so when they edit in an area where they have strong feelings and personal knowledge. Best wishes, and Happy Editing if you decide to stay and contribute to this amazing encyclopedia. PamD 16:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Pam, Best wishes to you too. I think you are very big person! I have looked at your work here now and it is inspiring and very feminist if I may so.

I have sneaked back because my Kate Clanchy page was raised to a C grade! this made me want to continue, but I am not sure how far I will go.

I am British Pakistani btw.

Noor NoorStores (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@NoorStores Hallo Noor, I noticed you were back. Please remember to cite everything you add to Wikipedia, but most especially everything about a living person - you haven't given any sources for KC's various awards. Just being listed in the Wikipedia article for the award isn't enough, though that article will (should!) have a source for the information. which you can then check and use.

You might like to put something, anything, into your user page User:Noorstores, because a red link very often indicates a very new and inexperienced user and the unconscious bias (yes, that again) can click in for other editors. You can say as much, or as little, as you like. Even "Hallo" will turn the red link blue, and indicates to all that you've learned enough about Wikipedia to find and edit your user page, but you can choose to be more informative if you want to - have a look at a few examples. Happy Editing! PamD 11:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Pam, The Wiki articles I cited do list the past winners including Clanchy, but I have added other citations too. Thanks for the tips as ever.

Noor NoorStores (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)