Talk:Mridul Wadhwa

Suggested New Section

( I don't have 500 edits on my account) - in the light of recent events I took it upon myself to craft a new section for this page which I believe should be quite high up the page:

Roz Adams Case

Background

In a highly publicized legal case, Roz Adams, a former employee of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, filed a claim for constructive dismissal against the organization. Adams argued that the hostile work environment under the leadership of Mridul Wadhwa, who strongly advocated for transgender inclusion, forced her to resign. Adams held gender-critical beliefs, which she felt were not respected and led to her being marginalized within the organization.

Tribunal Findings

The employment tribunal found in favor of Roz Adams, ruling that she had been constructively dismissed. The tribunal highlighted that Adams faced discrimination due to her gender-critical views, which clashed with Wadhwa's staunchly pro-transgender stance. The findings revealed that the aggressive pursuit of Wadhwa's ideological beliefs created a divisive atmosphere, negatively impacting both staff and service users.

Impact on Service Provision

Critics of Wadhwa argue that the focus on ideological purity over practical support led to a decline in the quality of care provided to rape survivors. Testimonies during the tribunal suggested that some women felt alienated and unsupported due to the center's policies under Wadhwa's leadership. This aspect of the case has fueled broader discussions about the balance between inclusivity and the specific needs of vulnerable populations in crisis services.

Public Reaction and Calls for Resignation

The outcome of the tribunal and the details revealed during the case prompted widespread calls for Mridul Wadhwa's resignation. Many stakeholders, including former service users and members of the public, expressed concern that Wadhwa's ideological beliefs were prioritized over the essential mission of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. Despite this, Wadhwa has remained in her position, defending the inclusivity measures and emphasising the importance of supporting all survivors of sexual violence.

Suggested additional section ends.

Suggested update to intro paragraphs, given the importance of this case.

"Mridul Wadhwa was born in India in 1978. She lived in Pune until she was 30, where she ran a successful business with her husband, then emigrated to the United Kingdom, earning a master's degree in education from the University of Edinburgh in 2005. She permanently moved to Scotland in 2009. Wadhwa became involved in women's rights activism in Scotland as a student and has focused on giving voice to women from marginalized backgrounds, including migrant and racialized women. She is a trans woman.

Wadhwa's tenure as Chief Executive Officer of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre has been marked by controversy. A legal case involving former employee Roz Adams, who won a claim of constructive dismissal, highlighted issues of ideological extremism and discrimination against gender-critical beliefs. Critics argue that Wadhwa's policies have excluded some service users, negatively impacting the care provided to rape survivors. "

Thank you for drafting this. However, I feel it is unsuitable for this article. Your draft goes into too much detail about the tribunal case, whereas this article is about Wadhwa. Also, every statement made on Wikipedia needs to be backed up by a source, and these should normally be secondary sources e.g. reports in reputable news publications. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, what Sweet6970 said... Something of this sort would be more fitting in the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre article, though it might still be too long and detailed for that. And certainly sources are necessary. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Urgent updates to this page concerning the condemnation of Mridul, her control and actions at th ERCC and the ERCC itself

Very important, seismic legal outcome regarding Mridul and the ERCC, This case outcome and the details behind it urgently needs adding to this article but as it is protected, most of us cannot - https://archive.ph/ZCsFI and https://freespeechunion.org/victory-for-worker-in-rape-centre-gender-row/ . Specific quotes from the tribunal should be included on this page, for example Mridul Wadhwa and other members of the senior management team were engaged in what the Tribunal described as “a heresy hunt”. The belief that sex is real and that it might be important in a rape crisis centre was deemed by ERCC to be transphobic. The Tribunal concluded that Mridul Wadha had an agenda to “cleanse the organisation” of those who did not adhere to an institutional view which was “at the very extreme end of gender identity theory”. It concluded that “there is absolutely no need for a Rape Crisis Centre to be seen to take such a stance”.

Agreed. The role of the then CEO, Maggie Chapman MSP, should also be mentioned. Zeno27 (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zeno27: :Thank you for providing the archive Times source. I am drafting something to add to this article. I have also just heard about this on Radio 4, where Wadhwa was mentioned. I cannot yet find anything on the BBC website, but I will keep a lookout for this. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The BBC will not include a proper account of the case, they are institutionally biased and rarely able to give a clear report on any news that contains information about transgender people. I would urge you to consider different news sources, or at least others to compliment the BBC article, such as https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-condemned-gender-critical-worker-pzj35f0fj

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13437863/Rape-centre-boss-heresy-hunt-female-employee-gender-critical-beliefs-tribunal.html

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/edinburgh-rape-crisis-gender-row-employment-tribunal-the-three-key-findings-in-damning-report/ar-BB1mIcgk

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/12712792/sex-realist-worker-gender-edinburgh-rape-crisis/ 82.10.58.36 (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I have now added inf on the tribunal case to the article, and a BBC reference. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I have used the Times source as well as the BBC source. These are both high quality sources. Please note that the Daily Mail is deprecated on Wikipedia, because it is unreliable on facts. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, wouldn't want to listen to voices from all sides of politics would we, much better if we just listen to people we agree with. After all, words are violence.

Regardless - given Mridul's significant agenda to "Cleanse the organisation" of anyone who did not subscribe to opinions “at the very extreme end of gender identity theory - the information on Mridul's page should be much clearer, much firmer, and much further up the page. This is *the* career defining moment of their career and the thing they will be remembered for. 82.10.58.36 (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have some specific suggestion for a change to the wording I have added on this matter? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Why is it protected and who gets to edit it? Zeno27 (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

According to the protection log [1], the page was protected because of violations of the biographies of living persons policy. See WP:BLP. Admins and other editors who are extended-confirmed are able to edit the article. See WP:XCON. I see that an IP has requested that the protection be lifted, and that this request has been refused. [2] Sweet6970 (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Editing status for such articles is granted to anybody with a sufficient number of edits and a sufficient number of days since creating their account, a fairly lenient criterion that lets in all sorts of editors of all sorts of opinions, just not relative newbies. It's not a tiny cabal, anyway. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"Harassment" section

The section on "harassment" seems excessively long in proportion to the other sections of the article, it conflates harassment with criticism, and one claim, that Kellie-Jay Keen "made a series of unfounded and unevidenced accusations about Wadhwa and her work", is sourced to an OpenDemocracy article in which this statement itself is unevidenced, and "Kellie-Jay Keen" is misspelled. Given that an employment tribunal has recently endorsed some of the criticisms against Wadhwa, it's clear that not all criticism is harassment. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Please set out in detail your suggestions for changes to this section. I am knocking off for the evening, so I won’t reply until at least tomorrow midday, but there may be other editors who wish to comment on this. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed already and there is a consensus for the current state.[3][4][5]

You wrote the article conflates harassment with criticism. The article says The abuse received at the ERCC included hate speech on social media and on phone calls, letters and emails containing baseless accusations of predatory behaviour, racist commentary, and threats of vigilante violence. Nearly all comments intentionally misgendered Wadhwa the section is about opposition to her role as CEO because she's trans - that's harassment, not criticism. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Little Professor, please self-revert this[6] edit - the claim is unexceptional and supported by the body. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The very fact that there is this discussion indicates that the claim is controversial, not unexceptional, and therefore per WP:BLP should be removed if unsourced. The previous discussions linked do not suggest there is consensus for the current weighting given the the section in the body. There are several issues with the sourcing used in the body, which needs to be addressed too.

Please do not edit-war over this. Little Professor (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Then the second paragraph of the section starts with Articles criticising Wadhwa were published on the websites, so it does seem to be treating criticism as an instance of harassment. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The source says The website Wings Over Scotland attacked her appointment. The Christian Institute website ran a series of articles about her, and the US-based Christian Today and Life Site News picked them up.[7]

It also states By August 2021, thousands of tweets had been sent with the hashtag #AskRapeCrisisScotland as so-called ‘gender critical’ activists denounced the charity for hiring Wadhwa, often repeating myths promoted by these websites and videos

And, even if you think websites publishing articles about how awful it is she got a job since she's transgender is somehow "criticism" and not "harassment", the article lays out clear, inarguable, instances of harassment: ERCC has shown openDemocracy 55 pages of emails it received at the time, with senders’ details redacted. Almost all misgender Wadhwa and many accuse her baselessly of predatory behaviour. Some are racist. The letters include numerous threats of vigilante violence. One seems to call for a genocide of trans women. Another chillingly presents the board with a choice of sacking Wadhwa, or seeing transphobes “take matters into their own hands”. - is that "criticism"? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

A tribunal has found the leadership of the ERCC to be worthy of the works of Kafka, so certainly there is some valid non-harassing criticism. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misapprehension that this person was subject to a harassment campaign and anybody has ever made a valid criticism of this person are mutually exclusive statements - they are not. A harassment campaign, which RS stated was a harassment campaign, that contained many instances of inarguable harassment, is not "criticism" because a tribunal later found this person was in the wrong about something else.

Yes or no - was Mridul Wadhwa the subject of harassment or not? Not Was everything harassment?, I am asking was she subject to harassment? Per WP:RS. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I believe harassment did happen in this case. That doesn't mean that everything an activist might term "harassment" actually is, but certainly some of what was said does fit the label. (The same is true for some of what has been aimed at J. K. Rowling, Kathleen Stock, and other gender critical people.) *Dan T.* (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, why doesn't Vancouver Rape Relief & Women's Shelter have a "harassment" section? It was harassed by trans activists, who pinned a dead rat to their door and painted graffiti on their wall. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

If you have a suitable source for this, you should add it to that article. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Have any of the events mentioned here resulted in a finding in a court of law, tribunal or similar of anyone breaking laws on harassment? If so perhaps the section should be edited to emphasize those. If not, the tone of the section seems problematic. Happypoems (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Infobox

The infobox for this article is uninformative and dubious. It says that Wadhwa is known for Women's rights, trans rights, and anti-domestic violence activism but she is actually famous for her comments in the ‘Guilty Feminist podcast’, and for being criticised in the Roz Adams tribunal case. I feel it would be somewhat pointed and perhaps unbalanced to say this in the Infobox. So I propose deleting the Infobox entirely. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have to disagree slightly, she was famous enough to be part of a harassment campaign before either of those 2 events happened so to say that she is famous for those is a bit weird. However I do agree that "known for" probably isn't the most accurate and probably could do with a review. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with deletion for the reasons mentioned. Happypoems (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I oppose this, she was notably receiving harassment before the guilty feminist podcast or Adams case. She has spent her career in Women's rights, trans rights, and anti-domestic violence activism - just because some people have been very mad about that doesn't mean it's not what she's known for. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

That the comments in the Guilty Feminist podcast, and the Roz Adams case, are only 2 events in her career, are the reason that I do not think that these should be in the infobox as what she is ‘known for’. But in practice, as I said, these are what she is currently famous for. The ‘pageviews’ function shows a massive spike when the Roz Adams case was reported. And as I said, the infobox is uninformative. I think it does not serves any purpose, and should be deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd support removal of the infobox, at least for now. It presents basically the same info as the very short lead, and presenting the same info side-by-side is unhelpful. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm generally against deletion of infoboxes, as they often serve as a neat and tidy summary of vital info. This one, though, doesn't have much in it at present; can it be improved? Is there a free-licenced picture, are there some reliably sourced facts like birthdate/place, etc.? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Companies House has Wadhwa's date of birth as February 1978 if that's any help? Zeno27 (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this information. However, I don’t think it is enough to justify keeping the infobox. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Overall, it looks like there is not support for retention of the infobox, so I am deleting it. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

2005

Article describes Mridul Wadhwa as: "born in India in 1978. She lived in Pune until 30, where she ran a successful business with her husband, then emigrated to the United Kingdom, where she earned a master's degree in education from the University of Edinburgh in 2005.

If she was born in 1978 and "lived in Pune until 30", then when did she move to the UK? The unreferenced: She permanently moved to Scotland in 2009 does not answer. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)