Talk:Divya Dwivedi

For future edits and maintaining the character and integrity of the subject's work

The article can be and should be improved, and updated with new reliable source materials as they come.

The present form of the article strictly follows and at times paraphrases the published articles on the subject taken from reliable sources and the comments on the subject made by eminent practitioners of philosophy. The point about eminent practitioners of philosophy is significant. These are Jean-Luc Nancy, Barbara Cassin, Robert Bernasconi, and Bernard Stiegler. All of them fall within the style and, technical and methodological tradition of continental philosophy. Further, all these eminent philosophers have had well known close association with Jacques Derrida who is the father of deconstruction. For this reason the category deconstruction should be maintained.

The new category additions are important and they have improved the article. The subject being a faculty in India means that the categories should place the subject in that context. May be more categories can be added in that context. But from all the research one can find only political concerns about India in the essays by the subject and interviews with the subject. This makes the subject both unique due to her work belonging to continental philosophy while teaching in India and potentially politically interesting due to her political writings on India. This is the reason for the article in the present form strictly following and at times paraphrasing the reliable sources and eminent practitioners. Therefore please enter the talk space and hold constructive discussions before making any substantial rewrites.

A photograph of the subject can improve the article and a better image of Theo Jansen's beach animal too may help. Cheers!Speculative Boting (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I see the point. Very diplomatic, but I get the gist. I added the section “See also” to give some context and the category additions by Titodutta are also to give the context fairly. But the other two points make perfect sense. About “politically interesting” now it’s easy to see from the vandalisms the point of caution. The continental philosophy aspect is very evident too. But the article can be improved, with new sources of course. It can also get the help of someone expert on the formatting style. I have a question. The article does not appear on search engines. Is it because of a missing code? WWorringer (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! The article does not appear on search engines because (Template:BLP) uses the "__NOINDEX__ magic word". This can be changed with "__INDEX__ magic word". But not always. See Wikipedia:Controlling_search_engine_indexing . For more please check with an administrator. Cheers! Speculative Boting (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Photographs

The photo of the subject was obtained and placed by JGHowes. The article can still use a better image of Theo Jansen's beach animal, Animaris Percipiere Rectus.Speculative Boting (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Kindly tell author that youtube, Lokmat and Newsbox are not WP:RS

@DBigXray, Winged Blades of Godric, and Kautilya3: Author is adding the controversy section in BLP with sources as youtube, Lokmat and newsbox. When I removed the content, he reinstated it and called it as politically motivated. Kindly, tell him not to use these type of sources as third opinion. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 00:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone, JGHowes CASSIOPEIA This is a very sensitive problem. The two opposing edits each have their points. Some of the edits by Harshil169 were needed. Especially the removal of unsubstantiated portions from the biography. I found that the hindi language articles are not reliable either from their tenor after reading google translations. So, the controversy section must remove those links. However the NDTV link, and NDTV's official Youtube video of the controversial speech, the report in The Print journal, and the Indian Express article which appears to be the basis for the controversy are highly reliable sources! But the influences column and WWorringer appears very valid. So, it will be constructive to remove the unreliable sources and retain the section with the reliable sources. The Indian Express link is this https://indianexpress.com/article/express-sunday-eye/gandhi-jayanti-anniversary-150-a-new-afterlife-6034217/

I have restored the controversy section with a change of title and I have removed the links which Harshil169 is right to object to. For this section as I said earlier NDTV's official Youtube channel which shows the subject's speech in NDTV studios, The Indian Express article on which the subject according to her as reported in The Print based her speech, and The Print article which explicitly states the controversy.

The removal of influences is not helpful at all. Wikipedia uses "influences" in articles about academics, especially philosophers, to contextualise their work. In philosophy influences indicate the textual traditions and conventions. In this particular case these influces are easy to find in the subject's books and publications through a search. Reading some of it might be more than sufficient.

WWorringer should not have mentioned political motivation. Especially when the subject and the topics engaged by the subject are highly political. Therefore the goal should be to use only reliable sources and maintain a balanced perspective. In this balance it is very important to mention the subject's published views as well.

Cheers to all! Speculative Boting (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Speculative Boting: make yourself familiar with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. This controversy was a small one but right wingers propaganda on social media make it huge one. It’s still not reported in any of the reliable news source. For your information, YouTube videos are not WP:RS and so the Print is. This is WP:UNDUEweight on one topic which obviously violate NPOV. This section must be replaced by single line, not by whole section and speeches. CC:- CASSIOPEIA Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't make head or tail of what is going on. If an edit is in dispute, discussion should happen here and CONSENSUS should be reached before that edit is touched again. Asking for outside input while an edit war is going on without providing any links to diffs is not helpful.

My feeling is that "influences" can stay if they are immediately apparent to anybody reading the scholar's work. But "notable ideas" cannot be produced by Wikipedia on its own. Unless secondary sources indicate their notability, we can't call them notable. I am yet to understand what is going on with the "Controversy" section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion needed for WP:BLP

Hi @Speculative Boting and Harshil169: I was informed there some trouble in recent edits on the page. Pls note utube/official website, press releases, any user generated sites, sources associated with the subject is considered NOT independent and not relieable. Secondly, pls note the content need to be written in a neutral point of view. For an article particular about a living person, other independent, reliable applies here, and for editors can remove of not independent/reliable soured content. I suggest Speculative Boting to read WP:BLP and do note, Wikipedia do recognise the creator of the article but NO NOE own the articles in Wikipedia and every is welcome to edit as long as the edit is constructive and adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Lastly, do discussion the differential or misunderstanding in the article talk page and "STOP reverting" each other edit immediately. Once a consensus is reached then edit the page as per consensus and Wikipedia guidelines. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: that’s why I’d opened discussion on talk page. I had already mentioned in my summary that controversial section needs more reliable sources in BLP. But editor was not agreeing with it. Once consensus is reached then disputed material can be added. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: thank you for your reply. {{ping|Speculative Boting}] Pls comment in this message thread and pls note WP:Communication is required. Both involved parties pls be civil discussion, and adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. If after many discussion and the dispute could not reach a consensus and adhere to Wikpedia guideliens then pls bring the issue to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for admin intervention. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: I know about wiki policies. And my speculation is socks are involved on this page. Will open SPI and please comment on issue of adding unnecessary links in wiki articles which I removed twice. Wiki is not link farm and it’s violation of WP:SPAM. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

PLEASE note that last section is reliable on just one or two sources which is undue weightage. Should I report to admin?-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Harshil169 Harshil169, (1) To add unsourced content is not considered a vandalism but to continuing to add unsourced (independent reliable sources) to defame the subject and warning multiple (at least 4) times (disruptive edits/vandalism edits) not to do so, could be report to WP:AIV. (3) To report a SPI, you need "evident" by providing hist diffs and details your justification that that editor indeed a SOCK. (4) content dispute is not considered a vandalism act, that is the reason why discussion among the involved parties in talk page is encouraged. As mentioned, you could seek admin intervention if no resolution is achieve after many discussions at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. (5) Do note, no all editors know about Wikipedia guidelines, even I am learning something new every week and I considered myself a polific editor. So if an editor lack of certain Wikipedia knowledge, we provide advise and provide links to the editor and editor in turn should read the links provided to familiar themselves of the said topics. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello all, CASSIOPEIA,JGHowes,Harshil169,WWorringer

I am also trying to understand the "controversy" bit of the dispute. I could find one article as mentioned by Harshil that is a reliable source which uses the word "controversy" in title itself. But it is not sufficient to create a "controversy" section. I removed the "controversy" heading itself as Harshil169 was right about it. Instead I have changed that section to "Views on Hinduism and Caste" for which substantial material can be found in material published by the subject or on the subject in reliable sources. This view is significant.

Although Harshil169 is correct to feel concerned about "right wingers" the substantial views of the subject in an area in which she has been contributing cannot be suppressed in a wikipedia article. I wish not to take part in this "left wing" and "right wing" debate. Making sure that the article neutral and presents the views of the subject and of the subject should be the only concern. Speculative Boting (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Speculative Boting: Consider this as last warning. Wiki doesn't allow to write one whole paragraph on just one source. If such controversial paragraphs will not be removed then it can put wiki in trouble. So, dont add it. And if you're doing so then I'll report to the administrators about addition of unsourced or poorly sourced material in BLP.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Harshil169 I have not come across in any where stated in the guidelines in Wikipedia that a paragraph cant be supported by one source. However, Any controversial topics especially about a living person need to support by multiple independent reliable source and extremely care of how the content is written should be noted. A WP:DUEWEIGHT is always encouraged so a balance of view could be achieved. If a contrversail topics/content is support by dependent and not reliable source, then it content should be removed immediately. Pls discuss first and seek to understand and advise and assume good faith and not threaten in the beginning of a discussion. Allow the involved editor to have their said. Help them if needed and only if discussions are going nowhere then seek admin intervention. I advise both parties to keep their cool and discuss calmly and reasonably. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: I agree with you but I think socks are involved here which make difficult to come on conclusion. Here WP:OR is there and controversial section isn’t backed by solid and multiple sources. My point is that on Wikipedia, we’re not allowing whole controversial section based on single source and few youtube channels but my edits are being reverted here. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 08:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Speculative Boting: Do note, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion" - see WP:BLPRS and WP:GRAPEVINE " Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs" - see WP:BLPEL. @Harshil169:} If you want to report to SOCk, then present your "evident" with hist diffs and your rational behind them - celebrate if needed. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)