Talk:Dipesh Chakrabarty

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Why the NPOV?
I can't see why this article has its neutrality disputed. There is nothing controversial about it at all. Khawaga (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. There are no controversial statements made anywhere. I'm removing the tag. If there are disputed statements, these should be listed on this talk page, so the dispute can be resolved. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

known as a prominent MeToo activist in October 2017
In 2017, as the movement associated with #MeToo against sexual harassment began, he was accused of moral turpitude by one of his former colleagues.

evidence for Chakrabarty and 'sexual assault'?
The widely circulated accusation about Chakrabarty is not from a colleague, but involves an incident dating from Christine Fine's time as a doctoral student at the University of Chicago in 1994. The episode in which Fine was a direct witness concerned a single comment allegedly made by Chakrabarty during a meeting in his office. At best such a comment would have been seriously ill-judged and inappropriate (it related to a slogan about 'sexual pleasure' on one of Fair's shoes) and Fine clearly interpreted it as an invitation to have sexual relations. No touching or 'assault' by Chakrabarty was ever alleged by Fine, and no further 'harassment' of Fine by Chakrabarty is alleged either--this was a one-off comment. After a recent court case, in September 2022 Fine formally abandoned other claims in the 2017 Buzzfeed article--that a woman member of the Chicago faculty (Chakrabarty's wife) gained her position solely through his patronage. There are many really serious sexual predators in positions of power, but in this case the evidence for consistent harrassment or abuse is not at all strong. User:Moosewood122

Someone with more knowledge about his work need to rewrite this article.
The only thing i got out of reading this was a headache. The structure is bad, it's not really informative about what he actually contributed, and that blob in the middle is atrocious.

Need some serious love. 2001:700:200:F116:983A:3AA2:A41D:59D (talk) 12:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)