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. 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
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,  This is a very sensitive problem. The two opposing edits each have their points. Some of the edits by  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  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 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.


 * 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)


 * 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:-  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)
 * here one author added both controversy and criticism section with poor references. In controversy section, he cited videos of NDTV show, used transcript in which Subject said that ‘Hinduism invented in 20th century’ for which RW trolled her on twitter on widescale and it got reflected in Lokmat, newsbox type unreliable sources. Editor found same type of comments from indian express, wire and did synthesis of it. I objected synthesis and formation of controversy section based on it. Now, editor is saying that youtube videos and other sources are reliable to make controversy section. Ergo I pinged you for opinion. — Harshil want to talk? 04:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion needed for WP:BLP
Hi  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)
 * 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)
 * 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 Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for admin intervention. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. — <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>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?-- <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 05:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 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  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.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 07:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello all, ,,,
 * 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 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 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)
 * 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.-- <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 06:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 07:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 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. — <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 08:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 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. } If you want to report to SOCk, then present your "evident" with hist diffs and your rational behind them - celebrate if needed.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 08:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear all


 * I expected would maintain the page as before the edit conflicts I also sense that the edits are political in nature. From Harshil’s mentions of “right wing” and that account’s fierce protective interest is possible that there is conflict of interest. But I withdraw from this activity. Do as you please. Cheers to all Speculative Boting (talk) 08:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Everyone edit as what and when the choose to as all of us are volunteers and I dont understand why you expected me to maintain the page. Instead choice to communicate and discuss the issue at hand you have with Harshil169 and choice to hide away would do you not a great help for we are here to work toward a the same goal to build Wikipedia article. Since you refuse to discuss to reach a consensus resolution, then could remove content or edit the article based on Wikipedia guidelines. Harshil169, pls hold off any edit until it pass 24 hrs of your last edit to make sure no revert of WP:3RR - this is important. Thank you.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 09:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Column on "Influences" is re-instated
Dear All

This concerns some of the edits reverted by Harshil169. I think Harshil169 is ill informed about Wikipedia use of "Influences" and philosophical conventions regarding "Influences" which are respected in all Wikipedia philosophy articles. It is possible for me to list the source materials for listing each item of the "Influences". But that will be longer than the article concerned. Instead I will do two things.

1) List a few Wikipedia articles which show "Influences". I would like Harshil169 to please remove "Influences" from all of them for consistency and respond to the reaction of other editors. I believe this will be impossible to sustain for Harshil169. Then logically it establishes that list "Influences" is a convention. Now, if that consistency of removing "Influences" form all the pages listed below is not possible please desist from doing so here. For Harshil169 to exercise this rule that Harshil169 alone has been able to cite:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Meillassoux

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Brassier

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Negarestani

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj_%C5%BDi%C5%BEek

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alenka_Zupan%C4%8Di%C4%8D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Badiou

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida

2) I am listing references for the "Influences" here, although none of the above articles refer to sources for each of their references.

A. For "Influences" Foucault Monod Hermann Weyl Clastres see below "The authors invent new formal concepts out of the sciences and mathematics. They engage closely and argumentatively with important thinkers including the biologist Jacques Monod, philosopher Foucault, mathematician Hermann Weyl, anthropologist Pierre Clastres and the burlesque artist Dita Von Teese." From the book review mentioned in the article.

B. For Jean-Luc Nancy see below

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/19598955.pdf and  https://books.google.co.in/books?id=14r2swEACAAJ&source=gbs_book_other_versions and https://thewire.in/books/gandhi-and-the-resurrection-of-philosophy

and https://books.google.co.in/books?id=4sB2DwAAQBAJ&pg=PR10&lpg=PR10&dq=gandhi+and+philosophy+on+theological+anti-politics+%22theo+jansen%22&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=snippet&q=jean-luc%20nancy&f=false

C. For Heidegger see below

https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/les-chemins-de-la-philosophie/philosopher-en-inde and https://books.google.co.in/books?id=4sB2DwAAQBAJ&pg=PR10&lpg=PR10&dq=gandhi+and+philosophy+on+theological+anti-politics+%22theo+jansen%22&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=snippet&q=heidegger&f=false and https://books.google.co.in/books?id=zjJBCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=public+sphere+from+outside+the+west&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWoM3T8o_lAhUOTI8KHYppDnUQ6AEIKDAA#v=snippet&q=heidegger&f=false and also https://books.google.co.in/books?id=14r2swEACAAJ&dq=narratology+and+ideology&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdw9qm84_lAhVkmI8KHVbSD3QQ6AEIKDAA

D. For Arendt see below

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/19598955.pdf and  https://books.google.co.in/books?id=4MB2DwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Gandhi+and+Philosophy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5v7HP84_lAhVBL48KHTEvDQ4Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Gandhi%20and%20Philosophy&f=false and  https://books.google.co.in/books?redir_esc=y&id=zjJBCgAAQBAJ&q=arendt#v=snippet&q=arendt&f=false

E. For Derrida see below

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=4MB2DwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Gandhi+and+Philosophy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5v7HP84_lAhVBL48KHTEvDQ4Q6AEIKDAA#v=snippet&q=Derrida&f=false  and https://www.epw.in/journal/2019/40/discussion/parentheses-philosophy.html  and https://www.epw.in/journal/2007/48/special-articles/critical-nation.html

This can be done on and on and on. But the trouble is it is not done on this basis for any philosopher article in Wikipedia. It is very evident that Harshil169 very unfamiliar with subject philosophy and Wikipedia pages. But it is easy to obtain this familiarity if you make small edits in Wikipedia philosophy pages and familiarise with the subject matter. But Harshil169 this is not a problem. If I start to edit pages of biologists I will be making disastrous judgement errors!

Therefore I am re-instating the removed "Influences" section which Harshil169 has been unable to understand. But I think Harshil169 is a very reasonable editor. I have not added links to any of the 'Influences on the page because the pages listed above do not do so. And, it will make it very cluttered. But if CASSIOPEIA suggests I will add these links individually This took me an hour in the middle of a preDoc defence exam!! I have to do some research on the controversy which became views on hindus and caste section. But CASSIOPEIA did say that the source material is sufficient in itself. For the subject's work on hindu and caste there is too much source material as I just found. This appears to be a primary concern of the subject. That will have to be after the exam! Soon!

PS: Shame withdrew from the edits! Hope Boting returns Harshil169.

Cheers to allWWorringer (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, what do you mean by PS undefined this line? Read WP:Civility before directly attacking and shaming someone. — <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 07:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The expression "its a shame" is common in English. I believe that you may not be native speaker. It just means "I feel sad about this" or "I am disappointed". There is nothing that indicates "shaming someone"! See https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/it-s-a-shame-what-a-shame-etc  WWorringer (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The primary source problem
There are two places where primary sources are listed. First is the institutional affiliation and the second is educational qualifications. In these two cases the primary source is the official website of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institute_of_Technology_Delhi and the subject page is http://hss.iitd.ac.in/faculty/divya-dwivedi This is very easy to explain

Dear All    and especially. I did some research IIT is one of the highest ranked institutions in India but its ranking is poor internationally, and it is difficult to find top ranking institutions of education from India. So IIT is reliable. But very seriously the educational qualifications of anyone is issued by a certifying authority that is usually approved by one or the other government. It is very unreliable and potentially libelous to rely on the educational qualifications of anyone if it is not from an official academic institution with certifying authority such as a university or in this case IIT. I am removing the "primary source" box in this case. Now I can produce tens of Wikipedia pages of academic philosophers and other academics to show that this is the convention. Any individual can claim to have any educational degree and a newspaper or a website can then report. Then we get a secondary source. But that will usually be highly doubtful, and often libelous! Then should place boxes in those hundreds of Wikipedia pages and elicit a new convention before making changes to this article page.

This new conventions should be this: "Educational, affiliative, and occupational information about academics should not be sourced from their university and insitute website, instead must be sourced from only a secondary source."' For all the other edits Harshil169 has done the same rules should apply. Make sure that it is consistent with rules and consistent with Wikipedia articles. Please! I have an exam to crack. But I am a very patient person. WWorringer (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you doing whataboutery here?— <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 22:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Harshil, simple biographic facts about individuals are always accepted even if they are self-sourced, unless there is reason to doubt them. These include things like date/place of birth, marital status, education, etc. I haven't checked the article content yet, but I would like to point out that you are making a mountain of a mole hill. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I just removed some lines like her maternal uncle is this, her father is this and grandfather is this which was not backed by ANY source and impossible to verify. I just put tag of primary source after self published source. My primary concern was controversy section and poor sourcing and synthesis. — <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 04:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear All    and especially, I was not doing "Whataboutery" at all! Dear Harshil69, I could not find any rules defined for the demands you made after removing these edits. In fact you seem to have shown disregard for the senior editor CASSIOPEIA's advice in these matters too. So I had to demonstrate well established conventions. It was a lot of work to do all this. But Harshil169 all of us learn something everyday. Thank you very much for your engagement. Cheers to all! WWorringer (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * then what this statement says ? I’m improving one page and you’re asking me what about that? Isn’t this whataboutery? Also, I’ve cleared page of Ira Trivedi, Ruth Vanita and Ram Puniyani. This is regular practice of me. — <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 04:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Harshil169, what do you mean you've cleared the page of Ira Trivedi? It was in a terrible state and still is (even after i've made changes). Please tell me what you mean by cleared it on the talk page over there - Talk:Ira Trivedi.DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * By cleared, I mean cleanup. You can visit my old edits done in July and August in which I had removed laughable claims like she was number one in her throughout education, did extensive training in Yoga, has multiple degrees and other peacocky things. It starts from here]. It was in terrible state because I kept some content as it is which weren’t harmful. — <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 07:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi I am very concerned about the edits by Harshil169 in most of the pages, some of which he listed. It appears that these are pages of very vulnerable individuals who have been facing some form or the other persecution for free speech. I learned The language of "Cleared" and other tonal issues visible on this page are concerning too. Wikipedia must protect free speech above everything. Please keep this page too on watch list.  WWorringer (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So, this is your argument in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for free speech. Also, read WP:Free Speech.— <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 07:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

On External Links
Dear  , the external links for this article had been removed entirely.

CASSIOPEIA had advised, "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)"

I carefully read the rules. The external links for this page concerned does not appear to violate any of the rules. All the links posted have been published in reliable sources. I also checked some other wikipedia pages for philosopher articles that are working in the same area as and tradition as the subject concerned. Again it appears that the external links does not violate any convention at all. Allow me to please list a few here. If this convention that was found in the pages listed below is wrong then rules of consistency should be maintained. That is either the external links should be removed from those pages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Brassier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_Garcia#Further_reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Laugier#Articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Meillassoux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Negarestani#External_links

I am re-instating the external links. Could you please verify this edit   ? WWorringer (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Read WP:ELNO and WP:ELP. I’m removing the content under these policies. Don’t reinstate without reaching on consensus. — <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 07:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I request an immediate resolution to this problem. Please join the conversation and resolve this quickly before this page becomes affected the same way many pages of victims of free speech denial are in Wikipedia.

As I stated above, the "External Links" section follows the rules and the convention visible in the listed and other wikipedia articles. But I am not going to make a revert yet to avoid edit wars which appears to be the goal here. WWorringer (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This appears to be the motivation for the recent edits by Harsil69 https://twitter.com/ndtv/status/1180174865522806784   and    https://theprint.in/india/iit-delhi-faculty-hindu-religion-20th-century-invention-controversy/302088/

If these edits are about free speech denial this is very worrisome. WWorringer (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:ELMIN. If you’re adding 20 external links to one Wikipedia page then it’s not align with Wikipedia’s policies. So, stay on point and add minimum links. For concern, I didn’t remove all links, I left with one official site. — <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 07:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding the section "Further Reading"
Unfortunately under these circumstances all of you have to be notified. . The section "Further reading" is being added. According to Wikipedia "The Further reading section may be expanded until it is substantial enough to provide broad bibliographic coverage of the subject." In this case it does not yet cover "broad bibliographic coverage". These links and bibliographic references can be further classified as per convention. For later. But I expect HarshilI69 to create edit wars over these additions. I request to all that there should be discussion before removing the links and references from "Further reading''

And Following the convention of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosi_Braidotti   and this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Morton#Bibliography and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Malabou#Bibliography  a subsection interviews is being added. Please apply consistent uniform standards across article pages.

A. After some research a few things were found that the subject's work has created some controversies in India where she is an outspoken critic of the government. She has written substantially on hate crimes, the crimes against religious minorities and what she has been calling "oppressed majority lower caste" population. Many of these have been compiled by UNESCO and edited for UNESCO which can be found referenced on the page, and now in "Further reading". She has also gone on record in a most prominent English language television network NDTV to say something like Hindu religion is a recent invention to hide caste oppression by the minority upper caste population. This can be found here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3CAGB1GiKc A report of this incident can be found here https://theprint.in/india/iit-delhi-faculty-hindu-religion-20th-century-invention-controversy/302088/ There the transcript of the above mentioned speech can be found as "“Hindu Right is the corollary of the idea that India is a Hindu majority population and this is a false majority. The Hindu religion was invented in the early 20th century in order to hide the fact that the lower caste people are the real majority of India…” Dwivedi said on the show that discussed Gandhi and politics “In fact, religious minorities have been a victim of this false majority and Gandhi has played a very significant role in its construction. He has helped construct a false Hindu majority and a new Hindu identity…” she said." There is much more to go into this. But,

B. The recent edit wars attempted by HarshilI69 seem to be to suppress what appears to be a substantial concern of the subject's published works. These links and bibliographic references which should be added to "Further reading" now clearly appears to be central to the work of the subject and necessary to provide broad bibliographic coverage of the subject as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Further_reading

C. After doing some research on the profile, edits, and the nature of the edits by HarshilI69 appears to be from the opposing point of view of the political program or ideology (I am not sure of the appropriate term here) of the subject. In fact there is a chance that several edits made by HarshilI69 will have to be looked into with concern. But that is not the issue here. Here it is clear that there is Conflict of Interest. The removal "Criticisms" which indicate the critical nature of the work for "Reception" also indicate the COI in this case. Wikipedia articles should maintain neutrality. It is also clear that English is not the native language of the editor which should not be a problem, and this fact may explain very aggressive use of language and constant invocation of threats. But HarshilI69 being entirely unfamiliar with the subject Philosophy makes it very harmful for the representation of philosophy and philosophers in Wikipedia.

D. Since everything is tedious here, "mountains out of molehills", as Kautilya3 said above (and during this research I found Kautilya3 has dealt with similar edit wars involving adademic figures opposed to the government in India) links to several other Wikipedia pages are being added below to verify the convention and to establish consistency. In these listed pages you will find that "External links" are extensive. As you can see the convention has a rationale. No matter how well a Wikipedia article is written on a philosopher it will be insufficient to provide substantial information on the subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_Garcia#Works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Meillassoux#Further_reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Badiou#Further_reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Morton#Bibliography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Latour#Bibliography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Harman#Bibliography


 * you’ve been reported to administrators on External links noticeboard. — <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 04:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, thank you for the message. But I don't understand why you would have to escalate all edits with this page very aggressively! External links/Noticeboard and    All that you can find above is sufficient to understand the role of "Further reading". You seem to misunderstand my citing numerous instances to "Whataboutery". This is plain wrong. Legality in communities like Wikipedia are not formed by centralised authorities, but conventions.  The "Further reading" criteria says "The Further reading section may be expanded until it is substantial enough to provide broad bibliographic coverage of the subject. However, the section should be limited in size." See an excellent use of "Further reading" in this article Alain Badiou. These pages that I have listed here are of reputed philosophers and some of them are highly rated Wikipedia articles. But what is extremely worrying is the fact that you have filed a no-factual report! There has been no change in "External links" since you removed all but one. Neither I nor has anyone else reverted the edits you have made to "External links". If this concerns the new section "Further reading" it should have taken place here dear Harshil169! WWorringer (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

WWorringer and Speculative Boting were connected accounts
I’d opened SPI inquiry today morning because of aggressive reverts on this page by those both users and checkuser has confirmed that they were sockpuppets of each other and hence they are blocked indefinitely. Their account were single purpose and that was to promote works of Divya Dwivedi and Shaj Mohan on Wikipedia. — <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 15:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ohk. Sad. I was wrong. --Gazal world (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The problems might be deeper than they appear. Why did Boting call this a "Royal Institute of Philosophy" lecture? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * thank you for doing all the digging and keep SOCK out of Wikipedia. I suspected something was going on when Speculative Boting opt to not discuss the matter of the article their created. If you are going to clean up the articles then remove as much as primary source info, leave it as bare as it could be of the content based on secondary reliable source. Thank you very much harshil169. Cheers.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 01:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we have enough to declare "connected" anyway. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Bharatiya Kshatriy warriors missing since now. Pandit RM ji wanted Kshatriyas to come and do job again anti Bharati forces. Brothers Kautily hi and Harsil ji we r with u. We know computer. We r to help. Kautily ji you are the lord Krishn and Harsil ji is Arjun. You work great together like Krishna ji and Arjun ji to bring down two anti Bharatiy forces. Your work together jodi inspire many. We r here for help to yiu. Foreigners you no roles in Bharat Wikipedia. We take care of the Bharat!
 * This last comment made me chuckle. I was not here but reading all this makes me wonder how many of such accounts are lurking in the dark. -Nizil (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha Ha Ha. Lol... --Gazal world (talk) 07:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk page comment removed
All editors are reminded that BLP guidelines apply to Talk page comments as well, viz.,

...material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.

For this reason, it was necessary to remove a user's comment.  JGHowes   talk  13:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion
Article created by a sockpuppet for a non-notable author. WP:BIODEL WP:A7. The article also does not meet anything from WP:NACADEMIC. Dhawangupta (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced contentious content and WP:BLP policy
As noted in the article, Dwivedi was reported in September 2023 to have been under a "cyber attack" after being misrepresented for her statements about Hinduism. It is important for us to be particularly careful to abide by the biographies of living persons policy and ensure that contentious content is properly sourced. Recently, unsourced content has been repeatedly added to this article, as if it is supported by a source, , , , , and making it appear as if it is supported by four sources. The actual content is covered in another part of this article. I think the unsourced contentious content should be removed from the article. Beccaynr (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing "unsourced contentious" in any of these edits neither there are any issues with BLP over this content. The source clearly says: "Divya Dwivedi says studies prove Mahatma Gandhi was one of the leaders who constructed the idea of ‘false Hindu majority’ in India." And also "she questioned the origins of Hinduism and stated that Mahatma Gandhi helped construct the idea". Now go and read her own article from 2019 which is here or you can click here for full preview. 2402:A00:401:7C3E:4D11:C044:1AD5:F1BC (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The source does not support the text you have repeatedly added. Also, to emphasize why sourcing is so important for this article in particular for controversial content, e.g. Philosopher Divya Dwivedi Among Latest Targets of India’s Right Wing (Protean Magazine, October 2023) "In 2019, Dwivedi made headlines for her participation in an NDTV debate [...] After the clip went viral, Dwivedi received targeted death threats from Hindu extremists. [...] In September 2023, threats of violence resurfaced, targeting Dwivedi. [...] there have been numerous attempts to discredit Dwivedi, most notably on social media." And e.g. Who Can Have Quarrel with the Feast of Truth: On Divya Dwivedi (Countercurrents, 2023) "her words were being distorted and mutilated to mislead the people by the far right media". Given the contentious nature of the content, it seems to be better to be concise and stick to the sources, in the way the article had covered this material, than to add material that no source appears to support. Beccaynr (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes the content is completely supported by the source. Its from 2019 and has nothing to do with what happened in "September 2023".
 * It's your personal problem that you have developed unpleasant feelings over what happened in September 2023. You should take a break from this article if you are not able to give up on that before you land in WP:ANI for being so obtuse. 2402:A00:401:7C3E:4D11:C044:1AD5:F1BC (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What she actually said is stated lower in the section, cited to what she wrote in the Caravan. What you have added is not supported by any source, and has been added to an introductory paragraph, with a source highlighting a controversy over partial statements. This appears to distort what she said, appears to have no source, and makes it appear as if there are four sources supporting the text. This is why the content you added should be removed. Beccaynr (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't pretend to ignore what I already said. I already told you:"The source clearly says: "Divya Dwivedi says studies prove Mahatma Gandhi was one of the leaders who constructed the idea of ‘false Hindu majority’ in India." And also "she questioned the origins of Hinduism and stated that Mahatma Gandhi helped construct the idea". Now go and read her own article from 2019 which is here or you can click here for full preview." Read WP:DEADHORSE. 2402:A00:401:7C3E:4D11:C044:1AD5:F1BC (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You haven't detailed the edits that are causing problem for you. It is this particular edit which you are reverting. What is your problem with that edit? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I moved the comment above to the section where the discussion has already happened. As noted above, there is no support in any reliable source that I have reviewed that supports "Dwivedi said Hinduism was invented in the early 20th century, by upper caste leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, to hide the caste discrimination." To the contrary, there appears to be caution expressed by a variety of sources about this claim being attributed to her. This is why I suggest that we stick to sources, use quotes judiciously, cite reliable sources, and as discussed below, consider reworking the public commentary section. Beccaynr (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, it is the second part of the sentence that seems unsourced and problematic from a BLP policy perspective, based on a variety of sources; the first part is repetitve to what had already been included in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * According to the original research policy, when we are using sources, material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication; this is noted to be particularly challenging by sources for this subject for two reasons:
 * 1) e.g. according to Dr. Rajesh Selvaraj, a professor of Tamil literature and philosophy, "she is a philosopher whose academic works are very difficult to follow without some familiarity with the specialised fields in which she works including deconstruction, formal linguistics, narratology, and ontology," and
 * 2) the biographies of living persons policy, because what she has said and written has been "distorted and mutilated to mislead the people by the far right media" according to Selvaraj, and she has recently, as of September 2023, again been the subject of threats and harassment after her France24 interview (see e.g. Protean Magazine, Mathrubhumi)
 * We typically do not add our own interpretation of scholarly works to articles, and instead rely on secondary sources, and it seems even more important in this article, because distorted representations of this subject, and implying she said or wrote something that she did not, including related to topics for which she is reported to be receiving death threats and other harassment, appears to be contrary to the biographies of living persons policy. For the purposes of developing this article, we assume good faith misinterpretation - when the apparent misinterpretation of her statements is accompanied by repeated attempts to add the disputed material, and personal insults, this can make collaborative discussion more challenging, but if we focus on the content, I think this will benefit the overall discussion going forward. Beccaynr (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you stop misleading the observers? I told you earlier "Now go and read her own article from 2019 which is here or you can click here for full preview." Divya Dwivedi wrote it herself and states: "Gandhi had an important role in the invention of “Hindu” religion. He understood that if the majority of the population, the lower castes, were not let into the upper-caste temples, a common religion called Hindu would not be legally recognised. Although many upper caste leaders found the foreign term “Hindu” objectionable. Gandhi also contributed to the later invention and promotion of Hindi with Madan Mohan Malaviya and others. Hindi was explicitly conceived as the language of the “Hindus”." 2402:A00:401:7C3E:9C1B:AD1B:8F32:15FB (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We need to abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines for developing encyclopedic content, and in my comment above, I have attempted to specify how policies relate to this article. According to these policies, it is not acceptable for us to make our own original interpretation of her work; and when I reviewed her work, it also seems clear that there is no support for the interpretation that has repeatedly been attempted to be added to the article. However, we can use secondary sources that discuss her work, and attribute evaluations and commentary about her work. This is why I am suggesting a careful reworking of the section of this article that discusses her public commentary, based on secondary sources. Beccaynr (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't The Print.in "secondary" source which you already rejected because it was not written by her?
 * Why don't you simply tell how much are you getting paid to censor the information?
 * And if you are really getting paid, then why can't you just ask Divya Dwivedi to write another article disowning these views? 2402:A00:401:7C3E:9C1B:AD1B:8F32:15FB (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The Print.in reports on 2019 NDTV debate "controversy" and how Dwivedi "became a target on social media"; it does not state, "Dwivedi said Hinduism was invented in the early 20th century, by upper caste leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, to hide the caste discrimination." The Print reports some of her quotes from the NDTV debate, her emailed response to The Print, and quotes posted to Twitter from a spokesperson for the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha Chandigarh and S. Irfan Habib, and a brief biographical overview of Dwivedi. This source offers context about what happened after she spoke and seems to help support the need for us to take great care with how we present what she has said and written. Beccaynr (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The article says: "Gandhi has played a very significant role in its construction. He has helped construct a false Hindu majority and a new Hindu identity…” she said. Dwivedi added, “He (Gandhi) was one of the many upper caste leaders who constructed this origin for this polity but today we must discard it…”"
 * This is exactly what I am presenting and you are reverting for no reason.
 * In her "emailed response" she has only doubled down by saying: "I jointly made a lengthier statement on these matters in an essay published in the Gandhi special issue of The Indian Express, titled ‘Courage to Begin’."
 * If you don't like this content then why don't you simply ask Divya to disown these comments? You should stop reverting until then. 2402:A00:401:7C3E:9C1B:AD1B:8F32:15FB (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not feel it is productive to continue stating that it is necessary to work with Wikipedia policies and guidelines to develop encyclopedic content. We have options for how to discuss her public commentary, based on reliable secondary sources, without introducing contentious and disputed original interpretations of what she has said. I think focusing on alternative ways to present the material will be the most productive compromise under these circumstances, so I suggest refocusing this discussion on how to develop the article with reliable secondary sources, according to the applicable policies and guidelines. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 2402:A00:401:7C3E:9C1B:AD1B:8F32:15FB (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * While my preference at this time is to discuss a compromise approach, with a focus on the content, there are additional options for dispute resolution. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * With denialist approach that you adopted so far? 2402:A00:401:7C3E:9C1B:AD1B:8F32:15FB (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

IP, if you want to people anyone of paid editing then do it at WP:COIN.

As for the content, I don't see what is wrong with it. The IP correctly told that Dwivedi has "doubled down" over these statements thus there is no BLP issue.

I would propose the following paragraph right below the sentence, "In addition to her authored and edited books, Dwivedi has written and co-written essays and articles, as well as spoken publicly about her scholarship.":-


 * Dwivedi said Hinduism was invented in the early 20th century, by upper caste leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, to hide the caste discrimination. Writing for the Indian Express, she wrote "Gandhi had an important role in the invention of “Hindu” religion. He understood that if the majority of the population, the lower castes, were not let into the upper-caste temples, a common religion called Hindu would not be legally recognised."

Let me know if you have any valid objection. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I do not think there is any source, including the report in ThePrint, that supports saying Dwivedi has stated there was an attempt "to hide the caste discrimination" - from my view, this not only appears to be an unsupported interpretation of a news report, but also potential violation of the biographies of living persons policy because of the significant and well-sourced concerns related to misinterpreting what she has said or written, and the potential inflammatory nature of suggesting she has said something like this.I also think according to WP:NPOV policy, it is better to rely on reliable secondary sources to identify what is WP:DUE to emphasize from her co-authored essay, instead of selecting quotes ourselves. And as a copyediting note, I think co-authored works should not be attributed as if they are only written by her, and the title should be included. Beccaynr (talk) 04:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the text but we can take out "to hdie the caste discrimination" if Beccaynr is having problem but we cannot take out whole text because The Wire also covered it. It notes Divya said that Gandhi is involved "in the invention of the new religion “Hindu”. He made tactical adjustments to the caste order so that it could function well under a modern state." 2402:A00:401:7C3E:4456:BB72:AD96:CA81 (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the willingness to compromise and to consider Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In the section below, I have been reviewing a variety of sources to determine what may be WP:DUE to include - if multiple reliable secondary sources focus on a part of what she has said or written, then it may be appropriate to include according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but I think we also need to take the biographies of living persons policy into account. At this time, given the controversy and documented negative impacts on Dwivedi (e.g. death threats, harassment) related to partial statements, I think we should be very careful with how material is presented, and this includes using reliable secondary sources, not our own original judgement, to help determine what, if anything, to select from e.g. a joint 2019 interview in The Wire with Dwivedi and Mohan about their co-authored book.I plan to post a proposed Selected works section in a new section on this talk page, because this may help us resolve this overall issue - if her co-authored articles/essays are more easily accessible to readers, then readers can make their own assessment, after the introduction of controversies in the public commentary section. This may be a compromise for now that is most feasible, particularly due to the reported recent issues that seem to significantly implicate the biographies of living persons policy. This policy includes, the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment, and multiple recent sources seem to indicate a risk to Dwivedi if we inadvertantly replicate the kind of partial statements that are reported to have fueled a long-term campaign of harassment against her. Beccaynr (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Added the proposed paragraph but without "to hide the caste discrimination". If you have any objection then discuss here but don't revert away. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I made revisions that I think reflect this discussion, including issues related to WP:BLP and WP:DUE policies, as well as copyediting to not attribute co-authored works solely to Dwivedi, and to place events in chronological order. The BLP issues related to out-of-context statements seem to be significant, so it seemed important to make some revisions while still including contentious content. Beccaynr (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Beccaynr, agree. The Hindu stuff is not understandable without caste, the far right distortion many discuss looks to be about misleading audiences into thinking that it is a simple statement opposing Hinduism. A note on the technical academic aspect can be added that seems all related to two words hypophysics and calypsology. For the first word there is reference to expand. Here this interview makes some connections. https://countercurrents.org/2023/04/class-caste-and-communism-an-interview-with-j-reghu/ 106.215.81.219 (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am still thinking on how to proceed with this after the addition to the article following this discussion. It seems there are significant BLP policy concerns about highlighting one aspect of what she said, when her statements are reported to have led to death threats against her, and she seems to have indicated to ThePrint that her words were taken out of context. Beccaynr (talk) 05:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is contentious with no clear statement from secondary sources. Dhanda’s is the most measured expert technical description. That should stand in for now. Talk page is not BLP suitable in parts. The guideline is clear on all that “ Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion” 106.215.81.219 (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Beccaynr, I found a similar contentious edits dispute resolution here it cites Dwivedi in an argument for resolution about “Marxist historian”. There the edits on article point to being conservative.
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Romila_Thapar 106.215.81.219 (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Beccaynr why you removed "she wrote "Gandhi had an important role in the invention of “Hindu” religion. He understood that if the majority of the population, the lower castes, were not let into the upper-caste temples, a common religion called Hindu would not be legally recognised.""? Your writeup now appears to be showing as if Divya came up with something new in that NDTV debate despite she was ONLY saying what she had already written in Indian Express and it went unopposed. Kindly restore this text or something similar. We cannot make it appear as if she said something new on NDTV but what she had already written for Indian Express. 2402:A00:401:7C3E:85EA:436E:1AF:3F51 (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I added similar text sourced to a reliable secondary source (as discussed here) to replace what appeared to be an editor-selected quote from The Indian Express (as we discussed here), to help avoid making it appear as if she said something new on NDTV. I also corrected the error that had been noted here, and copyedited to remove the implication that she was the sole author of The Indian Express article. I think especially in this context, we should not make it appear as if she is the only one making such statements. At this time, after the revision for chronological order based on the sources and to add content from a reliable secondary source, I do not think this article makes it appear as if she said something 'new' on NDTV, because of the content I added from a reliable secondary source. I remain concerned about the development and use of the summary of the NDTV interview, and continue to consider it.I think given the contentious nature of this content and the subject being reported to recently be subject to misrepresentation, death threats, and other harassment on social media, and similar harassment over years, if we had developed consensus on this talk page before this contentious content was added, that would have been ideal. Beccaynr (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources we currently have available about the NDTV interview are as follows:
 * 2022 Mathrumbhumi longform journalism by NK Raveendran, referring to the 2019 NDTV interview as:
 * 2023 Protean Magazine essay by professor Anthony Ballas:
 * 2020 Los Angeles Review of Books introduction to interview by Krithika Varagur:
 * 2019 ThePrint news report
 * I think to better reflect the sources as a whole (per NPOV/WP:PROPORTION), we could introduce the "annilation of caste" issue (noted by two sources) and include the quote from three sources, i.e. “Hindu Right is the corollary of the of the idea that India is a Hindu majority population and this is a false majority. The Hindu religion was invented in the early 20th century in order to hide the fact that the lower caste people are the real majority of India…” This would be a revision to the current summary of the NDTV debate statements. I have been looking for secondary support for inclusion about her statement related to upper caste leaders/Ghandi, but the response from the BJP youth party spokesperson quoted in 2019 ThePrint report does not appear to focus on this, and the historian's reported criticism was general. The later sources discussing her contentious statements seem to have more weight per WP:NOTNEWS because these are what appear to have endured as encyclopedically significant.
 * In the meantime, I am also considering adding a quotebox with her response as described in ThePrint, i.e. she cites studies and the co-authored Indian Express essay. I think this may be one way to add balance to this article, to address the risk of inadvertant misrepresentation or misunderstanding by readers, and to help remediate ongoing BLP policy concerns related to this subject as reported by multiple sources, including sources discussing a campaign to misrepresent her and her being subject to harassment and death threats. Beccaynr (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The paragraph in question remained stable almost for a week until you modified it again. Kindly don't do this. I have restored the stable version. 2402:A00:401:7C3E:7CB1:4DA9:15DB:C0E5 (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I waited for further comment about my presentation of sources and policy before making the addition at 16:39, 25 November 2023, but do not consider it to have been stable before that because I was objecting to the use of a news source close to the event, because as I explained here, we have later sources, including scholarly sources, that have greater weight according to WP:NPOV policy and help us identify the relevant parts from the interview. This is a BLP, and under the circumstances where the sources discuss her words being taken out of context and subject to a campaign of harassment, when I also found she referenced notable scholars in her statement to ThePrint, this seemed appropriate to include, both according to WP:NPOV as WP:DUE and according to WP:BLPBALANCE. The version I added after waiting several days for a response incorporates multiple sources and appears to reflect core content polices. Beccaynr (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, as a coincidence, to help emphasize the contentious nature of this article and this subject, shortly before you removed the sourced content that had been added according to BLP and NPOV policy, this article was twice-vandalized with the edit summary "Hindu hater", . I think this type of response helps emphasize how important it is to work with multiple sources to provide context as identified by multiple sources, particularly scholarly and longform journalism looking back at events. Beccaynr (talk) 07:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It was a stable version because it stayed for 1 week. You cannot unilaterally change it now. I am not responsible for narrow-minded trolls disrupting this page.
 * Propose your version and wait until there is consensus just like it happened last time. 2402:A00:401:7C3E:7CB1:4DA9:15DB:C0E5 (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not think it was stable, because the discussion was pending - and I just updated my comment above to note that I made the change several days ago at 16:39, 25 November 2023, after waiting several days for further discussion here about the sources and policy in response to my comment. I think the version I have drafted reflects BLP and NPOV policy by using multiple sources to determine what to include, and what was in the article does not because it relies on one news source close to the event, and appears to make an original judgment about which of her statements to include. This is a CTOPs article and we must be careful. There are significant BLP policy concerns for this subject, so beyond the usual encyclopedic need to abide by NPOV policy and use multiple reliable sources to develop content, it is even more important to do so here. Beccaynr (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It also does not seem fair to now revert back to the poorly-sourced version, without any substantive reason stated, and insist on discussing whether to include the better-sourced version that seeks to comply with BLP and NPOV policies, when I have been trying to discuss these issues, and no one would discuss. There are alternative forms of dispute resolution to the repeated removal of reliably-sourced content that is attempting to constructively address a very contentious aspect of this article. Beccaynr (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It was a stable version because it stayed for 1 week. Nobody is required to have WP:LASTWORD with you. You have already wasted too much time here. Now get consensus instead of edit warring. 2402:A00:401:7C3E:7CB1:4DA9:15DB:C0E5 (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It was not stable, because there was an objection based on the sources and policies - it is not fair to consider my engagement with dispute resolution and waiting for discussion to create a "stable" version for a few days that now gives you a right to continue edit-warring out multiple sources and creating content that is contrary to BLP and NPOV policies. You have not offered a substantive objection as to why sourced content should be removed, why NPOV policy should not be complied with, and why we should not take the care required with the CTOPs BLP article. Do you have any objection to the content added? Beccaynr (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Your wikilawyering is getting more disruptive. I have started the discussion here: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. 2402:A00:401:7C3E:7CB1:4DA9:15DB:C0E5 (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder it's a moot point if it's 'stable'. If it has been deleted on good faith BLP grounds then per WP:BLPUNDEL it could have been stable for 20 years, but still needs consensus to be re-added. Nil Einne (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Break
Despite the recent developments, the dispute still remains unresolved.

The text over which edit war happened:
 * Dwivedi was recorded making several statements, including that Hinduism was invented in the early 20th century, by upper caste leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi.

The cited source (Print.in) is reliable and it states:
 * "she questioned the origins of Hinduism and stated that Mahatma Gandhi helped construct the idea of a “false Hindu majority”."
 * ""In fact, religious minorities have been a victim of this false majority and Gandhi has played a very significant role in its construction. He has helped construct a false Hindu majority and a new Hindu identity…” she said."
 * "Dwivedi added, “He (Gandhi) was one of the many upper caste leaders who constructed this origin for this polity but today we must discard it…”"

So why this sentence should not be restored when it was the very statement that brought the coverage? It is clearly reported by the source and there is a video as well which confirms she really made the above statements.

Inviting you guys to share your views. Dympies (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Recent developments include discussion at ANI; including about NPOV/OR/BLP issues related to this disputed content, e.g. from ANI it seems particularly important, from a NPOV/BLP perspective, to not create original research/synthesis, e.g. in the example diff above, by taking content from one 2019 news source, that states, inter alia, 'She said x about Gandhi', followed by a 2023 source that says 'she said x about the Hindu Right etc and then faced death threats', to create article content that says, 'She said x about Gandhi and then faced death threats.' No source appears to support this synthesis, and this appears to be very contentious original content to add to a BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You are quoting yourself and you are wrong. There is no WP:SYNTH since the content is 100% supported by the source. Dympies (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * For reference/clarification, this refers to content that Dympies and Aman.kumar.goel had attempted to add to the article before the ANI was filed: (Dympies),  (Aman.kumar.goel),  (Dympies),  (Dympies). My comment above refers to a synthesis that seems to happen if content sourced to independent, reliable secondary sources is removed, and editor-selected content from the 2019 Print news source is instead used in a way that makes it seem as if the 2023 secondary source connects the editor-selected Gandhi-related content to the death threats, when independent, reliable secondary sources do not appear to do this. Beccaynr (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 2023 controversy is not same as the one from 2019. Don't cobble them up together. CharlesWain (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The 2023 Protean source by professor Ballas discusses the 2019 NDTV interview:
 * The 2022 longform journalism in Mathrubhumi by NK Raveendran also discusses the 2019 NDTV interview:
 * And to clarify, reports about the more recent targeting of Dwivedi, e.g. also Mathrubhumi, September 2023 (related to the France24 interview) have made compliance with BLP seem more urgent, and seems to provide further context for the need to take great care and avoid the appearance of bias (i.e. to comply with NPOV policy and avoid OR/SYNTH), e.g. However, what has been reported to happen recently is only additional context; it is not the basis for supporting content about the 2019 NDTV interview based on multiple independent and reliable secondary sources and according to NPOV,  OR/SYNTH, and BLP policies.As noted above, OR/SYNTH seems to happen if the NDTV quote about the Hindu Right that appears WP:DUE based on multiple sources, including ThePrint, is removed, and if content selected by editors about Gandhi from the 2019 Print news report is connected to a 2023 source about death threats to create content that no source appears to support. As I mentioned during the ANI discussion, It is 'poorly-sourced' in the sense that while parts are sourceable, this does not seem to be well-sourced according to NPOV, OR, and BLP policies. Beccaynr (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, as noted in the BLPN discussion by Black Kite at 18:40, 2 December 2023 : WP:BLPUNDEL has been noted in this discussion above and at BLPN, and this section of BLP policy includes:  Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Proteanmag is just a blog and your two other sources are Matrabhumi. If you are really going to rely on these sources then we have this source from 2023 which tells that:
 * Finally, the Print is a strong source because it was also used by Milli Chronicle to report on this issue and it used the quote that you are removing. CharlesWain (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Protean Magazine is a magazine, and the 2023 source is authored by a professor. By contrast, the first source cited in your comment above, titled "Know Everything About IIT Professor Divya Dwivedi Who Gave This Statement There Will Be No Hindutva In India Abpp" in Connexionblog, is a blog, which in its "About Us" section states, "It is made up of a team of collaborators passionate about entertainment, Finance, Health, Lifestyle and Fashion, Science, Tech & Auto, Travel, Utility, Technology, Agriculture, Bikes And Cars. Without real sections, the content of his blog is structured organically by keywords, thus evolving according to current trends. This content is not own or live reporting on our website." This does not appear to be a reliable source suitable for use in a biography of a living person.The Milli Chronicle appears questionable based on its About Us page - a self-funded project run by one person, and it seems to misrepresent her statements in the lede of the brief unbylined post, so this does not seem to be a source that should be included in a biography of a living person for contentious content.Please also note The Print is currently used as a source in the article several times. This discussion is not about whether to use The Print as a source because The Print is already used as a source in the article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are seriously going to engage in this nitpicking then Protean Magazine is very clear that its "a non-profit leftist publication that produces an annual print magazine and publishes online content year-round." As such it cannot be treated as any better source either.
 * Who is saying that you are removing Print? The point made above is regarding "the quote that you are removing". Your justifications have failed so far. Dympies (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

As noted above at 16:43, 20 November 2023‎ in this discussion, there are multiple sources that discuss the 2019 NDTV interview; 2022 Mathrumbhumi longform journalism, which includes the 2019 debate quote currently in the article; 2023 Protean Magazine essay by (adjunct) professor Anthony Ballas, which includes the 2019 debate quote currently in the article; January 2020 Los Angeles Review of Books introduction to interview by Krithika Varagur, which includes a focus on 'Hinduism, as a political concept, was invented in the 20th century'; 2019 ThePrint news report, which includes the quote currently in the article. An examination of the reliability of sources is part of the consideration of the proportion and weight of content to include, particularly contentious content according to WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE. As to the 2023 Protean Magazine source, this is styled as a "News Analysis" and bylined to an academic. The RS guideline WP:BIASEDSOURCES and a corresponding NPOV policy (e.g. "biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone") support examining this and other sources carefully. From my view, factors including the depth of this source, the sourcing it uses, and its identifiable author support its use in the context in which it is used as a secondary source. I am also reviewing sources and considering compromise options - my sense is with further research and review of sources, Dwivedi's views and statements on Gandhi may have further support for inclusion; I think there may be alternatives for how this topic can be more fully and contextually presented, instead of focusing on one seemingly sensationalized quote from the 2019 NDTV debate. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Also, courtesy pings to, , , and , active editors who have previously participated in discussions on this article talk page, for your awareness of this discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am still finding zero sense over your exclusion of the widely covered quote. You have been told many times that BLP is not an issue here. CharlesWain (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As noted above, the quote that is covered by independent and reliable secondary sources is included in the article, according to WP:NPOV policy. There has not been similar coverage produced to support inclusion of the additional quote that is not included, i.e. to show that quote in particular has been widely-covered. According to independent and reliable secondary sources, the NDTV interview video clips were sensationalized and led to social media outrage and threats against Dwivedi, so according to BLP policy, we should take even more care than usual with this material and ensure we have high-quality sources for contentious content. As noted in the ANI discussion and the BLPN discussion, said  there is a BLP concern. I was also not the only editor at the BLPN discussion to raise BLP concerns. And as discussed here, BLP is not the only issue; this is also about developing encyclopedic content according to core content policies, including NPOV and OR, and  using independent and reliable secondary sources.According to WP:NOTSCANDAL, Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy; and as noted above, per WP:BLPUNDEL, To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC
Should we add the sentence "Dwivedi was recorded making several statements, including that Hinduism was invented in the early 20th century, by upper caste leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi" to Divya Dwivedi as per the cited source? CharlesWain (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing the RfC in the light of significant edits modifications on this article. If anyone else wants to take up this RfC, if they want. CharlesWain (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes - This source has been already cited at Divya Dwivedi and it clearly states "she questioned the origins of Hinduism and stated that Mahatma Gandhi helped construct the idea of a “false Hindu majority”.[...] In fact, religious minorities have been a victim of this false majority and Gandhi has played a very significant role in its construction. He has helped construct a false Hindu majority and a new Hindu identity…” she said.[...] Dwivedi added, “He (Gandhi) was one of the many upper caste leaders who constructed this origin for this polity but today we must discard it…”" The same was also reported by several other sources, CharlesWain (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:RFCBEFORE includes:
 * Talk:Divya_Dwivedi
 * BLPN discussion
 * Discussion at ANI
 * Talk:Divya_Dwivedi
 * Beccaynr (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have opened a discussion at RSN for a source offered above by CharlesWain: Connexionblog. Beccaynr (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have also opened a discussion at RSN for the other source offered above by CharlesWain: The Milli Chronicle. Beccaynr (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That was unnecessary since I never said that they are 'reliable' in the first place. CharlesWain (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes The sentence is perfectly sourced. It is important for inclusion since it caused the controversy. Dympies (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not in support of this proposal given the recent cleanup by TrangaBellam. Dympies (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * No There is a quote from the 2019 NDTV interview currently included in the article, because it is covered by independent and reliable secondary sources, according to WP:NPOV policy. There has not been similar coverage produced to support inclusion of the additional proposed quote summary,  i.e. to show the proposed quote  summary has been covered by independent and reliable secondary sources.According to independent and reliable secondary sources, the 2019 NDTV interview video clips were sensationalized and led to social media outrage and threats against Dwivedi, so according to BLP policy, we should be cautious with this contentious material and ensure we have high-quality sources. An examination of the quality and reliability of sources is part of the consideration of the proportion and weight of content to include, particularly for contentious content, as noted in WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE.Available sources include:

Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC) - comment adjusted to reflect RfC proposal Beccaynr (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The 2022 longform journalism in Mathrubhumi by NK Raveendran discusses the 2019 NDTV interview: and no specific mention of the Gandhi-related statement
 * The 2023 news analysis in Protean Magazine by professor Ballas discusses the 2019 NDTV interview:  and no specific mention of the Gandhi-related statement
 * The 4-paragraph introduction to an interview with Dwivedi published 8 Jan 2020 in the Los Angeles Review of Books, that includes:  and no specific mention of the Gandhi-related statement
 * 2019 ThePrint news report which includes and no specific reporting about the Gandhi-related statement, e.g. connected to the BJP youth party response and the academic response quoted
 * Yes - There is nothing wrong with quoting the comments that made the incident notable. See M. Karunanidhi, 2022 Muhammad remarks controversy, More popular than Jesus, and more examples where the controversial quotation has been mentioned. There could be a possible dispute if the comments were not made by the person in question but that is not the question here. Orientls (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What sources show the proposed summary of contentious comments "made the incident notable"? Please also note the RfC proposal is for creating new content, not inclusion of a direct quote, and independent and reliable secondary sources have not been offered to show this proposed summary is WP:DUE to include. CharlesWain has offered unsuitable sources to support this proposal (as noted in the previous discussion and at the RSN discussions); by contrast, the current quote in the article is supported by independent and reliable secondary sources. Beccaynr (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes - Having nominated this article for AfD earlier, I had a look into this dispute days ago but couldn't really make anything out of this dispute. I support this proposal as it hasn't been disputed by any other sources. I disagree with Beccaynr's claim that we should only use the latest sources because there is no such rule. Print's article is detailed enough for supporting the proposal. Dhawangupta (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Independent and reliable sources supporting inclusion of a quote from the 2019 NDTV in the article are included in the article. No such sources of a similar quality have been offered to support inclusion of the summary proposed here. Applicable policies include WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, as noted in my comment above and in the WP:RFCBEFORE discussions. We develop encyclopedic content not from editor-selected content based on one news report published around the time of the contentious event, but instead from independent and reliable secondary sources, so contentious content in a BLP is neutral and based on high-quality sources. Beccaynr (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:OPINDIA, a blacklisted site at WP:RSP, on 2 October 2020 published a post titled "The radical left has always hated Mahatma Gandhi for being a Hindu" with similar emphasis on some of Dwivedi's 2019 NDTV quotes as the quotes in the RfC proposal, as well as what seems to be an another example of how inflammatory it can be to include such material without independent and reliable secondary sources supporting inclusion according to policy. WP:OPINDIA also published a post on 9 Sept 2023 titled "IIT Delhi professor Divya Dwivedi calls for wiping out Hinduism from India at G20, had earlier called Hinduism a false religion", and covers more recent statements, and then includes the 2019 quote currently included in the article, and then continues with quotes that have been proposed to be summarized here. Beccaynr (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC) - comment expanded Beccaynr (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is also worthwhile to note the proposed summary does not seem to adequately reflect the news report quotes offered in the proposal. This seems to be another example of why independent and reliable secondary sources are needed to develop encyclopedic content, so editors do not make original interpretations of primary source material. Beccaynr (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Editors want to add a sentence that essentially condenses Dwivedi's comments on NDTV to "Hinduism was invented in the 20th century by upper caste members like Gandhi". Do I have this right? If so, given how inflammatory this whole incident has been in the real world, and how triggered Hindutva extremists seem to be by these two claims in particular, for such a distilled, context-impoverished sentence to be in mainspace (even if attributed) we would need multiple very high-quality RS that reduce her comments in that way. It's my impression that such sourcing is not available.
 * JoelleJay (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Print.in is the only "high-quality RS" we have which has even covered this controversy. Other added sources like "Protean Mag" is insignificant with dubious reliability, and Matrabhumi has only a small paragraph. According to your logic, we must get rid of the entire paragraph (3rd paragraph at Divya Dwivedi to be precise). I would support that but let me know your view as well. Dympies (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Beyond the 2019 news report from The Print, multiple independent and reliable secondary sources are cited in the collapsed box above, titled "Sources supporting current article content", and the quality and reliability of the Protean Magazine source was discussed before this RfC, including in the context of applicable policies and guidelines, e.g., . Beccaynr (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They are passing mentions and they are not "high-quality RS" which we are looking for, except for Print.in. If the controversy was really notable then it would get singificant coverage like we have from Print.in article but that is the only single "high-quality RS" we have about this controversy. If we cannot find them then why do we need the paragraph as a whole? Dympies (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Because there is in-depth coverage of Dwivedi in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources that discuss the 2019 event in context. These are not passing mentions. The longform journalism in Mathrubhumi (2022), as well as the academic writer in Protean Magazine (2023), and the journalist writing for the Los Angeles Review of Books (2020) are high-quality RS - while selected quotes are included in this discussion, the sources contextualize the 2019 event with her work and other events, as well as various responses to her work. By contrast, the 2019 Print source is a news report, close to the event, during the initial sensationalism, with much less depth, and without the substantial secondary context available from the later sources. Beccaynr (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes they are passing mentions, apart from Print which is the only "high-quality RS" that has significantly covered this incident. I would now wait for JoelleJay to share his view. Dympies (talk) 07:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to ignore my above comments now because TrangaBellam has modified the section well enough that I have found a much better version now. Dympies (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Scholarship and public commentary section
The Scholarship and public commentary section of this article has undergone a lot of editing, including recently, and I am hoping to review it carefully over the next several hours. I think this section overall would benefit from a more chronological order, so this is one aspect that I will be focusing on during my review, and I expect my edits will mostly focus on organizing the content. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I am thinking this section may be better titled Public commentary and reactions; sources include:
 * Two philosophers and a political theorist: An allegory of Indian public sphere (Mathrubhumi, NK Raveendran, 15 Nov 2022) This source discusses:
 * The 2007 article by Dwivedi and Mohan "Critical Nation", in the Economic and Political Weekly
 * The 2019 article by Dwivedi and Mohan in The Indian Express, "Courage to Begin", describing it as "a remarkable short article shattering the established wisdoms about modern India"
 * Dwivedi's NDTV interview thereafter, which "went viral and the Hindu extremists began to target Dwivedi"
 * The co-authored 2020 article in The Caravan, "The Hindu Hoax", including that "the authors received threats repeatedly and faced harassment on social media" and noting the defense by Jean-Luc Nancy.
 * International community expresses solidarity with Divya Dwivedi, Shaj Mohan (Mathrubhumi, 7 November 2022) This source reports on a support statement from academics published in the French newspaper MediaPart, after "Le Monde reported that the authors received threats" following publication of "The Hindu Hoax" essay
 * Philosopher Divya Dwivedi Among Latest Targets of India’s Right Wing (Protean Magazine, Anthony Ballas, 5 Oct 2023) This source discusses:
 * Dwivedi's 2019 "participation in an NDTV debate", described as 'making headlines', also noting a "clip" went "viral" and "Dwivedi received targeted death threats from Hindu extremists", as well as Dwivedi's response
 * "Jean-Luc Nancy wrote a glowing defense in Libération in 2021 of Dwivedi, Mohan, and Reghu’s article, “The Hindu Hoax", with a partial translation by Ballas
 * a 2022 interview by Dwivedi with Asianlite, described as "visciously attacked by the right-wing", and also noting a "petition in defense" signed "by many leading intellectual figures around the globe", with examples
 * a mid-September 2023 France 24 interview by Dwivedi, and a link to 13 Sept 2023 Mathrubhumi reporting "Death threats over remarks on Hinduism: Kerala writers stand in solidarity with Divya Dwivedi"
 * This source also includes discussion of work by Dwivedi and Mohan in 2020, and "numerous attempts to discredit Dwivedi, most notably on social media", with commentary on the significance
 * This souce also discusses an interview by Dwivedi with Kamran Baradaran in 2020
 * Two statements of support from academics are also included at the end of this source
 * Beccaynr (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is also:
 * Who Can Quarrel with the Feast of Truth: On Divya Dwivedi (The Mooknayak, Rajesh Selvaraj, 23 Oct 2023) This source discusses:
 * The Caravan magazine essay, which was published as a translated book
 * The France24 interview, and "Then, many friends and I watched in horror as her name began to trend in social media and threats being thrown like chaff and dust into the wind, while her words were being distorted and mutilated to mislead the people by the far right media"
 * Dwivedi's article "The Evasive Racism of Caste—and the Homological Power of the "Aryan" Doctrine"
 * reflections on reasons for opposition to her work, including the complexity of the academic areas
 * the support for her work published in Media Part
 * Beccaynr (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Another source:
 * an interview published on 8 Jan 2020 in the Los Angeles Review of Books, with a 4-paragraph introduction that includes: "Last month, the Indian philosopher Divya Dwivedi appeared on a television program organized to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi’s birth and she argued that Hinduism, as a political concept, was invented in the 20th century. The reaction was predictably incensed."
 * Beccaynr (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I made a fairly substantial edit to this section (followed by a few minor edits for formatting, a typo, and copyediting, , , to create a more chronological order in the section. The editing also reflects what I have discussed in the section above, about the original research policy and the WP:STICKTOSOURCE section, which says to Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source. This editing also seems to highlight what is discussed in the section below, about using a Selected works section to list articles, essays, (and interviews) by Dwivedi that have been discussed by independent and reliable sources. I think given the disputes about how to interpret her work, offering these texts to readers for their own review will be helpful. I also think that descriptions of her work should be attributed to secondary sources, and this can continue to be developed. I have also removed some sources from the article, at least for now:


 * - this is a reprint of her  Asian Lite International interview, with some introduction.
 * - a 2022 interview with Le Monde
 * - a co-authored 2021 article with Mohan
 * - a 2020 journal article co-authored with Mohan
 * - the co-authored "The Hindu Hoax" article
 * - the co-authored "The Hindu Hoax" article


 * Beccaynr (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Selected works
There is currently a section titled 'Bibliography' in the article (that I think could be changed to 'Selected works') that had included books edited by the subject, but this has been removed several times,, , , including after the addition of more complete citations for the works and a source for one of the works (in a series of edits , , ). There was also an objection in an edit summary, which is a less than ideal way to discuss disputed content, so perhaps we can discuss this section more productively here. With regard to books edited by the subject, the Manual of Style for list of works includes, Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet. I think it is typical for edited books by academics to be included in their articles, so I suggest restoring the list of edited books. With regard to essays/articles, my general sense is there are a variety of her works that have been evaluated by secondary sources, including those identified in the section above, and it therefore seems worthwhile to include these works in a list of Selected works. I think this will become more apparent as the article develops, and could be helpful for cleaning up the references list and making her works more accessible to readers - instead of burying the original work as a citation in the reference list, it can be displayed in the list of Selected works. Beccaynr (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Bibliography is only for keeping notable items or even non-notable books. It is not for flooding the section with interviews, articles, like it has been done on this article. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As to books, I suggest restoring her books that had been removed, and I do not suggest all of the articles/essays/interviews that were removed be restored. There seem to be at least a few articles/essays noted in the section above (e.g. "Courage to Begin", "The Hindu Hoax") that could be listed because of the coverage received, and the Asian Lite International interview also seems to be covered by secondary sources. Beccaynr (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Beccaynr, the other philosopher articles and academic article can serve as a guideline where bibliographical details are generous. It appears for good reason they have long bibliography to caution against misinformation and to develop the articles ahead. Removing the concerned bibliography of the areas picked out in this article seems like an open door to disruptive editing. The article “Aryan doctrine” is discussed by secondary source. Some of the interviews are relatively accessible communications. 106.215.81.219 (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way some misspells crept in your edit on scholarship. 106.215.81.219 (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, 106.215, I am not always the greatest speller, especially when I have worked for awhile on a section and done a lot of reading and writing. And I have sometimes seen select interviews included in the External links section of articles, so I have been thinking about that for some of the material. There are also other parts of the article where some of the material may be incorporated. I have been trying to assess the Selected Works section based on the Manual of Style, and this discussion could also be taken to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works for further input. I am also hoping to have some time to further review sources about Dwivedi and her work, because of the potential for more support for Selected works to be listed in addition to her books.However, there has been a lot happening with this article recently, so I have been trying to focus on the most disputed areas of content for now, because of the biographies of living persons policy and the recent events that according to multiple sources appear to warrant particular attention. Beccaynr (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Taking it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works will be a very good thing for all academic articles. On secondary sources I don’t have access to some sources and some are in French. But I found this useful to link the book with the political articles and commentary. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-international-security/article/pacifist-and-the-hypophysical-a-cosmological-reading-of-gandhi/D606D11A57A829A8AEA4DD8F4468FEF1 long in the tooth to learn those tricks.
 * https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-international-security/article/pacifist-and-the-hypophysical-a-cosmological-reading-of-gandhi/D606D11A57A829A8AEA4DD8F4468FEF1 106.215.81.219 (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if you can find partial academic sources, I may be able to access the full source, because I have access to the Wikipedia Library, so please feel free to add citations and links here, and French sources are also fine, because these can be translated. Thank you again, Beccaynr (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for Selected works section
I mentioned in a talk section several sections above that one potential way to present certain items of contentious scholarship by Dwivedi is to introduce the controversy in the text of the article, and also include a link to the work in the Selected works section. In the discussion section above, the Manual of Style for list of works is also discussed, including with regard to sourcing support for the inclusion of non-book works in a list of works. With this is in mind, and because there has been back-and-forth editing over the list of works, I am adding a proposal for a list here:

Articles, essays, and interviews

 * (interview)
 * (interview)
 * (interview)
 * (interview)
 * (interview)
 * (interview)
 * (interview)
 * (interview)

As discussed in the section above, there is additional research to review that may support further additions, but for now, this list appears to be reasonably supported. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC) updated to add interview with a reference, and to move book chapter and add a reference. Beccaynr (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC) ; updated to add a work with references, and to add a reference. Beccaynr (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Only books should be there. Rest is entirely unnecessary. 2402:A00:401:7C3E:2109:4433:DB6C:5916 (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears we are encouraged to create a list of works by the Manual of Style, to the extent we can appropriately source the list; for this subject, whose work is controversial, it seems even more important to provide readers access to work that is discussed by reliable secondary sources. The Manual of Style for basic list style includes:
 * This also appears to relate to how to develop accessible content for readers - instead of burying her work in the general references, works that are discussed by reliable secondary sources are more easily available to readers in a list. Beccaynr (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Other articles can be added. They discuss caste issues There are secondary references
 * “ All but one of the 26 pieces by some of the world’s leading thinkers (including Jean-Luc Nancy, Julia Kristeva, Divya Dwivedi, and Shaj Mohan) were published between February and June 2020, during the ‘suspended existence’ of lockdowns around the globe.”
 * ” In another essay Mohan wrote with Divya Dwivedi in response to Agamben and Nancy, the pair position high-caste Brahmins as living in a state of exception, occupying rarefied places and not bound by the usual rules. Writing as I do from a Britain roiled by ‘partygate’, the revelation that our political Brahmins have been issuing directives for the masses to isolate even as they flouted those self-same laws, this notion of elitist exceptionalism rings sombre bells.”
 * https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2021/12/unreliable-witnesses.html
 * The article from the edited book is available online. 106.215.81.219 (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * More secondary references for the article mentioning caste. In this context caste and caste oppression are not wikilinked.
 * https://ras.jes.su/chelovek/s023620070013079-3-1-en
 * https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=875998
 * https://caarchives.org/the-uncanny-logic-of-the-covid-19-coronavirus/ 106.215.81.219 (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Beccaynr, This journal has a Wikipedia page has an article on her with some content on political problems more clearly.
 * Ce que l’Inde m’a appris - Nicolas Idier
 * There’s one joint article by her. I did DeepL it reads ok to me.
 * https://www.revuedesdeuxmondes.fr/revue/linde-le-nouveau-geant/
 * This has thesis from Harvard has references to her on caste but I can’t access it.
 * https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/37376402
 * Reference to Caravan article but no access
 * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/24730580.2022.2039489
 * MIT article with a lot of discussion on her article
 * https://direct.mit.edu/octo/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/octo_a_00366/1754344/octo_a_00366.pdf
 * This discussion is mostly on this
 * https://m.thewire.in/article/politics/narendra-modi-cave-meditation/amp
 * It should be in the list I think because there is more discussion on the MIT article itself.
 * I am going to add more 106.215.81.219 (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I had updated the proposal to add the "The Hoax of the Cave" essay in The Wire, including with the MIT source listed above, and I agree there is substantial discussion in that article. I also think it is possible that the "Hindu Hoax" essay in The Caravan may be independently notable, and could be developed into an article. I have access to the T&F database at the Wikipedia Library, but at the moment there does not appear to be a need to add further citations to support its inclusion in a list of Selected works, although it is helpful to know there is potential further support for notability, especially for consideration as to whether to develop an article about the essay, which was also translated into a book. Beccaynr (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Beccaynr, my previous IP is blocked. I had to change location to attempt posting.
 * Hindu Hoax has the Liberation article by Nancy, Mathrubhumi and Mooknayak articles to establish notability. There are more references, this is from an abstract of Warwick university
 * Hindutva: Exploring Contemporary Biopolitics in South Asia
 * https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/research/activities/postkantian/events/wcpc/archive/wcpc_booklet_21-22_1.1.pdf
 * https://www.authorea.com/users/454726/articles/564649-kazuo-ishiguro-and-godi-media-a-reading-of-his-select-novels-and-the-post-2014-indian-media
 * This I have not read it.
 * Against Mystification, or What Went Wrong with Critical IR
 * Alexander Stoffel and Ida Roland Birkvad
 * This a post grad thesis
 * Notes on feminist dissonance
 * Niharika Pandit
 * Don’t have access
 * Marginality in India
 * Perspectives of Marginalisation from the Northeast
 * no access
 * I will keep looking 122.177.99.176 (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and we could open a new section on this Talk page to collect research specifically for The Hindu Hoax essay. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I have made some initial updates to the proposal to add an interview sourced to the article by professor Ballas that I had overlooked, and to move the book chapter into the Articles, essays, interviews subsection with the 3 Quarks Daily added. Beccaynr (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Added the mentioned books. I don't think anything else is really needed in that section. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Another way to perhaps consider this is if this was an AfD discussion, reliable secondary coverage of her writing and interviews could support her notability - this type of source supports the encyclopedic significance of a subject's work as an author and scholar. This list is not indiscriminate because it is based on reliable secondary coverage, and lists can present content in an accessible manner. Beccaynr (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Beccaynr, now that there seems no proper justification for suppressing the bibliography so please add the articles and interviews too if you consider this a good enough list for now. The article in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revue_des_deux_Mondes
 * is good for expansion and secondary source. 106.215.81.219 (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have posted a request for input in this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works. Beccaynr (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no ambiguity there. “Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet. If the list has a separate article, a simplified version should also be provided in the main article.” The restrictions are on chronological listing and bibliographical details. After looking at several philosopher, theorist articles this is evident. 106.215.81.219 (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There currently is a disagreement, so I am attempting to follow the dispute resolution process by seeking input from the talk page listed above. I am hoping other participants in this discussion review the MOS talk page, because from my view, there are discussions there that seem to support inclusion of proposed content here (e.g. Podcasts). Beccaynr (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Non-book works that have themselves attracted significant coverage in secondary sources seem prefectly reasonable to include. And for a prolific writer, we might even exclude book-format works that have not. It's not about what format the work is in, it's whether it's encyclopedically signfificant work.  Avoid "format fetishism".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Dwivedi does not seem to have a particularly extensive corpus of book works, and given the BLP context of this article, e.g. "numerous attempts to discredit Dwivedi, most notably on social media" (Prof. Anthony Ballas, Protean Magazine), and various public expressions of support for her work from scholars identified in the article, I think inclusion of the book works in this article are reasonable. Beccaynr (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Beccaynr the disruptions are with no consideration to the talk page discussions. The content is now being reverted to what was repeatedly reported as misconstrued in far right media. 122.177.99.176 (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No that is not happening. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not the section to discuss the recent edits. This has been extensively discussed in Talk:Divya_Dwivedi and discussion can continue there as needed. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Full protection
This page is now protected for 2 days in order to prevent further edit warring. Please attempt to reach a consensus on this talk page before continuing to revert. Other discussion about this: – bradv  19:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Scholarship and public commentary
I have trimmed the section. Please do not dump blow-by-blow account of everything in the article. That said, the Inventing Hinduism argument is not minimally novel and we have dozens of monographs arguing around the locus; so, God knows what's the brouhaha about. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This is much better than what we were dealing with until now. Dympies (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I restored the mass-removed content for several reasons - first, it appeared to distort Dwivedi's writings and statements, contrary to the sources, NPOV, and BLP policy. We also currently have a pending RfC about some of this contentious content; while it is not quite clear, I am hoping to learn more today about what exactly is being proposed in the RfC. Second, there appears to be independent and reliable secondary coverage to support inclusion of balanced content. Also, content in this section has been discussed in detail on this article talk page, as well as BLPN, which is reflected in the development of the section.I have no objection to continuing to discuss the contents of the section, but this mass removal, and what appears to be distortion of her statements seems unconstructive, particularly while the RfC is pending. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn the RfC because it was becoming obstactle to the version left by, and this new version ultimately has much more to offer than what that RfC had.
 * If you want to dispute the new edits then you should dispute them independent of the RfC but it would be best if you avoid reverting now. CharlesWain (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As noted above, there appear to be substantial BLP policy issues created by the mass-removal and distortion of sources; according to WP:BLPUNDEL, consensus should be obtained before restoration of these new interpretations, apparent misrepresentations, and what also appears to be an unbalancing of the article contrary to WP:BLPBALANCE.I think there is more to discuss, including because TrangaBellam appears to agree there is scholarly support for Dwivedi's work, but it is not clear why this was substantially removed from the article (both as described by Dwivedi, referring to notable academics, and the notable academics found noteworthy by RS); the inclusion of this content has previously been discussed on this talk page, and it is one aspect of the BLP issues related to the mass removal. Also, as noted when I added some of the templates to the article to reflect the ongoing disputes in this article, based on one of the justifications TrangaBellam appeared to use to mass-remove RS-sourced content, - WP:NNC states, The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. Beccaynr (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe, at the outset, you can clarify how I distorted the sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

For the record that edits are misattributing content to subject
The recent edits by Tiranga Bellum and some others are attributing words to the subject that were never spoken/written by them nor can they be found in any of the secondary sources/commentary. The section Public scholarship etc is now more or less the pasted content found from Sanghi Hindutva tabloids. Sending a pinging after some search at those that may know the topic 116.68.83.15 (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

To do
TrangaBellam (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Bring in scholars like Appadurai (Pol. of numbers), et al.
 * Note the three schools of thought on the Invention of Hinduism locus. In a footnote, perhaps?