Talk:Divya Dwivedi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photographs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kautilya3 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 @Speculative Boting and Harshil169: I was informed there some trouble in recent edits on the page. Pls note utube/official website, press releases, any user generated sites, sources associated with the subject is considered NOT independent and not relieable. Secondly, pls note the content need to be written in a neutral point of view. For an article particular about a living person, other independent, reliable applies here, and for editors can remove of not independent/reliable soured content. I suggest Speculative Boting to read WP:BLP and do note, Wikipedia do recognise the creator of the article but NO NOE own the articles in Wikipedia and every is welcome to edit as long as the edit is constructive and adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Lastly, do discussion the differential or misunderstanding in the article talk page and "STOP reverting" each other edit immediately. Once a consensus is reached then edit the page as per consensus and Wikipedia guidelines. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Hello all, CASSIOPEIA,JGHowes,Harshil169,WWorringer

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear all JGHowes CASSIOPEIA WWorringer

I expected CASSIOPEIA 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)

Speculative Boting 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 [[User:|Harshil169]] 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. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Column on "Influences" is re-instated

Dear All CASSIOPEIA Speculative Boting JGHowes Harshil169

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 CASSIOPEIA 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 Speculative Boting 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: Shame Speculative Boting withdrew from the edits! Hope Boting returns Harshil169.}} this line? Read WP:Civility before directly attacking and shaming someone. — Harshil ^{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 CASSIOPEIA Speculative Boting JGHowes and especially Harshil169 . 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 Harshil169 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?— Harshil ^{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)

@Kautilya3: 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. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear All CASSIOPEIA Speculative Boting Kautilya3 and especially Harshil169, 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)

WWorringer then what this statement says Then Harshil169 should place boxes in those hundreds of Wikipedia pages and elicit a new convention before making changes to this article page.? 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. — Harshil ^{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)

DiplomatTesterMan 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. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi DiplomatTesterMan 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)

@WWorringer: So, this is your argument in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for free speech. Also, read WP:Free Speech.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

On External Links

Dear CASSIOPEIA Speculative Boting JGHowes Kautilya3, 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 @Speculative Boting: @CASSIOPEIA: @Kautilya3: ? 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. — Harshil ^{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. @Vanamonde93:@Kautilya3: @Speculative Boting: @CASSIOPEIA: JGHowes @Arjayay: @Amantio di Nicolao: @Omnipaedista: BrownHairedGirl

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. — Harshil ^{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. CASSIOPEIA Speculative Boting JGHowes Kautilya3 . 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