|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nivedita Menon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.
Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious 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. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I removed "symbol of resistance" twice now. First there is no citations to it. Second symbol and face etc of resitance is very PR style. This Wiki article is glaring in uncritical style. The Wire artile is pure PR and I think it is a basis for saying symbol of resistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuthusamyJoseph (talk • contribs) 05:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- The lede is a summary of the article. Including her denials in the lede is undue weight, especially when we don't discuss the accusations in the lede either. What basis do you have for saying that the Wire piece is "PR"? Are you accusing the author of having some connection to Menon? If so, you need evidence for that. Please discuss the changes here, and stop reverting, per WP:BRD. Vanamonde (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
It doesnt summarise article. Summary should be that she is one of academics who took position against Hindutva and she said less than other academics. So it is very mystery to us that she is a symbol? How? Please do not be aggressive and let us keep a neutral unbiased article of Prof Menon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuthusamyJoseph (talk • contribs) 08:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- It is cited in the body as required, to the Neha Dixit article. You have now made three revert on this article. If you make another, you are liable to be blocked, per WP:3RR. Please discuss the issue here, and reach consensus instead of edit-warring. Vanamonde (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I and people of my kind are new in Wiki. We too want to have a say. We could find only one article on Menon saying she has some important role in JNU politics. It is Neha Dixit article in Wire. This article never says Menon is a symbol in India. It is PR because it never question Menon at all. We found that several professors of JNU are equal in protesting and are getting persecution. So this Wiki entry raise suspicions. Very very important matter. Her denials carry no weight? If she denied saying things which make her symbol and she respects deep Hinduism it makes it very suspicious that she is criticised and is symbol of resistance. Please be reasoning with me? I am also learning the Wiki for my friends. So forgive for any errors of any kind. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuthusamyJoseph (talk • contribs) 17:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- If you are new to Wikipedia, I suggest you start by reading WP:DUE, WP:RS, and WP:OSE. Try to understand how they apply here. Neutrality isn't achieved by including criticism by political figures, and denials of those: neutrality is achieved by balancing perspectives in reliable sources. Which is why her denials are inappropriate, especially in the lead. If other professors played a role in the JNU protests, that is a matter for their articles, not here. If they do not have articles, you could see whether they meet the guideline on notability. If they do, then write an article. If they don't; well, that's too bad. Vanamonde (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I am reading the WP sections. But Sir I have serious question. Why you saying that it is symbol of resistance? It is not show by the rest of article. It shows the professor mysteriously had fame and reknown for not saying and not doing any thing. One article in spite of that says the professor instigate the protests. But JNU protest starts with Dalit students and then Kashmir protest. Kanhaiya Kumar was arrested first. Menon said "nothing" but was criticized. So how is it following to "symbol of resistance"? You know political figure is wrongly represented like Menon in this Wiki page many causes can also suffer? Consequence happens? So please do not say "symbol of resistance". It is very unethical to doing this. I add a some more. You are doing ORIGINAL RESEARCH is it not so Sir with "symbol of resistance"? You can either cite an articles from reputed sources like we showed or allow it removed please Sir. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuthusamyJoseph (talk • contribs)
- MuthusamyJoseph, when an edit is contested, you are expected to discuss the issues on the talk page and reach consensus before reinstating your edit. Your repeated reinstatement of part or all of your content constitutes edit warring, and you can be blocked for it.
- From the discussion above, which is quite incoherent to me, it appears that you object to the phrase "symbol of resistance against Hindutva" and you want to include the denials she made of having said that "India was illegally occupying Kashmir". Am I correct? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I am understanding wikipeadia working style slowly. Yes, she denied the exact statements for getting persecution. So why a symbol of resistance? She also likes Hinduism as deep practice. So why is symbol of resistence? There are other facts from most renown sources and Menon herself missing. If it is added she will be more less than symbol of resistance. This article reads like a business brand protected. Why not remove symbol of resistance since it has no citation. Then bring citation and come to consensus. The article in no way suggest symbol of resistace unless Menon likes this name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuthusamyJoseph (talk • contribs) 09:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- No, unfortunately you are not learning. I have given you edit-warring notice on your talk page, yet you have reinstated the contested content. This doesn't bode well. You better self-revert or any passing admin can block you for edit-warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Here are the three changes you did in this edit, in the name of "balance":
- You removed the "symbol of resistance to Hindutva", despite it being in the headline of a cited source (Neha Dixit). Deleting sourced content without explanation.
- You added the sentence about Menon denying that she said Kashmir was illegally occupied by India. This is certainly true. But it would be better to cite an inpendent source that states what she exactly said. It is clear that she said hum sab jante hain ki duniya bhar mein yeh mana jata hai ki India is illegally occupying Kashmir ("We all know that it is regarded in the entire world that India is illegally occupying Kashmir", at 36:13 in the video). The statement was mistranslated by whoever made the accusations.
- You added a self-sourced statement that Menon said that Hinduism is a heterogenous set of religious practices. This doesn't have anything to do with the rest of the section, and your addition is not even a complete sentence.
- On the whole, it was a sloppy edit. I suggest that you stop making edits to the article, and explain here what your concern is. What is the issue of "balance" with the article? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Sir Kautilya3 I am going to remove the youtube links. This consisten with Vanamonde93 said in the controversy section "First, youtube is not a reliable source". But I understand that consistent and truth is not concern for Nivedita Menon and article. Then you changed article radically now. Because you understant I say and made changes which are truths very disturbing to you and may be Menon. I will revert to the Indian Express quote and it is the most reliable source in India. If an administrator fins objection then I will take legal steps. You have now spoken falsely. Neha Dixit article title does not say symbol of resistance, bit Instigator is title. So I remove symbol of resistance. You speak unkindly to me for being behind socity and new to this. But Menon claims to defend people of our type. So strange! I accuse you Edit Warring in order to present blatantly false and misleading picture of Menon. I do not accuse Menon of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuthusamyJoseph (talk • contribs) 20:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Let me wade into these murky waters for bit. This is certainly the most amusing articles about left politics in India. The history of this article clearly indicates that the real issue is not the Hindu Right at all, but a certain stubborn misrepresentation through which Menon is being made to sound what she is not, a clear opponent of the Hindu right and the Indian state. She denies making any statements to those effects. Not just that she also loves Hinduism, references to this matter has been altogether removed of course in the last few hours. Instead through the history what I could learn was that she is a totally manufactured and brittle "figure" and very confused "symbol" not resisting anything at all. Now MuthusamyJoseph has not written coherently. It appears that he new to English and Wiki. MuthusamyJoseph should understand that everything is hegemony, even the power to represent people like MuthusamyJosephy belongs to people like Menon. So wait it out until you too have competence and hegemony. It might take 20 years, 50 years. Until then let the powerful represent you and be symbols of resistance for you. So, MuthusamyJoseph, until then leave Wiki and such elite spaces for those who are elites of the game. The other two comrades of Wiki, please adjust the tone, especially to those who are new to this machine, and those who are not competent with English. You know very well that "No, unfortunately you are not learning" is rather too aggressive and condescending. You and Menon will win this edit war and many others which ride on this, I am very optimistic. So keep winning, but be gentle. Let us have some peace here, please please please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryVeryConcernedLefty (talk • contribs) 21:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- The youtube video is fine because it is cited in the Neha Dixit article and it is uploaded by an award-winning film maker.
- As for the rest neither of you are making any points that anybody can understand. Please cut out politics and focus on the content and the sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2017
This is a serious dispute. It is clearly about establishing that Menon is a "symbol of resistance" which in her own words and deeds she is not. She is nowhere near it. But the article has a role in creating a long term mis-perception. One can only guess that the professor is aiming for some awards and contesting elections. But it is a good thing that this is protected now. This will prevent edit wars. But it takes two to make edit wars. Clearly this article stands as biased against the revisions made by MuthusamyJoseph. Not just that, it is in a new version which has been created after MuthusamyJoseph made his objections and corrections. A comparison the version before MuthusamyJoseph started editing with the present version reveals plainly that MuthusamyJoseph was correct. How is MuthusamyJoseph correct? I am not speaking for him but reading the meaning of his edits here: 1) The aim is to create a Public Relations article on Nivedita Menon which shows her as "a symbol of resistance" for speaking against Indian government position on Kashmir. Now Menon is on record saying [I never said Kashmir is illegally occupied "I never said anything about Kashmir being illegally occupied by India"] in the most reputed newspapers in India. See I never said that too. 2) It clearly shows that Menon has drawn herself into a controversy of her own making, for reasons unknown. Further that she wants to retain the ambiguity in this matter which projects her as the great resister of the Indian state and Hindutva which she is not. This duplicity is maintained in this Wiki article. 3) She has also written that she respects Hinduism and Savarkar. Which means there should be no conflict Hindutva too. At least it is an internal debate between Hindutva activists. 4) But the force with which this false picture is maintained should lead India's activists and academics of the left to inquire and question this making of a resistance which is hot air against hot air. 5) This is also good article and talk page for students of politics to learn about the creation of false figures of resistance. All in all Excellent Work by all! -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryVeryConcernedLefty (talk • contribs)
- Please provide reliable sources showing that the content in the article is incorrect as you claim, please sign your posts, and please do not shout by bolding your statement; it does not help the discussion. Furthermore, you should know that using multiple accounts to further your position in a dispute is not accepted on Wikipedia, nor is asking your friends to edit for you. Two brand new accounts popping up to argue the same position on the same page is suspicious to say the least. Vanamonde (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- What Menon said is reliably sourced and verified against the video of her talk. No further changes necessary. All the arguments are completely WP:OR. They have no place on Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
MuthusamyJoseph I provided most reliable sources Indian Express newspaper of India. It is an old newspaper with great reputation. If you challenge it please say so that Indian Express is not reliable. Second is even more reliable Nivedita Menon's words "I never said anything about Kashmir being illegally occupied by India". She said it to a reputed newspaper such as Indian Express. This is supposed to be article about resistance to Hinduta. But she wrote in her own words she respects Hinduism and not just that "Hinduism as a heterogeneous set of religious practices, that have cultural roots and deep meaning, which I respect"Hinduism is deep and I respect. More in the same articles she likes Savarkar the founder of Hindutta and she complains "Hindutvavaadis don’t read him or respect his views." So very clearly this is very fishy Sirs. I believe if her own words need edited out then some agenda going on. I am not Hindu or Hindu right. I am left. So she pretends left. This article editors Kautilya3 and Vanamonde using extreme condescending agreessive cruel language to me to force me out for speaking and showing truth. Bullying me so much is not good sirs. They have double standard about reference. In a case Vanamonde said youtube is not reliable source. Now when I showed reputed evidence against article Kautilya3 make youtube reputed evidence. So these two are authorities to decide reputed and no reputed for Wikipedia? Then if they trust their article so so much why revert to the state after I objected and changed? Why not change back to before my object and change? Please sirs consider my suggestions to solve dispute. Kind regards. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by MuthusamyJoseph (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia is written using reliable WP:THIRDPARTY sources. Since there is ample coverage in third party sources about what she said, her own claims of what she said can be safely ignored. As for Indian Express, it is generally regarded as reliable, but not necessarily as something of "great reputation". Experienced Wikipedians know that The Hindu is the only paper that is truly reliable. Newspaper articles in general are written in a hurry, for overnight publication, and they get many details wrong. We even know that they copy Wikipedia quite a lot. I hold that the Jahnavi Sen article, which has now been used in a peer-reviewed journal article by Sandra Young, is the most reliable source about this affair. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
[[User:MuthusamyJoseph|MuthusamyJoseph] Sirs, what is clear is only sources reputable for these editors Kautilya3 and Vanamonde are what helps their goal of making Menon sound "symbol of resistance". They know she not symbol. Now with evidence I shown she is opposite appearing, pretending to resistance. The Hindu as everyone in academic and left politic world knows is very unreliable control by Hindu right. Indian Express is widely reknowned as the most progressive paper, it resisted state of emergency in India. What about Menon's words? She wrote in The Wire those things and The Wire quoted her about same thing "I never said that Kashmir was illegally occupied by India"? The Wire is not reliable source? Nivedita Menon is not reliable source? Surely this show that she is not reliable source. You proving it. Good. Why youtube reliable now? In controvery it was not reliable. Now it is because it serves your purpose? What is Menon article and Menon hiding? If that is allowed to shown it will be balanced. Menon is pretending to represent all and resist and win public. But she actually supports all the government activity about Kashmir and Hindutva. So that is the balance. I am using bold not to shout sirs, only to show my good points. Please sirs dont be connecting me to the other user VeryLefty. I am good to fight my own fight. No need for sympathy. —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- That is correct. In effect, Menon is not a reliable source when she talks about herself. That is because she is not a WP:THIRDPARTY. As for youtube, it is not a "source". It is just a medium. The reliability of any particular video on it depends on who published it and what is known about it. In this case, it has been authenticated by Neha Dixit. I think you have exhausted all your arguments now. If you want to air your personal views, you should consider writing a newpaper opinion column. Wikipedia is not the place for it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I've just removed this section for the second time, for several reasons. First, youtube is not a reliable source. The only remotely reliable source that was added was the zee news article; and all that shows is that she was criticized on twitter. Criticisms on twitter are a common enough occurrence that reporting them here is not appropriate. If you wish to include criticism of Menon, find reliable secondary sources making those criticisms, or reporting criticisms made by notable figures. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are trying to hid the facts which was not officially denied even by Nivedita Menon herself. If you are working on behalf of the Professor, please let her know that She must standby what she believe and told. if not than please help me in understanding the following:
1. The Open air lecture for which video was uploaded not only of Nivedita Menon but other professors also , and it was tele-casted on all news channels including Zee-News.So may i include the videos from these new channels as a reliable source.
2. What is the definition of "Notable Figure". If the New Agency are reporting the twitter war, the references should be considered.
3. The Second video authenticity is confirmed by herself. Please follow the link. http://scroll.in/article/804881/manufacturing-anti-nationals-look-whos-talking-about-doctored-videos
As per my understanding these allegation are not officially accepted by the Nivedita Menon nor it is proved in court, that is way the saction name is CONTROVERSY.
You need reliable secondary sources to include in Wikipedia. YouTube video of the speech is not a secondary source. You could add the zee news article, but then you can add only what is mentioned in that article. If that is just the twitter attacks, that probably is not notable. GreenOrca (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC) I believe more changes are require in this section. The people defending early version of article appear as embarassed by Menon statements about the very same things she is called symbol of resistance. This is very disturbing. Please include all poins of view, especially most important the words written by Menon sinc this article is about herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuthusamyJoseph (talk • contribs) 09:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, you are just not understanding what we've been trying to tell you. Neutrality is achieved by adding all significant points of view in reliable, secondary sources. Yet you have repeatedly removed precisely such material, and you have repeatedly added quotes from her, which are undue weight. Vanamonde (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)