Talk:Angana P. Chatterji/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Infobox and other edits

To 117.204.162.15: Thank you for your thoughts on the article. I am curious as to the reasons behind your edits. You completely removed the "influences" and "notable ideas" sections in the infobox, as well as cited text and "feminist historian", which I find an important category and one that applies to her work. Can you please explain? As I am new here I am happy also to ask a more experienced editor to explain as well. -- Igarashi.torren (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Given there's been no response, and I've requested feedback and posted this page in the Biography Project's New Articles page, I'm going to go ahead and revert 117.204.162.15's edits... if you come back, of course I'm happy to continue the discussion. --Torren (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Weasel Words

To 117.198.246.183: Kindly clarify which sections you found to have weasel words, or suggest your own edits? Let's discuss how to improve the article. -- Torren (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been a week and there's been no discussion; I'm happy to engage on the weasel words issue if you come back with specifics and suggestions. For now I will remove the notice. Torren (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A slight dispute

This article is fine otherwise, but I do have one issue to raise. This article's tone is more similar to a magazine article than an encyclopedia article, which should be fixed, per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Tone. Sophus Bie (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion-- I don't think this is as much a dispute as a conversation on how to improve the article. Can you please give examples where the tone is more magazine-like than encyclopedic, or make the tone edits yourself, and we can discuss? --Torren (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

To 117.254.243.72: Kindly provide sources for your edits and see the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre's report on India regarding your figures on Kashmiri Pandits.

To 117.254.242.157: Similarly, can you kindly not use Wikipedia as a source? As well, I find it strange that you've removed some documented and referenced information, such as when the IPT of Orissa was attacked by the Sangh. I would like to put this information back in as it is relevant to the work of Angana Chatterji.

To help with improving the quality of this article, please note the Wikipedia policy on biographies here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

I'll be removing unsourced or poorly sourced information very soon, so if either of you come back, please discuss here.

Torren (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleting "Commitment to Justice" Section

To: 96.244.50.97: Please do discuss here if you'd like to delete an entire section. I am happy to engage with you on substantive issues. --Torren (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Hinduphobic" and changing the IPTK's name

To: 59.92.243.178: I am removing defamatory ("Hinduphobic") and inaccurate ("communist" historian) language right now, and will be asking a more experienced editor to help me with this process. Please discuss here if you'd like to make substantive changes.

The name of the IPTK is the International People's Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Indian-administered Kashmir, as we can see from its website, http://www.kashmirprocess.org. I am changing it back. I also noted that you have changed all "Indian-administered Kashmir" to "Jammu and Kashmir". The use of the term Indian-administered is deliberate and connected to Chatterji's work and the terms used by the Tribunal; please kindly discuss your reasons here for changing it?

Torren (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarifications

I have a few questions that I hope someone can answer. Thanks in advance.

1. From which university did Angana Chatterji get her Ph.D.? What was her thesis about? 2. Is she a Professor, or is she an Associate Professor? Her website at CIIS vacillates between giving her both titles. 3. Which are the organisations that fund her work? 4. What are her research methods? 5. Has she published in any peer-reviewed academic journals of anthropology?

I think this biography is too long, and reads very similarly to Chatterji's profile at the CIIS website. It seems like she wrote it herself. There is no objectivity in it, because her critics have been made to seem quite vile in this article. The petition against her, for example, raises serious questions about the ethicality of her work and her integrity, yet has not been seriously discussed apart from a passing mention.

I also notice that several of the citations (#2,#3,#4,#9,#10,#12,#22 and #107, for example) take the reader to the same CIIS profile page, which she probably wrote herself. This is misleading in that it gives the false impression of being a well-cited article. In addition, many of the 107 citations are simply links to more of her own writing and have not been treated objectively within the article.


14.140.0.78 (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)V.C.


Recent edits

To 74.77.141.92: I noted that you took out "self-determination Indian-administered Kashmir"-- can you kindly let me know why? Her work has used these terms.

As well, I would like to separate "communalization" from "religionization" as they are closely linked processes, but are not the same.

The "left-wing activism" segment I took out for languaging.

To 14.140.0.78: I hope you'll find the answers to your questions. Regarding the citations above, that was what could be found in relation to earlier times in her life-- there's no biography, so we use what we have available. Many of the citations link to her writings because this is an article about her life and work. The statements about her work need to cite her work, I would think...?

Somehow the external links to her work has gone away too, also without discussion. I'm putting them back in and if people want to discuss why they should or should not be there, I'm up for it.

Torren (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article fails WP:NPOV, with sentences like "Commitment to Justice", "evidences the power and relevance of her labor", "She stands with subaltern constituencies and their allies to ask that dignity, difference, freedom...". utcursch | talk 06:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article a bit, but the article still contains a lot of non-notable stuff (e.g. "wrote a letter to XYZ", "released a statement on ABC"), based on primary sources. I'm trying to assume good faith, but it is quite obvious that much of the article has been written as advocacy by a supporter or associate of the subject or the related organizations. Almost all the "references" are actually articles written by the subject herself, or press releases/websites of the organizations she is associated with. utcursch | talk 09:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Response to Torren

Hello, Torren.

Thanks for your response. At present, I am unable to find any work by Chatterji in peer-reviewed journals of anthropology. Also her dissertation for her PhD has not been mentioned. PhD in "humanities" is sort of vague. Who was her adviser at CIIS for this work?

--You may want to try JSTOR or any of the bigger databases. As well, Proquest should also have all dissertations in PDF after 1997. Good luck. Torren (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding her use of the titles "professor" and "associate professor"-- I found out that CIIS does not use the tenure system. Her use of any titles that correspond to the tenure system in use in universities is misleading. Rather than make any accusations, I have simply pointed out in the article that CIIS does not use tenure track and that what they mean by "professor" and "associate professor" can only be an internal matter.

--Can you please cite what sources (AAUP, AACU, NEA?) you are using to discuss this tenured vs. nontenured issue? The AAUP states that tenure "is an arrangement whereby faculty members, after successful completion of a period of probationary service, can be dismissed only for adequate cause or other possible circumstances and only after a hearing before a faculty committee", [1] which doesn't impact the title of a faculty. Point me to the ongoing debate and let's discuss. Torren (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 --She is on her way to being dismissed: http://www.scribd.com/doc/71402784/Angana-Chatterji-Termination-Decision so clearly her "tenure" is not helping her hold on to the "professorship".

Word is she'll be out by the end of the year, but don't worry, as that's un-sourced I haven't put it in.

Funding sources for her work are also unclear as of now. Who funds her? Clearly from the research methods you have mentioned and her extensive travel, someone must be paying.

--If you find any credible sources on funding, go ahead and post them and let's discuss. Torren (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 --I'm guessing from that answer that you don't know either where Chatterji gets her funding?

I must contend that I find it inappropriate for an article that is meant to be objective to cite the subject on herself and her own work. If no one can be bothered to write an objective biography, the Wikipedia article should stick to verifiable facts (e.g. institute affiliations, peer-reviewed publications). I agree with the person who has raised the issue of neutrality- this article is still heavily misleading and biased towards Chatterji. Wiki pages on notable people must not be allowed to become personal advertisements. They should provide an objective look at the person and their reasons for being of note.

--People and actions are of note for different reasons, to different people. Edit away, long's there's citations; I will leave this discussion here. Torren (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  --Yes, but when I make the edits you remove them immediately like some sort of guardian of this page. I made a very relevant edit. She is no longer "full professor" (whatever that's supposed to mean at CIIS) and the Academic vice president has recommended her termination. Please see: http://www.scribd.com/doc/71402784/Angana-Chatterji-Termination-Decision

--I have taken the matter to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Angana_P._Chatterji, and I hope someone other than yourself will be monitoring this article for objectiveness. You are free to go there and explain your behaviour.

I'm hoping someone from there will come and contribute to this article. "Feminist historian" keeps getting removed-- and the infobox has been changed so that her theoretical influences and so on has been cut out, also without discussion... Torren (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The sources which mention her as "feminist historian" quote content from her past CIIS profile or are Wikipedia mirrors. Can you please list some of her notable works on feminist history? As for the "theoretical influences", the previous text "Bhola Chatterji, Michel Foucault, Richard Shapiro, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Third World Feminisms, Hannah Arendt, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Edward Said, Subaltern Studies Collective, Romila Thapar, K.N. Panikkar, Jacques Derrida, The Frankfurt School, social movements" is unsubstantiated broad text, not even available in her past CIIS profile. It might be possible that the subject is inspired by these people/movements, but I don't see any evidence of Nietzsche or Karl Marx having any major direct influence on her work. As the template mentions the text for these fields must contain "Clear and notable examples only". utcursch | talk 12:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for engaging me in discussion on this. In her book Violent Gods, for instance, she cites Thapar, Spivak, C.T. Mohanty, Said, Marx, Shapiro, Said, Benjamin and Marcuse (Frankfurt School) Foucault, Derrida, Nietzsche...(see the text's references and index). There are other references in her academic articles as well-- what is considered "notable" is up for debate and we can certainly discuss what Nietzschan influences can be seen in her research and scholarship.

Influences

Should I put in citations for the influences in the infobox? I noticed that other thinkers and academics (e.g. Hannah Arendt and Walter Benjamin)'s infoboxes don't need citations for the influences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.141.98 (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to put the citations in the infobox, as long as the article contains some third-party references which talk about the influences. For example, the article Walter Benjamin says "he became acquainted with Theodor Adorno and befriended Georg Lukács", and goes on talk about these.
It's not necessary to provide citations for every sentence or word, but it's necessary to provide them for the ones being challenged. In this case, I don't think being cited as reference is equivalent to "influenced". I have written several Wikipedia articles, and have cited hundreds of authors -- that doesn't mean I've been influenced by these authors.
If you can find reliable, third-party sources, go ahead and include these in the article. utcursch | talk 05:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for continuing the discussion. I found a reference: American Ethnologist's review of Violent Gods says: "Heavily influenced by both Foucault and Derrida, she pays an implicit debt of gratitude to them in her writing style and use of theory", so I have put those two in the infobox above. See review here. Torren (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"left-wing" & and "live-in"

Is there a reliable, third-party source that actually calls her "left-wing"? It's not a description that I see her use for herself.

I've also taken out "live in" a couple of times now in referencing Shapiro as her partner; can someone explain why "live in" is relevant to the substance of the article? Where is it mentioned as relevant? Torren (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Naanaam

Hello, can you please discuss your editing choices here? You took out Foucault and Derrida as influences (when I've provided a third party commentary supporting this above), and keep putting "left wing" back in when I've initiated a conversation on the talk page about the appropriateness of this label. I will see if another editor can come help sort this out.

Since Utcursch had mentioned that citations would be helpful for the influences (Foucault and Derrida), I thought that citations would be helpful to support my use of the terms "feminist" and "anthropologist"-- to show that there are respectable, third parties that recognize Chatterji as such. I don't see the harm in keeping the citations.

Also, your edit summaries, including "You drip with left-wing activism" may make others feel unwelcome; myself, at least. I will try to try to continue to engage.

Torren (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

POV tag

Would the guy adding the POV tag actually follow that tags documentation and explain on this talk page what is POV about the article? And in concrete terms, not the junk he has been putting in edit summaries. And also stop with the BLP violations in edit summaries. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

ISI Crap

Is a massive BLP violation, read WP:PRIMARY WP:BLPPRIMARY and do not restore it again, I will also note that the other source explicitly states she along with two others identified Ghulam Nabi Fai as an ISI agent, hence there are no ISI connections. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for meaninglessly spamming the talk page, instead of providing a logical and rational account of how this violates the "relevant" policies. Regardless of your personal views toward Chatterji, this incident was important to her notability in India.Pectoretalk 19:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Read the policies and figure it out, if you do not know them, then it is high time you learnt them before editing any further BLP's Darkness Shines (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I've read the policies, and you still have not demonstrated how the section violated any relevant BLP policies. If you don't demonstrate that, your edits are vandalism.Pectoretalk 19:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Look at the sources used in the section, then read the policies again and again till it sinks in. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
So there's no violation. Thanks for confirming that.Pectoretalk 19:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Pectore, stating the obvious, but http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/1849.pdf is a primary source. PhilKnight (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
It might be possible to cover the Ghulam Nabi Fai incident without violating BLP principles, using secondary sources. The article would have to make it absolutely clear that Chatterji, Rajinder Sachar and others who attended the KAC conferences are not in any way associated with the ISI, and that Fai was sentenced to prison for concealing his ISI connection. I question whether the incident is worth mentioning, but if it is it should be described accurately. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Unless there are reliable secondary sources which link Chatterji to ISI, in my opinion that would be an original synthesis. PhilKnight (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
As this source says, Chatterji attended some conferences organized by Ghulam Nabi Fai, and signed a "Washington Declaration" on Kashmiri self-determination that Fai sponsored. Later it turned out Fai was getting money from Pakistan's ISI. Sources such as this one document Fai's conviction in the U.S. for concealing his link to the ISI. Clearly Chatterji is not in any way associated with the ISI, but she did sign the statement. Since there was a fuss about it in the press (see Fai article sources), maybe it is worth a short but balanced and accurate mention here. I don't see that as synthesis Aymatth2 (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No idea who did it but never again changes either my header or anything else I posts.Darkness Shines (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to clear up shit here, I have requested oversight for the edits I removed, any restoration of content which tries to insinuate that this BLP has "relations" with the ISI will be reverted on sight and reported. This discussion ends here. The article may say she got caught up in an ISI job, but that is it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like all mention of Angana Chaterjee's relationship with Fai have been removed. This is a such a major revelation, covered by The Atlantic, among other sources, that its omission is suspicious. This needs to be restored. Puck42 (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Not surprising. User Darkness Shines ended up being a Sock Puppet and was banned? Same funding as Chatterjee? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puck42 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Angana P. Chatterji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Fai links

It is a notable point that Chatterji attended Fai conferences. This was covered in major news sources including The Atlantic. Please see WP:REMOVAL and discuss before removing the content. Puck42 (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this needs to be discussed in the article given the prominence of the Fai controversy. Pectoretalk 18:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Angana P. Chatterji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angana_P._Chatterji/Archive_1&oldid=1142384747"