Talk:Shaj Mohan

Image will be great

There is some political noise around the subject.

More work

I think this is politically sensitive page. There is interest in the subject in the art world. I will do some research and add a section on art. In this page a Quotes section will be a good addition.

Noting

support in favor of the current redirect. ∯WBG^converse 13:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support in favour of redirect because author is not notable and insufficient coverages on him to have Wikipedia page. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not support the removal of the page. I am a public intellectual and author based in Kerala. I have published in areas of political theory and continental philosophy. I wrote some articles on Shaj Mohan and Divya Dwivedi. See https://thewire.in/books/gandhi-and-philosophy-book-review

These are of the few philosophers from India with recognition from leading philosophers across the world such as Jean-Luc Nancy, Bernard Stiegler, Robert Bernasconi, Emily Apter and so on. You can already see these facts on page (I see that some of such references have since been removed without proper reason). Wikipedia needs three sources to establish notability. Let me put down a few for the benefit of your consideration.

The prestigious journal October (Author Professor Apter) refers to them at length in several pages, cites an email from Shaj Mohan which is practiced in academic field when the philosopher is well recognized. https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1162/octo_a_00366

This article says read the whole oeuvre of Dwivedi and Mohan to understand the connections between postcolonial thought and politics in India https://www.oedipe.org/article/psychanalyse-et-decolonisation

The foreword to the book by Jean-Luc Nancy is not primary source, Nancy is a distinct author. Nor are the reviews at the back of the book by Stiegler and Bernasconi primary sources. https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Gandhi_and_Philosophy.html?id=4MB2DwAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y

Interview biography review combined on Dwivedi and Mohan https://thewire.in/books/gandhi-and-the-resurrection-of-philosophy

In Indian express newspaper the same interview and review https://indianexpress.com/article/express-sunday-eye/a-new-book-examines-what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-the-father-of-the-nation-5910744/

Deaccan Chronicle newspaper the same interview and review format with biography https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/110219/new-book-rubbishes-bjp-aim-to-assimilate-gandhi.html

A mere perusal of the page in the present form should be revealing that more sources are there to support retaining these pages including several positive reviews of the book Gandhi and Philosophy. The removal of these pages will be most unfortunate because it can be construed as irrational from the wikipedia rationale. JReghu (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC) This is single purpose account snd subject is connected with him.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 09:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleting my words is entirely arbitrary, unless motivated. I present the reason and evidence as per Wikipedia. Who I am should not be a matter here. I request others also to please join to restore my words. I request other community members to retain pages of Dwivedi and Mohan for above deleted reasons. @Primefac: JGHowes @DiplomatTesterMan: @Airplaneman: @Liz: I must note some of these arguments posted here and there against these pages are due to ignorance in the topic. "Royal Institute of Philosophy lecture" is Royal Institute of Philosophy lecture, an example! The editors opposing relentlessly without reason is politically extremely opposed to the philosophers here. Social media and other posts were making this evident. So Conflict of Interest of ideology editors should be stated explicitly, if everything is not arbitrary in this situation. JReghu (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

JReghu, What is the business of philosophers? Philosophy or Politics? If you ignore the Wikipedia policies then you will be blocked as you are now. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 18:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Break

Primefac you can't revert a redirect (despite it being explicitly supported by me and H169 over the t/p; local consensus, I guess) without choosing to have any attempt at discussion. You are requested to expand upon your rationale. ∯WBG^converse 20:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I can do that, because clearly I did (and for the record, your local consensus formed after the page was restored). But snark aside...

I was responding to an OTRS ticket and the request seemed reasonable, the conversion to a redirect seemed unreasonable, but with 30 references I didn't have the time to do a deep dive and determine who was "right". Despite you being canvassed to this discussion I trust your judgement on such matters, and thus I am no longer opposed (purely on procedural grounds) to this redirect being created. Primefac (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, where he was canvassed here? Harshil ^{want to talk?} 16:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, thanks but you have got the timeline wrong, by a mile or so.

Harshil installed the redirect over this page as well Divya Dwivedi, whilst creating a separate article about the book. I had Divya's article on the watchlist (having edited it earlier) and spotted the redirection. I went on to edit the article about the book extensively (to the point of effectively re-writing it), then reverted Harshil's redirect of Divya Dwivedi but went on to leave a note of support over this t/p. That makes a local consensus involving me and Harshil. Harshil made a note at my t/p to watchlist these three articles, 3 hours after this chain of events and can't be reasonably interpreted as canvassing either, given my extensive involvement in the domain.

Your edit was after all these events (including Harshil's note). ∯WBG^converse 16:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough regarding the "canvassing" (which I've struck above), as you were notified about this article about three hours before I came in and reverted the redirect. That being said, you have zero edits to this page and since you didn't reply to them until the next day, I guess I just missed the original timestamp when I looked into your involvement. Primefac (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Issues

Page has been in attack of sock puppets. Page is written in resume style and references from his books are given here. It seems that someone has written autobiography. Also, notability is insufficient. If someone can address the issues then they can remove template by tagging.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Original research

While I think that this subject meets notability guidelines, several claims analyzing Mohan's work were not verifiable using the cited sources, and the use of multiple citations attached to many sentences is also suggestive of synthesis. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)