Talk:Rajiv Dixit: Difference between revisions

Request changes on 15th-June '13: Criticisms

No criticism found against him in the net.

Objectivity

From the previous edits and existing state of the page, there seems to be a lack of objectivity. The page in its current state does not act as an entry in an encyclopaedia should. Lorcanopolo (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Activist vs conspiracy theorist

I have reverted the article to the April 27 2024 version last edited by DaxServer since the newer version that labelled the subject a "conspiracy theorist" and called his educational qualifications fraudulent (all in wikipedia voice) was very poorly sourced to an opinion column in Swarajya (magazine) that I cannot link to because the publication is on the spam-blacklist; a blog; and two deadlinks that I could not access to evaluate.

I noticed that the article has repeatedly been reverted between versions calling Rajiv Dixit either an activist or a conspiracy theorist with no attempts discuss the issue on the talkpage and to possibly present the conflicting views neutrally. So I'm starting this section to stop this slow edit-war.

Pinging admin @IvanVector: to check if page-protection or any WP:ARBIPA page-restrictions are needed, now or as this discussion proceeds. Abecedare (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

As suggested by others, you should have checked the older version of this page and you will know that it reflected the version you have reverted. This article has always experienced whitewashing as also observed by Sitush as early as 2016.

Rajiv Dixit was noted for spreading disinformation, was a conspiracy theorist and his degrees were found to be fraudulent. You can check these sources:[1][2][3][4] One of these sources confirm that he also claimed 9/11 was an inside job.

You can see that if this person ever gained significant coverage, then it was all because of the disinformation he spread, or the coverage is about his death. There has been no other reason for reliable sources to provide him coverage for anything else. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the archive links. I have no issues with including criticism of the subject as long as it is reliably sourced and expressed in encyclopedic terms. Quick notes on the sources:

• The Boomlive article is fine but it mainly focuses on the language of the tweet by Balakrishna that had Dixit's video embedded in it, and does not get into what the video actually said, which is what would be relevant to this article.
• The FirstPost articles are written in polemical terms but should be okay as long as we are careful to use them only to qualify or debunk claims made by Dixit and not those by third parties (such as wikipedia, krantikari.org or rajivdixit.net); of course the wikipedia article should not replicate the falsified claims made by those third parties but afaict the current version is not doing that.
• There is no indication reading either the About us section of the author's profile that .thelallantop.com would qualify as a reliable source for wikipedia's purposes.

So, do you have a specific proposal for what to add based on, say, the Boomlive or Firstpost articles, or any other relevant sources?

PS: Given the (IMO) farfetched claims by Rajiv Dixit in the YouTube video embedded in the FirstPost article, aren't there higher quality sources available that address the subject (and not merely the the claims about his education and research work)? I tried a quick search but "Rajiv Dixit" is too common a name to find anything useful immediately. Those more familiar with the subject may be better positioned to find such sources, if they exist. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The Lallantop is a notable outlet and it deserves its own page which I will create. I don't understand why the article from the FirstPost should be called polemical when it is not certainly possible to write about this subject in a more neutral manner without looking like an affiliate of Sangh Parivar. Today, you cannot expect FirstPost to write these articles because it is now a mouthpiece of ruling BJP. I cannot discover any high-quality sources that have provided coverage to this person. There is no scholarly source. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Setting the reliability of The Lallantop aside for the moment, what would we even wish to cite this article for? (honest, not rhetorical question). It uncritically regurgitates Dixit's bio incl. the debunked claims about the MTech at IIT etc. and then aggregates many of Dixit's videos with no analytic commentary about the credibility of the claims made in them except for the brief note:

ये दावे राजीव दीक्षित के किए बहुत सारे दावों में से हैं. इनमें से कई दावे विवादास्पद हैं और जवाहरलाल नेहरू से जुड़े दावों समेत कई गलत भी साबित हो चुके हैं. (Trans: "These claims are among the many made by Rajiv dixit. Many of these are controversial and many, including the ones related to Jawaharlal Nehru, have been proven wrong.)

which I guess can be cited to supplement the second article in FirstPost The only original reporting in the Lallantop piece is the material about the various website created after the subject's death that claim to speak on his behalf but should be treated skeptically. This is useful for us editors to know but perhaps not something we need to mention in the wikipedia article itself.

So should we move to crafting language about what and how to summarize what these sources say? Abecedare (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

We can start off by turning this entire article into a stub and mention nothing more than the subject being an opponent of modern medicines[5] and spreading disinformation.[6][7] That would work for now. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not opposed to a rewrite (ideally started in userspace) but I don't find it useful to weaponize wikipedia bios to label a subject rather than provide (properly sourced) information to the reader that explains why those labels may be applicable. Lets not treat this as an WP:RGW effort. Abecedare (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I will now read the new sources which you have provided then see what can be added here.Ratnahastin (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I have seen your new sources and they are not in conflict with the information that I am suggesting. If not "conspiracy theorist", there is still a need to highlight this subject's tendency of spreading disinformation. See the first paragraphs of Mike Enoch, Alex Jones, David Duke, Graham Phillips for getting the idea. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the article should at least mention the false biographical claims and the claims about Nehru, for which we have sources. Is it okay with you if I use the sources listed here to develop the article on my own over the next few days (I plan to mainly work on the body rather than the lede to start with)? Then we can discuss any differences of opinions we may have and finalize the lede. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Additional sources

Listing some additional sources that may be useful in further developing the article:

• Kanungo, Pralay (2018). "Gurus and the Hindu Nationalist Politics". In Ahmad, Irfan; Kanungo, Pralay (eds.). The Algebra of Warfare-Welfare: A Long View of India’s 2014 Election. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-909753-1.
• Pathak-Narain, Priyanka (2017). Godman to Tycoon: The Untold Story of Baba Ramdev. Juggernaut. ISBN 978-93-86228-38-3.
• Khalikova, Venera R. (2017). "The Ayurveda of Baba Ramdev: Biomoral Consumerism, National Duty and the Biopolitics of 'Homegrown' Medicine in India". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 40 (1): 105–122. doi:10.1080/00856401.2017.1266987.

Abecedare (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)