  :A casual look at the commentaries section, which concerns itself with historical speculations and research about the text (and not a grabbag of Controversy soundings), is clearly not appropriate.  It would serve only to lower the visibility of the reference, which itself is not an appropriate goal, and smacks of WP:CENSOR.  Even if there were a separate section lower down on, say, Manuvād and the opposition to Manusmṛti (not a bad idea), there should still be a reference to the word in the lede. BTW, as I have said, I am not interested in writing that section, though the stub Manuvāda which I have created would be a good start.  :You must get past this idea that the term Manuvād is somehow solely an unjust indictment of Manusmṛti requiring your defense, and even if it were so, that this would justify removing it from the article. Manuvād and its cognates are used not just by  the political party (whatever you mean by that), but by several parties and other interested groups, some of whom are actally pro-Manuvād. It has become a common word of discourse, and where it sits now in the lede is the proper point to contextualize it.  :Again, the specifics of where you feel one party is getting it wrong or what the motives of one party might be is not relevant as to whether the term should be explained in this article.  To act on this rationale is to violate WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:CENSOR and many other principles, as well as to misunderstand the purpose of  WP:LEDE, WP:CONTEXTLINK and WP:NO LE.  Most importantly, see WP:BATTLE, i.e. it is not down to us to make judgements about the justice of certain political actors and weigh in to defend them by censoring references. Violation of this last is particularly egregious in the eyes of administrators. Please carefully review these Wikipedia policy points.   :  