Talk:D. N. Jha

Arun Shourie

Regarding this revert [1], I don't think Shourie's membership in BJP is relevant. But an academic opinion has to be countered in an academic journal or an academic book, subject to peer review. This is not such. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: How is Shourie's an academic opinion? Does it even matter? IMO the inclusion of this "controversy" is both useful and important. But the text needs to cover both sides of the story from a neutral POV. Jha has offered a rebuttal to Shourie's article. The fact that Shourie's article is an excerpt from an updated edition of his 1998 book titled Eminent Historians:Their Techniques, Their Line, Their Fraud also needs mention. @Vanamonde93: There is no "better source" afaik.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I agree with Vanamonde93's revert, but not with the reason he gave. I don't think we have any position here that BJP's views should be suppressed.

Shourie being a notable journalist, his views can be mentioned. If somebody has read his book and can summarize it in a coherent manner, I would find that welcome. But I don't think we can just talk about Nalanda here, that too in a one-sided way. Newspaper opinion columns can't be the basis for our articles. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your question "does it matter?" of course it does. Research has to be published in journals. If Shourie believes that his research results are better than Jha's, that is where he needs to demonstrate his prowess, not in newspaper columns. He needs to be submit his ideas for evaluation by professionals, not lay readers like us. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we're both kind of agreeing here. What is pertinent to the article is more the controversy itself than the rigour of any research involved therein. While reading Shourie's book in its entirety would be ideal, considering that the article is an excerpt from it (published as an opinion piece) rather than a summarised version, I think it's perfectly fine to base any wiki text entirely on it. Moreover, the controversy is about the column rather than the book. We also have DN Jha's response to the Shourie piece. We simply need to summarise their two opinions for this article without delving into too much detail. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if I understand you right, you would like to document that Shourie questioned Jha about his research, and Jha has given a response. I agree that it would be good to have some discussion of that in the article. @Vanamonde93: what do you say? Kautilya3 (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Here are my personal two cents, which I recognize may be slightly out of left field. Jha is dabbling in a field that attracts a lot of attention from political groups (In this case it is the Saffron brigade, but there are similar reactions to people studying caste issues, for instance). Therefore, there are bound to be people trying to create controversy where there is none, and for this reason, I have tended to favour academic sources fairly heavily on such pages, because there is nothing the media loves more than a controversy, and pages on topics even vaguely related to Indian politics almost inevitably have a "controversy and criticism" section, with the associated POV problems. So; cover it only if it has received significant academic coverage, and if you must cover it without, then for goodness sake integrate it within a section on his scholarship. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I approach the issue differently. Jha and a whole bunch of Indian historians are working in areas that are of public interest. However, they have not written articles/books accessible to the general public, except for those NCERT textbooks, and left themselves open to attack by the Hindutva brigade. This is a problem acknowledged by Nussbaum. While Arun Shourie's book is a frontal attack on their work, calling into question their entire credibility, they have mostly remained silent. Here is one particular instance where the debate has been joined and, therefore, it is worthy of public interest. Doing this properly would require somebody writing a decent summary of Jha's work, a decent summary of Shourie's book, and then framing this debate in that context. But our Captain is saying, let us still do it because it is of public interest. (I have an inkling we have debated this issue somewhere else already.) This is not just an issue of media loving controversy. The majority of Hindu Indians are likely to believe Shourie than the historians. They believe that the historians haven't done an honest job of documenting history. This debate can do at least something to counter that impression. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree with you; giving non-genuine scholarship like Shourie's more weight that it deserves seems to perpetrate the problem, to me. This is the sort of "teach the controversy" stuff that becomes very problematic very quickly in the West. But I recognize that the parallel is not exact, and so if you feel the need to do this, go ahead, and I will bite my tongue. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Aryan Migration Theory

No mention of his support in the article. He references his support for the theory her: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2847821/Right-wing-historian-Frawley-insists-Aryans-indigenous-India.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.2 (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing special about a mainstream historian agreeing with mainstream history. No mention is necessary. If he didn't agree then it would be worth a mention. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The Myth of the Holy Cow

Another editor believes this book warrants a very large section of commentary. I believe that this would create an unwarranted imbalance of emphasis. I'm interested to get other editors' opinions. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

A para with 4-5 lines, is standard, and not a very large section. A major work by the author, having a separate article deserves a paragraph as is the usual norm in author's biography. Venkat TL (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Venkat TL, I hope you are fine. I'm curious to know how you have demonstrated that the one book you emphasize is a major work and the others are not.