Talk:Pankaj Mishra

Controversy Section

The following text is libelous and violates wikipedia WP:BLP. I am going to undo the changes, if you have objections, please let me know by tomorrow. "Mishra's polemics regarding Hinduism as a religion and the modern history of nationalist movements among Hindu people in India such as the BJP have generated some disquiet among some Hindu circles within India. His book Temptations of the West: How to be Modern in India, Pakistan, Tibet and Beyond was reviewed by The Economist (1 July – 7 July 2006 issue) and provides an example of the analysis and commentary that have made Mishra controversial in India. His remarks against Hindus have earned him accusations of being an anti-Hindu, and of "pandering to white pro-Muslim audiences in the West".

01:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiancrusader (talk • contribs)

Bias / vandalism

There is a very obvious problem with bias in this article (from seemingly only one contributor), and it is almost indistinguishable from vandalsim. The contributor is clearly scornful of Mishra's views (particularly re the massacre of sikhs in Kashmir), and is using this as a forum to vent them with very contentious views and provocative words / phrases. Please moderate your views, or the section in question should be removed.

Hi.

Please, sign your posts.

I am not the editor who added the "Controversies" section; I'm just the one who tried to clean up the basic writing style of this article a few days ago and introduced loads of cross-references.

I have no idea whether any of the information in this article is true, beyond the fact that a recent op-ed in The New York Times had a byline reading Pankaj Mishra. That applies to the "Controversies" section as well as the rest of the article.

The recent addition about yesterday's train bombings does trouble me.

I disagree that any of this article is "almost indistinguishable from vandalism", though this is partly because I don't know what of the article is true or false.

I also think you go too far, or prematurely, in saying that the contributor of the "Controversies" section "is clearly scornful of Mishra's" views. As I said, I don't know the accuracy of the contributions; but I see a large gap between making such contributions and being indubitably biased and scornful.

If I were to write that Hitler was instrumental in the deaths of 10 million persons, including about 6 million Jews, it would be up to the reader to imagine whether I was saying that Hitler's doings were good or bad. Let us not forget the difference between what writers may imply and what readers may infer. Similarly, if I say that very many persons dislike what Hitler did, it doesn't say anything about my personal feelings about what he did: it simply is my effort to report a truth about how some others view his actions, even if I'd've done better to name names and cite sources, rather than simply saying "very many persons".

So, while this information may be untrue (as I've said, this I don't know, because I don't have access to the sources that the contributor may have used), and while the contributor may maliciously or innocently be using weasel words, I simply don't have enough information to make statements about what was going on in the contributor's mind.

Now that that bit's out of the way: Can you help us gather the citations and make this article even more informative/balanced?

President Lethe 15:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. Thanks for putting in those "citation needed" tags. When I clicked on one of the external links seemingly offered as a reference immediately before one of your tags, I found that the page at that URL was blank — President Lethe 15:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there

Thanks for the reply. I'm still fairly new to this, which is why I sometimes forget things like signing my comments etc. But I'll try to remember from now on.

I've noticed that Wikipedia articles concerning India and Pakistan (and particularly anything which might impact on their relationship) seem very prone to, at best, strong bias, and at worst open abuse and vandalism. It's completely counter-productive and also rather insults the intelligence of those reading the article since it assumes that they won't pick up on it.

I agree absolutely with your analogy re Hitler. I think you may have misunderstood me. I really don't have a problem with someone quoting or discussing Mishra's views / opinions. I do, however, have a problem with someone who deliberately seeks to highlight very specific and controversial areas of his book (which I've just finished reading), manipulates and places them completely out of context in an article in order to support his own absurd (and totally unproven) assertions like "Mishra's comments about Hinduism have contributed to a perception amongst some that he is biased against India, the Indian state, and the Hindu religion." Has this contributor actually read the book? I doubt it. Mishra draws attention to the corruption and degradation that exists throughout the region, and covers the entire range of it's people. The fact that Mishra (himself an Indian Hindu) draws attention to suggestions (supported by the UN investigators that attended the scene) that the Indian army might have been complicit in the massacres hardly makes him "biased the Indian state, and the Hindu religion". And neither, for example, does his discussion of the initial support received by the Taliban from sections within Pakistan during the mid nineties make him anti-Muslim or anti-Pakistan.

We need to be very careful here. These issues are very complex and highly emotional for all concerned. They shouldn't be hijacked by someone with a grudge, who takes the opportunity to grossly over-simplify them to serve his / her own ends.

Other comments in that section are also offensive:

• "This contrary analysis was further reinforced by similar attacks by Pakistani-sponsored terrorists wearing Indian army uniforms" - what similar attacks? - and clearly suggesting official support for terrorists by Pakistan
• "...contradicted this by claiming responsibility" - where's the evidence for this?
• "Mishra has never publicly withdrawn his comments" - why would he? there hasn't been an official independent investigation, despite demands from the UN.
• "In addition, his initial claims were repeatedly used by groups that seek separate states for both Sikhs and Muslims in India" - what 'groups'? / where's the evidence for this?

Anyway, my strong gut feeling is that the section in question should be removed altogether from here. If you can think of some other way out of this, let me know and I'd be happy to collaborate. Mishra is a very good author, and I think he deserves a lot better than this. Let's not allow this article to become a staging-post for individual grievances.

--Labcoat 15:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey there, Labcoat.

I think that, on the specific topic of Mishra, you may be much more knowledgeable than I. As far as I know, I'd never heard of him until a few days ago, when I read his piece in The New York Times. I found it quite an interesting piece, and decided to mention it at Talk:Superpower. In making my post there, I thought to link to the Wikipedia article about him, if such an article existed. I found that it did exist, and I made a bunch of basic edits to make it more like a Wikipedia article. (It's possible that I'd heard of Mishra before, maybe even heard his voice or read some of his pieces, but without remembering his name and putting it all together.)

After I made those basic edits, there were the recent additions by (edited).

I feel bad that I don't have access right now to the various mentioned writings of Mishra, and that I don't know much about the specific issues and events that you've mentioned.

It seems that, with your greater knowledge in this area, you're better suited than I to make the section fairer and more accurate. I encourage you to do that. If you decide to remove the whole thing because it's too inaccurate, I won't undo your removal (after all, the text will still be in the history of different versions of this article); but I think the article would be more interesting and informative if, instead of just removing the text, you tweaked it and added to it.

I'll keep an eye on things here and, in the process, I hope, learn more about this man and these issue.

Nice to find a Wikipedian who writes posts as long as mine. :-)

President Lethe 17:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi President Lethe

Cheers for the reply.

I'd be happy to make some amendements to the section. I'll take a look at it after I've written this, or at some point in the next couple of days. I do feel that (edited) is out to create mischief in this article. I'm sure he / she has probably made similar contributions to other articles - but I can't see any method for checking or reporting potentially rogue contributors to Wikipedia's managers(?)

Mishra's 'Temptations of the West' book is extremely well written. If you like the NY Times article and you're interested in the modern history / psyche of the region (and if you can face its frequently violent, self-destructive nature and influences), I highly reccommend it.

--Labcoat 19:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. What's the origins of 'President Lethe' as a name?! I laugh every time I see it!

Thanks for the reading recommendations, Labcoat; I'm definitely interested. Will soon have a look at the changes you've made. You can see a list of (edited). — President Lethe 21:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir / Madam

please edit the article as you see fit. There is no denying some of Mr Mishra's views are controversial. However if you feel that my contribution is biased but do not have the time to edit it, I'm happy to remove it.

rgds

H Dave

Thanks for the message. I've already made some amendments. I hope you can see the sense of what I've done in view of the above discussion.

--Labcoat 15:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Labcoat

Yes I can and appreciate your help and changes. I need remove biases and accurately source will seek to do so. Still learning.

rgds

H

It's obvious from the very first line in the (previous?) entry on Mishra that it's political trash talk by someone with little grey matter. The article should probably be deleted in full.

Mishra is one of the most brilliant, observant, astute and sensitive writers in the English language, and, I predict, will rival or surpass the achievements of VS Naipaul.

-Paul B. Wiener

I write to thank those working to maintain civil standards in the Wikipedia, and to request that editors with more experience (and better spelling skills) than I have review the quality of this article and at the very least, amend the first paragraph. Today it reads "... is an Indian imbecile, author, essayist, genocide-lover, journalist, moral relativist, and S&M lover of (edited)." I have heard Mr Mishra speak on the voice of Germany English language radio service. On that basis I looked for more information about him on the Wikipedia. I was very saddened to read such a biased article with what I think is a defamatory introduction. Having listened to his interview on Deutche Velle I tend to agree with the post above that Mr Mishra is indeed an observant, astute and sensitive man. On this fragile Earth such cross cultural wisdom as he demonstrates is rare and precious. I will be seeking out his written work. I will also work in the sandpit to improve my editing skills so that I may contribute to the great mutual knowledge sharing enterprise that is the Wikipedia. While I notice some work has been done to restore balance in the main body of the article I am not sure that the matter included in the controversies section is well balanced in the context of Mr Mishra's work. I know that the introductory words quoted above are crude and spiteful, mostly false and written in a tone that is not consistent with the normal civil standard of the Wikepedia. Perhaps they _are_ a form of Vandalism, or even worse, because while they remain I am loath to link to, or recommend the article to others. I do wonder if this was the author's intention. thanks for reading this post, E.microcorys (aka Tallowwood)

I'm glad someone edited the stupid comments made in the first line of this review. However I do think Pankaj Mishra does raise hackles amongst some Indians and this should be addressed in his entry, though perhaps it should not have as much prominence / space compared to a broader analysis of his work - H

Poor opening

The lead/first para is written very badly. It provides no information on who the guy is, who I presume is a writer after seeing the categories. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

：Pankaj Mishra had an article in the Guardian this week that's not been mentioned here.

：http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/22/tibet.china1

：Maybe someone more qualified than me will see fit to add it to the page. 妘纯89.242.135.83 (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

---

The "controversies" section here is extremely problematic and should be revised or deleted. According to the Wikipedia entry on Chattisinghpura, there is still no conclusive answer as to who committed the massacre in question: it says, quite explicitly: "The parties responsible for the initial massacre at Chattisinghpora remain unidentified."

Mishra has become a major figure in Indian and international letters in the last several years, and it seems absurd that this fake "controversy" should represent a larger proportion of the entry than discussion of his books or his frequent criticism in places like the NYRB. There is a clear NPOV problem here, particularly with the un-cited remark that his writing has been accused of "pandering to white pro-Muslim audiences in the West". --Liatjamie (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Merely Biased ?

"Bias" or prejudice is too soft a word for this man, this is clearly inverted standards .This is he most senseless, absurd anti-Hindu and anti-Indian dog-bark I have ever heard ! How can such a respectable (?) paper print such irresponsible crap ? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/14/comment.politics1  Jon Ascton  (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Religious background

Maybe I overlooked it, but wouldn't it be interesting in this context into which religious group he was born?

-- Skowronek The Lark (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the absurdly slomo response, but apparently his was a "dispossessed Hindu Brahmin family", according to the NYT. Not sure if it's DUE to mention this in the article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Plagirism?

The entire Pankaj_Mishra#Writing_career section seems to be an almost word for word copy of this biography page. It needs to be heavily rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaths (talk • contribs) 17:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pankaj Mishra. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100305070326/http://www.rslit.org/content/fellows to http://www.rslit.org/content/fellows
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080212231907/http://www.outlookindia.com/author.asp?name=Pankaj+Mishra to http://www.outlookindia.com/author.asp?name=Pankaj+Mishra

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Marriage

Hi, I added information regarding his marriage to the article (with sources). This was deleted by another author: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pankaj_Mishra&type=revision&diff=893934291&oldid=893409017 Was the information wrong? What was the reason to delete this? Best regards, 77.11.47.50 (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The text looks fine WP:V, and no reason for the deletion was given. Add it again. Manbooferie (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)