Talk:Rajiv Malhotra/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The current revision fails to establish any kind of notability for Malhotra. Googling, I find 180 google news hits for "Rajiv Malhotra", but most of them appear to be on a completely unrelated individual with the same name, CEO of Polaris Software who was at some point in the news because he was arrested in Jakarta. 141 google books hits, again among unrelated hits mostly citations of Invading the Sacred. Nothing to indicate that this book would meet WP:BK. 98 hits on google scholar, again among them completely unrelated authors of papers such as Alpha1-Antitrypsin Deficiency.

This article falls under WP:BLP, and unless notability can be established in some unambiguous way, I suggest the article should just be deleted. --dab (𒁳) 11:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the links:

• news: the 2002-2005 period is the only really relevant one, as that was the height of the "Wendy's child" affair. His appointments to various NGOs in NJ could probably be sourced from local media, if needed. And many of the various "reliable sources" scrounged up for Wendy Doniger mention him (Braverman in UoC magazine, Vedantam in Washington Post, Rothstein in NY Times).
• books: well, the first page of results has him in 6 out of the 10 hits. Do we need more for minimal "notability"? (I will not make an WP:OTHERCRAP argument, rather my appeal is to WP:UCS.) The Kurien book, in particular, has plenty of information about him, "Malhotra" comes up 25 times in a search (see p.202, e.g., for some interesting history). Kurien has also written about him in published journal articles.
• scholar: the first two hits have him. (Aren't google scholar results ranked for relevance?) And then, after 3 misses, 5 more hits.

So, what does he have to do to become notable, jump off a skyscraper? Of course, I understand the bit about how he's really a Hindutva fascist or somesuch, and therefore we should be trying our best to eliminate any mention of such scum of the earth from WP, which is why we prod articles rather than tag them as unreferenced (== "we don't like him, so we'll play like we haven't heard of him.") rudra (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The current revision of the article is in bad shape and without secondary references, I agree with dab that it reads like a vanity piece and definitely worthy of speedy deletion. Another thing that adds to the confusion is that Rajiv Malhotra is a very common name and one is sure to get mishits. However, the article can be improved, written with proper WP:tone and I see that there are several secondary sources available. As a first step, a minimal, neutral article without the controversial stuff or even favourable things like "non-Hindutva" , "pluralistic" part can be written. We can gradually build from here. Hope this helps. --TheMandarin (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify (for I was confused and others might be too), the discussion above refers to the version of the article before it was rewritten. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Large-scale revert

I was in the process of heavily cutting away the spam that pervaded this article, but then realized that a fairly decent version existed in the history as the spam had been added recently. I've restored back to March; my apologies to anyone whose productive edits were lost, but there was too much to go through it individually. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear what you mean by "spam", so I reverted per WP:BRD. I agree the article does have problems, but I would not call them spam. Possibly your approach may be the easiest to implement. Still, some editors (not me) worked very hard to create all that material you eliminated. Could it be that instead of the massive revert, the article needs instead is a shift in voice, better inline citations, and a variety of other changes to more appropriately use the material that was introduced? Please explain your thinking more fully, and what drove you to think that the massive amount of material you eliminated was as worthless as "spam". --Presearch (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I see literally nothing that was introduced between the version I reverted to and the current version that was cited to an independent source. (Most was not cited to any source at all. And the promotional user even removed most of the secondary sources we had.) Besides the inappropriate tone, that level of detail, without any proper sources, is not suitable for an encyclopedia - Malhotra has his own website and books to expound at length upon his theories. The proper way to expand the article is by consulting secondary sources and seeing if more detail is to be had, not by converting it into a soapbox for the subject's opinions. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's useful to know your perspective. With that in mind, I'd like to look through the added material to check whether I see anything there beyond what you saw. If not, then going back to the earlier version may be best. It may take me a few days to have time, though. If I haven't done more within a week, feel free to ping me (i.e., talkpage message). Thanks again for your explanation. --Presearch (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool - let me know what you find. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Lack of Secondary Sources

This article contains almost no secondary sources or even proper citations. Nearly everything is sourced from Malhotra's own writings (through the use of summaries apparently created by a Wiki user, most of which are not sourced). Without reliable third party sources, this article may be a candidate for deletion.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC))

I've just reverted back from the perennial spam version (which removed sources as well as adding spam). What do you think? Of course it could still be better... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks much better now; Aside from being a lot more concise, the material presented now has proper citations. I would say this article now meets Wikipedia standards.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC))

Agree. I've added some criticisms, for some balance, and because it shows Malhotra has attracted attention from a wider audience. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The size of this article has tripled in the last 24 hours (in fact, its almost back up to its pre-spam removal size). Please be careful to ensure that the earlier problems are not repeated.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC))

Thanks for keeping an eye on the article ; I try to source everything I add, also the copies from previous versions. I've also added some {{source?}} tags. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hindu politics

From WP:ALSO:

The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant

The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.

From Hindu politics (without the references):

Ideologies

• Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam is the philosophy that the whole cosmos is a single family
• Rama Rajya is an ancient Indian concept of an ideal society which according to Gandhi is the "sovereignty of the people based on pure moral authority". "One of true democracy in which the meanest citizen could be sure of swift justice without an elaborate and costly procedure”. It became widely espoused in the Indian Independence Movement.
• Hindu nationalism is the political philosophy of cultural nationalism. The followers claim to be inspired by Vivekananda, Aurobindo and other modern Hindu Gurus.
• Hindutva ("Hinduism-Follower") is the political ideology first expressed by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar who defined a Hindu in terms of nationalism, rather than religion.
• Integral humanism, the official ideology of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)

It shows that "Hindu politics" is relevant; Malhotra is inspired by Vivekananda, and the article (and related ones) is not a singular force, but stands in a broader tradition.

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Joshua Jonathan,

I respectfully disagree with this characterization. Most of the above has nothing to do with Rajiv Malhotra.

Some of it does not even make sense. If some political activists claim that they are inspired by some Gurus, does that make those Gurus politicians as well? Or does it mean that all those inspired by the Guru are guilty of political activism?

Just as one cannot call all Chistians colonialists, we cannot call all Hindus politicians. I can quote colonialists who were inspired by Christianity or Jesus. Similarly, we know Terrorists who are inspired by Muhammad or Allah. How far will you carry this labeling?

Rajiv Malhotra is not associated with VHP, BJP, RSS etc., For all practical purposes, that defines the boundary for Hindu politics.

I see this as an effort to malign Rajiv Malhotra by branding him with Hindu politics. He has openly denounced association with any of these Hindu political organizations. When he does associate, we should by all means brand him with "Hindu politics".

--Marthanon (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Marthanon. Thanks for your balanced additions. The term "Hindu politics" has also been discussed at the Talk Page of that article, as far as I can see; apparantly it's nit the most accurate point. "Hindu revivalists" is another term that has been used. He is at the template, so maybe you should discuss that at Template talk:Hindu politics.

My point is with "inspired by Vivekananda, Aurobindo and other modern Hindu Gurus". As far as I understand, Malhotra is inspired by them. Linking to this article gives an overview of related thoughts. By the way, Nussbaum wrote that Malhotra is not exactly a "nationalist"; his 'discourse' is somewhat different. Maybe we should add a section on "Hindu emancipation", in which some of the criticisms of Malhotra being "nationalistic" are voiced, but also his own distancing himself from "Hindutva" ideology, Nussbaum's comment, and the sociological link with the changes in the worldwide Hindu-communities, that is, emigration, better social-economic postion, and growing access to western discourses (see the "Mythology wars" article). That's the other side/background of the fierce Hindu reactions to Doniger et al. I guess there are interesting similarities with the emancipation of "Gereformeerden" and Catholics in the Netherlands in the 19th and early 20th century. Looking at the dispute from such an "emancipation-view" also gives some 'relief' from the antagonistic responses, and provides an understanding for a western audience of the fierce Hindu-responses. But I don't know if that can be backed-up by sources; but it's worth to try to find them, isn't it?

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Greetings Joshua Jonathan,

Much appreciate your openness and kind consideration to discuss options.

I am not sure what you mean by "Hindu emancipation" but sounds like something from colonial anthropology. Perhaps we should save the emancipation of Hindus to a page of its own? Perhaps it should go into original research publications than a wiki page? Suggest we not get such ideas bloat the wiki page on Rajiv Malhotra.

The views you are stating on Vivekananda and others are those of AAR and they are the very views that Rajiv Malhotra is challenging. Feels right that his views should get a fair hearing and not muffle them with the views of AAR. The rest of the wiki world is open for voicing the counter views. Is that not the fair approach instead of muting the voice of the man on whom a wiki page is written?

Isn't it interesting that Rajiv Malhotra is doomed one way or the other? If he is associated with Hindutva politics that is one thing. If he is not associated and hence seeks to distance himself, then that too seems to be an issue. Sounds like the U of Chicago police has decided that he is guilty either way.

In the end, how many of these extraneous views and how much of it can we add or link to a page on Rajiv Malhotra? Even as it stands, please see how many references are his own works and how many are by people who are critical of him. Do you really think that it is balanced?

Just for comparison, I went to see what Nussbaum's page looks like. Do you think we can give nearly the same space on Rajiv Malhotra's page for his own views that Nussbaum gets on hers for her views?

Clearly, two kinds of things are clamoring to get in. (1) those things that Rajiv Malhotra is presenting as his views. (2) criticism by others of Rajiv Malhotra, his views, his associations, and his lack of associations.

Both should have their say.

Given how large both these pieces are, should not we have two separate pages for them? It seems outright silly that we should have more on the criticism of the man while forcing out discussion of his own works. Seems we should let Rajiv Malhotra's ideas be the main content on his page. Have a separate page on Criticism of Rajiv Malhotra where all the conspiracy angles and criticism angles can be elaborately discussed.

I am confident we can find a way to rectify this.

--Marthanon (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There is already a separate page on Being Different, which gives even more space to his ideas. It's not usual to write separate pages on criticisms, so they are included in the main page. In the case of Malhotra, he did attract a lot of severe criticism; for balance, some of it should be included. Some of the worst are left out; see Nussbaum's : The Clas Within" for some severe remarks.

As for "Hindu emancipation": I'm aware this comes close to WP:OR. Yet, this article "Mythology wars" mentions some of the background of the responses to Wendy Doniger et al. It might give some background for western readers, to contextualise Hindu responses (if I may use the term "Hindu" here). Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

PS: what's "AAR"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

At second thought: the page on "Being Different" could contain criticisms on this publication. At the other hand: the replies at "Wendy" should be included in the main-article, as should at least the mention of criticisms of his "style" of challenging. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Found it out: American Academy of Religion Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the long criticisms of "Being Different" to Being Different, but retained a summary, together with Mahotral's response. I've also added praise from one of those critics, but also a critique by Martha Nussbaum, because of the impact that Malhotra has had in the academic field. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Malhotra's book Being Different: Qualifies for a Stand-Alone Article

Malhotra's book Being Different clearly has enough reviews to have its own article (i.e., be considered sufficiently notable by Wikipedia's notability criteria). This could allow more space for presenting the book's content as well as the various reactions of reviewers, and any published responses by Malhotra. I have added the references to several reviews in scholarly journals, including an entire issue of the International Journal of Hindu Studies. There may be other relevant reviews also. --Presearch (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Postscript: I started a stand-alone article for Being Different on 8 April 2013. Substantial description of the contents of the book was copied from this article. Therefore credit is due to those editors who wrote that original descriptive text. At top of the Talk page is a template to record that credit. -- Presearch (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION, WP:RSBREAKING, WP:SELFSOURCE and finally WP:BIASED

@Mvineetmenon: interesting list of non-existing policies, except for WP:BIASED, which says '"reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments on plagiarism section (as currently drafted)

I do not intend to edit much directly in this ongoing plargiarism section controversy, apart from the two edits I just made, but I do have a few suggestions:

1. Malhotra's twitter statement that Western quotation marks are not the only method of citing is being held up by the news sources and now this plagiarism section as his "response". I believe that is misleading and likely to be contested, because it is taken out of context. Did he say he thought that Sanskrit methods of citing were something he could follow in his HarperCollins book? I don't believe he did. But these news sources are quoting it in a manner that makes it appear that he did. I think that is disingenuous (or perhaps simply unperceptive) on their part. Sooner or later, probably sooner, this will be clarified. Therefore I believe the implication of the WP section as currently drafted (based on these imperceptive news reports) is LIKELY to be challenged. I think this is therefore inappropriate for a WP:BLP article, which is supposed to maintain very high standards.
2. The scroll.in (Shoaib Daniyal) and Business Standard (Mihir Sharma) seem to be obviously opinion pieces. Right now they are seemingly cited only as sources for the disingenuously interpreted twitter quote from Malhotra. Perhaps (???) that is OK... perhaps(???) they can be viewed as RS for that purpose. But for the mostpart, being opinion pieces, they should be used to cite the opinions of their authors as opinions. This is a WP:BLP article, and if we want to be cautious -- which is our responsibility -- I suggest it could prevent errors simply to drop them as sources. Leaving them in as sources risks their misuse.
3. I added info about the accuser, which I believe should be retained and is relevant.
4. It is good that the section (also) covers a response by Malhotra. In my first point above I argued that the coverage of Malhotra's response is profoundly misleading as currently constructed. I believe much less misleading responses could be quoted from the Firstpost and The News Minute articles. But if we wait a few days, probably even clearer responses could be found.
5. Ideally, it would also be good to include the publisher's response, which was mentioned in the Daniyal piece, which in my second point I argued is risky to cite, since it could be so easily abused as an opinion piece. Are there any more neutral sources that could be cited for including the publisher's response in the section?
6. Unifying Hinduism was first published in 2010, but the article mentions a 2014 pub date. Where does the 2014 pub date come from? From the accuser? The news sources? Why not change it to 2010?

Good luck. Cool off, fight fair (I see some truth on each side), and don't get yourselves blocked or deserving of blocks. --Presearch (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Section blanking

I think DharmoRakshati has section blanked the article 3 times now and violated WP:3RR. He has done this in spite of repeated warnings by various editors not to censor wiki. Admins must take note of this. -Mohanbhan (talk) 09:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG

@DharmoRakshati: so, Rajov Malhotra himself is a "news organisation"? It's typical that an editor who made one (1) contribution knows where to find this policy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: "as it in Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. " All these sources have no independent constitution which they have made, instead they are relying solely on the tweets of RFY, which in-turn doesn't conform to WP:RS. DharmoRakshati (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I see extensive citations on the material you are attempting to bludgeon off the page, DharmoRakshati. And despite your claim, I see no consensus. Ogress _smash! 07:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

extensive? Really? Kindly explain how quoting tweets are sufficient evidence for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DharmoRakshati (talk • contribs) 10:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The Plagiarism Controversy section over which Edit warring took place on the main article

In July 2015, historian Richard Fox Young posted a series of extracts from Malhotra's books Breaking India and Indra's Net revealing that Malhotra had apparently plagiarized material from various books, particularly Andrew Nicholson's book Unifying Hinduism, which had been published by Columbia University Press in 2014. Malhotra responded by stating that the western method of giving references was not a requirement for Indian scholars. According to Malhotra:

"Sanskrit language has no quotation marks, yet scholars cited others for thousands of years. Western standards not the only way to acknowledge."

References

Soham321 (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I had also added "American Hindu conservative writer Rajiv Malhotra mired in plagiarism controversy". The News Minute. 10 July 2015. Retrieved 15 July 2015.. Ogress _smash! 21:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

These are Rajiv Malhotra's 2 official responses HERE and HERE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to say... the man has chutzpah after line after line of his book is revealed to be taken from multiple authors, and especially after he previously called out plagiarism by authors he didn't like. "Plagiarism = stealing the phala (reward) without earning it with karma/tapasya. Only fools say that such tamas is good for Hinduism" - November 2014[1]; "Plagiarism is nothing to do with history. Pls see dictionary. It is cheating and theft." November 2014[2] But I digress, as this is not relevant. He has been accused of plagiarism. It is in the news and it is kind of a huge deal. another article about his plagiarism and how plagiarism is a huge problem in Indian academia on all sides of the political aisle. Ogress _smash! 00:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "taken"? He paraphrased and cited authors.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

(responding to Ogress) I do think that Malhotra's distinction between between plagiarism "at two distinct levels: substance and form" can be worthwhile for helping to maximize the light-to-heat ratio in this whole controversy. Perhaps one of the secondary sources will one day pursue the "goose and gander" analysis disaggregated between the two levels - e.g., when Malhotra was accusing others of plagiarism, was he accusing them at the level of form or substance? (If he primarily emphasized form, this current controversy is indeed ironic). Unfortunately, I don't think the Sandip Roy article provides much help with this disaggregation.

    Nor do I think there is excessive chutzpah in Malhotra's "official statement" that "Neither me, nor my publisher have a problem in adding quotation marks or citing the source each and every time in the next print. I am happy to do that." It will be interesting to see how many of his critics find it within themselves to acknowledge that statement. --Presearch (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

His response to being accused is that he'll add quotes and cites "every time" in the future, and to make personal attacks. I don't think anyone doubts that the man chasing Rajiv is as much of a partisan, but that's not relevant to his acts. And he's gone on his own witch-hunts for plagiarism in the past, so yes, I think it's hypocrisy at its finest that when caught, his response was at first to deny ("It's not Sanskrit tradition to use quotes") then question the character of the man accusing him. It's a great political move but it's not relevant to the issue of "was there plagiarism". You know the response in an article that somehow also managed to support Rajiv, Swarajya published an article in which Naik writes, "In my own view, however, the technical errors pointed out by Fox appear as both serious and valid. He is certainly justified in complaining that he has been misled into believing that certain passages were originally composed by Malhotra when they were not." (here.

Additionally, is not the very brouhaha of which we are speaking outside of the issue of plagiarism not notable as well? Rajiv and his "intellectual kshatriyas" are claiming strongly that this is an ideologically-based Christian/Western colonial response. Seems notable to me. That same article in Swarajya quotes Houllenbecq in observing that the accusation of plagiarism is like an accusation of racism.

Either way, our job is to determine what falls under the purview of the BLP guidelines. This seems significant; certainly it is covered in other BLP articles, like that of Fareed Zakaria and Jane Goodall without hesitation. Ogress _smash! 02:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Rajiv's response is that he has already cited Nicholson "about thirty times" in his book.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It's sort of irrelevant if he used Nicholson's text as his own. It doesn't matter if you cite most of your work, does it? You have to cite it all. As the Rajiv-supporter above noted, "In my own view, however, the technical errors pointed out by Fox appear as both serious and valid. He is certainly justified in complaining that he has been misled into believing that certain passages were originally composed by Malhotra when they were not." Horseshoes and hand grenades, as they say. And he has made the same accusations being leveled at him against others in the past, so he's kind of changing his tune as convenient to him. Ogress _smash! 02:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

According to such strict standards all the academic books I have read are plagiarized.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I can imagine that Mahotra's publishers do not want to use an academic reference-style, since their books are aiming at the popular market. Yet, Malhotra's target is the academics, and one might expect that he adheres to basic rules of academic writing. If not, it raises basic questions about the credibility of his criticism. It is this context which is relevant, and which do make charges of unclear copying problematic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

One correction: According to Mihir Sharma's article (published in the Business Standard and cited as a reference in the disputed Plagiarism section) the book Unifying Hinduism by Andrew Nicholson was published in 2010 by Columbia University Press. He is right in the sense that book was first published in 2010 and subsequently reprinted in 2014 as per this link of the book's publishers: http://cup.columbia.edu/book/unifying-hinduism/9780231149860 Soham321 (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

One other point: The title of the Business Standard article has been changed from the time it was first put up (however, the url remains the same): http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/mihir-s-sharma-the-publishers-and-the-crackpots-115071401453_1.html? Soham321 (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Richard Fox Young's letter to Rajiv Malhotra's publishers demanding that Malhotra's books (which include plagiarized content) be retracted from the market: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJhIK7RUYAEIcYN.png Soham321 (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2015

"I can imagine that Mahotra's publishers do not want to use an academic reference-style, since their books are aiming at the popular market. Yet, Malhotra's target is the academics, and one might expect that he adheres to basic rules of academic writing." This is an absurd comparison. Charges of plagiarism by Richard Fox Young are not correct. They are technical errors. Publisher has already said that they are reissuing Indra's Net as early as possible with all references and attributions "rectified" in consultation with Rajiv Malhotra. There is no rule which states that Rajiv Malhotra will have to follow the standards of academia-reference style when targeting "the academics". He is writing books for masses to know the truth instead of increasing his reputations among the so called academics. The books which are written for mass does not give citation after every line because it creates vexation. Point by point rebuttal is already given to charges of Plagiarism. There is no standard source which states that Rajiv Malhotra has plagiarized. VibrantBabhan (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Potential material for plagiarism section

Perhaps at some point material such as the following, if properly balanced within a spectrum of interpretations, might be suitably introduced into the section:

In the magazine Swarajya, Ashay Naik called the effort initiated by Fox a "smear campaign", stating that

Champions of free speech never fail to admonish us that we should not attempt to silence a text that offends us but respond to it with a contrary text of our own. Raising technical issues in a text, such as plagiarism, which implicitly question the moral character of its author, and kicking up a fuss as a disgruntled customer to get that text withdrawn from the market by its publisher, is the way in which civilized persons (sic) aim to achieve the same goal which their barbaric and unsophisticated counterparts seek through burning or legal bans, but without suffering from the stigma of muzzling free speech, of course.

(Reference: Naik, Ashay (Jul 14, 2015). "Much Ado About Plagiarism: Fox vs. Malhotra". In Swarajya Magazine. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help))

Perhaps coincidentally, such an observation is relevant to the ethos of Wikipedia, which opposes censorship. --Presearch (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

There's this blog (https://traditionresponds.wordpress.com/) which gives the other side of story but since it's in WP:SELFSOURCE which makes it unsuitable for citation in wiki. Apart from that Swarajya is the only article which does some unbiased reporting on this controversy. Articles cited by {u|Joshua Jonathan} are heavily biased against Rajiv and should be avoided in any case. DharmoRakshati (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Best thing to do, of course, is to go through the several sources. Blogs don't count as WP:RS, of course; the question is whether some of the other sites count as news organisations. I don't know; we'll have to list them. Anyway, I expect more to come up on this issue, from both "sides." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

NB: here's a response by Malhotra himself. Does that count as WP:RS? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

No, probably not; it's as primary as a source can be. I'll try to make a list later; otherwise, we'll all have to wait for further developments. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

And FirstPost, how about that one? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I have requested a lock down of this article for editing. It will be enforced till 22 July. Let's hope there will be required clarity till that time for good measures. Mvineetmenon (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The article FirstPost is talking about the fight between followers on account of their cult heroes and suggesting that charges need to be contested instead of personalities. The article only preaches but does not give any clarification regarding the charges. According to WP:BLP, Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising "editorial judgment". "Using a big word like ‘plagiarism’ always causes some damage. It will always do lasting damage, like accusations of racism." – Michel Houellebecq. Since, Rajiv Malhotra is only "accused" of plagiarism and neither he is convicted nor the charges are proved against him regarding plagiarism, it will be distasteful to write anything related to plagiarism on his WP page. He is innocent until proven guilty and adding charges of Plagiarism on his WP page can possibly harm his image which is against the ethos of WP. So, we should wait till things become clear. VibrantBabhan (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're right we have to be carefull. Regarding "plagiarism": much will depend on who gives which qualification to Malhotra's copying of texts. That is: is it "plagiarism," or is it "some other form of copying." Nevertheless, the moment some reliable newspaper picks up these news, let alone one of the publishers, this news can hardly be suppressed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I did add another source: "American Hindu conservative writer Rajiv Malhotra mired in plagiarism controversy". The News Minute. 10 July 2015. Retrieved 15 July 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogress (talk • contribs) 23:13, 15 July 2015

The Hindu is catching-up too. Still an opinion piece, but nevertheless, it's a nwespaper, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Nicholson is confused

In the scroll.in article [3] Mr. Nicholson has written that Rajiv Malhotra has plagiarized his work. He is more upset because Rajiv has distorted his work. As far as I understand, either a person can "plagiarize" or "distort" someone's work. It can not be both. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If it is plagiarized, it can not be distorted and vice-versa.

"One of the more puzzling aspects of this whole affair is that Malhotra praises my work effusively while vilifying the work of my mentor and dissertation supervisor, Sheldon Pollock. Pollock is literally the first person I thank in the acknowledgements of Unifying Hinduism, and knowledgeable readers will see that it is chock-full of “Pollockian” ideas." It is a known fact that Malhotra has targeted Sheldon Pollock extensively. So, there is a possibility that Nicholson has written the concerned article to shield Mr. Pollock because Pollock was his mentor.

In the line "Ironically, some of these ideas are the very same ones that Malhotra quotes and praises in his book! " Mr. Nicholson himself admits that Malhotra has quoted his work and praised him in his book. It indicates that there is no plagiarized work. There might be some technical error. VibrantBabhan (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

"You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." [4]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Including info about accuser

When a plagiarism section is eventually re-inserted, I suggest that it is entirely appropriate and indeed necessary (for a high quality section) to include information about the accuser. Here is information about the accuser that was included in the version of the section that was blanked:

In July 2015, Richard Fox Young, a religious historian who has authored and edited numerous books on Christianity and Christian conversion in India and elsewhere in Asia,

References

There is also material of interest about the accuser contained in one of the two recent writings by Malhotra that some have called an "official response". Malhotra's July 15 article in NITI Central states that he has known the accuser for 20 years and that he works in the town where Malhotra lives. Malhotra also links to a source that he says "makes clear why Young hates me ever since. He knows well that when I refer to the ‘breaking India forces’ in my talks, his work is being implicated for nurturing the anti-Hindu propaganda I talk about." However, such material, if used at all in a plagiarism section, must be used very carefully. Malhotra cannot be regarded as a WP:RS on the accuser, any more than the accuser can be regarded as a WP:RS about Malhotra. However, Malhotra would seem to be a WP:RS about Malhotra's view of the accuser and their relationship. Such details may or may not be relevant and meet WP:DUE for a plagiarism section. The appropriateness of mentioning Malhotra's views of the accuser and their relationship would depend, among other things, on how large the section becomes. Regardless, I believe that in even a minimal section, it is appropriate to include objective facts about the accuser, such as his major research focus as reflected in the books he has written. --Presearch (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The content of any other writings of Richard Fox Young (aside from his analysis of Rajiv's works) are completely irrelevant with respect to the plagiarism allegation against Rajiv, in a WP article on Rajiv Malhotra.Soham321 (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. They give information about who the accuser is. Readers can use that information to help interpret what may be the true motives driving the controversy. That is one way that they are relevant. And they are objective information. If information about who is making the accusations is deemed irrelevant, why even bother giving the name of the accuser? (in my view it would be absurd not to give the name of the accuser) --Presearch (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"Readers can use that information to help interpret what may be the true motives driving the controversy" - that's exactly what it is: selective information to suggest certain motives. No way that this is acceptable. If you want to add information on Fox, you'll have to be more balanced, instead of suggesting that he's a Christian crusader who wants to convert Indians, and is therefor against Malhotra.

Given dramatic recent developments (eg Nicholson in fray), it may be awhile before details such as this become relevant again. Nevertheless, for the record, I disagree: Noting Young's major books is not using "selective information" in the sense of "cherry-picked" for a POV. Look at his publications on Worldcat, look at his faculty page, look anywhere that there is an overview of his work, and you will find that the major focus of his work has been more or less as described in that note above. In compsing that text and note, I gave a sincere effort at a balanced representation of who the accuser is, as reflected in his academic career and interests. Describing a few of his major and representative book titles was an effective way of doing that. Some people might interpret that favorably to the accuser (e.g., "he's a good Christian and he cares about integrity and lower caste Indians..."), others might interpret it unfavorably (e.g., as Malhotra does himself). They key points I wish to assert are that i) the accuser's overall background interests/focus are relevant to a NPOV characterization of him, and that ii) a short list of representative major books is a viable and balanced and NPOV way of characterizing that background, though possibly subject to further improvements. Regards --Presearch (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems that Fox has been targetting Malhotra before; see chapter 10, Studied Silences? Diasporic Nationalism, ‘Kshatriya Intellectuals’ and the Hindu American Critique of Dalit Christianity’s Indianness, of Constructing Indian Christianities: Culture, Conversion and Caste, where we find familiair criticisms of Malhotra's writings: "[Breaking India] has been utterly eschewed by mainstream scholars who have consigned it to the crackpot fringe." Et cetera. NB: Fox also mentions the 'California Textbook Case;" if you want to speculate about "true motives," don't forget to mention that one. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest rather we examine other cases of plagiarism discussed at Wikipedia - I mentioned two prominent ones - and see what was considered appropriate to include. This is not a place to have a sectarian fight over Malhotra. Ogress _smash! 04:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You're quick; you interrupted the rest of my response! I wanted to add that this passage says more about Fox's motives:

"... They remind us that a grab at the microphone in the Indian public square is just as effective a way of overcoming 'relative invisibility' as it is in America, whether one fears a loss of prestige or aspires to have more of it. That is why it will not be enough just to drum one's finger on the table while proponents of Aryan autochthony have their say." (CIC:CCaC, ch. 10)

Compare this passage in a letter from Fox to his colleagues:

"Four years ago, along with John Boopalan, our PhD candidate in R & S, I attended a lecture at the University for the launching of a book by Mr. Malhotra, called Breaking India(New Delhi 2011). Much to our dismay, Malhotra launched into a rant, calling Christianity a "cancer" in the body of India that must be ripped out, being spread by a nexus of Christian evangelicals, Washington politicians, and corrupt Indian academics. Especially troubling was that he characterized Dalit converts to Christianity as mentally deficient and incapable of making responsible decisions on their own (hence, his support for the legal constraints on 'conversion' now in place in many of India's states).

After the book launch at the University, I became less willing to pursue my scholarship in the distanced way I always have (or told myself I did). In short, I was 'conscientized,' and I have never looked back since. Still, John Boopalan and I trod the time-worn path of routine scholarship and produced an essay on Malhotra's noxious mischaracterizations of Indian Christianity and Dalit Christians. The essay was published in 2014 in a Routledge volume that I edited (with Chad Bauman, also one of our PhD's, in MEHR). Attempts have proven futile to elicit any response at all to the book by Malhotra.

In the course of reading Breaking India, I noted a number of possible plagiarisms, the first, of my beloved mentor at the University of Pennsylvania, Wilhelm Halbfass, irked me a great deal. On the very same page, 62 words, without quotation marks or acknowledgement, were taken out a book by French scholar Maurice Olender, The Languages of Paradise, published by Harvard University Press. Besides this, in another more recent publication of Malhotra's called Indra's Net (2014), published by HarperCollins India, I found the plagiarism to be even more massive, especially of a book published by Columbia University Press called Unifying Hinduism by a friend and colleague, Andrew Nicholson of SUNY, Stonybrook."

So, this essay (chapter 10 of CIC:CCaC, I presume), was a response to Malhotra's qualifications of Christianity and of Dalits. While doing research for this essay, he found out that Malhotra copied texts without explicitly stating so. That's what should primarily being mentioned. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems like some users have already decided that accusation of plagiarism will be added without reaching the point of no dispute. Some users are not interested in reaching consensus. It gives a clear indication that people are working with a motive to malign Rajiv Malhotra. If that is the case, let us see on 22nd whether the people with vested interest will become successful or not. Regards - VibrantBabhan (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

NB: let me be clear that I have very little sympathy for the conversion-missions of Christian evangelicals. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Ogress's suggestion that we should look at other instances of plagiarism in WP articles (featuring other individuals) to help us decide how the plagiarism section in Rajiv's WP page should look like seems very sensible to me. Ogress has referred to the WP pages of Jane Goodall and Fareed Zakaria in this connection (Goodall and Zakaria have also faced plagiarism accusations). This is a very reasonable and sensible suggestion and i endorse this approach. Soham321 (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If plagiarism has taken place and if there is evidence to prove that it has taken place then speculation about the motives of the complainant is superfluous. When someone robs a bank and a bystander reports it to the police does one speculate about the motives of the person making complaint? Malhotra has committed plagiarism, there are secondary sources which establish that he has plagiarized and he has acknowledged that he has plagiarized--so the question of not including the section on plagiarism in this article does not arise. -Mohanbhan (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I also endorse Ogress' suggestion of looking at other examples of how plagiarism accusations have been handled. They will provide potentially valuable reference points. However, such instances must also be evaluated thoughtfully, on a case-by-case basis. What is relevant or irrelevant in some cases may not necessarily apply uniformly in all cases. --Presearch (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

To Mohanbhan: The section is not solely about alleged plagiarism, the section is also about the controversies arising from thsoe allegations. We have opinion pieces in respectable outlets (e.g., Swarajya) who have called the accuser's activities a smear campaign. The discourse may shift somewhat now that Nicholson is in the fray. Nevertheless, the motives of a bystander who has been accused of conducting a smear campaign are obviously relevant to the controversy. Regards --Presearch (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Taking Business Standard article as a source

The article written by Simon Mathew (Mihir Sharma) "The Rajiv Malhotra issue is a cautionary tale for publishers" has included the response of Michel Danino. Danino's write "While Mihir Sharma is welcome to his opinions, he has no right to misrepresent, abuse and demonize people whose work he is completely ignorant of. I will not speak for Rajiv Malhotra or Shrikant Talageri, but I protest against his statement concerning me. I am by no means an “online hero”, maintaining neither a website nor a blog nor a Facebook account. My work on ancient India has spread through my books and papers, which have been published by reputed publishers and journals of Indology and archaeology in India and abroad. I have also contributed chapters to over twenty scholarly volumes. I am sure Mihir Sharma has read none of my work; indeed, he cannot even spell my name correctly."

"Lastly, while classical India refined and practised the art of debating, Mihir Sharma’s vituperative but crassly ignorant language is fairly typical of a trend to demonize what one does not agree with — a trend that has taken the place of academic debates in much of India’s intellectual life. It does spare one the trouble of having to study, carefully weigh arguments and evidence, and engage other viewpoints in a civilized manner."

Irony died a million little pieces when Simon Mathews aka Mihir Sharma writes ' To what degree can we trust "serious" works of non-fiction from non-academic presses?' In fact, Mihir Sharma who failed to complete his Ph.D degree after several years in USA and returned to India bare-hand is accusing other person of being "non-academic". As from the response of Michael Danino, it is clear that the Business Standard article can not be taken as a serious source. VibrantBabhan (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Michel Danino, who believes that the Vedic people camped at the banks of the Saraswati in the 3rd millennium BCE... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

What are yo trying to imply by calling Mihir Sharma Simon Mathews? That he is a demon because he is a Christian? That he criticized Malhotra because he is Christian? And how do you know that he is a Christian and that he didn't "complete his Ph.D degree after several years in USA"? Your ad hominem attack clearly shows that you don't have an argument. -Mohanbhan (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

For your information Mihir Sharma aka Simon Mathews himself admitted that he could not complete his Ph.D. in the interview he has given to newslaundary.com which is available on youtube.com . He is a Christian which he himself admitted in the same interview. After reading his arguments in his article and in his tweets, it is clear that he is an anti-Hindu guy. VibrantBabhan (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, there we are: "he's an anti-Hindu guy." 'If you're not with us, you're against us.' Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, there are others who have opposing views but they write on the foundation of facts. But, Mihir Sharma is a guy who can not be believed. He is a hoax, who writes without facts. http://www.opindia.com/2015/02/when-an-aam-aadmi-exposed-journalist-mihir-s-sharma/ In the link given people can see the notorious work and agenda of Mihir Sharma. He cannot be credited as a source. VibrantBabhan (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the news laundry video interview in which Sharma says he is an atheist and a rationalist: http://www.newslaundry.com/2015/06/09/nl-interview-with-mihir-sharma-part-3/ Soham321 (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I saw the whole video again and not a single time he said that he is an atheist. Being non-religious does not mean you are an atheist. Further, a person can be atheist + rational or religious+ rational. In the whole video, he said that he was brought up as a Christian. Let us suppose he said that he is an atheist and you are ready to accept that. Then Malhotra also said that he is "non-Hindutva Hindu" but there people have problem. Why this double standard then ? VibrantBabhan (talk)06:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

What's the relevance of Sharma being Christian? Christians are a priori anti-Hindu? And what's the relevance of Sharma not having completed his PhD? How does that imply that he is not academic? At least he's got a master's degree, so he's an academic, and tried to complete a PhD. That's more than most of us can say. And why can't he judge whether a publisher is academic or non-academic? Do you need a PhD to do so? In that case, most people are not qualified to make any judgement about publishers, let alone academic research. As in the case of... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and if Malhotra says he's a "non-Hindutva Hindu", that's fine, but let it be clear then that Malhotra himself says so. And don't confuse these two topics: Sharma's reliability (and the relevance of the arguments you're giving), and the sources for Malhotra's political self-definition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, Mr. Nicholson "himself" said that Malhotra is using his work for Hindutva agenda. Because of which people are ready to remove the quote of "Non-Hindutva Hindu". But as Malhotra said that I am "Non-Hindutva Hindu", instead of adding it,let us remove it. Who said Christians are anti-Hindu? But Mihir Sharma, who is a Christian disguises under the usual Hindu name, is a Hinduphobic. In the link [5] you can see point by point rebuttal to Mihir Sharma. He is not a credible writer. One more example is in the link http://www.opindia.com/2015/02/when-an-aam-aadmi-exposed-journalist-mihir-s-sharma/. Further, Michael Danino has rebutted him. If Mihir Sharma is an academic then Rajiv Malhotra is also an academic. Then there is no point in calling that Rajiv Malhotra's book are written by a non-academic, which people were trying to imply in various op-eds and earlier discussions. VibrantBabhan (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Plagiarism charges section

@VictoriaGrayson: I have read WP:BLP which says the following: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The material I have added is supported by three reliable sources, two newspaper reports and one reddit post which provides the actual evidence of plagiarism. Why, then, did you revert it without discussing? -Mohanbhan (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "have been charged" is indeed sourced, and I guess nobody will question the factuality that he has been charged. Yet, these charges are "contentious material," and should be treated with care. it might be worthwhile to ask for cooments at the project-page, and to first discuss this issue before re-inserting the material. There's no need to start an edit-war on it; when it's relevant, reliable sources will appear in time. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Charged by whom? Can anyone "charge" and that is valid? Generally,to "charge" one must be a legal authority, or even a competent authority like a university. Else it is no different from slander. Rmantha (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC) rmantha

Victorian Grayson, can you please discuss your reverts here instead of acting like a wikipedia mandarin? "This qualifies as gossip under WP:BLP" you say. Can you explain how? -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@uMohanbhan: If I create a reddit page asking for reparations for colonialism from the Queen of England for India, can I feature in Queen's wiki page? Mvineetmenon (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Given how you think you cannot feature anywhere no matter what you do. -Mohanbhan (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That's kinda idiotic in your part to think that, so I'll pass that. Mvineetmenon (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Not the best response indeed; neither is censoring info you don't like. Both sides are represented in the section; please use the talkpage to discuss this issue, instead of simply removing the section. See also:

• http://scroll.in/article/740814/plagiarism-row-how-rajiv-malhotra-become-the-ayn-rand-of-internet-hindutva
• http://golfcharliepapa.blogspot.nl/2015/07/the-plagiarism-charge-against-rajiv.html
• http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/mihir-s-sharma-the-publishers-and-the-crackpots-115071401453_1.html

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan:

• scroll.in is not a newspaper. It's more like a blog. WP:SELFSOURCE
• another blog-post, will eventually be removed just like the one I posted and was removed. https://traditionresponds.wordpress.com/
• the only newspaper, with a highly opinionated piece. The author hold an anti-hindutva approach to his pieces and again violates WP:BIASED.

DharmoRakshati (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right, the first two are opinion pieces, and therefor can't be used as sources. What's more, the third one is also an opinion piece. But their comments are revealing; Malhotra may be favored by some, but it's not only western academics who are critical of him. See also this opinion piece. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't see the relevance of "not only western academics who are critical of him". Is there a formula where X number of academics from Y geographies have to be critical of someone before a slander is treated as worthy of mention on Wikipedia? Rmantha (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)rmantha

Response of Rajiv Malhotra to Andrew Nicholson

Response of Rajiv Malhotra to Andrew Nicholson:

"My writing relating to your work can be seen as twofold:

1. Where I cite your work.
2. Where it is my own perspectives.

You are entitled to attribution for ‘A’ [sic] but not for ‘B’. [sic]

Regarding ‘A’,

I am prepared to clarify these attributions further where necessary. But, as we shall see below, I am going to actually remove many of the references to your work simply because you have borrowed from Indian sources and called them your own original ideas. I am better off going to my tradition’s sources rather than via a westerner whose ego claims to have become the primary source. This Western hijacking of adhikara is what the elaborate Western defined and controlled system of peer-reviews and academic gatekeepers is meant to achieve, i.e. turning knowledge into the control of western ‘experts’ and their Indian sepoys."

Regarding ‘B’,

let me illustrate by using the very same example you cite as my ‘distortion’ of ‘your’ work. You wrote in your book that Vijnanabhikshu unified multiple paths into harmony. This is correct. That comes under ‘A’. But I add to this my own statement that Vivekananda does the same thing also. This is important to my thesis that Vivekananda built on top a long Indian tradition, and not by copying ideas from the West as claimed by the neo-Hinduism camp. This is ‘B’ – my idea....I re-examined your book lately and find too many ideas taken from Indian texts and experts that are cleverly reworded in fancy English."

VibrantBabhan (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverted my statement VibrantBabhan (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not writing these things on the page of Rajiv Malhotra. These are written on the talk page. I can write here to support my point. Please, don't collapse. If you can not refute leave it, but please don't collapse it. VibrantBabhan (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed: VibrantBabhan, please stop using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX. I'll make the same request to you as I made to Mohanbhan below: Please revert parts of your statements that you can recognize as off-task. Quotes from Malhotra's response to Nicholson may be potentially relevant for citation in text. But your personal appraisals of Andrew Nicholson, with no reference to implications for how we write this article, looks quite off task. Thank you. --Presearch (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This is Rajiv's official response to Nicholson.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This is neo-Brahminism at its best. To write about Indian philosophy you have to be an Indian -- and a "Pandit" -- because only these "entitled Indians" have the "adhikara" (right) to pursue Indian philosophy--this is essentially what he is saying. This betrays a racist (Hindus are a race according to the RSS) and casteist mindset. This also epitomizes everything that is wrong with Hinduism and Hindu nationalism. Imagine Germans telling Indians not to study Kant because Indians don't have adhikara over Kant's corpus! Chauvinism and xenophobia have no place in the academia. It is insane to tell a scholar he doesn't have the right to do Indian philosophy because he is not Indian. Malhotra should stop indulging in conspiracy theories which is unfortunately turning out to be a hate-campaign against non-Indians. He should also stop suggesting that Hindu philosophy is only done by Pandits and in the Sanskrit language. -Mohanbhan (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Mohanbhan, please remember guidelines at WP:SOAP, and stay on task. Saying "This man is... an abomination to all Indians" is not exactly on task. Note that "article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject" (WP:SOAP). I encourage you to self-delete parts of your statement that you can recognize as off-task. Note that according to WP:TALKO, "If a discussion goes off-topic.... It is still common to simply delete... comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article)". Regards -- Presearch (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

For the record: Mohanbhan did rephrase his comments in response to Presearch. Thanks. clarifying summary, by the way. "Neo-Brahmanism": what a nice term. Never heard of it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@VibrantBabhan: could you provide exact pagenumbers for Dasgupta? I'd like to know more. But then, I'm also interested how Nicholson has "plagiarized" Dasgupta. Can you give concrete examples, that is, pagenumbers and quotes from both sources, where Nicholson has copied Dasgupta without proper attribution? I see several references to Dasgupta (1922) in Nicholson (2010). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, just one comment on the RM quotes above. RM writes:

"... my thesis that Vivekananda built on top a long Indian tradition, and not by copying ideas from the West as claimed by the neo-Hinduism camp. This is ‘B’ – my idea".

Nicholson (2010) p.203:

"Writers like Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan, often criticized for their westernized, inauthentic understanding of Indian philosophical traditions, drew in large part on the hierarchical, inclusivistic tendencies exhibited in medieaval Indian doxographies."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Wait for some time you will get it. Regards- VibrantBabhan (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Here are two more response to Andrew Nicholson:

• http://www.niticentral.com/2015/07/18/atanu-dey-on-rajiv-malhotra-may-our-tribe-increase-324317.html
• https://akashravianandan.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/rebuttal-to-andrew-j-nicholson/

VibrantBabhan (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@VibrantBabhan: I think that you should read WP:DONTGETIT, and ask yourself if your contributions have any relevance for the question how this specific Wiki-article should include the plagiarism-charges in a fair and balanced way. If the answer is "no relevance," either start contributing in a constructive way, or just refrain from contributing here. Your contributions are approaching WP:DISRUPTIVE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I am presenting the other side which very few are trying do here. That is the only way to include any section in fair and balanced way because majority of people here are only presenting one side of view. I can't force you to get it if you are trying to deliberately ignore it. Here is the article written by R. Jagannathan [6] in First Post which is raising some serious questions on the charges of Plagiarism. VibrantBabhan (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

BLP guidelines not symmetrical

Looking ahead to the reopening of editing on the article (e.g., on 22 July), please note that WP:BLP guidelines are not perfectly "symmetrical" with regard to the issues at play here.

1. "Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (WP:BLP). Since plagiarism accusations are contentious, the larger burden of proof is on those who want to cover the topic (to show it is being well-sourced) - more specifically, "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material."
2. "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves" (WP:BLPSTYLE, emphasis added).
3. Material published by a living person (e.g., Malhotra) about himself "may be used as a source" in certain circumstances (WP:BLPSELFPUB). This is the section that is relevant to how this article will use what some have called Malhotra's "official response". My reading of the section is that it should be applied with common sense - i.e., the statement that "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject" does not mean that because Malhotra claims that Jesus Christ and Sri Krishna were "influential persons who were not academicians", does that mean that the entire "official position" article could not possibly be used as an acceptable self-source. Rather, based on common sense, I'm inclined to interpret the section as indicating that the relevant material being cited to the self-pub (e.g., article material about how Malhotra has responded to the accusations) is what must meet the listed criteria. (If not, these criteria would seem opposed to common sense, and I'll bet we'd find them widely 'violated' in otherwise good BLPs). Of course, if future secondary sources do good coverage of Malhotra's response, perhaps the self-source will be largely unnecessary. But that secondary coverage lies in the future. Regardless, it's worth emphasizing that according to WP:BLP, the subject of a BLP can be used as a source in a way that is not merely symmetric with how other primary sources may be used.

Regards -- Presearch (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note Rajiv Malhotra's official response here http://swarajyamag.com/culture/dear-andrew-nicholson/ This page must be used with equal weight. This also restores the balance quite a bit. Rmantha (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)rmantha

Response by Andrew J. Nicholson

See Unifying Hinduism: Statements from the Author and from the Publisher:

"I am the author of Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History (Columbia University Press, 2010, and Permanent Black, 2011), a work that was extensively plagiarised in Rajiv Malhotra’s Indra’s Net. I had planned to stay silent, as I usually avoid comment on heated, politicised issues such as this.

However, when Rajiv Malhotra described me as an “ally” of his on his Twitter feed, I knew that the time had come to speak out to clarify the differences between his views and my own. As upset as I am about his plagiarism of my work, I am even more upset about his distortions."

And this is what Nicholson's publisher has got to say:

"... it is deeply disturbing for us, as a publisher of the finest international scholarship on South Asia, to find that Unifying Hinduism has been used unethically by Rajiv Malhotra in Indra’s Net (HarperCollins), the nature and varieties of misuse having been exposed in the media. Such exposure is currently the best available redressal mechanism in our context, and Professor Nicholson’s statement, which we endorse, provides weight and specificity to the charges against Rajiv Malhotra.

As for HarperCollins, their willingness to rectify future editions of Rajiv Malhotra’s book would be welcome were it not for the fact that there may be nothing left for them to put in a “corrected” edition: much of the book has been shown up as a patchwork of other people’s work minus attribution. This is usually defined as plagiarism."

So, not only Young accuses Malhotra of "plagiarism," also do Nicholson and his publisher. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

See also: http://www.scroll.in/article/742022/upset-about-rajiv-malhotras-plagiarism-even-more-upset-about-distortions-of-my-work Soham321 (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

And this is an extract from the link given by Joshua:

Malhotra even has the gall to suggest that he has not plagiarised my work but rather that he uses my words, often without proper attribution or quotation marks, to “add value” to them.I invite open-minded people to read the concluding chapter in Unifying Hinduism and compare it to Malhotra’s conclusions in Indra’s Net. Then they can decide for themselves whether he is improving upon my work or merely distorting and dumbing it down to fit his own Hindutva worldview.

Soham321 (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

One of the great moments in this article is when Nicholson observes, "Rajiv Malhotra does not know Sanskrit, so he has to rely on others who do in order to amass the raw materials he needs for his books." As another Indologist said today, if Rajiv Malhotra knew Sanskrit he'd know that it uses a special particle whose function it is specifically to denote quoted speech... Ogress _smash! 07:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The special particle was originally a Dravidian invention. It exists in pretty much all Indian languages and even children know it. However, the quotation marker iti does not have the same convenience as the quotation marks, and used less often. In fact, my feeling is that in classical Sanskrit literature, sources are cited only to invoke authority, not to give credit to others. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note the response to Andrew J. Nicholson by Rajiv Malhotra http://swarajyamag.com/culture/dear-andrew-nicholson/ Rmantha (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

"non-Hindutva Hindu"

The present WP article describes Malhotra as "a non-Hindutva Hindu". This description should be removed in my opinion in view of the opposite claim now being made about him. Soham321 (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It is just the opinion of a person that his work is used for an agenda. It is not proved that Rajiv Malhotra's has used Nicholson's work for Hindutva agenda. So removing "a non-Hindutva Hindu" from the article will be highly unethical. VibrantBabhan (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"Just the opinion of a person" - it's the opinion of the person whose work forms the basis op Malhotra's "analysis." Let's see what the source says:

• Quote: "has often been described as that of a ‘non-Hindutva Hindu’"
• Rosser, Yvette C. (2007), University of Chicago Magazine: Obscuring the Issues. In: Krishnan, Ramaswamy; de Nicolas, Antonio; Banerjee, Aditi (2007), Invading the Sacred: an Analysis of Hinduism Studies in America. New Delhi: Rupa & Co. pp. 378–396.
• Google Books only gives fragments, no full example. May be a sign.
• Luckily, rajivmalhotra.com gives a link to the full pdf ::* Page 2:

"Copyright © Infinity Foundation 2007, 2012

Published 2007 by

Rupa & Co

7/16, Ansari Road, Daryaganj,

New Delhi 110 002

For additional information:

www.invadingthesacred.com

www.RajivMalhotra.com

Twitter: @RajivMessage

Facebook: RajivMalhotra.Official

Join my discussion egroup: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RajivMalhotraDiscussion/"

• A fuller quote:

"Braverman closes the article with an interview with Vijay Prashad, who seems eager to lend his ‘Brown folk’ legitimacy to defend Doniger [...] Prashad also disingenuously accuses Malhotra of promoting ‘the idea that there is one Indic thought’ [...] When questioned, Malhotra explained that he “celebrates the multifaceted qualities of Hinduism, and does not promote any one section of Hindu scriptures over another”. He pointed out that the Infinity Foundation has “facilitated serious works on a wide diversity of research themes and on various interpretations of Hinduism”, including ideologies of ‘Hindu Left,’ ‘Hindu Feminist’ and so forth. His own position has often been described as that of a ‘non-Hindutva Hindu’." (Rosser 2007, p.388-389)

First thing to do at 22 july is to remove this quote; the source is 0,0 % reliable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

What are the parameters you are using to state that it is non-reliable source ? VibrantBabhan (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this a serious question? Three hints: the book is published by Malhotra himself; it's not clear who states "has often been described as that of a ‘non-Hindutva Hindu’", Rosser or Malhotra;and it is not clear by whom Malhotra is described as a ‘non-Hindutva Hindu’. But I guess it's malhotra himself who did so. As you can see, confusion about the sources is not limited to the books already under fire... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

When it was added to the page, the person adding it noted that there were a variety of other sources online, though this was the only one identified in a book. Thus this is not an isolated statement, and in as much as Malhotra's own organization sponsored it, that could be mentioned (e.g., as similar to a claim about oneself -- that is appropriate for some topics, and I suggest this is one). I suggest the quote should be retained but subjected to WP:PRESERVE, WP:IMPROVE.

Furthermore, if may be worth noting that others do allege that he is Hindutva. These facts could be presented alongside each other (e.g., "characterizations have varied"). I find it interesting that there are very few statements issued directly from Malhotra to characterize his politics vis-a-vis Hindutva. Perhaps he finds it expedient to be quiet about his non-Hindutva philosophy if he is drawing support for his work from Hindutva sources (there would be no contradiction). Or perhaps his philosophy has changed over time, moving from non-Hindutva to Hindutva. Either way, the absence of statements is interesting, but I don't think we can talk about this in the article because I don't think we have an WP:RS talking about this silence. But I submit that the existing coverage should not be suppressed (WP:NOTCENSORED), but instead, other relevant sourced material can be added alongside the current description. --Presearch (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"Non-Hindutva Hindu" is a silly phrase. The majority of Hindus are "non-Hindutva Hindus." So it doesn't mean much. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

But if there were portions of the audience (where the phrase was used to introduce him) who didn't know that most Hindus are "non-Hindutva Hindus", or other portions who were specifically wondering whether he was Hindutva, the phrase would be very efficient communication. Same thing here. Some third parties say he is Hindutva, but what does he himself say? It's hard to find good and recent sources. Amazingly, this citation above might be one of the better, even though it's old and nonoptimal. Or maybe more will turn up. But I haven't seen them yet. --Presearch (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

What plagiarism is and what it is not

Technically, plagiarism only refers to copying literal text. Copying phrases and working them into one's own sentences is considered ok, but copying entire sentences or passages is a violation of the copyright law. Whoever holds the copyright for the original text can sue the new publisher, and the Courts can force the withdrawal of the publication as well as award damages. But the easier remedies would be for the publisher to issue an apology and issue new editions that add appropriate quotation marks and citations.

However, there are lesser forms of "plagiarism" where ideas are copied, which don't have legal protection. But such forms of "plagiarism" are considered intellectual dishonesty and intellectual theft. They end up damaging the reputations of the author and the publisher.

It seems to me that RM has been accused of legal plagiarism, but not intellectual dishonesty. Am I right? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

As the Jagannathan writes in the article [7] "There are two issues here, one to do with alleged “plagiarism” by Malhotra, and the other with the exertions of the Indian "secular Left” and American Christian Right to demolish Malhotra’s reputation in some way or the other." If it is a plagiarism issue, original author can sue the publisher. But, no body is taking that step. Points given by Richard Fox Young has already been refuted. So, now there is massive effort to destroy the reputation of Malhotra. Let us make the list of all the the sources available regarding plagiarism charges and see how they can be used to make a fair and balanced entry in the WP page. VibrantBabhan (talk 13:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

VibrantBabhan, let's be very clear: those plagiarism-allegations are a serious issue; the allegations of an orchestrated campaign against Malhotra are distractions, which deny the issue at stake here, just like those so-called refutations. Malhotra copied texts without proper attribution and/or refutation. This may be irrelevant to Malhotra and some of his fans, but in the real world, where even such fancy things as copyright-laws exist, this is a serious issue. The only point where you are right is that we should start with making concrete proposals of what to include, and what not. And I seriously suggest to nake minimal use of Malhotra's "defenses;" the damage he's doing to himself with his responses is far more than any comment by Young or Nicholson could ever do. And don't forget: Malhotra created this problem. Not Young, not Nicholson. Mature people say "Sorry, you're right," instead of attacking the people whose work they copied. So, let's get started with the real work. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

As Rmantha rightly described earlier, these things are no different from slander. Is there any competent authority which said that Malhotra has plagiarized. "Malhotra copied texts without proper attribution and/or refutation." How can you say that ? The person who is saying that Malhotra has plagiarized and distorted him has not taken any action till now. You are making your fantasies here. Malhotra defenses will be used because that is what the situation is according to him. VibrantBabhan (talk 06:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Both Nicholson and his publisher say so; they are competent authorities. If you want to continue the discussion at that level, please stay away. You're diverting the discussion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Taylor paper missing from the Sources section

The source

• Taylor, McComas (2011), "Mythology Wars: The Indian Diaspora, Wendy's Children and the Struggle for the Hindu Past" (PDF), Asian Studies Review, 35: 149–168

is currently listed under "Further reading", but it is referenced from the main text. I request that it be moved to the Sources section, under "Published sources". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Note that I just edited the citation to include year, volume and pages parameters, and that I corrected the author's name from "Taylor McComas" to "McComas Taylor". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Done as uncontroversial (other admins please feel free to revert if it turns out to be contentious) with the version of the source listed here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal + discussion

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Proposal - scrap version Here's a start, with thanks to Presearch, who wrote the start of it: In July 2015, Richard Fox Young, a religious historian historian of religion, who studied Malhotra's work for an essay published in 2014, alleged that several passages of Indra's Net as well as Malhotra's (2011) book Breaking India were plagiarized. Andrew J.Nicholson and his publisher Permanent Black, agreed with Young that Malhotra plagiarised Nicholson's book Unifying Hinduism. Nicholson further noted that Malhotra not only had plagiarised his book, but also " twists the words and arguments of respectable scholars to suit his own ends." Permanent Black stated that they would welcome HarperCollins "willingness to rectify future editions" of Indra's Net. In a response Malhotra stated "I used your work with explicit references 30 times in Indra’s Net, hence there was no ill-intention," and [new stuff] provided a specific incomplete list of his references to Nicholson, [end of new stuff] He announced that he will be eliminating all references to Nicholson and further explained: I am going to actually remove many of the references to your work simply because you have borrowed from Indian sources and called them your own original ideas [...] Right now, it is western Indologists like you who get to define ‘critical editions’ of our texts and become the primary source and adhikari. This must end and I have been fighting this for 25 years [...] we ought to examine where you got your materials from, and to what extent you failed to acknowledge Indian sources, both written and oral, with the same weight with which you expect me to do so. [new stuff]Thom Loree, copy-editor of Indra’s Net, also responded, stating: "These references are obvious to anyone who reads the passages in the context of the preceding passages and the overall chapter. This all strikes me as pretty plain. Mr. Malhotra’s accusers in this matter are being unreasonable and grossly unfair, to put it mildly.​"[end of new stuff] [new Stuff] Wendy Doniger commented that it was a "a rather obvious case of plagiarism," but that the fury about these events is "more of the same." According to Doniger, the real issue is about "colonialism and western scholarship," and the dominance of western standards in the study of India. [end of new stuff] Notes References Printed sources Nicholson, Andrew J. (2010), Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History, Columbia University Press Web-sources Discussion follows below. Proposal - clean version Here's a start, with thanks to Presearch, who wrote the start of it: In July 2015, Richard Fox Young, a historian of religion, who studied Malhotra's work for an essay published in 2014, alleged that several passages of Indra's Net as well as Malhotra's (2011) book Breaking India were plagiarized. Andrew J.Nicholson and his publisher Permanent Black, agreed with Young that Malhotra plagiarised Nicholson's book Unifying Hinduism. Nicholson further noted that Malhotra not only had plagiarised his book, but also " twists the words and arguments of respectable scholars to suit his own ends." Permanent Black stated that they would welcome HarperCollins "willingness to rectify future editions" of Indra's Net. In a response Malhotra stated "I used your work with explicit references 30 times in Indra’s Net, hence there was no ill-intention," and provided a list of his references to Nicholson, He announced that he will be eliminating all references to Nicholson and further explained: I am going to actually remove many of the references to your work simply because you have borrowed from Indian sources and called them your own original ideas [...] Right now, it is western Indologists like you who get to define ‘critical editions’ of our texts and become the primary source and adhikari. This must end and I have been fighting this for 25 years [...] we ought to examine where you got your materials from, and to what extent you failed to acknowledge Indian sources, both written and oral, with the same weight with which you expect me to do so. Notes References Sources Nicholson, Andrew J. (2010), Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History, Columbia University Press Web-sources Discussion Fairly decent, isn't it? Of course, statements by malhotra can be added, just as longer quotations (preferably in notes), but as I stated before: I think we should be carefull with that, given the emotional pressure he's bearing now. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC) Malhotra's response & Young's employment Rajiv says he cited Nicholson 30 times - In Rajiv's 3 official responses (response1, response2 and response3), Rajiv says he cited Nicholson 30 times. This is a major point that must be mentioned. Moreover in his last response, Rajiv says he will be eliminating all references to Nicholson since Nicholson derives his knowledge from other sources. Finally, it should be mentioned Young is affiliated with a seminary.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC) Comment - Yes, I think it's decent. Given the contentiousness, it might be hard to do more, but this is already decent, and it would be very very easy to do worse. I agree with VG that mentioning seminary affiliation could be good, though I think the representative book publications are even more informative. Perhaps mention the seminary at the end of the note?. I'm somewhat inclined to try to keep it simple and "stop while we're ahead" -- but we'll see whether everyone agrees that the proposal is basically decent. --Presearch (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC) I don't object to including the info on the seminary. The extensive Young-note, on his motivation, could also be shortened to: "Young explained his motivation for revealing his finding of insufficient citations in Malhotra's work in an open letter to his colleagues at Princeton Theological Seminary, where he is currently employed." Comment - No, not decent at all. I am an Indian, and I say this is bullshit: "western academic guidelines are misused for monopolizing the "knowledge fabric," and denying Indians access to their own cultural heritage." Without English translation Malhotra himself cannot access his own cultural heritage, as he has acknowledged this by accepting his ignorance of Sanskrit. Nobody is monopolising Indic studies, there are many Indians working on Hindu and Indian philosophy, in English and in other languages of India. Some of the most influential historians of Indian philosophy have been Indian: Surendranath Dasgupta, Debiprasad Chattopadhayaya, S. Radhakrishnan, M.Hiriyanna to name only the stalwarts, and these stalwarts worked, collaborated, supervised the theses of foreign scholars, and they never had any problem in following western academic guidelines when they wrote in English. All these accusations of "Westerners monopolizing knowledge fabric" and "denying Indians access to their own cultural heritage" are conspiracy theories and wikipedia can do without them. I am not sure what this sentence is saying, "Malhotra acknowledged the extensive use of scholarly sources, but also noted that his writings are intended to be used in traditional Indian discourse, for which other rules of attribution and referencing apply." Really, what.does.this.mean? What is wrong with the "extensive use of scholarly sources" -- is that what he has been accused of? And, pray, what is "traditional Indian discourse" in which "other rules of attribution and referencing apply"? If "traditional Indian discourse" is ancient and medieval Sanskrit discourse, is he saying that he wrote books in the English language (plagiarizing other books by foreign authors in the English language) in the 21st century for the use of ancient and medieval Sanskrit scholars? And if there are "other rules of attribution and referencing" (i) what are they? (ii) which are the texts which say they are acceptable rules of referencing? and (iii) what makes these rules acceptable rules of referencing and attribution in English language books? Wikipedia, I repeat, is not the place to push conspiracy theories or to do original research. The facts from secondary sources have to be summarised and presented objectively. I am afraid that's not what is being done here. Editors here are worried about the emotional pressures of Malhotra while the man is going on a rampage, indulging in a hate-campaign against non-Indian scholars to deviate attention from accusations of plagiarism. I say, let us stick to facts, adopt a neutral viewpoint and summarize the plagiarism charges. By giving space to Malhotra's devious justification of plagiarism we would only be encouraging unethical academic practices and criminal justification of these practices by unscrupulous people. -Mohanbhan (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC) Comment - I've striked a couple of sentences. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC) Its getting better. Thanks.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC) I've shortened the Young-note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Jonathan (talk • contribs) 21:10, 18 July 2015 "Right now it is you western Indologists.." I am sorry this is hate speech. This is an unbalanced attack on Nicholson. When did Nicholson or anyone claim that they are defining "critical editions"? He hasn't edited critical edition of any Sanskrit text. He has written a book forwarding a theses that a proto-Hinduism existed in medieval India largely because of the efforts of a philosopher called Vijnanabhikshu. And he has accused Malhotra of plagiarizing from this book. He has not claimed that his work be treated as primary source or that he is the adhikari (custodian) of the Sanskrit works he has consulted to write the book. If Malhotra was so conscious of his Indian custodianship why did he consult Nicholson's book and, more importantly, why did he copy from his book. Malhotra, a computer scientist, has no exclusive right over Sanskrit works just because he was born Indian. Nicholson, as a professor of Hinduism, in fact, has a greater "right" over these texts, and Malhotra is no one to tell Nicholson or any foreign scholar that their work on Hinduism should end. (Who the hell is he to say these things? Are the Sanskrit texts his ancestral property?) This rant and counter-accusation of plagiarism, which is not proved, but which he says ought to be examined, has no place in this article. If and when he proves accusations of plagiarism against Nicholson these could be added. As things stand, it is Malhotra who has been charged with plagiarism and there is documentary evidence that implicates him. -Mohanbhan (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC) Nicholson is claiming he has exclusive rights over these ideas, hence his accusation that Rajiv distorted his ideas. VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC) He is saying no such thing. He is saying Malhotra plagiarized his work (literally copied his sentences and paragraphs, for which documentary evidence has been produced) and distorted his ideas. It is not the same as claiming "exclusive rights" over ideas. Copying a paragraph and replacing Vijnanabhikshu's name with Vivekananda's is both plagiarism and distorting of ideas. -Mohanbhan (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC) That's indeed not what Nicholson is saying, or claiming (NB: Nicholson's response also seems to answer Kautilya's question on "intellectual plagiarism"). I don't mind including this quote, but there's also a good reason to leave it out, namely that Malhotra is doing himself a great disservice with such statements. At least that's what I think. But as for sources and objectivity: those are his words. The alternative is to strike "and announced [...] which you expect me to do so". Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Reddit-note I've added a note with a link to the Reddit-discussion, since that page provied an overview of the allegations. If there are objections, because of the title of that page, we can also just copy the links to the tweets. NB: Malhotra's responses also contain links to responses by his supporters, so there is a balance, I think. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC) WP:SELFSOURCE Nope. References 3 and 4 are blogs WP:SELFSOURCE. These citations has to go away, they won't see daylight.. and what about Rajiv's rebuttal and the possibility that Nicholson's work itself is a plagiarized version of many works from Vivekananda and Vijnanabhikshu? Also no citation for publisher's response. DharmoRakshati (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC) I would eliminate the word "copied" in the proposal.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Indeed, a Good suggestion. Copied is a crass word. Mvineetmenon (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC) VictoriaGrayson Those are his words, not mine. DharmoRakshati (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC) @DharmoRakshati: reference four is the reference for the publisher's response. Reference three is in a note, which explains more about Fox's motivation. WP:SELFSOURCE: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Malhotra's "rebuttal" is the source for reference five, and also mentioned in note four. The quote makes reference to Malhotra's issue with Nicholson. @VictoriaGrayson: I've changed the sentence; better this way? Best regards, as usual, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC) The [newly added] blocks are becoming confused; sorry... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan How are you positioning yourself on the publisher's response thru a blog? What authenticity does that blog has (citation 4)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DharmoRakshati (talk • contribs) 17:59, 19 July 2015 @DharmoRakshati: thanks for the change in tone; I appreciate that. I'm not sure, though, that I understand what you're asking. Do you want to know what I think of the publisher's response itself? Or do you mean that you want to know if I think that that blog is authentic, c.q. reliable? Regarding the second question: the blog is at the site of the publisher. Not just this response, but the whole site. I guess the publisher is not very rich, has enough brains to construct a workable site, and is satisfied with it; therefor, they use blogspot. Well, it's cheaper than hiring someone for the job. So, it seems a reliable source to me. There's another point. You wrote " Also no citation for publisher's response." The sentence in my proposal reads: "HarperCollins, the publisher of Indra's Net, acknowledged that the citations and references were insufficient, and announced that future editions of the book would be corrected. Nicholson's publisher, Permanent Black, stated that they welcome HarperCollins "willingness to rectify future editions" of Indra's Net." My source is the statement by Nicholson's publisher. yet, what they write is: "As for HarperCollins, their willingness to rectify future editions of Rajiv Malhotra’s book would be welcome." [emphasis by JJ] So, this sentence in the proposal is incorrect... I'll have to change it, unfortunately. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC) I've striked it; should the next sentence also be removed?: "Permanent Black stated that they would welcome HarperCollins "willingness to rectify future editions" of Indra's Net." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan citation 3 is again self source.. and you haven't addressed this concern. Agreed this could be his motivation, but that's irrelevant as far as the validity of this citation is concerned. Mvineetmenon (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC) You mean "a letter from Fox to his colleagues"? I've already cited WP:SELFSOURCE: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Young's essay I've changed "who published an essay on Malhotra's work in 2014" into "who studied Malhotra's work for an essay published in 2014" Young's allegations followed from his research fort his essay; therefor it's relevant to mention that he studied Malhotra's work; it makes the mention of the essay itself more specific. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Doublure The book "Unifying Hinduism" is mentioned twice in one sentence.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC) I've removed the redundancy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Nicholson-references I think the summary of Malhotra's response is not an accurate representation. Malhotra didn't say he would remove all references to Nicholson. His statement was I am going to actually remove many of the references to your work simply because you have borrowed from Indian sources and called them your own original ideas. I think the exchange between Nicholson and Malhotra has also progressed beyond "plagiarism" and moved to the issue of "distortion," an aspect that we haven't covered. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Thanks; I've corrected it. Any suggestion for the issue of "distortion"? Might be complicated to cover right now... Maybe we need some time for the dust to settle, and see what sticks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC) @Kautilya3: we could add the following quotes from Nicholson, but I don't think it will help in covering this topic in a non-inflamatory way: "But he twists the words and arguments of respectable scholars to suit his own ends. He has used my work and the work of the great historian of philosophy Wilhelm Halbfass in such a parasitic way [...] Regarding the substantive mistakes Rajiv Malhotra makes, it is hard to know where to begin, as there are so many." [8] Nicholson may have said so, but if we add this, I'm afraid we're crossing a line wehere we allow Wikipedia to be used as a platform for the mud-throwing. I think we should try tpo avoid that as much as possible. The proposal as it is now contains links to Young, Nicholson and malhotra; interested readers can follow them, and decide for themselves. What do you think? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC) I will take a crack at explaining the distortion issue. I think Nicholson is on thin ice here. The point of publishing work is to make your knowledge/insights public. Once they are public, you can't control what use might be made of them in future. Neither can you demand that the conclusions drawn from them should be those that you approve of. Nicholson is indeed trying to display the kind of "adhikara" that Malhotra has been complaining about since the beginning. The academics can't control what Malhotra writes, just as the Hindu nationalists can't control the kind of interpretations that Wendy Doniger and her ilk put on Hindu ideas. Both the sides have to realize that they need each other and find some common ground. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Malhotra is indeed entitled to draw his own conclusions, and Nicholson is entitled to reject them. But that leaves my question unanswered: any suggestions, and what are your thoughts about adding the Nicholson-quotes? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Maybe Malhotra's stance on the "propriety-rights" of Indian texts belongs in the "Criticism of American academia" section, while Nicholson's criticism belongs in the "Response" section. Maybe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC) I guess I should take back the claim that Nicholson is on thin ice. The example he gives is pretty glaring. In Indra's Net, Chapter 8, "From Vijnanabikshu to Vivekananda", there is the paragraph: Vivekananda’s challenge was also to show that this complementarity model was superior to models that emphasized conflict and contradiction. He showed great philosophical and interpretive ingenuity, even to those who might not agree with all his conclusions.[19] The intellectual position of Bhedabheda, which is a suitable foundation for his Practical Vedanta, is not as well known today as Advaita Vedanta. These words are apparently lifted from p. 14 of Nicholson, where they describe Vijnanabikshu, not Vivekananda. Nicholson is saying that this doesn't apply to Vivekananda. Bad news! This kind of "distortion" is even worse than straight plagiarism. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC) See also https://traditionresponds.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/response-to-in-point-3.pdf. Malhotra's note [19] refers to Nicholson (2010) p.65, 78. As far as I can see, those pages do not mention Vivekananda. I checked if these are really the notes to that chapter; but note 17 is correct. I'm completely at odds here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Oh my! The pdf is from the Rebuttal of false allegations against Hindu scholarship. This is what they write about p.162-163: "Allegation that on p. 162-163 author plagiarized from Nicholson (2010) Analysis: This criticism reflects lack of probity of the complainant and not the author. There are two minor but important differences in the text from Nicholson (2010, pp.122-123) and the text by author. 1. Author inserts the word ‘reconciled’ which is not used by Nicholson. 2. Author leaves out ‘contemplative’ which was used by Nicolson. These two changes can be attributed to author’s own literary license which makes a different reading of the intent as used by Nicholson. Therefore, author is sufficiently justified to leave out ‘quotation’ marks as this is NOT verbatim. In fact, using ‘quotations’ would be a case of false attribution to the sourced author. Also, author gives attribution to Nicholson in end note 18 (p.329) very appropriately without using ‘quotation’ which is the correct method. Recommendation: No change." Malhotra's note [18] refers indeed to p.122-123. What the "rebutters" don't mention is that Nicholson's p122-123 is also about Vijnanabikshu, while Malhotra here too refers to Vivekananda. So far for this "rebuttal"... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Against "false accusations"! By "independent readers and reviewers"! Yeah, right! Returning to the end note [19], it is obvious gobble-dy-gook. Makes no sense at all. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Nicholson-note I've added a note on the Nicholson-references to the proposal. I've doubted if I should do this or not, but it's relevant to this issue, and it's sourced. The facts are: Malhotra did use wrong references, and changed "Vijnanabikshu" to "Viveananda," and Nicholson mentioned this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC) NB: those notes in Malhotra are a mess. See Tradition responds, pp.162-163, 328-329. Malhotra's note 19 copies verbatim text from Malhotra p.163: "Although Vivekananda [...] Orientalist polemics." Nevertheless, Nicholson pp. 65 and 78 (Malhotra ibid note 19 and 20) are not about Vivekananda, but about Vijnanabikshu. Nicholson doesn't even mention Spencer, as far as I can see. Weird, really weird. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC) I have removed the "rebuttal-quote," and replaced it with a response by Malhotra to Unifying Hinduism: Statements from the Author and from the Publisher, since this is a direct response by Malhotra himself. In Nicholson's Untruths Malhotra responds to Nicholson, including the "distortion" of Nicholson's work. Interestingly, Malhotra does not acknowledge that he copied Nicholson's text, nor that he replaced "Vijnanabikshu" by "Vivekananda" in this text, nor that he's given the wrong page-numbers for one of the two instances were text was copied but "Vijnanabikshu" replaced by "Vivekananda." Malhotra gives no page-numbers here at all in his response. Instead, Malhotra states: "Then I add that Swami Vivekananda was also doing the same thing. Nicholson is angry that I say this of Vivekananda when he meant to say this only for Vijnanabhikshu. My statement on Vivekananda is my own and I am entitled to it." Further onward in the response, Malhotra gives an overview of the instances where he's been referring to Nicholson's work. Interestingly, pp.162-163 have been omitted, while Malhotra does reference here to Nicholson. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC) New response from Rajiv Please see HERE.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Thanks! I'd already included it, with a quote from Malhotra, "In response to Nicholson, Malhotra stated: "Another allegation he makes is that where I disagree with his stance, it amounts to a distortion [...] My statement on Vivekananda is my own and I am entitled to it."", and by adding it to the list of responses by Malhotra. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC) In the main text, can we mention that Rajiv compiled a list of all his references to Nicholson?VictoriaGraysonTalk 05:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Why the main text? And, as a cautionary note: he didn't compile all his references. He left out pp.162-163, the pages where he copied Nicholson, replaced Vijnanabikshu by Vivekananda, and gave a wrong page-number as a reference for Nicholson. See also the thread above. Should we mention that too, then? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC) His response completely ignores the point that citation only allows you to mention someone else's ideas, not to use their words. Using their words is only acceptable when you have an inline-attribution. Borrowing/stealing words only implies that you are unable to express the ideas in your own words, either lack of understanding or lack of expressive ability. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Response #5 Decolonising Indology: Rajiv Malhotra on why he won't follow rules set by the West: "I have already given ample evidence to show that I did not plagiarise, and in fact I over-referenced a mediocre work because I had not fully decolonised my mind. This is articulated along with my immediate plans for a second edition of Indra’s Net at a recent blog. I hope readers will look at that compelling evidence, and think for themselves rather than being influenced by a cacophony of parrots. I might have violated someone’s convention in trivial ways but nobody I showed this evidence had any doubt that I credited my sources (more than) enough." Yet, in his overview of references he skipped pp.162-163, the part where he copid Nicholson two times, replaced "Vijnanabikshu" by "Vivekananda," and gave the wrong page-number for Nicholson. Though, I have to say, it looks like the part was first solely on Vijnanabikshu, and then it was expanded with some remarks on Vivekananda, copying a note into the text (without deleting the note), and replacing "Vijnanabikshu" by "Vivekananda," yet without replacing the notes at the correct place. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC) I've added this response, plus a quote from it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Copy editor of "Indra's Net", Thom Loree, responds Please see THIS.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Interesting, "These references are obvious to anyone who reads the passages in the context of the preceding passages and the overall chapter. This all strikes me as pretty plain. Mr. Malhotra’s accusers in this matter are being unreasonable and grossly unfair, to put it mildly.​" No, they are not obvious. I think that Thom Loree should have a look again at pp.162-163, where he did a poor job. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Anyway, can you please add this response to the main text?VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, of course! Just did so. Though I also wonder if we do have to check somehow who "Thom Loree" is? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC) LinkedIn gives only two hits The name appears in a cutomer-review at http://www.vedanta.com/store/product597.html This Cinese page says "Thom Loree is a Toronto-based freelance writer" May I say that I find this not very convincing. It comes down to a statement by the publisher, who can use any name he wishes. It tends to providing a platform. It may also be perceived as pushing Malhotra further over the edge, by the plain denials that there is any problem at all. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC) I don't think this should be included. The the "copy editor" is writing on Malhotra's web site, not acting on behalf of the publisher. In fact, it is not even clear if the copy editor has any formal connection with the publisher. We should make clear that it is "Malhotra's copy editor" because no connection with the publisher has been established. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC) I made a couple of changes to the proposal.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC) I don't think it's a good idea to include Thom Loree's statement in the main body of text. I've already included his statement in an extensive note, which also mentions the list of references. NB: the note also mentions that pp. 162-163 are not being mentioned in this list. If we include the mentioning of this list in the main body of text, then, I think, it should also be made very clear that pp.162-163 is omitted from this list. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Extensive note Above I've explained why I prefer not to include Thom Loree's statement in the main body of the text. Maybe we should also shorten the extensive note, since it develops sort of an argument contra Malhotra. I think that my analysis is correct, but after all, this is an encyclopedia, not a battleground. Maybe those readers who want to know more should folow the tracks themselves. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC) I agree. The plagiarism and distortion of p. 14 has been mentioned by Nicholson. So we are providing the text. There is no need to go beyond that. As for the copy editor, perhaps we can add a one-liner in the main body that "Malhotra's copy editor for Indra's Net" has supported his stance. (We don't know what connection he has with HarperCollins.) Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC) I've striked the last part of the extensive note; and I've mentioned Thom Loree's response in the note on Malhotra's responses. I think we're approaching a compromise, but I'm in no hurry whatsoever. Better do this good. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Parth Parihar, Hindu student leader, Princeton University, The Rajiv Malhotra Controversy and the Connection to Hindu Studies gives a critical comment on this specific point, in favor of RM: "In Nicholson's work (p. 14), Vijnanabhikshu replaces Vivekananda and the following portion is indeed very similar. Let us first deal with the plagiarism charge. Plagiarism can be variously defined, but one standard reading is "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own; use (another's production) without crediting the source" (Meriam-Webster Dictionary). Is this what Malhotra is doing? In the only case cited by Nicholson, Malhotra provides an endnote (No. 19 of Chapter 8) immediately following the above passage, which credits Nicholson. Hence, the question of "not crediting the source"-- for the specific passage here-- never arises. It could be argued that Malhotra cites pages 65 and 78 of Nicholson, whereas the passage's fountainhead is clearly page 14 of the same. These referenced pages expound upon the assertion Nicholson earlier makes about Vijnanabhikshu. Therefore, at worst, Malhotra has attributed the idea of his passage accurately to the corresponding thoughts where they occur in Nicholson, but has failed to attribute the phraseology to the specific page. Hence, it would appear that Malhotra's assertion that "the purpose of citing gets satisfied in spirit" is true. In fact, Malhotra here follows the rules I have been held to as a Princetonian, and which Professor Young has frenetically waved about on Twitter, to the letter, if not the (page) number. This is a lot of crib (a petition to pulp Malhotra's books) over what appear from example to be very minute errors-- ones that Malhotra had agreed to correct before Nicholson's op-ed was posted." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC) I'm sure this Hindu student leader will soon be denounced as Hindutva.VictoriaGraysonTalk 05:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC) He's brave, sort of. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC) If that's how they quote at Princeton, I'm glad I went to Harvard; I would have gotten thrown out of school for that sort of citing. Ogress smash! 05:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Oh ho! Hindutva? Nah... Kautilya3 (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC) I'm sure this child would also be denounced as Hindutva. Under Martha Nussbaum's definition of Hindutva, every Hindu is Hindutva. She says that Hinduism is no more indigenous to India than Islam. And she says that anyone who disagrees with that view is Hindutva.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Don't worry Victoria. I used to be an advisor to the Hindu Students Council and I know perfectly well how it works. I am entirely happy for RM to say his piece but he needs to say it properly. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Why did you strike out my comment? Martha Nussbaum says exactly what I say.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC) May I suggest to continue this specific discussion at one of the user talkpages, and try to restrict this thread to the proposal itself? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC) We're being mentioned! Swati Dhingra, Time to join the war on the error of plagiarism: "[i] This line has been subsequently edited out from the entry on Rajiv Malhotra on Wikipedia, but the content is available here." The line in question is: "Young posted extracts from Malhotra’s books revealing that Malhotra had apparently plagiarised material from various books, particularly Andrew Nicholson’s book Unifying Hinduism [i]." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Meh.VictoriaGraysonTalk 05:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC) (The sheep is provided by JJ.) Prepare for edit spam in 3, 2, 1... Ogress smash! 05:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Yep... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Overview of the charges I thought we'd reached the point where we could add the proposal to the article, but a new overviewof the charges turned-up: Sanjeev Sabhlok, Proof of plagiarism by Rajiv Malhotra and Aravindan Neelakandan – identified by Richard Fox Young. The author/complier explains his document as follows: "I interacted with Prof. Richard Fox Young after having failed to make sense of his tweets (I've since deleted my previous attempt/post on this issue). He has been kind enough to provide me with a sequenced set of images which I've now compiled into a Word document (with table of contents) and also converted into a PDF." Sanjeev Sabhlok, My consolidation of Richard Fox Young’s proofs of plagiarism by Rajiv Malhotra and Aravindan Neelakandan The author does not exactly look like a neutral outsider, but the document seems to consist completely of Young's charges. We could eventually complement it with Malhotra's (incomplete) overview of references, and the (incomplete) "rebuttal" from last week by those "independent researchers." Any thoughts? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC) P.27 of the document is really interesting! Young too notes that Malhotra gives the wrong page-numbers for Nicholson, and calls it "shoddy editing." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC) I've added links to Malhotra's "Untruths" and the "Independent Readers and Reviewers" in the note. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC) I object to that Sanjeev stuff being included. Why would you even think to include it? The list of "independent readers" should be included because Rajiv Malhotra mentions it in his responses. The word 'incomplete' present in the proposal a few times is WP:SYN "because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion." PhD in History of Religions Dr. Tilak questions Nicholson's motivations in this article.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Reply by JJ: Because it's Young's allegations, gathered in one paper; it presents a readable overview, which is highly relevant here; It is; twice, actually (or am I missing something here?) Yes, and no; it's my comment, but it's a fact. Check the list, and see what's missing; We can add links to responses by others, but that will become a long list, open for all sorts of criticisms.I think we should limit ourselves to Young, Malhotra and Nicholson. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC) WP:SYN says "Do not...imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The usage of 'incomplete' is against WP:SYN.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Yep, that;s correct. Nevertheless, it's a fact. My problem is, that I find it simply misleading to state that these "are lists of references," while they are incomplete. If we can't say they are incomplete, we also can't say they are "lists of references," as Malhotra does: "Following is the list of references to Nicholson, each item preceded by the page number in Indra’s Net." [9] It's simply not true that it is the list, and anyone can see that for him/herself. It is a list. At best we can say "See also," or "according to," or, as a subnote, "both lists don't mention pp.162-163." NB: Young himself does mention the 'shoddy editing' at pp.162-163, and this student-leader also mentions it. By the way, the "independent readers" is completely anonymous. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Too credulous about 'motivation'? The current proposal draft includes a note that begins "Young explained his motivation for revealing...". Inclusion of the word "explained" strikes me as too credulous in endorsing Young's statement of his motives as a full and complete statement. But many observers have suggested a variety of motives. It seems to me that a more neutral note would substite the phrase "stated that" for the word "explained", so that the note begins "Young stated that his motivation for revealing..." Perhaps other tweaks would also be needed. The main idea is to use words that are more neutral about the truth-value of Young's statement to his colleagues. --Presearch (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC) I've changed it. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Though the sentence "Young stated that his motivation for revealing..." begs for a further clarification, which would mean that we have to give some sort of summary of the letter. i would rather keep the letter where it is, an donly mention it, with a link. Personally, I think that "explained" is neutral enough. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC) I searched for a translation of "toelichting" (Dutch); it's "clarification, explanation." I've rephrased the sentence, though. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Ready (for the moment)? @Presearch, VictoriaGrayson, Ogress, and Kautilya3: is the proposal acceptable (for the moment), and ready to be added to the article? New amendments of course are always possible. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Comment Thom Loree should be in the main text. Otherwise you have 3 parties, Young, Nicholson and Permanent Black vs Malhotra.VictoriaGraysonTalk 12:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Ha, thanks for responding! It was very quiet here... Regarding Thom Loree, those four are the main participants, aren't they? Thom Loree is, yeah, what? An extension of Malhotra, without any independent status whatsoever, and a person who otherwise doesn't seem to exist. I think that his opinion weights only a fraction of the other's, if it is an independent opinion at all. Not to mention that he did a very poor job with his copy-editing... Besides, half the text is for Malhotra, including a quote; note 5 links to all five of his responses, and can be extended; and the "Independent readers" are also linked, despite the fact that the authors themselves are totally anonymous, but relevant because of their overview of the allegations, and the links to this page at other webpages. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Thom Loree is the copy-editor. His opinion is the most important.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Thom Loree's opinion would be important only if it is on behalf of the publisher. Otherwise, he is nobody. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Comments by Wendy Doniger Okay, we're not ready yet: Wendy Doniger has been commenting too: http://www.newsindiatimes.com/indologist-wendy-doniger-comments-on-rajiv-malhotras-plagiarism-controversy/16522 . That's relevant! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC) A few quotes: " she decried any effort to stop the free flow of ideas and called the latest storm over Malhotra’s book, more of the same." "Doniger said there was no doubt that Malhotra had cited Nicholson verbatim in some cases and without attribution. “It does seem to me that a rather obvious case of plagiarism has touched off a much broader debate that is simply exhuming all of the old Hindu beefs [if I may use that word] about colonialism, and western scholarship, and all the rest,” Doniger told News India Times." "she had strong words for Malhotra, who she said knows nothing about the subjects he writes about." So, Wendy Doniger too calls it plagiarism. But she also says that that is not the real issue. And she says that writers and books shouldn't be forbidden. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Sorry, Wendy Doniger doesn't qualify as a WP:THIRDPARTY. Her own book was banished from India due to RM's efforts. So she is an opponent. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC) And definitely relevant. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Dr. Tilak is also a western educated historian but you omitted him. If you include Doniger, you must include Tilak.VictoriaGraysonTalk 13:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Have you got a link? I already wanted to strike Doniger, but I'm curious. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC) See HERE.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Ah yes; thanks. But what has it got do with the plagiarism allegations, and how would you like to use it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Just toss Doniger.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC) So, are we both good cop/bad cop now? ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC) I don't know about you, but I am always a good cop :-) Kautilya3 (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 2 more responses by Rajiv New response 1 and new response 2.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC) I've added these two responses; may I suggets to stop here with adding his responses? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Add to article @Callanecc: it looks like there's no discussion anymore for the moment; could you please add the "Proposal - clean version" section to the article, and close this discussion? Further additions and changes can be discussed in new threads. Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New piece by David Frawley

See HERE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

EDITING since 25 Aug 2015

• Special:diff/678716419 : Poor quality of source. Doesn't conform to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:NEWSORG and is WP:SELFSOURCE.

• Special:diff/678716732: It is imperative that RFY's motives are made sufficiently clear. Simply stating that he's a religious historian doesn't mean much. You are anyway keeping more details in the note.

• Special:diff/678716238: Highly subjective word.

DharmoRakshati (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Changes to Introduction and Infinity Foundation

Made some minor changes to phrases such as "took early retirement" that I think should be worded better. There is also repeated and, thus, redundant mention of the founding dates of Infinity Foundation and its objectives. Just once in the introduction or in the subsection would suffice. Furthermore, whether the Infinity Foundation actually promotes the interests of Hindus and India is subjective and should not be stated as fact, as is the use of the word "prolific". This is a biographical article -- while an organization's theoretical basis may be admirable, the execution of those ideals must be supported with verifiable evidence.

Manitobamoon (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is @Avinashreddy3208: modifying your talk page comments HERE?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, @VictoriaGrayson:. @Avinashreddy3208: highlighted to me that the sentence was contradictory to the comment and overall dialogue, and added the word "not", which I had inadvertently missed. The edit was agreeable because it was essential to maintaining the integrity of the message.

While I appreciate your concern with protecting my talk comments, I would like to stick to the issue at hand -- the content of this article. Let us discuss why you disagree with the above changes. This article contains several redundancies and unverifiable statements (and those supported by questionable self-published sources) that I think should be streamlined to create a far more balanced account. There is also a misuse of weak secondary sources to support factual details about life-history. Please see WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:OR for more detailed descriptions.Manitobamoon (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Two new editors, starting at the same page, who already know about 3RR. I welcome a critical attitude, but this is a strange coincidence. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your involvement with this page and I also commend your eye for detail. However, such speculation is unproductive on an article's talk page and perhaps better served on an outside forum. Please refer to WP:Talk#facts Wikipedia:SOAPBOX for a more comprehensive treatment and let us get back to the issues mentioned. Manitobamoon (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Come on JJ. Let us be welcoming to the academically trained Columbia students. It is payback time! - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I am new to editing wikipedia. I found a citation to a broken link and replaced it with a . Also, without the reference I found the text pretty slanderous, but i was not sure if I should alter that. The text was in subsection: Ideas Thanks

Ideas and publications

Given the re-publication of Malhotra's early 2000s writings on Doniger in Academic Hinduphobia, it might be usefull to present Malhotra's writings and criticism in a chronological order, and in connection with his publications. This makes it easier to follow the "development" in his thought, and also provides an opportunity to present short overviews of his main publications. Overall, it would make his writings, c.q. this Wiki-article, more accessible. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Archive

Can you set up archive on this page?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Already there; it archives at 5+ threads. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

"See also" section

@Vanamonde93: I don't agree with your rationale for removing the "See also" section, which according to you "This is an absolutely random collection of links, with little to no relevance to the subject." WP:SEEALSO: "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." Let's see:

• François Gautier - Hindutva supporter and publisher; therefore, related subject.
• Madhu Kishwar - see Google; "Malhotra's most fervent campaigner is feminist Madhu Kishwar"
• Kanchan Gupta - no comment
• Arun Shourie - see Google
• Kali's Child - written by Jeffrey Kapal, who has been strongly criticised by RM
• Anantanand Rambachan - also strongly criticised by RM, and vice versa
• Bengali renaissance - root of modern reinterpretation of Hinduism; see Neo-Vedanta
• Indian independence movement - speaks for itself, regarding criticism of western dominance
• Neo-Vedanta - the strand of "philosophical" thought RM belongs to, in his understanding of Hinduism
• Postcolonialism - speaks for itself, regarding criticism of western dominance
• Anti-Hinduism - favorite topic of RM
• Invading the Sacred - co-produced and financed by RM
• Sepoy - favorite degeneratory term used by RM

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I can perhaps see your point about the social movements/philosophies linked. But the people: you could find any number of others equally related, and that's the problem: we cannot have a section with a hundred links. Vanamonde (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Academic Hinduphobia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think that Academic Hinduphobia should be merged into this page. It's a reprint of Wendy's Child Syndrome and related articles, which have already been covered at this page; the articles themselves, while provoking strong responses back then, and setting Malhotra on the stage, are too unsubstantial to justify separate summaries. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a website for free promotion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - per reasons above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's been one book review (now added to article). Notability requires two reviews. The book is still only recently published. Technically notability is not yet established but as time goes by I think it is likely that more reviews will appear, and I believe that is a consideration too in cases like this. The proposer's comments about summarizing individual articles seems irrelevant and beside the point. The article does not now have lengthy explanations of each chapter, and it would be bad style for such summaries to push the description of the contents above about 900 words. The reviews are core of what makes a book article. More reviews may yet appear. Where's the rush to delete? The author has written numerous books that have gained much attention and been widely reviewed, so there's a basis for believing the book will likely receive multiple reviews in good time. --Presearch (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Voting keep in the hope that the future will make it notable is not a tenable argument. The article could be split back if it ever becomes independently notable (which takes more than two reviews).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's an apparent hurry to sweep things under the carpet. The book has been published only a few months ago and many social book review websites like goodreads and amazon give it above par ratings (I know it doesn't imply notability per wikipedia policy) but that's another point. Merge proposer's argument that 'Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a website for free promotion' is really moot because in that case every other book and author article would entail the same argument. Crawford88 (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support This book is not independently notable, and should be covered here with Malhotra and the other books and articles where he makes the same article-·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. First print of the book is already sold out. The book raises some important points that cannot be covered under this page of Rajiv Malhotra. Considering the critical issues that the book raises, a separate page is justified. Adiagr (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Per nom. There is also a page for Anti-Hinduism, for any of this book's significant content to be documented. Best, Tyler Durden (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Not notable & per above. - 111.92.143.153 (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Writing style

better writing style needed. it is not very reader friendly (171.49.208.206 (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC))

Please explain. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, (+1) to what the IP says. The referencing style is ridiculously complex and the entire article is way too biased towards Malhotra. ∯WBG^converse 11:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

VisualEditor

@Vanamonde93: and/or anybody else watching this page:- Do you know of any quick way to convert these archaic ref-group based referencing to some VE-friendly stuff? ∯WBG^converse 13:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

What is VE? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, VisualEditor. I tried it once, and switched it off. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

:-( You can try that, seems quite friendly unless I'm dealing with sfn. ∯WBG^converse 13:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I tried it again, for this page; I see your problem. Problems and Wikipedia:VisualEditor#Limitations can be reported at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you have problems, if I change the referencing style? ∯WBG^converse 13:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Never used it, so can't help you with the niceties, sorry...personally, I tend to stick with standard <ref></ref> formatting unless I have a book with multiple sets of page ranges, where I use sfn...but that's just me. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

YouTube

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,You reverted my contributions in the article Rajiv Malhotra where I put his youtube channels links saying it was already given in external link.But it is not given in the external link for sure. So apparently you reverted my edits without checking the links.

Also he has more than 160k subscribers(silver play button) and 13M views in those channels.So it is worth mentioning in the infobox and not in the external link.Hope this clears your confusion. What do you say?A Seeker of Truth (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)--A Seeker of Truth (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

End of copied part

@A Seeker of Truth: well, then add it to those external links. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)