Talk:Sheldon Pollock

"Pollack's central argument"

Justeditingtoday reverted two edits by an IP, calling it WO:OR; their revert was re-reverted by Crawford88, who added sources. Let's see:

"Pollock's central argument is that Sanskrit is a dead language and is an instrument of oppression. He seeks to delink the study of Sanskrit from Hinduism and thus make it secular - effectively stripping it of its sacred attributes which are key for Hindus."

My problems with these sentences:

• "Pollock's central argument is that Sanskrit is a dead language [1]" - that's not what this site says. It says: "Some might argue that as a learned language of intellectual discourse and belles lettres, Sanskrit had never been exactly alive in the first place. But the usual distinction in play here between living and dead languages is more than a little naive."
• "and is an instrument of oppression. [2]" - this is Malhotra's summary. It should be attributed as such; yet, Malhotra is absolutely not WP:RS.
• "He seeks to delink the study of Sanskrit from Hinduism and thus make it secular - effectively stripping it of its sacred attributes which are key for Hindus. [3]" - not in the source; it appears as a comment, though: "what pollock is trying to do is to de-link sanskrit from hinduism."

WP:SYNTHESIS indeed. It's not totally besides the point, but as it is stated now, it's incorrect, not supported by the sources, and mixing semi-factual statements with opinions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

* How is 'not alive' and 'dead' not synonymous? It's not WP:SYNTHESIS just paraphrasing

* 'this is Malhotra's summary. It should be attributed as such' Okay. No problem here. 'yet, Malhotra is absolutely not WP:RS' I would contest that yet again. Please provide reason(s) for you claiming so.

* 'delink Sanskrit from Hindu roots' is sourced from Malhotra and by Aditi Banerjee

Crawford88 (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

References

• Dead or not alive: that's not my problem here. My problem is with "central argument": the site does not say that this is his central argument.
• Not WP:RS: Malhotra is not a scholar, but a political activist, to put it mildly. He does not follow scholarly methodologies. See also the plagiarism-charges against him.
• Delink: "central argument" from one source, "delink" from another source, synthesizing them together. The first sentence is a piece of information (sort of), the second one is opinion. Yet, they are presented as if it is one piece of info. That's synthesis.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

And, don't get me wrong on the overall tone: these two lines are not exactly wrong. But the way they are stated, and the sources being used, is sub-optimal. There are better sources for, and better ways of stating this info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• 'Dead or alive': Okay.. no problem there. I'll remove the term 'central arguement' from the sentense. I guess we have reached a consensus on this, then.
• 'Malhotra not being WP:RS. Being a scholar is not a criterion in WP:RS also what is your yardstick for being a 'scholar'? 'Him being a political activist': I have no business in labeling him or anyone. There are no plagiarism charges which was proven in any court of law. You are in no way empowered to decide who's a plagariser or not.

Crawford88 (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we have concencus on re-inserting these lines; the sources are still not great, and the statement is too broad. It fits better in specific sections on specific publications. Also, the term ärgument" may be incorreect here; "Recurring theme" might be better.

Regarding Malhotra and WP:RS:

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

Malhotra is notoriously unreliable; his "facts" are not accurate and have not been checked by his publisher, let alone accepted by mainstream scholarship.

Before we continue arguing on these two lines, it might be worthwhile to read the entire section on his scholarship, to see how broad the scope is. If we want to make any statement on something like a "central argument," or a central line of research or so, we'll have to use sources as good and reputable as Pollock himself. Google scholar might be of use here. Maybe this one, for example: South Asian texts in history: critical engagements with Sheldon Pollock. See also the section on Sheldon Pollock#Hegemonic role of Sanskrit. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I have a problem with the "dead or alive" business. Pollock is saying that it is "more than a little naive", i.e., quite dumb, to think of calling languages dead or alive. It is a misrepresentation of the source to talk about it as if he is supporting such views. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I oppose Crawford88's edits. But American indologists are also "notoriously unreliable". See HERE for example. British indologists are vastly superior.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Whitney Cox is far from independent in this case. Crawford88 (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Auto Archive

Auto archive?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Revert

@Mohanbhan: would you care to explain your revert? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Philology is already hyperlinked above and I don't see why you want to put toxicity in quotes when Pollock doesn't.-Mohanbhan (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• "above"? What is above? The first use of a technical term in an article should be wikilinked.
• Sanskrit's 'toxicity' is Pollock's interpretation. It is not a fact. See WP:YESPOV.

I am surprised that I need to explain these things to you. You are experienced enough. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought philology was already hyperlinked but now I see that what is hyperlinked is the word philology in the contents list. That Sanskrit is not toxic is also not a fact but something that you say based on your understanding of Sanskrit. Since I know why Pollock says Sanskrit is toxic and don't know why, in spite of the reasons Pollock gives, you think it is not toxic, I reverted. But since it is a small matter I have self-reverted. Also, it would be nice if you just state your opinion without making remarks about me or my experience. -Mohanbhan (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Malhotra's critique

Malhotra's critique is more than this one sentence. Context is needed, just like better sources than this primary one. And be aware of WP:UNDUE, and the location of Malhotra's criticism in this article. Although Malhotra's critique has had some impact in India, in the context of Pollock's career it's a minor event. See also WP:COATRACK, of course: this article is about Pollock, not about Malhotra, nor is it's primary aim to give a soapbox-opprtunity to certain criticasters. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The following information has been added twice diff 2nd, and removed twice (by me):

American author Rajiv Malhotra describes Pollock's portrayal of sacred Hindu texts as 'socially oppressive and politically motivated'.

References

• The reference is Malhotra's promo-website on his "The Battle for Sanskrit." Although primary sources, such as this website, can be used to represent the point of view of a specific person, in this case Malhotra, it's not the best source of course.
• It also means that this "info" belongs at the section on the petition, not in a separate section.
• The interview in question says:

[According to Malhotra,] Pollock portrays the most sacred texts of Hindus as socially oppressive and politically motivated.

That's subtly different from

American author Rajiv Malhotra describes Pollock's portrayal of sacred Hindu texts as 'socially oppressive and politically motivated'

which seems to say that Pollock's "portrayal of sacred Hindu texts" itself is 'socially oppressive and politically motivated'.

• The second time, this info was inserted with the edit-summary "The central premise of Malhtora's argument is Pollock's misrepresentation of facts." What are "facts" is questionable in this case; the point is that Pollock uses a social-critical methodology, to which Malhotra objects. Malhotra himself says, in this interview:

My issue with Pollock is that he has not been open about his biases with his Indian counterparts. Pollock portrays the most sacred texts of Hindus as socially oppressive and politically motivated. And what did the Hindu majority country do? Indian Government gave Sheldon Pollock Padma Sri and a National Award and research grants, not to mention a long list of hagiographies. Are we really being unfair to Pollock here? Unfortunately, his Hindu counterparts are largely unaware of what he has written. The strongest criticism in my book is about the lack of response from the Indian side – what we call purva-paksha.

So, not "misrepresentation of facts," but a lack of Indian responses to Pollock's writings. In other word: Malhotra's criticism is not about Pollock, but about his own point of view, and the lack of support for this point of view. That information should also be included, plus the fact that Malhotra is an activist, not an academic writer.

An alternative, to be inserted to the petition-section, would be something like:

Indian-American author and Hindu-activist Rajiv Malhotra has repeatedely critcised Pollock's critical methodology, which "portrays the most sacred texts of Hindus as socially oppressive and politically motivated." According to Malhotra, this approach and portrayal does not do justice to Indian traditional perceptions of Sanskrit and it's significance for Indian society. In response to Pollock, and the lack of Indian repsonses from a traditional point of view, Malhotra published, among other writings, The Battle for Sanskrit, to reverse the dominance of western approaches in the academical study of Sanskrit.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Link to Faculty page, updated

https://mesaas.columbia.edu/faculty-directory/sheldon-pollock/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.250.83.227 (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)