Talk:Wendy Doniger/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

More on the egg

The Mandarin is correct that there is more to the egg incident. (And, in fact, the projectile may not have been an egg at all.) AFAIK, there are two eye-witness accounts, and one journalistic report that is most probably also based on the writer having attended the event (a presentation by Doniger on the Ramayana and sex -- what else, right? -- at the SOAS on November 12, 2003). The session was chaired by William Dalrymple, who mentions the incident in a NYRB article (written after the "reliable sources" cited so far.) The other eye-witness account is by a Jiten Bardwaj, whom Doniger mentions by name (in her latest tome, The Hindus: An Alternative History, p. 704, note 26, for the main text at p. 15) as the author of a mailing list post that was quoted anonymously by Alison Goddard in her report of the event. On p.15 of her book, Doniger reproduces what Goddard reported (as an apparently threatening email), but since she knew the name of the author, she must have been apprised of the source, which is post# 46993 to the (now thankfully defunct) "Indian Civilization" mailing list, where the paragraph, in full, is:

I was struck by the sexual thrust of her paper on one of our most

sacred epics. (What are the odds for such a paper on the Book of Jews, Christians or Muslims?) Who lusted/laid whom, it was not only Ravan who desired Sita but her brother-in-law Lakshman also. Then many other pairings, some I had never heard of but that says nothing, from our

other shastras were thrown in to weave a titting(sic) sexual tapestry.

Note the sentence left out, and ponder why neither Goddard nor Doniger used ellipses to indicate the omission. (The omitted sentence is quite relevant to a proper understanding of the furor over Doniger's work -- see Sankrant Sanu's essay for a full discussion of how Hinduism has been made a fashionable combination punching-bag and freak-show in American academe by the likes of Doniger.)

Mentioning merely the egg in the BLP, without any context, is just sensationalism, aimed at garnering sympathy for Doniger. The lengths people will go to push POV. Sigh. rudra (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The incident, having been mentioned in major media on multiple occasions[1], is a notable part of Doniger's biography. Your cobbled-together detective work is not quite as well sourced, to be rather kind about it.

see Sankrant Sanu's essay for a full discussion of how Hinduism has been made a fashionable combination punching-bag and freak-show in American academe by the likes of Doniger

Let's all shed a tear that Hinduism, like every other major and minor religious group, has been studied in ways which were not pre-approved by self-appointed right-wing lalajis with MAs in computer science like Rajiv Malhotra. Surely the best response is to publish whiny essays on the website of a rich guy from New Jersey and throw things at that shameless hussy Doniger. — goethean ॐ 23:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you wouldn't know "well sourced" even it slapped you in the face. Did you bother to check your link? There is only one legitimate news item in the entire lot, Alison Goddard's report of Nov 21, 2003. The rest - besides an article by Ramesh Rao that dollars to donuts you did not read - are book reviews, interest pieces and retreads (as well as pay-per-view repeats of articles available for free elsewhere, e.g. Vedantam, Rothstein and Mishra) all regurgitating the same tidbit. As for the study of religions, take a look at the article by Russell McCutcheon in JAAR, Vol 74, No. 3 pp.720-750 (September 2006). rudra (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What is this about now? If quoting what Doniger herself says on this issue is "cobbled-together detective work", what does that say about Doniger's work? If this is nonetheless "a notable part of Doniger's biography", what does it say about Wikipedia that we refuse to explain the context of the incident? Shii (tock) 00:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the ludicrous Sulekha piece he linked to, although his other points are no better. He really thinks that no one has written about sex in the Bible? Really? — goethean ॐ 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you quite done playing devil's advocate Shii? This is becoming tedious. The reverts you objected to have been explained to you in great detail, and you have repeatedly been invited to add quotable criticism of Doninger's work. Yet instead of submitting such criticism you keep insisting airily that there is an attempt at "hagiography", silencing all criticism. This is disingenious. If you have academic criticism you want to cite, do it already. If you do not, just give it a rest.

As for Goethean, I do not understand why you are attacking rudra, who is at least making an effort to understand what is going on, and presenting insightful context. He is not, after all, suggesting that this is discussed in the article body. --dab (𒁳) 10:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Goethean is not attacking me. He is heroically defending himself (and Doniger) from my "attacks". That's how he sees it, and it is quite pointless trying to get him to see otherwise. rudra (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And, for scholarly criticism, I posted a summary to the BLP board. Somebody, please, by all means, find more. rudra (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

sorry, I am losing track of this now. Is goethean saying that Bardwaj thinks there is no academic disussion of sex in the Bible (because, after all, the gender people are just out to smear Hinduism, not to discuss gender wherever they see it, which is pretty much everywhere at all...) But then goethean is saying "... the ludicrous Sulekha piece he linked to, although his other points are no better. He really thinks that no one has written about sex in the Bible". Here it seems "he" refers to rudra. But this makes no sense at all. Did goethean understand rudra is endorsing Bardwaj? I can see no indication of rudra backing Bardwaj's nonsense, and yet goethean sounds exactly as if rudra had done just that. Perhaps it is just me, but this conversation seems pretty derailed at this point. --dab (𒁳) 10:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

based on our current sources, this article should simply read "Doniger is professor of religion in Chicago. She tends to focus on Hinduism and on gender. Her work has not received much attention in academia. The end." Never mind all the online flamewars, Wikipedia isn't Usenet. --dab (𒁳) 11:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• The "ludicrous Sulekha piece" is the Sankrant Sanu essay (reposted on BeliefNet) which singlehandedly got Microsoft Encarta to dump its article on Hinduism by Doniger and replace it with one by Arvind Sharma. Well, that's how ludicrous pieces work, maybe?
• Bardwaj is a known flake (google him, the unusual spelling of his surname makes him easy to find). However, his involvement in this seems to have stemmed from him attending the SOAS lecture, posting about it to the IC list, and then, cruel fate, getting quoted by Goddard.

Now, it's an esential part of the discourse here that American academe -- actually the "freudianizing" cohort of Doniger et al who wield considerable and often decisive influence -- is being accused of singling out Hinduism for trivialization, vulgarization and ridicule. (This is Malhotra's essential brief.) Regardless of the merits of the argument, it was still Bardwaj's point, if not his entire point in his IC post -- but the critical sentence that makes this clear - given Bardwaj's elliptic style - was left out by Goddard. It isn't about "sex in the Bible": it's about using "sex" in a sensationalist, deconstructionist way ("Ganesa's trunk is really a penis that can't match up to his daddy Siva's") to delegitimize the religious experience of Hindus. And only Hinduism gets this fundamentally disrespectful, nihilist and ultimately, profoundly unscholarly, treatment. Try it with Islam, for example, and a fatwa will be in the mail. Maybe Goethean doesn't get this, maybe he's playing dumb. It doesn't matter. rudra (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. This is about trivialization of Hinduism by the freudianizing gender people in US academia. I do believe there is a valid topic in there, but obviously this won't be in a bio article. Material on this should be collected at Hinduism in the United States, since this is apparently mostly a US phenomenon, and then we can see where it takes us. In fact, most relevant material is probably already in a heap over at California textbook controversy over Hindu history. There are two points here that need to be separated cleanly

• the freudianizing treatment of Hinduism is indeed "trivializing"
• Hinduism is in fact singled out in being given this treatment

While I am quite happy to accept the first point, this freudianizing gender crap is simply bad scholarship, I am not convinced that Hinduism is in any way singled out in this. It's just hard for these scholars to ignore sexual symbols when they see them, and of course Hindu texts and Hindu iconography is full of sexual imagery. It isn't "trivializing" to study this, it is just trivializing to reduce Hinduism to that, but it is difficult not to do that if your "field" is not in fact Hinduism but the analysis of sexual imagery. --dab (𒁳) 12:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much it, yes, except for one extra twist. Doniger's "counterattack" has been to portray all this as a "Hindutva" plot: i.e., to preemptively delegitimize the issue by smearing it. Hence the repeated attempts to paint Malhotra as a "Hindu fascist" or whatever. But Malhotra was pressing his case long before the yahoos and fundos of the IC list joined the fray (which happened after they read his "Wendy's Child Syndrome" article). Nevertheless, Doniger's tactic seems to have succeeded: the issue is now cast as a Hindutva assault on Western academic freedom or somesuch (i.e. the "freedom" to manufacture Freudian bullshit without restraint, pass it off as scholarship, and feel entitled to have it be received as that.) But, see this. rudra (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ah, but now if Doniger goes out on a limb and joins the political discussion (as opposed to publishing "academically"), her statements on Hindu extremism in the US etc. can also be treated on a whole different level than academic publications, and it will be fair to juxtapose these statements by Doniger with other political sources.

the topic of karma and Krishna's endorsement of military force is quite another issue imho, and one that should be easy to discuss at length using real sources, without taking resort to either Doniger or the internets. The gita essentially expounds a "pagan" military ethic, just like the Torah and the Qur'an do, too. The odd one out here is not the Gita but the New Testament. The NT is essentially about resorting to a virus attack on the Roman Empire instead of trying a hopeless guerilla rebellion. This is the problem of the Christians, who need to justify how military force can be reconciled with the gospel, it is not the problem of either Jews, Muslims or Hindus, whose scripture is perfectly happy to endorse military aggression for the cause.

be that all as it may, there still is, or was, of course, an attempted "Hindutva assault on Western academic freedom", as can be easily seen in the edit history of the Michael Witzel article, an actual expert on the actual Vedic texts, who was taken potshots at by the Voice of India brigade for purely ideological reasons. Doniger's case is different, as you say, this is scholarship under attack by yahoos who would still attack it if it was good scholarship, but which by coincidence also happens to be dodgy scholarship. --dab (𒁳) 13:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she has, but with the journalists' help in "framing it properly", so that it doesn't look like a political gambit but some sort of defence of academic freedom from illiterate goons. See this. rudra (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Malhotra et al would willing accept the (quite factual) point that Hinduism is "full of sexual imagery" in a way that Xianity, Islam, Judaism are not. Malhotra et al want to present Hinduism as some type of Victorian Brahminism. Martha Nussbaum has analyzed the reasons for this in her book The Clash Within. It has to do with generating anger (and thus popularity) among uneducated folk, pretty much exactly like the tactics of the BJP. I have personally been dealing with these exact uneducated folk for years on Wikipedia. In fact, they have been more successful at getting their (quite fictional) points accepted in articles than I have. So I'm still a little cross.

As for Goethean, I do not understand why you are attacking rudra, who is at least making an effort to understand what is going on, and presenting insightful context. He is not, after all, suggesting that this is discussed in the article body.

Sorry, but I have a very hard time seeing it that way. Rudra tends to view Malhotra's claims as generally good, honest, and well-reasoned, whereas I tend to see them as the most cynical, manipulative lies. I don't see that Malhotra is displeased or disturbed at all by the many death threats against scholars, as any remotely normal human being would be. Has he said a word to discourage them, in addition to his many words to encourage them? If so, I havent heard about it. — goethean ॐ 13:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that Malhotra's opinions on the question are all that notable, or indeed verifiable. Perhaps it would be best to simply stop making this about Malhotra. Rudra has a point regardless of the ulterior motives of Malhotra's.

the topic behind this is quite unrelated to either Doniger or Malhotra. It is about contemporary Hindus having trouble absorbing the full spectrum of their own manyfold tradition. Hinduism is a wide umbrella term which includes much of the sharpest philosophy and deepest spirituality that has reached us from antiquity, but it is also marked by an uninhibited approach to sexuality and generally very colourful flights of fancy. The western mind was mostly enchanted by the latter aspects of Hinduism, because these were aspects that were missing from their own religious orthodoxy. For Hindus, these points end up over-emphasized, especially because many of them have in fact a quite prudish sexual morality.

this is comparable to the humanists in Europe who were very much into reviving the Greek pagan tradition, but they somehow needed to strip it of all its lewd bits, ending up with a gutted, lifeless version of Greek antiquity. Modern Hindus do the same to their own tradition. This is a topic far beyond Doniger and friends. This should in fact be discussed in gender in Hindu mythology and similar articles, which so far have been shamefully left to the "LGBT" interest group on Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 13:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

btw., regarding "freudianizing" Islam or Christianity, I just read that a Bielefeld sociology professor labeled Islam as a "collective obsessive–compulsive neurosis"[2]. This chap may or may not find a fatwa in his mail, but this shows that the freudianizing pseudo-academics certainly don't stop at Islam. --dab (𒁳) 14:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's quite the wide brush you are painting with to include Doniger's books, which have wide support among reliable souces, with a flippant statement like that. — goethean ॐ 19:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing WP's criteria of reliable sourcing with (a) objective notions of scholarly excellence, and (b) common sense. That Doniger's work has "wide support" in reliable sources does not make her work any less than the undiluted crap it is. As it happens, she is widely quoted and cited within her circle only. That's basically all they do anyway, being for lack of substance perforce yak-intensive. Some people might mistake that for scholarship, but WP isn't the forum to decide the matter. That's why reliably sourced undiluted crap regularly makes its way into WP. rudra (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing the worthless with the meaningful. — goethean ॐ 04:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

look, it is nothing new that scholars may be both productive and worthless. It's not the end of academia, these things happen. Even these scholars deserve coverage under WP:PROF. There is no aim here to expose Doniger as a bad scholar, we can just note what she did and published, and then tag on such reviews as we find, and that will be it for the purposes of Wikipedia. Anyone will be free to embark on a deeper critique off-wiki, on their blogs or private wikis or whatever, if they think the matter is worth the attention and effort. In my opinion, it is best to just ignore bad scholarship, as even negative reviews will just go to inflate its citation index. --dab (𒁳) 10:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Witzel "critique"

(copied from the BLP board and edited:) the only scholarly review of (some of) Doniger's work has been by Michael Witzel (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). It's a legitimate review because it's by a recognized expert in his own field of expertise, namely Sanskrit. Witzel restricted himself to the quality of her work in Sanskrit, which he found unsatisfactory. Despite the hype going around, she is not a Sanskritist, only someone who knows Sanskrit (because she has to). Her actual specialty is "religion", and that is what she happens to be a professor of, in a Divinity School. As far as her scholarship there is concerned, I know of no scholarly review -- hardly likely anyway, as when it comes to Woo, anybody can say anything -- but it's somewhat telling that other leading scholars of Saivism, Shaktism and Tantra (such as Alexis Sanderson) hardly ever cite her for a finding or an insight. But naturally her students and proteges ballyhoo her: in profusion, of course. rudra (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't examined it, but I think this blog has Doniger as a guest where she answers Witzel. rudra (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not fair to Witzel to put his email in an encyclopedia article. It's not fair to Doniger either, not that anyone gives a shit. — goethean ॐ 14:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, if Witzel does not care enough to publish his opinion on Doniger academically, Wikipedia shouldn't care enough to mention it. This leaves us with literally not a single review of Doniger. This may be due to our bad research, but it doesn't strike me as very impressive regarding a career of 30 years, 16 books and 240 articles. Surely somebody must have mentioned here somewhere at some point?? --dab (𒁳) 15:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at the number of citations for each of her books [3] --- and these are just the ones that Google knows about. It's fair to say that she's widely cited. — goethean ॐ 15:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

um, you need to use -author:. But that's still 2k hits. Somebody will need to scan these. I cannot see anything that actually addresses her work on the first couple of result pages. --dab (𒁳) 15:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the "cited by 220" link for each title. I've scanned the first 10 pages of your link, most are acknowledgements, footnotes or chapters authored by Doniger. I did find some accolades: A. Sharma called her a "pre-eminent Indologist"[4]; W Dalrymple refers to her as a "celebrated Sanskrit scholar"[5]. Is this type of thing reasonable to include? — goethean ॐ 15:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

RG Wasson: "a Vedic scholar"[6] — goethean ॐ 15:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

K Pui-lan: "a Jewish scholar who studies Hindu stories and myths"[7] — goethean ॐ 15:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

[8] FM Smith: "See. eg, the article on Vallabhacarya in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1918), and less excusably by Wendy Doniger and Brian K. Smith in their general article on Hinduism in the Encyclopedia Britannica." — goethean ॐ 15:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Francis Ford Coppola: When I showed my ambitious, unfinished screenplay to a high school friend, Wendy Doniger (who as a young girl was not only pretty, but brilliant, and who is now an eminent professor of Oriental studies, a Sanskritist, and holder of the Eliade chair at the University of Chicago [9] — goethean ॐ 15:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Potentially embarrassing: JM Ross - Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1987 - PEP Web "Psychoanalysis has not had an easy time of late with Sanskritists seeking to embrace or employ our discipline's precepts. Fortunately, in Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty, we have found a most congenial collaborator. Although she has not received formal analytic training, in her work Dr. O'...[10] — goethean ॐ 15:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Requiem for Sanskrit WG Regier - World Literature Today, 2009 - WLT ... Built by the best Sanskrit translators of our time— Wendy Doniger, Patrick Olivelle, Sheldon Pollack, and Mallinson—the CSL launched new transla- tors—Isabelle Onians, Somadeva Vasudeva, Kath- leen Garbutt, and Judit Törzsök—who brought works that had languished in ... [11]

[PDF] Belief is Like a Guillotine: Reflections on Politics, Power, and Mythologysheilconsulting.com [PDF] B Olson - sheilconsulting.com ... paper—specifically her rejection and often harsh criticism of CG Jung and Joseph Campbell—Wendy Doniger offers a flexible solution and even a possible rapprochement ...Albany: State U of New York P, 1999. O'Flaherty, Wendy Doniger. ...Related articles - View as HTML [12] — goethean ॐ 15:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's up to p.28. No critiques that I can find. — goethean ॐ 15:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, what we are looking for are reviews or at least expressions of either agreement or disagreement with her. The "less excusably" reference may be an instance of that, as is apparently the part on "offers a flexible solution and even a possible rapprochement", you want to dig up the context on these.

Otoh, epithets like "Vedic scholar" (which she isn't) or "pre-eminent scholar" (trust to it that Indians will automatially call anyone they happen to agree with an "eminent scholar") aren't interesting. Usually books tend to be reviewed. I trust that with her own walled garden within academia, Doniger would even be able to come up with positively glowing reviews. You want to find these and cite them. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

JSTOR... learn to use it. [13] "the main problem is the ambiguous attitude towards history". [14] "Doniger's agenda is her desire to rescue the comparative project from the jaws of certain proponents of postmodernism ... Doniger points out that the informed detection of likeness ... reveals the truth of our commonality as human beings". I find this very funny as her Encarta article was nothing if not a projection of otherness, but that's how this reviewer sees it. [15] "it is not always clear whether the relations posed are presented as homologies or some causal connection". [16] A positive review from an Indian. [17] on why pro-Indian allegiances are cast as the nefarious "Hindu Right". Shii (tock) 16:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Wendy Doniger, a premier scholar of Indian religious thought and history expressed through Sanskritic sources, has faced regular criticism from those who consider her work to be disrespectful of Hinduism in general. ... [discussion of Courtwright and Kripal] ... Interestingly, these three scholars share in common the use of psychoanalytical theory, and this seems to be a kind of lightning rod for the censure these scholars receive from freelance critics and “watch-dog” organizations that claim to represent the sentiments of Hindus." Christian Lee Novetzske, "The Study of Indian Religions in the US Academy", India Review 5.1 ( May 2006), 113-114. Because this debate has been so heated I recommend we quote this academic summary written by a non-Indian as a compromise. Shii (tock) 17:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

wth does "learn to use it" mean? You want to reserach ciriticism of Doniger, you do the work. What on earth makes you expect that I was going to do your job for you? Now that after days of bitching you have condescended to consult jstor, you are very welcome to introduce your finds to the article. You are also invited to do that directly next time, without wasting time on talkspace first. --dab (𒁳) 21:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the main person involved in this dispute. This article had a fine Criticism section a few months ago that was removed by people who apparently think the voices of those who initiate the dispute are not as "notable" as that of the Almighty Western Scholar, font of all that is objective. This isn't my area of expertise. Shii (tock) 21:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Link to/diff of last fine version before removal, please? Thanks. rudra (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, because people disagreed with it. I hope we can come up with a compromise version that everyone can agree with. Shii (tock) 05:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to second Rudra's request for a link to the version before removal of the Criticism section so I can see what the history has been since that point. Can someone provide a diff that would enable meaningful comparison? Buddhipriya (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I found a diff that looks like the controversial "Criticism" section deletion: [18]. I think this is the diff that both Rudra and I requested to examine in order to understand the history of the article. Buddhipriya (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Elaboration on the Nussbaum citation

I see that the citation to Martha Nussbaum's "The Clash Within" has been discussed more than once on this talk page. I have read that book and agree it is a RS. I think the current citation is selective, however, and is focused on the reaction of other academics rather than on the content of the objections to Doniger. After looking it up in the book I noticed that Nussbaum's coverage of Doniger extends over five pages. "Doniger, Wendy" appears in the Index (p. 387) of "The Clash Within", with a sub-entry in the index for "Criticisms of by Hindu right, pp. 246-250". The material on pp. 246-247 says that "led by Doniger, who is portrayed as a woman unduly focused on topics of sexuality, a whole group of young scholars, mostly male – 'Wendy’s children,' to paraphrase the title of the broadside by Rajiv Malhotra (‘Wendy’s Child Syndrome’) that began the current war – go around searching for ways to defame and degrade sacred Hindu traditions by portraying them as all about sex." This is a much more clear statement of the objections to Doniger that the current wording of the article that refers vaguely to "psychoanalytical theory". The "all about sex" passage is followed by a sympathetic view of Doniger by Nussbaum, who views her as a victim of the Hindu right. The book says that Doniger receives "a lot of hate mail" and "repeated heckling during discussions after her lectures" (p. 249) The egg incident is mentioned on p. 250. I think that the quotation that should be added is that Doniger "is portrayed as a woman unduly focused on topics of sexuality" and also the point about as the perceived leader of "Wendy's children" this sexualized approach has influenced a number of other academics, some of whom have also been subject to similar criticism. Buddhipriya (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You are free to change the wording, as long as your material is well-sourced and you don't introduce wholesale Hindutva dogmatisms like the other fellow was doing. — goethean ॐ 01:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. My editing style is that I like to build consensus on talk pages before making edits that may be perceived as disruptive. I appreciate your patience with me, as I am trying to absorb the lengthy discussions that took place while I was on a Wikibreak. While my personal background is not important here, I do not consider myself a member of the Hindutva movement. I am curious what some of the other editors who have been active on this talk page currently think, since it seems some of them have fallen silent. Buddhipriya (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally am stepping back from giving this article a fair attempt at improvment, because I have no patience with people who will not allow Invading the Sacred to be cited directly, edited as it is by Antonio de Nicolas, introduced by Balagangadhara, blurbed by Nathan Katz and Anantanand Rambachan, and so forth. I am not a Hindu, but I am about to receive a BA in religion and I think it's about time this article is blessed with a fair "Reception" section that gives the full span of discussions both inside and outside the academic community. Shii (tock) 03:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

By all means please do continue to give input on your point of view, as many heads are better than one in getting all perspectives. I would support citing "Invading the Sacred" as a notable book primarily because of the attention it has received in Indian circles. I agree however that it is polemical in tone. Note that the article on S. N. Balagangadhara includes an "Influences and Criticism" section to give clear visibility to the controversial aspects of his work.

That is the core of the issue as I see it, namely that there are two levels of notability that must be considered, one within the academic realm, and the other in the wider world where sociopolitical impacts are felt. In rereading the past conversations there may be a few of the citations that you proposed that need to be looked at again. I regret that I have not yet looked at all of the links you provided, as I am a rather slow worker. Since I had Nussbaum on hand I examined it. I also have been reviewing the links that Rudra provided with Witzel's comments, which did not seem to get a clear up or down vote on their utility as reliable sources (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). I am interested in the technical problems of tranlation and found this paper [19] by Witzel on translation of Vedic materials that has a somewhat backhanded remark about Doniger in the section on "Style and Translation". The paper has no page numbers so I can't cite a page number, and there is no indication if the paper was ever published. Witzel says: "I do not think that we must, as Wendy Doniger prefers, always find a 'hip' translation such as 'he had sex.' We simply can translate 'he has come together' -- just as the Sanskrit says – and only where we need to be explicit, we could add 'he made love with...' as to explain the double meaning in the original." The statement is made in the context of discussing the ambiguous nature of some Sanskrit passages. This is a more subtle observation that the very dismissive tone Witzel took in the listserv postings. I do not think this paper should be cited at this time unless better consensus and evidence can be reached on this point. I wish more of the authors who were active before would chime in now to help determine current consensus. Buddhipriya (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

rudra identified the Witzel PDF as excerpted from Enrica Garzilli (ed) Translating, Translations, Translators: From India to the West, Cambridge (Harvard OS, Opra Minora) 1996, p. 163-176. Reviewed here. Buddhipriya (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Witzel posts to the Indology Listserv are WP:RS by WP:SPS rules. That mailing list was and is a veritable Who's Who of Indological scholars (making for instant peer-review of the highest quality!) Posting something critical like that to that list was a very big deal, much more consequential than, say, putting up a page on his personal web site. rudra (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rudra that the Indology listserv is a WP:RS for the purpose of documenting what Witzel thinks of Doniger's Sanskrit skills. That listserv is very well-known in the Indology community. Any WP:RS needs to be examined within the scope of some area of reliability, and Witzel is one of the top Sanskritists in the world. What can be said from those posts, and from the PDF file I found, is that Witzel considers her Sanskrit "unreliable". Other people may have a different opinion. Note that general reviews of Doniger's work by religionists are not reliable as a judge of her Sanskrit, since those reviewers do not claim credentials as Sanskrit translators. Witzel, on the other hand, is an expert in that specific domain. Buddhipriya (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with using Nussbaum for anything on Doniger is that they are colleagues, on the same faculty, at the same institution. (Besides, I have reservations on "The Clash Within" being {[WP:RS]] for anything, as it doesn't appear to be much more than a collection of random observations and obiter dicta aimed at making a "point".) rudra (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that one could object to "The Clash Within" for those reasons, but I have no objection to using it to document the existence of controversy about Wendy Doniger. I focused on that book because it had already made it into the article text as a RS. "Clash" and "Invading the Sacred" are both polemical in tone, and neither is an "academic" text. I find both of them interesting as social reactions to academic material, but from opposing perspectives. Buddhipriya (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Your quite creative insta-policy has no precedent in Wikipedia and has no relevance to the use of Nussbaum's book in this article. Nussbaum's book, written by one of the most pre-eminent writers of our time, is as reliable a source as one is likely to find. You will want to cite some good sources if you intend to impeach it. — goethean ॐ 15:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"Pre-eminent writer"? Spare us, please. As for reliability, you must be joking. Nussbaum is even more of an artificial "academic" celebrity than Doniger. See, for instance, a reference you dug up (here). Among other interesting bits, it cites this, which makes for quite interesting reading. (Bradley is a Professor of Law; so also, apparently, is Nussbaum, except that she, naturally, doesn't have a degree in Law. Par for the course, with such types.) rudra (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It is hardly surprising (or interesting, or relevant) that Rao doesn't like Nussbaum or that a conservative Catholic Christian magazine founded by Richard John Neuhaus doesn't like Nussbaum's testifying on behalf of gays. A seeming alliance between right-wing Hindus and right-wing Christians, on the other hand, is interesting and relevant. — goethean ॐ 16:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem wasn't Nussbaum testifying. The problem was her testimony. She made stuff up, and sought to mislead. Under oath. How that could have served the cause of gays is worth pondering. As is the reliability of Martha Craven Nussbaum rudra (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Should Invading the Sacred be considered a reliable source for purposes of this article?

I just reviewed the prior discussion about "Invading the Sacred" on this talk page and did the following tally of editors who made a specific remark about the book. Please help me correct this summary if it is in error:

Support:

• Spdiffy
• Redtigerxyz (objected to removal of a citation to it)
• Shii
• Buddhipriya (noting the polemical tone of the book but considering it noteworthy for sociopolitical impact)

Oppose:

• goethean

Undecided:

• Abecedare notes that “There are several citations to ‘Invading the sacred: an analysis of Hinduism studies in America’ but declines further comment.

If this summary is correct, it seems clear that the weight of opinion is that "Invading the Sacred" could be cited here. However I would like to hear from other editors who may not have expressed a direct view so we may get a more clear picture on this matter. Buddhipriya (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't done any serious investigation of Invading the Sacred, but I think it could be cited here, as long as it is made clear that the book has an axe to grind. It appears that the contributors are outsiders to the academic study of Hinduism, even if some of them are academics--so it needs to be made clear that these are not Doniger's colleagues criticizing her work as fellow scholars, but a response from the wider "popular" realm. In general, if a scholar has become so notable as to arouse passionate responses from outside his/her discipline, that's worth covering in a Wikipedia article. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read or even browsed through the book, but a quick investigation shows that the list of contributors is quite a mixed bag. The only review I could find was scathing. Are there other reviews anyone knows of, or other reliable sources that have quoted/referenced this book ?

At this point, Akhilleus' proposal seems to be the best one: essentially treat this book as one would treat op-eds - reliable sources for the authors opinion on the subject, but not for facts themselves. Note that we will still have to keep due weight in mind - for example, what Nussbaum, Witzel, Arvind Sharma etc say about WD is relevant to the subject, while comments of, say, Sankrant Sanu (I don't know if he actually writes about WD) may not be worth reporting unless they are noteworthy for some reason (i.e, someone else has made note of them; this is the case for Malhotra's Sulekha article, for example). Abecedare (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Abecedare in supporting Akhilleus' proposal on how to use any citation that may be made to Invading the Sacred, namely that it be framed in such a way that the possible bias of the source be made clear. It is still not clear to me what citation to that work was previously removed, as I said elsewhere. Once the book arrives here I will look it over. Since it is a collection of pieces, perhaps one or another of them mentions Doniger in a way that is appropriate for inclusion here, perhaps not. Buddhipriya (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who considers that laughable screed as a reliable source for anything but the thuggish and execrable views of its authors, editors and money-handlers has no concern for Wikipedia except as a deposit for their refuse. — goethean ॐ 15:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this BLP is not the place to air the issues covered by (polemical) works such as Invading the Sacred. This is because of Doniger's peculiar role in the controversy. Direct criticism of her own work has always been a relatively minor issue. Her detractors have been more concerned with her (allegedly inordinate) influence on so-called "Religious studies" in American academia. While her works have contributed to the tawdry sexualization of everything to do with Hinduism, much more damaging has been her mentoring of an entire generation of bullshit mongers in the same vein. Hence the critique, not of "Wendy", but of "Wendy's children" and "Wendy's Child syndrome". None of that really belongs here in the BLP. rudra (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

rudra's point is that much of modern academia has become pure bullshit-mongering. This is sad but true, but professionally outraged defenders of Hinduism are in no position to even recognize that this is the case. Neither academic bullshit-mongering nor "identity politics" bullshit-mongering belong discussed in this article. Both can and should be discussed, in articles dedicated to the respective topics.... Bullshit-mongering (disambiguation) can collect all flavours of the discipline (I am joking). --dab (𒁳) 16:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support making the paragraph that currently stands in this article a subsection, with a "main article" link to a larger criticism of Hindu studies that specifically disavows ad hominem attacks. Shii (tock) 18:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article is not the place for a general discussion of the issues raised in Invading the Sacred. The reason why I asked the question about it is that in a prior post there was an objection to the removal of some citation to it, and I was trying to find out more about why that reference was removed. I can't find the diff for what was removed. Can anyone supply the diff? I only glanced at the book briefly when it first came out and do not have a copy here. I have put in a library order for it, and when it arrives I can check myself to see what it says about Doniger, if anything. But what was the material that was removed from this article?

I like Shii's suggestion to make the text in the current article a section, with a link somewhere to the larger issue. That would be step forward in getting more balance to the piece. Buddhipriya (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Vasudha Narayanan of the University of Florida and Prof. Arvind Sharma of McGill University

Are there any scholarly criticism of Doniger by scholars such as Professor Arvind Sharma? Professor Sharma was asked to replace a controversial article by Doniger for Encarta. see, http://www.williams.edu/go/native/courtright.htm I know that Goethan seems to state that every criticism of Doniger is a Hinduvta response. Professor Sharma states the following according to the Williams link:

"For the past five years, our field has been in turmoil," said Arvind Sharma, a professor of comparative religion at McGill University in Montreal, who sides with the critics even as he disavows the violence. "There may be a Hindutva connection in what happened in India and the death threats and the person who threw the egg, but there also is a Hindu response."

"The Encarta switch came after a Hindu activist, a former Microsoft engineer named Sankrant Sanu, charged that Doniger's article perpetuated misleading stereotypes and asked for a rewrite by an "insider." "For pretty much all the religious traditions in America, most of the people studying it are insiders," said Sanu. "They are people who are believers. This is true for Judaism, Islam, Christianity and Buddhism. This is not true for Hinduism."

So if people have any counter-scholarly views of these scholars, please contribute. Raj2004 (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Historically, the Hindu response has been tolerance and pluralism. However, a small, militant minority is dissatisfied with this approach and prefers egg-throwing and death threats. — goethean ॐ 00:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not every criticism of Doniger is egg throwing. There must be some scholarly criticism out there. To view religion solely in Freudian terms, as Doniger has done, is very flawed. Raj2004 (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see that you've never read any Doniger. — goethean ॐ 14:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, a good part of Doniger's scholarship applies Freudian themes to Hinduism. It seems that you may have been a former student of Doniger. Not that I care. But there should be balanced criticism of Doniger in this article, assuming that we can find appropriate scholarly references on the like of Professor Sharma, instead of referencing mere egg-throwers~ Raj2004 (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for at least having the honesty to admit that you have no idea what you are talking about. — goethean ॐ 03:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't say that I was an expert. You have no idea either. You seem to characterize all of her scholarship as legitimate. Some of it is bull-s---- Raj2004 (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, it seems that you have ownership issues regarding this article as people who have good references such as Rudra get shouted down by you. Raj2004 (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there seem to be some ownership issues here. Dismissing all objections to Doniger as Hindutva egg-throwing trivializes things. Witzel is not a Hindutva activist by any means. He is as much a target of protest as she is. That is why I find his criticism of her translations so interesting. Most academics who work in Indology would not claim high competence in Sanskrit; they are regionists, not linguists, as Rudra pointed out. There are also many Indians who do not identify with the Hindutva movement who simply have a visceral objection to sexualizing things, and the sociological phenomenon is interesting in its own right. As Rudra said in another post, the issue of "Wendy's children" in the sense of an entire school of sexually-oriented interpretation is a key issue, and one that I think is relevant to mention in connection with Doniger. The issue is not whether or not her interpretation is "right", but simply that it is controversial. I am trying to figure out what needs to be done to get the "disputed" tag off the article with the minimum amount of changes to current content. Buddhipriya (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Buddhipriya's comments are quite accurate and "right on the money." We do not care whether Doniger's views are "right," but we need to present academic objections because not all objections to Doniger are "egg throwing." Raj2004 (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are three different categories of content involved. One level is the academic quality of her work as a religionist, which would include issues such as how she interprets things, using RS from the academic field of religious studies. A second, independent issue is the quality of her Sanskrit which can only be judged by other Sanskritists (such as Witzel). The third area is the sociopolitical impact of her work, which may involve use of different types of RS from outside the academic community. The fact that she has caused such social reaction is unlikely to be the subject of academic papers, but it may be well-documented elsewhere. If this is correct, the question is what key ideas need to be in the article that are not there now, and then each source must be vetted with regard to reliability within one of those three domains. I am guessing that there is actually not much that needs to be added to the article, except for a small number of points. Her influence in encouraging a number of other academics to interpret works using sexual paradigms is neither inherently good or inherently bad. If you like that sort of thing, it is good. If you are offended by it, perhaps it is bad. The issue not to judge it, but to point it out as part of her academic impact. Buddhipriya (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please build consensus on the talk page for changes

I urge all editors to build consensus here point by point prior to making extensive changes to the article. This method will produce better results in the long run. Let us find some language that the majority can support, then we can implement changes as needed. Buddhipriya (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much faith in the process here. To my mind, we have about six fundamentalists who frankly don't give a fig about Wikipedia, its policies, or its principles. Not to mention academic freedom or achievement, which they frankly spit upon. Please see the absolutely insane conversation with rudrasharman above in which he claims that my six reliable sources which clearly and uncontroversially call Doniger a Sanskritist are no match for his expert personal opinion. Undoubtedly the other good Hindus on this talk page support his idiocies enthusiastically. If you insist on my edits being approved by this inquisition, I will have to take this to a noticeboard. — goethean ॐ 03:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Will you, for once, just once, endeavor to acquire a clue, PLEASE? Not one of your "reliable sources" is a reliable source for competence in Sanskrit. rudra (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

False. Many, many books published by university presses call her a Sanskritist. Huston Smith writing in an academic journal has called her a Sanskritist. Her being a Sanskritist is better attested to than most statements in Wikipedia. But apparently you find your uninformed, amateur opinion more weighty than all of the scholarly books in the world. Excuse me if I do not. — goethean ॐ 14:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Still trying to evade addressing the basic question, I see. You have failed to produce a source reliable for a judgment on competence in Sanskrit. Your shibboleths are not helping you. rudra (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess BLP is the venue. — goethean ॐ 03:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Huston Smith, according to the Wikipedia article and several websites, was a professor in philosophy. and religionYes, he's an academic but like Rudra has stated before, that does not make him a Sanskritist who can clearly label another as one. Teaching philosophy is one thing. Being a scholar of Sanskrit is another. For example, you can be a scholar of Christianity without necessarily being an Aramaic or Hebrew linguist.

Yes, I am practicing Hindu. Goethean, are you? Raj2004 (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Views of Hindus

The article does not mention what Hindus think about the work of Wendy which concentrates on Hindus. I have been quoting multiple reliable sources like The Tribune and Hindustan Times. But one user goethean is reverting each of my such edit by giving one or the excuse every time. Without recording feedback from the very Hindus about whose faith Wendy writes on, this article represents only a particular POV and is not balanced and neutral as required by Wikipedia standards. I suggest to keep the criticism on this article to make the article balanced. Please do not revert edits without discussing. --Deshabhakta (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've mentioned several times, your Hindustan Times piece is an opinion piece rather than straight reporting and is not a reliable source. And you are quoting it inaccurately. There are over 1 billion Hindus and presumably the vast majority have never heard of Wendy Doniger. Your edit presumes to describe what "Hindus" believe about Doniger which is an impossibility. Your addition should be removed immediately. — goethean ॐ 19:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Goethean, opinion pieces may be reliable sources, according to [[20]] The section states: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author.

So perhaps Deshabhakta's reference may modified to state that Person X stated this about Doniger in the Tribune, for example.

To paraphrase Reagan, there you go again! Raj2004 (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

One caveat: I am not a Republican as I have voted for candidates on both parties. Raj2004 (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise, it's okay to include criticism, but the tone must remain neutral. The edit Goethan removed here seems to assist in spreading rumors rather than explaining the dispute. Shii (tock) 21:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Shii for the clarification Maybe Deshabhakta and Goethean can revise it to yield NPOV. Raj2004 (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There's an organization, Hindu American Foundation that has sent a letter to the President of Penguin over the publisher's fact-checking process and standards for books such as those of Doniger. See, http://www.hafsite.org/PenguinGroup For example, HAF states there are a number of factual errors and mistranslations in Doniger's book, the Hindus: An Alternative History."

Pg. 103 of Doniger's book, "the Hindus: An Alternative History." states that "All the poems of the Rig Veda are ritual hymns in some sense. Since all were sung as part of the Vedic ceremony." HAF cites Jan Gonda, 1978, Hymns of the Rgveda Not Employed in the Solemn Ritual. (Amsterdam) for rebutting that statement: "A considerable portion of the Rig Veda is not employed in ritual. See Jan Gonda, 1978, Hymns of the Rgveda Not Employed in the Solemn Ritual. (Amsterdam)."

Raj2004 (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's p.107, not p.103. And Doniger is deliberately vague in what she means by "Vedic ceremony". Gonda's book is about the Śrauta ritual (so, for example, most of the 10th mandala would be excluded), but Doniger is probably talking about "vedic ritual" in a general sense, i.e. a yajña of any kind (as she writes, on the same page, "As far as we can reconstruct their rituals from what is, after all, a hymnal, they made offerings to various gods [...] by throwing various substances, primarily butter, into a fire that flared up dramatically in response.") However, not all rituals were "vedic": the status of the Atharvanic materials with aspects of "black magic", for example, is dubious. But overall I think it's hypercritical to take Doniger to task for this. There are plenty of much more serious errors in the book. rudra (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. I will rephrase the statements to attribute them directly to the sources. Thanks all for the constructive discussion. --Deshabhakta (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The criticism can be rephrased as below. Please let me know if any further improvements can be applied.

Hindus, in a petition filed by them before the Penguin Group, allege that she analyses revered Hindu Gods and Goddess using her widely discredited psycho-sexual Freudian theories that modern, humanistic psychology has deemed limiting. Her books on Hinduism have numerous errors in terms of historical facts and Sanskrit translations. It is further alleged that Doniger had made various faulty assumptions about the tradition in order to arrive at her particular spin. Well known columnist Ashok Malik observes in Hindustan Times that her work unexceptionably contributes to “eroticisation and exoticisation of Hindus' sacred scriptures.

--Deshabhakta (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Completely, totally unacceptable from beginning to end, as I have expressed to you numerous times on this page. The sources are very poor, and you have used them inaccurately. And there's no indication that this is anything but an irrelevant contrived mini-controversy, akin to a web petition. Wikipedia does not tack every complaint against high-profile scholars onto the scholar's biography — if we did, the encyclopedia would be a complete mess and the Wikipedia project would be sued for libel. Additionally, the article already contains a neutral summary of the controversy, written by User:Shii, a strong critic of Doniger. Please see WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, etc. — goethean ॐ 15:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? This entire paragraph only presents positive views and does not have any balance: " Doniger's 2009 book The Hindus: an alternative history received mainly positive reviews. The Library Journal said that Doniger "takes particular pains to show the outsider influences in Hindu literature, a tall order at which she mostly succeeds".[20] A review by David Arnold in the Times Literary Supplement said that despite its "extraordinary command of meaning and text" the book had limitations. "Doniger is best when she has a text to work with and a story to dissect … When she lacks a text – as in the undeciphered world of the Indus valley civilization – she is less convincing. When she encounters the British Raj, she falls back, unadventurously, on Rudyard Kipling and E. M. Forster … and stumbles over her facts…" Arnold said that the book was a response to those who had attacked Doniger's understanding of Hindu myth and was" an eloquent vindication of her belief in the insights informed study can provide, and the need for scholars to resist and refute the corrosive claims of Hindu chauvinism".[21] In the New York Times, Pankaj Mishra called it a "staggeringly comprehensive book". He predicted that it would "further expose her to the fury of the modern-day Indian heirs of the British imperialists who invented 'Hinduism'" but also "serve as a salutary antidote to the fanatics who perceive — correctly — the fluid existential identities and commodious metaphysic of practiced Indian religions as a threat to their project of a culturally homogenous and militant nation-state".[22] In January 2010, the National Book Critics Circle named The Hindus as a finalist for its 2009 book award."

Raj2004 (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

@goethean What makes you call Hindustan Times a poor source? By all standards of Wikipedia, Hindustan Times and The Tribune are reliable sources. Please contact RSN if you have issues with the reliability of these sources.

Here, Wikipedia is not making any POV allegation or claim to be sued for libel. This paragraph is quoting its sources, as is the case with any Wiki articles, and hence Wiki cannot be held responsible for these viewpoints. If you feel the sources are being inaccurately represented in the paragraph above, please suggest improvements as i have already requested before. As noted by Raj2004 above, the article puts forward only positive views about Wendy's book and work and is not balanced at all. Hence, we should have critical review of her work in this article to make it balanced. --Deshabhakta (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with the points made by Deshabhakta and Raj2004 above. The article on wiki is not balanced at all. It appears as if she is making great scholarly contributions to Hinduism, while from the Hindu point of view, she is mis-repesenting the facts, and making numerous errors in her works. The worst of these errors are in interpreting the sanskrit words. The above paragraph is appropriate to bring a balance. Hindustan Times is among the most respected Indian Newspaper, and a quote from this newspaper is as important as one from New York Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.16.50 (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Deshabhakta and Raj2004 (and the ip user) that there must be some way to get the reality of social opposition to her work cited in the article, and that news sources such as major Indian newspapers can be cited to establish sociopolitical resistance to her work. I do not agree that simply because she is an academic only academic sources can be cited if the issue is to establish the social impact of her work outside of academic circles. Academic sources comment on academic matters, newspapers report news. It is also important to not characterize all of this social reaction as "Hindutva". The term Hindutva in general usage refers to a specific political movement. There are Hindus who are not associated with the Hindutva movement who dislike her work. The term Hindutva is a polarizing word, and should be applied only to those for whom it actually applies. I agree that some persons who criticize her are connected with the Hindutva movement. But not all are. Regarding the Sanskrit competence question, I continue to agree with Rudra that the Witzel critique is noteworthy and can be cited. Witzel is not a member of the Hindutva movement. I continue to avoid reverting Goethean's edits simply because I do not want to participate in an edit war on the article page. Again, I call for reaching agreement on single points one by one on the talk page. I like the proposals to have some neutral party formulate a compromise edit. Buddhipriya (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said here, there is already a neutral write up of the "controversy", written by User:Shii, a strong critic of Doniger. The article currently does not deal with Doniger's competance in Sanskrit at all. Apparently, User:Buddhipriya would like this article to evaluate Doniger's competence in Sanskrit. I would rather take the word of the editorial boards of Penguin Classics, Oxford Classics, and Doniger's other publishers, the University of Chicago and Stanford University, the editorial boards of the academic journals which have published Doniger's articles, the committee which recently named her as a finalist for the National Book Award, etc., etc. over the word of a few unpaid Wikipedia voluteers. But I guess that's just me. — goethean ॐ 20:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Which academic journals have published Doniger and what are their track records on articles by Sanskritists? Do you even know which journals have the best rep for articles by Sanskritists? Why do you persist in making clueless statements? When the best you could scrape up, as a <gong>reliable source</gong> no less, was a book on the oral history of a Christian denomination in South Africa, you might have stopped to think whether you weren't barking up the wrong tree. Better yet, you could have tried a different search and found what Doniger herself thinks about "Real Sanskritists" (her italics). But no, you've let your fear of trolls stampede you into a ridiculous "defence" of Doniger's "honor". The sheer depth of your cluelessness shows in your failure to grasp why "Sanskritist, indeed a recovering Orientalist", along with "old-fashioned philologist" say all that needs to be said on the subject. rudra (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And, you are still on call for your bullshit. Either retract the statement ("... his confident assurances that Doniger is a fraud ...") or provide substantiation in the form of a diff. Thank you. rudra (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear @goethean, you are treating any source that does not align with your POV to be a non-neutral source. You need to understand that something like 'neutral source' is very rare to find. What Wikipedia needs is reliable source and if you can find one a neutral source. The purpose is to have a neutral article as a whole giving due importance to several views about the article. Hindustan Times is as much a reliable source as NYT. What the society feels about her work needs to be obtained from news sources and included in this article. Please stop edit-warring. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Culianu

Another clueless addition to the article. In 1983, Culianu was in the Netherlands and still learning English (this "review" precedes any other work of his in English by a number of years). It so happens that around that time his position at Groningen was in some jeopardy; and he was still trying to achieve his life ambition, to get back to the University of Chicago where he could work with his mentor, Mircea Eliade. But he was never a scholar of Vedic texts, so he was in no position to judge the reliability of a translation of subject matter he did not know much about into a language of which his grasp was rudimentary. It's also worth noting that History of Religions is a University of Chicago production, and Doniger had been on the editorial board since 1979. Citing this "review" is a complete joke. rudra (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The opinion of a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor doesn't change the fact that History of Religions is a well-regarded journal, and anything that appears in it meets the requirements of WP:RS. If you disagree, take this straight to WP:RSN rather than cluttering up this talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The intent of the addition was to counter the Witzel critique. So what have we here, Culianu's word over Witzel's on the quality of Doniger's Sanskrit? This is getting funnier by the minute. rudra (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that Witzel, like Doniger, has been demonized by conservative Hindus. Culianu, on the other hand, didn't live long enough to receive that honor. — goethean ॐ 16:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Rudrasharman is smart enough and experienced enough to understand that his comments have no potential relevance to the editing of the article, his comments constitute a violation of WP:TALK: "Talk pages are for discussion to improve the encyclopedia and should not be used to express personal opinions on a subject." His comments can therefore be removed from this talk page per Talk_Page_Guidelines#Others.27_comments, section "Refactoring for relevance". — goethean ॐ 15:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The argument, in a nutshell, is that the sentence with the citation to Culianu should be removed. It screams "puff job" to anyone who knows the fields - not just (vedic) Sanskrit (in which Culianu was and is a complete and total nobody), but also the relations between Eliade, the History of Religions journal (long considered Eliade's "own" journal, since he founded it and presided over it while he was alive), Doniger (a protege of Eliade - Eliade published two chapters of Doniger's dissertation in HoJ on his own editorial prerogative, and was responsible for bringing Doniger to UofC) and Culianu (another protege, and some time literary executor of Eliade's estate until his own tragic death.). You didn't think this sort of thing happens in Academia? I have some nice beach-front properties in Nebraska for you. (Basically, it boils down to knowing and understanding the sources.) rudra (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Am am getting annoyed at this animosity between good editors. Save it for the trolls. Akhilleus, Goethean and Rudrasharman are all valuable contributors. So please drop the poisonous tone and start to work together. Rudrasharman has made clear in countless instances that he has a deep understanding of Indology, never mind his being "pseudonymous" (just like Akhilleus, Goethean). You would do very well to listen to his point. He also has a tendency to counter-punch too much, so after you have appreciated that he does have a point, you are certainly free to modify his presentation of the affair. Sheesh. Just as long as you do it in a spirit of collaboration. Goethean's reference to WP:TALK just now does nothing except poison the well even further. Rudra is pointing out that the Culianu reference isn't of the same quality as the Witzel one. This is hardly a violation of WP:TALK, it is a perfectly relevant comment. --dab (𒁳) 17:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Rudra understands the reliable sources policy — and he rejects it. He regularly engages in speculative original resaerch with an air of superiority, and holds up his research as more relevant than references to reliable sources. His original research has no chance of being included in the article. Then he makes up inherently absurd policy on the spot, like that only a Sanskritist can recognize another Sanskritist, a clearly laughable idea which I had to spend days to dispel, due to nothing but his obstinate intractability. If Akhilleus hadn't stepped in, our time would still be beng wasted over his pet non-issue. Presumably, he knows all this. He is just filibustering and wasting everyone's time. I am sorry that he has nothing higher to aspire to than to waste my time and to keep me from improving this article. — goethean ॐ 18:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is hardly a violation of WP:TALK, it is a perfectly relevant comment.

False. He cites no sources. He presents rumors and expects us to reject content cited to reliable sources in lieu of his unsourced 'expert' opinion. He knows exactly what he is doing — he is deliberately wasting our time. I am sorry that you are assisting him. — goethean ॐ 18:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources for what? Ted Anton's book on Culianu covers just about everything anyone would want to know about him. (E.g. on p.129, Anton says of Culianu, in 1986, that he was "polishing his English".) But here, the main point is negative evidence. Culianu never published anything about Sanskrit or Vedic subjects: his scholarly production in such fields was ZERO. He had no standing as a credible reviewer of Rig Veda. So how came his "review" to be in History of Religions? One word: Eliade. (It's to HoJ's credit that it has come a long way from those days.)

But the really incredible thing here is the bizarre preference for Culianu over Witzel. POV-pushing at its finest. rudra (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting quote of Doniger here, regarding Eliade and the History of Religions journal:

I am personally indebted to him for creating my career, transforming me from an ugly ducking of a Sanskritist into a swan-like historian of religion: he read my Harvard (Sanskrit) dissertation in 1968, published two chapters of it in his journal (History of Religions) in 1969, brought me to Chicago as a full professor in 1978, and the rest is, if not history, history of religions.

Note: "his journal". (Doniger doesn't mention that she has been on the editorial board of HoJ since 1979, also Eliade's doing.) rudra (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Doniger a Sanskritist? --- AGAIN!!

Goethan's view is incorrect. Rudra cites a paper by Witzel in showing that Doniger is a poor Sanskritist; see, http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/intro.pdf in the Sanskritist talk section .See [[21]] A professor of religion is not necessarily a Sanskritist. Only a Sanskritist can clearly label another as one. Teaching philosophy is one thing. Being a scholar of Sanskrit is another. For example, you can be a scholar of Christianity without necessarily being an Aramaic or Hebrew linguist. Raj2004 (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't understand. A source is a source only if Goethean likes it. And then, of course, it becomes reliable, and that too for any subject under the sun. That's how he can cite a work on the Oral History of the ibandla lamaNazaretha, the Nazareth Baptist Church of South Africa as a "reliable source" for Doniger being a Sanskritist. You really have to wonder who is abusing WP policies. rudra (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Or "The catechism of the Nazarites", or "Mãrg", which is a coffee table book mostly filled with glossy photos... Shii (tock) 03:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the people who are abusing policy — as well as lying through their teeth — are the ones who are trying to keep the article from stating what everyone (except the hardcore trolls) agree is an undeniable fact, which is that Doniger, the translator of the Rig Veda for Penguin Classics, is a Sanskritist. I'm trying to make the article say that the sky is blue. Rudra is trying to make the article say that black is white and up is down. So I'm not too concerned about your conclusions about who is abusing sources. — goethean ॐ 15:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Before you invent any more nonsense, please note that you are still on call for your bullshit. Either retract the statement ("... his confident assurances that Doniger is a fraud ...") or provide substantiation in the form of a diff. Thank you. rudra (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I support Rudra's position with regard to the sourcing issues on Sanskrit. It seems clear that currently Goethean has the minority view on this specific point. I personally follow a 1-revert rule when dealing with potential edit wars of this sort, and since I already reverted Goethean's persistent edits on this matter I hesitate to do it again, but if a vote is needed my position is clear. I second Dab's request that all editors please maintain a collegial tone and focus on specific points one by one. Buddhipriya (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you still questioning whether Doniger is a Sanskritist?! Multiple admins and editors have described this conversation as "silly" and "dumb". At some point you have to stop talking when no one is listening and this time has come for me. If you six allies are determined to deliberately misrepresent the most basic, fundamental, undeniable facts of Doniger's biography — like her occupation — in this article, it appears that I cannot stop you. — goethean ॐ 04:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

We know why you want to emphasize that she is a "Sanskritist" , but you have yet to present a credible argument that random sound-bites, such as the fruits of your rooting in Google books, are better than Doniger's self-description. rudra (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And you are still on call for your bullshit. Either retract the statement ("... his confident assurances that Doniger is a fraud ...") or provide substantiation in the form of a diff. Thank you. rudra (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

just because she calls herself a Sanskritist does not make her one. Either this statement should be removed or reworded to say that she calls herself as a Sanskritist. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and WP:HEAR. — goethean ॐ 18:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The content is cited to Smith as well as Doniger, although there needn't be any citations at all for the material, as it is clearly evident from her credentials and output. — goethean ॐ 18:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As a coda to this continually insane episode, User:Rudrasharman removed the well-sourced, basic biographical information from the article here with the unsurprisingly dishonest edit summary of "copy edit". Congratulations, haters. — goethean ॐ 14:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As I have said previously, I support the inclusion of the Witzel material in the article. While I don't like reverting things in article space, I think that the discussion about this has been extensive. The Witzel material is also summarized as part of the review of problems with her Sanskrit in Invading the Sacred, and while I know that that particular source does not yet have clear consensus, the issue deserves coverage. I personally have no problem with describing her as a Sanskritist. The term is not precisely defined. She has published translations of Sanskrit works, so in the general press she is likely to be seen as a bona fide Sanskritist. That said, evaluation of her Sanskrit skills by prominent specialists in Sanskrit can also be included. If I say that I am a painter, and someone says they think my paintings are not very good, I may still be described as a painter. Buddhipriya (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

She has published translations of Sanskrit works, so in the general press she is likely to be seen as a bona fide Sanskritist.

The fact is that she is one of the most distinguished scholars in the world. This is evident from the academic reception of her works. She is also venomously despised by a group of politico-religious fanatics. This is evident from her Wikipedia article.

Removing references to academic journals and replacing them with emails, weblogs, opinion pieces and politically-motivated hatchet-jobs is shameful, disgraceful, and unethical as well as counter to Wikipedia policy. We all know this. But some are doing it anyways. I'm glad that it is not me. — goethean ॐ 23:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

'Sorry to say this. By doing poor translations of Sanskrit, one does not become a scholar. If she is getting academic reception among those who know little about Sanskrit, and are bent on destroying it, then it means nothing. Finally I must say that -- it is shameful that someone is continuing to delete my comments in the discussion page. These pages are meant to be for voicing opinion. PLEASE DO NOT remove this comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.16.50 (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)