Jump to content

Talk:Wendy Doniger/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

New commentary

I introduced this paragraph: "However, her book, The Hindus: an alternative history is not without critics. Piali Roy, writing in the Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper, although stating that The Hindus is "quite a compilation, diverse and self-referential," and does a good job of tracking the influence of Buddhism and Jainism on the Vedic era, also states that Doniger admits herself that she is "not a historian." [18] For example, she slanted in her view towards northern India and emphasizes the South only with the bhakti movement, or new schools of thought in the 10th century. [19] Also her choice of historical figures is idiosyncratic; she highlights saints such as Kabir and Mirabai but ignores Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism who is just as pivotal. [20] Although Doniger should be commended for including Dalit voices and showing the variety of Hindu experiences, her attempts at inclusiveness is marred by a sloppy misreading of secondary sources and some overstretches of analysis. [21] For example, her suggestion that “the Vedic reverence for violence flowered in the slaughters that followed Partition,” near the end of the book, is such an exaggeration." This appears to be well-referenced. Please take a look. Raj2004 (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Raj2004, how did you happen to pick Piali Roy's review of Doniger's book? Is Roy a well-known scholar of Indology? Is the Globe and Mail well-known for its book reviews of Hindu books? Or did you deliberately search for some negative content to add to the article?
The article already contained a neutral selection of reviews of Doniger's book from the TLS, NYT, and Library Journal. I did not write that material — I think that User:Shii did. But, to those who hate Doniger, an entire additional paragraph of negative material is needed, even if it is referenced to an author with no credentials who no one has never heard of. So now we have the neutral reception of the book, plus a bonus paragraph of negative material to please those who hate Doniger. This is childish, irresponsible, and unethical. — goethean ॐ 15:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so defensive? Except for Professor David Arnold, none of the commentators are Indology scholars. Because Pankaj Mishra, a non-Indologist defends your point of view, it's okay. But if another non-Indologist brings another point of view, it's not okay. Pankak Mishra, according to Wikipedia, has a bachelor's degree in commerce from Allahabad University before earning his Master of Arts degree in English literature at the Jawaharlal Nehru University. Does that make him an Indologist? What are James DeRoche's credentials? Also, Is the New York Times well-known for its book reviews of Hindu books?

Furthermore, many sources have stated that there are historical and translation errors in the books but these sources published on "self-published" sites and are thus not appropriate for citations on Wikipedia. I would love to cite an academic criticism of Doniger but the Indian studies academy is a close-knit group and has not produced any. Like any elite club, they seem hesistant to criticize their own. I would love to hear counterpoints from respected scholars such as Arvind Sharma and Edwin Byrant, but have not found any. There are historical and translation errors in Doniger's book, The Hindus: An Alternative History, but unfortunately we are left with the criticism by some in the extreme right for the most part, and no "legitimate" criticism from the academy. That's why those who oppose Doniger are represented by moderate non-academics like Aditi Banerjee, [[1]] a Yale lawyer who writes well but is not a "Sanskritist." It would be helpful for those who find such errors in Doniger publish in academic journals.

Also, the Hindu studies academy has been dominated by professors who don't practice the religion and this can lead to gross misinterpretations. And some of Hindu traditions are not always written in text. And a text can have multiple interpretations. Linga for example, has been interpreted in several ways and includes the meaning of "sign." Raj2004 (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, Is the New York Times well-known for its book reviews of Hindu books?
Unlike the Globe and Mail, the New York Times is among the most important book review media on the planet. There is good reason to include its reviews, as they are considered to accurately reflect the mainstream reception of a book. There is no such assumption in regard to The Globe and Mail, and no good reason to include the content sourced to it...except that it refelects your personal point of view, which is not a valid reason for inclusion.
Furthermore, many sources have stated that there are historical and translation errors in the books but these sources published on "self-published" sites and are thus not appropriate for citations on Wikipedia. I would love to cite an academic criticism of Doniger but the Indian studies academy is a close-knit group and has not produced any. Like any elite club, they seem hesistant to criticize their own. I would love to hear counterpoints from respected scholars such as Arvind Sharma and Edwin Byrant, but have not found any.
What you are admitting to here is clear POV editing. Wikipedia policies dictate that Wikipedia should be edited from a neutral point of view. Neutral editors don't scour the internet for sources which suit their prejudices and then ram them into the article. Editors who care about the Wikipedia project attempt to present a fair depiction of the most reliable sources.
Your comments portray a completely inaccurate understanding of academia, which is highly competitive. Academic journals are reliable sources. Your disregard for them has no bearing on the matter whatsoever. Please bring this up at the reliable sources noticeboard, not here.
Also, the Hindu studies academy has been dominated by professors who don't practice the religion and this can lead to gross misinterpretations. And some of Hindu traditions are not always written in text. And a text can have multiple interpretations. Linga for example, has been interpreted in several ways and includes the meaning of "sign."
I am sorry that you have difficulty with the idea of a secular university, but respect for university scholarship is rather well entrenched in global culture, as well as in Wikipedia policy. Your view is closer to that of Christian evangelicals than it is to the mainstream understanding. I cannot allow your fringe views to dictate the entry of content into this article. — goethean ॐ 18:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The idea of a "secular" Western university as an unbiased source is a little misleading. Have you read Timothy Fitzgerald? Shii (tock) 04:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are defensive and not viewing reality. You did not answer my question regarding qualifications of Pankaj Mishra. The NY Times Book review, like the Globe and Mail piece, has no special qualifications on Hindu texts, unless Professor Arnold's piece. As for your condescending attitude, I have no qualms with a secular university. As I had said earlier, I would welcome more "academic criticism" of Doniger as a scholar. That's why I have not listed any non-academic source that has found errors in Doniger's books. It is just too bad that the academy is hesitant to criticize their own so we are left with criticism from the fringe. As for you, your view is more closer to the Christian evangelicals as you refuse to acknowledge multiple criticisms of Doniger. Raj2004 (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what neutral viewers such as Dab, Rudra, Abcedere and Buddipriya have to say. They are fair-minded. If they think this Globe and Mail commentary is inappropriate, I may concede. Raj2004 (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that there is nothing wrong with including negative reviews of the book so long as there is balance in the way it is done, while making sure that the positive reaction it has gotten is also given good weight. I agree with the reversion of the added material which I think was over-long and somewhat polemic in tone. A problem is that if you introduce multiple points at once (multiple sentences or ideas) and multiple sources at once, it is easier to throw it all out than parse the issues one by one. I recommend that the individual sources and points that were reverted be discussed here one by one so that we can see if there is any consensus on any parts of the material that Raj added. Wording changes may also soften the blow. As I have said before, I support the use of major news sources (of any country) as a legitimate way to document news. We are more likely to find documentation of the social reaction to her book in newspapers than in academic journals, so it is logical that news sources need to be included from that perspective. But it must be kept clear that if there is a news story saying that someone claims something or other, the text here must read something like "According to the Washington Post, a Republican political action committee claims Vice President Biden is a Reptilian alien." The news is not that Biden is an alien, it is that some people may think he is an alien and that they have become newsworthy enough to make it into the Washington Post. For stories of that sort, it would be more convincing to show that several different news sources have covered multiple demonstrations by anti-alien groups rather than just one. Buddhipriya (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for reception section

I don't think the current Reception section is well-developed (even though each individual statement is "sourced") and some recent attempts to improve it, though well-meaning, don't seem to have helped. Instead of trying to look up sources, and trying to summarize them individually, we need to look at the section top-down so that different views and voices are given due weight.
Following up on a very good summary by Buddhipriya above, I suggest a three paragraph reception section with:

  • Two paragraphs summarizing the reviews her publications have received amongst academicians and scholars in related fields (history of religion, Indology, Sanskrit studies, comparative mythology), with an emphasis on reviews that comment on her general methodology, accuracy, and influence (as opposed to comments on individual works, except, possibly as examples). This part should also provide a summary (not a list) of awards for individual works, sales information, etc.
  • A paragraph on the response to her works in wider society, especially amongst "Hindus", Indian society, and Hindutva activists, with care taken that the disparate views are not clubbed together, over-simplified, or sensationalized. As far as possible, we need to use secondary sources for this part, and not simply give extended quotes from internet petitions, letters to editors etc.

From this bird's eye view, it should be clear that summary of reviews for an individual work (let alone summary of individual reviews of one work), are likely to be undue and better placed in an article on the book. Also, it would be very difficult to achieve the suggested balance piecemeal; as Buddhipriya has already suggested, it would be best to craft the language here on the talk page. It would help considerably if all involved editors assumed some good faith from the "other" side, and dialed down the rhetoric; when we can't trust ourselves to fairly summarize the literature in our own words (albeit with citations), we end up with the current "solution" of simply dumping selective quotes, which is a very poor way of writing an encyclopedic article.
Note that the above suggestion is meant only as a guideline, and not a rigid set of rules. If someone has objections to the basic structure, or suggestions to improve it, please do add you comments here and it can be revised. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this talk page failed to even produce neutral language to describe Doniger's occupation, I can't say that I have any faith in the process. Embarrasingly, the article can't claim that the translator of Sanskrit texts for Penguin Classics and Oxford Classics is a Sanskritist. Instead, the article says that "...she has described herself as a Sanskritist." Rudrasharman doesn't like Culiano, so he does everything that he can to neutralize a review from an academic journal, including citing a weblog. A weblog. Apparently, Rudrasharman thinks that weblogs are more reliable than academic journals. That is a very serious, completely unaddressed problem. Rudrasharman doesn't like Wikipedia's reliable source policy, and doesn't even pretend to abide by it. He was told by an admin to take his concerns elsewhere, but he aggressively ignored that advice. There are very serious issues with the editors on this page — they are not abiding by Wikipedia policy. And the involved administrators stand by and egg them on. These behavior issues need to be faced up to and dealt with before any progress can be made on the article.
User:Shii wrote some very good, neutral language for the reception section, even though he is a strong critic of Doniger. But that language is not harsh enough for this group and you want to re-write it, with the help of the self-appointed expert, User:Rudrasharman. God only knows what this group will come up with. Raj2004 wants to know if I am a practicing Hindu. How does that fit into your dictum to assume good faith?
The fact is that Doniger is a distinguished scholar, and a group of editors hate her guts and are determined to use this article to damage her reputation. I can't stop it, being only one person, but I will use every means at my disposal to slow it down. — goethean ॐ 22:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Goethean, are you objecting to my proposal, or only doubting whether it is achievable ? Assuming the latter is not an issue, do you think the suggested structure would be good ? Abecedare (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that Abecedare's proposal is better than any we have on the table at the moment. If we attempt to do it, we may find ways to improve on it if we try to work together on a common goal. I think that it may be helpful to try to recruit someone from completely outside the group that has commented on this so far to help look for neutral tone. On Wikipedia there are people who specialize in helping with wordsmithing. If we could find someone who is respected by all, or at least less irksome than most of us, that person might be an asset to the team. There is an old Indian story (in the Pancatantra) to the effect that a group of birds remain trapped in a net only because they do not agree to all fly upwards together as a group. If they do so, they can escape. Buddhipriya (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be difficult to find an "outsider" who'd be willing to devote time on this contentious topic. So we may be stuck with the cooks we have. ;-)
My idea would be (if the structure itself seems reasonable), to next break up the problem into individual parts along the lines of: "If we had to write 3 sentences on review of Doniger's methodological approach, what are the main sub-topics to cover, what are the best sources for those content, and how do we summarize their views" and similar questions about translations, sociopolitical reaction etc. Such an approach will help winnow down the sources and issues that are worth covering.
Right now for example, we have a whole paragraph on reviews of The Hindus: an alternative history, which is just crazy recentism, given that WD has published 20 odd books, and 100s of articles - the Reception section cannot fairly afford to devote even one sentence on each of those works, and this should immediately rule out using any NYT or Globe&Mail reviews in this article, except so far as they make general points about WD's scholarship and reception. Put differently: If we start with discussing (say) how to summarize an NYT review properly, we may get the individual sentence right, but the overall balance of the article will be skewed towards recent works, especially those geared to a popular audience, and which have attracted controversy - simply because it's easier to find multiple sources for such topics. So, I think it would be better to impose a rough structure first and then focus on the detailed content and wordsmithing. Thoughts ? Abecedare (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Abecedare, I agree that the current Reception section is not very good. I think your points are all reasonable. If we can get some degree of consensus for the idea of trying to develop a replacement for it here on the talk page, I would support moving it from article space to here as a temporary measure. Another approach would be to first write (on the talk page) a simple one- or two-sentence summary of the major issues that are at the heart of the disagreement and get agreement for that summary statement, then rotate the summary into article space to replace the current Reception section for further rework. I do not think we are likely to hit any major new issues in doing this. Refactoring this talk page should uncover all the points that people have been in disagreement about. A good list of bullet points is needed as a first step. Editors must agree to work together at some point for this to work. Buddhipriya (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think we should not even worry about what is in the article right now, and simply work on writing the reception section from scratch, and then moving it to mainspace once it is "complete". That way, we'll avoid needless revert wars and arguments/warnings about those reverts.
  • I would recommend against an editor-centric approach in which we try to hammer out where we differ and arrive at a compromise on that, since that tends to leave out coverage of content that are important to the subject but not a matter of interest/dispute to the editors (for example, WD has (co-)translated works from Greek, written fiction, and works on general comparative mythology, which are simply not covered in the current article, or discussed anywhere on this talkpage as far as I can see). Instead, lets just focus on what the content should be for comprehensive and balanced coverage, out of which I think only about ~25% will be disputable, and require extended discussion.
Abecedare (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

To get the above proposed process moving, I have started a page User:Abecedare/WD to compile sources and relevant material for writing the Reception section. Would appreciate additions and comments by any and all involved editors. Abecedare (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Reception section is too long

The reception section is too long and seems to focus on one book: The Hindus: An Alternative History. Perhaps it would better to focus on other book reviews as well. Raj2004 (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but it's not like there were more critical reviews in the past (I looked all throughout JSTOR). We should just cut down on the so-called "quote farm" in general and just state that the book was well-reviewed. Shii (tock) 19:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree and support Shii's suggestion. Buddhipriya (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Bio in The Hindus

The "About the Author" section on p. 780 (actually unnumbered page following page 779) of The Hindus: An Alternative History says: "Wendy Doniger holds two doctorates, in Sanskrit and Indian Studies, from Harvard and Oxford. She is the author of several translations of Sanskrit texts and many books about Hinduism, and has taught at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London and at the University of California at Berkeley. She is currently the Mircea Eliade Distinguished Service Professor of the History of Religions at the University of Chicago." Three points about this: 1.) Do we need to use the term "Sanskritist" in the article at all, since that term may be interpreted with special meaning by some people? The first two sentences of that passage clearly establish her academic credentials in Sanskrit without using the term "Sanskritist", which means something specific to some people but is not clearly defined. The criticism of the quality of her Sanskrit by Witzel needs to stay in, but I think the term "Sanskritist" is a red herring. 2) Is the article curently clear about which institution (Harvard, Oxford) granted which doctorate? 3) There is no mention of Yale in that bio, but of course it may be found somewhere else. Buddhipriya (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Re (3): There is no mention of it in her "official" online CV either. Re (2): Yes, until someone edits it:-) ("She received her first Ph.D., in Sanskrit and Indian Studies, from Harvard University in June 1968; and her second, a D. Phil. in Oriental Studies from Oxford University, in February 1973"). Re (1): Not really. Doniger is a mythologist, who draws heavily from Sanskrit texts. The "Sanskritist" red herring is just a maladroit attempt to head some trolls off at the pass by preemptively "refuting" their attacks. rudra (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
It is a simple fact that Doniger is a Sanskritist. I am sorry that her critics enemies are in denial about this fact. Reliable sources have been added to the article to back up this self-evident fact. Those reliable sources, and the accompanying text, have been removed by User:Rudrasharman through edit warring and in patent disregard for the good of the article and for Wikipedia policy. — goethean ॐ 21:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Several pages, discussing Doniger and mythology in depth:

  • Bulkeley, Kelly (1994). The Wondering Brain: Thinking about Religion With and Beyond Cognitive Neuroscience. Routledge. pp. 70ff.

Now, sit back and watch our resident troll argue that this is not a "reliable source" whereas, of course, a work on the "Oral History of the ibandla lamaNazaretha, the Nazareth Baptist Church of South Africa", is. rudra (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Who do you think you are fooling? The source you removed was Huston Smith's article in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion. — goethean ॐ 23:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Because it had only an offhand remark, just like all the other "reliable sources" you scrounged up. It added nothing, again just like the others, to Doniger's eminently suitable self-description. All of these issues have already been dealt with in the WP:RSN thread. You are wasting everyone's time with your stale "arguments". rudra (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And guess who calls Doniger a "comparative mythologist". rudra (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is possible for a person to have more than one area of expertise, so being a mythologist does not exclude the possibility of being described as an expert in additional areas. For purposes of developing encyclopedia text it may be best to determine which of the several areas she is most often connected and give due weight to each. See: Polymath. Buddhipriya (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
True. Here are some fairly easy indicators (obviously, not an exhaustive list):
  • Her faculty web page at the UoC. "... research and teaching interests revolve around two basic areas, Hinduism and mythology. Her courses in mythology address themes in cross-cultural expanses, such as death, dreams, evil, horses, sex, and women; her courses in Hinduism cover a broad spectrum that, in addition to mythology, considers literature, law, gender, and psychology." This has been reproduced in at least one book, eg. the back matter of this one.
  • Subject to an obvious check for false positives, a search in Google books for "+doniger +sanskritist" has a raw count of 67 hits, whereas "+doniger +mythologist" has 76 hits. This is also subject to a check of who is calling her either (i.e. are they judging or passing on hearsay, and what are their credentials/standing? A footnote in a work on the oral history of a Christian denomination in South Africa, for example, really shouldn't count towards the "Sanskritist" tally, or should it??)
  • Doniger's bibliography and the reviews she cites in her CV. For Rig Veda, she cites only two reviews, one of which was an obvious puff job, and the other was by a journalist also with no track record in the subject area. Other books have tons of reviews. Kamasutra is obviously a special case, because of the subject matter; the list is also only of reviews, so it's missing works such as this (which, curiously enough, appears on Google books for the Sanskritist search given above before any of the seven mentioned in the WP:RSN thread, but was omitted for reasons that become fairly obvious upon reading.)
I think it's fairly clear that her focus is on mythology, just as her official web page would lead one to think. Here is an encomium (from the +mythologist tally) that I think captures the relations pretty well:

Taking other people's myths seriously is no light endeavor, and Doniger more than meets her own rigorous standards for a comparative mythologist, which includes mastering the language of the culture whose myths one intends to study (enter).

rudra (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
It is a simple fact that Doniger is a Sanskritist.I support goethean, I am sorry that her critics enemies are in denial about this fact.sorry to right wing hindus.--Vedvyasa (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
It's quite amazing that, as a rule, those who insist on calling Doniger a Sanskritist don't know Sanskrit themselves. (It doesn't take much Sanskrit to grasp that Doniger's "translations" are typically eclectic, because she prefers what the texts need to mean for her theories over what they do mean or even say. So, arguing from ignorance permits the enormous convenience of being simply unable to understand the evidence, such as this example) And not just here. We have it, ahem, reliably sourced, that there are a whole bunch of people who don't know any Sanskrit themselves but have asserted that Doniger is a Sanskritist. Such as the authors of a work on the oral history of a Christian denomination in South Africa. Yeah, that's the ticket, just the people we should be asking, no? rudra (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I know Rajiv Malhotra is accused of being a Hindu extremist but he raises good points in the "unreliable weblog," as Goethan would characterize it: http://rajivmalhotra.sulekha.com/blog/post/2002/09/risa-lila-1-wendy-s-child-syndrome.htm See section on "How Reliable is Wendy Doniger's Sanskrit?" Even assuming that Malhotra is an extremist, he cites Professor Witzel, no friend of Hinduvta for showing that Doniger's Sanskrit translations are "unreliable." by citing numerous examples. Malhotra makes an important critique on the criticism by supporters of Doniger: "Finally, one cannot defend the criticism of her work X by showing the greatness of another work Y, nor by psychoanalyzing the critics, and nor by disqualifying the critics.

Furthermore, Professor Doniger is obsessed with finding a sexual meaning in any Hindu imagery; For example, she, according to the article,defines linga as: “The phallus, particularly of Siva.” but makes not attempt in explaining the variety of multiple meanings for a single word. Diana L. Eck, professor of Comparative Religion and Indian Studies at Harvard, according to Malhotra's commentary, accurately commentated on Doniger's propensity for sexuality by stating that “Christians look at the Hindu worship of the linga and see it as phallic worship, while Hindus [(analogously)] look at the Christian sacrament of communion and are repulsed by its symbolic cannibalism." Raj2004 (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a mistake to cite Malhotra for Witzel's criticisms, because he has got them wrong. (I notice that Malhotra's misquotations of Witzel have been repeated elsewhere in the blogosphere.) rudra (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Since Malhotra posted his comments on Witzel on a weblog, I was not sure if his comments on Witzel were accurate. Raj2004 (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting,Vedavyasa is a new account: [[2]] Hopefully, this is not one of the parties masquerading as a fellow supporter. Raj2004 (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not the question that Doniger is a good scholar or not,But we all know that she is a scholar of sanskrit,there may be many scholars which may or may not be a perfactionist in sanskrit,but it doesn't mean that they are not a scholar.we are not saying her a best or one of the best scholar of sanskrit,but we may say her a simple scholar of sanskrit.--Vedvyasa (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No one denies that Doniger knows Sanskrit, or that it figures prominently in her work. But her work happens mostly to be in the subject area of mythology. She is principally a mythologist. There is a difference between knowing (and working with) Sanskrit and being a Sanskritist; just as there is a difference between sound-bites from people who don't know Sanskrit and evaluations by people who do. rudra (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Buddhipriya makes some excellent points in this section, including that there doesn't seem to be a clearly defined meaning for "Sanskritist". To me, someone who is a professional scholar, who knows Sanskrit and who works with Sanskrit texts, and who has published translations of Sanskrit texts, is a Sanskritist. Rudra, if I understand him properly, wants to limit the term to philologists, i.e. people who study the language qua language and do things like textual criticism. Which, you know, would be a reasonable thing to do *if* that were the only definition of the word, but I don't think that's the case.

Buddhipriya's suggestion about avoiding the word "Sanskritist" entirely is worth considering. If the lead makes clear that Doniger draws upon Sanskrit texts (of which era?) and explains what she does with them--e.g., "she studies Hindu mythology, drawing upon the evidence of Sanskrit texts", this will be more helpful a reader who doesn't know much about Indology than edit-warring about whether she's a Sanskritist or not. The lead should also make clear that she's published translations from the Sanskrit. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Rudhasharman's point is important to consider even for critics. To really understand Doniger's work we must look at her as a comparative religionist. She wants to shed a new light on texts, not to present them in the same way an Indian guru would. This is why I would theoretically prefer a term like "mythologist" to "Sanskritist", which seems to be simply pitting her against Indian Sanskrit scholars. We won't get anywhere by fighting. Shii (tock) 14:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
That is a fair summary. The point about philology needs a little nuancing, though. The issue is whether Doniger cares about being source-critically accurate. And the general answer is, on balance, no, her theories and interpretations are more important. Which is fine as far as being a mythologist is concerned, but it makes the Sanskritist label simply inapplicable. This is why the example here is so paradigmatic. It's obvious that no Sanskritist would ever propose such a translation of that passage, and it's equally obvious that such an approach to the texts is exactly why she is not taken seriously at all by Sanskritists. (The dislike is mutual, btw.) If we could avoid the term altogether, that would be great, but I doubt we could get there. rudra (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Doniger is the translator of Sanskrit texts for Penguin Classics and Oxford Classics. To avoid calling her a Sanskritist is to very deilberately engage in original research, research which contradicts the judgement of the editorial staffs of the most important publishers on the planet. However, I do not doubt that this group has the arrogance to do so. — goethean ॐ 15:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Practically speaking, because you are so insistent on this, we could easily use both terms. Shii (tock) 16:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are editors on Penguin Classics and Oxford Classics. You can be an editor serving on the board but not necessarily be a "Sanskritist." They can definitely engage in editing but not necessarily have the credentials. Raj2004 (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As goethean told above and i have also found a reference[3] where she is told as sanskrit doctorate.so lets close this "Sanskritist" matter.--Vedvyasa (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see your talk page, your edits to this article have been disruptive. Shii (tock) 16:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:3RR

  • 00:47, 18 March [4]
  • 23:40 17 March [5]
  • 23:19 17 March [6]
  • 23:09 17 March [7]

I understand that the user feels that there is a violation of WP:TALK in the material which may make him feel justified in making multiple reversions. I am unsure what the correct policy is in such cases, but it would seem better to ask a neutral administrator to decide the matter rather than doing multiple reverts in this way. Buddhipriya (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This article really needs to be in dispute resolution. Edit warring (on the talk page!) is not going to solve anything. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I have posted a Wikiquette alert about the problem as a more gentle first step. [8]. I have a feeling that the positive approach suggested by Abecedare is gaining some traction with a majority of the editors, and would like to see if clear consensus forms about that in the next few days. Buddhipriya (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I was merely taking out the garbage. — goethean ॐ 02:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
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) 03:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Buddhapriya's comments seem to imply that there is a possible scenario in which Rudrasharman's spamming of this page is appropriate — spam which would have been aggressively stamped out long ago if he were not on the side of the Doniger-despising majority. If that is indeed what Buddhapriya believes, I suggest that he elaborate on that belief. In fact, Rudrasharman's spamming of this page is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. The only reason he is allowed to continue his antics is because Buddhapriya and others love the fact that it is me who he is childishly harrassing, and they want to see me out of the picture so that they can edit this article with no oversight whatsoever. — goethean ॐ 15:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


I don't think Buddhapriya is biased. I have worked with him in the past and find him to be fair-minded. Raj2004 (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well that's real shocking considering that he is taking your side. — goethean ॐ 18:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with --Akhilleus ,This article really needs to be in dispute resolution. Edit warring (on the talk page!) is not going to solve anything.Please follow wikpedia policies--Vedvyasa (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Goethan's changes again!

Goethan again removed my changes; see [[9]] He objected to my use of "Western" academic media and deleted it to "academic media" yet he shows no support that the Indian academic media had any positive or negative reviews. He also makes the Hindu American Foundation the only one opposing Doniger's book. A Los Angeles Times article reported that there were other groups too. Concerned editors, please take a look. Raj2004 (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Your additions are unsourced. If you have a source, cite it. — goethean ॐ 18:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Rather than blaming to Goethean,please provide us reliable source,i assure you not to remove any changes that will be made by you,cheers--Vedvyasa (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the use of the word "Western" introduces an opening for criticism. Unfortunately this issue has not been looked at fully so we cannot say whether the American media are giving "Western" views or some other kind of view. Shii (tock) 19:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The Hindus is not an academic or scholarly work. It was written for the chattering classes, and for the most part will be "reviewed" by that same group. Of the reviews in the general press I've seen so far, only one was by someone of academic consequence (Arnold in the TLS), i.e. with some claim to credibility independent of the same chattering classes and their "views". For the rest, Pankaj Mishra's sycophantic gush is about par for the course. rudra (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
IAWTP Shii (tock) 21:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Rudra, of the reviews, only there is one Professor, Professor Arnold, so it's not much of an academic review. Raj2004 (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Hindus did not receive the kind of negative press which we are trying to highlight in this article, so let's remove all of the reviews of that book. (sarcasm) — goethean ॐ 21:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
You want to remove content because some of it doesn't support your position? Shii (tock) 22:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry that my sarcasm was unclear. I was attempting to point out that Rudrsharman wants to remove all the review of The Hindus because they are positive, and they don't fit into his agenda of having an overwhelmingly negative article on Doniger. I thought it was pretty obvious. — goethean ॐ 00:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


Not true. The Hindus did receive some negative press as the Hindu American foundation stated that it found alleged factual errors. Stop lying, Goethean! Raj2004 (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Shii, Goethan reveals his true colors. He says that my edits are unsourced but he has no support for his deletes. Only the Western press, of what we know, reported positive views. We can not say that is true of the Indian press, as we have no evidence of this. Also, the LA times reported another group besides HAF protested: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2010/03/donigerprotest.html So that does not make HAF alone. Raj2004 (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


Your description of the sources in the article as "the Western press" is unsourced WP:OR. — goethean ॐ 23:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Read the policy: "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must be able to cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. "

Labeling it the media is unsourced as you have no support for what the Indian press said! Is the media you?? Raj2004 (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I also strongly object to Goethean's contiued reversal of comments that are trying to present Wendy's contributions in a balanced light, as viewed from the Hindu stand point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.16.50 (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added essay-like template to the article as the user Goethean is not allowing any view other than his being put on this article. The article does not portray any sort criticism that Wendy has received from scholars and especially the society. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There are three types of criticism I can think of. First is generic criticism of "Hindu studies" which has been done by prominent scholars like Balagangadhara, which does not single her out. Second is very, very politely worded criticism from other religion scholars like McCutcheon. Third is criticism from Hindus. Which do you think is missing, and how should we integrate it? Shii (tock) 22:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


Shii, I am not sure that these kinds of criticism should be brought out in the Doniger article. This is one point that I would agree with Goethean. I think such criticism should be put in another article, a new article, Hindu studies in America, which can document the criticism of Hindu studies in America. I think that Dab alluded to this in one of his comments earlier. See February 23rd discussion at [[10]] I think these criticism points are brought out in the Invading the Sacred book. http://invadingthesacred.com/content/view/21/35/ I don't think it is appropriate to bring this out in the Doniger article. Doniger is one of many professors who have been criticized by the Hindu right and moderate Hindus who don't like the demeaning of their scriptural traditions. Raj2004 (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Too much focus on awards?

I don't mean to belittle the awards Doniger has received, but I feel like their placement in the bio section detracts from learning about Doniger's life (for example, the fact that she was AAR prez is just mixed in there and easily overlooked). Compare to other scholars: Mircea Eliade only contains one mention of an award. Max Müller has no awards mentioned. Maybe we should move the list down to another section. Shii (tock) 20:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps her fans wrote those paragraphs! Raj2004 (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

HAF and Doniger's reply

Aseem Shukla, board member of Hindu American Foundation, published a critique on Doniger in the Washington Post and Doniger replied; see, http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/aseem_shukla/2010/03/whose_history_is_it_anyways.html

Raj2004 (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

  • since Doniger bothered to reply, it is fair to say that she has debated her critics online.
  • No, this was not "published in the Washington Post". It's an online dispute taking place on a blog hosted by the Washington Post website. This is not the same.
  • What merit does this particular critic have? Not much. Granted, he is not a knuckle-walking Hindutvavadi, but he also doesn't have the first idea what he is talking about. The fallacy, on both sides, is already that some magic spell in the Rigveda is treated as part of "Hinduism", while the content of the Rigveda has next to nothing to do with actual Hinduism. Case in point,
    "Scholars studying this Mandala section of the Rig Vedas know that many items are addressed as human beings - herbs, amulets, gems, animals, malevolent spirits, germs, etc. So I believe strongly that Doniger misrepresents this particular verse and arrives on a conclusion not intended in its writing." Sure, some verses may be addressed to herbs etc., but this one isn't, this one is about the fetus of a pregnant woman being protected against evil spirits -- he hasn't even read the verse, and he has no idea what it is about. Doniger may not be a premier Sanskritist, but she has at least read the verse, RV 10.162.5.
      • Dab, Shukla stated this regarding the verse in the blog:, " Actually, though, translating directly from Sanskrit, the verse does not state that the brother or anyone lies with the pregnant woman in her bed."

"A correct translation and interpretation of the Sanskrit in Rigveda 10.162.5 that Doniger cites is a conversation between an evil spirit assuming the form of her husband, brother or assuming the form of her lover to come close to a pregnant woman to destroy her fetus. There is no terminology in the mantra of sex with a sleeping or drugged woman. The woman in the mantra is already pregnant and the entire hymn contains imprecations against evil spirits who can cause her abortion." So it seems that HAF agrees with your reading. Raj2004 (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  • "whose history is it anyway?" History as in, things that happened in the past? Is this up for ownership now? So the history of Turkey can from now on only be written by Turks? The history of Germany only by Germans? Because they own past events that happened somewhere near where they were born? No commentary is necessary.
      • Dab, I think Dr. Shukla was asking a "rhetorical question." He is arguing that if the history of Turkey masks the Armenian genocide, then such a history is open to bias, spin and errors, as he suggests with Doniger's alleged flawed interpretation. So he is not claiming ownership but argues that history that does not have an accurate views is flawed. He seems to argue that politics infuses the narratives of history and was trying to make an analogy. Raj2004 (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I seem to remember that we came across other full-blooded idiots on this "On Faith" panel before. The fact that you write a blog doesn't imply you have anything to say that is worth listening to. No, not even if your blog is on the servers of Washington Post.

Can something of this make it into Doniger's BLP article? Yes, maybe a one-liner, she debated some random guy on some random blog. Is it worth fighting over inclusion or non-inclusion of this tidbit at any length? Probably not. --dab (𒁳) 15:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need to mention the WP blog item in the bio, but I don't object to leaving the mention in as it is currently in the article. I disagree that it is "just another blog", since the Washington Post makes editorial decisions about who is allowed to write for it. All that needs to be noted in the bio is the fact that there is criticism of WD from some elements of the Hindu community. That can be cited simply by quoting from WD's "The Hindus: An Alternative History", pp. 14-16, section titled "You Can't Make an Omelet...", which recaps in her own words the conflict she is having with some elements of Hindu community. It is interesting to me that she felt the need to include that section in the book, where it is explicitly intended to fend off expected criticism of the book. The section begins by equating her critics with Hindutva movement entities such as the RSS, etc., which is the media "spin" that is preferred by her defenders, which marginalizes the content issues. It then recounts the egg incident. She then says (p.15), "My defense now, for this book, remains what it was in the news coverage then, about the lecture (and the egg)" with a quotation from prior coverage. The point of this is that she herself mentions that her work is controversial, and cites news coverage about it. Buddhipriya (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Remaining NPOV issues

I think we have a good consensus to leave the article as it currently is, and discuss here before making major changes to its current structure. I'd like to know if there are any remaining NPOV or "essay" issues, as the pastel boxes ward off interested readers. Shii (tock) 17:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that thanks to Shii, Rudra and other contributors, the article is much more fair and balanced than before. Other editors, please comment. Raj2004 (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Witzel material was rejected at the reliable sources noticeboard. — goethean ॐ 18:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not currently being used on the page, is it? Shii (tock) 18:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Footnote #10 currently refers to the Indology listserve, which was commented on here. — goethean ॐ 18:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Shii, please look at the complete post. Yes, Dlabtot commented that a listserv is not a reliable source; Rudra argued otherwise. But Dlabtot also suggested that some other administrator take a look. So the issue remains unresolved. It would be interesting to see what weight does universities accord a listserve. If an academic such as Witzel comments on a specific issue, that would be accorded greater credibility than non-academic commentary. Raj2004 (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

For example, [[11]] suggests that a listserv : "E-mail information via a listserv deserves consideration when the listserv focuses on an academic issue, such as British Romantic Literature, or more specifically Shelley's Poetry. Rather than a source for facts to quote, listserv can be used to generate ideas. So even this source may be used by either side to argue their point of view. I would be in favor of keeping the listserv in order to keep the article as NPOV as possible, but other editors such as Goethan may disagree. What do you think, Shii? You seem to be the most neutral of the bunch.Raj2004 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you take your cue from Wikipedia policy rather than from researchnavigator.com. — goethean ॐ 22:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but Wikipedia site on verifiability also stated: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I would say Witzel is an established expert in the field. Raj2004 (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Witzel does not publish the Indology listserv. Ergo, the material is not self-published. This is exactly what was observed at the RS noticeboard. — goethean ॐ 01:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with Goethean's view, but I think there is enough critical coverage in the article as it stands that we don't need to cite a listserv in addition to the peer-reviewed books and articles already found. So, let's consider this issue closed for now, and see if there's anything else we need to deal with. Shii (tock) 22:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Shii, I think Rudra wanted to show that there were differing views on her competence as a Sanskrit scholar, such as Professor Witzel. Culianau's statement that her translations are most reliable is cast in doubt by Witzel's view. Raj2004 (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Witzel's 'view' is contained in a non-notable, misspelled, unpublished email. If Witzel wanted to critique Doniger's translation, he could have reviewed, in the venue of his choice, any of her many books. The only reason that Witzel's misspelled email is referenced in this article is because Doniger's critics/opponents/enemies have been thus far unsuccessful in tracking down any sufficiently damaging reviews of her work in academic sources, a fact which itself speaks extremely highly for Doniger's work. — goethean ॐ 01:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, yes, that's a good point. But do professors really discredit other scholars' work in academic journals? But if Shii agrees that this may be a disservice, then I agree.Raj2004 (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think it does the article a disservice to incorrectly claim that there's a dispute about the quality of Doniger's work within academia. I think we should document the response of Hindu groups-- that looks good right now. Shii (tock) 03:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you may be right, Shii but it is a little surprising that a fellow academic would supposedly call her translations unreliable. Raj2004 (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

do professors really discredit other scholars' work in academic journals?
Yes, there are negative reviews in journals. I can think of one off the top of my head. — goethean ॐ 12:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok and thanks, Goethean. Then we should replace that Witzel critique with an academic criticism, rather than referring to a listserv, if such academic critique is available, as you suggest. Raj2004 (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

One more point. Rudra raised a good point in the past. Professor Culianu was considered an expert in gnosticism and Renaissance magic, according to the Wikipedia article,[[12]] and probably does not have the appropriate academic background to call Doniger's translations most reliable, while Professor Witzel does. If we are removing Witzel's criticism, then we should remove Culianu's praise, unless we can find an academic like Witzel who is credible enough to call Doniger's translation reliable.Raj2004 (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Culianu material is cited to History of Religions journal, a most reliable source, and will not be removed due to Rudra's irrelevant rumor-mongering. It is certainly a more reliable source according to Wikipedia policy than Witzel's misspelled, unpublished email. — goethean ॐ 12:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that Culianu was cited in the History of Religions. This appears to be a reliable source, [[13]]. Raj2004 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Briefing the reception of (controversial) Author's work in the intro to bring NPOV

I would like to include few more references in this articles. As time passes, we get more critiques and reliable references to describe author's work. The early remarks and references are, most of the times, come from the sources who are either closely associated with the Author or his/her co-workers and friends in same domain. Therefore, it is extremly important to include references from possible reliable sources as the time passes. I have found two relibale source. First, the famous and most sought after (at least in India) magazine "Outlook". "Outlook" can be seen as reliable as the TIME magazine in US. On The Washington Post article by Professor Asheem Shukla, a reference of reviews published in Outlook maganize is also provided [[14]]. Second source is from a weekly news paper "Panchjanya". It is the hightest circulated weekly news paper in India and has seen the former Indian Prime Minister "Atal Bihari Vajpayee" as the editor for many years. Both sources provides a critical view on the Doniger's work which in my opinion should be the part of the this article at the top. Currently, the user "Goethean" is updating my work on this article almost every 15 hours without providing any sensible remarks for doing so. I would like to see his views on why my work on this article should not be included. The following thing I would like to go on the article to provide unbiased view: ... "Much of her work is focused on translating, interpreting and comparing elements of Hindu mythology through modern contexts of gender, sexuality and identity. She has been called "one of the most distinguished mythologists of our time".[1]. She has also received severe criticizms, including challenges and petitions by many reviewers of her work and intellectuals[[15]][[16]][[17]][[18]]. Alluding to her Classical training, she has described herself as "a Sanskritist, indeed a recovering Orientalist"[6] and "an old-fashioned philologist".[7] — sun ॐ 12:15, 14 April 2010 (IST)

Your additions are poorly sourced and poorly written.The outlook India piece is an opinion editorial piece written by non-notable author, as is the Newsweek-blog post. In this article, we have been using reviews from academic journals. Your accusation that these reviews are from associates of Doniger is highly offensive, evidence-free, and transparently false as well as contradictory to the Wikipedia reliable sources policy. Your reference to voiceofdharma.org is a blog-post, and unreliable per WP:RS. Additionally, Wikipedia articles do not criticize subjects in the introduction, and all of this material is already neutrally covered in the article. Please read Wikipedia policy and the entire talk page discussion and stop edit warring over these long-settled matters. Thank you. — goethean ॐ 11:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Here is what I wrote: "As time passes, we get more critiques and reliable references to describe author's work. The early remarks and references are, most of the times, come from the sources who are either closely associated with the Author or his/her co-workers and friends in same domain. Therefore, it is extremly important to include references from possible reliable sources as the time passes." This is written to support my arguments to include upcoming reference on Wendy's work be it positive or negative. And here is what you understood: "Your accusation that these reviews are from associates of Doniger is highly offensive, evidence-free, and transparently false as well as contradictory to the Wikipedia reliable sources policy.". What I wrote is a comman sense and most general and NPOV. The reference you have provided for your argument on "She has been called "one of the most distinguished mythologists of our time" is a close associate of Wendy. Sudhir Kakar has worked for long and has held positions at the same university and college where Doniger is working also they have worked together[[19]], try google for more. From an academic point of view this may look okay to work together but it can't be taken as the NPOV to include praising Wendy by Kakar. Why don't you include the comment of Professor Aseem Shukla along with your biased reference praising Wendy? There are several notable scholars who have said and written negative comments on Wendy's work, in that case how come Kakar's comment on Wendy is important to get included then the negative comments. And no where in the Wikipedia policy written that criticism must not be included in the introduction. Reception or Criticism can come as a separate section but if required for the NPOV and the flow of the article, this can be included. Introduction gives a brief about the person and what is going to follow in the remaining of the article. Therefore, it make perfact sense to include negative receptions of Wendy in the introduction. I agree that Voiceofdharma, at this point in time, may not be taken as the NPOV reference. — sun ॐ 20:05, 14 April 2010 (IST)


Second source is from a weekly news paper "Panchjanya". It is the hightest circulated weekly news paper in India and has seen the former Indian Prime Minister "Atal Bihari Vajpayee" as the editor for many years.
Thank you for providing me with evidence that the BJP is involved in the libel of American scholars, as I have long held. — goethean ॐ 12:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, looking at the way you have written about Wendy, it looks like you have strong non NPOV interests, and therefore you are looking from the same lenses and criticizing BJP. Where the BJP comes in picture here? Can you oppose what "Panchjanya" has published? The title of that publication is not criticizing American scholars in general but a single scholar Wendy. Re-read the title and the content of that publication if you understand Hindi and you will come to know. — sun ॐ 20:05, 14 April 2010 (IST)
Panchjanya is the highest circulated weekly newspaper in India even when the BJP alone is nowhere close making govt anywhere in near future. In last 60 years of India, for almost 50 years there was non BJP govt. It is the people how have accepted this paper and not because of the BJP but because of the boldly criticizing the things which spread inaccuracies about Indian culture and religions. You should keep your lenses away when judging things and pls don't bring political angle here. — sun ॐ 20:05, 14 April 2010 (IST)


I am ready to talk to contributors of Wendy Doniger's article. Goethean please put your arguments why shouldn't we include this line in the introduction when Wendy Doniger has been known for controversial writings on one of the largest religion in the world: (Her work has also received severe criticizms by the reviewers and gone to the extent of filing petition to stop publication of a book written by her.[[20]][[21]].) There are large number of people may find affected by her writings than some other novel writer. Therefore, it is more important to pay proper attention in our writings and think from the NPOV and bring poth positive (which is already indirectly honorified) and negative reception in the introduction. — sun ॐ 11:00, 15 April 2010 (IST)

Therefore, it is more important to pay proper attention in our writings and think from the NPOV and bring poth positive (which is already indirectly honorified) and negative reception in the introduction.
No it's not. Wikipedia does not criticize living people in the introduction of their biographies. This is because Wikipedia is interested in giving factual accounts and sharing knowledge, rather than libeling public figures and attempting to damage people's reputations. Perhaps, therefore, Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for your writings. Please see WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:MOS, each of which your contribution violates. — goethean ॐ 14:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Goethean that such criticism should not put in the lead introduction section. Rather well-referenced positive and negative criticism should be put in the reception section. However, Goethean, who is perhaps not a lawyer, is incorrect if he/she means that an opinion can be libelous. Generally, depending on the jurisdiction, an opinion (i.e., of a person, such as Wendy Doniger_ is never libelous, as it is can never be proven to be a false factual statement. See, [[22]]. Just a clarification. Raj2004 (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Also an opinion (i.e., distinguished mythologist.." is more appropriate for the receception section than the lead introduction section. I have not critiqued Techsolution's references so I don't know if they are considered reliable sources. Techsolutions suggests that one of his sources, Panchjanya is. I am not sure about that but Outlook (magazine) is. Again since Panchjanya is not an English language publication, it is up to other informed users to decide. Raj2004 (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Rearranging reception section

makes more sense to place Kakar's quote next to similar quote; better to break up the Vedic notes[23]

No, it does not. The comments on Doniger's career should be in chronological order, either based on the year of the book under review or the year of the review. Please revert yourself. You should also revert your other edit[24], which also worsened the article. — goethean ॐ 20:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I reverted per your kind and polite request but describing Kakar as a psychoanalyst and writer is an accurate statement of himself, from his own web site. Raj2004 (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. — goethean ॐ 23:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. But if you want, it would better to preface a critic with a description. That's just my point of view. But I can see your point; sometimes describing a person with a honorific makes the article wordy. Raj2004 (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice some people seem intent on adding a Criticism section. This will not do; it is a boon to Wikipedia to remove such POV-laden sections and replace them with neutral summaries, i.e. "Reception". I think the criticism cited is spurious, anyway. Shii (tock) 15:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sanskritist

Here, here, and here Rudrasharman removes a collection of citations to reliable source and substitutes his own personal opinion regarding who is and who is not a Sanskritist. His edit flies directly in the face of Wikipedia Verifiability policy as well as common sense and should be reverted immediately. — goethean ॐ 17:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how any of your "sources" is reliable for whether Doniger (or anyone, for that matter) is or is not a Sanskritist. To repeat a comment from one of the edit summaries, WP:RS is not a blank check. rudra (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, is that how it works? Innumerable books including one authored by Huston Smith and some published by Putnam, SUNY, University of Michigan, University of Texas, and Indiana University uncontroversially refer to Doniger as a Sanskritist. But you object, based on...based on...what was it again? Your deeply-held opinions? And I am supposed to defend content which has passed through these editorial staffs, because you don't think that the consensus of these publications stands up to your highly-esteemed opinions. Where you get your ideas God only knows, I assure you that it has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Please bring this up to the reliable sources noticeboard so I can watch you get your rhetorical ass handed to you. — goethean ॐ 00:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
To repeat, WP:RS is not a blank check. WP:RS is always in context. When someone who is not an expert on the subject calls someone else a Sanskritist, it's just that: a factoid. Maybe even a reliably sourceable factoid, but just a factoid nonetheless and no more. Thus, "Huston Smith and a bunch of punters have called Doniger a Sanskritist". Does that mean she is recognized as a Sanskritist by other Sanskritists? Of course not, you know this, but you're here for some not so obvious POV-pushing, that's all. The fact remains that she has not been recognized as a Sanskritist by anyone whose opinion on the matter counts. Please address the original question: how is any of your cited sources reliable for the issue of whether Doniger (or anyone) is a Sanskritist? rudra (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
It's more reliable than anything you've presented, which is nothing. — goethean ॐ 02:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Huh? I didn't have to present anything. I quoted Doniger herself! That's miles better than quotage from random google searches, any day. And you still haven't addressed the question. rudra (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
You are claiming (I presume) that Doniger is not a Sanskritist. I have seven reliable sources (and plenty more) which say she is, as well as her own words. To back up your claim, you have presented nothing but empty rhetoric. — goethean ॐ 02:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Doniger has not been called a Sanskritist by anyone whose opinion on the matter could count. Offhand remarks by people unconnected to Sanskrit scholarship do not count; and the people among whom she has some sort of reputation of being a Sanskritist are not taken seriously by Sanskritists. The bottom line is that her Sanskrit scholarship is quite pedestrian. That's why her self description is enough. (Just because she has become a target of hostile polemics does not mean that she has to be rescued with a hagiography. We leave both kinds of crap out of BLPs, thank you very much.) And you still haven't addressed the question. rudra (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I have reviewed the links provided by Rudra related to Witzel's posting as well as the Witzel article that I posted a link for, and I would say that they are sufficient to justify insertion of a statement something like "The quality of her Sanskrit translations has been questioned by Witzel" or words to that effect. Witzel is a very prominent Sanskritist. The absence of academic literature openly criticising her Sanskrit is not remarkable because the number of working academics who are positioned as top-quality Sanskritists is not large, and the tendency in the academic community is to avoid sniping in peer-reviewed literature. I was surprised by how blunt Witzel was in the electronic postings. Buddhipriya (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Make sure that you include the part where he spells "reliable" wrong in his academic treatise. What a joke. — goethean ॐ 03:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

An example of -- ahem -- a Sanskritist at work. rudra (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

H.W. Bodewitz, translator of parts of the critical edition of the Jaiminiya Brahmana, is a bona fide Sanskritist. The JB was the source of materials for one of Doniger's books, Tales of Sex and Violence. Bodewitz's take (pp.21-24) on Doniger's work. rudra (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Doniger and Smith's Laws of Manu was critiqued in Christopher Framarin, Desire and Motivation in Indian Philosophy, pp.76-79. And, surprise surprise, guess who removed the citation from this article. rudra (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Doniger's response to Witzel's critique here is quite revealing.

As for Witzel’s criticisms of my Sanskrit translations, I think it stems from his misunderstanding of the sorts of liberties I took for the Penguin Classic translation of the Rig Veda, where I couldn’t use a lot of footnotes and so had to smooth out a lot of lines in ways that did in fact take me farther from the literal meanings of the words than I would have allowed myself to go were I trying to produce the sort of academic translations that Witzel is looking for. But that really has nothing to do with the issues here. Nor does the criticism that I only translate the ordinary Sanskrit texts that everyone else translates. I wrote a whole (if small) book about the Jaiminiya Brahmana, a much ignored text, and both the Shiva book and the Evil book cite lots of obscure Puranas that have never been translated (or hadn’t been in the 70’s, when I wrote those books). But of course I work on the central texts that other people work on too.

She admits that she has sacrificed scholarship for mass market appeal. (But why? Others, such as Patrick Olivelle, haven't had to make such compromises. In fact, why produce a book at all if you can't get it right? This is a pathetic excuse.) The claim about the JB has aready been dealt with by Bodewitz. And citations of obscure Puranas are not the same as translations. Witzel is right: she is a re-translator, and not a particularly good one at that. rudra (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, a purported email quoted on a weblog! Well, that's FAR more reliable than the academic journal articles which I tend to cite, isn't it? And more of your unsolicited 'expert' opinion. Fabulous. Wikipedia policy — look into it. — goethean ॐ 22:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
You doubt that Doniger wrote that? rudra (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't give a shit, and it is totally, but TOTALLY irrelevant to this talk page which is supposed to be a discussion of a Wikipedia article, not your personal vendetta. I am sorry that you have never acquainted yourself with Wikipedia policy enough to understand that your comments have ZERO relevance to the writing of this article. Hearsay about a purported email from Doniger on somebody's weblog is so far from being something that concerns this discussion, that your comments abocve should probably be removed on principle. This talk page is reserved for discussion of changes to the Wendy Doniger article. It's not a chatroom. I appreciate that your clear goal here is to waste my time with pointless irrelevancies, rather than to work toward constructing an encyclopedia article. Therefore, I am going to try to limit the amuont of time that I spend responding to your insane screeds. — goethean ॐ 22:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you started this thread about Doniger being a Sanskritist. The problems here are twofold: first, that you haven't the faintest clue of whether she is or not; and second, you haven't the faintest clue of how to find out, since you lack even an elementary acquaintance with the field. Of course, that affords you the convenience of arguing from ignorance and discounting everything except that which agrees with your preconceptions; but we already know you as a POV-pusher, so that's no surprise. But, really, since you are in no position to evaluate the evidence, you really shouldn't get involved, or try to hide behind formulaic WP:RS pieties. It only creates edit-wars, and talk page sagas, out of thin air. Worse, it insulates you from the realization that using a self-quote is the best way to avoid in-depth investigation of Doniger's status as a Sanskritist. Using WP's voice to endorse the effluvia of your favorite wine and cheese party crowd is POV-pushing, and you know it. rudra (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The filibustering continues, I see. (Well, if that's all you've got...)
You are right — I know nothing about Sanskrit. However, if one needed to know anything about Sanskrit in order to determine for the purposes of Wikipedia whether a given author is or is not a Sanskritist, then no article on Wikipedia would ever have been written. That is why we have the reliable sources and verifiability policies, which you characterize the usage of as "try[ing] to hide behind formulaic WP:RS pieties." I am sorry that you hate Wikipedia policy, but this really has nothing to do with the Wendy Doniger article. — goethean ॐ 00:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
That is demonstrably false. Doniger doesn't have to be a Sanskritist for a BLP to be written. She is a scholar of religion, and holds a chair in that too. That makes her notable by WP:PROF. Which planet are you on? rudra (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
And, btw, your ignorance of Sanskrit also explains why you don't understand that "Sanskritist, indeed a recovering Orientalist" is actually a unitary description, not two independent things (connected by "indeed", not "and"). rudra (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

On a page full of foolish disputes, this one stands out. Doniger is a Sanskritist; she is a scholar who studies Sanskrit texts, and she holds a chair at one of the best Universities in the world. Some people may question her scholarship and her translations of Sanskrit, but that wouldn't mean that she isn't a Sanskritist; at most, that would mean she isn't a very good Sanskritist. (On the other hand, there's the small possibility that some Wikipedia editors are exaggerating and misreading criticism of Doniger for their own purposes.) --Akhilleus (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The chair she holds is not in Sanskrit. Yes, she is a popular scholar. That doesn't make her a good one (see this for an elementary example of how bad she is). Her self-description is the closest you'll get to anyone in the field recognizing her as a Sanskritist of any repute. By all means use conveniently vague notions of WP:RS to endorse her reputation among non-experts, but please don't pretend you're being encyclopedic about it. rudra (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, we have established something here. Somebody's a fraud, and it isn't Doniger. — goethean ॐ 00:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Witzel's comments on Doniger/Smith Laws of Manu are in his introduction to Inside the Texts - Beyond the Texts (Opera Minora Vol. 2, Harvard Oriental Series, Cambridge 1997), p.4-5: "It is nothing short of a scandal that still, after some 200 years of study, instead of preparing reliable texts4 and translations, a lot of ink keeps being spilled in work with inadequate materials. This is the case with the recent retranslation of Manu,5 where neither the readily available (semi-)critical edition of Jolly6 nor the oldest available commentary of Bhåravi have been used and where matters of realia (for example the system of weights) are treated with cavalier neglect. Even in Herodotos' India, a blade of straw did not weigh four gold pieces7 It is surprising to see one re-translation after the other (RV, JB, Manu, Gītå, Kålidåsa,8 etc.) appear in quick succession, while more difficult first translations of many important texts are rare and far in between.9" Check the footnotes. rudra (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The self-describing quote that I'm proposing for the lede, "Sanskritist, indeed a recovering Orientalist", is actually a unitary description. In my first edit, I didn't fully appreciate that the use of "and" to connect "Sanskritist" and "Orientalist" in the text of the lede was implying two independent categories. This was wrong, a misreading of the full quote. Doniger is saying that she is a "(recovering) Orientalist" kind of "Sanskritist" (there being other kinds), by which she means that her approach (to Sanskrit) is philological. (For corroboration, there is a similar quote where she describes herself specifically as a philologist, but I'm having trouble tracking it down.) Using just the phrase "recovering Orientalist" as an independent (self-)description would be a mistake (and basically meaningless). Either the complete quote (i.e. using the word "indeed" instead of "and") or none of it. rudra (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Found it. rudra (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Doniger has not been called a Sanskritist by anyone whose opinion on the matter could count.

Well David Shulman's opinion counts.

As a first.year student of Tamil at the School of Oriental and African studies, I was required to take an introductory course on Indian history - taught by a young Sanskritist, Wendy Doniger (then O'Flaherty).' David Shulman, 'A Passion for Hindu Myths,' in New York Review of Books, November 19,2009 pp.51-53,p.53

I hope this ends this crappy nitpicking. Goethean is correct. Nishidani (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wendy_Doniger/Archive_4&oldid=385537554"