Talk:Wendy Doniger/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Listserve

although criticized publicly in a listserv post by Indologist and Vedic scholar Michael Witzel, (In one of a series of posts to the Indology Listserv, he summed up his critique with: "In short: UNRELIABLE and idiosyncratic.")

Witzel's opinion is important. but unfortunately for those who want that in there to challenge Doniger's status, it is not strictly speaking citable because listservs are not RS for wikipedia. You require such judgements to be verifiable in peer-reviewed journals. Were they, some of the problematical pages I am working on would be far easier to source. One isn't allowed this luxury. That said, I'm not for deleting the point, but it is there on tolerance, and should not be expanded.Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no lack of documentation of the reception of Doniger's work. On the contrary, there are scores of readily available scholarly reviews. Thus there is no need to refer to Witzel's mispelt emails in this article. However, there is a lack of harshly negative material on Doniger from reliable sources, which is what is deeply desired by Doniger's enemies, who have been whipped into an anti-academic frenzy by the likes of the know-nothing right-wing ideologue Malhotra. Thus the reference to the listserve. I support its removal. — goethean ॐ 17:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree (as I said, it's there against the rules, purely on tolerance'). But I think it would be wise, before removing it, to cast about for some criticisms of her work in peer-reviewed journals by competent Indologists, and when available, put them in while eliding Witzel's email and its ref.

The sleight-of-hand here is a bit like citing Housman's judgement on Benjamin Jowett's translation of Plato ('the best translation of a Greek philosopher which has ever been excuted by a person who understood neither philosophy nor Greek'), pure caricature. When Gilbert Murray received an award for a lifetime's scholarship, he was so emotionally overcome that, when he addressed his classical colleagues, he rattled on, and some looked bewildered. He was told afterwards that he had, unconsciously, made his thanks in an extended oration in classical Greek, not in the Latin all were more comfortable with when spoken. But anyone with a year of classical Greek can make fun of his translations, as indeed many classicists did. All this means nothing. Jowett thought in Greek, as did Murray. Comments on translations by philologists of extreme acumen are as easy and cheap as swatting flies. Witzel's finicky precisian's objections stand, but it's pointless their being cited by hindutva aficionados to contest the outstanding world of a brilliant Sanskritist like Doniger.Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

But I think it would be wise, before removing it, to cast about for some criticisms of her work in peer-reviewed journals by competent Indologists, and when available, put them in while eliding Witzel's email and its ref.

I think that it is safe to say that the reviews have been gone over with a fine-toothed comb. The failure to find something damaging is why the listserve is referenced. — goethean ॐ 18:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well you know the history. I'll take it out, as not RS. Anyone who objects is invited to come up with peer criticism sourced to major journals.Nishidani (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Persistent plunking

She has received lot of criticism. In 2003, Microsoft Encarta had to remove an entry on Hinduism by Doniger. This content was removed after protesters argued that its contents were prejudiced, deprecating, and reveal an unsympathetic tone... Her comment that "the Gita is a dishonest book"[2] has also provoked scholarly analysis[3] of an alleged deep-seated prejudice against Hinduism in US academe. . Although self proclaimed scholar, she hardly knows who Dictated & who Wrote the Mahabharat. She has always taken a perverted view, in order to defame Hindu Religion. Her books cannot be used as standard writings for understanding Hinduism

(a) The source is unreliable (b) You have clipped and pasted the assertions in that blog, complete with (2) (3) footnote markers that are not even links here. (c) You editorialize, which is forbidden. (d) 'although self proclaimed scholar'. Please read the article. She is not a self-proclaimed scholar. (e) Perhaps she doesn't know much about the Mahabharat, the popular Ravi Chopra tv series. She she does know more than you ever will about the महाभारत, which was not dictated or written by some one person, as you think, any more than Homer's Iliad or Odyssey was. (f) Before editing her page, read her books, which evidently you only know about from reading perverted comments on it in blogs, mainly by people with no thorough grounding in ancient Indian languages and literatures.Nishidani (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone report this account 120.62.9.17 and get it blocked for abusive editorializing and vandalism? I've never done such a thing, but am minded to. But don't know how to do it.Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't usually block IP addresses since they might be coming from a public terminal, eg a public library. Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. — goethean ॐ 18:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, didn't know that despite 4 years in this gulag. I see the point. Though I don't think the joker, in the pack, has ever been near a public library. Since it's vandalism (identified as such by a reviewer) I guess one can just revert this stuff without getting sent to Coventry for violating the 3RR rule. At least, that is the rationale i will use if I see this junk plastered back in here.Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Reception section

The current reception is way too long. I think that the version by Goethean, myself and others, at [1] is far more concise and brief to the point. This is an encyclopedia article, not a treatise on the treatment of Doniger by various groups. That's my two cents. Raj2004 (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The real problem is that there is no treatment of her academic work per se. — goethean ॐ 02:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is two long. What is required is a split into twom sections (a) academic reception and (b) the controversy with some leaders of the American Hindu community. These are two distinct themes or issues, only tenuously linked, perhaps because the original endeavour had identitarian leaders attacking her by confusing their objections to her interpretations with insinuations about her qualifications. Identitarians have no comptence in scholarship, and scholars rarely trouble too much about the flack from amateurs outside their fields. By splitting the two, one obtains a neat distinction between what are two separate discourses.

Pages on major scholars (see the Mircea Eliade page, to cite one example that is pertinent, since he was one of her mentors) usually have extensive sections on their theories. Concision is required of course, but coverage of the main works is also necessary, otherwise concision works out as elision of uncomfortable ideas.Nishidani (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Fields of interest

I wonder whether History of Religions should be there? She's not, technically, an historian of religions, though that is attached to her because Eliade held that chair. Mythology has a better claim to priority.

On her home page she explicitly says:

Wendy Doniger's research and teaching interests revolve around two basic areas, Hinduism and mythology.

Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, can anyone find a photo that has no copyright problems? It's the norm in author pages. There is one on her webpage.Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Reorganized quotes

I just reorganized quotes. The quotes were only highlighting the pro-Doniger view. Now it reflects both sides. Raj2004 (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There are no "sides". There are only editors who are trying to accurately portray the academic reception of a leading scholar. I have undone your edits, which messed up the formatting as well as the neutrality of the article. Four paragraphs about a single weblog entry by a urologist is insanely WP:UNDUE, especially when this article has not begun to treat the actual content of Doniger's many books. Please stop using Wikipedia to damage the reputation of a living person. — goethean ॐ 05:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but the quotes for those favoring Doniger are highlighted while those who are against Doniger are less highlighted. You put Mishra's and Nussenbaum's quotes as highlighted unlike the previous version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wendy_Doniger&oldid=369382250]) which we all agreed upon.Stop lying, Goethean! Raj2004 (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it sounds like you're talking about formatting. User:Nishidani did that, not I.[2]

No. Sorry for the confusion. I only care about the formatting as I had just edited. We should not highlight either side extensively. Enough material from both sides. Raj2004 (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I indent long quotes, as is normal. One liners can remain in paragraph, but long quotes should be separated. It is not a matter of 'highlighting'. Most pages I visit do this, and the quotes are usually of opinions I have no regard for, indeed usually regard as polemical nonsense from second-rate source. But personally I never challenge such formatting, even if it may be viewed by some as 'highlighting'. It is a matter of aesthetics, and is standard practice in the academic book trade as well to separate long citations from a paragraph in which they are embedded, as I did. I would do the same if the long citation were from a first-rate source (which our urologist is not) critical of Doniger. Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, none of them including Mishra are first rate sources. These are opinions of various people from a columnist to an urologist. One person's nonsense (i.e., Mishra or Shukla) is another's first rate source. The only creditable academic source is Christian Lee Novetzke, who is an academic. There have been unfortunately no real academic criticism of Doniger from those who have knowledge of Sanskrit. i.e., like Professor Witzel so none should be really highlighted. And if you highlight Mishra withught highlighting Shukla, you may violate NPOV Raj2004 (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of reviews of Doniger's works in academic journals. That the content of those reviews doesn't match your personal agenda is not really a problem for anyone but you. — goethean ॐ 13:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Please do add such scholarly views. That's why I qualified Christian Lee Novetzke as a professor. It was previously not noted that he was a professor. Raj2004 (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather like calling Tony Judt, George Steiner, V. S. Naipaul or Arthur Koestler a 'columnist' because, like Mishra, they write, or wrote, aside from history books, sociological studies, historical analyses, novels and books in general, occasional essays for the NYRB. Don't be ridiculous. He is a man of letters, one of the major generalists interpreting for Western readers 'things Indian', has written a micro-sociology of an Indian village, novels, and explorations of Indian and Hindu culture, which your urologist has not. Mishra deals in Indian culture, the Hindu imaginaire, has an advanced degree in English. You dislike him because he is critical, like every sane man (save many wikipedians) of nationalist trends in his ethnic/cultural background? Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Raj necessarily intended 'columnist' to be a put-down, but rather merely an adjective. — goethean ॐ 13:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Goethean is correct. I merely meant it is an adjective and as a descriptive title.Raj2004 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It is Pankaj's professional business and life to read, comment, evaluate and write books on Indian society, culture and life. Men of letters, with university positions, as visiting lecturers, or Fellows, in prestigious institutes, with novels, books of essays, a work of sociology and an advanced degree in literature, are not, in English usage, called 'columnists', except if the point is to 'delimit' the qualifications of the person referred to. Were Orhan Pamuk to write a review on the Armenian genocide, wiki would not accept a reference to him as a 'columnist', because he is not a qualified archival historian. This is a matter of denotative precision, but also of Sprachgefühl or 'linguistic tact'. His interest in works by Indologists is professional, not, as with Aseem Shukla a foray into waters extraterritorial to his qualifications (urology). To place 'urologist' (University specialism) against 'columnist' (anyone can spout opinions) is, contextually, to frame the discourse with a specious parity (outsiders), but tilt impressions towards the former, and against the latter. These are nuances, but one must understand that wikiprose must take care precisely of such calibrations to avoid cogging the dice. I won't insist, of course. Wikipedia is about compromises between axe-grinders mainly, not about accuracy. Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

To cite an example, Naipul is a right-wing fanatic. He is just a columnist too. If you want to present bad views about Muslim rule in India, you would cite Will Durant, who is far more respected. Raj2004 (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh Gawd. (a) 'columnist' is not an 'adjective' it is a noun used adjectivally. (b) No one quotes Will Durant, except wikipedians who don't read scholarly books (c) Naipaul is appalling in much, but he is not a 'columnist'. Finally, I

Yes, a columnist is a noun used as an adjective. To cite an example, Naipul is a right-wing fanatic. He is just a columnist too. If you want to present bad views about Muslim rule in India, you would cite Will Durant, who is far more respected. [[User:Raj2004|Raj2004] Also, a master's in English, like a medical degree does not make you more qualified. So from my perspective, Mishra and Shukla are both no more qualified unlike Professor Christian Lee Novetzke who holds a Ph.D. in South Asian studies. See, http://jsis.washington.edu/soasia/faculty.shtml Raj2004 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I would not quote Durant either just using him as an example. To cite an eighty year old book by him is clearly out of date. Raj2004 (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Banerjee

I reverted this edit by Goethean, from in which they removed a source from an author involved in writing about perceptions of Hinduism, and not a "religious nut" (as they so eloquently put it). If Pankaj Mishra and Aseem Shukla have places on this page, other people cited in very reliable sources can and should be used when they provide an interesting angle to the controversy.Pectore^talk 02:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please follow WP:BRD rather than edit warring. This article cannot discuss every one of the multitudinous screeds penned by angry Indian conservatives, agreed? Banerjee is an attorney, not a scholar on Hinduism or Sanskrit We included the urologist's web post because Doniger responded to it. Banerjee's screed has no such notability. The fact that she is credited with penning a guide to throwing things at academics does not make her notable or qualified to pass judgement on a foremost scholar. — goethean ॐ 02:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't patronize me, you in fact are the one edit warring and acting like they own the page (see? I too can meaninglessly link-spam to guidelines). I have no view on Doniger, but I saw two different reviews of her book on Outlook, and thought that Banerjee's book review had some interesting material not covered by other sources, and was free of the egg-throwing nonsense typical of the Hindu right. Doniger's book has been well-received by some and not well-received by others. Documenting this fact should be a simple matter, but judging by your vapid jabs at the Hindu right (which I most certainly do not sympathize with), isn't something you are doing in a dispassionate and NPOV fashion.Pectore^talk 03:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If that piece of garbage is a book review, I'm the pope. Please find a scholar rather than embarrassing yourself further. At least have the decency to clean up your own edit, rather than making me clean up your mess. — goethean ॐ 03:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not here to push a POV, so there's really no onus on me to find anything (I already found an interesting article). Nor are my edits a mess (though if you believe they are, clean them up yourself, since you seem so keen on being a saintly Wiki-crusader).Pectore^talk 03:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is a response to an interview, not a book review. It is neither interesting nor notable, and nor is it by a expert in the field. (Actually, in the field of pseudo-self-victimization of Hindu right-wingers, Banerjee is indeed an expert. However, there's no need for Wikipedia to collaborate in the unending Hindu right-wing campaign of self-victimization.) and only serves to further bloat an already ridiculously engorged section. Question: is there any limit to how much material that enemies of Doniger want to shovel into the "controversy" section? — goethean ॐ 16:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note the word "Opinion" in large letters at the top of the article, indicating that it is an opinion piece. Since Aditi Banerjee is not notable in the fields of Hinduism or Sanskrit (or any other field, presumably), there is no reason for Doniger's biography to discuss the article. — ॐ 23:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither is Pankaj Mishra. The only really creditable source is Christian Lee Novetzke, a professor of South Asian studies, even though one of the parties to the dispute agrees with the views. Goethean, please do not credit any serious criticism of academic mistranslations as simply Hindu right wing. Raj2004 (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I did no such thing. — goethean ॐ 00:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hard to argue with a crazy Thuggee, like Goethean - the holy protected one. Quit honestly, I be afraid of Goethean, as he may do more then just crazy talk. These arguments are just insanity, just like trying to figure out how many angels can dance on head of a push pin. No wonder why there are wars, bloodshed and death with such disrespectful Thuggees, like Goethatean in the world. Ghost of joe (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the content dispute here. A book review is necessarily opinion. I saw the word "opinion", but using a pinch of common sense, and my eyes (having read the article, an action I'm still not convcinced you have undertaken at this point in time) I saw the word "Books" first, indicating the article in question was a book review. Also, a simple google search notes that she has been cited in Prema Kurien's book (cited in this article). She has also been cited in the Columbia Documentary History of Religion in the US, indicating she has been afforded some recognition in the field of Hinduism. Please do your research (Goethean) before running on more ideological rampages.Pectore^talk 22:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

New controversy addition

I removed the latest addition to the controversy section.[3] One source[4] is a letter to the editor of the NYT. These letters are not at all fact checked, are purely opinion, and are not at all reliable for facts. The other source[5] is an opinion column in the Henderson NC Times-News. Also not reliable for matters of fact. These particular claims may have some truth to them, but better sourcing is needed to add contentious claims to a WP:BLP. — goethean 15:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

She is a "Mickey Mouse" historian. Prejudice and bias masqurading as history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.56.244.11 (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

---

I disagree with Goethean. There are multiple sources that confirm that Doniger did write the article titled "A Very Strange Enchanted Boy" in The New York Times Book Review, on Feb 2, 1992, pp. 7-8. References to this article appear in:

1. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1665&dat=19920221&id=D3obAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Sk4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=2342%2C4929273

2. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ud9x63jUFu8C&lpg=PA48&ots=iTtUpeuSRA&dq=Wendy%20Doniger's%20review%20of%20A%20fire%20in%20the%20mind&pg=PA50#v=onepage&q&f=false

3. http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/22/books/l-a-fire-in-the-mind-848692.html

4. http://www.flavinscorner.com/5-14-99.htm

I would like to add the following:

In 1992 Wendy Doniger wrote an article in the New York Times Book Review on Joseph Campbell, titled: "A Very Strange Enchanted Boy". In the article she calls Campbell 'anti-semitic' among other things. The article also talks about her dissatisfaction with Campbell's interpretation of Indian myths. This is particularly fascinating in the light of the recent controversy around her book, "The Hindus". She has been quoted as saying: "When thousands of people are walking around happy in their understanding of Hinduism or the Navajos because of Joseph Campbell, who am I to point out that they don't understand Hinduism or the Navajos, because Campbell didn't understand them? Does it matter? I think it does. It matters not just for the record - what else is scholarship? - but, more importantly, for the sake of Hindus and the Navajos, who deserve to have their stories truly known. Out of respect for them, we must take the trouble to get their stories right."

She also gave a keynote speech in Columbia University in which she made an 'anti-Campbell' speech. Priyav24 (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Priya

"Use of psychoanalysis widely considered controversial"

That claim was in the intro section, with a spurious ref that was flagged as not supporting the contention. I thus cut it as (1) unsupported, (2) weaselly ("widely considered"?), (3) inappropriate for an intro section, (4) too vague to be meaningful (how does she "use" it? in her personal life?) and (5) redundant at best - psychoanalysis is controversial in general these days. --Tbanderson (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Reviews of The Hindus

Two long quotations from reviews of Doniger's The Hindus have been added, one from Shrimali, and the other from Locher. I appreciate the need to include critical reviews of Doniger's work, but those quotations are much, much too long, and need to be cut back. We need only the basic points made by the reviewers, not lengthy quotations whether disparaging or not. See WP:UNDUE. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:UNDUE. But, Wikipedia places academic peer-reviewed sources above all others. There are two other reviews available in scholarly sources, but by lesser-known scholars, and they are not particularly complimentary either. The quotes are certainly not UNDUE as reflection of scholarly response in the scholarly literature.

Moreover, as it stands, the article has plenty links to best book lists, everyday reviews and everyday reviewers. An open-letter by Arundhati Roy which describes Penguin (founded in the mid-1930s to supply a market for cheap paperbacks in depression-era England) as "one of the oldest, grandest publishing houses in the world. You existed long before ... mosquito repellent or scented soap" has been cited twice (This, when OUP and Cambridge have been around since the 16th century, and commercial perfumed soaps and mosquito repellents (not to mention birch bark) have been sold at least since the 18th century) Why then does Ms. Roy's "we're all in this" suddenly become reliable and notable? Doniger herself, no expert on Indian law, describes the "real culprit" to be a section of Indian law (section 295A of the Indian Penal Code), when the case never went to trial. Why is that notable and reliable? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

PS The point needs to be made that The Hindus is a shabby book, written by an author who has bitten off more than she can chew. A book which relies on popular trade histories such as Keay's India: A History, which even Wikipedia's India page does not allow to be used in its references, cannot be a rigorous scholarly effort. The book, moreover, is littered with errors of historicity (such as the "Bengal famine of 1850–56," for the Bengal famine of 1770, which are more than misprints, evidence of half-digested understanding; myriad others, abound on other pages. This has nothing to do with the insidious design of the Hindu nationalists, but needs to be pointed out as part of a scholarly assessment. Doniger has written great books in the past. This, sadly, is not one of them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The long quotations are flagrantly inappropriate, as F&F no doubt understands. This is a biographical article on Wendy Doniger. It is supposed to be about her entire life and career, not on two reviews of her latest book. I have removed the long quotations. — goethean 22:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Why then do you have a separate section on The Hindus? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Because it was banned in India, which is a highly notable event in Doniger's biography. The fact that a book designed for a popular audience has received "scant attention" in academic journals is not only unsourced and unsourcable, but a complete non sequitur. — goethean 22:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Why then does Ms. Roy's "we're all in this" suddenly become reliable and notable? Doniger herself, no expert on Indian law, describes the "real culprit" to be a section of Indian law (section 295A of the Indian Penal Code), when the case never went to trial. Why is that notable and reliable

I've removed facts sourced to Roy per your comment. One would think that Doniger's statement in response to the bruhaha is notable to her own biography, her knowledge of Indian law notwithstanding. — goethean 22:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. I hadn't really looked at the article's history, which I just did. Didn't realize that The Hindus section was just added. I've read most of WD's books going back to Siva the Erotic Ascetic, and I think she is a splendid scholar; the other books need some coverage as well, as do the Hindu nationalist motivations, reactions, and responses, none of which are particularly scholarly, but have considerable scholarship devoted to them. Sadly, I'm flat out of time, and I've already spent more time that I had for this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This edit makes no sense and should be reverted. References to reviews of a popular book in all the book reviews should be presented before reviews in two academic journals. Also, the long pointless descriptions of the professors titles and universities is unhelpful (this coming from an editor who, hilariously, just removed the name of Doniger's professorship from her own biography![6]) — goethean 22:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the book's exceeding popularity deserves a mention before its academic reviews, and that it is pointless to write out the names of reviewers. But I respectfully disagree that popular reviews are more important. A principal factor in the book's popularity is Doniger's claim to academic expertise in India. Shii (tock) 22:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply to both Shii and Goethean: Academic peer-reviewed sources take precedence over popular reviews. I am happy to summarize the content of the academic reviews without naming reviewers. In addition, there are two other academic reviews that I could find; I'm happy to add them, as well. They are not gushing either. Professorships, especially painfully long ones that the University of Chicago is wont to grandiosely invent (e.g. Charles R. Walgreen (of drugstore fame) Distinguished Service Professor in the Booth School of Business, Professor in the Department of Economics, Professor in the Department of Sociology, and the College) are unencyclopedic. Can you find any such cockamamie formulations in Britannica? Why should Doniger have such a turgid fruit salad in her lead when much better-known Indologists such as Max Müller (Taylorian professor of MEL, later of Professor of Comparative Philology at Oxford) and Robert Charles Zaehner, Doniger's own Oxford adviser (and holder of the Spaulding Professorship of Eastern Religion and Ethics) have nothing, simply descriptions of what they did? I'm strapped for time, saddled with family emergencies, as my user pages proclaims. I have already wasted enough time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

PS I dispute that this book was popular either in India or the US. For starters, it cost Rs 999 (=$22 in 2009 money) in India beyond the range of most middle-class Indians. It was number one in the Hindustan Times nonfiction best seller list during the week of October 15, 2009. We have no idea how these lists are computed and what the sales were. English language books typically sell poorly (in absolute numbers in India). VS Naipaul said in an interview that his Indian market was insignificant. A few thousand copies sold push you to the top of these lists. Penguin New York, for example, are now rushing only some 3,000 books to India in light of this controversy. If they had anticipated a bigger market, they would have shipped more. We need some numbers for its sale in the US and Britain to gauge popularity. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

PPS According to a BBC story, the top two English language nonfiction bestsellers in India for 2011 had sales of 47,000 each (averaged). Moreover, the market had grown 45% in the previous six months. Based on this, if we take the yearly rate increase of the previous two years to be conservatively 60% per year, the top nonfiction bestseller in 2009 would have had sales in the range of 18,000 for the year 2009, and in all likelihood fewer. Doniger's book was No 1 for that week. A couple of weeks later it had slipped to number 4 or 5. In other words, we are talking about relatively minor sales. Western English language non-fiction bestsellers sell more than that in one day. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I see you have shifted the quotations to a footnote. I'm afraid that seems completely pointless. I don't think the quotations serve a useful purpose, and would be in favor of removing them entirely. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how you can object to them. They amplify the scholarly objections. Besides, the journals are subscription only; the quotations provide proof that the summary is accurate. One review is 15 pages long, more detailed than any published review of the book anywhere, written by one of the foremost historians of ancient India; the other three pages long by one of the foremost Indologists. Quotes are routinely included in scholarly citations. There is a good reason that both Sfn and Citation templates have "arguments" for quotations. There is also a good reason, why the {{Request quotation}} template exits on Wikipedia. You apparently simply want to gloss over Doniger's errors. She was a good scholar, but she sadly overreached, and is looking silly, especially in the early-modern and modern sections of the book. It is painfully obvious that she's not a historian, excellent translator and expositor of Sanskrit texts though she might be. That's not my fault, nor the Hindu nationalists' (though they have plenty other issues). It's hers alone. She should have stuck to what she knows best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The quotations prove nothing at all if people cannot access the original scholarly journals and verify their accuracy. They thus don't serve any real purpose. (Since you raise the question of my motives, I should add that I haven't read Doniger's book, of course have no opinion about it, and couldn't care less about protecting it or its author from criticism). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Many editors (college and graduate students and academics) do have access to these journals through their institution's subscription. Wikipedia relies on them to keep editors who create content honest. The larger number of editors who don't have access rely both on the quotations for more details and on the former group for vetting those details. Quotes are not unusual for articles on controversial topics (see for example Death of Subhas Chandra Bose. Besides, the internet gives easy access, in this instance to the views of both the Hindu nationalist hatchet men (Rajiv Malhotro) and the liberal shallow water waders, such as Pankaj Mishra, William Dalrymple, and Arundhati Roy. The sober academic reviews written by the experts blush unseen in the desert air. I apologize for insinuating that you were attempting to snuff criticism of the book. I have scratched the comment above. Again, please accept my apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you've noticed but if not, The Hindus: An Alternative History has been created. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2014

In 1992 Wendy Doniger's wrote an article in the New York Times Book Review on Joseph Campbell, titled: "A Very Strange Enchanted Boy". In the article she calls Campbell 'anti-semitic' among other things.

The article also talks about her dissatisfaction with Campbell's interpretation of Indian myths. This is particularly fascinating in the light of the recent controversy around her book, The Hindus. She has been quoted as saying:

When thousands of people are walking around happy in their understanding of Hinduism or the Navajos because of Joseph Campbell, who am I to point out that they don't understand Hinduism or the Navajos, because Campbell didn't understand them? Does it matter? I think it does. It matters not just for the record - what else is scholarship? - but, more importantly, for the sake of Hindus and the Navajos, who deserve to have their stories truly known. Out of respect for them, we must take the trouble to get their stories right.

She also gave a keynote speech in Columbia University in which she made an 'anti-Campbell' speech: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/22/books/l-a-fire-in-the-mind-848692.html

Priyav24 (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Priya

• This is particularly fascinating in the light of the recent controversy around her book, The Hindus. -- violates WP:OR
• In 1992 Wendy Doniger's wrote an article in the New York Times Book Review on Joseph Campbell, titled: "A Very Strange Enchanted Boy" --violates WP:V, WP:BLP
• In the article she calls Campbell 'anti-semitic' among other things -- violates WP:V, WP:BLP
• Doniger quotation on Campbell -- no reason to include this particular quotation; therefore, inclusion would violate WP:NPOV — goethean 16:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • There may be serious problems with most of the material you removed, Goethean, but I wonder whether there wouldn't be a case for including Doniger's criticism of Campbell? Doniger is certainly not the only person to have questioned the quality of Campbell's scholarship. Other people - including people as different from each other as Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson and Camille Paglia - have said similar things about him. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Feel free to add or propose material which is well-sourced and neutral, unlike the above proposal. — goethean 19:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Although what this article really needs is more about Doniger's books, rather than the responses to them, which is currently more than half the article. — goethean 19:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement of Wendy Doniger is misleading on multiple grounds

Firstly, the book was voluntarily recalled by the publisher. Secondly, the Indian law protects all religious communities in India, not just Hindus. Indeed, books offending Islam have equally been banned. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid it wasn't done voluntarily without threat or provocation. It was done with the threat of a lawsuit hanging over their heads. I too believe Penguin should have stood up to the perverted Hindu nationalist rabble-rousers, but I don't believe it is accurate to label their decision "voluntary". Besides, as a barely one-month old Wikipedian, VictoriaGrayson (talk · contribs), who in their first week on Wikipedia was already making POV edits and statements in a sockpuppet investigation, why should we take you seriously or assume good faith? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you also accusing me?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm telling you to go take your Hindu nationalist POV pushing act somewhere else. You have no one fooled. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I was accused of being anti-Hindu Buddhist. And now I'm a Hindu nationalist. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't care what you are accused of. You don't look like a new Wikipedian (that's fine), but you are pushing POV edits (that is not fine). End of story. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section

Someone just added a "criticism" section. There is no reason the article should have a separate "criticism" section. The material belongs in the already existing "reception" section if it belongs in the article at all. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There are criticism sections on many Wikipedia articles. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the frivolous criticism section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Frederick Smith's review of "Invading the Sacred," in the Religious Studies Review begins with,

"This tendentious volume was sponsored by R. Malhotra of the Infinity Foundation known for its attacks on Western scholars of Hinduism ... . Almost all the articles are written with the aim of defending Malhotra’s assertion, expressed at length in his sulekha.com web site, that certain Western scholars lack sufficient objectivity to provide a “correct” idea of Hinduism. The problem, of course, is that scholars and practitioners often have different perspectives. It comes with the territory. And, emphatically, it is the scholars who are most often willing to listen to the practitioners, even to those who specialize in righteous indignation, than are that section of practitioners who believe that their viewpoints and moral standpoints are superior to those of others willing to listen to scholars. Where the authors of this volume go wrong is in their notion that the scholars whom they attack dislike their chosen topic, have no sensitivity or sympathy toward it, and so on. This is completely misunderstood by the authors; a problem almost as big is their neglect of India’s own rich history of dissent, argument, and dialectical thought.

Just because I believe that Doniger needs to be evaluated fairly, doesn't mean that any Hindu nationalist smear campaign of her or its perpetrators automatically get a free pass on this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Antonio de Nicholas is a Sanskrit scholar, not a Hindu nationalist. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Where did he get his PhD in Sanskrit? See here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

He claims he is an expert in Sanskrit. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a scholarly reference which corroborates that claim? A journal article such as the one I have produced above, which apparently doesn't; in fact, it considers him to be in league with POV pushers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

He is an academic, which you must agree. Invading the Sacred also has other western academics. Are they all Hindu nationalists?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Produce a positive scholarly internationally recognized peer-reviewed journal review of that volume, or hold your peace. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear. You are accusing Antonio de Nicholas as part of a "Hindu nationalist smear campaign". You do realize that Hindus, first off, live outside India right? Atleast call them Hindu fundamentalist, instead of Hindu nationalist. Your terminology betrays your lack of knowledge. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

University web site or back of book biography are not reliable sources for a biogaphy

I don't really have that much interest left in this article, but I'd like to say that a university website (e.g. Committee on Social Thought at U of C) is not a reliable source, as it has not been independently verified by a second party. Similarly, the short biography in the back of a book is not reliable either. Both are short versions of the CV, ultimately the creation of the professor/author. To source biographical details accurately, you need a proper biography of Doniger by another author (I don't know if one exists) or, if you can find some volume of papers honoring her: those typically have an introduction written by someone else with a short biography. For example, I've seen that bit about Martha Graham and Balanchine in her book biographies since the late 1970s, but I have no idea what that means: did she take a few classes with them? Did she take years of classes with them? Did she tour with their company? ... Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Fowler, I have great respect for you but you seriously couldn't have thought of pushing *that* angle? This is not citizendium and your opinion on what passes as reliable and what does not cannot and must not be taken seriously, especially when related to 'Indologism' - a field that that is criticized for this exact behavior of nipping the careers of dissenters in the bud via journal rejection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.118.50 (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Doniger's characterization of Indian law inaccurate

Regarding withdrawal of her book, the Hindus, the Wikipedia article states that she said that "they [Penguin India] were finally defeated by the true villain of this piece – the Indian law that makes it a criminal rather than civil offense to publish a book that offends any Hindu."

This is inaccurate. I added a comment on March 3rd stating "[h]owever, journalist Jyoti Punwani of the Indian Express, questioned Doniger's comments on Indian law as applying only to offending Hindus, by noting that "Why did Doniger, who must be familiar with the section under which her book, The Hindus: An Alternative History, was sought to be banned, describe a law which applies to all faiths as one that applies only to Hindus?" However, this was reverted by Goethean as not noteworthy. I think it is notable that if Doniger can characterize an Indian law, who is to say that she cannot misinterpret Hindu texts? Raj2004 (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You and the journalist have misunderstood Doniger. Doniger is citing one instance or application of the law. She's not describing the law in all its generality. Such casual language is used all the time in common parlance. For example if I say, "The new law makes it criminal for a man to drink on a Sunday," I don't mean that the new law doesn't apply to women. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The use of word man to refer to mankind is a specific case and indefensible here. If someone wants to mention her opinion on Indian Law, it must be mentioned that her opinion is wrong. Though, I agree that the whole quotation is in bad taste should be copy edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.118.50 (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed it in an NPOV way. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Fowler, thank you for the edits. This version by you is acceptable, and NPOV. Raj2004 (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Revert by Fowler of the addition of commentary criticizing the left by Professor Juluri

The revert of my addition citing Professor Julori based on that he is professor of media studies and writes on Huffington Post shows hypocrisy. For example, Mr. Fowler makes this statement by citing Indian authors such as Arundhati Roy, Partha Chatterjee, Jeet Thayil, and Namwar Singh inveighed against the decision. The cite is to the Times of India and many of the critics are just writers, not professors of South Asian studies. If my addition is reverted, then so should that citation of Roy et al. Otherwise, I view this article as nothing more than a left-wing rant.

Raj2004 (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The sentence about Arundhati Roy etc was not added by me. In any case it has been in the text for over a month. Those edits have a different standard for challenging than recent ones such as yours. Again please read WP:BRD. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. But then I think the addition of Arundhati Roy and other authors is just as much irrelevant as Professor Julori. I still think if the ones about the authors are added, then I have justification about adding the section about Professor Julori. In fact, he is just as relevant as other authors but he doesn't agree with Fowler's world view.

If you look at his bio, (https://www.usfca.edu/facultydetails.aspx?id=4294969545) his "research interest is in the globalization of media audiences with an emphasis on Indian television and cinema, mythology, religion, violence and Gandhian philosophy(emphasis added). So, on that note, he is probably more relevant that Roy and any of those left-wing writers. Fowler, please review and let me know. And also that cite of Roy used the Times of India, etc., which is clearly not an academic publication. So Fowler's criticism of my using the Huffington Post is groundless.

Raj2004 (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, a scholarly article is not an article written by a professor, but one published in a scholarly journal or a book/monograph brought out by an academic press. Huffington Post is not a scholarly journal. Please see Wikipedia:RS#Some_types_of_sources, which states unambiguously: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." I don't particularly care whether the sentence about Arundhati Roy is included or not, but I'm quite adamant that the tendentious, defensive or bigoted articles on Doniger, both laudatory and critical, by various people in the popular press, self-published sources or books published by little known publishing houses are not going in. Until you produce such scholarly criticism of Doniger, you are wasting both your time and mine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

PS And Juluri's PhD, btw, is in Communication, not Sanskrit, Philology, Linguistics, Indology, or any field that remotely overlaps Doniger's field of expertise. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it is quite common in the academic world that PhDs in one field research in multiple fields. As I point out, his area of research is in the globalization of media, with particular emphasis on mythology, religion, etc. Certainly more relevant to the issues concerning Doniger's alleged inaccuracies than writers such as Roy and Thayil, who have no academic background whatsoever. Also the two cites to these writers are the Times of India and Bihar Prabha, newspapers, which are no more academic than Huffington Post. I am asking for true fairness and civility, and not adhering to your pro-Doniger point of view.

Either the references to Roy and Julori should be both removed or they be kept. I don't think that there is any middle ground if you want fairness here.

Please read the full link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vamsee-juluri/the-scholars-an-alternati_b_4787082.html) and review.

Raj2004 (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't care whether the sentence about Roy goes in or not, but the polemical piece by Juluri (note spelling of his name) is not going in. You may try to reach consensus with the people who added the Roy sentence in order to remove it. I wasn't that person, so I cannot speak on their behalf. This is my final reply to your repetitive posts. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

PS And I know a thing or two about academics. A PhD in Communications does not an Indologist make even in the 21st century. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course. But I think that some Hindus with a Phd. in communications knows far more about Hinduism that a non-Hindu with a Ph.D. in Harvard who has no background in Hinduism. It like saying a Christian person with a Ph.D. in Islamic studies being more of an expert on certain areas of Islam. I am tired of your rant! I was trying to be civil but you denigrate my criticism with terming it "repetitive posts." YOU SHOULD APOLOGIZE FOR YOUR UNCIVIL BEHAVIOR

Raj2004 (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I have placed this talk section for Third Party resolution, as I want someone who is neutral to take a fair and balanced look. Thank you.

Raj2004 (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines place no premium on the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of the author of a source, only on the reliability of the source, which, in a scholarly one, require a peer-review by other scholars and publication by an academic publisher. Juluri has no such authority. He is a professor of communication studies, with no expertise in Hinduism, who writes a op-ed piece every now and then in Huff Post. Examples of scholarly reviews of The Hindus: An Althernative History by Doniger are:

• Gilmartin, David (December 2010), "Review of Wendy Doniger, The Hindus: An Alternative History (New York: Penguin), 2009. 779 pages. $35", Indian Historical Review, 37: 338–345{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
• Kolf, D.H.A. (December 2010), "Review of Wendy Doniger, The Hindus: An Alternative History (New York: Penguin), 2009. 779 pages. Rs 999", Indian Historical Review, 37: 333–338
• Rocher, Ludo (April/June 2012), "Review: The Hindus: An Alternative History by Wendy Doniger", Journal of the American Oriental Society, 132 (2): 302–304 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Shrimali, K. M. (July–August 2010), "Review of The Hindus: An Alternative History by Wendy Doniger", Social Scientist, 38 (7/8): 66–81

Those reviewers even when they disagree with Doniger or are critical of Doniger have high praise for her scholarship. For example, K. M. Shrimali, Professor of Ancient Indian History at the University of Delhi says in his review:

... it also happened to be the year when her first major work in early India's religious history, viz., Siva, the Erotic Ascetic was published and had instantly become a talking point for being a path-breaking work. I still prescribe it as the most essential reading to my postgraduate students at the University of Delhi, where I have been teaching a compulsory course on 'Evolution of Indian Religions' for the last nearly four decades. It was the beginning of series of extremely fruitful and provocative encounters with the formidable scholarship of Wendy Doniger.

Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the links and for providing the articles. I could not open some of the links. Raj2004 (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

They require a subscription. If you don't have one, you'll need to go to a library. The main point is that this the Wendy Doniger page.

The Hindus: An Alternative History has its own page. I have myself added the scholarly criticism there. Doniger is one of the best-known and influential scholars of Sanskrit and Indian textual traditions of the last 50 years. Most of her most influential work was done before 1991, long before either the Hindu right became assertive with the destruction of the Babri Masjid or the Non-Resident Hindu Indians in the US, such as businessman Rajiv Malhotra, began to publicize their unhappiness with Doniger in non-scholarly or self-published sources. In other words, Doniger is a scholar of much longer standing and wider range than just one book or one ideological issue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the problem with critics like you, is that every criticism of Doniger is simply classified as "a criticism by the Hindu right," when many critics are not members of the Hindu right, such as many members from the Hindu American Foundation, who are critical of Doniger but have liberal views on gays and gay marriage, consistent with Hindu theology, we are not the body but the soul, and ultimately, sexual orientation is not a sin per see, but we must transcend earthly matters (heterosexual or homosexual) in order to attain moksha. The use of any legitimate criticism of Doniger, as a criticism by the Hindu right, is simply an Ad hominem attack. Yes, some critics may be on the Hindu right, but certainly not all.

I understand the reasons for citing scholars with peer-reviewed articles, which is certainly reasonably, but the reality is that the overwhelming majority (close to 100%) of scholars in Hindu studies belong to the neo-colonial model (i.e., the left frankly), looking at Hindu texts with Western tools, for some reasons, to denigrate Hinduism, or have no agenda at all.

Honestly, there is no "liberal" left, as both right and left have become illiberal (see http://www.firstpost.com/india/pulping-doniger-dont-just-blame-the-right-the-left-paved-this-illiberal-road-1385645.html), as nobody wants to really listen to both sides of the argument.

But there are experts who may not have the formal "Ph.D" degree who are well-qualified, by training in Vedic gurukula schools an the like, who are apt to criticize Doniger. But such experts obviously don't publish in Western journals.

Raj2004 (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not your characterization is correct, we as editors have to abide by the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. If you feel that Wikipedia policies unfavorably bias the encyclopedia towards Western perspectives, you are welcome to pursue that discussion in the relevant Wikipedia forum. This page is only about improvement to the Wendy Doniger page, not the wider issues. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Which Wikipedia forum could I mention my concerns? Best regards, Raj2004 (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and its talk page. Even if Hinduism studies does not have as many Indian scholars publishing in international journals, Indian History, Sociology, and Anthropology certainly does. Not just older ones such as Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, and M. N. Srinivas, but also Muzaffar Alam, Dipesh Chakrabarty, Arjun Appadurai, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Gyanendra Pandey, Veena Das, Andre Beteille, ... Unfortunately, the Indian-American ideological critics, especially those from the "Indic studies" perspective as voiced by Rajiv Malhotra, have yet to produce such scholarship in any of these fields. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

PS I just remembered, Hinduism studies did have an Indian in the late Bimal Krishna Matilal, who was in fact at the University of Chicago in the early 80s along with Doniger and who had the same PhD advisor at Harvard as Doniger. As far as I'm aware he made no such criticism of Doniger. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article on the late professor Matilal, his research interests include "Indian systems of logic, particularly Nyaya-Vaishesika, Mimamsa and Buddhist philosophy," so he would not have any reason to criticize Doniger, because he is in a different sub-specialty. Raj2004 (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent revert

I have reinstated the content that you removed [7]. The reason you gave - "rm non-notable opinion" is questionable. Here is the text in the article: "A philologist trained in the Orientalist tradition, Doniger leans towards textual Sanskrit and north India, despite her claim that she is a recovering, if not a repentant, Orientalist." The literal meaning of the above quotation is that it is Wendy Doniger who claims she is a "recovering, if not repentant" orientalist, not the author's. Author's claim is that her text leans towards textual Sanskrit. That might look like 'non-notable' opinion to you (which in turn is non-notable, but here I am defending the author), but that is not what is being said so please don't remove text willy-nilly without any basis.

I would also like to add that the whole sentence reads: "In the popular press, the book has received many positive reviews...", so, unless you want to remove all the mention of all positive reviews and praises she got, you ought not to remove negative opinions from the same author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.202.34 (talk • contribs) 17:50 7 March 2014

The lead summarizes the article. See WP:LEAD. We do not introduce new material into the lead. — goethean 15:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have added the text to correct section. Next time try to do that yourself.

I don't help people assassinate the reputations of scholars. — goethean 17:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

But of course only if they have the same pov in certain matters. If not it is quite ok to asssassinate them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Goethean/Hindu_Nazis [8] --Clapkidaq (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

She says she is repentant orientalist. If you think that is a character assasination attempt, you need to get away from this article and never return. That is the most polite I can be to you,— Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.202.34 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 7 March 2014‎

IP: I have undone the out-of-context sentence you just added. The recovering orientalist bit is said humorously and self-deprecatingly. It is not a serious self-evaluation, doesn't matter how many people quote it. Also, next time, please learn to sign your name. It is not my job to clean up after you by adding the subst:unsigned template. It makes it difficult for others to figure out where your post ends and where another begins. If you don't know, please note that four tildes (~~~~) constitutes an editor's signature. In your case, since you have not registered your account, your IP address will appear as your signature. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it but there seems to be some sort of telepathic understanding between what she says and what she means that only you understood. The reference comes from jstor (reputable, notable). It is widely known about her that she was orientalist but now is not. Can you point me one reason why that text should not be there (and if not, where should it go), because it is sourced, widely quoted and will be mentioned. Btw, thanks for the signature thingy, I didn't know that.--106.51.202.34 (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It is widely known? Orientalists lived in the 19th century. some even in the late 18th. She's not that old. This is as far as I go with arguing with you. You can take it to dispute resolution if you'd like. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No 21st century scholar would seriously call themselves an Orientalist. That would be like a computer programmer calling himself a "re-bugger" or something. It is a joke that only someone unfamiliar with the field would not get. See also: Orientalism (book). — goethean 18:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but criticism of orientalism only started with e. said that was in 1978 so not 100s of years ago. And he quotes people still alive for his examples so there goes your argument. @goethean: I am sure no 21st centrury scholar would seriously call themselves an orientalist, but she still refered to herself and thank you, there is no inner joke here because you don't know how familiar I am with the field.--106.51.202.34 (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler, are you being deliberately facetious? Orientalism is an idea and not a historical profession that is out of fashion.--106.51.202.34 (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I've added the full quote from The Hindus: An alternative history, which provides the context for the use of orientalist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks--106.51.202.34 (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Why use Wikipedia to plug a future book sale?

"in her forthcoming Norton anthology of primary Hindu writings (releasing in November 2014)"

Wow thats was certainly sly yet effective way of advertising, bravo!92.236.1.113 (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)catnose

I hope it will be as good as her erudite Vedic commentary, "Tales of Sex and Violence" (1985) Shii (tock) 20:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Broken DOI link

Please note that the DOI link in the following citation in the article is currently broken.

• Rocher, Ludo (April–June 2012). "Review: The Hindus: An Alternative History by Wendy Doniger". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 132 (2): 302–4. doi:10.7817/jameroriesoci.132.2.0302. JSTOR 10.7817/jameroriesoci.132.2.0302 – via JSTOR. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

The problem seems to be that the DOI itself has been incorrectly registered, such that looking it up using the resolver at dx.doi.org results in a redirect to an invalid URL. I've reported the problem to JSTOR (who are currently holding the journal's archive) and hope they'll be able to correct the problem. Meanwhile, the link using the "JSTOR number" works fine to access the article. In any case, the editors on this article may want to re-check the DOI lookup periodically, and remove the |doi-broken-date=… parameter from the cite template when fixed. I'll try to keep in eye on it myself, but as I'm just doing driveby janitorial work here I'm very much likely to forget. --Xover (talk) 10:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)