Jump to content

Talk:Audrey Truschke: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 154: Line 154:


{{reflist-talk}}
{{reflist-talk}}

But shouldn’t there be a mention about the plagiarism accusations and the subsequent defamation litigation as the article subject herself is involved ? [[User:AnM2002|AnM2002]] ([[User talk:AnM2002|talk]]) 12:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:24, 24 February 2022

Controversy

User:Kautilya3, can you help detail the controversy section? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC) I believe that the petition as well as Rutger's response need to be mentioned. Trying to frame a sentence. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was struck by the phrase "not unexpected" from Robert Goldman. So I suppose she has a history of doing such stuff? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Her serious works of scholarship (ignoring the semi-pop history on Aurangzeb) are excellent, as evident from the honors section and rave reviews. But, to me, her entire Twitter presence seem to be primarily intended in baiting Hindus by adoption of questionable means (best example being the translation).
Goldman is often snarky and I don't know whether there is any particular background, at play. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interesting article on the leftist Hindu that sheds light on her case.

https://www.thehindu.com/society/history-and-culture/the-curious-case-of-controversial-historian-audrey-truschke/article34050315.ece 24.139.24.163 (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Kautilya3, if you get some time. Can you expand from the reviews? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam, are there any historians who regard her as a "historian"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At 40:49 in this talk (rewind to hear the question if you want), "What right do I have to comment on Indian history? I am a trained historian. I read Sanskrit. I read Persian.... I have training in historical method." That is not what I would call a "trained historian". I find her being always cagey about what credentials she actually has in history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not very wise to go into her non-academic endeavors. She is a professor of history and was conferred with (arguably) the most prestigious annual prize in the domain of S.A. History. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that she doesn't actually have a degree in history. What makes her different from say, B. B. Lal, who says I have a degree in Sanskrit, so I claim to be an authority on Aryan history? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on how you define the contours of history. Back in the 60s, MESAAS had a name change (NAMEL to MELAC) to reflect the fact that they were into history as well. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expand

User:Joshua Jonathan: If you have time, can you expand the cited reviews of her work? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google

Why is this page not coming in a Google search? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: Because it was not reviewed. Unreviewed pages don't appear in Google search. I have just marked the page as patrolled. It will start appearing in Google search soon. --Gazal world (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2021

Rutgers' not Rutger's Chrisarasmussen (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – good catch! Favonian (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliability of sources

Please discuss before removal of sourced content. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added 3 more sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversies"

Another scholar where the attacks by the Hindu 'right' receive undue emphasis. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose your recent edits. But, I am against any attempt to blank the sections. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. The quotes from "The living Mahabharata" are enlightening. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One of the things to understand about Hindutva in the US is that it was established by the VHP, not the RSS. So it is a lot more religious than the Hindutva in India. The Indian diaspora children do face a lot of peer-discrimination in the schools, which feeds the yankee Hindutva. The Hindu American Foundatioon is a product of this background. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about "Hindu Holocaust"? I thought that the idea that aliens (as in UFU) brought civilisation was possibly the most bizarre idea regarding Indian history, but have a look at this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Kailasa is in Tamilnadu. It is only British propaganda that put it in Tibet! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, I was only joking... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Prejudiced commentary"

This addition diff

She has been engaging in prejudiced commentary on Hinduism.

is a clear violation of WP:BLP. No source, no attribution, not neutral. Not to mention the removal of sourced info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please go through WP:LEAD. We summarise the article in lead and I can see plenty of sources addressing her prejudiced commentary on Hinduism. Quoting WP:LEAD

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies

LearnIndology (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. "Prejudice" is a judgment, your judgment. Only one of your sources states that she is prejudiced; attribute it, and don't give it undue weight: who is Vikram Zutshi? And the label "controversial" is taken out of context; see WP:TENDENTIOUS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even bothered reading WP:LEAD? We summarise the article in lead including controversies. LearnIndology (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You literally had whitewashed this article[1], had I not intervened and restored the neutral version of the article.[2] Clearly, we can see who is editing tendentiously. LearnIndology (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed yet your addition on Kashmiri Hindus: unattributed cherry-picking. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is clear regarding the inclusion of that statement. See[3][4]. Gain consensus before reverting me. LearnIndology (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TENDENTIOUS again: "She has been accused of engaging in prejudiced commentary on Hinduism" is not the same as "She has been engaging in prejudiced commentary on Hinduism." And ""She has been accused of engaging in prejudiced commentary on Hinduism" was changed into "Truschke has become a target of the Hindu right, due to her historical works and her choice of language" diff. That's the consensus. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had restored this version "She has been accused of engaging in prejudiced commentary on Hinduism"[5], which you reverted[6]. And there's no consensus. Where is it? Show me. LearnIndology (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See above; it was changed, nobody objected. Regarding this: that's what the sources are about. You cherry-picked the one term you needed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other Issues

  • Apart from the DC article, no reliable source has reproduced his reply-email in verbatim. WP:UNDUE. The status-quo line (Goldman however rejected that he ever used such language and deemed her act as "shocking and extremely inappropriate") is fine. I won't be particularly opposed to shifting your quote to foot-notes.
  • Zutshi's is again a column and cannot be used. He is not even a historian. So, the Kashmiri Pandit section does not belong at all. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am okay with that. My main concern is Joshua whitewashing this article and not adhering WP:LEAD, by removing criticism from lead [11]. LearnIndology (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You really WP:DONTGETIT, do you? You repeatedly added an unsourced, unattributed statement to the lead; the only source for that statement is Zutshi, who, as you just agreed, is not an acceptable source. It's not even clear if Zutshi referred to Truschke, when writing

One saw this prejudice again not so long ago when Pandits were driven out of the Valley en masse.

So, not only edit-warring, giving undue weight to a cherry-picked and unattributed term from a discutable source, but also WP:OR. It's astonishing how many policies you managed to breach with this one sentence. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanations. I have self-reverted. LearnIndology (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2021

Change the article from being highly biased, polarising and outright hinduphobic to neutral and holding Audrey Truschke accountable(Redacted). Howlingankush (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide? Where and when? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"shocking and extremely inappropriate"

TrangaBellam, the content you just reverted in is not supported by the cited source, but relies on the Swarajya Magazine article, and Goldman's email therein. Furthermore, even the email does not use the phrase "shocking and extremely inappropriate", which is entirely OR. A case could be made for documenting Goldman's disagreement with her translation, but the current version violates several policies. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the quotes. It was supported by a source you had removed - why is it unsuitable for verifying Goldman's email? Resolved. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: First off, the quote was entirely incorrect when I removed it. Second, if Goldman had published his opinion, it would be worthy of inclusion, given that he's a heavyweight in the field. But he didn't; the sources that published it are an opinion piece, and the deprecated Swarajya. Quoting from them is giving it undue weight. Goldman's disagreement with the translation is referred to elsewhere, and is still worthy of inclusion, but the quotes aren't. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave it to the wisdom of Kautilya3 and Joshua Jonathan. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Swarajya, we have three commentaries:

I believe that everybody has to be sensitive about hurting religious sentiments, and academic freedom doesn't give you a free license. And twitter was never designed for the exercise of academic freedom anyway. If she does it, and another academic calls it "shocking", then that is what it is.

Note that she also continues to mistranslate kama as "lust", a practice Wendy Doniger started (and got into trouble for it). The American academics still have a great deal of difficulty dealing with Hinduism properly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with including criticism when it comes from scholars directly, or from other reliable sources. The Newslaundry opinion piece wasn't either of these. The toned down version is fine by me. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"American academics" is quite a misnomer. Notwithstanding that Doniger's fame is not due to her translations, her ventures in this regard have been criticized by Michael Witzel, Stephanie W. Jamison, and many others of US Nationality. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, point taken. I admire both of them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: I'd argue most of the criticism of Doniger comes from the lens she interprets the texts, in her case Freudian psychoanalysis, ignoring everything, and centralizing and recontextualizing erotism (hence it must be translated in that view). I also find Truschke's scholarship on Aurangzeb to be particularly interesting, while she states Guru Tegh Bahadur was executed because he caused unrest in the Punjab, although many other scholars (and so do the Sikhs) state that he was executed for refusing to convert to Islam (which was also documented). Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 02:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am rewriting the relevant section at our article. It is not very obvious that Truschke is wrong. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Husband Thane Rehn

@Crashed greek: Regarding this edit, WP:IBTIMES is not reliable. Besides that, I don't think including her husband's name and profession is relevant to an article about a scholar, is it? WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 10:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An independently notable spouse may be worth listing, but otherwise, BLP would indicate we ought to leave that information out. Agreed re: reliability, also. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree about excluding spouse name as not relevant, but agree about the source being unreliable. Crashed greek (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Crashed greek: The source you used mentioned that Thane Rehn (supposed Truschke's husband) and her father-in-law Nathan Rehn has missionary connections in India, and Nathan Rehn is a lead pastor at Baptist Church of Monterey, California; as Vanamonde stated, Thane Rehn should be independently notable, and an RS should mention that he is Truschke's husband. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 06:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He should be independently notable only to have his own wikipedia page. But that is not a required criteria to be mentioned in this article. Crashed greek (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Offtopic) from the website of "First Baptist Church of Monterey staff"- see- [12] Source- [13]Akshaypatill (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IDK MoS issues but the couple seem to find mentions in Chicago Tribune May 18, 2013 and also in the university of chicago magazine | spring 2017 alumni news.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there are two Chicago Tribune mentions (here and here) and at Univ. of Chicago magazine (here) pg. 79. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 16:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the Audrey Truschke#Personal life section sourced from this news article, and we can notice it mentions one of Truschke's daughter Willa Rehn - same last name as that of her husband Thane Rehn. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 16:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations

This ref @Bar & Bench suggests there is a case under consideration @ Delhi High Court about Audrey Truschke's allegations vis-à-vis Vikram Sampath

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2022

Attempt to Harass Indian Author

In a letter to the president of the Royal Historical Society, dated 11 February 2022, Audrey Truschke, Rohit Chopra, and Ananya Chakravarti accused Sampath of plagiarism and requested that Sampath's membership be revisited and his scholarship be meticulously probed. In evidence, were attached multiple lines (incl. footnotes) from a 2017 publication which were reproduced in toto or minimally paraphrased from works of Vinayak Chaturvedi and Janaki Bakhle absent inline citations or explicit attributions.[1] Another example was cited from the first volume of his biography of Savarkar — a paragraph ran near-identical to that in an undergraduate student thesis, however, it was not written by Vikram Sampath himself They also claimed to have come across other similar instances in Sampath's corpus of work. However, Sampath rejected the allegations as part of a "motivated smear-campaign" and has filed a defamation suit in Delhi High Court seeking costs of 2 Crore INR (269469.15 USD). He claims the 2017 publication to be transcript of a speech—where he had indeed attributed all of the scholars in a proper fashion—and highlights how the sources remain cited in the bibliography section at the end; the biography-paragraph appeared to be similar due to common dependence on a particular source. On the first hearing, an interim order was passed by the Delhi High Court restraining Truschke and others from publishing the letter or any other defamatory material. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kedarj71 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. WP:UNDUE. This stuff belongs on the Vikram Sampath page, where it has been already added. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://thewire.in/history/vikram-sampath-savarkar-accused-plagiarism
  2. ^ https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/delhi-high-court-restrain-historian-audrey-truschke-defamation-vikram-sampath-192240

But shouldn’t there be a mention about the plagiarism accusations and the subsequent defamation litigation as the article subject herself is involved ? AnM2002 (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Audrey_Truschke&oldid=1073760476"