Talk:Michael Witzel

From the archive

This remark was added to old conversations by User:Joeseph Stalin just before archiving:

"This isnt about guilt by association .It's about actively campaigning against Hindus with those organizations therefore the criticism is valid." You can see it in it's original context in the section Sandhya Jain material in the archive. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi,

It is said "However, Witzel had clarified that point already in 2001 (in EJVS 7-3, notes 45-46)" in crticism section. Can somebody tell me what excatly did Witzel say? There seems to be some anachronism, how can somebody clarify about somebody's criticisim before it is made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aproposo (talk • contribs) 07:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And can I also put some criticism from Asko Parpola, Massimo Vidale and Iravatham Mahadevan?

There's a link right there in the article -- can't you access it? Anyway, this is page 15, footnote 46, which, it can be argued, is a 'clarification":

This passage, quoted in an earlier publications (1989, excerpted and --unfortunately-- simply computer-copied in 1995),

was not correctly translated as printed in 1989/1995. It has elicited lively, if not emotive and abusive internet discussions, even alleging "fabrication of evidence" (see also Elst 1999: 164, who misattributes to me "the desire to counter the increasing skepticism regarding the Aryan invasion theory" as reason for writing my paper), -- all of this in spite of repeated on-line clarifications over the years and general apologies (Witzel 1997: 262 n.21). -- Retrospectively, I should have printed the full explanation in that footnote, but I was sure then that I could do so in the earlier version of this very paper, slated for print in 1997).

What had occurred was that I had unfortunately misplaced a parenthesis in the original publication of 1989 devoted not to the Aryan migration but to OIA dialects (and simply copied in my 1995 paper, a short summary of RV history), -- i.e. I printed: "(His other people) stayed at home in the West" instead of: (His other people stayed) at home in the West" or better "Amvasu (stayed at home) in the West." In this way I had unfortunately intermingled translation and interpretation in these two summary style papers, without any further discussion, -- which set me up for such on-line criticisms as that of recent adversaries who deduce (e.g., amusingly, in the Indian right wing journal, The Organiser) that I do not even know the rudiments of PÍinean grammar. (Of course, I teach, in first year Sanskrit, the past tense of am + vas as amvasan, not amvasuµ, a 'mistake' some critics rhetorically accuse me of, in spite of hundreds of correct translations of such past tenses!) Or worse, they accuse me of "fabricating evidence" for the invasion theory.

[...]

In other words, the weight given by some the internet to their point that a different interpretation of this passage would remove (all) evidence for an immigration/trickling in of speakers of Indo-Aryan is, at a minimum overblown, and in fact just a rhetorical ploy. This passage is of course just one, and a late one at that, speaking of tribal movements. Therefore, Elst's overblown summary (1999: 165) "The fact that a world-class specialist has to content himself with a late text... and that has to twist its meaning this much in order to get an invasionist story out of it..." is just rhetorics. The passage in question is just

one point in the whole scheme of immigration and acculturation, a fact that Elst does not take into account here. [...]

(above is copy-paste; some IAST symbols are misrendered.)

As for the other "criticism from Asko Parpola, Massimo Vidale and Iravatham Mahadevan", it's probably about the recent Indus Valley script debate — it's probably undue weight (relative to Witzel's work) and seems too much recentism, so probably not worth adding. Shreevatsa (talk) 07:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou so much for that. The line I refered to earlier "However, Witzel had clarified that point already in 2001 (in EJVS 7-3, notes 45-46)" is a confusing one. It needs some elaboration. I will try editing it.

And secondly, the rule on "undue weight" says "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.". The views of the three scholars are definitely not minority views. By the rule they have to be given proportionate weightage in this article. And as I understand they are not less significant than Witzel's works. They are also not recent media events. Thanks for your views and help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aproposo (talk • contribs) 11:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography

Where is the bibliography. There are references like this " Witzel aims at indicating the emergence of the Kuru tribe in the Delhi area (1989, 1995, 1997, 2003), its seminal culture and its political dominance, as well as studying the origin of late Vedic polities[36] and the first Indian empire in eastern North India (1995, 1997, 2003, 2010)." But the foot note is unrelated to the earlier texts. What is 1989? 1995? This article is next to useless.