Talk:Wendy Doniger

NPOV tag

This article is not neutral. It contains more criticism than actual biographical details about Doniger. — goethean ॐ 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

it's the usual attempt to present the religious nationalist hatemongery as "scholarship". The article as it stands is a BLP nightmare and needs to be fixed badly. Criticism that is actually notable and based on scholarly argument needs to be separated from the egg-throwing nationalist mob. The egg-throwing may be notable in its own right, but the article almost manages to suppose that throwing eggs at people is an act of scholarly criticism. --dab (𒁳) 14:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There's also the usual attempt to present the real scholarship as hindutva hatemongery. Sharma, De Nicolas, Witzel, and the Encarta dispute are clearly in the 'scholarship' category, but editors keep trying to paint them as hate-filled hindutvas. Even Witzel was demonized by Doniger's acolytes for not rushing to her defense, but instead exposing her 'scholarship'. The criticism section should be half as long, and focus on the scholarship, imo. Priyanath ^talk 01:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Like dab points above, the "Hindutva" and "Nationalist" agenda have been mixed with scholarly and notable arguments and gives a completely incorrect impression; This needs to be separated. Spdiffy (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have separated out the material related to Nationalism / attack of scholars, However few of the quotes refer to Courtright, Laine's Shivaji book and Rajiv Malhotra's essay etc., along with Doniger's and a context should be provided, without which the quotes are confusing and not clear to the average reader. --Spdiffy (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Update : I have added some context, but I feel that most of the material and quotes related to Hindutva and Nationalism are not directly related to Doniger and do not belong to this article. Both Vijay Prashad's article and Washington Post's aritlce contains references to Courtright, Laine's shivaji book and Malhotra's essay. Probably they belong to RISA or AAR article; Spdiffy (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Name

Is her name "Wendy Doniger" or "Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty"? Shreevatsa (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violations and use of Self published sources

This article has copyright violations, and uses Doniger's CV, a self-published source, clearly not acceptable since it fails WP:RS. It looks like that 90% of the article is built on her CV!

The Works section has text plagiarized from Publications . Also wikipedia is not indiscriminate collection of information, the works in-progress and other translations ( few in progress! ) are WP:UNDUE

The Biography section also has content plagiarized from Divinity School Faculty page - "Wendy Doniger's 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."

Moreover, the "Biography" section has some unencyclopedic material, attributed to her CV, but not present there , for ex : "As a professor she has mentored over 60 students through their PhDs and now has many (doctoral) grandchildren and great-grandchildren."

Even the section "Book Reviews" ( all pertaining to the The Hindus ) has extensive quotes and has copy vio., moreover, this uses non-RS, like "Harvard Bookstore, On Our Shelves: http://209.50.238.122/onourshelves/title.php?isbn=1594202052 ", note this is site does not even have a proper domain name!and some wordpress links : http://acharyavidyasagar.wordpress.com

Needs massive cleanup. I will be removing the plagiarized content. Rgrds, Spdiffy (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have most of plagiarized content, also , Wikipedia is not "A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."; Add only notable information. Spdiffy (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your cleanup. However, the article is now unbalanced and not neutral. The article gives the impression that Doniger is controversial or a renegade, when in fact the mainstream view is that she is a distinguished author and university professor who has been demonized by the Hindu right-wing. — goethean ॐ 14:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, its "Hindutva" again! I have seen this for many years now. All the criticism is classified as Hindutva and I see the same thing in this article. Scholarly criticism from Academics like Antonio De Nicholas, Witzel are also classified as "Hindutva" which is clearly not the case.

A few concerns with the diffs:

• [1] This material is backed by a book, (a Reliable source) Michael Witzel is also an authority on sanskrit, so he comments are required. And his comments should be mentioned, since even Doniger (and supporters) bothered to challenge him

• [2] : well "special" seems a OR, but the book titles are notable and should be mentioned.

• [3] : the reference is not proper and one is justified to remove it, but this is an important piece of information and if one finds a proper RS, should be added back.

--Spdiffy (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Update : Just saw this revert requesting for reliable sources., yes, I will provide Reliable sources, in fact one of the books I was reading from Prema A. Kurien discusses these problems. Moreover, Antonio De Nichlas' book has been published by Rupa & Co an WP:RS. Never mind, will back with refs --Spdiffy (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, its "Hindutva" again! I have seen this for many years now. All the criticism is classified as Hindutva and I see the same thing in this article. Scholarly criticism from Academics like Antonio De Nicholas, Witzel are also classified as "Hindutva" which is clearly not the case.

I am sorry that you reject and mock my concerns about the sad state of this article, which is totally inaccurate. My understanding is that real scholars --- the type who write for the NYT, Washington Post, etc. uniformly view this as a conflict between the Hindu right-wing and scholars. Sure, the proto-fascist egg-throwers have unsurprisingly found a few fellow-travellers in the West. They are usually nobodies from a junior college. But that idea that Doniger is anti-Hindu is a very long way from being a mainstream view in important scholarly institutions. In this article, however, the views of the Indian right-wing have pride of place. This article is not neutral. The criticisnm section is a joke. Do not replace the poorly-sourced, out-of-place material that I have removed. — goethean ॐ 14:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Witzel is also an authority on sanskrit, so he comments are required. And his comments should be mentioned, since even Doniger (and supporters) bothered to challenge him

Then he can put his criticism in a book rather than a misspelled email. Doniger is a university professor and a scholar. Notable criticism of her comes from scholarly sources, not an email. — goethean ॐ 16:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were aware of the all the emails that were exchanged between Doniger and Witzel, The material you removed had a source from Religious studies: a global view from Routledge and this material is required to present the issues in Religious studies and sanskrit translation... Had it been not so notable, whey did Doniger even bother to challenge him and why did Doniger go silent later? Obviously, it is very notable and there are several notable sources that discuss this. --Spdiffy (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, these are not just emails (and the spelling mistake seems intentional). This issue has been discussed by several secondary sources. Moreover most of the readers here do not have access to RISA's internal mailing list and the interesting discussions / debates that go on there. This adds a valid perspective to the article, debate between Doniger and other professor. Rgrds, Spdiffy (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Please Read: Re: Biographies of living persons and permitted sources please read the following link, CV is an acceptable Wiki source, Doniger's is not self published but published by U of Chicago on their web page, and quoting it is not a copyright violation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source) Meetoohelp (talk) 05:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, pls read WP:SPS and WP:SECONDARY. Actually the link you have mentioned above has ample details on this :

• it is not unduly self-serving;
• there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it;

Please stop adding advertisement in the article and plagiarizing the content. Spdiffy (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you are referencing an internal mailing list in reference to a biographical article should alert you to the fact that the material that you are introducing is completely inappropriate. And shoulds be removed immediately per WP:BLP. This is a biographical article. What some guy said in a misspelled email is not appropriate. The article should have a neutral, balanced section which accurately describes the public and media reception of Doniger's 40 year career. Not the current hatchet job mess filled with half-quotations shoved together to make someone look bad. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. — goethean ॐ 13:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If doniger is such a bad scholar and such a poor translator, why don't you source these criticism to real, scholarly books, rather than the politicized guide to egg-throwing "Invading the Sacred"? There must be absolutely tons of material out there, because she is such a BAD BAD BAD scholar, right? The fact that there have been a few complaint from right-wing activists over a 40 years career, and you are putting every single one in thi article, while conmtinually removing biographical details. What you are doing is not neutral. Stop it. — goethean ॐ 13:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

And if you again re-add the inappropriate material from misspelled emails, you might think about adding in Doniger's response, since you mentioned above that the fact the Doniger responded to it shows that the criticism is notable (an obvious non sequitor but we all know that logic get put to the wayside very quickly when dealing with right-wing Hindus with an ax to grind against American scholars). — goethean ॐ 14:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would have added Doniger's response for NPOV, but was her response notable and did she respond at all to the mistranslation claims. While searching for her response, I came across this outlook.com article which says she hasn't ( "Doniger never responded to Michael Witzel's critique of her Sanskrit translations"). However, Witzel has published other mistranslations. The Book "Invading the Sacred" that you describe as "guide to egg-throwing", has been quoted by Russell McCutcheon, ( Professor and Chair of Religious Studies, University of Alabama ) in one of his journals. Invading the Sacred is a WP:RS. But I wonder why other notable material was removed from psychoanalysis material. Clearly scholarly sources are being removed and others are termed as "right-wing activists"! Spdiffy (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: CV and self published sources, thanks for your care and caution, but from WP:NOR "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press...) may be used in Wikipedia"Meetoohelp (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the removal of your additions to the article. Pasting material from Doniger's CV is a copyright violation and unhelpful. — goethean ॐ 17:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Most racist article on wikipedia I have ever seen

I must object to this whitewashing of the blatant racism and orientalism in Doniger's works. She essentially claims that Hinduism does not exist, which paves the way for the derecognition of and racial discrimination against Indian minorities in western countries. Furthermore, the pro-Doniger editors are deliberately misrepresenting reviews of Doniger's work to present an article that legitimizes racism against Indians. For instance, review is misrepresented to say that Hindus are stupid and don't know their own religion, whereas the review says that "Doniger knows more than her critics". This kind of misrepresentation is the most appalling example of vicious and revisionist racist diatribe I have ever seen on wikipedia.Moral student (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You actually had a good point in the midst of all that self-victimizing blather. I have corrected the oversight. Thanks for the observation. — goethean ॐ 18:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried to find reviews of Doniger's books in Indian newspapers, but it looks like they have all been scared off by the militants (who can blame them?). Found one in The Hindu and added it to the article. — goethean ॐ 16:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS?

Some of the scholarly material removed ( [4] , [5] ), which contains material from WP:RS. The books in question are :

• Krishnan Ramaswamy, Antonio de Nicolas and Aditi Banerjee, ed. (2007). Invading The Sacred: An Analysis of Hinduism Studies in America. Rupa & Co.,.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link), authored by several scholars
• Alles, Gregory D. (2007). Religious studies: a global view. Routledge. p. 260.
• Kurien, Prema A. (2007). "Challenging American Pluralism". A place at the multicultural table: the development of an American Hinduism. Rutgers University Press. pp. 202–203.

All of which are WP:RS. However, other material related to translation from Book reviews has been added, but the addition of material from a reliable source has been termed as "guide to egg-throwing"; Obviously this is not neutral and material needs to be restored. Moreover, the material from Invading the Sacred, has been quoted from has been quoted by Russell McCutcheon, ( Professor and Chair of Religious Studies, University of Alabama ) in one of journals; ( Can dig out the journal if required ) --Spdiffy (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Protests section

This section is a Wikipedia:Coatrack and has quote(s) taken out of context and gives a completely different meaning. For ex, the quote "...Recent events demonstrate the lengths to which some nationalists have taken their protests." has no relation with Rajiv Malhotra. This quote refers to the Courtright's and Laine's book, and whose content was removed citing guilt by association( [6] ), ( I support removal of Courtright, Laine etc., ), but without this piece of information, the quote is not useful. This section needs to be accurately written. --Spdiffy (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)