Talk:Wendy Doniger

New criticism section

The "criticism" section added by User:Raj2004 is not a neutral or accurate depiction of the reception of Doniger's work and should be removed immediately per WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. It also uses Invading the Sacred, a contentious, partisan, and unreliable source. — goethean ॐ 15:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

However, a criticism section is needed. So please improve it instead of removing it. Shii (tock) 00:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

However, a criticism section is needed.

A criticism section most assuredly is not needed, per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. A neutral, well-sourced section on the reception of Doniger's ideas is needed. A criticism section is not needed, and in order to be taken seriously, you will need to cite a Wikipedia policy rather than simply assert opinions without evidence. In the absence of such, I am removing the section per my above reasoning. — goethean ॐ 00:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be interesting as long as a debate is ongoing and new points are brought forward. Once a debate has been exhausted, particularly after it becomes clear that one "side" in the debate has no case whatsoever, it tends to turn into just a boring game of fly-swatting :( --dab (𒁳) 10:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Geez Louise, all I meant is that she's a controversial figure and the points that have been made against her were by influential figures, not that they shouldn't be put in contrast with her widespread approval throughout academia. Shii (tock) 19:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a little surprised that this section is removed. It should be restored. You should also add sections that praise Professor Doniger. But removing a negative criticism section is not NPOV. Raj2004 (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Goethan I respectfully disagree. A neutral section on a controversial scholar is not credible. However, I agree that the criticism section needs to be balanced, which I have done. Raj2004 (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A neutral section on a controversial scholar is not credible.

WP:NPOV is one of the three pillars of Wikipedia policy and all edits must adhere to it, especially a biography of a living person. I suggest that you read up on Wikipedia policy before continuing to edit war for your changes to this article. — goethean ॐ 21:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Also I note that Goethan has been blocked in the past for edits. I agree that the criticism section on Wendy Doniger needs to be balanced though. Raj2004 (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you find a valid argument for your edits which does not necessitate commenting on individual editors. — goethean ॐ 21:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The edits are well-balanced. We have good sources, the New York Times, BBC News, etc. Pankaj Mishra is a well-respected commentator on the left. His views balances the views of the right. The current criticism section is much improved. Furthermore, this section is balanced and thus presents both sides of the story, the hallmark of NPOV. Raj2004 (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the NPOV policy states: "It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Therefore, material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV."

Other editors can further condense it up I feel that the current section reflects a NPOV view. Indeed, Professor Witzel, who is not at all on the Hindu right, has criticized her scholarship. Thus further strengthens the balanced point of view. Raj2004 (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Grabbing the most negative statements from the entire history of press coverage of a person, shoving it all into their article, and conveniently overlooking all of the positive material which has been said about them, is not just non-neutral editing, it is patently dishonest. This is what you have done. — goethean ॐ 22:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well then go ahead tone it down but don't remove it. Put in both positive and negatives. For example, the article states this negative about Doniger but states this positive about her. This harsh criticism about Doniger was extracted from a Wikipedia excerpt on LGBT themes in Hindu mythology. I did not wrote the original criticism on her so I don't know the whole story.

The only new original info I added is regarding Pankaj Mishra, which I can vouch for, is accurate. To remove any true negative criticism about her is intellectually dishonest. Doniger is indeed a controversial figure, regardless whether you believe in her views or not. Raj2004 (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

To remove any true negative criticism about her is intellectually dishonest.

Oh, is it. Then this article will include everything negative about Doniger ever written. Which would undoubtedly please the enemies of scholarship immensely. Doniger is a controversial figure among certain highly politicized groups. Not in academia. Not in America. Not in the West. Barack Obama is also a highly contrioversial figure among certain highly politicized, poorly informed people. That doesn't mean that their outrageously inaccurate charges against him should be parroted obediently and everything else should be suppressed, as you have done here. Your additions are unbalanced and should be removed immediately. — goethean ॐ 23:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

But views on religion are varied. Religion is not science, e.g., like the laws of gravity. Everyone will have an opinion. The Catholic view of Christ is very different from the Protestant view of Christ for example. Catholics venerate Mary unlike Protestants. Please go ahead and make more positive remarks about Doniger. That's fine. I added the section on Pankaj Mishra. You said that she's respected in academia. Even academics like Professor Witzel have some critical comments about her. Raj2004 (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Not so in America? What world are you living on? The Hindu American Foundation is critical of Doniger. CORRECTION: THEY RECENTLY PUBLISHED A COMMENT: http://www.hafsite.org/media/pr/imagined-hindu-history And they are not even a right wing group like the VHP. Even you have your own point of view. Raj2004 (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV states that "significant-minority views" should be included. Even the views of those who criticize her should be respected as well as those who praise her. That's an objective encylopedia. Raj2004 (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your rewrites are fine, Goethan I toned both sides down to make it more NPOV. I stated "many critics," because there are be many who are critical of her on other grounds. Also, some may praise her. This makes it neutral. Raj2004 (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Excessive critical commentary should not be included in the biography of a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The current rewrite should reflect that each group's views is a perspective of some, not all. This is why the edits were made. Raj2004 (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The criticism section (I realize that it has been retitled) is quite badly written and looks as though it was intended to highlight some sensational remarks made about Doniger. It needs to be rewritten at least, and there is a case for removing it. Gigi-Ko! (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Gigi, what do those books actually state? There is case for removing it if the comments are not accurate. But I heard that Wendy Doniger has been criticized for her interpretations. Please give those true negative criticism. Please report the criticism accurately even though it may be negative. Raj2004 (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Gigi, I rewrote the section using her university magazine, from the University of Chicago. Raj2004 (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Goethan, the use of "harassed by Hindu nationalist" in the section is not NPOV. Trying to bury legitimate criticism by masking a section header is disingenuous. Also you don't seem to be even-handed in NPOV. You bash Hindu nationalists but don't want to allow any criticism of scholars like Doniger. Raj2004 (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Goethean is "bashing Hindu natioanlists" because, unlike Doniger, they keep trying to undermine Wikipedia. Doniger, and especially her Wikipedia artice, is indeed being harassed by Hindu nationalits. The question is whether this fact is at all notable to her biography. We don't usually put incidents like "was once shouted at by a homeless person" or "was at one point mugged in a dark alley" in scholars' biographies. --dab (𒁳) 15:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Trying to bury legitimate criticism by masking a section header is disingenuous.

Using a section header to draw attention to politicized attacks on a scholar is also disingenuous.

If you want to write a neutral, factual, well-sourced section on the academic response to Doniger's work, you go right ahead. But cutting and pasting decontextualized garbage into a WP:BLP like this is irresponsible. You are using Wikipedia to defame a living person. That puts the Wikipedia project at risk. — goethean ॐ 15:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not defaming anyone. This was extracted from an article from the University of Chicago. No wonder you were blocked. Raj2004 (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there are some out there who are crazies. But let's be civil here by presenting all points of view. Don't delete anything that is not your point of viewRaj2004 (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Dab from my experiences in the past, tries to be NPOV unlike Goethan. Raj2004 (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The current version of "Doniger's interpretation of Hindu texts" is somewhat better. It still does not seem to be very well written, however, and it definitely seems slanted against Doniger. Further improvement to make it neutral is required. Gigi-Ko! (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If I had any more reverts available to me, I would remove the material immediately. This is not an argument over "interpretation of texts". This is about the harassment of a scholar by political thugs like Rajiv Malhotra who know nothing of Sanskrit and less of Indian history. User:Raj2004 has edit warred with dab and myself in order to insert the text. He should be blocked for edit warring on this article. He has also edit warred in order to keep his POV, inaccurate header which acts as the Wikipedia equivalent of a blinking neon sign in order to drive traffic to his favored section of the article. — goethean ॐ 22:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Geothan why you are such a fan of Doniger? Are you a former student? I don't do the bidding of any and just want to present both sides, and remove the unnecessary such as egg throwing incident and the blatantly false statement that Mr. Malhotra is the only one critical of Doniger; The Hindu American Foundation is critical of Doniger. CORRECTION: THEY RECENTLY PUBLISHED A COMMENT: http://www.hafsite.org/media/pr/imagined-hindu-history And they are not even a right wing group like the VHP. I don't care about either side as I concede that there as many right-wing kooks and clearly as many kooks in the left-wing, as we have seen.

Moreover, Goethan himself has been blocked for excessive disruption in the past. Raj2004 (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you please avoid personal attacks in your comments? They are not helpful and do not strengthen your position. That Doniger has been assaulted because of her views as expressed in her books certainly seems relevant, and I doubt there is any valid reason why that information should be removed. Gigi-Ko! (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. That's fine but why was this removed: Kazanas, Nicholas. Indo-European Deities and the Rgveda. Journal of Indo-European Studies, vol. 29, nos. 3-4 (Fall & Winter 2001), pp. 257-293. Footnote #14 on page 283. This seems to be a well-respected academic journal. Can you explain why? I don't know. Raj2004 (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You used that reference to source the views of unnamed generic "some scholars". Kazanas speaks for Kazanas and not unnamed generic "some scholars." — goethean ॐ 02:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok that's fine. I will edit that way then. Raj2004 (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting double brackets around his name. That way, our readers can see that what you've done is to isolate a single sentence from the harshest critic of Doniger, even though that critic is not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. This is the problem when people with political agendas who don't give a crap about scholarship or facts find the worst thing that anyone has ever said a about a scholar and present it as the consensus of scholarly opinion. What you are writing is fiction. — goethean ॐ 03:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In Hinduism a scholar is not created by writing books! Instead, the scholar is created by living the widsom of Hinduism. It is very clear from the writings of Wendy Doniger that she does not understand Hinduism, because it simply does not reflect in her writings. A knower of Hinduism unites people, not divides them. My previous edits to her page were removed by someone! The fact that quite a few members of Hindu society do not agree with Wendy's writings should be respected. And, we must on the main page add a section conveying this position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.16.50 (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Hindu nationalists

The currently written piece is slightly slanted towards the left and disparages anyone who has any legitimate criticism about Professor Doniger. Unbelievable. Raj2004 (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"The left"? What...OH you mean scholars and facts. Yeah, it is. — goethean ॐ 02:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop any personal attacks. It is clear that you are a left-wing advocate and Mr. Malhotra is a right wing advocate. There are politics in any religion. There are religious scholars on the left and religious scholars on the right. Scholarship varies in religion. I don't think you are a practicing Hindu to understand. To analogize, a christian religious scholar who favors homosexual marriage is clearly on the left. The left-handed cult in Shaktism, for example, is clearly opposite of the conservative traditions in Shaktism. Raj2004 (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Suffice to say that I don't subscribe to your ideas of left, right and whatever. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPA and stop speculating on the motivations of fellow editors. — goethean ॐ 02:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

I still don't understand why the section header "Criticism" was removed. Many biographies on Wikipedia have criticism sections on controversial people, except for Doniger . Raj2004 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Doniger is a scholar, not a politician. For scholars, a section accurately describing the reception of their academic work is more appropriate than a random collection pot-shots from nobodies. — goethean ॐ 02:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism" sections are inherently bogus. If a creditable work specifically devoted to someone's scholarship can be sourced, fine. Otherwise it's all sound-bites, cherry-picking and POV-pushing. If there's a notable controversy or issue involving the person, then that should have its own dedicated article. Leave the BLP out of it. rudra (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Doniger is not a politician but I believe that this is not handled in a fair way. Contrast this with an article on the controversial Catholic theologian, Mary Daly; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Daly#Controversy_and_criticism Can Goethan and Rudrasharman write something like that? I will reintroduce my introduction, and you can rewrite it in a similar style like the Mary Daly article? Raj2004 (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Mary Daly article discusses facts that Daly allegedly got wrong. Go ahead and prove me wrong but as far as I know, there is no discussion in reliable sources of facts that Doniger allegedly got wrong, just nebulous allegations that she is an uppity American female who should stay the fuck away from Brahminism. — goethean ॐ 13:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

well, Mary Daly, as the article stated, did not say anything that can be interpreted multiple ways. As you know, religion has multiple interpretations; so I don't think adding this is wrong so long as it is counterbalanced, which it is by your constructive additions. It seems that two well respected academics disagree on her interpretation: "Michael Witzel, professor of South Asian studies at Harvard, who has also been accused by Hindu nationalists of being anti-Hindu, has questioned her translations and her proclivity for finding sexual meanings in ancient texts. [8] Nicolas Kazanas, a Greek Indologist, has stated that she seems to be obsessed with only one meaning of myths: the most sexual imaginable." Again, religion has multiple interpretations; so I don't think adding this is wrong so long as it is counterbalanced, which it is by your constructive additions. Academics throughout time have been criticized for their interpretations so I don't think adding balanced views is a problem, as it has been done.

Raj2004 (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I know, Doniger just interpreted things in a different way; I don't think she made a misstatement of any uncontestable fact. But then again there are so few contemporary Indologists around who are controversial. Raj2004 (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

you are welcome to cite academic criticism of her work. Why don't you do that and establish she is indeed controvresial. Just as long as you stop discussing tomato-throwers and ideological cranks like Kazanas. Cite academic reviews of her work. --dab (𒁳) 15:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)--dab (𒁳) 15:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Witzel's critique was actually a tangent, on a very respected mailing list yes, but which nevertheless I'm sure can be wikilawyered out of contention. The original context was English translations of the RV: Witzel opined that a new one was needed, noting why he was unsatisfied with existing efforts. Someone asked him to substantiate his remarks, and the thread took off. (See the old Indology Listserv archive for Nov 1995. The posts are in inverse chronological order, so you have to scroll to the bottom and work upwards for the thread. Start with the last but one, #232.) Witzel then posted thrice. which someone later helpfully collated. Rajiv Malhotra cited a couple in his "Wendy's Child Syndrome" essay, which is the basis for the statement in the UoC article about Doniger cited in the BLP. rudra (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for accusations of wikilawyering in relation to removing the contents of an email message from the article. — goethean ॐ 17:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You're in luck, then, because Doniger isn't worth criticizing in a book. An email message is about all she warrants, even though in this case, it amounts to a self-published work by an expert in his own field. But then again, you're the wikilawyer, not me. rudra (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I do not think Doniger is interesting as an Indologist. She appears to represent the generation of academics that form the very nadir of postmodernist gender trash. But it isn't proper to try and denigrate a scholar in a Wikipedia artice because you think their work is crap. If they are uninteresting, they will just have a very brief article, if any at all. The Hindutva tomato-throwing hooligans are just bullies and have nothing to do with Doninger's quality as a scholar or notability. These people wouldn't be in a position to assess her work. Tomato-throwing isn't an acceptable mode of academic recension. If these Hindutva bigots want to make a pathetic spectacle of themselves they are free to do that, but they cannot expect to have every one of their moves documented on Wikipedia. WP:ENC. --dab (𒁳) 08:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I support the idea of restoring a "Criticism" section to the article. Criticism of her is noteworthy enough to some Hindus to justify a balanced summary of what the controversy is about. Having read the long transcript of talk here, I would suggest that the statements about the controversy that are already in the text of the current version of the article be moved to a distinct section so the reader can quickly locate the issue. I regret if this suggestion positions me as a "Hindutva tomato-throwing hooligan". Buddhipriya (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wendy is a controversial personality and criticism section should be added to the article to make the article balanced. Please do not sourced content by calling the sources poor. Discuss as to why they are poor sources. Without criticism, the article would like portraying a particular POV and does not make the article neutral. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A criticism section is inherently one-sided and not neutral. The article already has a balanced, accurate account of the reception of Doniger's work, sourced to high-profile, mainstream sources. Your contributions were not accurate, neutral, or needed, or helpful. Please read the entire debate on this page in order to understand why your addition is counter to Wikipedia policy. — goethean ॐ 17:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the article already covers the criticism/controversy with the Novetzske material. So your contribution is redundant. — goethean ॐ 17:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Relevant policies include WP:NPOV WP:RS WP:V WP:DUE WP:3RR WP:BRD. Note that your Hindustan Times source is an opinion editorial and a reliable souce for nothing but the author's opinon. — goethean ॐ 21:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Professor Kazanos?

Pardon my ignorance, Dab. Why do you have objections towards him? I am curious as I do not know much about him. This site (http://nalandainternational.org/IndusConference/Participants.htm) seems to suggest that he is a scholar. If so, his views may be included in the Doniger article. I recognize one of the participants though. (Edwin Bryant. Thanks for the clarification. Raj2004 (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The details were posted once to the Talk page of an article which no longer exists. You can see a summary here. rudra (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Raj2004 (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

I do not understand the use of WP:NPOV to say that criticism sections should be removed. Is claiming that criticism exists a violation of NPOV? Shii (tock) 18:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it be okay to simply write on the Barack Obama page under the header CRITICISM: "Some scholars think that Obama is a terrorist", and then throw in some links to Rush Limbaugh and Osama bin Laden? If that is not okay, then you should be able to figure out why it is also not okay to allow right-wing Hindus who hate Doniger to summarize the reception of her work, 95% of which is uncontroversial. — goethean ॐ 18:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read the talk pages and wiki pages on PN Oak, Max Muller, Romila Thapar, Monier Williams and you will see how the western definition of 'scholars', 'ligitimate commentators', 'researchers' and 'reputable sources' changes based on western interests. Interestingsly Indian 'right wingers' are the most educated and forward looking in their society - contrary to the right wingers of 'Christian west'. I would encourage people of 'your kind' [Christian right wingers] to keep posting your comments - as that will keep a good record of 'Christian' thought process and argumentative styles for future record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.118.244.2 (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, random epithets being thrown at Obama is quite different from actual criticism. Doniger's most recent book begins with a thorough discussion of the criticism aimed at her. Is this somehow "not notable"? Shii (tock) 20:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

look, you want to discuss things like criticism sections in bio articles in general, I suggest you take it to WP:VP or WP:BIO. "claiming that criticism exists" is not the same as a criticism section. It has been stated repeatedly that peer reviewed criticism is very welcome. So why don't you just begin adding such criticism instead of draggin this on and on? --dab (𒁳) 20:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, because it's been removed repeatedly. Also, why does it have to be peer reviewed? Doesn't response from the subject of her works suffice as important? Shii (tock) 20:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

no. --dab (𒁳) 21:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's what I call Orientalist discourse. Shii (tock) 00:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

it is not a discourse, "orientalist" or otherwise. It is one scholar writing books and holding lectures, and a lynch mob lobbing eggs. If you can reference an actual academic discourse, again, please do it already. --dab (𒁳) 17:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

random epithets

A good description of the "criticism" of Doniger. — goethean ॐ 23:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional Comments

When one examines the content under dispute[1] IMHO, there is also a problem with verifiability along with WP:NPOV, WP:WTA :

• In 2003, in response to pressure from conservative Hindu political activists, Microsoft excised an article she wrote for the Encarta encyclopedia... [Emphasis mine] is not present in the cited source. The "conservative Hindu political activists" is Shankart Shanu. The "excised" part should be written accurately, i.e the article was replaced with Arvind Sharma of McGill University.[2]
• The Next statement attributed to Martha Nussbaum is out of context when applied to the previous encyclopaedia sentence, "..the tacit assumption behind the attacks on Doniger is that sex has something about it something shameful and.." Also "notes that" should be "argues" as per WP:WTA
• The Next statement "One leading antagonist..." is also WP:NPOV.
• The "egg was lobbed" is also only partially complete. Arvind Sharma discusses the complete issue in "Hindus and scholars" Spring 2004 Vol. 7, No. 1, "Meanwhile, during a public lecture in London last November Wendy Doniger had an egg thrown at her and was vociferously questioned about her qualifications to speak on Hinduism. According to witnesses, she avoided giving an answer when pointedly asked whether she had herself been psychoanalyzed. It was clear that the Hindu faith community in the United Kingdom had joined the fray." If the egg incident is being mentioned, then its also necessary to include the "questioned about her qualifications" part neutrally or completely remove the "egg";

In the current shape its not advisable to include the content under dispute, at least a serious neutral and accurate rewrite is needed. Happy editing. --TheMandarin (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hooligans disrupting a lecture is simply not WP:DUE material for an academic bio article, sorry. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here. What this really is about is the rise of Hindu fundamentalism in the USA, apparently modelled both on Hindu fundamentalism in India and on Protestant Christian fundamentalism in the US. If people want to discuss this very relevant topic, Hinduism in the United States would be a proper venue, but I doubt that the "egg lobbed" at Doniger will be notable enough to be mentioned even there. --dab (𒁳) 17:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't -- Malhotra's initiative and case are quite distinct from the Hindu fundos who took up their own cudgels on his "behalf" -- but this Talk page is not the place to sort that out. What may be relevant is that Doniger et al have been successful in casting the issue in just those terms, in order to have reasonable minded people dismiss it, of course. (See, e.g. Shankar Vedantam's article in the Washington Post.) Arvind Sharma's essay is the best treatment, by far. rudra (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Apropos of Vendatam's article and others like it all too eager to lump everything into a "Hindutva" bogeyman, see this article about the Laine affair. It really is not that simple. rudra (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"We are trying to write an encyclopedia here." Really? I was under the impression this was a hagiography. Shii (tock) 21:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

More on the egg

The Mandarin is correct that there is more to the egg incident. (And, in fact, the projectile may not have been an egg at all.) AFAIK, there are two eye-witness accounts, and one journalistic report that is most probably also based on the writer having attended the event (a presentation by Doniger on the Ramayana and sex -- what else, right? -- at the SOAS on November 12, 2003). The session was chaired by William Dalrymple, who mentions the incident in a NYRB article (written after the "reliable sources" cited so far.) The other eye-witness account is by a Jiten Bardwaj, whom Doniger mentions by name (in her latest tome, The Hindus: An Alternative History, p. 704, note 26, for the main text at p. 15) as the author of a mailing list post that was quoted anonymously by Alison Goddard in her report of the event. On p.15 of her book, Doniger reproduces what Goddard reported (as an apparently threatening email), but since she knew the name of the author, she must have been apprised of the source, which is post# 46993 to the (now thankfully defunct) "Indian Civilization" mailing list, where the paragraph, in full, is:

I was struck by the sexual thrust of her paper on one of our most

sacred epics. (What are the odds for such a paper on the Book of Jews, Christians or Muslims?) Who lusted/laid whom, it was not only Ravan who desired Sita but her brother-in-law Lakshman also. Then many other pairings, some I had never heard of but that says nothing, from our

other shastras were thrown in to weave a titting(sic) sexual tapestry.

Note the sentence left out, and ponder why neither Goddard nor Doniger used ellipses to indicate the omission. (The omitted sentence is quite relevant to a proper understanding of the furor over Doniger's work -- see Sankrant Sanu's essay for a full discussion of how Hinduism has been made a fashionable combination punching-bag and freak-show in American academe by the likes of Doniger.)

Mentioning merely the egg in the BLP, without any context, is just sensationalism, aimed at garnering sympathy for Doniger. The lengths people will go to push POV. Sigh. rudra (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The incident, having been mentioned in major media on multiple occasions[3], is a notable part of Doniger's biography. Your cobbled-together detective work is not quite as well sourced, to be rather kind about it.

see Sankrant Sanu's essay for a full discussion of how Hinduism has been made a fashionable combination punching-bag and freak-show in American academe by the likes of Doniger

Let's all shed a tear that Hinduism, like every other major and minor religious group, has been studied in ways which were not pre-approved by self-appointed right-wing lalajis with MAs in computer science like Rajiv Malhotra. Surely the best response is to publish whiny essays on the website of a rich guy from New Jersey and throw things at that shameless hussy Doniger. — goethean ॐ 23:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you wouldn't know "well sourced" even it slapped you in the face. Did you bother to check your link? There is only one legitimate news item in the entire lot, Alison Goddard's report of Nov 21, 2003. The rest - besides an article by Ramesh Rao that dollars to donuts you did not read - are book reviews, interest pieces and retreads (as well as pay-per-view repeats of articles available for free elsewhere, e.g. Vedantam, Rothstein and Mishra) all regurgitating the same tidbit. As for the study of religions, take a look at the article by Russell McCutcheon in JAAR, Vol 74, No. 3 pp.720-750 (September 2006). rudra (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What is this about now? If quoting what Doniger herself says on this issue is "cobbled-together detective work", what does that say about Doniger's work? If this is nonetheless "a notable part of Doniger's biography", what does it say about Wikipedia that we refuse to explain the context of the incident? Shii (tock) 00:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the ludicrous Sulekha piece he linked to, although his other points are no better. He really thinks that no one has written about sex in the Bible? Really? — goethean ॐ 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you quite done playing devil's advocate Shii? This is becoming tedious. The reverts you objected to have been explained to you in great detail, and you have repeatedly been invited to add quotable criticism of Doninger's work. Yet instead of submitting such criticism you keep insisting airily that there is an attempt at "hagiography", silencing all criticism. This is disingenious. If you have academic criticism you want to cite, do it already. If you do not, just give it a rest.

As for Goethean, I do not understand why you are attacking rudra, who is at least making an effort to understand what is going on, and presenting insightful context. He is not, after all, suggesting that this is discussed in the article body. --dab (𒁳) 10:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Goethean is not attacking me. He is heroically defending himself (and Doniger) from my "attacks". That's how he sees it, and it is quite pointless trying to get him to see otherwise. rudra (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And, for scholarly criticism, I posted a summary to the BLP board. Somebody, please, by all means, find more. rudra (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

sorry, I am losing track of this now. Is goethean saying that Bardwaj thinks there is no academic disussion of sex in the Bible (because, after all, the gender people are just out to smear Hinduism, not to discuss gender wherever they see it, which is pretty much everywhere at all...) But then goethean is saying "... the ludicrous Sulekha piece he linked to, although his other points are no better. He really thinks that no one has written about sex in the Bible". Here it seems "he" refers to rudra. But this makes no sense at all. Did goethean understand rudra is endorsing Bardwaj? I can see no indication of rudra backing Bardwaj's nonsense, and yet goethean sounds exactly as if rudra had done just that. Perhaps it is just me, but this conversation seems pretty derailed at this point. --dab (𒁳) 10:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

based on our current sources, this article should simply read "Doniger is professor of religion in Chicago. She tends to focus on Hinduism and on gender. Her work has not received much attention in academia. The end." Never mind all the online flamewars, Wikipedia isn't Usenet. --dab (𒁳) 11:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• The "ludicrous Sulekha piece" is the Sankrant Sanu essay (reposted on BeliefNet) which singlehandedly got Microsoft Encarta to dump its article on Hinduism by Doniger and replace it with one by Arvind Sharma. Well, that's how ludicrous pieces work, maybe?
• Bardwaj is a known flake (google him, the unusual spelling of his surname makes him easy to find). However, his involvement in this seems to have stemmed from him attending the SOAS lecture, posting about it to the IC list, and then, cruel fate, getting quoted by Goddard.

Now, it's an esential part of the discourse here that American academe -- actually the "freudianizing" cohort of Doniger et al who wield considerable and often decisive influence -- is being accused of singling out Hinduism for trivialization, vulgarization and ridicule. (This is Malhotra's essential brief.) Regardless of the merits of the argument, it was still Bardwaj's point, if not his entire point in his IC post -- but the critical sentence that makes this clear - given Bardwaj's elliptic style - was left out by Goddard. It isn't about "sex in the Bible": it's about using "sex" in a sensationalist, deconstructionist way ("Ganesa's trunk is really a penis that can't match up to his daddy Siva's") to delegitimize the religious experience of Hindus. And only Hinduism gets this fundamentally disrespectful, nihilist and ultimately, profoundly unscholarly, treatment. Try it with Islam, for example, and a fatwa will be in the mail. Maybe Goethean doesn't get this, maybe he's playing dumb. It doesn't matter. rudra (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. This is about trivialization of Hinduism by the freudianizing gender people in US academia. I do believe there is a valid topic in there, but obviously this won't be in a bio article. Material on this should be collected at Hinduism in the United States, since this is apparently mostly a US phenomenon, and then we can see where it takes us. In fact, most relevant material is probably already in a heap over at California textbook controversy over Hindu history. There are two points here that need to be separated cleanly

• the freudianizing treatment of Hinduism is indeed "trivializing"
• Hinduism is in fact singled out in being given this treatment

While I am quite happy to accept the first point, this freudianizing gender crap is simply bad scholarship, I am not convinced that Hinduism is in any way singled out in this. It's just hard for these scholars to ignore sexual symbols when they see them, and of course Hindu texts and Hindu iconography is full of sexual imagery. It isn't "trivializing" to study this, it is just trivializing to reduce Hinduism to that, but it is difficult not to do that if your "field" is not in fact Hinduism but the analysis of sexual imagery. --dab (𒁳) 12:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much it, yes, except for one extra twist. Doniger's "counterattack" has been to portray all this as a "Hindutva" plot: i.e., to preemptively delegitimize the issue by smearing it. Hence the repeated attempts to paint Malhotra as a "Hindu fascist" or whatever. But Malhotra was pressing his case long before the yahoos and fundos of the IC list joined the fray (which happened after they read his "Wendy's Child Syndrome" article). Nevertheless, Doniger's tactic seems to have succeeded: the issue is now cast as a Hindutva assault on Western academic freedom or somesuch (i.e. the "freedom" to manufacture Freudian bullshit without restraint, pass it off as scholarship, and feel entitled to have it be received as that.) But, see this. rudra (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ah, but now if Doniger goes out on a limb and joins the political discussion (as opposed to publishing "academically"), her statements on Hindu extremism in the US etc. can also be treated on a whole different level than academic publications, and it will be fair to juxtapose these statements by Doniger with other political sources.

the topic of karma and Krishna's endorsement of military force is quite another issue imho, and one that should be easy to discuss at length using real sources, without taking resort to either Doniger or the internets. The gita essentially expounds a "pagan" military ethic, just like the Torah and the Qur'an do, too. The odd one out here is not the Gita but the New Testament. The NT is essentially about resorting to a virus attack on the Roman Empire instead of trying a hopeless guerilla rebellion. This is the problem of the Christians, who need to justify how military force can be reconciled with the gospel, it is not the problem of either Jews, Muslims or Hindus, whose scripture is perfectly happy to endorse military aggression for the cause.

be that all as it may, there still is, or was, of course, an attempted "Hindutva assault on Western academic freedom", as can be easily seen in the edit history of the Michael Witzel article, an actual expert on the actual Vedic texts, who was taken potshots at by the Voice of India brigade for purely ideological reasons. Doniger's case is different, as you say, this is scholarship under attack by yahoos who would still attack it if it was good scholarship, but which by coincidence also happens to be dodgy scholarship. --dab (𒁳) 13:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she has, but with the journalists' help in "framing it properly", so that it doesn't look like a political gambit but some sort of defence of academic freedom from illiterate goons. See this. rudra (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Malhotra et al would willing accept the (quite factual) point that Hinduism is "full of sexual imagery" in a way that Xianity, Islam, Judaism are not. Malhotra et al want to present Hinduism as some type of Victorian Brahminism. Martha Nussbaum has analyzed the reasons for this in her book The Clash Within. It has to do with generating anger (and thus popularity) among uneducated folk, pretty much exactly like the tactics of the BJP. I have personally been dealing with these exact uneducated folk for years on Wikipedia. In fact, they have been more successful at getting their (quite fictional) points accepted in articles than I have. So I'm still a little cross.

As for Goethean, I do not understand why you are attacking rudra, who is at least making an effort to understand what is going on, and presenting insightful context. He is not, after all, suggesting that this is discussed in the article body.

Sorry, but I have a very hard time seeing it that way. Rudra tends to view Malhotra's claims as generally good, honest, and well-reasoned, whereas I tend to see them as the most cynical, manipulative lies. I don't see that Malhotra is displeased or disturbed at all by the many death threats against scholars, as any remotely normal human being would be. Has he said a word to discourage them, in addition to his many words to encourage them? If so, I havent heard about it. — goethean ॐ 13:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that Malhotra's opinions on the question are all that notable, or indeed verifiable. Perhaps it would be best to simply stop making this about Malhotra. Rudra has a point regardless of the ulterior motives of Malhotra's.

the topic behind this is quite unrelated to either Doniger or Malhotra. It is about contemporary Hindus having trouble absorbing the full spectrum of their own manyfold tradition. Hinduism is a wide umbrella term which includes much of the sharpest philosophy and deepest spirituality that has reached us from antiquity, but it is also marked by an uninhibited approach to sexuality and generally very colourful flights of fancy. The western mind was mostly enchanted by the latter aspects of Hinduism, because these were aspects that were missing from their own religious orthodoxy. For Hindus, these points end up over-emphasized, especially because many of them have in fact a quite prudish sexual morality.

this is comparable to the humanists in Europe who were very much into reviving the Greek pagan tradition, but they somehow needed to strip it of all its lewd bits, ending up with a gutted, lifeless version of Greek antiquity. Modern Hindus do the same to their own tradition. This is a topic far beyond Doniger and friends. This should in fact be discussed in gender in Hindu mythology and similar articles, which so far have been shamefully left to the "LGBT" interest group on Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 13:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

btw., regarding "freudianizing" Islam or Christianity, I just read that a Bielefeld sociology professor labeled Islam as a "collective obsessive–compulsive neurosis"[4]. This chap may or may not find a fatwa in his mail, but this shows that the freudianizing pseudo-academics certainly don't stop at Islam. --dab (𒁳) 14:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's quite the wide brush you are painting with to include Doniger's books, which have wide support among reliable souces, with a flippant statement like that. — goethean ॐ 19:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing WP's criteria of reliable sourcing with (a) objective notions of scholarly excellence, and (b) common sense. That Doniger's work has "wide support" in reliable sources does not make her work any less than the undiluted crap it is. As it happens, she is widely quoted and cited within her circle only. That's basically all they do anyway, being for lack of substance perforce yak-intensive. Some people might mistake that for scholarship, but WP isn't the forum to decide the matter. That's why reliably sourced undiluted crap regularly makes its way into WP. rudra (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing the worthless with the meaningful. — goethean ॐ 04:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

look, it is nothing new that scholars may be both productive and worthless. It's not the end of academia, these things happen. Even these scholars deserve coverage under WP:PROF. There is no aim here to expose Doniger as a bad scholar, we can just note what she did and published, and then tag on such reviews as we find, and that will be it for the purposes of Wikipedia. Anyone will be free to embark on a deeper critique off-wiki, on their blogs or private wikis or whatever, if they think the matter is worth the attention and effort. In my opinion, it is best to just ignore bad scholarship, as even negative reviews will just go to inflate its citation index. --dab (𒁳) 10:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Witzel "critique"

(copied from the BLP board and edited:) the only scholarly review of (some of) Doniger's work has been by Michael Witzel (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). It's a legitimate review because it's by a recognized expert in his own field of expertise, namely Sanskrit. Witzel restricted himself to the quality of her work in Sanskrit, which he found unsatisfactory. Despite the hype going around, she is not a Sanskritist, only someone who knows Sanskrit (because she has to). Her actual specialty is "religion", and that is what she happens to be a professor of, in a Divinity School. As far as her scholarship there is concerned, I know of no scholarly review -- hardly likely anyway, as when it comes to Woo, anybody can say anything -- but it's somewhat telling that other leading scholars of Saivism, Shaktism and Tantra (such as Alexis Sanderson) hardly ever cite her for a finding or an insight. But naturally her students and proteges ballyhoo her: in profusion, of course. rudra (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't examined it, but I think this blog has Doniger as a guest where she answers Witzel. rudra (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not fair to Witzel to put his email in an encyclopedia article. It's not fair to Doniger either, not that anyone gives a shit. — goethean ॐ 14:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, if Witzel does not care enough to publish his opinion on Doniger academically, Wikipedia shouldn't care enough to mention it. This leaves us with literally not a single review of Doniger. This may be due to our bad research, but it doesn't strike me as very impressive regarding a career of 30 years, 16 books and 240 articles. Surely somebody must have mentioned here somewhere at some point?? --dab (𒁳) 15:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at the number of citations for each of her books [5] --- and these are just the ones that Google knows about. It's fair to say that she's widely cited. — goethean ॐ 15:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

um, you need to use -author:. But that's still 2k hits. Somebody will need to scan these. I cannot see anything that actually addresses her work on the first couple of result pages. --dab (𒁳) 15:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the "cited by 220" link for each title. I've scanned the first 10 pages of your link, most are acknowledgements, footnotes or chapters authored by Doniger. I did find some accolades: A. Sharma called her a "pre-eminent Indologist"[6]; W Dalrymple refers to her as a "celebrated Sanskrit scholar"[7]. Is this type of thing reasonable to include? — goethean ॐ 15:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

RG Wasson: "a Vedic scholar"[8] — goethean ॐ 15:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

K Pui-lan: "a Jewish scholar who studies Hindu stories and myths"[9] — goethean ॐ 15:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

[10] FM Smith: "See. eg, the article on Vallabhacarya in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1918), and less excusably by Wendy Doniger and Brian K. Smith in their general article on Hinduism in the Encyclopedia Britannica." — goethean ॐ 15:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Francis Ford Coppola: When I showed my ambitious, unfinished screenplay to a high school friend, Wendy Doniger (who as a young girl was not only pretty, but brilliant, and who is now an eminent professor of Oriental studies, a Sanskritist, and holder of the Eliade chair at the University of Chicago [11] — goethean ॐ 15:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Potentially embarrassing: JM Ross - Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1987 - PEP Web "Psychoanalysis has not had an easy time of late with Sanskritists seeking to embrace or employ our discipline's precepts. Fortunately, in Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty, we have found a most congenial collaborator. Although she has not received formal analytic training, in her work Dr. O'...[12] — goethean ॐ 15:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Requiem for Sanskrit WG Regier - World Literature Today, 2009 - WLT ... Built by the best Sanskrit translators of our time— Wendy Doniger, Patrick Olivelle, Sheldon Pollack, and Mallinson—the CSL launched new transla- tors—Isabelle Onians, Somadeva Vasudeva, Kath- leen Garbutt, and Judit Törzsök—who brought works that had languished in ... [13]

[PDF] Belief is Like a Guillotine: Reflections on Politics, Power, and Mythologysheilconsulting.com [PDF] B Olson - sheilconsulting.com ... paper—specifically her rejection and often harsh criticism of CG Jung and Joseph Campbell—Wendy Doniger offers a flexible solution and even a possible rapprochement ...Albany: State U of New York P, 1999. O'Flaherty, Wendy Doniger. ...Related articles - View as HTML [14] — goethean ॐ 15:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's up to p.28. No critiques that I can find. — goethean ॐ 15:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, what we are looking for are reviews or at least expressions of either agreement or disagreement with her. The "less excusably" reference may be an instance of that, as is apparently the part on "offers a flexible solution and even a possible rapprochement", you want to dig up the context on these.

Otoh, epithets like "Vedic scholar" (which she isn't) or "pre-eminent scholar" (trust to it that Indians will automatially call anyone they happen to agree with an "eminent scholar") aren't interesting. Usually books tend to be reviewed. I trust that with her own walled garden within academia, Doniger would even be able to come up with positively glowing reviews. You want to find these and cite them. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

JSTOR... learn to use it. [15] "the main problem is the ambiguous attitude towards history". [16] "Doniger's agenda is her desire to rescue the comparative project from the jaws of certain proponents of postmodernism ... Doniger points out that the informed detection of likeness ... reveals the truth of our commonality as human beings". I find this very funny as her Encarta article was nothing if not a projection of otherness, but that's how this reviewer sees it. [17] "it is not always clear whether the relations posed are presented as homologies or some causal connection". [18] A positive review from an Indian. [19] on why pro-Indian allegiances are cast as the nefarious "Hindu Right". Shii (tock) 16:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Wendy Doniger, a premier scholar of Indian religious thought and history expressed through Sanskritic sources, has faced regular criticism from those who consider her work to be disrespectful of Hinduism in general. ... [discussion of Courtwright and Kripal] ... Interestingly, these three scholars share in common the use of psychoanalytical theory, and this seems to be a kind of lightning rod for the censure these scholars receive from freelance critics and “watch-dog” organizations that claim to represent the sentiments of Hindus." Christian Lee Novetzske, "The Study of Indian Religions in the US Academy", India Review 5.1 ( May 2006), 113-114. Because this debate has been so heated I recommend we quote this academic summary written by a non-Indian as a compromise. Shii (tock) 17:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

wth does "learn to use it" mean? You want to reserach ciriticism of Doniger, you do the work. What on earth makes you expect that I was going to do your job for you? Now that after days of bitching you have condescended to consult jstor, you are very welcome to introduce your finds to the article. You are also invited to do that directly next time, without wasting time on talkspace first. --dab (𒁳) 21:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the main person involved in this dispute. This article had a fine Criticism section a few months ago that was removed by people who apparently think the voices of those who initiate the dispute are not as "notable" as that of the Almighty Western Scholar, font of all that is objective. This isn't my area of expertise. Shii (tock) 21:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Link to/diff of last fine version before removal, please? Thanks. rudra (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, because people disagreed with it. I hope we can come up with a compromise version that everyone can agree with. Shii (tock) 05:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to second Rudra's request for a link to the version before removal of the Criticism section so I can see what the history has been since that point. Can someone provide a diff that would enable meaningful comparison? Buddhipriya (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I found a diff that looks like the controversial "Criticism" section deletion: [20]. I think this is the diff that both Rudra and I requested to examine in order to understand the history of the article. Buddhipriya (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Elaboration on the Nussbaum citation

I see that the citation to Martha Nussbaum's "The Clash Within" has been discussed more than once on this talk page. I have read that book and agree it is a RS. I think the current citation is selective, however, and is focused on the reaction of other academics rather than on the content of the objections to Doniger. After looking it up in the book I noticed that Nussbaum's coverage of Doniger extends over five pages. "Doniger, Wendy" appears in the Index (p. 387) of "The Clash Within", with a sub-entry in the index for "Criticisms of by Hindu right, pp. 246-250". The material on pp. 246-247 says that "led by Doniger, who is portrayed as a woman unduly focused on topics of sexuality, a whole group of young scholars, mostly male – 'Wendy’s children,' to paraphrase the title of the broadside by Rajiv Malhotra (‘Wendy’s Child Syndrome’) that began the current war – go around searching for ways to defame and degrade sacred Hindu traditions by portraying them as all about sex." This is a much more clear statement of the objections to Doniger that the current wording of the article that refers vaguely to "psychoanalytical theory". The "all about sex" passage is followed by a sympathetic view of Doniger by Nussbaum, who views her as a victim of the Hindu right. The book says that Doniger receives "a lot of hate mail" and "repeated heckling during discussions after her lectures" (p. 249) The egg incident is mentioned on p. 250. I think that the quotation that should be added is that Doniger "is portrayed as a woman unduly focused on topics of sexuality" and also the point about as the perceived leader of "Wendy's children" this sexualized approach has influenced a number of other academics, some of whom have also been subject to similar criticism. Buddhipriya (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You are free to change the wording, as long as your material is well-sourced and you don't introduce wholesale Hindutva dogmatisms like the other fellow was doing. — goethean ॐ 01:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. My editing style is that I like to build consensus on talk pages before making edits that may be perceived as disruptive. I appreciate your patience with me, as I am trying to absorb the lengthy discussions that took place while I was on a Wikibreak. While my personal background is not important here, I do not consider myself a member of the Hindutva movement. I am curious what some of the other editors who have been active on this talk page currently think, since it seems some of them have fallen silent. Buddhipriya (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally am stepping back from giving this article a fair attempt at improvment, because I have no patience with people who will not allow Invading the Sacred to be cited directly, edited as it is by Antonio de Nicolas, introduced by Balagangadhara, blurbed by Nathan Katz and Anantanand Rambachan, and so forth. I am not a Hindu, but I am about to receive a BA in religion and I think it's about time this article is blessed with a fair "Reception" section that gives the full span of discussions both inside and outside the academic community. Shii (tock) 03:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

By all means please do continue to give input on your point of view, as many heads are better than one in getting all perspectives. I would support citing "Invading the Sacred" as a notable book primarily because of the attention it has received in Indian circles. I agree however that it is polemical in tone. Note that the article on S. N. Balagangadhara includes an "Influences and Criticism" section to give clear visibility to the controversial aspects of his work.

That is the core of the issue as I see it, namely that there are two levels of notability that must be considered, one within the academic realm, and the other in the wider world where sociopolitical impacts are felt. In rereading the past conversations there may be a few of the citations that you proposed that need to be looked at again. I regret that I have not yet looked at all of the links you provided, as I am a rather slow worker. Since I had Nussbaum on hand I examined it. I also have been reviewing the links that Rudra provided with Witzel's comments, which did not seem to get a clear up or down vote on their utility as reliable sources (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). I am interested in the technical problems of tranlation and found this paper [21] by Witzel on translation of Vedic materials that has a somewhat backhanded remark about Doniger in the section on "Style and Translation". The paper has no page numbers so I can't cite a page number, and there is no indication if the paper was ever published. Witzel says: "I do not think that we must, as Wendy Doniger prefers, always find a 'hip' translation such as 'he had sex.' We simply can translate 'he has come together' -- just as the Sanskrit says – and only where we need to be explicit, we could add 'he made love with...' as to explain the double meaning in the original." The statement is made in the context of discussing the ambiguous nature of some Sanskrit passages. This is a more subtle observation that the very dismissive tone Witzel took in the listserv postings. I do not think this paper should be cited at this time unless better consensus and evidence can be reached on this point. I wish more of the authors who were active before would chime in now to help determine current consensus. Buddhipriya (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

rudra identified the Witzel PDF as excerpted from Enrica Garzilli (ed) Translating, Translations, Translators: From India to the West, Cambridge (Harvard OS, Opra Minora) 1996, p. 163-176. Reviewed here. Buddhipriya (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Witzel posts to the Indology Listserv are WP:RS by WP:SPS rules. That mailing list was and is a veritable Who's Who of Indological scholars (making for instant peer-review of the highest quality!) Posting something critical like that to that list was a very big deal, much more consequential than, say, putting up a page on his personal web site. rudra (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rudra that the Indology listserv is a WP:RS for the purpose of documenting what Witzel thinks of Doniger's Sanskrit skills. That listserv is very well-known in the Indology community. Any WP:RS needs to be examined within the scope of some area of reliability, and Witzel is one of the top Sanskritists in the world. What can be said from those posts, and from the PDF file I found, is that Witzel considers her Sanskrit "unreliable". Other people may have a different opinion. Note that general reviews of Doniger's work by religionists are not reliable as a judge of her Sanskrit, since those reviewers do not claim credentials as Sanskrit translators. Witzel, on the other hand, is an expert in that specific domain. Buddhipriya (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with using Nussbaum for anything on Doniger is that they are colleagues, on the same faculty, at the same institution. (Besides, I have reservations on "The Clash Within" being {[WP:RS]] for anything, as it doesn't appear to be much more than a collection of random observations and obiter dicta aimed at making a "point".) rudra (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that one could object to "The Clash Within" for those reasons, but I have no objection to using it to document the existence of controversy about Wendy Doniger. I focused on that book because it had already made it into the article text as a RS. "Clash" and "Invading the Sacred" are both polemical in tone, and neither is an "academic" text. I find both of them interesting as social reactions to academic material, but from opposing perspectives. Buddhipriya (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Your quite creative insta-policy has no precedent in Wikipedia and has no relevance to the use of Nussbaum's book in this article. Nussbaum's book, written by one of the most pre-eminent writers of our time, is as reliable a source as one is likely to find. You will want to cite some good sources if you intend to impeach it. — goethean ॐ 15:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"Pre-eminent writer"? Spare us, please. As for reliability, you must be joking. Nussbaum is even more of an artificial "academic" celebrity than Doniger. See, for instance, a reference you dug up (here). Among other interesting bits, it cites this, which makes for quite interesting reading. (Bradley is a Professor of Law; so also, apparently, is Nussbaum, except that she, naturally, doesn't have a degree in Law. Par for the course, with such types.) rudra (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It is hardly surprising (or interesting, or relevant) that Rao doesn't like Nussbaum or that a conservative Catholic Christian magazine founded by Richard John Neuhaus doesn't like Nussbaum's testifying on behalf of gays. A seeming alliance between right-wing Hindus and right-wing Christians, on the other hand, is interesting and relevant. — goethean ॐ 16:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem wasn't Nussbaum testifying. The problem was her testimony. She made stuff up, and sought to mislead. Under oath. How that could have served the cause of gays is worth pondering. As is the reliability of Martha Craven Nussbaum rudra (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Should Invading the Sacred be considered a reliable source for purposes of this article?

I just reviewed the prior discussion about "Invading the Sacred" on this talk page and did the following tally of editors who made a specific remark about the book. Please help me correct this summary if it is in error:

Support:

• Spdiffy
• Redtigerxyz (objected to removal of a citation to it)
• Shii
• Buddhipriya (noting the polemical tone of the book but considering it noteworthy for sociopolitical impact)

Oppose:

• goethean

Undecided:

• Abecedare notes that “There are several citations to ‘Invading the sacred: an analysis of Hinduism studies in America’ but declines further comment.

If this summary is correct, it seems clear that the weight of opinion is that "Invading the Sacred" could be cited here. However I would like to hear from other editors who may not have expressed a direct view so we may get a more clear picture on this matter. Buddhipriya (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't done any serious investigation of Invading the Sacred, but I think it could be cited here, as long as it is made clear that the book has an axe to grind. It appears that the contributors are outsiders to the academic study of Hinduism, even if some of them are academics--so it needs to be made clear that these are not Doniger's colleagues criticizing her work as fellow scholars, but a response from the wider "popular" realm. In general, if a scholar has become so notable as to arouse passionate responses from outside his/her discipline, that's worth covering in a Wikipedia article. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read or even browsed through the book, but a quick investigation shows that the list of contributors is quite a mixed bag. The only review I could find was scathing. Are there other reviews anyone knows of, or other reliable sources that have quoted/referenced this book ?

At this point, Akhilleus' proposal seems to be the best one: essentially treat this book as one would treat op-eds - reliable sources for the authors opinion on the subject, but not for facts themselves. Note that we will still have to keep due weight in mind - for example, what Nussbaum, Witzel, Arvind Sharma etc say about WD is relevant to the subject, while comments of, say, Sankrant Sanu (I don't know if he actually writes about WD) may not be worth reporting unless they are noteworthy for some reason (i.e, someone else has made note of them; this is the case for Malhotra's Sulekha article, for example). Abecedare (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Abecedare in supporting Akhilleus' proposal on how to use any citation that may be made to Invading the Sacred, namely that it be framed in such a way that the possible bias of the source be made clear. It is still not clear to me what citation to that work was previously removed, as I said elsewhere. Once the book arrives here I will look it over. Since it is a collection of pieces, perhaps one or another of them mentions Doniger in a way that is appropriate for inclusion here, perhaps not. Buddhipriya (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who considers that laughable screed as a reliable source for anything but the thuggish and execrable views of its authors, editors and money-handlers has no concern for Wikipedia except as a deposit for their refuse. — goethean ॐ 15:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this BLP is not the place to air the issues covered by (polemical) works such as Invading the Sacred. This is because of Doniger's peculiar role in the controversy. Direct criticism of her own work has always been a relatively minor issue. Her detractors have been more concerned with her (allegedly inordinate) influence on so-called "Religious studies" in American academia. While her works have contributed to the tawdry sexualization of everything to do with Hinduism, much more damaging has been her mentoring of an entire generation of bullshit mongers in the same vein. Hence the critique, not of "Wendy", but of "Wendy's children" and "Wendy's Child syndrome". None of that really belongs here in the BLP. rudra (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

rudra's point is that much of modern academia has become pure bullshit-mongering. This is sad but true, but professionally outraged defenders of Hinduism are in no position to even recognize that this is the case. Neither academic bullshit-mongering nor "identity politics" bullshit-mongering belong discussed in this article. Both can and should be discussed, in articles dedicated to the respective topics.... Bullshit-mongering (disambiguation) can collect all flavours of the discipline (I am joking). --dab (𒁳) 16:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support making the paragraph that currently stands in this article a subsection, with a "main article" link to a larger criticism of Hindu studies that specifically disavows ad hominem attacks. Shii (tock) 18:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article is not the place for a general discussion of the issues raised in Invading the Sacred. The reason why I asked the question about it is that in a prior post there was an objection to the removal of some citation to it, and I was trying to find out more about why that reference was removed. I can't find the diff for what was removed. Can anyone supply the diff? I only glanced at the book briefly when it first came out and do not have a copy here. I have put in a library order for it, and when it arrives I can check myself to see what it says about Doniger, if anything. But what was the material that was removed from this article?

I like Shii's suggestion to make the text in the current article a section, with a link somewhere to the larger issue. That would be step forward in getting more balance to the piece. Buddhipriya (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sanskritist

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

Please explain how any of your "sources" is reliable for whether Doniger (or anyone, for that matter) is or is not a Sanskritist. To repeat a comment from one of the edit summaries, WP:RS is not a blank check. rudra (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, is that how it works? Innumerable books including one authored by Huston Smith and some published by Putnam, SUNY, University of Michigan, University of Texas, and Indiana University uncontroversially refer to Doniger as a Sanskritist. But you object, based on...based on...what was it again? Your deeply-held opinions? And I am supposed to defend content which has passed through these editorial staffs, because you don't think that the consensus of these publications stands up to your highly-esteemed opinions. Where you get your ideas God only knows, I assure you that it has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Please bring this up to the reliable sources noticeboard so I can watch you get your rhetorical ass handed to you. — goethean ॐ 00:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

To repeat, WP:RS is not a blank check. WP:RS is always in context. When someone who is not an expert on the subject calls someone else a Sanskritist, it's just that: a factoid. Maybe even a reliably sourceable factoid, but just a factoid nonetheless and no more. Thus, "Huston Smith and a bunch of punters have called Doniger a Sanskritist". Does that mean she is recognized as a Sanskritist by other Sanskritists? Of course not, you know this, but you're here for some not so obvious POV-pushing, that's all. The fact remains that she has not been recognized as a Sanskritist by anyone whose opinion on the matter counts. Please address the original question: how is any of your cited sources reliable for the issue of whether Doniger (or anyone) is a Sanskritist? rudra (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's more reliable than anything you've presented, which is nothing. — goethean ॐ 02:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't have to present anything. I quoted Doniger herself! That's miles better than quotage from random google searches, any day. And you still haven't addressed the question. rudra (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You are claiming (I presume) that Doniger is not a Sanskritist. I have seven reliable sources (and plenty more) which say she is, as well as her own words. To back up your claim, you have presented nothing but empty rhetoric. — goethean ॐ 02:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Doniger has not been called a Sanskritist by anyone whose opinion on the matter could count. Offhand remarks by people unconnected to Sanskrit scholarship do not count; and the people among whom she has some sort of reputation of being a Sanskritist are not taken seriously by Sanskritists. The bottom line is that her Sanskrit scholarship is quite pedestrian. That's why her self description is enough. (Just because she has become a target of hostile polemics does not mean that she has to be rescued with a hagiography. We leave both kinds of crap out of BLPs, thank you very much.) And you still haven't addressed the question. rudra (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed the links provided by Rudra related to Witzel's posting as well as the Witzel article that I posted a link for, and I would say that they are sufficient to justify insertion of a statement something like "The quality of her Sanskrit translations has been questioned by Witzel" or words to that effect. Witzel is a very prominent Sanskritist. The absence of academic literature openly criticising her Sanskrit is not remarkable because the number of working academics who are positioned as top-quality Sanskritists is not large, and the tendency in the academic community is to avoid sniping in peer-reviewed literature. I was surprised by how blunt Witzel was in the electronic postings. Buddhipriya (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Make sure that you include the part where he spells "reliable" wrong in his academic treatise. What a joke. — goethean ॐ 03:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, a purported email quoted on a weblog! Well, that's FAR more reliable than the academic journal articles which I tend to cite, isn't it? And more of your unsolicited 'expert' opinion. Fabulous. Wikipedia policy — look into it. — goethean ॐ 22:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You doubt that Doniger wrote that? rudra (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't give a shit, and it is totally, but TOTALLY irrelevant to this talk page which is supposed to be a discussion of a Wikipedia article, not your personal vendetta. I am sorry that you have never acquainted yourself with Wikipedia policy enough to understand that your comments have ZERO relevance to the writing of this article. Hearsay about a purported email from Doniger on somebody's weblog is so far from being something that concerns this discussion, that your comments abocve should probably be removed on principle. This talk page is reserved for discussion of changes to the Wendy Doniger article. It's not a chatroom. I appreciate that your clear goal here is to waste my time with pointless irrelevancies, rather than to work toward constructing an encyclopedia article. Therefore, I am going to try to limit the amuont of time that I spend responding to your insane screeds. — goethean ॐ 22:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you started this thread about Doniger being a Sanskritist. The problems here are twofold: first, that you haven't the faintest clue of whether she is or not; and second, you haven't the faintest clue of how to find out, since you lack even an elementary acquaintance with the field. Of course, that affords you the convenience of arguing from ignorance and discounting everything except that which agrees with your preconceptions; but we already know you as a POV-pusher, so that's no surprise. But, really, since you are in no position to evaluate the evidence, you really shouldn't get involved, or try to hide behind formulaic WP:RS pieties. It only creates edit-wars, and talk page sagas, out of thin air. Worse, it insulates you from the realization that using a self-quote is the best way to avoid in-depth investigation of Doniger's status as a Sanskritist. Using WP's voice to endorse the effluvia of your favorite wine and cheese party crowd is POV-pushing, and you know it. rudra (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The filibustering continues, I see. (Well, if that's all you've got...)

You are right — I know nothing about Sanskrit. However, if one needed to know anything about Sanskrit in order to determine for the purposes of Wikipedia whether a given author is or is not a Sanskritist, then no article on Wikipedia would ever have been written. That is why we have the reliable sources and verifiability policies, which you characterize the usage of as "try[ing] to hide behind formulaic WP:RS pieties." I am sorry that you hate Wikipedia policy, but this really has nothing to do with the Wendy Doniger article. — goethean ॐ 00:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That is demonstrably false. Doniger doesn't have to be a Sanskritist for a BLP to be written. She is a scholar of religion, and holds a chair in that too. That makes her notable by WP:PROF. Which planet are you on? rudra (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And, btw, your ignorance of Sanskrit also explains why you don't understand that "Sanskritist, indeed a recovering Orientalist" is actually a unitary description, not two independent things (connected by "indeed", not "and"). rudra (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Actually, we have established something here. Somebody's a fraud, and it isn't Doniger. — goethean ॐ 00:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Vasudha Narayanan of the University of Florida and Prof. Arvind Sharma of McGill University

Are there any scholarly criticism of Doniger by scholars such as Professor Arvind Sharma? Professor Sharma was asked to replace a controversial article by Doniger for Encarta. see, http://www.williams.edu/go/native/courtright.htm I know that Goethan seems to state that every criticism of Doniger is a Hinduvta response. Professor Sharma states the following according to the Williams link:

"For the past five years, our field has been in turmoil," said Arvind Sharma, a professor of comparative religion at McGill University in Montreal, who sides with the critics even as he disavows the violence. "There may be a Hindutva connection in what happened in India and the death threats and the person who threw the egg, but there also is a Hindu response."

"The Encarta switch came after a Hindu activist, a former Microsoft engineer named Sankrant Sanu, charged that Doniger's article perpetuated misleading stereotypes and asked for a rewrite by an "insider." "For pretty much all the religious traditions in America, most of the people studying it are insiders," said Sanu. "They are people who are believers. This is true for Judaism, Islam, Christianity and Buddhism. This is not true for Hinduism."

So if people have any counter-scholarly views of these scholars, please contribute. Raj2004 (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Historically, the Hindu response has been tolerance and pluralism. However, a small, militant minority is dissatisfied with this approach and prefers egg-throwing and death threats. — goethean ॐ 00:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not every criticism of Doniger is egg throwing. There must be some scholarly criticism out there. To view religion solely in Freudian terms, as Doniger has done, is very flawed. Raj2004 (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see that you've never read any Doniger. — goethean ॐ 14:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, a good part of Doniger's scholarship applies Freudian themes to Hinduism. It seems that you may have been a former student of Doniger. Not that I care. But there should be balanced criticism of Doniger in this article, assuming that we can find appropriate scholarly references on the like of Professor Sharma, instead of referencing mere egg-throwers~ Raj2004 (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for at least having the honesty to admit that you have no idea what you are talking about. — goethean ॐ 03:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't say that I was an expert. You have no idea either. You seem to characterize all of her scholarship as legitimate. Some of it is bull-s---- Raj2004 (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, it seems that you have ownership issues regarding this article as people who have good references such as Rudra get shouted down by you. Raj2004 (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there seem to be some ownership issues here. Dismissing all objections to Doniger as Hindutva egg-throwing trivializes things. Witzel is not a Hindutva activist by any means. He is as much a target of protest as she is. That is why I find his criticism of her translations so interesting. Most academics who work in Indology would not claim high competence in Sanskrit; they are regionists, not linguists, as Rudra pointed out. There are also many Indians who do not identify with the Hindutva movement who simply have a visceral objection to sexualizing things, and the sociological phenomenon is interesting in its own right. As Rudra said in another post, the issue of "Wendy's children" in the sense of an entire school of sexually-oriented interpretation is a key issue, and one that I think is relevant to mention in connection with Doniger. The issue is not whether or not her interpretation is "right", but simply that it is controversial. I am trying to figure out what needs to be done to get the "disputed" tag off the article with the minimum amount of changes to current content. Buddhipriya (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Buddhipriya's comments are quite accurate and "right on the money." We do not care whether Doniger's views are "right," but we need to present academic objections because not all objections to Doniger are "egg throwing." Raj2004 (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are three different categories of content involved. One level is the academic quality of her work as a religionist, which would include issues such as how she interprets things, using RS from the academic field of religious studies. A second, independent issue is the quality of her Sanskrit which can only be judged by other Sanskritists (such as Witzel). The third area is the sociopolitical impact of her work, which may involve use of different types of RS from outside the academic community. The fact that she has caused such social reaction is unlikely to be the subject of academic papers, but it may be well-documented elsewhere. If this is correct, the question is what key ideas need to be in the article that are not there now, and then each source must be vetted with regard to reliability within one of those three domains. I am guessing that there is actually not much that needs to be added to the article, except for a small number of points. Her influence in encouraging a number of other academics to interpret works using sexual paradigms is neither inherently good or inherently bad. If you like that sort of thing, it is good. If you are offended by it, perhaps it is bad. The issue not to judge it, but to point it out as part of her academic impact. Buddhipriya (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please build consensus on the talk page for changes

I urge all editors to build consensus here point by point prior to making extensive changes to the article. This method will produce better results in the long run. Let us find some language that the majority can support, then we can implement changes as needed. Buddhipriya (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much faith in the process here. To my mind, we have about six fundamentalists who frankly don't give a fig about Wikipedia, its policies, or its principles. Not to mention academic freedom or achievement, which they frankly spit upon. Please see the absolutely insane conversation with rudrasharman above in which he claims that my six reliable sources which clearly and uncontroversially call Doniger a Sanskritist are no match for his expert personal opinion. Undoubtedly the other good Hindus on this talk page support his idiocies enthusiastically. If you insist on my edits being approved by this inquisition, I will have to take this to a noticeboard. — goethean ॐ 03:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Will you, for once, just once, endeavor to acquire a clue, PLEASE? Not one of your "reliable sources" is a reliable source for competence in Sanskrit. rudra (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

False. Many, many books published by university presses call her a Sanskritist. Huston Smith writing in an academic journal has called her a Sanskritist. Her being a Sanskritist is better attested to than most statements in Wikipedia. But apparently you find your uninformed, amateur opinion more weighty than all of the scholarly books in the world. Excuse me if I do not. — goethean ॐ 14:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Still trying to evade addressing the basic question, I see. You have failed to produce a source reliable for a judgment on competence in Sanskrit. Your shibboleths are not helping you. rudra (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess BLP is the venue. — goethean ॐ 03:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Huston Smith, according to the Wikipedia article and several websites, was a professor in philosophy. and religionYes, he's an academic but like Rudra has stated before, that does not make him a Sanskritist who can clearly label another as one. Teaching philosophy is one thing. Being a scholar of Sanskrit is another. For example, you can be a scholar of Christianity without necessarily being an Aramaic or Hebrew linguist.

Yes, I am practicing Hindu. Goethean, are you? Raj2004 (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Views of Hindus

The article does not mention what Hindus think about the work of Wendy which concentrates on Hindus. I have been quoting multiple reliable sources like The Tribune and Hindustan Times. But one user goethean is reverting each of my such edit by giving one or the excuse every time. Without recording feedback from the very Hindus about whose faith Wendy writes on, this article represents only a particular POV and is not balanced and neutral as required by Wikipedia standards. I suggest to keep the criticism on this article to make the article balanced. Please do not revert edits without discussing. --Deshabhakta (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've mentioned several times, your Hindustan Times piece is an opinion piece rather than straight reporting and is not a reliable source. And you are quoting it inaccurately. There are over 1 billion Hindus and presumably the vast majority have never heard of Wendy Doniger. Your edit presumes to describe what "Hindus" believe about Doniger which is an impossibility. Your addition should be removed immediately. — goethean ॐ 19:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Goethean, opinion pieces may be reliable sources, according to [[22]] The section states: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author.

So perhaps Deshabhakta's reference may modified to state that Person X stated this about Doniger in the Tribune, for example.

To paraphrase Reagan, there you go again! Raj2004 (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

One caveat: I am not a Republican as I have voted for candidates on both parties. Raj2004 (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise, it's okay to include criticism, but the tone must remain neutral. The edit Goethan removed here seems to assist in spreading rumors rather than explaining the dispute. Shii (tock) 21:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Shii for the clarification Maybe Deshabhakta and Goethean can revise it to yield NPOV. Raj2004 (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There's an organization, Hindu American Foundation that has sent a letter to the President of Penguin over the publisher's fact-checking process and standards for books such as those of Doniger. See, http://www.hafsite.org/PenguinGroup For example, HAF states there are a number of factual errors and mistranslations in Doniger's book, the Hindus: An Alternative History."

Pg. 103 of Doniger's book, "the Hindus: An Alternative History." states that "All the poems of the Rig Veda are ritual hymns in some sense. Since all were sung as part of the Vedic ceremony." HAF cites Jan Gonda, 1978, Hymns of the Rgveda Not Employed in the Solemn Ritual. (Amsterdam) for rebutting that statement: "A considerable portion of the Rig Veda is not employed in ritual. See Jan Gonda, 1978, Hymns of the Rgveda Not Employed in the Solemn Ritual. (Amsterdam)."

Raj2004 (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's p.107, not p.103. And Doniger is deliberately vague in what she means by "Vedic ceremony". Gonda's book is about the Śrauta ritual (so, for example, most of the 10th mandala would be excluded), but Doniger is probably talking about "vedic ritual" in a general sense, i.e. a yajña of any kind (as she writes, on the same page, "As far as we can reconstruct their rituals from what is, after all, a hymnal, they made offerings to various gods [...] by throwing various substances, primarily butter, into a fire that flared up dramatically in response.") However, not all rituals were "vedic": the status of the Atharvanic materials with aspects of "black magic", for example, is dubious. But overall I think it's hypercritical to take Doniger to task for this. There are plenty of much more serious errors in the book. rudra (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. I will rephrase the statements to attribute them directly to the sources. Thanks all for the constructive discussion. --Deshabhakta (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The criticism can be rephrased as below. Please let me know if any further improvements can be applied.

Hindus, in a petition filed by them before the Penguin Group, allege that she analyses revered Hindu Gods and Goddess using her widely discredited psycho-sexual Freudian theories that modern, humanistic psychology has deemed limiting. Her books on Hinduism have numerous errors in terms of historical facts and Sanskrit translations. It is further alleged that Doniger had made various faulty assumptions about the tradition in order to arrive at her particular spin. Well known columnist Ashok Malik observes in Hindustan Times that her work unexceptionably contributes to “eroticisation and exoticisation of Hindus' sacred scriptures.

--Deshabhakta (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Completely, totally unacceptable from beginning to end, as I have expressed to you numerous times on this page. The sources are very poor, and you have used them inaccurately. And there's no indication that this is anything but an irrelevant contrived mini-controversy, akin to a web petition. Wikipedia does not tack every complaint against high-profile scholars onto the scholar's biography — if we did, the encyclopedia would be a complete mess and the Wikipedia project would be sued for libel. Additionally, the article already contains a neutral summary of the controversy, written by User:Shii, a strong critic of Doniger. Please see WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, etc. — goethean ॐ 15:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? This entire paragraph only presents positive views and does not have any balance: " Doniger's 2009 book The Hindus: an alternative history received mainly positive reviews. The Library Journal said that Doniger "takes particular pains to show the outsider influences in Hindu literature, a tall order at which she mostly succeeds".[20] A review by David Arnold in the Times Literary Supplement said that despite its "extraordinary command of meaning and text" the book had limitations. "Doniger is best when she has a text to work with and a story to dissect … When she lacks a text – as in the undeciphered world of the Indus valley civilization – she is less convincing. When she encounters the British Raj, she falls back, unadventurously, on Rudyard Kipling and E. M. Forster … and stumbles over her facts…" Arnold said that the book was a response to those who had attacked Doniger's understanding of Hindu myth and was" an eloquent vindication of her belief in the insights informed study can provide, and the need for scholars to resist and refute the corrosive claims of Hindu chauvinism".[21] In the New York Times, Pankaj Mishra called it a "staggeringly comprehensive book". He predicted that it would "further expose her to the fury of the modern-day Indian heirs of the British imperialists who invented 'Hinduism'" but also "serve as a salutary antidote to the fanatics who perceive — correctly — the fluid existential identities and commodious metaphysic of practiced Indian religions as a threat to their project of a culturally homogenous and militant nation-state".[22] In January 2010, the National Book Critics Circle named The Hindus as a finalist for its 2009 book award."

Raj2004 (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

@goethean What makes you call Hindustan Times a poor source? By all standards of Wikipedia, Hindustan Times and The Tribune are reliable sources. Please contact RSN if you have issues with the reliability of these sources.

Here, Wikipedia is not making any POV allegation or claim to be sued for libel. This paragraph is quoting its sources, as is the case with any Wiki articles, and hence Wiki cannot be held responsible for these viewpoints. If you feel the sources are being inaccurately represented in the paragraph above, please suggest improvements as i have already requested before. As noted by Raj2004 above, the article puts forward only positive views about Wendy's book and work and is not balanced at all. Hence, we should have critical review of her work in this article to make it balanced. --Deshabhakta (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with the points made by Deshabhakta and Raj2004 above. The article on wiki is not balanced at all. It appears as if she is making great scholarly contributions to Hinduism, while from the Hindu point of view, she is mis-repesenting the facts, and making numerous errors in her works. The worst of these errors are in interpreting the sanskrit words. The above paragraph is appropriate to bring a balance. Hindustan Times is among the most respected Indian Newspaper, and a quote from this newspaper is as important as one from New York Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.16.50 (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Deshabhakta and Raj2004 (and the ip user) that there must be some way to get the reality of social opposition to her work cited in the article, and that news sources such as major Indian newspapers can be cited to establish sociopolitical resistance to her work. I do not agree that simply because she is an academic only academic sources can be cited if the issue is to establish the social impact of her work outside of academic circles. Academic sources comment on academic matters, newspapers report news. It is also important to not characterize all of this social reaction as "Hindutva". The term Hindutva in general usage refers to a specific political movement. There are Hindus who are not associated with the Hindutva movement who dislike her work. The term Hindutva is a polarizing word, and should be applied only to those for whom it actually applies. I agree that some persons who criticize her are connected with the Hindutva movement. But not all are. Regarding the Sanskrit competence question, I continue to agree with Rudra that the Witzel critique is noteworthy and can be cited. Witzel is not a member of the Hindutva movement. I continue to avoid reverting Goethean's edits simply because I do not want to participate in an edit war on the article page. Again, I call for reaching agreement on single points one by one on the talk page. I like the proposals to have some neutral party formulate a compromise edit. Buddhipriya (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said here, there is already a neutral write up of the "controversy", written by User:Shii, a strong critic of Doniger. The article currently does not deal with Doniger's competance in Sanskrit at all. Apparently, User:Buddhipriya would like this article to evaluate Doniger's competence in Sanskrit. I would rather take the word of the editorial boards of Penguin Classics, Oxford Classics, and Doniger's other publishers, the University of Chicago and Stanford University, the editorial boards of the academic journals which have published Doniger's articles, the committee which recently named her as a finalist for the National Book Award, etc., etc. over the word of a few unpaid Wikipedia voluteers. But I guess that's just me. — goethean ॐ 20:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Which academic journals have published Doniger and what are their track records on articles by Sanskritists? Do you even know which journals have the best rep for articles by Sanskritists? Why do you persist in making clueless statements? When the best you could scrape up, as a <gong>reliable source</gong> no less, was a book on the oral history of a Christian denomination in South Africa, you might have stopped to think whether you weren't barking up the wrong tree. Better yet, you could have tried a different search and found what Doniger herself thinks about "Real Sanskritists" (her italics). But no, you've let your fear of trolls stampede you into a ridiculous "defence" of Doniger's "honor". The sheer depth of your cluelessness shows in your failure to grasp why "Sanskritist, indeed a recovering Orientalist", along with "old-fashioned philologist" say all that needs to be said on the subject. rudra (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And, you are still on call for your bullshit. Either retract the statement ("... his confident assurances that Doniger is a fraud ...") or provide substantiation in the form of a diff. Thank you. rudra (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear @goethean, you are treating any source that does not align with your POV to be a non-neutral source. You need to understand that something like 'neutral source' is very rare to find. What Wikipedia needs is reliable source and if you can find one a neutral source. The purpose is to have a neutral article as a whole giving due importance to several views about the article. Hindustan Times is as much a reliable source as NYT. What the society feels about her work needs to be obtained from news sources and included in this article. Please stop edit-warring. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Culianu

Another clueless addition to the article. In 1983, Culianu was in the Netherlands and still learning English (this "review" precedes any other work of his in English by a number of years). It so happens that around that time his position at Groningen was in some jeopardy; and he was still trying to achieve his life ambition, to get back to the University of Chicago where he could work with his mentor, Mircea Eliade. But he was never a scholar of Vedic texts, so he was in no position to judge the reliability of a translation of subject matter he did not know much about into a language of which his grasp was rudimentary. It's also worth noting that History of Religions is a University of Chicago production, and Doniger had been on the editorial board since 1979. Citing this "review" is a complete joke. rudra (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The opinion of a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor doesn't change the fact that History of Religions is a well-regarded journal, and anything that appears in it meets the requirements of WP:RS. If you disagree, take this straight to WP:RSN rather than cluttering up this talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The intent of the addition was to counter the Witzel critique. So what have we here, Culianu's word over Witzel's on the quality of Doniger's Sanskrit? This is getting funnier by the minute. rudra (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that Witzel, like Doniger, has been demonized by conservative Hindus. Culianu, on the other hand, didn't live long enough to receive that honor. — goethean ॐ 16:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Rudrasharman is smart enough and experienced enough to understand that his comments have no potential relevance to the editing of the article, his comments constitute a violation of WP:TALK: "Talk pages are for discussion to improve the encyclopedia and should not be used to express personal opinions on a subject." His comments can therefore be removed from this talk page per Talk_Page_Guidelines#Others.27_comments, section "Refactoring for relevance". — goethean ॐ 15:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The argument, in a nutshell, is that the sentence with the citation to Culianu should be removed. It screams "puff job" to anyone who knows the fields - not just (vedic) Sanskrit (in which Culianu was and is a complete and total nobody), but also the relations between Eliade, the History of Religions journal (long considered Eliade's "own" journal, since he founded it and presided over it while he was alive), Doniger (a protege of Eliade - Eliade published two chapters of Doniger's dissertation in HoJ on his own editorial prerogative, and was responsible for bringing Doniger to UofC) and Culianu (another protege, and some time literary executor of Eliade's estate until his own tragic death.). You didn't think this sort of thing happens in Academia? I have some nice beach-front properties in Nebraska for you. (Basically, it boils down to knowing and understanding the sources.) rudra (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Am am getting annoyed at this animosity between good editors. Save it for the trolls. Akhilleus, Goethean and Rudrasharman are all valuable contributors. So please drop the poisonous tone and start to work together. Rudrasharman has made clear in countless instances that he has a deep understanding of Indology, never mind his being "pseudonymous" (just like Akhilleus, Goethean). You would do very well to listen to his point. He also has a tendency to counter-punch too much, so after you have appreciated that he does have a point, you are certainly free to modify his presentation of the affair. Sheesh. Just as long as you do it in a spirit of collaboration. Goethean's reference to WP:TALK just now does nothing except poison the well even further. Rudra is pointing out that the Culianu reference isn't of the same quality as the Witzel one. This is hardly a violation of WP:TALK, it is a perfectly relevant comment. --dab (𒁳) 17:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Rudra understands the reliable sources policy — and he rejects it. He regularly engages in speculative original resaerch with an air of superiority, and holds up his research as more relevant than references to reliable sources. His original research has no chance of being included in the article. Then he makes up inherently absurd policy on the spot, like that only a Sanskritist can recognize another Sanskritist, a clearly laughable idea which I had to spend days to dispel, due to nothing but his obstinate intractability. If Akhilleus hadn't stepped in, our time would still be beng wasted over his pet non-issue. Presumably, he knows all this. He is just filibustering and wasting everyone's time. I am sorry that he has nothing higher to aspire to than to waste my time and to keep me from improving this article. — goethean ॐ 18:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is hardly a violation of WP:TALK, it is a perfectly relevant comment.

False. He cites no sources. He presents rumors and expects us to reject content cited to reliable sources in lieu of his unsourced 'expert' opinion. He knows exactly what he is doing — he is deliberately wasting our time. I am sorry that you are assisting him. — goethean ॐ 18:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources for what? Ted Anton's book on Culianu covers just about everything anyone would want to know about him. (E.g. on p.129, Anton says of Culianu, in 1986, that he was "polishing his English".) But here, the main point is negative evidence. Culianu never published anything about Sanskrit or Vedic subjects: his scholarly production in such fields was ZERO. He had no standing as a credible reviewer of Rig Veda. So how came his "review" to be in History of Religions? One word: Eliade. (It's to HoJ's credit that it has come a long way from those days.)

But the really incredible thing here is the bizarre preference for Culianu over Witzel. POV-pushing at its finest. rudra (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting quote of Doniger here, regarding Eliade and the History of Religions journal:

I am personally indebted to him for creating my career, transforming me from an ugly ducking of a Sanskritist into a swan-like historian of religion: he read my Harvard (Sanskrit) dissertation in 1968, published two chapters of it in his journal (History of Religions) in 1969, brought me to Chicago as a full professor in 1978, and the rest is, if not history, history of religions.

Note: "his journal". (Doniger doesn't mention that she has been on the editorial board of HoJ since 1979, also Eliade's doing.) rudra (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Doniger a Sanskritist? --- AGAIN!!

Goethan's view is incorrect. Rudra cites a paper by Witzel in showing that Doniger is a poor Sanskritist; see, http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/intro.pdf in the Sanskritist talk section .See [[23]] A professor of religion is not necessarily a Sanskritist. Only a Sanskritist can clearly label another as one. Teaching philosophy is one thing. Being a scholar of Sanskrit is another. For example, you can be a scholar of Christianity without necessarily being an Aramaic or Hebrew linguist. Raj2004 (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't understand. A source is a source only if Goethean likes it. And then, of course, it becomes reliable, and that too for any subject under the sun. That's how he can cite a work on the Oral History of the ibandla lamaNazaretha, the Nazareth Baptist Church of South Africa as a "reliable source" for Doniger being a Sanskritist. You really have to wonder who is abusing WP policies. rudra (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Or "The catechism of the Nazarites", or "Mãrg", which is a coffee table book mostly filled with glossy photos... Shii (tock) 03:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the people who are abusing policy — as well as lying through their teeth — are the ones who are trying to keep the article from stating what everyone (except the hardcore trolls) agree is an undeniable fact, which is that Doniger, the translator of the Rig Veda for Penguin Classics, is a Sanskritist. I'm trying to make the article say that the sky is blue. Rudra is trying to make the article say that black is white and up is down. So I'm not too concerned about your conclusions about who is abusing sources. — goethean ॐ 15:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Before you invent any more nonsense, please note that you are still on call for your bullshit. Either retract the statement ("... his confident assurances that Doniger is a fraud ...") or provide substantiation in the form of a diff. Thank you. rudra (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I support Rudra's position with regard to the sourcing issues on Sanskrit. It seems clear that currently Goethean has the minority view on this specific point. I personally follow a 1-revert rule when dealing with potential edit wars of this sort, and since I already reverted Goethean's persistent edits on this matter I hesitate to do it again, but if a vote is needed my position is clear. I second Dab's request that all editors please maintain a collegial tone and focus on specific points one by one. Buddhipriya (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you still questioning whether Doniger is a Sanskritist?! Multiple admins and editors have described this conversation as "silly" and "dumb". At some point you have to stop talking when no one is listening and this time has come for me. If you six allies are determined to deliberately misrepresent the most basic, fundamental, undeniable facts of Doniger's biography — like her occupation — in this article, it appears that I cannot stop you. — goethean ॐ 04:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

We know why you want to emphasize that she is a "Sanskritist" , but you have yet to present a credible argument that random sound-bites, such as the fruits of your rooting in Google books, are better than Doniger's self-description. rudra (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And you are still on call for your bullshit. Either retract the statement ("... his confident assurances that Doniger is a fraud ...") or provide substantiation in the form of a diff. Thank you. rudra (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

just because she calls herself a Sanskritist does not make her one. Either this statement should be removed or reworded to say that she calls herself as a Sanskritist. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and WP:HEAR. — goethean ॐ 18:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The content is cited to Smith as well as Doniger, although there needn't be any citations at all for the material, as it is clearly evident from her credentials and output. — goethean ॐ 18:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As a coda to this continually insane episode, User:Rudrasharman removed the well-sourced, basic biographical information from the article here with the unsurprisingly dishonest edit summary of "copy edit". Congratulations, haters. — goethean ॐ 14:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As I have said previously, I support the inclusion of the Witzel material in the article. While I don't like reverting things in article space, I think that the discussion about this has been extensive. The Witzel material is also summarized as part of the review of problems with her Sanskrit in Invading the Sacred, and while I know that that particular source does not yet have clear consensus, the issue deserves coverage. I personally have no problem with describing her as a Sanskritist. The term is not precisely defined. She has published translations of Sanskrit works, so in the general press she is likely to be seen as a bona fide Sanskritist. That said, evaluation of her Sanskrit skills by prominent specialists in Sanskrit can also be included. If I say that I am a painter, and someone says they think my paintings are not very good, I may still be described as a painter. Buddhipriya (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

She has published translations of Sanskrit works, so in the general press she is likely to be seen as a bona fide Sanskritist.

The fact is that she is one of the most distinguished scholars in the world. This is evident from the academic reception of her works. She is also venomously despised by a group of politico-religious fanatics. This is evident from her Wikipedia article.

Removing references to academic journals and replacing them with emails, weblogs, opinion pieces and politically-motivated hatchet-jobs is shameful, disgraceful, and unethical as well as counter to Wikipedia policy. We all know this. But some are doing it anyways. I'm glad that it is not me. — goethean ॐ 23:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

New commentary

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

Raj2004, how did you happen to pick Piali Roy's review of Doniger's book? Is Roy a well-known scholar of Indology? Is the Globe and Mail well-known for its book reviews of Hindu books? Or did you deliberately search for some negative content to add to the article?

The article already contained a neutral selection of reviews of Doniger's book from the TLS, NYT, and Library Journal. I did not write that material — I think that User:Shii did. But, to those who hate Doniger, an entire additional paragraph of negative material is needed, even if it is referenced to an author with no credentials who no one has never heard of. So now we have the neutral reception of the book, plus a bonus paragraph of negative material to please those who hate Doniger. This is childish, irresponsible, and unethical. — goethean ॐ 15:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Furthermore, many sources have stated that there are historical and translation errors in the books but these sources published on "self-published" sites and are thus not appropriate for citations on Wikipedia. I would love to cite an academic criticism of Doniger but the Indian studies academy is a close-knit group and has not produced any. Like any elite club, they seem hesistant to criticize their own. I would love to hear counterpoints from respected scholars such as Arvind Sharma and Edwin Byrant, but have not found any. There are historical and translation errors in Doniger's book, The Hindus: An Alternative History, but unfortunately we are left with the criticism by some in the extreme right for the most part, and no "legitimate" criticism from the academy. That's why those who oppose Doniger are represented by moderate non-academics like Aditi Banerjee, [[24]] a Yale lawyer who writes well but is not a "Sanskritist." It would be helpful for those who find such errors in Doniger publish in academic journals.

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

Also, Is the New York Times well-known for its book reviews of Hindu books?

Unlike the Globe and Mail, the New York Times is among the most important book review media on the planet. There is good reason to include its reviews, as they are considered to accurately reflect the mainstream reception of a book. There is no such assumption in regard to The Globe and Mail, and no good reason to include the content sourced to it...except that it refelects your personal point of view, which is not a valid reason for inclusion.

Furthermore, many sources have stated that there are historical and translation errors in the books but these sources published on "self-published" sites and are thus not appropriate for citations on Wikipedia. I would love to cite an academic criticism of Doniger but the Indian studies academy is a close-knit group and has not produced any. Like any elite club, they seem hesistant to criticize their own. I would love to hear counterpoints from respected scholars such as Arvind Sharma and Edwin Byrant, but have not found any.

What you are admitting to here is clear POV editing. Wikipedia policies dictate that Wikipedia should be edited from a neutral point of view. Neutral editors don't scour the internet for sources which suit their prejudices and then ram them into the article. Editors who care about the Wikipedia project attempt to present a fair depiction of the most reliable sources.

Your comments portray a completely inaccurate understanding of academia, which is highly competitive. Academic journals are reliable sources. Your disregard for them has no bearing on the matter whatsoever. Please bring this up at the reliable sources noticeboard, not here.

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

I am sorry that you have difficulty with the idea of a secular university, but respect for university scholarship is rather well entrenched in global culture, as well as in Wikipedia policy. Your view is closer to that of Christian evangelicals than it is to the mainstream understanding. I cannot allow your fringe views to dictate the entry of content into this article. — goethean ॐ 18:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The idea of a "secular" Western university as an unbiased source is a little misleading. Have you read Timothy Fitzgerald? Shii (tock) 04:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Suggestion for reception section

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

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

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

Since this talk page failed to even produce neutral language to describe Doniger's occupation, I can't say that I have any faith in the process. Embarrasingly, the article can't claim that the translator of Sanskrit texts for Penguin Classics and Oxford Classics is a Sanskritist. Instead, the article says that "...she has described herself as a Sanskritist." Rudrasharman doesn't like Culiano, so he does everything that he can to neutralize a review from an academic journal, including citing a weblog. A weblog. Apparently, Rudrasharman thinks that weblogs are more reliable than academic journals. That is a very serious, completely unaddressed problem. Rudrasharman doesn't like Wikipedia's reliable source policy, and doesn't even pretend to abide by it. He was told by an admin to take his concerns elsewhere, but he aggressively ignored that advice. There are very serious issues with the editors on this page — they are not abiding by Wikipedia policy. And the involved administrators stand by and egg them on. These behavior issues need to be faced up to and dealt with before any progress can be made on the article.

User:Shii wrote some very good, neutral language for the reception section, even though he is a strong critic of Doniger. But that language is not harsh enough for this group and you want to re-write it, with the help of the self-appointed expert, User:Rudrasharman. God only knows what this group will come up with. Raj2004 wants to know if I am a practicing Hindu. How does that fit into your dictum to assume good faith?

The fact is that Doniger is a distinguished scholar, and a group of editors hate her guts and are determined to use this article to damage her reputation. I can't stop it, being only one person, but I will use every means at my disposal to slow it down. — goethean ॐ 22:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Goethean, are you objecting to my proposal, or only doubting whether it is achievable ? Assuming the latter is not an issue, do you think the suggested structure would be good ? Abecedare (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that Abecedare's proposal is better than any we have on the table at the moment. If we attempt to do it, we may find ways to improve on it if we try to work together on a common goal. I think that it may be helpful to try to recruit someone from completely outside the group that has commented on this so far to help look for neutral tone. On Wikipedia there are people who specialize in helping with wordsmithing. If we could find someone who is respected by all, or at least less irksome than most of us, that person might be an asset to the team. There is an old Indian story (in the Pancatantra) to the effect that a group of birds remain trapped in a net only because they do not agree to all fly upwards together as a group. If they do so, they can escape. Buddhipriya (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult to find an "outsider" who'd be willing to devote time on this contentious topic. So we may be stuck with the cooks we have. ;-)

My idea would be (if the structure itself seems reasonable), to next break up the problem into individual parts along the lines of: "If we had to write 3 sentences on review of Doniger's methodological approach, what are the main sub-topics to cover, what are the best sources for those content, and how do we summarize their views" and similar questions about translations, sociopolitical reaction etc. Such an approach will help winnow down the sources and issues that are worth covering.

Right now for example, we have a whole paragraph on reviews of The Hindus: an alternative history, which is just crazy recentism, given that WD has published 20 odd books, and 100s of articles - the Reception section cannot fairly afford to devote even one sentence on each of those works, and this should immediately rule out using any NYT or Globe&Mail reviews in this article, except so far as they make general points about WD's scholarship and reception. Put differently: If we start with discussing (say) how to summarize an NYT review properly, we may get the individual sentence right, but the overall balance of the article will be skewed towards recent works, especially those geared to a popular audience, and which have attracted controversy - simply because it's easier to find multiple sources for such topics. So, I think it would be better to impose a rough structure first and then focus on the detailed content and wordsmithing. Thoughts ? Abecedare (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Abecedare, I agree that the current Reception section is not very good. I think your points are all reasonable. If we can get some degree of consensus for the idea of trying to develop a replacement for it here on the talk page, I would support moving it from article space to here as a temporary measure. Another approach would be to first write (on the talk page) a simple one- or two-sentence summary of the major issues that are at the heart of the disagreement and get agreement for that summary statement, then rotate the summary into article space to replace the current Reception section for further rework. I do not think we are likely to hit any major new issues in doing this. Refactoring this talk page should uncover all the points that people have been in disagreement about. A good list of bullet points is needed as a first step. Editors must agree to work together at some point for this to work. Buddhipriya (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think we should not even worry about what is in the article right now, and simply work on writing the reception section from scratch, and then moving it to mainspace once it is "complete". That way, we'll avoid needless revert wars and arguments/warnings about those reverts.
• I would recommend against an editor-centric approach in which we try to hammer out where we differ and arrive at a compromise on that, since that tends to leave out coverage of content that are important to the subject but not a matter of interest/dispute to the editors (for example, WD has (co-)translated works from Greek, written fiction, and works on general comparative mythology, which are simply not covered in the current article, or discussed anywhere on this talkpage as far as I can see). Instead, lets just focus on what the content should be for comprehensive and balanced coverage, out of which I think only about ~25% will be disputable, and require extended discussion.

Abecedare (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Reception section is too long

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

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

I agree and support Shii's suggestion. Buddhipriya (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Bio in The Hindus

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

Re (3): There is no mention of it in her "official" online CV either. Re (2): Yes, until someone edits it:-) ("She received her first Ph.D., in Sanskrit and Indian Studies, from Harvard University in June 1968; and her second, a D. Phil. in Oriental Studies from Oxford University, in February 1973"). Re (1): Not really. Doniger is a mythologist, who draws heavily from Sanskrit texts. The "Sanskritist" red herring is just a maladroit attempt to head some trolls off at the pass by preemptively "refuting" their attacks. rudra (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a simple fact that Doniger is a Sanskritist. I am sorry that her critics enemies are in denial about this fact. Reliable sources have been added to the article to back up this self-evident fact. Those reliable sources, and the accompanying text, have been removed by User:Rudrasharman through edit warring and in patent disregard for the good of the article and for Wikipedia policy. — goethean ॐ 21:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Several pages, discussing Doniger and mythology in depth:

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

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

Who do you think you are fooling? The source you removed was Huston Smith's article in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion. — goethean ॐ 23:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it had only an offhand remark, just like all the other "reliable sources" you scrounged up. It added nothing, again just like the others, to Doniger's eminently suitable self-description. All of these issues have already been dealt with in the WP:RSN thread. You are wasting everyone's time with your stale "arguments". rudra (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Of course it is possible for a person to have more than one area of expertise, so being a mythologist does not exclude the possibility of being described as an expert in additional areas. For purposes of developing encyclopedia text it may be best to determine which of the several areas she is most often connected and give due weight to each. See: Polymath. Buddhipriya (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

True. Here are some fairly easy indicators (obviously, not an exhaustive list):

• Her faculty web page at the UoC. "... research and teaching interests revolve around two basic areas, Hinduism and mythology. Her courses in mythology address themes in cross-cultural expanses, such as death, dreams, evil, horses, sex, and women; her courses in Hinduism cover a broad spectrum that, in addition to mythology, considers literature, law, gender, and psychology." This has been reproduced in at least one book, eg. the back matter of this one.
• Subject to an obvious check for false positives, a search in Google books for "+doniger +sanskritist" has a raw count of 67 hits, whereas "+doniger +mythologist" has 76 hits. This is also subject to a check of who is calling her either (i.e. are they judging or passing on hearsay, and what are their credentials/standing? A footnote in a work on the oral history of a Christian denomination in South Africa, for example, really shouldn't count towards the "Sanskritist" tally, or should it??)
• Doniger's bibliography and the reviews she cites in her CV. For Rig Veda, she cites only two reviews, one of which was an obvious puff job, and the other was by a journalist also with no track record in the subject area. Other books have tons of reviews. Kamasutra is obviously a special case, because of the subject matter; the list is also only of reviews, so it's missing works such as this (which, curiously enough, appears on Google books for the Sanskritist search given above before any of the seven mentioned in the WP:RSN thread, but was omitted for reasons that become fairly obvious upon reading.)

I think it's fairly clear that her focus is on mythology, just as her official web page would lead one to think. Here is an encomium (from the +mythologist tally) that I think captures the relations pretty well:

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

rudra (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a simple fact that Doniger is a Sanskritist.I support goethean, I am sorry that her critics enemies are in denial about this fact.sorry to right wing hindus.--Vedvyasa (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting,Vedavyasa is a new account: [[25]] Hopefully, this is not one of the parties masquerading as a fellow supporter. Raj2004 (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I think Rudhasharman's point is important to consider even for critics. To really understand Doniger's work we must look at her as a comparative religionist. She wants to shed a new light on texts, not to present them in the same way an Indian guru would. This is why I would theoretically prefer a term like "mythologist" to "Sanskritist", which seems to be simply pitting her against Indian Sanskrit scholars. We won't get anywhere by fighting. Shii (tock) 14:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a fair summary. The point about philology needs a little nuancing, though. The issue is whether Doniger cares about being source-critically accurate. And the general answer is, on balance, no, her theories and interpretations are more important. Which is fine as far as being a mythologist is concerned, but it makes the Sanskritist label simply inapplicable. This is why the example here is so paradigmatic. It's obvious that no Sanskritist would ever propose such a translation of that passage, and it's equally obvious that such an approach to the texts is exactly why she is not taken seriously at all by Sanskritists. (The dislike is mutual, btw.) If we could avoid the term altogether, that would be great, but I doubt we could get there. rudra (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Doniger is the translator of Sanskrit texts for Penguin Classics and Oxford Classics. To avoid calling her a Sanskritist is to very deilberately engage in original research, research which contradicts the judgement of the editorial staffs of the most important publishers on the planet. However, I do not doubt that this group has the arrogance to do so. — goethean ॐ 15:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Practically speaking, because you are so insistent on this, we could easily use both terms. Shii (tock) 16:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please be aware of WP:3RR

• 00:47, 18 March [27]
• 23:40 17 March [28]
• 23:19 17 March [29]
• 23:09 17 March [30]

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

This article really needs to be in dispute resolution. Edit warring (on the talk page!) is not going to solve anything. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a Wikiquette alert about the problem as a more gentle first step. [31]. I have a feeling that the positive approach suggested by Abecedare is gaining some traction with a majority of the editors, and would like to see if clear consensus forms about that in the next few days. Buddhipriya (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I was merely taking out the garbage. — goethean ॐ 02:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You are still on call for your bullshit. Either retract the statement ("... his confident assurances that Doniger is a fraud ...") or provide substantiation in the form of a diff. Thank you. rudra (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Buddhapriya's comments seem to imply that there is a possible scenario in which Rudrasharman's spamming of this page is appropriate — spam which would have been aggressively stamped out long ago if he were not on the side of the Doniger-despising majority. If that is indeed what Buddhapriya believes, I suggest that he elaborate on that belief. In fact, Rudrasharman's spamming of this page is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. The only reason he is allowed to continue his antics is because Buddhapriya and others love the fact that it is me who he is childishly harrassing, and they want to see me out of the picture so that they can edit this article with no oversight whatsoever. — goethean ॐ 15:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Goethan's changes again!

Goethan again removed my changes; see [[32]] He objected to my use of "Western" academic media and deleted it to "academic media" yet he shows no support that the Indian academic media had any positive or negative reviews. He also makes the Hindu American Foundation the only one opposing Doniger's book. A Los Angeles Times article reported that there were other groups too. Concerned editors, please take a look. Raj2004 (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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