Jump to content

Talk:Academic Hinduphobia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Elst

[edit]

I've removed the blurb by Elst. He is a known proponent of Hindutva with close connections to Voice of India, the publishers of this book. If we must mention his opinion then it will need some form of clarification to put his thoughts in context. - Sitush (talk) 11:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; I've removed him again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please say a bit more about the 'connections' of Elst that ostensibly disqualify him from being independent. You need to demonstrate something solid and factual. Otherwise his review should be put back in. Frankly,there's a lot that I find to dislike about the fellow and disagree with him about. But if you can conjure up vague connections, without explaining what they are, as a basis for disqualifying people, then there would likely need to be widespread stripping away of all kinds of material across Wikipedia. The fact is that when people are interested in the same topic, they often develop connections with each other, but they are also the ones most qualified and interested to review each others books. Is it just coincidence that this concern is suddenly surfacing with regard to writings with which several editors here have, to use the same weasel-type language, "known disagreements"? At any rate, you owe this talk page some specifics of what these "connections" may be, to allow us to evaluate whether they merit disqualification. --Presearch (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He is a rabid pseudo-historian who shares the same rabid publisher and consorts with the same rabid people. I'm not for one moment favouring Doniger (I have no horse in that particular race) but these people create walled gardens. You may as well claim David Irving as a reliable reviewer of Holocaust conspiracy theories. - Sitush (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like we have some of the same reactions to him (though in my experience in the midst of the rabid stuff there is some stuff he says that is merely stuff and has adequate facts/etc.). But what exactly is the nature of his connection with the publisher? BTW, the phrase "walled garden" has a technical meaning on Wikipedia but when applied to the broader world I suspect could apply to all sorts of academic specialties; does that mean we ignore their reviews of each other when we write articles about them? (Or alternatively, do we only evoke the concept when we disagree with them?) Best --Presearch (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would also call to everyone's attention this phrase from NBOOK posted elsewhere on this talk page: "Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book." It seems to me that if we fill in the abstract words with the proper nouns that apply in this case, we come up with a sentence like this: "Independent [status of the reviewer KE] does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to [whether the reviewer KE was] actually involved with the specific book titled Academic Hinduphobia: A Critique of Wendy Doniger's Erotic School of Indology." Is this not the question facing us? --Presearch (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you also read the notes of that guideline, on "non-trivial" and "self-interested parties"? I don't know what Pragatya is, but "Learning the Indian way" gives a hint, while the second link at the top, MAG (magazine), opens with a video by Rajiv Malhotra and Swami Nithyananda, tells the rest. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention Michel Danino, Subhash Kak and David Frawley... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pragyata is an ungrammatical Hindi derivation from Sanskrit Prajñā (Hinduism), which roughly means wisdom. I suppose the authors intend it to mean the quality of being wise, their way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

From WP:NBOOK:

A book is notable, and generally merits an article, if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

  1. The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[5]
  2. The book has won a major literary award.
  3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
  4. The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[7]
  5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.

References

  1. ^ The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.
  2. ^ "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.
  3. ^ Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book.
  4. ^ A book's inclusion in a reliable bestseller list is non-trivial treatment if the list is notable or the list is published by a notable media outlet and the list is republished or covered by other reliable sources. Bestseller lists in retailer or e-commerce sources like Amazon or self-published sources like personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, wikis, and similar media are not considered reliable. Social media review sites like Goodreads and LibraryThing do not qualify for this criteria.
  5. ^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the book. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material). The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
  6. ^ This includes both primary and secondary schools.
  7. ^ This criterion does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science.

I don't see the notability of this book. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The material in this book has been discussed in academic journals. Christian Lee Novetzke, "The Study of Indian Religions in the US Academy", India Review 5.1 (May 2006), 113–114.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't spot it in that paper. According to our article, the book comprises essays by Malhotra but pp 113-114 of the paper is a pretty brief overview of a school of thought and doesn't mention him. Am I misreading something? - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews." See:
  • Jhunjhunwala, Vidhi. "Academic Hinduphobia". Outlook India. Retrieved 4 January 2017.
  • Elst, Koenraad. "Defence against "Hinduphobia"". Retrieved 4 January 2017.
  • Hore, Shambhudeep. "Some foreign funded NGOs impact India both internally and externally: Rajiv Malhotra". Financial Express. Retrieved 4 January 2017.
  • Pant, Manish. "It's Time To Counter Western And Islamic Mythmaking". Swarajya. Retrieved 4 January 2017.
  • Santoshi, Neeraj. "Mughals also colonized India, our definition of colonization limited: Indian-American researcher". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 4 January 2017.
  • Ghoshal, Somak. "Controversy At IIT Madras Over Closed-Door Indology Conference By Rajiv Malhotra". HuffPost India. Retrieved 4 January 2017.
Crawford88 (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the part on "non-trivial," "independent" and "self-interested parties":
  • OutlookIndia: non-independent source; article by Rajiv Malhotra.
  • Koenraad Elst: see above.
  • Financial Times: interview with Malhotra. "Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source."
  • Swarajya: say no more.
  • Hindustan Times: interview with Malhotra; aside mention. "Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source" and "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it."
  • Huffington Post: aside mention.
So, no substantial treatment. Yet, given the impact Rajiv Malhotra has had on the life of Wendy Doniger, and the responses he has provoked, I do think that the book is notable. Though I also think that a separate article is not warranted; it's not a new publication, but a reprint of articles which are also online available, and the book's intent seems to be to keep the turmoil and anti-academic rhetorics alive. It could be merged to the article on Malhotra. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You apparently missed to separate out your internal biases with evidences.
  • Elst: [citation needed] for the claim that Elst and Voice of India are related except that they have been publishing Elst's books.
  • Fin Times: Interview with the author itself attests the notability of the book, or at least is an indicator of it. author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of the article are not involved with the book. "Independent... only refers to those actually involved with the particular book."
  • Swarajya: [citation needed] for your comment. How do you claim conflict of interest between Swarajya and "author, publisher, agent, vendor."?
  • HT: See above for FinTimes.
So, yes. There have been enough media coverage for establishing the notability of this book. Crawford88 (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Elst and VoI are intimately connected and both are extremist. Beware that Indian newspapers often plagiarise interviews etc from each other, and quite often make bits of them up! - Sitush (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't there any reviews of the book in well-known newspapers? The Hindu or the Indian Express should have robustly panned the book. But maybe no reviewer wants to read this claptrap. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

McComas Taylor (2011), Mythology Wars: The Indian Diaspora, “Wendy's Children” and the Struggle for the Hindu Past, Asian Studies Review Volume 35, 2011 - Issue 2:
"A schism has appeared between sections of the Indian diasporic community and members of the Western academy over the authority to present and interpret Hindu mythology. This paper tells the story of these “Mythology Wars”. It focuses on critiques of Western scholarship by self-identified Hindu critics, primarily Rajiv Malhotra in his articles ‘RISA Lila–1: Wendy's Child Syndrome’ and ‘RISA Lila–2: Limp Scholarship and Demonology’ (Malhotra, 2002 and 2003)."
So, not this book, but nevertheless a treatment of LILA 1 & 2 in a reliable source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doniger and psycho-analysis - where does that actually happen?

[edit]

In RISA Lila 1 Malhotra states: "the eroticisation of Hinduism by Wendy Doniger" and "Since you have psychoanalyzed Hinduism"; and at the homepage of Academic Hinduphobia Malhotra states "In the late 1990s, a major controversy broke when I started to critique Wendy Donigerís (sic) depictions of Hinduism which most Hindus found vulgar and outright insulting." Yet, RISA Lila 1 nor the homepage refers to any publication or article by Wendy Doniger, or a concrete instance of such eroticisation or psycho-analysis by Doniger. The University of Chicago Magazine gives a clue:

"He cites, among others, two books for which Doniger wrote the forewords: Ganesa: Lord of Obstacles, Lord of Beginnings (Oxford University Press, 1985), by Emory University interim religion department chair Paul B. Courtright, and Kali’s Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna (University of Chicago Press, 1995), by Rice University religious studies chair Jeffrey J. Kripal, PhD’93."

Yet, the foreword to Kali's Child is very short, and states that only basic psycho-analytical concepts have been applied, and that there is no intention to use it for crude (mis)characterisations. So, where is the "eroticisation of Hinduism" and the "psychoanalyzed Hinduism" Malhotra says he is referring to? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindus: An Alternative History for one.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't matter. Malhotra is a polemicist and probably thinks that Doniger is, too. Unless other people discuss his claims in reliable sources, it isn't going to last long anywhere on Wikipedia and certainly not in this waste of space of an article. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, back to the topic. JJ, see Chapter 7 HERE.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The topic has nothing to do with improvement of this article. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Vic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not here to do WP:OR? Crawford88 (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you imply that checking sources is WP:OR? Let me clarify this for you: Malhotra is making sweeping statements about the work of Doniger, yet does not provide examples of what he is fulminating against, let alone a detailed explanation why these (missing) examples are "eroticisation" or "psycho-analysis." Readers just have to trust him blindly that Doniger indeed does, or did, so. So, I simply want to know: what is Malhotra referring to? Not in his post-2002 writings, but in RISA Lila 1? It's odd, isn't it, to make sweeping statements, yet not provide an opportunity to check those statements with the examples he implies exist, without actually making clear what he is refering to. It means he provides himself the opportunity to accuse an author, while withholding the accusant, or seriously interested readers, the opportunity to scrutinize the merits of the works of that author and the charges of the accusor. That's odd, polemical, and unconvincing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of RISA Lila 1 is Doniger's students, not Doniger herself. Hence "Wendy's Child".VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's true. Nevertheless, I'd be more satisfied if Malhotra himself had given examples of what he regards to be Doniger's eroticisationand psycho-analysing; I'm trying to understand what specifically angers him so much in Doniger. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Though... "Act 1 of the RISA Lila deals with the eroticisation of Hinduism by Wendy Doniger". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eroticisation by Doniger is quite well-known, such as translating kāma as lust, sakhi as lover (?) and so on. She defended herself saying that Sanskrit words have multiple meanings, and she picks her meanings to provide an "interpretation". But, as Vic pointed out, this article is more a rant against her "children" than against her. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of Wendy's children, there's definitely a cult around her. I just remembered that I had collected five critical academic reviews of The Hindus: An Alternative History book, and added them to its page a couple of years ago. See here, even though I mention two reviews in the text, there really are five. I had added long quotes for later paraphrasing. Then I became too busy. I notice that Wendy's children on Wikipedia have removed all the critical reviews. As someone who firs read Wendy's first, Shiva the erotic ascetic in the late 1970s and for many years was an admirer, I have to say, The Hindus book is a shabby history. But you wouldn't know that if you read its current WP page. If someone here has the time, please incorporate the version I given above (with the references) into that page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Academic_Hinduphobia&oldid=1168885909"