Misplaced Pages

Analysis and suggestion

I looked at the Criticism section that was deleted, and found it to be a mixed bag. For example:

• A BBC article wrote about Wendy Doniger as, "Professor Wendy Doniger is known for being rude, crude and very lewd in the hallowed portals of Sanskrit academics." is a context-less misrepresentation. My reading of the BBC quote is that it is intended as a cheeky attention-grabbing introduction, rather than sincere criticism. See the full interview for context.
• Wendy Doniger's article on Hinduism for Microsoft Encarta Encyclopædia which was "unsympathetic and negative, in contrast to the articles on Islam and Christianity" ... The quote needs to be attributed and not presented as a fact in the encyclopedia's voice. Also reading this in isolation, one would think the WD wrote the entries for Hinduism, Islam and Christianity, which of course was not the case.
• Michael Witzel, Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University writes that Wendy Doniger prefers to "always finds a 'hip' translation such as 'he had sex'" which can "simply" be translate ' "he has come together"—just as the Sanskrit says'. The Witzel quote is personally interesting because IMO it suggests the opinion he holds of her work, but the quote is a throwaway line in a larger and unrelated article, and presenting it as criticism here meets the definition of quote-mining.
• Religious scholar Christopher Framarin of University of Calgary writes that translation of Manusmrti has mistakes. I haven't looked at the context of this yet, and this may be well-worth mentioning as part of larger review of her work, but not in isolation. FWIW I can't recall any JSTOR review of a translation in which the reviewer didn't point out at least some mis- or non-ideal translations. So we really have to look at whether the reviewer say, "this work shouldn't be trusted", or "I would have translated some words and phrases differently".
• There are several citations to "Invading the sacred: an analysis of Hinduism studies in America". I am not commenting on them yet, since I have not read the book, or checked its reviews etc.
• The egg-throwing incident is worth including, since it is reflective of the passionate opposition that WD has aroused in some circles (irrespective of whether that opposition is justified). Also currently, Niranjan Roy reaction to the egg-throwing is lacking context.

That said, it's not only the removed Critcism section that has problems. The current Works section (aside: there are two sections so-named!) is essentially a quote farm, and as a reader when I encounter such sections my POV radar is activated and I essentially don't trust anything the article has to say. I assume I am not alone in this.
I had suggested to Spdiffy on my talk page that he (and others) can try developing a balanced Critical appraisal section (instead of segregated "praise" and "criticism" sections) for this article in userspace. I think that would be a more fruitful approach than simply re-adding the previous criticism section, or trying to edit it in mainspace, where it is certain to set off edit-wars. Abecedare (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The quotations from book reviews were a quick, imperfect solution to balance out the outrageously negative collection of carefully picked quotations which comprised the attack section. — goethean ॐ 14:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I guessed as much. I am not really questioning the aim in adding the quotes, but rather their effectiveness. Frankly, a critical appraisal in this article should not overly focus on "good" or "bad" reviews, but rather should provide a window to the reader (based on secondary sources) on the areas WD works in and the knowledge, philosophy and approaches she brings to bear, along with a few attributed comments. Readers are then free to judge what they think of the approach and the results. Abecedare (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried to add a summarizing quotation from each review from the most notable publications. If her book has been panned by the TLS, I would have added a summary quotation from that review also. I could not find any reviews in notable Indian publications. — goethean ॐ 15:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the article over-emphasizes on the good points. To be Neutral, even the quotes should be removed, till the dispute is resolved and an critical analysis section is formed on the talk, with a CONSENSUS. The egg-throwing (Egging) section is note-worthy as egging is a type of protest. Quoting from LGBT themes in Hindu mythology about Wendy: "The scholarship of Wendy Doniger, which focuses on interpretation of Hindu texts through psychoanalysis, has been criticised and regarded as unreliable." references: Antonio De Nicholas, Krishnan Ramaswamy, Aditi Banerjee Invading the Sacred., p.66. (O it was part of the old version too, why was this removed?) --Redtigerxyz 12:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"Discussions and protests" is necessary in the article as it conveys a sense of protest and outrage by (what this talk calls) "Illiterate BJPers". Wendy Doniger's use Freudian psychoanalysis is challenged by some, which needs to be documented. Kazanas's reference removal is also unexplained. --Redtigerxyz 12:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the analysis of Abecedare, but I could not understand why the UNDUE, POV quote farm is retained in the article, when ONLY the criticism is removed, either both should be included or both should be removed till the dispute is resolved and some neutral "Critical analysis" is formed. --Redtigerxyz 12:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Further Analysis and Suggestion

The difficulty with most of the discussion is that it revolves around “controversy”, as if controversy should be the focus of the article. The article should primarily be a biography of Doniger, what she has done, what she teaches, and what she has written about. A section on controversy should be quantitatively in proportion to that biographical material. That might be at the most one pithy quote of criticism and one of rebuttal, and it might be none at all. Given the history of this article it may be that the best way to achieve a normative standard would be to give the controversy quantitatively what it gets on biographies of persons who are similarly controversial. I have suggested Bart Ehrman before as an article we might look to for a comparison.

As another example if you look at the Misplaced Pages Barack Obama article it is not about his eligibility for the presidency because of facts relating to his and his parents citizenship, or about disagreement with his views, it is biographical facts about his life and work. The Doniger article at times has looked like an Obama article that would refer to him as controversial without mentioning that he is President of the United States and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. For the avoidance of doubt I am not comparing Obama to Doniger, or attempting honor by association, I am comparing the form that biographies take, versus blog spots or editorials. If you google the citizenship issue it takes up many pages on the web, but that is not the focus of the Obama Wiki bio. Nor are the opinions of others about him or his views the focus of the article.

If you google “Bart Ehrman controversy” you see many pages that are not on Misplaced Pages as Ehrman bio because that are essentially op-ed pieces, but they look like many former versions of the Doniger Wiki biography; but they don’t look like the Bart Ehrman Wiki bio itself, which is a bio and not an op-ed piece.

Therefore I would suggest that what is needed is not settling whether the positive or negative quotes deserve prominence, but taking them to blogs and op-ed forums, and instead putting here on Wiki a biography, and agreeing not only on what positive and negative quotes and observations should be included, but to the relative space that should be provided to them in the Wiki bio. I make the suggestion that one positive and one rebuttal would be more than generous as I do not see even that on either the Ehrman or the Obama bio pages. I make the assumption that we are all familiar with the guidelines here: WP:BLP in its Criticism and praise section, and that we could in a partisan fashion parse them back and forth to support one view or another, but I am convinced that it is a matter of taking all that to other forums and to simply stating biographical facts here, as on similar Wiki bios of controversial living persons. Meetoohelp (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No. I agree with you. That's why I added the section about Panjaj Mishra. Add some more laudatory sections about Doniger. That's fine with me. We have to respect NPOV. Views of religion are subjective in nature. Everyone has their opinion. The Catholic view of Christianity is different from the Eastern Orthodox view. So is with everyone's view of what Hinduism says and doesn't. I am no means a right-wing. Raj2004 (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Dab, I respect your opinion at times. At least you aim for NPOV unlike some. Raj2004 (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit

{{editprotected}} I request that an admin remove the section entitled "Works"; it is a quote-farm.

It was added in order to balance the excessive negative material which was in the "Criticism" section. However, the criticism section has been removed. If the "criticism" section remains removed, the "Works" section can be removed as well. However, if the unbalanced, excessively one-sided "Criticism" section is re-added to the article, the "Works" section should also be re-added in order to avoid unbalance. — goethean ॐ 16:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the above. By far the most interesting things about Doniger's work is that it is controversial and challenging - it is this that makes her notable!. The current quote farm with none of the critical attention makes the article look unbalanced and poorly written. Both criticism and the quote farm should be worked on on the talk page and only added when the balance between the two is correct.YobMod 17:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done this as the request was uncontested. Here is the removed section:

Works

Asceticism and Eroticism in the Mythology of Siva

Every decade or so a scholarly book appears that is recognized immediately as a bench mark in its area of study, a work which, by virtue of the novelty of its approach, of the thoroughness of its research and analysis, will serve for many years as a guide to scholars in charting their own courses. This study of the mythology of Siva is, without doubt, such a book.

The Hindus: An Alternative History

The Hindus is a celebration not just of a personal way of seeing Hinduism, but of the boldness and vitality of a textual tradition threatened by those who claim to be its guardians, and who would make of something as rich as myth something as routine as religion. Hinduism, as Doniger presents it, is fortunate not to have had in its long history a pope-like head to constrain inventiveness and “rule certain narratives unacceptable”. The “great pity” is that there are now, as she sees it, some Hindus “who would set up such a papacy in India, smuggling into Hinduism a Christian idea of orthodoxy”.

This book will no doubt further expose her to the fury of the modern-day Indian heirs of the British imperialists who invented “Hinduism.” Happily, it will 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.

Wendy Doniger's erudite "alternative history" shouldn't be anyone's introduction to Hinduism. But once you've learned the basics about this most spiritual of cultures, don't miss this equivalent of a brilliant graduate course from a feisty and exhilarating teacher.

In October 2009, Indian journalist Nilanjana S. Roy claimed that what offends Doniger's opponents is that she often knows more about Hindu traditions than Doniger's critics do. Roy also claimed that egg-throwing is itself a foreign idea to India, which should be condemned by Indian religious traditions. Roy also claimed that Hindu fundamentalists are "terrified" by the prospect of multiple version of Hinduism

Translation of Vastsyayana's Kamasutra

The translation's readability comes as much from the clarity of the translated text, its original features — analysing how the woman is not always the object in the original text; exploring the genders perspective (women, homosexual, lesbian, persons of the "third nature") and keeping the commentary separate from the text — as from the general tone of light heartedness, oftentimes breaking into the most unexpectedly droll turns of phrase.

Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  21:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand what was the need to balance the old Criticism section, and some of my edits to the article also attempted to do just that. In many former versions of the article, those dueling opinion quotes were inappropriately its dominant content. I would like to endorse your other suggestion, that rather than add back the criticism section with an equal time ethos for opposing opinions about Doniger, as if a blog spot or an op-ed section, that to make this biography conform to a normative Misplaced Pages form, those sections should both be left off. That Doniger has attracted controversy and why has a place in the article, but observing the history of the page, the long and dueling opinion quotes did not serve it well. How about a sentence like: “Doniger is a scholar of Sanskrit literature, myth, religion, and culture. Her work approaches texts with the tools of a philologist, and as books written by people. That can be a source of aggravation to people who approach those books with reverential bias. Her work has attracted controversy.” Meetoohelp (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I agree with Goethean's comment above, and think the article at this moment, without the various reviews, is acceptable without needing to add the sentences I suggested above. Meetoohelp (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policy and all edits must adhere to it, especially a biography of a living person. I suggest that you read up on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Doniger, and especially her Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages to defame a living person. That puts the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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/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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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' 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 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... 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.
• 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

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.

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, 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. --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". 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 Misplaced Pages. 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, Misplaced Pages 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 --- 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"; W Dalrymple refers to her as a "celebrated Sanskrit scholar". Is this type of thing reasonable to include? — goethean ॐ 15:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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 — 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'... — 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 ...

Belief is Like a Guillotine: Reflections on Politics, Power, and Mythologysheilconsulting.com 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 — 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. "the main problem is the ambiguous attitude towards history". "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. "it is not always clear whether the relations posed are presented as homologies or some causal connection". A positive review from an Indian. 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. ... ... 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)

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 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 {] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages article, not your personal vendetta. I am sorry that you have never acquainted yourself with Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages whether a given author is or is not a Sanskritist, then no article on Misplaced Pages would ever have been written. That is why we have the reliable sources and verifiability policies, which you characterize the usage of as "try to hide behind formulaic WP:RS pieties." I am sorry that you hate Misplaced Pages policy, but this really has nothing to do with the Wendy Doniger article. — goethean ॐ 00:28, 12 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

1. Cite error: The named reference prelectur.stanford.edu was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Long, Bruce. “The Analysis of Saiva Mythology,” Journal of Asian Studies 34.3 (May, 1975): 807-813.
3. David Arnold, "Beheading Hindus" Times Literary Supplement July 29, 2009
4. "Another Incarnation" PANKAJ MISHRA Published: April 24, 2009
5. Michael Dirda, "Passages From India" The Washington Post Thursday, March 19, 2009
6. "Writing about faith: Alternative histories" Business Standard Nilanjana S. Roy / New Delhi October 20, 2009, 0:46 IST
7. KALA KRISHNAN RAMESH, "Reinventing pleasure" The Hindu