Talk:André Wink

Neutrality
I have added a few negative (and positive) reviews of Wink's works. Please flag, if there are any errors in quoting and representation. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I will be expanding from the reviews, as well. Not hard to gauge that this is a strategy to drown negative reviews in a wall of text. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * TrangaBellam: Please read and respect our WP:BLP policy. You have been editorializing and adding your own personal feelings/opinions/prejudice/wisdom, thereby misrepresenting what the cited reviews/sources are saying. Of course, NPOV is important, but editorializing and OR is not same as NPOV. In BLP articles, we should and can only carefully summarize what the sources directly support. Please treat this as a formal caution. If you disagree, you can take this to any noticeboard or ANI. Your cooperation is requested. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop with these tendentious threats. Why have you removed ...he noted Wink's first volume to treat "both Islam and Muslims in a largely monolithic and undifferentiated fashion"... ? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is the word "monolithic", and rest, directly supported in the source? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you misrepresenting me? In my version, the line went ...he noted Wink's first volume to treat "both Islam and Muslims in a largely monolithic and undifferentiated fashion". [14]... And, [14] was Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1995). "Of Imarat and Tijarat: Asian Merchants and State Power in the Western Indian Ocean, 1400 to 1750". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 37 (4): 754. ISSN 0010-4175 TrangaBellam (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional source is fine and welcome. We should clarify the context. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have clarified the context (that it is an essay, not some review). TrangaBellam (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Sort
As currently things stand, the positive reviews are top. Mixed in between and negative at end.

This, however, uses our discretion to qualify positive, mixed and negative. So, I propose that reviews be sorted chronologically. The earlier the date of publication, the higher it is placed. Or, reverse. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Sort is fine, or by each volume. I would prefer that Peter Jackson's reviews be covered in greater depth, include both positives/negatives for NPOV. Similarly, others such as Sunil Kumar's should stick to his actual statements (critical or whatever), without editorializing. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that Peter Jackson's reviews be expanded. As well as everybody. Barring those parts, where the reviewer is uncritically repeating the contents of the book.
 * I can expand all reviews in a Subrahmanyam-esque fashion but need some time. Probabily, tomorrow. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Lawrence
Where does the author note ...His discussion of the economic impact of early Islamic expansion into India relies primarily on only two narrow regions, Kashmir and Bengal...?
 * The relevant line is ...the biggest section of which is the fifth and final chapter entitled 'The Maharajas of India'. Only two of the maharajas are located in the north, in Kashmir and Bengal, while the ones to whom the author directs most attention are from south India : the Gurjara-Pratiharas, the Rashtrakutas, and the Cola-mandalam...

Also, where does the author note ...The book is a reprieve from small scale histories that characterizes South Asian historiography...?
 * The relevant line is ...World history is needed. It  is needed both as a reprieve from and as a correction to the regional, small-scale  histories  that characterize too much of the historiography of South Asia and also South Asian Islam. But one can dare to hope for world-historical scholarship that takes account of biases and non-equivalencies of data better than Wink has done, at least in this volume....
 * The work is not a reprieve; the genre is. (Emphasis mine)TrangaBellam (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Lawrence's geography seems pretty bad. In the period of Volume I, there were three major empires: Rashtrakutas, Gurjara-Pratiharas and Palas. The three were even considered to form a "Kannauj triangle". Kashmir was on the fringe, despite shining brightly for a brief period. Cola-mandalam might have been a maritime power, but not a continental one. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your point is. Lawrence notes of Wink's sub-sections and takes issue with Wink's south-South Asian-heavy approach. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Will take a look again. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is that Gurjara-Pratiharas were not "south South-Asia". We can't reproduce his faulty geography here, even if he did say certain things. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

What's the issue with the "reprieve" aspect? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

MacLean
Please propose your version and your issues with the current one.

I understand your removal of sharply negative commentary like "caricature" and "numerous broad and unsupported statements" to be modes of whitewashing.

TrangaBellam (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * We can only add what the source directly supports, without editorializing in ways you interpret or understand or misunderstand. My revised version is also critical, but is more complete and directly supported. Let us discuss the two versions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I have provides two quotes. Both, very negative. Somehow or the other, both vanishes from your version.
 * Hard to assume that it is sheer probability because this has happened earlier. The most negative bits fly away during your rewrite. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Version 1: D. N. Maclean noted Wink's proposed series to promise "a greater Islamic India, analysed in terms of a world history centred on the Indian Ocean"; in the first volume, he focused on the initial expansion of Muslims into the East and their economic activities at the frontiers. Wink, in his description of Sindh, followed colonial historians to sketch an "economically and culturally marginal" territory dominated by rebellions; in antithesis to primary sources. The chapter on non-Arab India did "break some new ground" by challenging R.S. Sharma's thesis of feudalism. However, on the whole, the work was a reductive, unsubtle and "ahistorical caricature" of a complex past; Maclean criticized Wink's "cavalier" usage (and control) of primary sources given the abundance of unattributed quotes, numerous broad and unsupported statements, and "chaotic transliterations" including misreadings. Wink's tendency to reify religions and engage in "quasi-orientalist musings" were noted to be the more serious issues of perspective, which compromised his analysis.
 * Version 2: Historian Derryl MacLean who specializes in Islamic studies, notes Wink's first volume focuses on the initial expansion of Muslims into the East and their economic activities at the frontiers. Wink, like British historians, views Sind as 'the wild frontier of Indian civilization", with the rather "unhappy picture of a rebellious and unruly tribal region economically and culturally marginal to both India and the Middle East". In other chapters, Wink covers new ground by rejecting "feudalist interpretation of early medieval India" such as in the works of R.S. Sharma, and emphasizes the "larger economic and social world" that included regions controlled by Hindu kingdoms enabled by what Wink calls "Islam". MacLean commends Wink for his initiative and the publication on "early medieval India, a notoriously difficult period" for historians. Yet, he also criticizes him for exhibiting "signs of hasty research and composition", "quasi-orientalist musings", "chaotic transliteration, some of which are clearly misreadings", and the cavalier manner with unattributed quotes from primary sources in parts of the book. MacLean's more serious concern with Wink's volume 1 is the tendency therein to make Islam and Hinduism more real than the abstraction they are in reality. In Wink's approach, "Islam becomes a rubric for an economic complex", which is a "reductive and unsubtle" approach, states MacLean.
 * Comments welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The first misrepresentation I spot in V2 is ...MacLean commends Wink for his initiative and the publication on "early medieval India...
 * What does Maclean actually do?
 * ...Wink is to be commended for venturing to ascend the slippery slopes of early medieval India...
 * Maclean does only commend Wink's initiative but not the output publication. Quite much difference.


 * In V2 MacLean's note that Wink's portrayal of Sindh goes against primary sources (...a view which owes more to Elliot and Dowson than the primary sources....) is removed.
 * Similarly removed is MacLean's deeming the work as a caricature. (...complex history of early Islamic India is reduced to a series of ahistorical caricatures...)
 * Similarly removed is MacLean's comment about the work having unattributed (and false) statements. ...while numerous broad and unsupported statements are introduced. It is surprising to read...


 * In V2 the cavalier manner is linked with unattributed quotes only. Such ain't the case.
 * There is another issue....sources are cited for areas to which they do not refer...
 * For the sake of fairness, even V1 doesn't have this.


 * Maybe, Sarah feels that BLP wikipage states that if a reviewer is very negative, such cannot be allowed. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Never question other editor's motives, it is not helpful to this article and brings attention to your disruptive/rude/WP:SOAP-y attitude. Let us focus on this article. I would accept adding such phrases, as I did before above, when they are in the source and you consider them WP:Due. But what your version does is cherry pick MacLean's review out of the context he makes them in. Your style is to editorialize it, and generalize it out of its context. That is neither directly supported in MacLean, not consistent with our strict WP:BLP policy, which is repeated at the top of this talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Instead of for his initiative and the publication, how about for his initiative and welcome glimmers of insight on non-Arab India... p. 536. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * V3 (no oppose to grammatical betterment from you or anyone else) : ... Historian D. N. Maclean, who specializes in Islamic studies noted Wink's proposed series to promise "a greater Islamic India, analysed in terms of a world history centred on the Indian Ocean"; in the first volume, he focused on the initial expansion of Muslims into the East and their economic activities at the frontiers. Wink sketched Sindh as an "economically and culturally marginal" territory dominated by rebellions; Maclean notes this view to owe more to colonial historians than primary sources. The chapter on non-Arab India provided "welcome glimmers of insight" and did "break some new ground" by challenging R.S. Sharma's thesis of feudalism. However, on the whole, Wink's work exhibited signs of "hasty research and composition" affecting his larger conjectures and portrayed a reductive, unsubtle and "ahistorical caricature" of a complex Indo-Islamic past. Maclean criticized his "cavalier" usage of primary sources given the abundance of unattributed quotes, "numerous broad and unsupported statements", and "chaotic transliterations" including misreadings. Wink's tendency to reify Islam and Hinduism along with engaging in "quasi-orientalist musings" were noted to be the more serious issues of perspective, compromising his analysis ... TrangaBellam (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe can propose some version? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - I did proofread the version that was on yesterday and didn't see any problems with it. In particular, there isn't any "BLP issue" here. Now I have read through MacLean's review and do find it quite negative, especially the last paragraph. Given that MacLean himself is a respected scholar of the particular period, his views do count. "Ahistorical caricature" and "serious issues of perspective" do belong here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I checked his comment about "Hindu sovereignty" (which occurs on p.134, Volume 1) because I was curious. I think he misinterpeted the sense in which it was used. In this context, it simply means "Sindh sovereignty", "Hindu" being the Persian name for Sindh. See Hindustan. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Rasm-i-Hindwi should likewise mean "Sindh custom" or at best "Indian custom". Wink is translating it as "Hindu custom", which is wrong. I don't know exactly when "Hindu" acquired a religious sense, but I imagine it would have been only after the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * MacLean knows it.
 * And, he notices that Wink doesn't know. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And, he notices that Wink doesn't know. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments on V3 "signs of" is not equivalent to "on the whole", etc. No need to mention the series. The term reify and hypostatize that MacLean uses in his review, mean "consider an abstract idea as real"; it would be better to use simpler words. How about version 4:
 * Historian D. N. Maclean, who specializes in Islamic studies, noted Wink's first volume focuses on the initial expansion of Muslims into the East and their economic activities at the frontiers. Wink sketched Sindh as an "economically and culturally marginal" territory dominated by rebellions, a view supported more to colonial historians than primary sources. The chapter on non-Arab India provided "welcome glimmers of insight" and did "break some new ground" by challenging R.S. Sharma's thesis of feudalism. However, states MacLean, Wink's work exhibited signs of "hasty research and composition" affecting his larger conjectures and portrayed a reductive, unsubtle and "ahistorical caricature" of a complex Indo-Islamic past. Maclean criticized his "cavalier use of primary sources", "numerous broad and unsupported statements", and "chaotic transliterations" some of which are "clearly misreadings". MacLean's more serious concern with Wink's volume 1 is the tendency therein to make Islam and Hinduism more real than the abstraction they are for most people. In Wink's approach, "Islam becomes a rubric for an economic complex", which is a "reductive and unsubtle" approach, states MacLean.
 * Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue with your write-up is that some negative commentary manages to get the boot, always. Here, "quasi-orientalist musings" and "unattributed quotes". I don't agree with you on reify. The last line is not needed.
 * Also, I guess some part of Maclean's terseness comes from this review of his work by Wink. Regrettably, most scholars accord Maclean far more credibility than Wink in this domain. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are once again wrong. I welcome what is directly supported. "On the whole" etc is not. Your editorializing is not helpful. Your misrepresentation of sources is not helpful, such as your comment on "in this domain", MacLean vs Wink; MacLean's work on Sind has been criticized too, e.g. by Eaton. MacLean relied too much on Chachnama in the 1980s for his doctorate thesis later published as a book in 1989. Later work by Asif etc has shown Chachnama is mostly fictional, anachronistic original work written centuries later. On your comments on version 4, It would help if you explained what is it and why you don't agree with the dictionary meaning of 'reify', for which I provided a source link. I had "quasi-orientalist musings" in my earlier version (Ver 2 above). Let us add it back. Here is Version 5:
 * Historian D. N. Maclean, who published Religion and society in Arab Sind in 1984, noted Wink's first volume focuses on the initial expansion of Muslims into the East and their economic activities at the frontiers. Wink sketched Sindh as an "economically and culturally marginal" territory dominated by rebellions, a view supported more to colonial historians than primary sources. The chapter on non-Arab India provided "welcome glimmers of insight" and did "break some new ground" by challenging R.S. Sharma's thesis of feudalism. However, states MacLean, Wink's work exhibited signs of "hasty research and composition" affecting his larger conjectures and portrayed a reductive, unsubtle and "ahistorical caricature" of a complex Indo-Islamic past. Maclean criticized his "cavalier manner with unattributed quotes from primary sources", "numerous broad and unsupported statements", "quasi-orientalist musings" and "chaotic transliterations" some of which are "clearly misreadings". MacLean's more serious concern with Wink's volume 1 is the tendency therein to make Islam and Hinduism more real than the abstraction they are. In Wink's approach, "Islam becomes a rubric for an economic complex", states MacLean.
 * Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (ps) More sources on "reify": 1, 2. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Asif's monograph had its fair share of criticsms. Plesse read the reviews.
 * I agree with the overall content of last version. Might make an edit or two, once incorporated. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think Asif is a Pakistan's version of a "leftist historian", who engages in more politics than history. Irfan Habib said it clearly, and he also demonstrated that Asif's "history" is quite shallow.
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Cherrypicking, Synth?
In light of your comments here, could you review the discussions above, recheck the sources, and explain what changes would address your comments. I have been editing wikipedia much longer than you, and the general community consensus has long been that it is a poor practice to leave permanent tags on articles. Our goal ought to be to understand, discuss any concerns on the article's talk page in light of the cited sources, and address any reasonable concerns. This is to help improve the quality of the article. So, please explain in light of the cited sources and our BLP policies, which paragraphs need to revised and how. Let us collaborate and improve this article together. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Dude, the fact that both this comment and your userpage open with "I have edited Wikipedia longer than almost everyone" is so offputting that hell no, never. Not my article, I was asked an opinion on summary style and gave one. I'm done. See, I have read and understand policy, and nobody needs to justify their opinion on article quality with some seniority hierarchy. Or, I could say I have had many more GAs promoted than you, and the general community consensus is that it is a poor practice to write poor articles and demand others help you fix them. Fix your article yourself if you're that experienced and don't talk to me again, thanks. Kingsif (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am in total support of Kingsif's comments. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Time for a rewrite. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)