Talk:Audrey Truschke/Archive 1

Controversy
User:Kautilya3, can you help detail the controversy section? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC) I believe that the petition as well as Rutger's response need to be mentioned. Trying to frame a sentence. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was struck by the phrase "not unexpected" from Robert Goldman. So I suppose she has a history of doing such stuff? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Her serious works of scholarship (ignoring the semi-pop history on Aurangzeb) are excellent, as evident from the honors section and rave reviews. But, to me, her entire Twitter presence seem to be primarily intended in baiting Hindus by adoption of questionable means (best example being the translation).
 * Goldman is often snarky and I don't know whether there is any particular background, at play. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is an interesting article on the leftist Hindu that sheds light on her case.

https://www.thehindu.com/society/history-and-culture/the-curious-case-of-controversial-historian-audrey-truschke/article34050315.ece 24.139.24.163 (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Reviews
Kautilya3, if you get some time. Can you expand from the reviews? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , are there any historians who regard her as a "historian"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * At 40:49 in this talk (rewind to hear the question if you want), "What right do I have to comment on Indian history? I am a trained historian. I read Sanskrit. I read Persian.... I have training in historical method." That is not what I would call a "trained historian". I find her being always cagey about what credentials she actually has in history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not very wise to go into her non-academic endeavors. She is a professor of history and was conferred with (arguably) the most prestigious annual prize in the domain of S.A. History. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that she doesn't actually have a degree in history. What makes her different from say, B. B. Lal, who says I have a degree in Sanskrit, so I claim to be an authority on Aryan history? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That depends on how you define the contours of history. Back in the 60s, MESAAS had a name change (NAMEL to MELAC) to reflect the fact that they were into history as well. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Expand
User:Joshua Jonathan: If you have time, can you expand the cited reviews of her work? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Aurangzeb: 400 years on, relook at a ‘cruel bigot’
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Google
Why is this page not coming in a Google search? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it was not reviewed. Unreviewed pages don't appear in Google search. I have just marked the page as patrolled. It will start appearing in Google search soon. --Gazal world (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2021
Rutgers' not Rutger's Chrisarasmussen (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – good catch! Favonian (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Unreliability of sources
Please discuss before removal of sourced content. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Added 3 more sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Kautilya3, can you take a look? One editor feels that sources like The Wire, The Caravan, The Quint, The Hindu, and India Today are all unreliable sources. And, he don't even need to discuss before blanking content. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

"Controversies"
Another scholar where the attacks by the Hindu 'right' receive undue emphasis. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose your recent edits. But, I am against any attempt to blank the sections. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand. The quotes from "The living Mahabharata" are enlightening. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the things to understand about Hindutva in the US is that it was established by the VHP, not the RSS. So it is a lot more religious than the Hindutva in India. The Indian diaspora children do face a lot of peer-discrimination in the schools, which feeds the yankee Hindutva. The Hindu American Foundatioon is a product of this background. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What about "Hindu Holocaust"? I thought that the idea that aliens (as in UFU) brought civilisation was possibly the most bizarre idea regarding Indian history, but have a look at this. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Kailasa is in Tamilnadu. It is only British propaganda that put it in Tibet! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OMG, I was only joking... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

"Prejudiced commentary"
This addition diff

is a clear violation of WP:BLP. No source, no attribution, not neutral. Not to mention the removal of sourced info. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Please go through WP:LEAD. We summarise the article in lead and I can see plenty of sources addressing her prejudiced commentary on Hinduism. Quoting WP:LEAD LearnIndology (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * No. "Prejudice" is a judgment, your judgment. Only one of your sources states that she is prejudiced; attribute it, and don't give it undue weight: who is Vikram Zutshi? And the label "controversial" is taken out of context; see WP:TENDENTIOUS. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you even bothered reading WP:LEAD? We summarise the article in lead including controversies. LearnIndology (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You literally had whitewashed this article, had I not intervened and restored the neutral version of the article. Clearly, we can see who is editing tendentiously. LearnIndology (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed yet your addition on Kashmiri Hindus: unattributed cherry-picking. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus is clear regarding the inclusion of that statement. See. Gain consensus before reverting me. LearnIndology (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:TENDENTIOUS again: "She has been accused of engaging in prejudiced commentary on Hinduism" is not the same as "She has been engaging in prejudiced commentary on Hinduism." And ""She has been accused of engaging in prejudiced commentary on Hinduism" was changed into "Truschke has become a target of the Hindu right, due to her historical works and her choice of language" diff. That's the consensus. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I had restored this version "She has been accused of engaging in prejudiced commentary on Hinduism", which you reverted. And there's no consensus. Where is it? Show me. LearnIndology (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * See above; it was changed, nobody objected. Regarding this: that's what the sources are about. You cherry-picked the one term you needed. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Other Issues

 * Goldman's quote is sourced from a TOI column, which is not (typically) subject to editorial scrutiny or fact-checking.
 * Truschke's comments about Laxman lusting after Sita is not sourced.
 * The Sunday Guardian is not a reliable source. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources for Goldman's quote
 * Truschke's comments about Laxman lusting after Sita LearnIndology (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Apart from the DC article, no reliable source has reproduced his reply-email in verbatim. WP:UNDUE. The status-quo line (Goldman however rejected that he ever used such language and deemed her act as "shocking and extremely inappropriate") is fine. I won't be particularly opposed to shifting your quote to foot-notes.
 * Zutshi's is again a column and cannot be used. He is not even a historian. So, the Kashmiri Pandit section does not belong at all. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am okay with that. My main concern is Joshua whitewashing this article and not adhering WP:LEAD, by removing criticism from lead . LearnIndology (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You really WP:DONTGETIT, do you? You repeatedly added an unsourced, unattributed statement to the lead; the only source for that statement is Zutshi, who, as you just agreed, is not an acceptable source. It's not even clear if Zutshi referred to Truschke, when writing
 * So, not only edit-warring, giving undue weight to a cherry-picked and unattributed term from a discutable source, but also WP:OR. It's astonishing how many policies you managed to breach with this one sentence. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanations. I have self-reverted. LearnIndology (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanations. I have self-reverted. LearnIndology (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2021
Change the article from being highly biased, polarising and outright hinduphobic to neutral and holding Audrey Truschke accountable. Howlingankush (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Genocide? Where and when? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

"shocking and extremely inappropriate"
, the content you just reverted in is not supported by the cited source, but relies on the Swarajya Magazine article, and Goldman's email therein. Furthermore, even the email does not use the phrase "shocking and extremely inappropriate", which is entirely OR. A case could be made for documenting Goldman's disagreement with her translation, but the current version violates several policies. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Changed the quotes. It was supported by a source you had removed - why is it unsuitable for verifying Goldman's email? Resolved. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * First off, the quote was entirely incorrect when I removed it. Second, if Goldman had published his opinion, it would be worthy of inclusion, given that he's a heavyweight in the field. But he didn't; the sources that published it are an opinion piece, and the deprecated Swarajya. Quoting from them is giving it undue weight. Goldman's disagreement with the translation is referred to elsewhere, and is still worthy of inclusion, but the quotes aren't. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I will leave it to the wisdom of and . TrangaBellam (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

In addition to Swarajya, we have three commentaries: I believe that everybody has to be sensitive about hurting religious sentiments, and academic freedom doesn't give you a free license. And twitter was never designed for the exercise of academic freedom anyway. If she does it, and another academic calls it "shocking", then that is what it is.
 * Namrata Srivastava, An Epic Mistranslation, Deccan Chronicle, 1 May 2018.
 * Anand Vardhan, The Unscholarly Dishonesty of Audrey Truschke, Newslaundry, 30 April 2018.
 * Vikram Zutshi, The curious case of controversial historian Audrey Truschke, The Hindu, 12 March 2021.

Note that she also continues to mistranslate kama as "lust", a practice Wendy Doniger started (and got into trouble for it). The American academics still have a great deal of difficulty dealing with Hinduism properly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with including criticism when it comes from scholars directly, or from other reliable sources. The Newslaundry opinion piece wasn't either of these. The toned down version is fine by me. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "American academics" is quite a misnomer. Notwithstanding that Doniger's fame is not due to her translations, her ventures in this regard have been criticized by Michael Witzel, Stephanie W. Jamison, and many others of US Nationality. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, point taken. I admire both of them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd argue most of the criticism of Doniger comes from the lens she interprets the texts, in her case Freudian psychoanalysis, ignoring everything, and centralizing and recontextualizing erotism (hence it must be translated in that view). I also find Truschke's scholarship on Aurangzeb to be particularly interesting, while she states Guru Tegh Bahadur was executed because he caused unrest in the Punjab, although many other scholars (and so do the Sikhs) state that he was executed for refusing to convert to Islam (which was also documented).  Wiki Linuz  ( 💬 ) 02:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am rewriting the relevant section at our article. It is not very obvious that Truschke is wrong. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Husband Thane Rehn
Regarding this edit, WP:IBTIMES is not reliable. Besides that, I don't think including her husband's name and profession is relevant to an article about a scholar, is it? WikiLinuz 🍁 ( talk ) 10:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * An independently notable spouse may be worth listing, but otherwise, BLP would indicate we ought to leave that information out. Agreed re: reliability, also. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree about excluding spouse name as not relevant, but agree about the source being unreliable. Crashed greek (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The source you used mentioned that Thane Rehn (supposed Truschke's husband) and her father-in-law Nathan Rehn has missionary connections in India, and Nathan Rehn is a lead pastor at Baptist Church of Monterey, California; as Vanamonde stated, Thane Rehn should be independently notable, and an RS should mention that he is Truschke's husband. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 06:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * He should be independently notable only to have his own wikipedia page. But that is not a required criteria to be mentioned in this article. Crashed greek (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (Offtopic) from the website of "First Baptist Church of Monterey staff"- see- Source- Akshaypatill (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * IDK MoS issues but the couple seem to find mentions in Chicago Tribune May 18, 2013 and also in the university of chicago magazine | spring 2017 alumni news.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there are two Chicago Tribune mentions (here and here) and at Univ. of Chicago magazine (here) pg. 79. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 16:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the Audrey Truschke section sourced from this news article, and we can notice it mentions one of Truschke's daughter Willa Rehn - same last name as that of her husband Thane Rehn. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 16:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Do we have any good source to add her marital status without mentioning her husband's name? Crashed greek (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, she tweeted (archive), where she mentions her husband being one of the prosecutors. And, at the U.S. Department of Justice's website, it states: Anyway, this cannot be used as a source, but at least we are now sure that Thane Rehn was indeed her husband. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 11:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Truschke.jpg

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2022
Attempt to Harass Indian Author

In a letter to the president of the Royal Historical Society, dated 11 February 2022, Audrey Truschke, Rohit Chopra, and Ananya Chakravarti accused Sampath of plagiarism and requested that Sampath's membership be revisited and his scholarship be meticulously probed. In evidence, were attached multiple lines (incl. footnotes) from a 2017 publication which were reproduced in toto or minimally paraphrased from works of Vinayak Chaturvedi and Janaki Bakhle absent inline citations or explicit attributions. Another example was cited from the first volume of his biography of Savarkar — a paragraph ran near-identical to that in an undergraduate student thesis, however, it was not written by Vikram Sampath himself They also claimed to have come across other similar instances in Sampath's corpus of work. However, Sampath rejected the allegations as part of a "motivated smear-campaign" and has filed a defamation suit in Delhi High Court seeking costs of 2 Crore INR (269469.15 USD). He claims the 2017 publication to be transcript of a speech—where he had indeed attributed all of the scholars in a proper fashion—and highlights how the sources remain cited in the bibliography section at the end; the biography-paragraph appeared to be similar due to common dependence on a particular source. On the first hearing, an interim order was passed by the Delhi High Court restraining Truschke and others from publishing the letter or any other defamatory material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kedarj71 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌. WP:UNDUE. This stuff belongs on the Vikram Sampath page, where it has been already added. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But shouldn’t there be a mention about the plagiarism accusations and the subsequent defamation litigation as the article subject herself is involved ? AnM2002 (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Pending a resolution of the defamation suit. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , I as well as K3 have agreed that the Sampath episode does not belong at this page at-least for the time being. So why are you inserting contested material without gaining a consensus? That too, with an obvious POV-slant by excluding how both Bakhle and Chaturvedi have indeed found Truschke's claims to be true or how this was an interim order. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The tone of the article is very opinionated which goes against WP:BALASP. I'm not advocating that we should indulge in false-balancing but WP:NPOV needs to maintained. The heading 'Target of Hindu right....' is itself very opinionated which I tried to change to a more neutral 'Controversies'. The tone of the article should not present a person as a victim (or aggressor). The aim of the article should be to maintain neutrality and rely on facts. Moreover, the lawsuit filed against her is completely relevant to the 'Controversies'. If you have issues with me editing the current heading and material, then I or any editor should be allowed to add a new heading 'Criticisms and Controversies' which I will soon add if you keep reverting my edits without giving a proper justification. Here's what I was trying to do which you kept reverting without explanation:
 * Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems. Taken from WP:NPOV
 * One example of not maintaining a neutral tone ".....In one of her tweets, she referred to an episode in Ramayana where Sita apparently admonished Rama as a "misogynist pig": a critical translation of the Valmiki Ramayana by Robert P. Goldman was cited in support....". Firstly, What is meant by "apparently"? It is clearly stated in the Caravan article and many other sources that the term "misogynist pig" was in no way used anywhere. So how does the word "apparently" figured in? I don't agree that the Delhi High Court summon should not be mentioned. The defamation suit is on her so it's completely related to her and deserves to be mentioned. Sattvic7 (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion that the information regrading defamation case against her be added to the article. Sattvic7 (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you read the policies you cite? NPOV does not mean bending over backwards to introduce a false balance. The issue is about the undueness of the material and that will probably persist, until some conviction arises.
 * Please do not keep on adding the same section without obtaining a consensus - you will be sanctioned. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The Revealer
The Revealer is an online magazine published by the Center for Religion and Media at New York University: why do you feel the source to be unreliable? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a piece written by Audrey herself and it's at best an accusation. You can rewrite the line as "Audrey has accused Hindu right wing of sending her hate mails". Sattvic7 (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Decent nitpicking. I will respond with this interview of Truschke where the interviewer (not the interviewee) states: TrangaBellam (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So you mean to say that you're going to cite an interrogation as an affirmative claim? Good luck with that. Sattvic7 (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Interrogation? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Copyedits
2: Needless qualifiers like Goddess and Sri alongside a copyedit, that makes the line poorer. Please gain consensus for this edit. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It might seem to you that your copy-edits are improving reader-experience but they do not. Please desist. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ ok Sattvic7 (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Multiple new sources
The article in the Open Magazine does not mention Truschke or her scholarship - you cannot engage in original research to borrow from their arguments and criticize Truschke's works over our article. The same applies for the citations to Sarkar (1922) or Dawson (1867).

Sahasra (2020) and Munsi (2020) do not work - please provide full citations. What are the credentials of "Utpal Kumar", who reviewed the work for India Today? His Twitter profile indicates a firm belief in right-wing conspiracy theories etc. and do not inspire confidence. Similarly, Uday Balakrishnan appears to be an ex-bureaucrat of India Post, who was recruited into teaching "governance" at Indian Institute of Science.

I have nothing against including Sahane. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's serious original research problems with a lot of this; Cupidvogel would do well to read that policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Attracting your attention to the edit-warring despite a preliminary consensus against the bold edits; this is a BLP. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Funny you should ping me, TB; I just page-blocked the user from the article for a couple of weeks. I hope that will make them more interested in discussing on talk. Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC).
 * You mentioned The Wire as being unreliable, yet the Wikipedia article on The Wire just inundates it with praise and cites several national and international awards that supposedly vouch for its authenticity. How did it suddenly become unreliable? In fact, the very first paragraph in this very article uses an article from The Wire as a citation. tålk 23:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC).


 * Sahasra and Munsi are translators - they have translated the books from Persian into other languages. The primary premise of Audrey Truschke's contention that Aurangzeb destroyed Hindu temples for political and administrative reasons is based upon what Eaton had written before (she herself says so in her book), which is what the "OpenTheMagazine" website expressly debunks. That is why that website was cited. That website itself builds upon other translators translating Maasir-i-Alamgiri into Persian, that stands contrary to how Eaton translated it (that mistranslation is central to Eaton's interpretation). Same goes for Sarkar - all three - Sarkar, Munsi and Sahasra debunk the mistranslation, and hence are needed as references in the article to prove that Audrey's work is based upon a mistranslation and has been agreed to by multiple sources and mentioned together in the "OpenTheMagazine" website, and in addition, the same problem been also mentioned by Shahani in the Scroll article. I was going to give the citation to Munsi and Sahasra before I was blocked from editing the article. As for Utpal Kumar, the article belongs to India Today, a media outlet of some repute, individuals cannot be debunked based upon their viewpoints on alternate topics, Steve Jobs believed in quackery, which falls squarely within the realms of pseudoscience, that should not detract from his views on font-size rendering. If that article has any factual error, I will gladly remove it provided that the error can be proved, and in any case, that article was cited in addition to two other sources. Uday Balakrishnan is a teacher in IISC - which, at the very least, proves that he is a person of some substance, and that should be enough to cite an article written by him in a noted media website, the article does not offer his interpretations of history but logical and factual rebuttal of a book. After all, Patrick Madigan is a doctorate in philosophy and has built an expertise writing on theology, yet his acknowledgment is used in the article to laud her work, and at that time his "not being a proper historian" was not used as a factor to repudiate his endorsement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cupidvogel (talk • contribs) 22:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding reasoned critique of Truschke is something I'm perfectly open to; every scholarly conclusion tends to be debated. But doing it with original research and unreliable sources isn't appropriate, and the rambling screeds on talk pages are wearing down my patience. I checked the first few citations in Cupidvogels' content, and found the following problems. None of them use the term white-washing, and using that term to summarize their contents is inappropriate. The review in Business Line is in fact quite measured, and while it is not uniformly positive, it certainly isn't accusing her of white-washing. The reviews in Scroll and India Today are harsher, but there's no indication of whether the authors have any expertise on the topic; why do their comments deserve mention? The review in The Wire is also quite positive, and the "does not include footnotes" is taken utterly out of context; the review makes it clear that this is a good thing, as it makes the text accessible to the lay reader. It's certainly not an example of white-washing, as Cupidvogel writes. The Open Magazine source makes no mention at all of Truschke's work; using it here is utterly inappropriate, even if it were reliable (I'm struggling to find evidence that Phalke is in fact a historian, while Kuvalekar appears to study marketing). The use of Truschke's first name throughout the article is a serious behavioral red-flag, which I would like addressed before any blocks are lifted. Sarkar's book was published before Truschke was born; it's use in the circumstances is original research. Likewise that of Dawson. Shahane's second piece is a critique of Eaton, not Truschke; again, it makes no mention of her. I stopped analyzing the text at this point, because while it may be appropriate for a twitter rant, it's utterly unacceptable on Wikipedia. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Scroll article clearly mentions "apologism", and Balakrishnan article article says that her explanations for Aurangzeb's temple destructions sprees is unsatisfactory. That does sound like "whitewashing" to me, because apologism argues that whatever was done was due to a valid reason, and if that reason is parroted as justified (political and administrative reasons), the criminal act no longer remains criminal, but a normal one, which is precisely what "whitewashing" is. Nevertheless, I will take note about the issue of my choice of words henceforth. Your repeated mention of your patience running thin is odd, considering that I have barely made 2-3 comments and the total content of those comments is anything but long. It is, however, useful to gauge the nature of the editing turf here. As for the author of the Scroll article, Girish Shahane is an art critic from Oxford University, a Rhodes Scholar, a simple Google search can be done to read about him, all it needs is patience and common sense. It is even odder that repeated references are made to Audrey Truschke being mentioned by her first name, of what significance is that? On another reading of the article I find that she is referred mostly by pronoun or by "Truschke" - her surname, which can be cited as a template, but usage of her name to refer her looks to be the most mundane thing ever, how and why is a flag visible here, much less a red one? As for your struggling to find evidence about Phalke being a historian, once again, Google can help you - Kedar Phalke is a historian writing mainly on Marathas and Shivaji, and his books are available on Amazon as well and have notched ratings that are decent, if not copious. The article also mentions inputs by Niranjan Rajadhyaksha, who is a well-known economic historian. I now understand the point about original research and synthesis, and that is a point I now accept, and I will ensure that I do not repeat it, but nothing that was written remotely matched a rant, much less a Twitter rant, just that the mode of editing (original research and synthesis) was not suitable in the context of Wikipedia. For an administrator, your patience is certainly on the thinner side, but I guess, I will have to make do for now.   Cupidvogel (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're trying to provoke a reaction from me, you'll have to do better than that...it might sound like white-washing to you, but Wikipedia only summarizes what reliable sources say, it does not analyze them. There's some distance between apologism and white-washing: also, there's only one reasonable source discussing apologism. Contra your snide remarks, I did indeed use search for evidence about Phalke. He isn't mentioned a single time on google scholar. The Amazon books count for very little. I also found Shahane, who's side gigs as an organizer of art events dwarf any other presence he may have on the internet. He may be an acceptable source, when he's given due weight. At the moment, we have three scholars commenting on the book, each getting 1-2 sentences. If anyone wants to add more material about the book, they need to ensure it's representing all viewpoints on the book in reliable sources, and it's patently obvious that such sources are broadly, albeit not uniformly, positive about it. Once we start adding more content about a single book than the rest of Truschke's career, we have an undue weight problem of a different sort. Your repeated insistance that calling Truschke "Audrey" is perfectly normal is quite bizarre. Would you refer to Savarkar as "Vinayak"? Would you refer to Sampath as "Vikram"? I thought not. Please drop that affectation. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we archive this discussion? This isn't leading anywhere. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 05:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not archive it. Giving the opportunity to have a reasoned discussion is important; if they make a hash of it, as they're doing, it'll only save us time later. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this how it is done here? A debate, when it doesn't suit a particular agenda, is casually relegated to "archive"?
 * Secondly, what affectation? What can I possibly affect referring somebody by name instead of surname? Actually I did refer Shahane by his full name, just because I did not feel he is that well known that a reference to either his name or surname will be enough for the reader to remember who he is. I have trouble typing "Truschke" since the spelling is quite confusing to me for typing, specifically the order of "s", "c" and "h", and hence I settled for "Audrey". Can anyone at least tell me what is the problem with this, what exactly are you insinuating that I am affecting?
 * Whether Shahane moonlights as art event organizer is totally beside the point, an Oxford University Rhodes Scholar can afford to have a variety of activities as pastimes, that is no argument to detract from his writing. The article on Truschkey was nearly uniformly positive, at least regarding her historical works, so a critical appraisal of the subject is indeed called for, hence inclusion of Shahane actually adds to the "due weight" factor. Strangely, that point was not in contention when the article contained only praises of her work, suggesting a bias that her work being high quality is gospel truth and must be accorded higher weight automatically, and negative appraisals must be measured and subject to rigorous checking. Why? Cupidvogel (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

If we are using reviews from MSM (and not restricting to academic press), there exist reviews by academically qualified people - 1 or 2.

We have multiple reviews by qualified academics acclaiming an work with minor quibbles and another set of reviews by barely known (or qualified) people criticizing the work. I leave it to the wisdom of other t/p watchers about whether our article is NPOV or not. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Akshaya Mukul is not significantly more qualified than Girish Shahane, if Shahane can be dismissed as "working mainly as art organizer" then by that logic, Mukul, can be too dismissed as "working mainly as journalist". I, however, do not hold this point, and am perfectly okay to have Mukul's POV accommodated in the article, the article anyway was waxing eloquent on Audrey initially. And for the second source, it does not pass the test for biasedness, Jamia Milia Islamia is a self-avowed Islam-focussed university, which automatically lends it a tendency to support causes championing Islam and related matter, within which Aurangzeb falls, and hence, by extension, the book on Aurangzeb by Truschke, which supposedly "rescues Aurangzeb from Hindu nationalists". That is also the same argument offered by you on an article about Savarkar vis-a-vis some of my edits there, stating that some source authors are linked to RSS. When you mentioned "RSS" in the Talk section on Savarkar, you did not specify the qualification of the author as criterion, implying that just association with RSS is sufficient to dismiss it as reliable source, or may be the known association of RSS with Savarkar. Cupidvogel (talk) 07:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This page is about Truschke, not Savarkar. If you keep on raising irrelevant points, you will be sanctioned.
 * Mukul has been published by university press and has held (relevant) visiting professorships at universities; he has also authored a famed book on the contribution of Gita Press to Hindu Nationalism. That he is a journalist, by profession, takes away nothing. I need citations for the claim of Jamia Milia Islamia [being] a self-avowed Islam-focussed university. Not acquainted with JMI but it appears to be a top-tier central university in India.
 * All that being said, I had already noted my lack of opposition to citing Sahane. Strawman arguments won't get you anywhere. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This page is not about Savarkar indeed, but it is you who was arguing on that page, surely the validity (or lack thereof) of your argument on a Wikipedia article does not extend to just the article in question? And if so, don't make such claims. And please stop using the threat of sanction and ban as a battering ram. Doesn't work in the long run, ever, truth eventually triumphs.
 * The professorship of Mukul is as significant as Shahane's Rhodes scholarship from Oxford, so just like in case of Mukul, his moonlighting pursuits take away nothing from the quality of the article in question. You did not refute Shahane, but the other admin did, citing his credibility as a historian, since all of you are on the same side here, I can and should point to arguments that are mutually conflicting amongst you. Whether Mukul's book is famed is moot, I can cite a number of historians whose books are famed and yet replete with errors - both factual and philosophical, and that lone book is not so great as to elevate him to the pantheons of universal greatness. But again, I have no qualms if you add him as a citation in the article. Your entire point of adding Mukul is strawman, since I never questioned the authenticity of the existing sources corroborating Truschkey's work, so consider turning that advice to yourself?
 * JMI's self-avowed Muslim stance can be understood just by reading the "History" section in the Wikipedia article for the same, whether it is top-tier in India is irrelevant, IITs are top-tier in India, that didn't save them from academic outrage over its recent plan to rewrite ancient Indian history from a Hindu POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cupidvogel (talk • contribs) 08:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * As for calling Truschke "Audrey", Cupidvogel, what I was "insinuating" was that you seem to think it's all right to belittle a woman scholar in particular by using her first name, as if she was a little girl of your acquaintance. And in an encyclopedia article devoted to that woman scholar, not just on a talkpage. Not being able to spell a surname of eight letters is ridiculous. If you can't manage that, use copypaste. (It's Truschke, btw, not Truschkey.) Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC).
 * Umm, what? How can referring to somebody by name is belittling, while referring by surname is exalting or normal? Whether I find the spelling difficult or not is entirely my personal problem, not yours, so I don't need to know whether it is ridiculous to you, you can keep that opinion to yourself, I just explained why I chose two different forms for Shahane and Truschke. If there is a Wikipedia guideline as to this, you can ask me to follow that and I will happily oblige, but why on earth did it lead to insinuations about "belittling" or "little girl"? Surely you are aware that such standards are not universal, as you can read here: | In a written work, is it better to reference people by their first or last name?. And in any case, this was my first Wikipedia edit in nearly a decade, a simple suggestion that this is the norm followed here could have sufficed, your insinuations somehow implied that I have been warned umpteen times and I am still to rectify myself and thus leading to grand conspiracy theories of red flags and little girl and acquaintance. Seriously? Just because I referred to someone by name couple of times? Cupidvogel (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If and when I see you referring to Modi as "Narendra", or Gandhi as "Mohandas", I'll believe you're not trolling. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you "believe", what matters is whether I have flouted any Wikipedia law, and if I have, was I warned enough number of times before being blocked? Does Wikipedia have any explicit policy on citing authors by surname? If so, citing that would be helpful rather than admins pontificating on what they think constitutes trolling. Secondly, is that standard by any means, universal, that even if Wikipedia does not mention that standard explicitly it should be automatically inferred? Nope, as my earlier link to StackExchange suggests, it is not a universally accepted norm, although a common one. Will I consider changing it? Certainly, there was absolutely zero intention of belittling her or trolling her with reference to her first name. Was I warned enough number of times with reason as to why that reference is problematic? Nope. Barely once, and it immediately set alarm clocks and raised red flags that something nefarious is apparently afoot. And for what? Yeah, for calling a person by name (and not surname) couple of times. Cupidvogel (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Cupidvogel Welcome to the political part of Wikipedia. Building consensus is not easy here. You better follow the norms. You aren't offending only the author here. Please be mindful of the policies henceforth. There's lots of original research here. Akshaypatill (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Political consensus is notoriously difficult to build in an atmosphere where the admins are trigger happy, flouting their privileges by blocking people at will. Blocking me at will for well cited edits is not offensive? I did acknowledge the bit about original research already, that does not warrant an edit block, basically there is a coterie of admins and authors here who work on mutual interests, all of which is totally against the spirit of Wikipedia. Cupidvogel (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Using the first name is offensive unless there is an assumption of familiarity. You'd use it with an honorific prefix (Mr., Ms., Dr., Prof.). It is considered more polite/formal unless you have their permission, which in case you're either a friend or a close colleague. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 18:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, "offensive" is subjective, Tamil people, for example, may feel offended when the initial they use for their surname is enquired about, which would be a perfectly normal thing in other cultures (Srikanth M., for example). The question is - is there a standard Wikipedia template for this? A simple yes, or no will suffice. If yes, then I had indeed flouted it, albeit unknowingly with zero malice, but was the flouting done too many times to warrant a consideration in edit-block? Nope. Was I given a chance to alter that text to change the references to "Audrey" by "Truschke"? Nope, I was immediately edit-blocked, which would typically be the case if someone uses abuses, insults or humiliating barbs at somebody. And of course, if there is no standard Wikipedia instruction on usage of name/surname, the entire discussion becomes subjective, not eligible to consider for edit-block, although certainly for improvement and general discussions, which I would have been happy to oblige.  Cupidvogel (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Cupidvogel You are blocked for edit warring. If someone reverts your edit, you should not be adding the same material without discussing on talk page and obtaining consensus. If you do, it is considered as edit warring. Seems like you aren't aware of this. I have posted a standard warning on your talk page. Have a look.Akshaypatill (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding a controversy/criticism section
I see a lot of criticism about her mentioned in talk and other media, along with other points in this Wikipedia article itself but no dedicated section. "Targeted by Hindu Right" is not an appropriate section to keep this. Criticism/Controversy should contain the criticism of her work or activities. We can add targeting by Hindu right as a subheading under that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshikamal (talk • contribs) 01:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Link those sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Will compile and add later but you can have a look at 'Targeted by Hindu right' section for controversy. The whole reason she has been targeted is because of the controversy from her chosen tone and words. The original author who she was supposedly quoting has even denied using those words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshikamal (talk • contribs) 13:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @TrangaBellam Currently the Ramayana Translation section is completely talking about the criticism of the translation and only one line in the "Srinivas Reddy" piece has a mention of "Targeting" in the form of backlash on the platform of the posted translation. So I suggest it would be appropriate to remove this from the Targeting by Hindu Right and add into a new "Criticism" section. >>> Extorc . talk ; 21:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I offer no substantial objections but please ping Kautilya3 and Joshua Jonathan. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , Can you offer your views on this? >>>  Extorc . talk ; 04:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they don't have any comments to make here. Ill be making the edit WP:BOLDly. >>> Extorc . talk ; 12:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest against that. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Further, please consult WP:CSECTION. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We do have other approaches.
 * We can directly make a heading called Ramayana Translation. >>> Extorc . talk ; 14:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I am ok with a section titled "Criticism". Perhaps the Student petition can also be moved there. A "Hindu lobby" doesn't equate to "Hindu Right" even though I admit that it is hard to draw the line between them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The Student Petition is obviously targeting, as held by multiple sources. I propose making a section titled "Social Media" for shunting the Ramayana episode into. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The cited sources in the para don't say that the petitioners were a part of the Hindu right, it links the twitter backlash with the Hindu Right.
 * Note how the cited sources use "Hindu Students", "Hindu Community" where they talk about the srudents petition and "Hindutva" when it talks about the attacks >>> Extorc . talk ; 16:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Immaterial. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How can reliable sources and its content be "immaterial"? >>> Extorc . talk ; 17:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The students petition must not remain in the Targeting by Hindu Right because the students petition itself, according to the sources, isn't Targeting. >>> Extorc . talk ; 12:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps no one has any counter suggestions. >>> Extorc . talk ; 19:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 Would you like to make any further comments, should I move the student petition section? >>> Extorc . talk ; 06:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A "Social media" section would be fine. I don't understand what else is being debated. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Extorc argues that the student petition cannot be seen as targeting by Hindu Right and belongs at some other section; I do not agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Do the RS call it being part of a Hindu Right campaign? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The RS call the petitioners as "Hindu Community"/"Hindu students" and the social media backlash as "Hindutva". >>> Extorc . talk ; 12:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea about how you reached the conclusion.
 * COHNA's slants are clear as daylight and covered in RS. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Extorc is right. The cited sources does not refer term the students as right. I can't imagine ABVP working in Rutgers. Akshaypatill (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hindu Right in Diaspora exists and is a popular topic of scholarship. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Still, calling the students right affiliated and their concerns as targeting is too harsh, given the sources. Akshaypatill (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Another question is that in what way is this targeting? Why is it that a letter just because being written by Hindu Right wing students is inherently "Targeting". Are there any sources calling this a part of the attacks and threats Truschke received?
 * It appears Rutgers did not dismiss the concerns
 * "At the same time, Rutgers “emphatically affirms its support for all members of the Hindu community to study and live in an environment in which they not only feel safe, but also fully supported in their religious identity”, it said." >>> Extorc . talk  09:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3, @Akshaypatill any comments on this? >>> Extorc . talk  11:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3, @Akshaypatill any comments on this? >>> Extorc . talk  11:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3, there is an interesting article on IANS about Truschke and religion and her Pakistan connections. . though the source does not seems much neutral. It has linked her criticism of Hinduism to her in-law Nathan M Rehn's alleged activities of conversion in India. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, even I have read online about the family connections of Truschke with Missionary activities in India and the fact that she did a fellowship in AIPS. Perhaps those could be included in the article. >>> Extorc . talk ; 19:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against including her familial connections once they are described in reliable sources. Her fellowship in AIPS, if deemed to be sig. enough by us, can always be sourced from her CV. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this could be used to state that she did a fellowship from AIPS. >>> Extorc . talk  14:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have read online about the family connections of Truschke with Missionary activities - What Truschke does in her private life is none of our concern as editors. She can be a missionary herself, or help out her pastor husband, and father-in-law. The subject of this article is about a contemporary South Asian scholar, and her dissertations were published in reliable scholarly publications and scrutinized through academic peer-review, and definitely not published by an evangelical Church with ulterior motives. -- WikiLinuz { talk } 🍁  15:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. This is a biography page, not an academic resume. If reliable sources cover these aspects, we can cover them too. However, an anonymous IANS news wire, reproducing social media posts, doesn't cut it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What about the AIPS website about her fellowship in AIPS? >>> Extorc . talk  17:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It does not appear that she took the opportunity: her name (and report) is missing from the archives unlike Lalwani and Johnson. Truschke does not mention about the fellowship in her CV either. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. I remember one of her tweets clarifying about this. Akshaypatill (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Akshaypatill Can you link to it? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We had already agreed to create a section on "Social media activity". Somebody needs to do it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope this edit of mine checks the boxes. >>> Extorc . talk  14:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * User:TrangaBellam. Here-[] She was a member of AIPS though .Akshaypatill (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2022
Separate heading — Controversy — should be used for portion about the students of Rutgers University filing petition.

They are not “targeting” her.

Petitioning is the right of students.

I hope you, Wikipedia, an American organization (where freedom is the priority) understands this. Honeybrowneyes (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, Wikipedia is written by volunteers from all over the world, it is not an American organization. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFREESPEECH. WikiLinuz  { talk } 🍁  17:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Student Petition and Social Media
Our article has, Among the many alleged reasons were Truschke's claiming Bhagavad Gita to rationalize mass slaughter; whitewashing a "Hindu genocide" by Aurangzeb [..] The appended end-notes refer to an essay published in Aeon—a semi-academic website—, and a book published by Stanford University Press.

The petition goes on to criticize her course-material for relying upon Wendy Doniger etc. Was Truschke taking these courses in social-media?

It is patently absurd to claim that the petition was the product of Truschke's social-media activity. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * fyi, Kautilya3. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * "Among the many alleged reasons". That is not to say that it was a pimary reason, as you claimed in the edit summary.
 * The Scroll.in source has "Some students of the university alleged that the historian was defaming Hindus due to her ‘inherently prejudiced views’" as its summary. The body says:
 * The second source says:
 * I don't see criticism of her Aurangzeb work as being primary at all. It was merely cited as an example of "prejudice". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Who among us is denying that her social media activities were among the contributing factors? And, I do not see any reason to accept parts of a source, while ignoring other parts:
 * About half of the open-letter is a detailed critique of her course-material on Hinduism and has nothing to do with social-media. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree that the petition was criticising both her social media activity and academic teaching. Then we need to address the other issue. How does a student petition become "targeting by Hindu Right"? If CoHNA (the alleged Hindu Right) wrote a supporting letter, that doesn't make the students themselves Hindu Right? Neither is the source you cited (Venugopal) saying anything of that sort. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How does a student petition become "targeting by Hindu Right"? If CoHNA (the alleged Hindu Right) wrote a supporting letter, that doesn't make the students themselves Hindu Right
 * Ok, I agree that the petition was criticising both her social media activity and academic teaching. Then we need to address the other issue. How does a student petition become "targeting by Hindu Right"? If CoHNA (the alleged Hindu Right) wrote a supporting letter, that doesn't make the students themselves Hindu Right? Neither is the source you cited (Venugopal) saying anything of that sort. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How does a student petition become "targeting by Hindu Right"? If CoHNA (the alleged Hindu Right) wrote a supporting letter, that doesn't make the students themselves Hindu Right


 * This is exactly what ive raised over here >>> Extorc . talk  04:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks.
 * The students, if any, who wrote the letter are quite hard to find. Yeasky and Chung (2021) writes, Do you see their careful choice of words?
 * For another example, see this report, which simply says that an open letter has been put to circulation. A nice quote from Dr. Johan Mathew, director of Rutgers’ South Asian studies program, btw:
 * Hindus on Campus, an account dedicated to students within the Hindu diaspora, which began circulating the petition, has clear political alignments. HAF and their ilk had adopted the same obfuscatory tactic in opposing Witzel, Doniger et al - claimed that Hindu students were lodging organic protests and there were no links with Hindu Nationalist politics. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think they didn't put any name because may be they didn't want to openly face the teachers as this can affect there academics. Atleast that's what happens here. Nikhil Mandalaparthy's article is an opinion piece. Akshaypatill (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand the reasons. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

User:TrangaBellam User:Kautilya3 User:Extorc, so I went through the sources. I see some sources linking it with Hindu rights, though not explicitly, but none of them call it targeting, at least majority of the available. So I don't see why it should be labled as targeting? Akshaypatill (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is a fair observation - let me think of a way out. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @TrangaBellam, Hi, what are your thoughts on this now? >>> Extorc . talk  12:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @TrangaBellam, after what we reached here, I have this suggestion.
 * Adding the Student Petition as a section of its own
 * If we do this, we would also have to take out Ramayana Translation out of the Social Media section, considering it is the only sub-section there and the issue was notable enough to have its own section anyway. >>> Extorc . talk  08:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * On retrospection, I do not see any need for tweaking with the current structuring. This headline is instructive. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

End Notes
I have emended the endnotes. If any of you has issues, please raise them. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * We need 2 explanatory notes on Doniger and Ramayana. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Genocide
Akshaypatill, you are mixing up things: Scroll.in do not claim that the letter had accused Truschke of whitewashing genocide. It attributes the part. charge to the Hindutva community even if, admittedly, the distinctions are unclear with HoC's Twitter account retweeting HAF etc.

Yeasky and Chung (2021) has provided a link to the letter and you can see Point 4 for yourself. Please revert your edits, because mine was more accurate. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * fyi, Akshaypatill. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You are continuing to revert my well-sourced edits, without bothering to read the letter at the first place. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have removed the genocide part. Seems like scroll summerised it as genocide. Akshaypatill (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nah - they are using quotes. Pretty certain that it was from some Hindutva-aligned Twitter account, who was retweeted by HoC. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The other edit- The source says "skewed portrayals of Hindu society in her course materials". There is no mention of Wendy Doniger or Ramayana. We need secondary sources. Akshaypatill (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Doniger in p.2 (Point 1) and multiple Ramayanas in p.3 (Point 3). There is no prohibition on using primary sources in these cases.
 * Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, I have no objection to a restore, but you should have cited the primary letter too. Akshaypatill (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * TrangaBellam (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Translation
She herself has called it “arguably, a failed translation.” Akshaypatill (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , then how about "Referring to to an episode in Ramayana, Truschke tweeted that........'. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the problem? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Sita called him a misogynist pig" is Truschke's interpretation. Goldman had used the word 'vulger' but Truschke somehow took it as 'misogynist pig'. My point is, does there an episode exist with "misogynist pig" or Truschke is making one, given the clarification by Goldman? Shouldn't we attribute it to her? That's why "Referring to to an episode in Ramayana, Truschke tweeted that........' feels much better to me. Akshaypatill (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * See the second cited source (in article) - "In April, the author, had stoked a controversy by saying that Sita had called Hindu god, Rama, a ’misogynist pig’ on Twitter." Akshaypatill (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Third source - "In one of her social media comments that went viral, Truschke, an assistant professor of South Asian History at Rutgers University, said: “During the agni pariksha, Sita basically tells Rama he’s a misogynist pig and uncouth."" Akshaypatill (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We can also phrase it in line with these already cited sources like 'In one of her tweet, referring to an episode in Ramayana, Truschke said that Sita had admonished Rama as a "misogynist pig"; she cited a critical translation..... Akshaypatill (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Let us focus on what you think is the problem. We can get to wording later. You think Truschke changed Goldman's "vulgar" to "misogynist pig". What is the basis for this claim? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * See . Goldman has never used the phrase "misogynist pig". He has used 'ordinary, and 'lesser man'. Truschke is the one who came with the phrase "misogynist pig" though she cited Goldman and that's why Goldman denied using such words and said them to be "highly inappropriate". Akshaypatill (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Truschke wrote:
 * Yeah, she took some liberties with the language. But the drift is the same. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the Rama's misogyny part. That topic has been subject to several debates over the years. But no one had brought 'pig' in it. The 'pig' part was brought by Truschke. There is no reference to 'varah'(pig) in that episode. Is accusing “harbouring feelings of misogyny” same as calling him a "misogynist pig"? And she has admitted that "My characterisation of Sita calling Rama a “misogynist pig” was, arguably, a failed translation." . So the lines need to be attributed to her. Akshaypatill (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the Rama's misogyny part. That topic has been subject to several debates over the years. But no one had brought 'pig' in it. The 'pig' part was brought by Truschke. There is no reference to 'varah'(pig) in that episode. Is accusing “harbouring feelings of misogyny” same as calling him a "misogynist pig"? And she has admitted that "My characterisation of Sita calling Rama a “misogynist pig” was, arguably, a failed translation." . So the lines need to be attributed to her. Akshaypatill (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

You are drifting. (Left "vulgar" behind and now moved on to "pig".) Please write down the exact content you want to see below, and wait for  to get back on it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that. Yes, Goldman used the word 'vulgar' too. I missed adding it in that reply. I am proposing changing the current sentence to something like "In one of her tweets, Truschke, referring to an episode in Ramayana, said that Sita had admonished Rama as a "misogynist pig"; she cited a critical translation of the Valmiki Ramayana by Robert P. Goldman in support." Akshaypatill (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I offer no oppositionnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't expecting such kind of support. Thannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnk you. :) Akshaypatill (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeing this now, lol. The key got jammed. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits
F&F, you need to give policy-based reasons for removing content. Your thoughts, personal preferences etc. are immaterial. As is pointing to "[your] article" on an Indologist.

Please opine on whether Truschke's CV, hosted by Rutger's Academia domain, is a reliable source for sourcing her academic qualifications and her current position at Rutgers. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I cannot parse this edit-summary (relevance - ?) either. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is acceptable to take personal information and qualifications etc. from CV's, espcially those of academics. (This has been discussed in WP:RSN a few times, though I don't know if the policy pages reflect that.) I took care of the second issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I do not feel any clarification is necessary — our policies allow liberal use of self-published sources for claims which are not exceptional in nature.
 * Understood the second issue - was confused by F&F commenting on a part. line while tagging the entire section (!) and removing yet another line. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a clear and definitive statement of Wikipedia policy, per MOS, that states CV hosted by universities can be used to fill in the biographies. I've written quite a few biographies, of major historians, not a relative newcomer such as Trushke. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a clear and definitive statement of Wikipedia policy, per MOS, that states CV hosted by universities cannot be used to fill in the biographies. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Universities don't host CVs. They host a website to which the faculty add their CVs if they want to. Some CVs are 50 pages long. No university authority pays attention to what is written on page 37.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In my opening argument, I did not claim the university to have hosted her CV but instead, something more precise: that her CV was hosted by Rutger's Academia domain which boils down to what are you saying. But adds a degree of authority since fabricating details will have severe and swift ramifications from the institutional authority, if found.
 * I am neither sourcing some exceptional claim from p. 37; I am sourcing her basic "educational qualifications" from the first page. If you wish, I can cite year-books of UoChicago but what is the gain? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a productive avenue of discussion would be to explain in what way CVs are not acceptable sources based on your understanding of policy? That way those points can be addressed directly. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I should have said, major historians, scholars, and writers. They include: Mandell Creighton, V. S. Naipaul, Patrick Olivelle, F. P. Wilson, Anthony Low, Dorothy Burlingham, Philip Holzman, Jerome Kavka, Phyllis Greenacre, William Robert Cornish, including the naturalists of British India (Stanley Henry Prater, Walter Samuel Millard, Ethelbert Blatter, Herbert Musgrave Phipson, Edith Pechey, with which I began my Wikipedia career.  I've written the lead of Romila Thapar.  In some cases they have remained stubs (Judith M. Brown, Thomas R. Metcalf, Eric Thomas Stokes) because of the lack of a reliable, peer-reviewed source for their biography. Have you guys written anything?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I won't entertain your subtle PAs, intended as a bait.
 * This discussion has been advertised at RSN; if I am not horribly out-of-sync with the editorial community, there will be a blizzard. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * This and this are perfectly acceptable primary sources for non-contentious or overly self-serving information, such as her current position and her degrees. Are there any particular things that would be an issue that are being cited to sources like those? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! As you can verify from our article, we do not source any other information from her CV or faculty-bio. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The only thing I wouldn't pull from her faculty "About Us" page is her awards and honors. Better to find a secondary source for those. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So,, Can I take a CV with a list of 30 articles and abstracts and pad a wikipedia biography with each paper and a short description from the abstracts? I can add all their wanderings, the junior fellowships, the presentations made at some conferences, a visiting stint of two weeks at Podunk U, the works?
 * On the 50th anniversary of ERA, still, female faculty often do not mention dates of birth in their CV; the doofus (figuratively speaking) males usually do, even social security numbers sometimes,  in these United States.  So, can we use the male data? What about grant proposals? List the ones that were never funded? List the ones that were funded but never resulted in a peer-reviewed publication? Or list only that came through the gauntlets?
 * Also, Can we say in her Wikipedia article she has reading fluency in Sanskrit and Persian, and reading competency in Hindi, Urdu, and Braj?
 * What abut my late pal Colin Masica whose classes at Chicago the subject here may have taken, or maybe not, what about people such as him who never thought of posting a CV on a website, but have left a much bigger imprint on the realm of Indo-Aryan languages than the subject has yet? No undue weight considerations?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought I was pretty clear with The only thing I wouldn't pull from her faculty "About Us" page is her awards and honors. Better to find a secondary source for those. That covers all the fellowships, grants, lectures, etc. As for the weight considerations, primary sources don't really provide any weight. If no one else is mentioning the languages they know, it's not due. If there's no cites or mentions of their work, it's undue. For basic details of what school they went to and when they got their degrees it's fine, or of they choose to disclose their dob, that's also fine. I'm not sure what's unclear? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Have the people here looking for clear and definitive policies about this issue not read WP:BLPSELFPUB? That is where those policies are. Self-published sources (which is almost always what curricula vitarum are) clearly may be used for the sort of information one can find in a cv: names and dates of degrees and employers. They may not be used for opinions. Also, as an academic, Truschke is subject to WP:PROF-based notability, which does not require third-party sources, rather than WP:GNG-based notability, which does. As for the improved reliability of a brief biographical blurb on a "third-party" site like NJCH: where do you think those blurbs come from? Generally they are written by the subject. There is no reason to expect them to be any more reliable than the cv. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are some RSN discussions: December 2008, March 2013, July 2016, March 2020. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I forgot, some others such as Mary Bateson (historian), Louise Creighton, E. W. Middlemast, Leonard A. Gordon that I began and other built. So the upholders of RS/N, have they written anything?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How many articles does someone have to write before they can have an opinion? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Opinion: zero. Informed opinion: quite a few. Enough to get a sense of how to use the available data judiciously so that undue weight of achievement is not created in professional biographies as a result.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't mean you ScottishFinnishRadish in the least. I haven't clicked on any of those discussions. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I just remembered I had made a reading list to help people on the Urdu page: Talk:Urdu/Archive_9. There are over 50 scholars listed there who are relevant to Urdu in some way. I won't be surprised if this article is longer than of any scholar in the list; most there probably don't have WP articles.  We owe some duty of care (not in a legal sense) to even-handedness.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No we don't. There are likely tens of millions of notable biographies we could have. Just because there is decent sourcing for one and not another is no reason to not use the sourcing that's available. Our article on He-Man is likely longer than 99 percent of biographies, and he was created to sell toys, so who cares how long this article is, as long as the sourcing is reliable and maintains NPOV.
 * WP:DUE doesn't apply between different articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I know all that. Just saying there are notions of encyclopedic worth that RS/N does not address. The fact that no standard print encyclopedia, dictionary of biography, companion or review will accord space, and thereby advertise a version of notability that is not in consonance with that of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, i.e. the one accorded in the field, should give us pause.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Finally, when I posted some cn tags (in all of two edits) I was hoping that the editors here would use a third-party page such as such as the New Jersey Council of Humanities page whose board member she became less than a year ago, to use their information both to avoid relying exclusively on CV information and  to keep an eye on what is considered DUE by others.  The NJCH page  says: "Audrey Truschke, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of South Asian History at Rutgers University in Newark. She is also an activist and historian. Audrey authored three books: Culture of Encounters: Sanskrit at the Mughal Court (2016), Aurangzeb (2017), and The Language of History: Sanskrit Narratives of Indo-Muslim Rule (2021). Audrey received her Ph.D. in Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies from Columbia University and earned a B.A. in Religious Studies from University of Chicago."  In other words, the more "third-party" references there are, the better it is. Fine, the NJCH page does not have the years of completion of education, but by using it the reliance on the CV would be the  less.  I mean this is common sense. Instead, the purveyors of "let's create a dispute and get busy posting here, there, and everywhere" love to waste time. I bet I could find other similarly reliable sites.  This is a plea for sanity.  Most likely, this article has done a disservice to Audrey Truschke by turning what could have been a balanced scholarly biography into  something of a caricature. Anyway, have other things to do.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in, David. -- WikiLinuz { talk } 🍁  05:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if the blurb has been written by the NJCH board member (and we have no evidence for this), it has both improved reliability and improved DUE. The NJCH web site is visited by many-fold more visitors than a CV is. Regardless of such a blurb's author, it gives an indication of what is DUE (indeed it clues us to a hierarchy of DUE for blurbs of different lengths); for example, the bachelors and doctorate are preferred to tortured descriptions of the masters.
 * Who is saying she is not notable?
 * But you haven't answered my questions David. Can we use a list of 15 published articles from a CV and expand a Wikipedia biography's career section including short description of the papers, in contrast, say to using reviews somewhere? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The talk-page is for discussing potential issues and improvements to the existing content of this page. Hypotheticals are better considered at meta-venues like project talk-pages, RSN etc. unless you are planning to use Truschke's CV to provide short description of her papers, which I (and to the best of my guess, as well as  ) will oppose as a pointy action, violative of dueness requirements. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I answered that up above. As for the weight considerations, primary sources don't really provide any weight. If no one else is mentioning the languages they know, it's not due. If there's no cites or mentions of their work, it's undue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no need to use a CV to show that publications exist; their existence is easily demonstrated by the publications themselves. We should not use a CV to provide a complete list of publications; in Wikipedia articles, we should only provide selected lists of important publications, not complete lists. And we cannot use a CV to provide descriptions of publications; that is usually not provided in CVs and in any case is prohibited as opinion for self-published sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2022
Please remove: She has been a frequent target of harassment by right-wing Hindu nationalists, who accuse her of having prejudiced views on Hinduism, and making offensive statements

Replace it with/add:She has been a frequent target of criticism for having prejudiced views on Hinduism, and making offensive statements;

Please Remove: Truschke has been a prominent critic of Hindutva and its exclusionary ideology.

Add/ Replace it with: Truschke has been a prominent critic of Hindutva.

Both of these statements in their current form are subjectively judgmental against Hindutva. Ragban (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2022
The article states that scholars refute the charge of Hinduphobia against Audrey Truschke. However, the citations provided (refs. 1-3) are from the popular press and not scholarly sources. The article should be corrected to reflect that some media houses have issued her a clean chit, not scholars. 2405:201:23:D043:3974:5DB5:5305:5870 (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The letter from Rutgers was signed by 79 scholars (66 of which were from other centres of learning). There is a list in the Wire citation. Black Kite (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Allegations
This ref @Bar & Bench suggests there is a case under consideration @ Delhi High Court about Audrey Truschke's allegations vis-à-vis Vikram Sampath

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Truschke is a serial offender when it comes to defamation. Why is the content on Vikram Sampath's Wiki page about the Delhi High Court ordering Twitter to take down her defamatory tweets not in this article? Liberalvedantin (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Bias
Why is this article leaning towards Audrey rather than being neutral! Audrey isn't a historian and her work is just her own opinion. Nothing more Why is she being treated as a defender of truth Even though other qualified histotiams clearly debunked her biased claims. Odinson878 (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you enlighten us by citing those other qualified histotiams [sic]? WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 17:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How is it that you're on first-name terms with Professor Truschke, Odinson878? Do you really call her "Audrey"? Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC).

I thought her full name was " Audrey truschke" And i don't think she's a qualified historian. Robert P Goldman is a qualified historian who clearly criticised Audrey truschke s statements. Odinson878 (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)odinson878

Odinson878 (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC) (strike off sock comments — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC))

What does it matter how he refers to her? Do you call every academic with the title "Professor"? Then please read the views of Professor Vemsani, Professor Long, and Professor Sampath and what they feel about Truschke. Liberalvedantin (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes. But I would have expected that the other perspective would at least be mentioned in a meaningful way. Here. there is no mention of legitimate critiques of her work by noteworthy historians either. For instance, this article here: https://www.newslaundry.com/2018/04/30/the-unscholarly-dishonesty-of-audrey-truschke. NewsLaundry is a news agency widely considered critical of the Indian right yet they also find some of the arguments raised by Truscke objectionable too. I hope that you would take this into account and ensure that all perspectives are presented in the article. Thanks. Dixitar (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just realized that you have also made the exact same point as me. I wonder why this article has been locked although so many people feel this way? Dixitar (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The source you provide is an opinion piece, meaning the author needs to be a heavyweight in his field for us to consider including his views; do you have evidence that he is? Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)