Talk:Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya

Disputed Content
I just removed the following material from the main article: ''Chattopadhyaya's writings on ancient Indian philosophies have been called the most interesting and sustained Marxist interpretation of Indian thought. Gerald Larson in his review of Chattopadhyaya's writings on Samkhya school of Hinduism states, "Chattopadhyaya proceeds to reconstruct what the original Samkhya position was, claiming that the classical notion did not include Purusha, and that the most important notion in the Samkhya is Prakrti, citing pre-Vedic Tantra traditions of a matriarchal society to be the foundation of original Samkhya." ''
 * Review of Chattopadhyaya's writings

Larson, in his 2011 edition of Classical Samkhya: An Interpretation of its History and Meaning'', considers such analysis of Chattopadhyaya as flawed, and states, "To argue, however, for an archaic agricultural-matriarchal tradition of mother-right and a pastoral-patriarchal tradition of male dominance and then to trace in a direct one-to-one correlation of a Samkhya materialism to the former and a Vedanta idealism to the latter is clearly an oversimplification that reflects Chattopadhyaya's political ideology more than it does India's ancient cultural heritage. Chattopadhyay's analysis of Samkhya and Vedanta schools of Hinduism has been criticized by Larson as, "what begins as a refreshing anthropological methodology for studying ancient thought and culture is reduced to an ideological perspective designed to show that "...private property and the state machinery are not eternal adjuncts to human existence..." and that "... the spiritualistic outlook is not innate in man". ''

The basis for the removal of this content is that too much prominence is being given to the review of one particular scholar (Larson); scholars writing on Indian philosophy invariably disagree with one another on some point or another. There are many scholars who do value and appreciate the work of Chattopadhyaya as per this 2012 Times of India article which hails Chattopadhyaya as the renowned historian of philosophy and books such as this one Essays in Honour of Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya. Personally i don't think its a good idea to have reviews of Chattopadhyay's works because i have not seen such reviews on the wikipedia pages of other Indologists. But, if someone really insists on including this material, then i suggest we can include 2-3 sentences of a scholar endorsing Chattopadhyay's body of work and 2-3 sentences of another scholar criticizing Chattopadhyay's body of work to provide balance in this article. Soham321 (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, the review of a particular scholar can exceed 2-3 sentences, but the point is that there has to be balance in the article when it comes to reviews. We should include both positive and negative reviews in a balanced manner. We can also have multiple reviews (by more than two scholars); no harm in that, but i would insist on balance between positive and negative reviews.Soham321 (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: You are welcome to add balance by including review of the same book by other scholars. But don't delete well sourced scholarly content. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So long as there is balance i have no objection. Your earlier review, giving a negative views of only one scholar, was making the article unbalanced. Soham321 (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: Blogs and websites such as carvaka4india.com are not an acceptable source in wikipedia. See WP:RS. Please avoid using such sources in wikipedia articles and provide a reliable source for this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. I have replaced the source and given the alternative source which is Chattopadhyaya's book Lokayata where the review by Needham and Renou of his book are included (on the back cover). Soham321 (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: Will you please respect wikipedia policies and guidelines on content and tagging in this article? Why do you want to add peacocking language as you did here, and violate MOS:WTW guideline? This is also not an article about Joseph Needham or Sinology. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no violation. The phrase 'greatest Sinologist in the west' was used by the Independent in his obituary, and not by me. This kind of praise is attributed all the time in wikipedia biographies. Soham321 (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And regarding concomitant discussion of individuals A and B in a biography of one of them, see the section 'Nehru and Patel' in the wikipedia biography of Nehru. Soham321 (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @Soham321: That Independent newspaper wrote it and some other wikipedia articles do it, is irrelevant. What is the relevance of "the greatest sinologist" puffery to this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed it. Soham321 (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Review section rename
Some comments on the section:

While it is important to have this section I think it is unnecessary to have the names of reviewers as subheads. The "review" section could be called "Reception of Chattopadhyaya's Work" and all these views could be given in a few paragraphs. Also hyperlinking Joseph Needham seems enough; establishing his credentials etc on this page looks odd. Since he is such a celebrated scholar, and had also collaborated with Chattopadhayaya, this section could begin with his comments rather than those of Larson (though I agree Larson's comments are more substantial and less blurb-y.) -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The names of reviewers are fine. It more clearly identifies whose views those are and makes the section more organized. Just like the previous section, this section could be arranged chronologically. I am fine with renaming it to "Reception of Chattopadhyaya's Work". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I endorse the suggestion of Mohanbhan. If there are only three of us participating in this discussion, then i think Mohan can go ahead and do the editing in the way he is mentioning. Soham321 (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think one needs subheads to know who is saying what. The focus should be on the reception of his work, how his ideas have been critiqued, praised etc, not on who is making these comments. -Mohanbhan (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and do the editing of the entire Review section as you see fit. You have my confidence so we seem to have a consensus on this page.Soham321 (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

(ce) No. You both sound like Chattopadhyaya fans based on your recent edits and talk page comments on Carvaka and other pages. Lets get a third opinion from others or an admin. How about what do you think? since you have previously commented on Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya on the Carvaka page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Abecedare is by no means is a neutral party since he has clearly expressed his views on Chattopadhyaya in the Charvaka talk page; he is not neutral on this issue. If Mohan and I like Chattopadhyaya it is because of his scholarship. Even Joseph Needham liked Chattopadhyay's scholarship. This repeated pinging to Abecedare (and earlier to Joshua Jonathan and Abecedare) constitutes canvassing as far as i am concerned and this is the second time you have done it. Soham321 (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A third opinion on what Sarah Welch? -Mohanbhan (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Mohanbhan's suggestion makes eminent sense to me. Also would recommend a less quotefarm-y and peacock-y approach: don't tell the reader simply that X thought the book was great; explain (through proper paraphrase of the reviews) what X liked or didn't like about the book. Abecedare (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Chattopadhyaya and Joseph Needham section
In Joseph Needham's Papers, preserved in Cambridge University, one finds mention of Needham's academic correspondence with Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya and notes taken by Needham after personal interaction with Chattopadhyaya. The academic correspondence pertains to Chattopadhyay's upcoming book Studies in the History of Science in India, and about Debiprasad's exposition of the Purva-Mimamsa philosophy "and parallels with Europe and China with regard to belief in magic."The notes taken after personal interaction are about Chattopadhyay's forthcoming History of Science and Technology in Ancient India. The first volume of Chattopadhyay's three volume History of Science and Technology in Ancient India has a foreword by Needham.

This section needs to be developed. Does not serve anything other than an ornamental/anecdotal function at present. Can be added to the article after it is developed. -Mohanbhan (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 13:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150609205122/http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/data1/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005b60_193.pdf to http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/data1/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005b60_193.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)