Talk:Edwin Bryant (Indologist)

missing important information

 * He graduated from Columbia University in 1997.

Uh, with a BA in astronomy? This information is useless unless it specifies the degree, and in what department he trained. If he received a PhD it would be good to know whether he received distinction or not, and what his dissertation title was.
 * He lectured on Indology at Harvard University and at Rutgers University, New Jersey.

I am tempted to delete this. Harvard has no department of "indology." What department or institute was he in? What was his rank and title? How long was he there and why did he leave? Where is he now? Same for his Rutgers position. This information is important.

Look, none of this is to disparage the guy. If he got a PhD. from Columbia in Religion (or History or Anthropology) with distinction, we should know; if he was a full professor at Harvard in the Anthropology department, we should know. But these sentences are just dropping prestigious-sounding names with no real meaning. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Bryant is only ever brought up because of his 2001 book. This is the only reason this article was created. We do not have sufficient third-party sources for a BLP, nor is WP:PROF even close to being established. It is enough to have an article on the book, and even that should be examined wrt WP:BK. --dab (𒁳) 08:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed "American" to "British". Taking a class with this professor right now, mentioned his bio a little bit during the first lecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.130.145 (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Page title
Would it be better to retitle this page as "Edwin Bryant (indologist)"? "author" seems too generic a category and has greater potential to conflict with another author of the same name in future. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine to rename when the need arises. Until then, simplest to trust in YAGNI and leave it as it is. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

J. P. Mallory quote
Can somebody fill in the source for the J. P. Mallory quote? I suppose it is a book review? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Joshua Jonathan found the source and updated the page. Thanks Joshua! Kautilya3 (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Though it is still an "indirect" reference, from the publisher.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Publisher blurb
Book publishers (and theatre impresarios etc) routinely cherrypick soundbites from reviews. It is for that reason I removed some content here. We should find the original reviews and cite those, while also ensuring that there has been no cherrypicking. - Sitush (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean we have to actually read the reviews? Damn. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging on this censorship.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What we are showing is not necessarily what the reader sees but rather what the publisher wants us to see of what the reader sees, if you get my drift. Honestly, I'll take this to WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN if I must: it is the most appalling way to select sources. Just as we do not usually allow snippet views from GBooks because we lack context, so too with this stuff. - Sitush (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, RSN have already discussed this type of situation, eg: here. Sorry, folks, but this is Wikipedia 101, imo. - Sitush (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Usually blurbs are not actually from reviews, they are solicited directly from the scholars who are supposed to put the book in the best light possible. I think including blurbs is OK when the person quoted is clearly a notable figure, but I think it makes more sense for the article about the book, not about the author, and also they cannot substitute or replace actual reviews, which is where critical commentary can be expected.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Usually or sometimes? In any case, as you point out, the solicitation is designed to favour the book and the sources are thus not independent. Finally, we have no idea whether the quote is in or out of context even if designed to favour. Those quotes are not going in. There is at least one review at JSTOR which we could use. - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I know it is standard practice. They can't really be from reviews since reviews are usually written only after the book is published. I don't think the context question is a big deal, as long as we make clear that it is a book blurb, then readers will know that it is promotional and picked by the press for that purpose. The reason I think they may sometimes be useful is because they do show that the person quoted "vouches" for the book since their statements can be assumed to be included by their permission. Reviews are however necessary to assess the actual scholarly reaction to the book once published.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But I don't think people do understand the nature of the blurbs. That is why (a) the issue has been raised at RSN on numerous occasions by the "clueless", and (b) publisher's continue to use this snake-oil selling tactic. Remember Barnum? - Sitush (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is really a fair comparison, I think it makes perfect sense to ask someone who knows the field to read and recommend a book that is being published. The person who is quoted usually does so voluntarily and puts their professional reputation behind the statement. I don't see anything really questionable in this practice at all. Anyone who believes that scholarly literature has to stand and fall on its own merits alone does not really seem to have any understanding of how media and science actually works. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. These are 2 top authorities Sitush deleted.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear I don't think the blurbs should be included in this article, but I am just arguing that they are not apriori problematic. They could for example be included in an article about the book itself.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article for the book was redirected to this bio because the thing was not notable. It still isn't. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am pretty surprised that the book is not considered notable. I've certainly read it and have only the most general interest in the question. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So am I, but VictoriaGrayson recently merged the thing to this article. That said, the reviews that were in the book article were mostly pretty obscure journals. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Search WP:RSN archives for "blurb". Count the threads where they were accepted. I'd also note that this book may have gone through several editions (first published 2001 but we were citing 2005 until I fixed it, and there also seems to be a 2003 out there - in which version did the blurb appear?) And still more: this article has far, far too many quotes as it is, even without adding back the two that I removed. - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The context does matter; I was already suprised that I couldn't find a source for Mallory's quote. At least the blurbs have to be seconded by reviews; if there are no reviews, it tells a lot about the (lack of) reception and the notability. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   19:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I explained, there is no "context" for most jacket blurbs, they are solicited directly from the author.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is one more review: Guha, S. (2007). The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History. Edited by Edwin F Bryant and Laurie Patton. pp. xi, 522. London and New York, Routledge, 2005. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland, 17(03), 340-343.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * One more: User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That journal (Asiatic Society) is a respected source, although its Raj variants were not. The review, however, won't fix the blurb issue (it isn't even for the same book, as far as I can see). I think part of the problem here is that there isn't really much to say about Bryant as a person even though there may be things to say about his books. We may have got the balance/focus wrong, given that this is meant to be a biography. - Sitush (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing weird in having a biography of a scholar deal mostly with the contents of their work and its reception. A biography should focus on whatever is the primary source of notability for the subject. The source of notability for a scholar is their academic work. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not in the way we are doing it. I've written loads of bios about academic and their ilk without descending to this mess. I've actually got one in draft right now, albeit made easier by the fact that the guy is long dead. - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem here at all - we have thousands of biographies of academics of similar or less notability and with similar focus. ON a side node an internet search suggests that Bryant may also be notable as a Yoga teacher - there is a lot of online second hand coverage of his Yoga teaching some of it is likely in reliable sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm, and thinking about it a little more, the fact that it is in the state that it is might be a reflection of lack of notability for the man himself. Has any of his academic stuff actually been groundbreaking etc? Origins is basically a review of what others have said. Notability is not inherited, and that other crap exists is irrelevant. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you need to take a step back and maybe read some other academic bipgraphies and WP:ACADEMIC. Having done groundbreaking work is not a requirement for notability at all. It requires only substantial coverage in third party sources. WP:ACADEMIC suggests that he is notable merely for the fact of being a full professor. We have literally many thousands of academic biographies of less notability than Bryant. I don't know what motivates this animosity, but there is not basis for trying to enforce a standard of notability here that is higher than what the community has decided to accept. The comparison is relevant because you are arguing for setting a bar for notability of academics that is much higher than what the community practice suggests.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you need to take a step back and maybe read some other academic bipgraphies and WP:ACADEMIC And I think you need to stop making assumptions. We've been here before, I think: you consistently see the worst in me and you are usually wrong in doing so. I know nothing of this guy other than what I have read here and some quick Googling, on which basis we have a notability problem. I couldn't give a toss about all the pseudo-historical nonsense that surrounds the migration and out-of-India theories and I think you will find that I've very rarely got involved in anything to do with them. - Sitush (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you possibly confuse me with someone else. I only recall collaborating with you in the articles on Narendra Modi and the 2001 Gujarat riots where we represented the same viewpoint. Maybe I have made a bad impression on you at some other time, but I certainly don't see the worst in you - on the contrary I consider you an important counterweight to Hindutva propaganda in the project, and generally a voice o reason in India related articles. I just think that here you are leaning in too hard and I have to supply the counterweight.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, academically, he is not particularly notable. His claim to fame is just these two books which were convenient for the indigenous aryanists to cite. Stephanie Jamison who trashed his edited volume, on the other hand, is quoted all over the place. Her translation of Rig Veda is considered ground-breaking, but it is a small community of Ancent Sanskritists. Who will listen to them? Kautilya3 (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I get it, you are cracking down on him here because hindutva activists have adopted him. Unfortunately notability does not take into account whether we like the people who cite someones work or not. Or whether their work is right or wrong for that matter. If A notable scholar has written a critical review of his books then that should be cited and integrated into the article. It also makes the quotes by Witzel and Mallowry more interesting since they are certainly not on the Hindutva OOI side of the debate. Incidentally Bryants books has 177 citations in google scholar whereas no work by Witzel has more than 100.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Be sure that Michael Witzel is the man to beat. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   20:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that Witzel is also not notable?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not fair. I hardly ever touched this page. I don't particularly care about this man at all, one or another. I have been happy to leave this page to his disciples. I have been working separately on an article on "The Indo-Aryan Controversy," but it will take a while to write. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record it was a plural "you". I don't see anything suggesting anything that suggests general promotional activity on this page, and that is why I am a little leery of the attempt to suddenly challenge notability of a scholar that seems to be at least as notable as 80% of the subjects of our biographies of living academics.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I am not arguing that this page should be deleted. Bryant is politically notable and we definitely need a page to record the details about him for interested people. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Jamison

 * Stephanie Jamison seems to have written a letter and she never had her own publication. Doubting if she is notable enough to include here. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "never had her own publication." She is the world's top authority on Rig Veda. Check the link I posted in talk:Hinduism. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just operated. Not actually top, but not bad either. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. Keep looking and you will find her to be the top. See this for instance . Kautilya3 (talk)

The inclusion of the blurb by Jamison and the argumentative posture it takes seems to be more of a polemic and I too question its prominence in what is otherwise meant to be a biographical article overall. As for being "the world's top authority on Rig Veda", such a subjective claim is laughable at best. There are several eminent scholars and translators of the Rig Veda. Furthermore, I will add that Jamison's position regarding the nationalist/religiously-influenced view of the "Out of India" theory - while valid in many respects on its own right - ignores the flip side: the demonstrably racially/imperialist motivated nature of the "invasion" theory, and its repeated use as a wedge social issue in contemporary Indian politics. Adamska (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that there are more "eminent scholars" on the Vedas, does not mean that Jamison is not relevant. Regarding the flip side: your use of the term "invasion" theory" is out of touch with the mainstream research in this area. The "racially/imperialist motivated nature of the "invasion" theory" applies to the misuse and gross misrepresentation of linguistic and archaeological knowledge, as demonstrated by the the term "invasion theory," not to serious academic research in this area. And that's exactly what Jamison is pointing at.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan - I disagree that the "invasion" theory is completely out of currency, at least insofar as it is still accepted in academic cirlces in India (and, on an increasingly rarer degree, in the West). Indeed, the "invasion" paradigm is still employed as a potent political/social issue by certain Indian social activists and historians (e.g., the branding of tribals and certain other castes as "adivasis" or "indigenous peoples", in opposition to the "foreign Aryan" "high castes" - views that are still propagated in Indian textbooks to a large extent). As to Jamison - I take issue with the sweeping statement of her being the "world's top authority on the Rig Veda" - a highly subjective characterization that is inappropriate for any serious scholarly discussion. Additionally, I do not take the reference to her (or to Ms. Guha) in the article as pointing to the multi-facted ways in which the Aryan issue can be misused - rather it appears that her criticism is focused solely on the so-called Hindu nationalists who preach the "Out of India" theory, and exudes a dismissive approach and resistance to the view that any scholarly critique of the migration/invasion theory is a valid area of academic inquiry (hence her reference to the Indo/Aryan issue as being a "manufactured" controversy); rather, she appears to believe that any criticism is motivated purely by extraneous ideological concerns. Indeed, it is in large part due to the work of folks like Bryant (and others) that the "invasion" paradigm is no longer the mainstream view (as it was until well into the 20th century), as critique and questioning of the once dominant view has led to a rexamination of the issue. Adamska (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The summaries provided here are representative summaries of the critiques by the scholars. Wikipedia is based on what the scholars say, not what the editors think.
 * As for it being WP:UNDUE, which is the other argument you are making, the biographies of scholars always discuss the work they have produced (which is the main point of their notability). When the works are discussed, we summarise what the reliable sources say about them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The use here of the term "invasion theory" is misplaced; the accepted theory is a theory on migration, not on "invasion." Google scholar gives 514 hits for "Aryan invasion theory; of the first ten, three are by Frawley... For 2016, it's only fourteen hits, the first one being "BRAHMO SAMAJ AS AN ACTOR IN THE DISSEMINATION OF ARYAN INVASION THEORY (AIT) IN INDIA" (granted, that's the 19th century, not the 1960s. But that may be an indication of a certain time-lag in the spread of more up-to-date ideas...). Bryants's research on these ideas and their continuing popularity with some people in India is interesting and noteworthy, but probably contributed very little to the dismissal of an "invasion model" in academic circles. It had some currency in the 1960, thanks to Mortimer Wheeler, and even he was more cautious than the "antagonists" of this "Aryan invasion theory."  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: taking a further look at those recent Google Scholar, the "AIT" is indeed relevant in an Indian context. It's relevant to describe that context. But it's also relevant to make very clear that the "AIT" is not mainstream "scholarship."  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is a Cambridge University Press book from 1970 using Aryan invasion.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan - That the "invasion" paradigm was not discarded until very recently is fact. My middle school and high school world history textbooks (circa 1995-2000) in California reflected the "invasion" narrative, with all its trappings re: "light skinned" Aryans on chariots "conquering" the indigenous peoples of the Indus Valley (see also  <>). It is only in recent decades that the "invasion" view has lost prominence, replaced by the "migration" thesis. The contribution of scholars like Bryant (and second-generation Indologists) - who have questioned the fundamental assumptions at the core of the entire Indo-Aryan debate in all its historical, linguistic, anthropological, and sociological dimensions - in leading to the decline of the "invasion" thesis is thus notable. That the Jamisons and Guhas of the world would reflexively dismiss any such academic inquiry as being motivated by cynical Hindu nationalism reflects more on their insecurity - as many scholars of their view, having championed an invasionist (or invasionist "light") paradigm for decades - now find their work being questioned/re-examined; instead of engaging in serious debate/reflection, they seek to tar and feather their opponents (like Bryant) with ad hominem innuendo (e.g., providing an "intellectual gloss" for Hindu nationalist fantasies). The fact that Jamison elevates and equates the supposed infallibility of the Migration theory with the theory of evolution (e.g., her comparison of presenting opposing viewpoints as being akin to espousing intelligent design) is ludicrous and reveals a deep-seated sense of intellectual self-righteousness. Adamska (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Adamska (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, I am glad you started using the term "migration" instead of "invasion" because I was getting tired of the invasion debate. The "invasion" thesis was discarded sometime in the early 20th century and it was covered in Romila Thapar's History of India written in the 60s. If the California textbooks took this long to catch up, well, you can complain to the State of California, I suppose. That is of no relevance to Wikipedia.
 * The issues of Indo-European migrations is studied by a worldwide community of archaeologists, historians and linguists. (Bryant is none of those.) You need to read that page and understand what is said there. Most Indian proponents of indigenous Aryanism are really kupastha mandukas who just keep reading and supporting each other without any knowledge of the outside world. And the so-called "Out of India" theory is pure mythology, which doesn't have a single shred of evidence.
 * As somebody interested in "serious debate and reflection" I suggest that you read the page on Indo-European migrations, read the books by Anthony and Malory cited there, read the critiques by Jamison and Guha, and come back here if you have any serious points to make. Otherwise, you are just WP:SOAPBOXing and you will get sanctioned for disruption. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * @Kautilya3 - Perhaps you can go back and re-read what I wrote - I've never claimed to support the "Out of India" theory, nor have I expressed any views regarding its validity.  I have no idea what a "kupastha manduka" is, and your highly generalized (and seemingly pre-conceived) viewpoint regarding the issue strikes me as curious, and somewhat agenda driven.  In any event, I've said what I had to say, and thats that.  Adamska (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Ironically, according to David Anthony (2015), it's only fairly recently (one or two decades) that the steppe-theory has gained such prominence. Although Maria Gimbutas proposed her Kurgan-theory already in the 1950s (if I remember correctly), she was fermently opposed by influential western archaeologists. Mallory was influential in the 1970s and later in shifting the support, and David Anthony is now a leading author on this topic, with his The Horse, the Wheel and Language being published as recently as 2007. Most recently, genetic research is adding further support to the steppe/migration theory. In this context, and apart from the reception and lasting influence of Muller in India, Wheeler's 1960s theory on an agressive invasion was short-lived. It's interesting to read his own publications; he's not as outspoken as the propa-antagonists of the "AIT" are. Anyway, there is no "AIT," except in the minds of some people who are fighting over the 'external' influences on India (brackets for the term 'external'; India is not an island in history, but part of both Eurasian and south-east Asian history. No isolated position for India, despite the romantic longings for such an exception). Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: Gimbutas, of course, also pictured the Indo-Europeans as soem sort of brutal, culture-destroying invaders. So, in that respect, there is a point in saying that the theory shifted quite recently into a more 'peacefull' variant.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * What I remember from the school days is "Central Asia" as the origin of Indo-Aryans. This was challenged by Colin Renfrew with the Anatolian hypothesis, which I never found convincing, but it was apparently taken quite seriously by the scholars. Renfrew also popularised the possibility of "peaceful" expansion, people spreading agricultural knowhow and language along with it, without ever invading anything. But with Central Eurasia again becoming the predominant theory, in my view, the "invasion" idea is back. The Indo-Iranians had the horse, the wheel and the religion, all military and ideological advantages not dissimilar to the Turks in the last millennium. The Hindu nationalists have good reason to feel threatened. The scientists are being very cautious, but the nationalists can see the writing on the wall. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 - not every skeptic of the Aryan Migration theory (with its varying metrics such as timeframe/era, region, etc.) is a "Hindu nationalist." You should cease the inaccurate generazliations of whole groups of people under this vaguely definifed umberlla. Otherwise, your view just devolves into a sweeping stereotype. Adamska (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Let us finesse the Hindu nationalist issue. Coming back to the topic, the only way you are going to get any traction on this issue is by producing evidence that the scholars cited are not reliable or by producing alternative reviews that might offer alternative views. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hindu nationalism is too broadsweeping. One could similarly sterotype those who promote Aryan migration as Christian missionaries.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

On quotes generally
I touched on this issue in the above thread: publisher blurbs. Please see WP:QUOTEFARM, which is basically what this article appears to be at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

(Associate) Professor
His CV says "Associate Professor, Department of Religion, Rutgers University, 2001-present". But it seems to be last updated in 2009. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   20:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The department website says "professor". Departments don't write that unless they are actually paying a full professor salary.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the CV linked to in the department profile seems to say he is a professor. I think we may need to update our cite to reference that CV. - Sitush (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)