Talk:Michael E. J. Witzel/Archive 1

Question about Shrikant Talageri and Aryan Invasion Theory
Is there a difference between the two Talageri titles "Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian Nationalism" and "Aryan Invasion Theory: A Reappraisal", or are they the same book? (I've seen both advertised on the internet, with 1993 as date of publication. 129.22.46.197 Jan 18 2005

Links
Two users, and, are removing (critical) links from this article. I kindly ask them to read WP:NPOV and to stop removing them. I've also removed the following link from the page, it doesn't belong here. --Machaon 18:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Witzel, Please explain why you have removed the criticism section and the associated link. I will reinsert if I don't hear back. --Pranathi 19:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * your statement was general and unreferenced. If you refer to some specific dispute (such as Talageri), you may have a point. But just stating "He is criticized" is not encyclopedic. He is criticized for criticizing Hindutva.... by Hindutva people. Big surprise. Note that we have Aryan Invasion Theory for the debunking of 19th century colonialist views and its political importance in India today. As such, it treats a socio-political topic. Otoh, we have Indo-Aryan migration, for discussion of contemporary academic opinion on actual migrations of the early Bronze Age. Needless to say, MEJ Witzel is involved in the latter, not the former (except for when the former threatens to spill over to the latter), and is afaik well within academic mainstream. He is special, maybe, in even condescending to discuss fringy theses. His views of Vedic dialectology have been criticized for being over-confident. Feel free to discuss actual criticsm along these lines, if you think you are capable of doing so. dab (ᛏ) 21:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * To say he is criticized for criticizing Hindutva is a bit too simplistic, some of his critics have voiced relevant criticisms like his mistranlation of a verse of the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra. --Machaon 01:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Historical studies by different scholars have always resulted in contradicting theories. Mr.Witzel's position on Aryan Invasion Theory, which I believe is true, must be countered by logical facts. Instead, some of the contributors attack and harp on national sentiments is unacceptable. History is a record of past events and not a novel to inspire patriotism.[PB]


 * Witzel, Please explain why you have removed the criticism & external links. Dbachmann -is it not encyclopedic enough? Also note how his critics are painted as nationalist while his supporters as Marxist are removed promptly. But aren't most of the Indian supporters of the theory from the Marxist camp? --Pranathi 19:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

well, his critics are nationalist. I don't think this is disputed. I have no idea what Marxism has to do with anything here. This is not about Indian politics, it is about an Indologist doing Indology regardless of Indian politics. The Injunctive bit is laughable, it is well known Panini doesn't discuss it, I hardly think Witzel can claim that as his own discovery. So if somebody comes up with an argument supporting the contrary, that is not a point made against Witzel in particular. I agree that the "flamewar" external links are less than notable. dab (ᛏ) 22:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If the 'flamwar' links are less than notable, how did you find them suitable to add yourself in Rigveda, where they originated? --Pranathi 00:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * how about the content
 * Michael Witzel is criticized for his allegedly errored scholarship and squelching voices critical of his theory with ad hominem attacks about their nationalistic nature.


 * Shrikant Talageri, author of the The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis which analyzes the opposing Indian homeland theory, is his most vocal critic. He accuses Witzel's treatment of information to be casual, careless and shipshod. In his book, he also explores what he alleges to be errors and manipulations in Witzel's tracing of Vedic lineages and geographical evidence in the Rigveda to prove his theory. Particularly, he says, Witzel, as we have seen, violates every single norm and basic principle, set up by himself, in the analysis of the Rigveda. And yet, he manages to get nowhere. The Rigveda, basically, refuses to yield to his cajoling. Witzel didn't write a rebuttal of these accusations in his review on Talageri's book (which he deems "devoid of scholarly value"), but only stated that it is "a long and confused ‘analysis’ in Talageri’s book of my same 1995 paper” and that the “angry assault on my 1995 paper…. can thankfully be passed over here”.


 * Witzel's contention is that he is an academic and his critics are nationalist, therefore his theory is correct seeing that it is unbiased - you are just repeating his contention. His critics argue against it saying that his logic is flawed. When you attack the reasons for critcism instead of the criticism itself - you are hiding behind the critics' reputation or worse, a bad reputation that you helped create. You may hold Witzel up as a great personality (let me know if I am assuming too much) but his critics should also be allowed to speak in Wikipedia - editorship is not just for the elite, as you well know. The external links were lifted from Talageri's entry. Let me know how you would like to clean them up and I will do the same on both entries.


 * By Marxist, I am referring to the other edits made by 59.92.144.155 - that his supporters among Indians are mostly Marxist. Just as the Indian majority of the Indian homeland theory are nationalists the opposers are Marxists. Why these quick edits changing anything negative about the man. Is he untouchable? --Pranathi 23:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

you must be kidding, that's about as far from npov as it gets. Which are you disputing, that Witzel is an academic (hello, Harvard?), or that his opponents are nationalist? Maybe it is too sweeping to imply that they are all nationalist? But non-nationalist "opponents" will not style themselves as "Witzel debunkers", they will maybe criticise this point or that, but that will not make them an arch-nemesis of Witzel's, that's just academia as usual. The Talageri episode is maybe not very much to the credit of either party, and it is not notable enough to unroll in detail. We can place a link to Talageri, I suppose, and mention that the two were in dispute. This is not an article about Talageri's book, or about criticism of the book. Take a detailed discussion of the debate to the books' article, if you do think it should be treated at all. Talageri's criticism is laughable, from a scholarly viewpoint. You are free to cite academic reviews of Witzel's works. In fact, I can see if I can find any for you. The emphasis is on academic here; just mudslinging by a Hindutva author looking to get even for a devastating criticism of his book will not fly. Hell, everybody can say "your logic is flawed" without even reading your work. I have no idea what T means by saying W "violates every principle set up by himself", but hey, it sounds good, doesn't it. I will not vouch for the quality, let alone infallibility of Witzel's work, of course, but at least it deserves to be criticised by his peers, and not by some political author with an axe to grind. dab (ᛏ) 00:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Have you also read Talageri's response (2001) to the Witzel Review of Talageri's book? To say T. criticism is laughable sounds rather simplistic.

So here's my suggestion for you:
 * Witzel has been in dispute with Shrikant G. Talageri over the latter's 2000 The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis.

You want details of the controversy, you click on the link. Before you add criticism to this article, you'll first have to add more detail of what is being criticised, precisely. Particulars can also go to Vedic civilization (such as disputes over the location of individual schools or tribes). dab (ᛏ) 00:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So you ARE really saying Witzel cannot be touched except by fellow 'academics' from western universities (who are accused of prejudice and shoddy scholarship) or Indian Marxist Indologists (who have their own axe to grind). I am not disputing his academic status or that maybe his opposers are nationalistic, but would like to point out that ad hominem attacks on the critic is not scholarly. This is not about Talageri's book or criticism of it - the majority of the content I added was about Talageri's criticism of Witzel's theory - the little I added on criticism of Talageri's book was to satisfy the Witzel camp (I can remove it happily). If Talageri's citicism is laughable from a scholarly viewpoint, you should be able to mention that in the page itself. Again, I think rather than suspect/mudsling the critic, we should present his criticism and leave it to the reader to judge. You can always add Witzels opinion of his critics and their qualifications. I am open to changing the content but not to trimming it one line per your suggestion - even the single line you suggested is about Talageri's book and does not mention his criticism of Witzel's development of his theory. --Pranathi 01:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * so western 'academics' summarily stand accused of 'shoddy scolarship' now? Of course you can detail on-topic criticism of W's actual work; I suppose you realize that the idea of an Indo-Aryan migration is not W's, so if T doesn't like the idea, he is not criticizing W in particular. I understand W is taking such a migration pretty much for granted, and is focussing on events within India. It would be hopeless to trace "Vedic dialects" back into 19th century BC Turkmenistan, and this isn't what W has done. The "AIT" is therefore really beside the point. dab (ᛏ) 13:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It was on-topic - criticism was not about the migration theory but about W's specific analysis of the RigVeda to prove his theory - W does not try to trace vedic dialects but vedic lineages described in the Rig Veda - the AIT is not being discussed here. I will reinsert, please discuss before deleting (Witzel you too).--Pranathi 06:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Michael Witzel works on Aryan Invasion of the Indian sub-continent invited angry reactions from the Hindu nationalists. Any work on ancient history of India and invasion of Aryans from the middle east to India were vehemently protested by the more ardent believers among Hindu nationalists. Using History as a political tool has created unnecessary controversy around his works.[PB]

User just removed the criticisms and links again, as far as I can see there is no consensus to remove those on this page so I reverted them. VegaDark 23:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I will not vouch for the quality, let alone infallibility of Witzel's work, of course, but at least it deserves to be criticised by his peers, and not by some political author with an axe to grind So you think you can decide who can criticise you and who cannot? This arbitrary brading of critics is not very scholarly. So what if he is a nationalist? Who are you to decide who his peers are? --Babub→ Talk 06:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Review of links
Let us review these critical links then. If you can cite criticism in reputable journals, that's fine, but we won't link to every troll on the internet.
 * This guy must be joking. hán has been interpreted as 3rd  singular injunctive for at least two centuries. Indra the dragon slayer is a central theme of the Rigveda. This has nothing to do with Witzel at all. Witzel was pointing out the obvious, not his own views in particular, and this author does nothing but show his own ignorance. This author is aware of Panini, but unaware of the Injunctive (which is general knowledge among Rigvedic scholars, and not Witzel's idea at all), which really goes to illustrate Witzel's point that Panini is unaware of the Injunctive. This article is a joke if you have some background knowledge, and just empty drivel if you don't.  dab (ᛏ) 10:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * - I don't see any relation between your comments and that of the argument - the author says the phrase Witzel quotes is not in the Rigveda - simple yes/no statement. but really you're comments don't matter unless you are a 'scholar' yourself. I am understanding your interpretation of RigVedic scholars to be western scholars of a foreign language as opposed to Indian scholars of a native language - the author is the principal of a Vedic academy of Gurvayoor where, IMO, the study of Sanskrit & vedas is more rigourous than in any Univ. I am sorry, but I can only see Witzels arrogance repeated in your comments. --Pranathi 23:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * the same goes for these -- apparently WItzel has been taking it upon themselves to inform Hindutva people of trivial knowledge known to Rigveda scholars for at least a century, and it is attacked for it. These are attacks on a strawman, they are shooting the messenger, while they should really be denigrating philology as a whole if its results don't fit their preconceptions. dab (ᛏ) 10:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * - same repsonse as above. Who are these mysterious Rigvedic scholars and why does Witzel not defend them if he believes them to be correct and can quote them confidently. and yes, really why shoot the messenger by accusing him of Hindutva - he is a scholar himself - 'only' is that he is a native scholar --Pranathi 23:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * -- I am beginning to feel sorry for Mr. Witzel. This article is at least not quite so ridiculous, but Witzel is again attacked in lieu of western scholarship as a whole. Well, I am prepared to keep that link, it shows the gist of the "controversy", and it is not quite so embarassing for the critics as the others. dab (ᛏ) 10:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * - of course it's not ridiculous, it's by David Frawley, not a native Hindu (who cannot interpret their own language). Btw, Frawley is specifically talking to Witzel's development of his theory and not western scholarship as a whole --Pranathi 23:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * this is at last a critique of some of Witzel's own work. The content of this chapter is basically a rehash of Witzel's claims, with interspersed disparaging comments, concluding in "Witzel, as we have seen, violates every single norm and basic principle, set up by himself, in the analysis of the Rigveda". We have seen nothing of the kind, except empty rhetorics. This is extremely poor, ad hominem "scholarship". But we can let the link stand to speak for itself. dab (ᛏ) 10:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * - ad hominem? I believe that is the term used for Witzel. This is not a rehash - but a point by point breaking down of Witzels logic used in his work. --Pranathi 23:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Have you read it and also Talageri's 2001 response to the Witzel review? Again I think your judgement is too simplistic, but I'd like to see a neutral account of the dispute by somebody who is neither a Witzel nor a Talageri follower. --Machaon 01:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

dab (ᛏ) 10:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * -- these are below comment.


 * my responses in italics above. The more I contnue this dialogue, the more I get the impression of arrogance and dismissing native scholars (as Hindutva vadis etc). Since in Wikipedia, we quote sources and don't do independent research, the important element to deciding what can and cannot be included in this page are sources.


 * Witzel, see that last link in your edits . The descr is less about the link of Ts criticism of W and more about targetting T. Unless we reach a compromise, the disputes on this article will need to be escalated. --Pranathi 23:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "who are these mysterious scholars"? I am glad for your question: They include, notably, Hermann Oldenberg, who wrote 120 years ago. It doesn't matter where a scholar is born. It does matter if he has political preconceptions (which you seem to admit these critics do), and it matters even more if they are aware of Oldenberg. If you ignore Oldenberg, you are having a 19th century argument. Something, for some reason, these Hindutva scohlars seem to delight in, what with denouncing British colonialists for imperialistic views etc. Hello? This is 2005, not 1870. We quote sources, on Wikipedia. Reputable sources, i.e. peer reviewed ones. None of the links above qualifies as such. Just because something has an URL doesn't make it a "source". I can put up a geocities page with a giant title "Witzel is stupid" in blinking pink letters. That doesn't make it a "source". dab (ᛏ) 08:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think Oldenberg belongs to the Talageri dispute, not the Panini dispute. Talageri has also replied about the Oldenberg issue in his 2001 response to Witzel's review. --Machaon 01:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oldenberg's primary field was Buddhism and Pali. Even his entry in wiki does not mention he was a Vedic scholar. He wrote 120 years ago and is not available for comment. To discuss Panini and Sayana, who wrote millenia ago on the Veda, why do you need to reference his work. Can Witzel (being a 'scholar' himself) not speak to it independently - referencing his knowledge of Oldenberg.


 * Also curious, did Oldenberg/Witzel etc ever write in Sanskrit - there are many Rigveda scholars that have learnt ONLY in sanskrit their entire life and cannot read their books in english, german etc- not to dismiss their work, but if they are commenting on a sanskrit text, one may have thought he'd want to reach out to a sanskrit audience unless he was writing solely for a western audience who will take their word as the authority. So in effect, they are taking discussion of Sanskrit out of it's territory (where their theories may not have stood a chance) and provoking native sanskrit scholars to respond to work in english and german. It is like taking a scientific theory and disecting it with philosophy and blaming protesting scientists for not having an idea of philosophy.


 * And of course it is convenient to dismiss native scholars (many that can't defend themselves in English) as Hindutva because the prof of a reputed 'American' univ says so. I never said the criticism was political - I said that allegations of politics should not be used the red herring to tackling actual issues with the work. your comment 'delight in .. denouncing.. imperialist views..' that is another off-topic, I won't comment. Please point me to wikipolicy that quotes only 'reputable' sources and what qualifies as 'reputable'. Not only that, most of the links point to articles that Witzel has responded to - does that make them 'reputable' now - a 'Harvard' prof has responded to their contents individually. --Pranathi 18:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * the whole point is, your scholars are attacking Witzel because he is translationg Oldenberg's views into English for them. This has been the results of Western Sanskrit philology for 120 years, and your scholars are reading these results now, and they bash Witzel for it. You can either dismiss Western scholarship (including the inherently Western concept of an encyclopedia) altogether (many Indian scholars do), or you can take their results at face value, and consider them for their merit. In either case, leave Witzel alone, he is just an heir to this tradition, he didn't build it. But sure, if Witzel considers these authors worthy of a retort, you may reference them both, the criticism and the retort. dab (ᛏ) 18:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have added to my comment a bit above (edit conflict).
 * Western sanskrit philology in German - that 'my' scholars never had access to - the poor fellows were probably thinking someone writing on sanskrit would write in sanskrit. Noone is dismissing western scholarship on the whole - only it's treatment of Sanskrit and Hinduism related topics - pls don't deviate from topic (just curious- any example of Indians dismissing encyclopedia?). Right, Witzel may be heir to the tradition only - but he is in a position to correct the mistakes of western scholarship in indology - or aleast to make changes to it's workings. Instead he is adamant in his position and only acts to further the mistakes made (ex: calif board of Ed episode). That is why he is being criticized, as the living defender of this tradition. If he thinks western scholarship is correct, he should be able to defend it, being a 'scholar' himself, or accept that Oldenberg was mistaken in some areas. --Pranathi 19:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * well, western scholarship is indebted to the critical method, not to a lineage of gurus. This implies the principle of standing on the shoulders of giants. We are indebted to Oldenberg for foundational insights, but we know more than him. No westerner worth his salt will defend a statement based on ipse dixit alone. This is a clash of mentalities; traditional Indian scholars take for granted that people repeat statements by Oldenberg, Bohtlingck, Muller, Monier-Williams etc. out of respect or awe, while the simple reason is that much of their views have been corrobated by later scholarship. If Oldenberg was wrong on something, that's out of the window. It is just that you will note that he was wrong surprisingly rarely. Oldenberg didn't come up with the Injunctive, if I remember correctly, we are indebted to Paul Thieme for that. You will never be able to orally preserve a text for three millennia by the critical method alone, for this feat, Indian scholarship is much better suited. And without this ability, Western scholarship would have no material to go on from. So nobody expects traditional Indian scholars to give a shit about western scholarship, they can dismiss it as puerile and be done. But as soon as they pretend to enter an argument within the 'critical method' (such as claims of astronomical evidence in the texts), they will be judged by it.
 * this is a topic far beyond the scope of this page. You are right that Witzel appears to be active both as a scholar, and in political debates. Both areas may be documented. The sad thing is that Witzel's political opponents attempt to attack him on scholarly turf. This makes them look ridiculous. Frawley is evidently not qualified to criticize Witzel. Let him publish his criticism in an Indological journal first. If Witzel is active in a political debate in the state of California, he is of course open to political criticism, and you are free to refer us to such. Political criticism masquerading as scholarship is not acceptable, and the rant summarliy smearing "Western scholars" as racists, bigots, Ku Klux Klan members or white suprematists is clearly not the sort of link we want. If you can provide a sober account of the schoolbook debate in California, I am sure we can agree to use it as a source. dab (ᛏ) 12:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, he made remarks on Hindus that strongly seem to be racist. If he had made the same remarks on Christians or Muslims, he would probably have been compared to worse things.


 * So, in summary, you say -
 * Indian scholarship is not qualified to judge any research into Sanskrit and Indology, though they are vastly more familiar with it in quality (a lifetime of focussed learning) and quantity (handful of western scholars vs numerous native sanskrit academies), because their methods are very inferior to the 'critical method' (though the same Indian sanskrit scholars made say advances in calculus 300 years before Europe, or say they came up with the decimal system that changed mathematics in the west forever).
 * Indian scholarship is very prone to Ipse dixit while western is almost never.
 * Western is based on critical method and logic while Indian is just repetitive of older work - in other words not innovative (I guess Panini, Ramanuja, Sankaracharya, purva paksha methodology and Hindu revivals through the ages etc don't count) in any way.


 * I don't understand the context for the outburst - is this the reason you give for western scholars not engaging native scholars and their not writing in sanskrit (bad team spirit)? Well, I agree this topic is not for this page and I will refrain from further commenting on something so prejudiced & arrogant from get go. I will continue to think that they don't write in sanskrit because despite all their rhetoric on 'philological' discoveries they really cannot capably write in sanskrit and their theories will not stand much chance in the language. Let's leave it at that - 2 opposing POVs.

- ::But, unlike you, I think Indian scholarship does need to give a s about western in the face of the damage that they are doing in isolation - especially because they have wider reach (hello, Harvard). --Pranathi 20:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * well, evidently, the West was crap, scientifically, up to 1780 or so. The Indians taught the Arabs, and the Arabs taught the Europeans. So yes, India had science way before Europe. That's great, but that's history. No, these were not the "same" Indian scholars. These people lived 2000 years ago, while those you quote are alive now (see, you're doing it again. India had excellent scholars in 500 BC. Therefore, they must still be excellent. Talageri is from India. Therefore, Talageri must be an excellent scholar.) Yes, I would like to believe that "Indian" scholarship is excellent. But if it is, it will not matter if it is "Indian", since it will have value for itself, and not by virtue of being from somewhere. You earnestly seemed to consider Talageri an example of serious Indian scholarship. But I wouldn't judge summarily from having seen a few sad Internet pages. I am certain that Indians are producing excellent scholarship, I am just afraid that this will be of much less interest to you, because their conclusions will not nearly be as polemical as T's. dab (ᛏ) 00:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It is perfectly okay to criticize T. and declare that he can be polemical, but I would say that some writings of Witzel can also be criticized and are clearly polemical. T. himself later also considered his chapters critical of Witzel and others as "unnecessary and superfluous" (Talageri 2001: Chapter 1). I agree that many views of Talageri deserve to be criticized or are open to criticism, but he certainly deserves better than sweeping and polemical criticism à la Witzel. --Machaon 01:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Dab, Again, I have never talked to Talageri's merits (misquoting me again), only quoted from sources and protested ad hominem charges against him. I have asserted that there ARE many excellent native scholars who are excluded from indology, western vedic studies, philology by taking the medium into foreign languages. You are the one that has summararily dismissed ALL Indian scholars as using Ipse dixit, not being based on wonderful critical method and logic and not being innovative. --Pranathi 01:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

From Pranathi: "Indian scholarship is not qualified to judge any research into Sanskrit and Indology, though they are vastly more familiar with it in quality (a lifetime of focussed learning) and quantity (handful of western scholars vs numerous native sanskrit academies), because their methods are very inferior to the 'critical method' (though the same Indian sanskrit scholars made say advances in calculus 300 years before Europe, or say they came up with the decimal system that changed mathematics in the west forever). " - All this about calculus and decimal points is irrelevant. In 15th century India there was a widely held belief in the existence of elephant headed gods and various beastly idols. It wasn't more advanced in Europe either, with belief that every sunday Europeans literally ate the flesh and blood of Jesus. But today, no respectable scientist will discuss the core dogmas of Hinduism or Christianity or any religion in scientific terms. Yet during this "irrational" medieval period, Indian mathematicians still made advancements in calculus, and Europeans still made advancements in physics (i.e. Newton's concepts of gravity, which were not known to any other part of the world besides Europe even if Indians had knowledge of calculus theorems). Nazi Germany (sorry to bring it up, but Nazi Germany is a good thought experiment analogy for the discussion) invented practical rocket flight and invented jet engines before any other nation, but despite their scientific prowess, we agree that Nazi culture and Nazi historiography was fundamentally flawed, biased, and irrational. No matter how great a nation's mathematical or hard science knowledge is, it is still very difficult to critically examine history and social issues without being biased one way or the other due to one's upbringings, inherent prejudices, and cultural biases. I don't know who is more correct, Witzel or Talageri, but it appears you (Pranathi) are suggesting that the exceptional mathematical genius of Indian mathematicians in 1400 AD automatically translates into universal genius in every field for every Indian in every era. History shows this is not true and every nation will try to read history (and sometimes even science) to benefit and justify their own agendas. The social sciences are far more prone to personal bias than is math, and the achievements of Indian mathematicians do not make imply that Indian historiography is up to par critically, even if it is. Likewise we shouldn't blindly consider any western treatment of the subject to be automatically "critical" but your assumptions about exceptional Indian scholarship is far too hasty and based on poor logic. Jan. 3 2006 12:40 EST 66.213.109.25


 * The Indian mathematicians of the day were sanskrit scholars - Dab was talking of western scholarship (on the whole, not just in hinduism) and it's 'critical method' being superior to Indian which he said simply parrots older work. My assumptions of exceptional Indian sanskrit scholarship is not based on math (which I was only argueing to Dab's points) but are based on again - quality (rigour of study of language and texts) and quantity (# of traditional and non-trad sanskrit academies in India vs few learned people outside). Hinduism has rejuvented itself over the ages, opened itself to self-criticism, changes and innovation more than any other - and it's scholars are accused of parroting predecessors without question? I'm surprised you did not have anything to say about dab's insiniuations covering the 'entire' Indian scholarship but had much to say on my defense of it. I do not claim to know who is better either, Witzel or Talageri (my perception is that Talageri is not a sanskrit 'scholar' even, but his topics do not involve the language but content in rigveda) - but I would like to present both sides without POV . And in the process, if people run down Indian sanskrit scholarship with high and mighty statements - without even engaging them (most that don't know english) then I think I am not wrong in my defense. If any western treatment of the Hindu & sanskrit history claims to be critical it should pass the quality assurance test of native scholarship - not acceptability (as you say, assuming 'native bias') but the accuracy test.


 * Btw, The elephant-headed god is revered more today than in 15th century. The point here is that the worship is an external element of the underlying philosophy. Smartas, the denomination that reveres him, believe that God, who is without form and limitless, can be worshiped with physical form to help the limited human intellect visualize & reach a more personal relation with Him. In Hinduism, reaching God is never one step but many steps for people at different spiritual levels. So the Smartas, who believe in advaita, would probably consider meditating on the unmanifest as the higher next step. Then, as now, the elephant headed god is not dogma, in fact there is not much that is dogma in the religion - which explains the diverse philosophies that it encompasses. The understanding of Hinduism based on Abrahamic constructs perpetrates such misunderstandings - not many non-hindu scholars would have given the above explanation to something they consider irrational - further reason why we need native scholars to explain the religion - as is being done for study of other religions in the west.


 * Again, to return to the actual issues (vs debate that can go on forever) I am surprised that critizing elements are suppressed from the article on flimsy reasons. I would appreciate your input (see next section) on whether 'politics' section should be arbitrarily deleted without reason. Also, the criticism of Witzel based on his knowledge of the injunctive - is it appropriate to point back to your predecessors (seeing western scholarship has 'critical method') instead of defending a statement that you asserted. Pranathi 02:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"Btw, The elephant-headed god is revered more today than in 15th century. The point here is that the worship is an external element of the underlying philosophy. Smartas, the denomination that reveres him, believe that God, who is without form and limitless, can be worshiped with physical form to help the limited human intellect visualize & reach a more personal relation with Him. In Hinduism, reaching God is never one step but many steps for people at different spiritual levels. So the Smartas, who believe in advaita, would probably consider meditating on the unmanifest as the higher next step. Then, as now, the elephant headed god is not dogma, in fact there is not much that is dogma in the religion - which explains the diverse philosophies that it encompasses.(Pranathi)"
 * That's not necessarily true, I have Sikh friends who go back to Punjab and witness violent controversy over itinerant preachers who claim to be the 11th guru, thus directly going against the dogma of the Granth Sahib's perpetual guru status. Now it could be argued that Sikhism was simply Hinduism corrupted by Abrahamaic Islam but many respectable Hindu nationalists do not belittle Sikhism, Hindunationalists I talk to respect Sikhism (like Jainism or Buddhism) as another legitimate manifestation of Indian religion, only they will say that these unique Hindu religions have been alienated from one another because of British policies. Furthermore Sikh history is the history of native resistance to foreign imperialism (namely the Mughals). Clearly dogma is alive and well in genuine Indian religions, apologetics not withstanding.


 * Furthermore, my limited understanding of Harihara suggest that the whole concept is a middle-way to compromise between dogmatic Shiva or VIshnu partisans. Feel free to correct me on this point, but those who downplay the dogmatic aspects of certain sectarian Hindus offer an alternative ideology from a pulpit, and ignore the actual ideologies present "on the ground".


 * Reading this debate and the points Pranathi brings up I think ihe intimately personal religious convictions of native sanskrit scholars is less a "understanding" than a serious burden on the critical rigor of their research. Even in the west, religio-historical traditions held by the monotheist religions to be true for millenia have only been dispelled by modern "critical" scholarship, the process of which is not constantly mindful of fitting results with pre-conceived articles of faith. As religious faith has declined in Europe, European history has been more elucidated; the best work done on religious history/mythology in Europe tends to be done by "outsiders" and not those who are personally connected with the religious tradition in question. The lifetime familiarty and unmatched volume of native Indian research into ancient Indian history is definitely not a guarantor of "rigor," if their lifetime of erudition contaminates research inclinations, resulting in their findings to justify their personal mysticism, theological preconceptions, and simple personal pride. That Indians should be more pious today than 500 years ago suggests that Indian historical scholarship would be biased, and would be more keen to play into the religious expectations of the average Hindu reader. The 19th c. Raj administration's "orthodox" history of India likely promoted a Eurocentric bias to serve the Victorians' racial/cultural prejudices and governance needs for India, but there can be an element of truth beneath the "western" view of the matter, and a native Hindu-centric religious/nationalist bias is not an entirely attractive alternative. These are just somethings to think about and not related to the Witzel article itself, and is just commentary on the unfounded zeal of the "Hindu viewpoint" crusades found on Wikipedia (including several inaccuracies in Indian astronomers pages that I have corrected). Personally I am in favor of the theory of Indo-European origin in north INdia but even Talageri's books go over the top, such as seriously claiming that Aztec language was influenced by Sanskrit. There is definitely a national pride agenda underneath all of this, and it undermines otherwise good science. 129.22.46.197  1.23.2006

Arbitrary branding of published books
"Reputable sources, i.e. peer reviewed ones. None of the links above qualifies as such. Just because something has an URL doesn't make it a "source". I can put up a geocities page with a giant title "Witzel is stupid" in blinking pink letters. That doesn't make it a "source"– So you are arbitrarily rejecting a whole bunch of critical books as being "un- reputable"? Also, "''well, western scholarship is indebted to the critical method, not to a lineage of gurus. This implies the principle of standing on the shoulders of giants. We are indebted to Oldenberg for foundational insights, but we know more than him. No westerner worth his salt will defend a statement based on ipse dixit alone.''"– If this in't racist and prejudiced, I don't know what is! If you believe that the Indian scholarship is not capable of and/or western scholarship is indeed alone capable of this "critical method", I don't see why you should even edit the Indian articles, because you will be continuing to do so under such heavy-weight bias! I can understand your opposition to nationalism (I am also with you on that) but your systematic branding of Hindus who oppose your theories as "nationalists" and the heavy-handed criticism of the ancient Guru tradition of Eastern tradition goes beyond the understandable to the bizarre.--Babub→ Talk 14:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly agree. People assume that gurus were some sort of fanatical priesthood, whereas in reality they were less religious scholars than they were philosophers and scientists. They also assume that because it's a western point of view, it is the right point of view. - Varun 71.245.160.178 22:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The preference for the Western point of view is usually because Western research is peer-reviewed, and Western research is international (whereas the Indian point of view is limited to one country). How many pandits submit their work to peer review before it appears publicly? And how many scholars outside of India take pandits as authoritative? CRCulver 22:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We're talking about OLDEN TIMES. Not NOW. And make the distinction between pandits and gurus. Pandits are priests, they learn vedic rituals, not nuances and subtleties of scripture. maybe at one time they were, but not anymore. There are dozens of gurus in India who are qualified to speak about this and they take the form of college professors with genuine credentials. And what is this about submitting work for review? Nobody did it in Europe at the time that you are assuming. - IP


 * CRsorry to say, but Western scholars are not the authorities on Hinduism. If you look at Hinduism it is logical anyways. Hinduism is scientific, Western Scholarship is specualtive. I think Indian scholars (usually scientists) have more peer review than Western scholars (who speculate - linguists, historians, etc.) Bakaman Bakatalk 04:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Content discussion
Dab, This is what I wrote earlier: On another note, Swaminathan, retired Principal of Guruvayoor Sanskrit Vidyapeeth, dissected Witzel's claim (based on Oldenberg's work) that ancient grammarian Panini and Sayana did not know of the injunctive used in the RigVeda and concludes that Witzel himself was ignorant of their work in the face of much evidence to the contrary.

What you changed it to: ''Witzel's analysis of Vedic dialects is entirely within the framework of a preceding Indo-Aryan migration widely accepted in western scholarship, and Witzel's critics often neglect to distinguish Witzel's own results with those of Indology in general. Another example of this is Swaminathan, retired Principal of Guruvayoor Sanskrit Vidyapeeth, who attacked Witzel for "his" claim that Panini was unaware of the category of the Vedic Injunctive, a result that is well established in Vedic studies at least since the work of Paul Thieme.''

The objection that I have is that it is criticism that has been cleverly turned around to criticize Swaminathan (whom this page is not about nor the criticism is valid). The point is that W is in a position (Harvard prof) that should back up his statements and is not in the position of maybe a schoolboy that can say 'well, that's what my textbooks say'. I will revise the original sentence to accomodate your views. --Pranathi 01:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * yes, the criticism is valid. Swaminathan was out of his element, criticizing Witzel for claims that were not his own. This is not the point to discuss the Vedic Injunctive, but people who are not familiar with Vedic grammar will not realize how ridiculous this criticism is. Pranathi, are you familiar with Vedic grammar, and with the Injunctive in particular? The whole discussion is entirely beside the point, and I am afraid you are trying to use it for empty point-scoring without understanding the matter. dab (ᛏ) 11:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My sentence mentions that the results were not his own (based on results established in 'western' vedic studies since the work of Paul Thieme). If swaminathans claim is ridiculous maybe you can mention that in the next sentence. I don't agree with turning the sentence around to argue that people attack witzel for general indology results. If a scientist asserts the heliocentric theory (a known result) and someone says he is wrong - he should be able to defend it - not point back to copernicus. I am not playing point-scoring (don't know if you are), just trying to improve a page that is blogged down by one POV. If you are adamant about your wording maybe we can bring someone neutral in for this parah.


 * What is wrong with the link on calif board controversy . All links in the page do not have to be specific to Witzel. They can point to links that give more info about a topic in the page. Again, if you are adamant we can bring someone neutral in.


 * Witzel, please explain why you have removed the politics section. I know you only like to edit without explaining yourself. I will reinsert, if removed again without explanation this will have to be escalated to dispute resolution.--Pranathi 18:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I daresay there could be a "Politics" section, seeing MW's apparent involvement with California politics. I must say up front that I have no idea about Californian politics, and must take your sources for what they are worth. You still seem to be unable to write that section in an NPOV manner. Please try again, referencing as much as you can, and "writing for the enemy" for NPOV. Also, statements like "Notably, this incident brought into focus academic consensus on the archeological and DNA evidence that repudiates the Indo-Aryan migration theory." are completely pulled out of the air. This is (a) again a statement not related to California politics, but a scholarly matter, and (b) unreferenced and false. It is ridiculous to state that DNA evidence invalidates IA migration. Nobody expects more than a few % of immigrants relative to the native population. My advice therefore, if you want to have a "Politics" section
 * document each assertion about what happened (from sources other than Hindu discussion forums, e.g. Californian newspapers)
 * keep the "Politics" section free from assertions about Bronze Age India
 * If you want to make statements about "scholarly consensus" on Bronze Age India on this or any article, cite academic sources supporting it.
 * Looking forward to your revised "Politics" section, dab (ᛏ) 07:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * PS, if you want to argue that the textbook controversy is notable beyond MW's involvement, I suggest you create California textbook controversy or similar, where the whole thing may be discussed in context. We will then of course to that article from here, saying that MW is an involved party in this controversy. dab (ᛏ) 16:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hoping you take this constructively, I would suggest the same to you - try writing for the enemy. I wanted to note that Witzel's rejection focussed on retaining Aryan 'Invasion' theory stated in textbooks as a fact. But evidence especially genetic evidence was used to show that it was at best a theory, in witzels own words a migration not invasion, and not mainstream (see BBC section on Hinduism). I have reinserted my older parah with the sentence removed though (until and if I find a better one) . To your point 1, the site I used previously (and reinserted) was the source for my politics parah. It was not a 'hindu' discussion forum. --Pranathi 07:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I had very high regard for Wikipedia for it's integrity and non-bias nature towards all issues. Looks like some self appointed moderators here are pro Witzel, biased against hindus and don't allow any constructive critisim.

Staying on the subject
This article is a biography. Those wanting to turn it into an article on competing scholarly theories would be well advised to place relevant WP:NPOV encyclopedic facts into worthy articles on those subjects instead of losing sight of the purpose of a biography.

This article has also had POV adjectives and personal attacks in it. I have removed them, and I will do so again if it becomes necessary. Those tempted to restore them are advised to review WP:NPA. Those who persist in personal attacks or inappropriate postings will be formally warned, which is the first step in the disciplinary process that can result rogue editors being banned. Please help keep Wikipedia a credible impartial encyclopedia and WP:NOT a soapbox. --StanZegel  (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The article still has some POV adjectives and personal attacks in it (like stereotyping all critics of Witzel as Hindutva), though they're currently less than before.


 * WP:NPOV states "Articles without bias describe debates fairly instead of advocating any side of the debate." This is currently not the case in the Talageri paragraph, where Talageri's response to Witzel's cricism is not cited.


 * StanZegel deleted critical external links saying "emoving links that belong in another article, not a biography." Some of these links like the Talageri chapter on Witzel focus on Michael Witzel and I see no reason to remove them. I have the impression that new rules are invented for the Witzel article that wouldn't count in other articles like for example N.S. Rajaram, which has links to the Witzel attacks on Rajaram. Instead of inventing new rules for this article, Wikipedia guidelines should be referred to. This is an article with multiple points of view, so all pov's should be neutrally represented. Also why are references like this  deleted? --Machaon 20:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The article does not state that all of Prof. Witzel's critics are Hindutva, but that Hindutva are among his critics. The Criticism section states two sourced general criticisms, and a single response to each. The two positions are generally stated. It is not the purpose of a bio to go back and forth over and over again. --StanZegel  (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

And why again was the link to the Talageri (2000) chapter on Witzel removed. The whole chapter is a study focusing on Witzel's scholarship (not on his political activities). Wikipedia guidelines state that in multiple pov's, all sides should be represented. And why was a reference (pluralism.org) to the CA controversy section deleted? The link to pluralism.org represented even the view of both side of the debate. And the commentary "for all pro and contra pages of the Talageri & Frawley debates" to the Witzel page is of course wrong, it does not link to all pro and contra pages.

Also, the article is missing some important issues, like the mistranslation controversy of the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra.

The article also says that "traditional scholars" and Hindutvatis have battled with Witzel, even though one could argue that in most cases Witzel has battled with them. (For example, Kazanas wrote in a reply to Witzel attacks: "I have no taste at all for this kind of coarse and unproductive polemics. If W does, I wish him fortunate fighting." So one could at least write neutrally that Witzel and his critics were involved in controversies. Then the California controversy paragraph states that Witzel's side is of international reserchers (though people like John Dayal (who was accused of being an anti-Hindu and fundamentalist Christian) and Amarjit Singh (who some say was involved in terrorist activities are also on Witzel's side and were contacted for the California matter by Lars Martin Fosse). On the other hand it alleges that the Hindu side has "strong Hindutva ties" without citing reference. The California Controversy is also about Jewish groups who have proposed similar things, and their group is also not accused of being "Zionist" (at least not in neutral media, which Wikipedia should be). The section also says that the Hindus want "to revise California textbooks to reflect the their views of ancient Indian history." while most of the cases are about the corrections of misrepresantations, errors and bias in the text book, i.e. many of the proposed changes to misrepresentations/errors aim simply for a neutral point of view. This version was more neutral on the California issue. --Machaon 10:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It is funny when somebody claims that this article is a biography and nobody but the self appointed gatekeepers can edit or delete the contents or links.The whole ideology of Wikipedia is free speech and it states clearly that you should expect your article to be attacked mercilessly.What is more funny is that you think that claiming this to be a biography, you can write whatever u want.Is there even iota of proof that people who were seeking correction of errors in California text book are Hinduvta groups? Just because Witzel and his heplers like you claim them to be Hindutva does not mean they are.They are just concerned parents.If you contine to say that they have strong ties to Hinduvta then Iam sternly warning you, I will refer you to the concerned people and get you banned as these are racial attacks. What is the point of having a critism and not writing what traditional hindu scholars think about Witzel.There is ample proof which tells that according to Hindu scholars,Witzel is considered to be a person who ignores scientific proof and clings on to Aryan theory.Iam very patient and will keep adding that to Critisim. -Srinivasan Ramaswamy

textbook thingy
ok, so now the controversy has hit the news, it can have its own article, where media coverage can be discussed with sourced statements. . dab (ᛏ) 16:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Remove Neutrality Tag?
I may be the one who put the Neutrality Tag on this article several weeks ago, I don't remember. But the article as it stands at the moment seems to have settled down into a calm biography and I think the tag is no longer appropriate. I propose to remove it. --StanZegel  (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If the article has become calm it may be because of the neutrality tag, not because of the constant efforts to remove all criticism from the article, or in your own words (from the Cindy Sheehan article):


 * I have restored it because the article as a whole still lacks balance. As can be seen by comments elsewhere on this page, postings critical of her seem to have a short half-life.
 * I added this tag because the article in its present state is very unbalanced. It reads like a press release from the Sheehan scheduling office. It allows very little criticism, and what critical things are shown are followed by refutations, swinging the balance back to a very lopsided approach. Balance needs to be added to this article, and the discussion above shows that others have tried but have not been successful.

Several npov problems are stated above. Maybe some Wikipedia guidelines help:

Articles without bias describe debates fairly instead of advocating any side of the debate. We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them..To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. ..To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct...The idea behind NPOV is not to achieve an ideal state of objectivity but rather that where bias can be detected, it can also be eliminated. Avoiding constant disputes...In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation. Neutral point of view

Fairness and sympathetic tone
If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.Neutral point of view

How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?
The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that most of us are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each others' perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented. When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides.Neutral point of view

What should be linked to

 * 1) On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link.  The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other.  One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view.
 * The article has currently three external links in the External links section. All three external links point to Michael Witzel pages. The third link claims to be for "pro and contra" pages, but is Michael Witzel's own page and basically gives only one side of the debate and does not link to all sides of the debate. There should be at least two critical links that are not Michael Witzel's own pages. (The body of the article has 18 external links, with only one being a critical site.)


 * 1) Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of an article. Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. See Verifiability. WP:External_links --Machaon 18:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. This meets the criteria for link to the Criticisms of Michael Witzel

Injunctive
the Injunctive thing is a red herring, and poorly phrased at that. If we must have it, however, it is certainly not just "Witzel supporters" that "argue" that the Injunctive is an accepted grammatical category. That's a simple verifiable fact. You can read up on the Injunctive in literature on Vedic grammar, and the point bears no relation to Witzel at all. I don't know about the dispute between Swaminathan and Witzel (source it), but if you want to contribute material on the category of Vedic grammar, do so at Injunctive (linguistics). dab (ᛏ) 16:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My attention has again been drawn to this site. Past defamations on these pages apart, the present criticism of my work is completely unrepresentative. Can’t you find anything negative (or positive!) in 30 years of publications but 2 meager sentences in a paper and a *newspaper* article? (Apart from the detailed but (from the very start) wrong, uninformed and unprofessional criticism of Talageri). I therefore take down, for now and in the future, the 2 items dealing with BSS and Swaminathan, that is until they are formulated and referenced correctly. WP is supposed to be balanced and referenced  (but not by web messages and the like). There is enough defamation on the web in blogs etc. already, so that we do not need to perpetuate this nonsense here. MW 3/28/06

Talageri, again
There seems to be a revert problem with a recent addn accusing Witzel of not having read Talageri's Either this should be cited, or an accusation made by Talageri should be cited, and the text should state it was merely an accusation. Hornplease 22:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

After I posted this, someone - I think Subhash Bose - directed us to the Talageri article, which states that his accusations are contained in chapter 9 of the book. The book is linked online. I went to the link and read Chapter 9, which I urge people to do. I saw the part where he said that Witzel had clearly not read his previous book before criticising it, and thought that it would bring much needed clarity to the discussion by stating how he came to that conclusion. Thus I included it in the article. I think it may be persuasive for some. However, to have my careful edit reverted with the comment "that was blatantly POV and false" or whatever is a bit much. I've included the link to the Talageri chapter. Hornplease 05:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Look dude. You have not tried to present an unbiased perspective on the issue. You have essentially dismissed Talageri's argument altogether with veiled POV. I have kept your statements, but qualified them properly and with quotes from the book itself to explain Talageri's reasoning better. If that Witzel bloke can't spell his name right (not once, but EVERY TIME), or state the title correctly, somethin's fishy in Denmark here. I am a physicist, and I always cite correctly and consistently in all of my papers, and follow the spelling of the names of the authors according to their own publications. This is true for all academics of my acquaintance. These so-called 'Indologists' clearly engage in a lot of shady/shoddy scholarshipNetaji 08:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Proponents of Aryan invasion theory are not Xtian fundamentalists
I rewrote the contentious sections and removed all the references to Christian fundamentalists, missionaries, etc. I don't know what religion Witzel professes, if any, but I see no evidence that his writing is fundamentalist in any way. I believe that there is evidence for some Aryan migration, and I'm a Buddhist. Zora 02:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

by Hornplease 06:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Netaji 02:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Most supporters of the Aryan invasion theory were a little "white supremacist". The AIT theory was a part of 19th century scholarship that is long gone. What scholars hold to nowadays is the Indo-Aryan migration theory, which is investigated by scholars of all races, colours, and creeds. Are you going to tell, say, an African linguist studying the spread of Indo-European dialects that he's a white supremacist? CRCulver 03:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

by Hornplease 06:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Bakaman Bakatalk 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Over-emphasis of Christian Dalit organization
Netaji seems to believe that Christian fundies are behind the opposition in the textbook controversy, and therefore keeps rewriting the "politics" section to argue that a Christian Dalit organization was the main force. No, the scholars were the main force, and they recruited a number of Indian-American groups, most of them non-Christian. Look, I had a front-row seat on a lot of this, since I read (and sometimes post) at Sepia Mutiny, an Indian-American group blog. They keep me up to date on Indian American news. They aren't all Christians (they include all faiths and non-faiths -- Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, and Razib the Atheist :) ) and I believe that their revulsion at the efforts to put Hindutva pseudo-history in California texts was shared by most Indian-Americans. A look at the textbook controversy article, and the list of organizations that opposed the edits, should put paid to any notion that this was a Christian conspiracy.
 * Yeah, right. I believe YOU. And unicorns fly through windows and leave droppings on my hardwood floors, my SUV runs on switchgrass and aliens caused 9/11, right?Netaji 05:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So most Indian Americans are disgusted that Hindus wanted to change the texts that compared Hindus to monkeys, is it? Wow, talk about the quintessential self-loathing Hindu! Must be more of the buggers than I thought, eh?Netaji 06:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Netaji, if you can come up with an article specifically accusing Witzel of being a Christian fundie, we can link to it. You can't put that material in the article as if it were widely-accepted fact. Zora 04:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * just finding an "article accusing Witzel" is not enough. There are foaming diatribes out there on fundamentalist sites. Anybody can post anything to the internet. Accusations become linkable if they appear in reputable media outlets, or are raised by people who are themselves notable. We can't have trolls stating "he's an anti-Hindu bigot" in the indicative voice, even here on talk: Wikipedia is not a hate forum, and we cannot allow libel especially of living people. Any more of this, and I will roll back the talkpage and block the trolling accounts. dab (ᛏ) 06:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So Talageri is not notable, is he? No dogs and Indians allowed on wikipedia, eh?Netaji 06:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Christian fundies are behind the opposition in the textbook controversy. The Indian history section in American textbooks are crap.  They emphasize the infanticide, the mugal empire being the greatest and most liberal, give generally a negative image about Indian culture and India in general.  If you grew up in america had those texts in school, you would know that they are crap.  And SIGN YOUR POSTS!--D-Boy 07:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of you actually need to read the textbooks. They are biased beyond belief against Hindus. Not only do they fail to highlight ONE good aspect of Hinduism, they make it seem as if the religion was simplistic to the point of being barbaric and witchcraft. They ridicule the fact that Hanuman is present in a metaphysical sense at every Ramayana reading by asking people to look up and see if they see any monkeys. they're implying that not only is the religion a falsehood, but that any hindu reading the book should reconsider.
 * This stinks of anti-hindu christian rhetoric. - Varun 71.245.160.178 22:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Farmer is not a major scholar
The article I referenced clearly states that Steve Farmer is a fringe element. Ol' Herr Witzel is the one major scholar who touts the view (big surprise coming from someone like Herr Witzel) that Indus valley people were uncivilized. Therefore, the majority consensus is still that it's a script. Provide proof that more than 2 mainstream scholars say otherwise, or I'll revert after 24 hrs.Netaji 06:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * From TFA:

"Now academic outsider Steve Farmer"

So it's touted by a crackpot and supported by a prof known to make racist remarks. Hardly 'mainstream' or contested. I mean, if John Q. Nobody and Jhumri von-Talaiyya choose to contest the Foundational Principles of Quantum Mechanics on the basis that it MAY not be compatible with causality that doesn't make QMech 'contested', does it? I don't know about you "Indologists" or "Historians" but THAT is how it works in REAL science.Netaji 06:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying that it isn't a script is not the same thing as saying that the Indus Valley civilization wasn't a "civilization," whatever that means. It was a large complex society, that seems to have done some things, like sanitation, better than they're done today. Script or not has nothing to do with the status of those prehistoric folks. Nor is it clear why it should matter so much. People rummaging the past for something about which to be proud show that they don't think much of their present status or achievements. Myself, I think contemporary Indian art (dance, music, movies, literature) outweighs any prehistoric ruins. Be proud of A.R. Rahman and Vikram Seth if you're going to be proud of anything. Zora 09:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A.R. Rehman......ewwww. The only contemporary Indian art of worth are small movies like Shwaas (the blind kid) and Iqbal and etc (Movies with themes). The Bollywood stuff are rip-offs of Western Movies spoken in Hindi. We look to the past for inspiration (and respite from crappy Bollywood movies).Bakaman%% 00:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP
per WP:BLP, and especially : I warn 'Netaji' in particular that his disparaging and libellous tone is unacceptable, and I will issue blocks without further warning for such behaviour.

Concerning the Indus script and other points of scholarly debate, this isn't the Indus script article. Suffice it to say that MW thinks it isn't a script, while other entertain the possibility. Such difference of opinion is perfectly normal and no reason for a hateful feud. We can easily say that Talageri and Frawley harshly criticize Witzel, for whatever that may be worth, but weasling like "many scholars" should be avoided (Frawley is not so much a 'scholar' as a religious figure, and serious scholars would shun association with such a politically motivated witchhunt even if factually disagreeing with Witzel on certain points. academic disputes do not equal online smearing campaigns). Since there is an ongoing smearing campaign, I insist that the BLP guidelines are followed with the utmost care. dab (ᛏ) 12:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For all I care, you guys can worship Witzel as the irrefutable prophet of Indology, but I sincerely request all involved to stop making ad hominem attacks on Hindu authors or publishing houses. You are welcome to disagree with them, but wikipedia allows even "extreme minority" views. So all critics can be treated for what they are and specifially, mention can be made of allegations of "smear campaign" in the article. Note these are only allegations and not facts. Thanks. --Babub→ Talk 14:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * of course. even "extreme minority" views may be mentioned on Indus script. They may not be cited on this article, however, to create a false impression about mainstream opinion. This is the Witzel article, not the Indus script article. It is sufficient to say that Witzel's opinion on the script is such-and-such, this is not the place to discuss every other opinion advanced. Please, the smear campaign is all over the internet, there is no reason to play naive, some of the stuff I've seen was obviously written by people foaming at the mouth (allusions to the Nazis are popular of course: it's always good to gesture at the Nazis when you have no real case). Witzel may be right or wrong in his opinions, like any other scholar, that's beside the point. But we shall keep this article clear of attempts by his political opponents to single him out as dishonest or incompetent, or to mis-characterize mainstream positions as Witzel's personal opinions. dab (ᛏ) 23:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, some may be on a smear campaign. But there are some people who say 'x and y, therefore Witzel is wrong'. Of course their polemics may be mixed with allegations of Nazi, Racist etc, but couldn't we filter out the irrelevant parts? --Babub→ Talk 05:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Talageri debate
My attention has again been drawn to this article and the discussions on this page.

Real, factually based criticism is fine but a lot has been said here for something that is close to nothing: Talageri's name and book was quoted by me *twice* in my 1995 paper, in 2 footnotes, and merely as a reference (supplied, in fact, by the book editor G. Erdosy). No special, detailed criticism of T. was offered, merely lining him up with others who write in a similar vein.

That this has ticked him off, is understandable as it comes from an amateur historian who claims (in the introduction to his book) that he has solved the Rgveda problem (and much else) for all eternity. But none of this belongs in a biographical article. Other editors may further cut this episode down to size. Zora has a ready spent a lot of time in figuring out the details but did not have access to the 1995 book. Here, I leave it at referencing the actual facts.

As I said here late last winter: find something REAL to criticize in 35 years of publications and do not come up with anecdotal matters such as the T. complaint  (based on my *5* words in *2* footnotes dealing with him!) This is ridiculous, but of course motivated by other objectives that can be clearly seen on this page. Moderators be aware! M.Witzel, 8/23/06


 * Prof Witzel, just to let you know, you can generate a timestamped signature automatically by typing four tiles after your comment. Like so: ~ This is the preferred way of going about it. I've corrected a couple of typos above, hope that's okay with you. CRCulver 17:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * to the point, he is right. The Talageri debate thing has no place in a biographical article; if the affair is notable to Talageri's book, do discuss it on the article on Talageri's book. There should not be more than a brief sentence linking to that here. (ᛎ) qɐp 17:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree the section doesn't belong. It states that there is a pattern of misstating his name (based on a few typos in a single book) and implies that this was done intentionally to ridicule him. The latter is especially a problem by WP:BIO standards. Antonrojo 03:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Aryan invasion theory
It's strange that so many of Witzel's critics should accuse him of supporting the "Aryan invasion theory" when in fact his position is much more nuanced. He makes the point in several of his later articles that speaking a language doesn't necessarily mean that one is genetically linked to the original speakers of the language. People ADOPT new languages. They frequently do so in imitation of rulers speaking another language -- frex, the widespread use of English in India (even though most Indians have no English blood), the adoption of Arabic in countries conquered by the Arabs, etc. It is perfectly plausible that Indo-Aryan-speaking nomads migrated out of Afghanistan, via the Khyber Pass, into the Punjab, and achieved immediate military success thanks to their use of the horse-drawn chariot. Conquered peoples adopted the language and the technology, and then proceeded to go out and conquer in their turn. In one of his articles, Witzel says that this is like one billiard ball bumping another, which bumps another, and so on. The initial conquerors may have been few in number, their conquests may have been limited, and their genetic contributions may have been greatly diluted.

I don't think that this is the Aryan invasion theory as commonly understood, with invading hordes replacing the natives. Accusing Witzel of taking that position is just plain wrong. Zora 23:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Criticism of Witzel is not as much about what he said in support of such invasion. It is about what topics he is silent about, and what topics he reacts strongly about with all his might.


 * Historically the "India" as we knew it today included Afghanistan and even parts of Iran. So movements from Afghanistan to Punjab don't even count as 'migration' in the first place unless Witzel wants present day Indians feel inferior about Vedas not being indiginous as per today's political map.


 * Historically the ancient India had always been the favorite place to stay due to its warm waters and tropical weather. This is the attraction for many kingdoms outside India to come and invade with the purpose of settlement. This historical fact (which is only half the story) had been twisted to imply that Indian history is filled with invasions from outside. However invasions by Indian kings such as Lalitaditya up north are ignored by most eminent writers including Jha. The kingdoms which occupied the land of warm waters did defend their land, and they had no geographical need to invade the colder lands in the north, so there are fewer instances of Indian kings going out to invade other lands.


 * The authors of Vedas might have lived in Afghanistan/punjab but they had always followed the rule of live and let live vis a vis the southerners in India. There were no recorded invasions by vedic kings within India, and most Indian wars are sham wars as they sincerely follow the dharmic rules (as against the brutal wars starting from Greeks to Islamists and colonials).


 * Any talk of autochthonous Indians or OIT by native Indian scholars is vehemently opposed by Witzel word by word, but he doesn't actively control the western news reports of aryan horsemen invading India with sword in one hand and vedic manuscripts on the other hand inspite of being a professor of Harvard who should be an opinion leader in his land. Please check this URL from Discover magazine, evidently written by an author of Indian author parroting the AIT theory of horse men bringing vedas to India.

" http://discovermagazine.com/1995/apr/chariotracersoft500


 * I do not dispute the facts in this article which say that the people in Steppes, Sintastha, Mitanni had similar rituals as described in Rgveda and that they also had horses. All I say is that, the story of Vedic civilization could have been a bigger grand narrative, if seen with an open mind. There might have been full fledged Vedic kingdoms in these areas, with all their might (horses including), as against Witzel's characterization of the Vedic tribes being small bands of pastoral nomads who brought the Sanskrit language and somehow got a brilliant strike of idea to compose a voluminous Rgveda as soon as they reached the banks of Sindhu.


 * I admit that today's sciences and mathematics are supported by less than 1% of population living in univerisities and research labs, due to the capitalistic structure of world economy and the British administrative structures in effect since 1700. But oral traditioins like Rgveda which depend on support by entire societies would need a much larger demographic support than a few horsemen.


 * A another favorite strawman argument of colonial AIT Indologists including Witzel is that the so called Rgveda of original aryans is later "misused" for ritual purpose. They base their argument on the fact that the version of Sanskrit had changed over the period from Rgveda to Brahmana books and further towards upanishats. This argument again doesn't stand the test of logic. The Rituals and upanishats were very much known when Rgveda was composed, but the language change can be explained in a different way. Rgvedic verses were directly used in ritual without a change, so they are in archaic sanskrit. As in environmental sciences, the rule is to save from extinction what is rare. As the rituals are too numorous and detailed, there was a much larger literature and so a lesser need to document and save it for future. As Vedic culture declined, the later people decided to document it, hence the less archaic language of Brahmana texts. In the later periods even upanishat knowledge was getting lost, so they were also formally documented in later times and their language is lighter than Brahmana books.


 * So far Witzel failed to acknowledge even these simpler alternative interpretations which didn't need the sophisticated scholarship of Talageri.

Bhadraiah

Autobiography
Witzel, see WP:AB before editing this article. Babub→ Talk 02:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar
how are we supposed to assume good faith for this edit, when the very link you post says pretty much the opposite of what you claim? Quite apart that this is not the textbook controversy article, is about "a crucial affidavit by eminent historian and president of the Indian History Congress, D N Jha"  who according to the Times of India said
 * "The technology, crafts and commerce of the Harappans are also not reflected in the Rigveda, nor does it bear testimony to the existence of their planned urban settlements and large structures built of burnt bricks."
 * Giving a hint of the Aryan origin debate in India, Jha asked the court not to fall for the "indigenous Aryan" claim since it has led to "demonisation of Muslims and Christians as foreigners and to the near denial of the contributions of non-Hindus to Indian culture".

which is pretty much what the Witzel faction had been saying all along. dab (ᛏ) 13:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

DN Jha
DN Jha is hardly an 'eminent historian', unless we go by Indian meaning of the term by which any Marxist is an 'eminent historian'. DN Jha is maliciously anti-hindu. Let me present one of his quotes just to illustrate his political-leaning and disregard for scholarly research: "The feudalisim, for example fashioned a tool called 'Bhakti', to ensure the personal fealty of the serf to his lord". Of course we can forget that most of the bhakti saints belonged to poorest sections of society and are famous for disregarding and being persecuted by nobility. What we have here is a scenario of 'Mainstream historians'(read - anyone white) and 'Eminent historians'(read - Marxists) finding the same set of lies suitable to their respective objectives. One more thing of note here is how quick this 'dab' guy is in giving support to anything anti-hindu. I have noticed this in several India related articles and I will be watching this guy's edits. Astavakra


 * Anyone can be a mainstream historian if they submit their work to peer review and seek publication in international scholarly fora. Race has nothing to do with it. FWIW, there are plenty of Indo-European linguists who are not white (Japanese universities are increasingly contributing to historical linguistics). And as for dab, Wiki-stalking is often considered a ban-meriting offence, so I'd rethink your assertion of intent above. CRCulver 15:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * CRulver, you did not understand my comments (or maybe pretended not to understand - but I will AGF). I dont need YOU to tell me the meaning of 'mainstream historian', I was refering to the inherent bias towards anything anti-hindu among western and marxist historians, who designate anyone anti-hindu as 'eminent historian'. I provided that historically inaccurate quote from DN Jha to substantiate his lack of scholarly merit. Also, watching a user's edits on topics he has shown bias in past is definitly not stalking. Astavakra 16:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * that's, like, your opinion. It happens to be my impression that this "Indology is fascism" propaganda is simple playing of the racism-card. I do not see how it can be construed as "anti-Hindu" to say that there was feudalism in Ancient India. If I am saying that there was feudalism in the European Middle Ages, does that make me rabidly anti-Western? You seem to be into labelling anything less than glowing irrationality and patriotic zeal as "anti-Hindu". You are free to do that, of course, on your own blog, but not on Wikipedia. dab (&#5839;) 17:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow - 'Glowing irrationality', look whos into labeling now. As earlier, you deliberatly misunderstand my comments. First of all Bhakti period lies in medieval India not Ancient India. Of course, medieval Indian society was largely feudal, DN Jha's quote is certainly not about that point. He is alleging that Bhakti movement was nothing but a tool devised by feudal lords. If you too agree with this, I will be forced to question your motives and political leanings. The only relation between Bhakti movement and feudalism was that it opposed feudalism/oppression strongly [if you want, I will provide a number of sources for that - including those from western mainstream historians ;) ], In fact this is the first time I heard someone (even from among marxists) accusing Bhakti saints in this manner.
 * My reason for providing this quote was to demonstrate DN Jha's true level of eminence as a historian and the criteria one needs to fulfill to be an 'eminent historian' in India (basically, lampoon something linked to Hinduism). It is sad that you consistently refuse to discuss such things with reason and rudely label anyone trying to counter marxist propoganda. Astavakra 19:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if the "Bhakti movement was nothing but a tool devised by feudal lords", I have never researched the question. It is my impression that "feudal lords" will instrumentalize any philosophy at all, and don't suppose that they'll stop short of the Bhakti one. You are perfectly free to discuss the question and cite your own sources over at Bhakti (which I don't remember having ever edited). Jha is not notable or unnotable as a historian depending on whether you happen to agree with his views on Bhakti. He is notable as a historian because he has an academic position at Delhi University and publishes peer-reviewed material [sarcasm]and I am sure it was really easy for avowed Marxists to get tenure in Delhi 1998-2004[/sarcasm]. If Jha self-identifies as a Marxist, you are perfectly free to mention the fact, I have no idea if he does, but this won't change his professional occupation with the medieval history of India. dab (𒁳) 16:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oldest frame tale?
Hi - we are having a discussion over at frame tale about the oldest frame tale and Witzel came up as a source, it is mentioned briefly in this article "1986, 1987" - does anyone know which work by Witzel where he talks about the oldest frame tale collections? -- Stbalbach 17:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to cite Witzel as a reference that the Mahabharata qualifies as the earliest known frame tale, this is widely known and in no way associated with Witzel in particular. dab (𒁳) 10:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism"
it is well possible to compile a decent "criticism" section based on academic reviews of Witzel's publications. It is, sadly, painfully obvious that no good faith attempt at this has been made. The "indigenous Aryans" polemics against Witzel can go to the "politics" section if at all notable. If you are so interested in making Witzel look bad, go to a library and dig up some reviews. They are sure to contain some negative points, and you can then gleefully list them here. Just make a little effort and go for academic reviews if you want to portray the criticism as coming from academia. dab (𒁳) 10:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding use of web sites as reliable sources
I have found the following Wiki page to be helpful in researching how particular web sites are used on Wikipedia: Special:Linksearch. I use this often when doing linkspam removal. The tool shows that the Harvard Crimson is cited very frequently. I mention this not to argue one way or the other for inclusion of it, but to make sure everyone is aware of the link analysis tool. Buddhipriya 20:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Buddhipriya. That tool shows that the Harvard Crimson is used over 100 times as a reference solely on Biography articles, in addition to another 300+ uses in other articles. &#2384; Priyanath talk 21:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In trying to understand any clear basis for ruling a site in or out, I re-read WP:ILIKEIT and noticed the suggestion that "Editors should stick to looking for multiple independent reliable sources." Did anyone else cover the story, or is the Crimson the only paper that has anything on it.  What ever happened to the suit, by the way? Can a source for that be found? If so, that would be a second source, and an actual legal ruling or published settlement would be more noteworthy. Just a thought. Buddhipriya 05:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about the Witzel interview
I noticed that an interview with Witzel has been the subject of back-and-forth reversions. What would be the basis for not including an interview with him? Buddhipriya 02:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The interview's fine. It's the framing of the statement that's partially problematic, but definitely the other link, which links to a website disallowed by WP:BLP. I don't think the interview's particularly useful, but if someone wants to add it to the external links, they can go ahead. Hornplease 16:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I found the interview worthwhile because it gives Witzel's direct response to the criticism. I agree that the other web site is not appropriate, but I would suggest adding the interview as a link. However the article does not now have an external link section, and I would avoid adding one because it will be a magnet for attack pieces.  Therefore I think the interview should be worked into the article by referring to it in connection with the fact that he is controversial.  Do you agree with this approach? Buddhipriya 20:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, and I have done so. Hornplease 20:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Pornplease's current edit is decent and I can live with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.144.249 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Oh, I'm overjoyed. Now why don't you get yourself an account? If nothing else, we'd be able to mock your login name in reply.:) Hornplease 20:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * !! world does not revolve according to your rules, my friend. This match was fixed more than 6000 years ago. 6K is more than 2K. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.144.249 (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
 * It would be helpful if all parties would try to comply with Civility as part of an effort to reach agreement on controversial material. Buddhipriya 21:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree; but I suspect that an IP that refuses to get an account and is probably someone's sockpuppet is unlikely to value civility greatly. Hornplease 21:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is possible. However sometimes leading by example can encourage other editors to remain calm despite provocation. Buddhipriya 21:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The Frawley criticism
I do not think it is clear in the article that David Frawley's criticism that is cited as is a direct response to Witzel's criticism of Frawley in. Can this be made more clear? Buddhipriya 22:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Some rewriting of that section seems certainly in order to bring that out. Hornplease 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

court decision
I believe that the court decision, removed by hornplease, must be included in the article. The source also qualifies WP:BLP. The court acknowledges that professors like Witzel are biased. There is, afterall, a reason that nobody in the mainstream academia criticised the fringe views of Witzel on Indus script.--nids(&#9794;) 13:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The court says nothing of the kind. Hornplease 19:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Court does not directly discusses about the bias of Witzel, but acknowledges that SBE failed to work within the prescribed guidlines of neutrality. It was mainly because of Witzel and friends that HVF had to file the court case. Now that it has gone against him is no reason to not include the courts decision.--nids(&#9794;) 20:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If the court doesn't discuss it, we can't include it per WP:OR. Hornplease 20:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. It does, and on the talkpage as well, so please edit the above comments or I will do so per policy. Hornplease 23:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have commented out my previous reply because Hornplease thought that it violates WP:BLP, and i didnt want to escalate the situation. Hornplease, getting back to real thing, will RfC be fine for you.nids(&#9794;) 08:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could wait a little and see who else weighs in? I have no objection to any form of dispute resolution, though it's a waste of time on anything this obvious. Hornplease 17:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have asked for a third opinion.nids(&#9794;) 05:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion
This edit removed the verdict of the court case. The court case was filed due to Witzels intervention in the process. The current version wrongly deifies Witzel as a crusader of neutrality and portrays the other side as evil Hindutvavaadis trying to revise the history. While the court clearly notes down the bias.nids(&#9794;) 05:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We do list the court decision on the main page of Friends of South Asia.--nids(&#9794;) 06:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Third Party Opinion - Initiated


 * However, the Californian court accepted that the regulations under which the State of California is currently conducting the adoption of kindergarten through grade eight instructional materials have not been properly enacted under the Administrative Procedures Act.

I don't think these details extend beyond the scope of the article, and they should be included as pertinent, as long as they have reliable, verifiable sources (which are cited, although I make no claim as to their reliability or verifiability). In terms of the content, though, I remain, as a reader with no prior information on the subject, thoroughly confused as to the point trying to be made by the aforementioned currently non-included paragraph. As the article stands now, Witzel perhaps comes across as a catalyst of controversy. Some ethnic/religious groups suggest some changes to the California school textbooks (supposedly in order to reflect what they feel is a more accurate representation of their ethnicity/religion), and Witzel, with backing from some other ethnic/religious groups, protests these changes (supposedly because he disagrees with the proposed information, instead choosing to remain loyal to information as it is originally portrayed in the textbooks). Then, there is this very confusing statement that was included (and has now been removed) that asserts that the court accepted the fact that certain regulations, with which they adopt instructional material, have not been properly enacted. This is a very ambiguous statement, as it doesn't really relate to the argument presented in support of either side. Further, the statement begins with the word however, suggesting that whatever this court decision does in fact support is either against intuition and/or common sentiment, in that it was unexpected and/or provided a surprise for those following the case. What surprise is there? What is it supporting? Would the regulations, has they been enacted properly, support Witzel and his support base or the opposition ethnic/religious groups? Perhaps this information is irrelevant because it adds nothing to the article as is due to the concerns laid out above. A thorough copy-edit with citations should prove beneficial, and that material, whatever it happens to suggest (i.e. support for Witzel or his opposition)...I might consider that pertinant and important to include in the article. Hope this helps. :)  DRosenbach  ( Talk 11:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didnt include the details of the controversy in this request as we had a separate article on Californian Hindu textbook controversy. To give you a basic idea, some Hindu groups suggested that some biased information about them be removed from the textbooks. Initially, State Board of Education agreed. But then, suddenly, Witzel came through protesting the changes suggested by HAF. He was accompanied by some missionary organisations and a Pakistan based US group FOSA. So, HAF had to file a court case. The link is, i suppose, official record from Californian Courts. I have other Reliable links too, if needed.
 * The court verdict was, obviously, against Witzel. Thanks.--nids(&#9794;) 12:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually we had a better version. But some editors (perhaps due to personal relations) remove everything critical of Witzel, citing WP:BLP. The earlier version had some basic details on the textbook controversy. I understand that it is not easy to comprehend what is meant in the politics section, and it should be expanded. But I think that the court verdict is the maximum that will be allowed in the article (about the controversy).nids(&#9794;) 12:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is, of course, rot. The court decision was that the California SBE did not follow the legal process in not having sufficiently public discussion. The court specifically noted that the textbooks stay in the Board's preferred version. This is in any case completely irrelevant to an article on Witzel; the court, naturally, did not pronounce on his bias. Courts don't randomly pronounce on bias of people not a party to the litigation. Hornplease 08:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you keep your personal veneration off-wiki please. Have you read what I included in article. (I didnt wrote that court commented on bias.) And why you suddenly went on rampage to other related articles . The court specifically said that textbooks stay in the current version only so that there is no disruption in the current academic session while it clearly stated that SBE faultered on the prescribed guidelines. For further reply, see my commented out reply on above section. You can go for RfC if you disagree.--nids(&#9794;) 08:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If the court didn't comment on his alleged bias, as you agree, and Witzel was not a party to the case, as you agree, then the court's verdict on a point of procedure is obviously irrelevant. The third party opinion clearly states that towards the end of the paragraph. If you wish to go to RfC, do so. I have no desire to initiate dispute resolution on something so patently obvious as a first step. Consider the BLP noticeboard as well.Hornplease 08:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The source and the edit do not violate WP:BLP. And can you please keep you personal veneration off-wiki.
 * We do have a section on his politics where it is stated that he wrote a letter to State Board protesting those changes. Since that dispute is now resolved with a verdict of the court, it must be included. I would have preferred a addition like "Witzels intervention forced HAF to file a court case against SBE. In the judgement court noted that SBE failed to work within the prescribed guidelines." Current article just states his position as defender of neutrality and representative of world academia. If you want you can remove the whole Politics section as irrelevant. But if you want to include it, you cannot exclude the climax of drama unfolded due to Witzels intervention. --nids(&#9794;) 10:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, are you denying the central role of Witzel's Intervention in filing of court case, as note by neutral sources. One of the sources is in my reply in the above section.nids(&#9794;) 10:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Doldrums 08:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * i fail to see the relevance of the Court's decision to Witzel. I don't suppose Witzel is in charge of enacting, under the Administrative Procedures Act, the regulations under which the State of California is currently conducting the adoption of kindergarten through grade eight instructional materials? Doldrums 15:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Doldrums. A neutral and unbiased opinion will be appreciated. Please read these news links too. If you think it is irrelevant to mention the judgement, i shall leave the article as it is. Please read above two threads also. Thanks.--nids(&#9794;) 16:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me give you a brief synopsis here. HAF suggested some changes in the existing textbooks. SBE accepted them. Then Prof Witzel interfered on behalf of the whole Academia commented out due to BLP concerns . SBE rejects those changes. Then, HAF had to file a court case to get those changes. HAF wins the case and SBE had to pay a part of legislation costs to HAF. --nids(&#9794;) 17:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * modified per Doldrums.--nids(&#9794;) 18:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Witzel wrote about content. The court case was about process. It is irrelevant to Witzel's career, as Doldrums has noted. Hornplease 19:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What is missing in this article is that the edits which were initially rejected due to Witzels intervention, were accepted after the judgement. Thanks.--nids(&#9794;) 20:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not the case according to any WP:RS. Hornplease
 * You read this or are you arguing that this is not a reliable source.nids(&#9794;) 08:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? That's not about the court case. And that article has one of the academics saying:"I think that it's crystal clear that all or the most pernicious material is gone,". I think this conversation is over. Hornplease 08:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not joking. You can see some of the quotes from my source below. You can think whatever you want to. Nobody can force you to change your beliefs. As far as the hypocritical position of academic is concerned, you can include that in the mainspace. Afterall, this is not the first issue where we have seen such behaviour.--nids(&#9794;) 10:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * edits ... initially rejected due to Witzels intervention, were accepted after the judgement.. ummm... the source you turned up says
 * "The staff recommendations reflect a compromise on a substantial part of the proposed edits following a meeting Jan. 6 between Harvard Sanskrit expert and philologist Prof. Michael Witzel and Cal State Northridge emeritus Prof. Shiva Bajpai; on issues where they couldn't agree, the edits were rejected in favor of the original text."

To clarify, this was the initial meeting on Jan 6, after which HAF was forced to file the court case. To quote from my own source the five-member panel unanimously voted to recommend adoption of staff recommendations for edits and corrections proposed by the Hindu Education Foundation. This was the result of the meeting on March, i.e. after the verdict. Hope that helps.--nids(&#9794;) 10:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Another quote from my own source,

In its press release, HEF also said that "the subcommittee responded in a very farcical manner to this lengthy debate. After the public hearing, without any deliberations, within a few minutes, the subcommittee confirmed all the staff recommendations.--nids(&#9794;) 10:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The staff recommendations the five-member panel unanimously voted to recommend adoption of "reflect a compromise [...] following a meeting Jan. 6 between.... The HEF may say many things about many things, it's what they say about Witzel that has a chance of being listed here on this article. Doldrums 10:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What is missing in this article is that the edits which were initially rejected due to Witzel's intervention, were finally accepted. This would be the logical conclusion of the controversy section on the main page. BTW, if you want to remove that section altogether, you are free to do so. But if you want to keep it, there's no point in just saying that he tried to prevent hindutvavaadis to rewrite [sic] history. You must also mention that he finally failed. Thanks.--nids(&#9794;) 10:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * actually, what was finally accepted was a "compromise" that all groups "all expressed satisfaction, albeit qualified" at, except for "a few disgruntled HEF supporters appeared irate following the announcement". this does not come across as "Witzel failed, hindutvavaadis won". Doldrums 11:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, everybody accepted the compromise. I am not accusing anyone of contempt of court. Even FOSA changed its stance at the last moment (so characteristic of it). But read the above quote again, almost all the edits were unanimously accepted. Yes, the books still have errors, but thats something for the future. BTW, when you are quoting something, quote in full,

Although quite a few disgruntled HEF supporters appeared irate following the announcement at the end of an over three-hour-long session of public comments, several crying "Shame!".
 * Again, i think you got confused like you did when you quoted the result of Jan.6 meeting. They cried shame because "'We also impressed upon president Noonan the outrage in the Hindu-American community when a non-Hindu academic, with no expertise in Hinduism, was able to politicize an academic process and stymie community efforts". Now my earlier quote clearly explains that the five member panel unanimously voted for something. Hope that helps. Anyways, whatever the result was, it should be included in the article. i.e. if you feel that we should have that section--nids(&#9794;) 12:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You have not made any case for inclusion of a sentence implying any sort of verdict went 'against' Witzel. That is clearly not an interpretation available outside HAF press releases. Hornplease 17:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have made a case that the edits which were rejected due to Witzel's intervention, were finally accepted after the court verdict. Hope I am clear. I will have to repeat again that the current page just says that Witzel opposed certain edits. Since that issue has been resolved now, we must write the final result. Or, you can completely remove the section.--nids(&#9794;) 17:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want we can give a brief review in the section. We can add ''Witzel's intervention forced HAF to file a court case against the SBE. After HAF won the lawsuit, SBE agreed to pay a part of legal costs to HAF and accept the edits which were initially rejected due to Witzel's intervention."--nids(&#9794;) 17:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't, because that's none of that is true according to the sources you quote. Hornplease 17:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * HAF won the lawsuit, see the rediff link. Edits were accepted see any of the links given above.--nids(&#9794;) 17:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The first is irrelevant to this article, the second is, as I pointed out above with my quote from the pacificnews article, not accurate. Hornplease 00:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean as quoted by Doldrums. Hope you had also seen my quote above. Anyways, i am quoting it again for you.

the five-member panel unanimously voted to recommend adoption of staff recommendations for edits and corrections proposed by the Hindu Education Foundation.
 * If you dont know about the Witzel's involvement in the process. Just see the Doldrums quote above. The process, by itself included Witzel. See the Jan.6 meeting.
 * In any case, you have completely censored the events after Jan.6 meeting. The current version would have been fine if the current date was somewhere in Feb. 2006.--nids(&#9794;) 08:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In case you dont agree, Request for Comment shall be the only solution. I am busy for next few days, so I will pursue it sometime later. BTW, Tell me if you agree for it.--nids(&#9794;) 08:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * it is patently obvious to me, and to Hornplease (if i may speak for that user), from the source provided that the recommendations adopted were a compromise, not simply the all the edits as proposed by the HEF. if you disagree, feel free to request comments. Doldrums 10:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

explain revert
have removed this: "Witzel wrote a letter to the Board of Education protesting some of these changes. Many academics (not associated with the study of ancient India) and several Indian-American groups, like Friends of South Asia, supported Witzel's letter . One signatory, Kalpana Desai retracted her signature after the letter was published."

"Witzel wrote a letter..." is repetitive. "not associated with study of ancient India" is wrong. Kalpana Desai retraction is unsourced. Doldrums 12:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * this edit restored the text i removed. Only, "Witzel wrote a letter..." continues to be repetitive. "not associated with study of ancient India" continues to be wrong(see the link to a copy of the letter thoughtfully provided). Kalpana Desai retraction continues to be unsourced. Doldrums 06:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting that you don't actually read the attached letter and actually look at the signatories names.


 * 1) S. Palaniappan is a PhD in Urban Transportation
 * 2) Rajesh Kocchar is a physicist
 * 3) Garret G Fagan teaches Roman history and ancient warfare
 * 4) Sudha Shenoy is an economist
 * 5) Alexander Vovin teaches Central Asian Linguistics, Japanese and Korean
 * 6) Homi Bhaba teaches post-colonial studies
 * 7) Don Ringe teaches Indo-European linguistics
 * 8) Win van Binsberge teaches African Studies and Philosophy
 * 9) David Stampe teaches linguistics
 * 10) Stefan Zimmer teaches linguistics
 * 11) Joanna Kirkpatrick is a retired professor of anthropology
 * 12) Agnes Korn is a PhD in Indo-Iranian linguistics
 * 13) Patricia Donegan teaches linguistics
 * 14) Raka Ray teaches sociology

As you can see all of the above are experts in ancient Indian history! Kkm5848 04:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Many academics (not associated with the study of ancient India) [...] supported Witzel's letter implies all the academics who supported Witzel's letter were not associated with the study of ancient India, which as you know, is not the case. Doldrums 05:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you actually read? Not all of the academics who supported the letter were associated with the study of ancient india--but were represented as experts on ancient india in the letter.  if you object to the wording, how would you recommend rephrasing it? Kkm5848 03:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * allegations of misrepresentation need a good quality secondary source. so does characterisations of groups of historians as not experts, especially since it is not as clear cut as you make it out to be (the "PhD in Urban Transportation" has presented papers in academic conferences in the relevant field, the "physicist" has works on Vedic people and the history of Indian astronomy published by Orient Longman, the teacher of Roman history and ancient warfare is the editor of a work on pseudo-archaeology...).
 * and all this doesn't alter the fact that the statement in the article is wrong - many of the endorses are accepted professional specialists on ancient India, and the Desai retraction is unsourced.
 * let me reiterate the rules for a BLP: reliable secondary sources, content specifically addressing the subject of the biography (long discussions on the merits of witzel's letter belong in the Calif... controversy article, not here, unless you can find a reliable secondary source that criticises Witzel specifically, and can describe the view neutrally and with due weight).
 * the text you seek to include is partly unsourced, partly wrong, partly repetitive, partly superflous (why shld FOSA in particular, characterised as "anti-Hindu", merit a mention?) and falls far short of what is acceptable. the burden of ensuring that BLP content meets standards rests with the editor who wishes to include it. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion (WP:BLP). Doldrums 06:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What is pseudo-archeology?

Here are additional references: [] Furthermore, presenting 1 paper does not make a person an expert on a topic--none of them present themselves as indologists in their titles or areas of work. To say otherwise, would require a citation countering the one I have listed or would otherwise amount to wp:or.Kkm5848 06:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * removed unsourced statements (Desai "retraction") concerning living people. i point out once again that the text being added (implying all signatories are unassociated with the study of ancient India) is patently false. "anti-Hindu" is not a neutral characterisation of FOSA. the only source shown for this is a partisan opinion piece in one minor local evening newspaper. repeatedly reinserting contentious BLP material without addressing issues raised is not a good idea.
 * now reg. the letter, this section is meant to be a succinct and neutral summary of Witzel's role in this affair(which is what i tried to do with my revision). if you wish, u can slightly expand this section with a line about how Witzel's role is perceived by each side of the dispute, ensuring that the content is well sourced, attributed, and reflects real-world prominence of the views presented. the "not an anti-hindu" quote, in fact, can be merged into such a line or removed altogether (i've now done just such an edit). i don't see this expert/not expert thing being published by any reliable source outside this opinion column written by someone arguing for one side in the dispute, so i don't think this is notable enough to be included in the summary, especially to the exclusion of everything else. Doldrums 17:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Crimson article
I have asked several times why this is relevant for an encyclopaedia bio. Please note it should satisfy wP:BLP, be relevant to his notability, etc, etc. I am holding off on the revert for 12 hours as I am tired of kkm's editwarring, but cannot do so for longer than that because of BLP issues. Hornplease 06:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am also tired of your edit warring and reverts w/o reason. it is relevent because it discusses his standing as a department head and removal thereof.  it is not accusatory and is based on fact from a wp:rs source. Therefore, it stands as it should.  There is nothing in WP:BLP that states that facts about a living person should not be stated! Kkm5848 03:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but BLP indicates that it should be relevant to his notability. This does not seem relevant to his notability,and your argument does not address how it is. He is not notable as a famous department head, but as a Sanskrit professor. I am thus removing it. Hornplease 06:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if he is notable as a Sanskrit professor, you might as well remove most of the things he as done since most of his work has been in areas outside of sanskrit studies Kkm5848 05:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Kkm 5848, that's not really true, but even were it so: are you really saying that because Witzel, a professor of Sanskrit, is best known for his work on ancient Indian history and prehistory, that this purported mismatch is so egregious as to dispel the usual requirements of relevance, giving us license to include anything we like in the article? That if a scholar does work outside his field (according to the your apparently very strict criteria,) his bio is henceforth a free-for-all by this very fact?Proabivouac 19:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)