Talk:Wendy Doniger

FreeKnowledgeCreator issues with the See Also section
The proper case for inclusion of these historians was made in the edit messages: Add other historians of a similar bent; Add James Laine, another academic who had his book run into controversy in India.) and They are all Indologists and/or Sankritists like Doniger; Malhotra is not a scholar and of ephemeral notability. See Also does not need to be directly relevant. They are not "vaguely-related subject or person" and with the exception of Thapar (who is Indian) are American academics in the same narrow field and often grouped together.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Cpt.a.haddock, if you wish to add links to James Laine, Romila Thapar, and Sheldon Pollock in the "see also" section, it is up to you to make a case for this. The fact that they are Indologists is not by itself a reason for adding them; the see also section cannot contain links to every vaguely-related subject or person. If you think they are more than vaguely related and must be linked, it is up to you to provide evidence of this. As far as I'm concerned, it is irrelevant that James Laine has also written a book that became controversial in India: that has nothing to do with Doniger, and it is gratuitous to use it as a reason for linking to him. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And what are your objections to the other historians mentioned? And how about AK Ramanujan? How closely related is he to Doniger?--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in attempts to shift the burden of proof. That is an argumentative fallacy. You want to include them, therefore, you should be suggesting a cogent reason for doing so. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And I'm not interested in arguing over a minor issue with a drive-by editor with too much time on his hands and a warped interpretation of cogent reasoning. Have fun.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wendy Doniger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130104092227/http://www.penoakland.com/PEN-Oakland-Awards.html to http://www.penoakland.com/PEN-Oakland-Awards.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed: restore Raman comment.
Added this line:

Was removed as "WP:UNDUE"; but is published commentary on the subject, reflects an opinion not otherwise clearly expressed in criticism. Note that source is valid no matter whether the Varadaraja V. Raman continues to exist or not. Proposed that it should be restored. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It's an interpretation of a quote, taken out of context. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wouldn’t it be a primary source if it wasn’t reported by a secondary source? Thought secondary sources were required. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose-- UNDUE. Raman ain't a qualified academic in the regard and his writings have been criticised as Hindu-apolegetic and fringe by otger scholars. Even then, he's hardly a lead scholar among the fringes. &#x222F; WBG converse 05:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Try convincing Pratap Kumar to withdraw publication of his piece then. Kumar, not you or I, judged Raman qualified to quote. Choice passed editorial review of Peter Antes, Armin Geertz, and Randi Warne, none of them lightweights in the field. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Uff. Many books in this domain exclusively deals with reception of scholarly work by fringe Hindutva-based-academics. That does not lead any credence to their reviews et al. &#x222F; WBG converse 07:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Raman was qouted as an example of emtional Indian responses, in contrast to coolheaded scholarly responses. Presenting the Raman-quote without this context is WP:CHERRYPICKING. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. &#x222F; WBG converse 09:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if Raman's quote is the right thing to include (particularly the personal attack on 'bookish academics'), but I am a little concerned that popular/non-specialist reaction to Doniger- whose work touches on material that isn't only of academic interest- is being omitted or minimized. The current section on The Hindus, for instance, mentions it being recalled but doesn't address what the suit was about, which leaves the reader to guess. Would Pratap Kumar's article be an appropriate source to describe broader reactions to Doniger's book? The fact that something is an 'emotional reaction' doesn't make it unworthy of inclusion, particularly if that reaction was the subject of public comment by journalists and scholars. Hindutvas tilting at her work is a notable public and political phenomenon. --Spasemunki (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of omitting or minimizing critique of Wendy Doniger; it's the way it's done. Partak uses Raman's quotye to illustrate how difficult it is in India to take a critical stance towards religion; Hyperbolick takes the Raman quote out of this context, and that's not correct. Raman on himself is not of due importance here; he's relevant to Partak because Raman illustrates Partak's point. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Seems sort of a Catch-22. Wikipedia seems to require secondary sources, so always somebody interpreting. If context is the issue, present the context, no? Along the lines of ‘A, making this point, noted that B commented so.’ For this quote, fuller context here is:
 * Agree with Spasemunki's take. Not up to editors to decide whether Raman is "fringe" (according to one or two of his reviewers); the secondary source has decided his significance to quote him. Still others would point him out as an award-winning writer. Would add, though, "bookish academic" is not terrible as personal attacks go. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:FALSEBALANCE ... &#x222F; WBG converse 16:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * you don't seem to get the "case in point" here. It's not about WP:FRINGE; it's about WP:UNDUE and WP:CHERRYPICKING. The "case in point" of Partak:
 * So, if you want to use Raman, it wold be something like this:
 * Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Responding to WBGs use of "fringe" there. Would be totally agreeable with the language you've proposed. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Added the language you have proposed. Thank you. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Responding to WBGs use of "fringe" there. Would be totally agreeable with the language you've proposed. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Added the language you have proposed. Thank you. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Criticism
Can I add the following to the criticism section of the article:

"American religious studies scholar Jeffery D. Long has described how many Hindus have criticized Doniger because of "the sense that her work is continuous with the condescending colonial-era writing on Hinduism, which denigrated it as the product of an inferior civilization."" (Requested by User:Shakespeare143, mistakenly added to main page instead of talk) Chariotrider555 (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would change it to state

"American religious studies scholar Jeffery D. Long has described how many Hindus have criticized Doniger because of "her preoccupation with sexuality, with Hindu identity politics, and the sense that her work is continuous with the condescending colonial-era writing on Hinduism, which denigrated it as the product of an inferior civilization." Long also suggests that another reason that Hindu's dislike her book is that they perceive that she reduces Hinduism to mere secular fact and fiction, and that she ignores it as a method of spiritualism. Long also notes that Doniger believes she is on the side of Hindus against colonialism and Victorian sexual morality, and notes that she heavily criticizes the colonial British peoples' condescending attitudes against Hindus."
 * This way it incorporates the entire review, including all the reasons Hindus dislike her, as well as Doniger's and Long's views on the criticism. Chariotrider555 (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Way better. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, this should be added (with the citation). Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)