Talk:Wendy Doniger/Archive 2

NPOV tag
This article is not neutral. It contains more criticism than actual biographical details about Doniger. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

it's the usual attempt to present the religious nationalist hatemongery as "scholarship". The article as it stands is a BLP nightmare and needs to be fixed badly. Criticism that is actually notable and based on scholarly argument needs to be separated from the egg-throwing nationalist mob. The egg-throwing may be notable in its own right, but the article almost manages to suppose that throwing eggs at people is an act of scholarly criticism. --dab (𒁳) 14:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There's also the usual attempt to present the real scholarship as hindutva hatemongery. Sharma, De Nicolas, Witzel, and the Encarta dispute are clearly in the 'scholarship' category, but editors keep trying to paint them as hate-filled hindutvas. Even Witzel was demonized by Doniger's acolytes for not rushing to her defense, but instead exposing her 'scholarship'. The criticism section should be half as long, and focus on the scholarship, imo. Priyanath talk 01:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Like dab points above, the "Hindutva" and "Nationalist" agenda have been mixed with scholarly and notable arguments and gives a completely incorrect impression; This needs to be separated. Spdiffy (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have separated out the material related to Nationalism / attack of scholars, However few of the quotes refer to Courtright, Laine's Shivaji book and Rajiv Malhotra's essay etc., along with Doniger's and a context should be provided, without which the quotes are confusing and not clear to the average reader. --Spdiffy (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Update : I have added some context, but I feel that most of the material and quotes related to Hindutva and Nationalism are not directly related to Doniger and do not belong to this article. Both Vijay Prashad's article and Washington Post's aritlce contains references to Courtright, Laine's shivaji book and Malhotra's essay. Probably they belong to RISA or AAR article; Spdiffy (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Name
Is her name "Wendy Doniger" or "Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty"? Shreevatsa (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violations and use of Self published sources
This article has copyright violations, and uses Doniger's CV, a self-published source, clearly not acceptable since it fails WP:RS. It looks like that 90% of the article is built on her CV!

The Works section has text plagiarized from Publications. Also wikipedia is not indiscriminate collection of information, the works in-progress and other translations ( few in progress! ) are WP:UNDUE

The Biography section also has content plagiarized from Divinity School Faculty page - "Wendy Doniger's research and teaching interests revolve around two basic areas, Hinduism and mythology. Her courses in mythology address themes in cross-cultural expanses, such as death, dreams, evil, horses, sex, and women; her courses in Hinduism cover a broad spectrum that, in addition to mythology, considers literature, law, gender, and psychology."

Moreover, the "Biography" section has some unencyclopedic material, attributed to her CV, but not present there, for ex : "As a professor she has mentored over 60 students through their PhDs and now has many (doctoral) grandchildren and great-grandchildren."

Even the section "Book Reviews" ( all pertaining to the The Hindus ) has extensive quotes and has copy vio., moreover, this uses non-RS, like "Harvard Bookstore, On Our Shelves: http://209.50.238.122/onourshelves/title.php?isbn=1594202052 ", note this is site does not even have a proper domain name!and some wordpress links : http://acharyavidyasagar.wordpress.com

Needs massive cleanup. I will be removing the plagiarized content. Rgrds, Spdiffy (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have most of plagiarized content, also, Wikipedia is not "A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."; Add only notable information. Spdiffy (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your cleanup. However, the article is now unbalanced and not neutral. The article gives the impression that Doniger is controversial or a renegade, when in fact the mainstream view is that she is a distinguished author and university professor who has been demonized by the Hindu right-wing. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, its "Hindutva" again! I have seen this for many years now. All the criticism is classified as Hindutva and I see the same thing in this article. Scholarly criticism from Academics like Antonio De Nicholas, Witzel are also classified as "Hindutva" which is clearly not the case.

A few concerns with the diffs:


 * This material is backed by a book, (a Reliable source) Michael Witzel is also an authority on sanskrit, so he comments are required. And his comments should be mentioned, since even Doniger (and supporters) bothered to challenge him


 * : well "special" seems a OR, but the book titles are notable and should be mentioned.


 * : the reference is not proper and one is justified to remove it, but this is an important piece of information and if one finds a proper RS, should be added back.

--Spdiffy (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Update : Just saw this revert requesting for reliable sources., yes, I will provide Reliable sources, in fact one of the books I was reading from Prema A. Kurien discusses these problems. Moreover, Antonio De Nichlas' book has been published by Rupa & Co an WP:RS. Never mind, will back with refs --Spdiffy (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, its "Hindutva" again! I have seen this for many years now. All the criticism is classified as Hindutva and I see the same thing in this article. Scholarly criticism from Academics like Antonio De Nicholas, Witzel are also classified as "Hindutva" which is clearly not the case.
 * I am sorry that you reject and mock my concerns about the sad state of this article, which is totally inaccurate. My understanding is that real scholars --- the type who write for the NYT, Washington Post, etc. uniformly view this as a conflict between the Hindu right-wing and scholars. Sure, the proto-fascist egg-throwers have unsurprisingly found a few fellow-travellers in the West. They are usually nobodies from a junior college. But that idea that Doniger is anti-Hindu is a very long way from being a mainstream view in important scholarly institutions. In this article, however, the views of the Indian right-wing have pride of place. This article is not neutral. The criticisnm section is a joke. Do not replace the poorly-sourced, out-of-place material that I have removed. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Michael Witzel is also an authority on sanskrit, so he comments are required. And his comments should be mentioned, since even Doniger (and supporters) bothered to challenge him 
 * Then he can put his criticism in a book rather than a misspelled email. Doniger is a university professor and a scholar. Notable criticism of her comes from scholarly sources, not an email. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I thought you were aware of the all the emails that were exchanged between Doniger and Witzel, The material you removed had a source from Religious studies: a global view from Routledge and this material is required to present the issues in Religious studies and sanskrit translation... Had it been not so notable, whey did Doniger even bother to challenge him and why did Doniger go silent later? Obviously, it is very notable and there are several notable sources that discuss this. --Spdiffy (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, these are not just emails (and the spelling mistake seems intentional). This issue has been discussed by several secondary sources. Moreover most of the readers here do not have access to RISA's internal mailing list and the interesting discussions / debates that go on there. This adds a valid perspective to the article, debate between Doniger and other professor. Rgrds, Spdiffy (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Please Read: Re: Biographies of living persons and permitted sources please read the following link, CV is an acceptable Wiki source, Doniger's is not self published but published by U of Chicago on their web page, and quoting it is not a copyright violation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source) Meetoohelp (talk) 05:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, pls read WP:SPS and WP:SECONDARY. Actually the link you have mentioned above has ample details on this :


 * it is not unduly self-serving;
 * there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it;
 * Please stop adding advertisement in the article and plagiarizing the content. Spdiffy (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that you are referencing an internal mailing list in reference to a biographical article should alert you to the fact that the material that you are introducing is completely inappropriate. And shoulds be removed immediately per WP:BLP. This is a biographical article. What some guy said in a misspelled email is not appropriate. The article should have a neutral, balanced section which accurately describes the public and media reception of Doniger's 40 year career. Not the current hatchet job mess filled with half-quotations shoved together to make someone look bad. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 13:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If doniger is such a bad scholar and such a poor translator, why don't you source these criticism to real, scholarly books, rather than the politicized guide to egg-throwing "Invading the Sacred"? There must be absolutely tons of material out there, because she is such a BAD BAD BAD scholar, right? The fact that there have been a few complaint from right-wing activists over a 40 years career, and you are putting every single one in thi article, while conmtinually removing biographical details. What you are doing is not neutral. Stop it. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 13:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And if you again re-add the inappropriate material from misspelled emails, you might think about adding in Doniger's response, since you mentioned above that the fact the Doniger responded to it shows that the criticism is notable (an obvious non sequitor but we all know that logic get put to the wayside very quickly when dealing with right-wing Hindus with an ax to grind against American scholars). &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I would have added Doniger's response for NPOV, but was her response notable and did she respond at all to the mistranslation claims. While searching for her response, I came across this outlook.com article which says she hasn't ( "Doniger never responded to Michael Witzel's critique of her Sanskrit translations"). However, Witzel has published other mistranslations. The Book "Invading the Sacred" that you describe as "guide to egg-throwing", has been quoted by Russell McCutcheon, ( Professor and Chair of Religious Studies, University of Alabama ) in one of his journals. Invading the Sacred is a WP:RS. But I wonder why other notable material was removed from psychoanalysis material. Clearly scholarly sources are being removed and others are termed as "right-wing activists"! Spdiffy (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Invading the Sacred is a joke. I urge everyone visiting this talk page to look at its website, which is one of the most obvious exercises in desperation I've ever seen. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 12:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: CV and self published sources, thanks for your care and caution, but from WP:NOR "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press...) may be used in Wikipedia"Meetoohelp (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I support the removal of your additions to the article. Pasting material from Doniger's CV is a copyright violation and unhelpful. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern you show for the quality of this article. If there is a full sentence in the article that is found to be a copy of a full sentence from another page please delete it singly. On the other hand, to write an article about Doniger that contained none of the information on her cv would be difficult and of course unnecessary. This article is short not only on facts about Doniger, but also on Doniger's opinions, and conversely long on other peoples opinions. It should conform to what other bios of living person look like as to the relative space given to acts of the subjects, and then to criticism of that person. I think it would be helpful to look at articles about similar people, and I would suggest it should look something like Bart Ehrmans, whose work is similar and who attracts controversy for related reasons. In contrast to higher quality articles in Wikipedia, this Doniger page has the appearance of a blog spot. I suggest we editors should move to a bio with one pithy quote of criticism, and one pithy rebuttal quote, the remainder being a description of her work. There are plenty of internet forums for blogging and opinions and this article appears to have inappropriately achieved the character of those. Meetoohelp (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Most racist article on wikipedia I have ever seen
I must object to this whitewashing of the blatant racism and orientalism in Doniger's works. She essentially claims that Hinduism does not exist, which paves the way for the derecognition of and racial discrimination against Indian minorities in western countries. Furthermore, the pro-Doniger editors are deliberately misrepresenting reviews of Doniger's work to present an article that legitimizes racism against Indians. For instance, this review is misrepresented to say that Hindus are stupid and don't know their own religion, whereas the review says that "Doniger knows more than her critics". This kind of misrepresentation is the most appalling example of vicious and revisionist racist diatribe I have ever seen on wikipedia.Moral student (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You actually had a good point in the midst of all that self-victimizing blather. I have corrected the oversight. Thanks for the observation. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to find reviews of Doniger's books in Indian newspapers, but it looks like they have all been scared off by the militants (who can blame them?). Found one in The Hindu and added it to the article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Claiming that Wendy Doniger doesn't believe that Hinduism exists is plain wrong. First off, her book is called The Hindus.  Second, I witnessed someone ask her directly if she thought there was such a thing as Hinduism, and she said "yes, absolutely." &mdash; Mikeytwice (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS?
Some of the scholarly material removed,  which contains material from WP:RS. The books in question are :
 * , authored by several scholars

All of which are WP:RS. However, other material related to translation from Book reviews has been added, but the addition of material from a reliable source has been termed as "guide to egg-throwing"; Obviously this is not neutral and material needs to be restored. Moreover, the material from Invading the Sacred, has been quoted from has been quoted by Russell McCutcheon, ( Professor and Chair of Religious Studies, University of Alabama ) in one of journals; ( Can dig out the journal if required ) --Spdiffy (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Calling Rajiv Malhotra's guide to egg-throwing a scholarly book is a fucking joke that only a BJPer would utter seriously. One look at that amateurish, desperate, website which screams "please take me seriously!" at every turn should dispel any remaining illusions in that regard. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont see Rajiv Malhotra in the authors list. Do you also think that the other two books are also published by illiterate BJPer? I am afraid that personal attacks are not going to help and will make matters worse. Rgrds, Spdiffy (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I havent obtained them yet, so I havent been able to confirm that your references to those books are remotely accurate. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not wait for the confirmation of a editor, feel free to take up the discussion at WP:RSN. Show them the scholar list, I will dig out the journal by Russell McCutcheon, Professor and Chair of Religious Studies, University of Alabama who quotes from it, along with other mainstream coverage from journals / reliable sources and you know the outcome. Spdiffy (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No need. The book has no relevance to a neutral biographical article on Wendy Doniger. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * see WP:RS & WP:NPOV. The other side of the argument is "The source has no relevance since it praises the subject" --Spdiffy (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And your underlying, unstated, false assumption is that a book by Martha Nussbaum, published by Harvard has exactly the same standing as Invading the Sacred, a collection of droolingly nationalistic op-ed pieces, bankrolled by Rajiv Malhotra. I abide by Wikipedia policy, but I also have a brain. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 13:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Protests section
This section is a Coatrack and has quote(s) taken out of context and gives a completely different meaning. For ex, the quote "...Recent events demonstrate the lengths to which some nationalists have taken their protests." has no relation with Rajiv Malhotra. This quote refers to the Courtright's and Laine's book, and whose content was removed citing guilt by association, ( I support removal of Courtright, Laine etc., ), but without this piece of information, the quote is not useful. This section needs to be accurately written. --Spdiffy (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you go find someone who will contribute to the article accurately? All that you've done is expanded the already obese criticism section and removed biographical material. You have damaged the article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Any biographical material removed was plagiarized content, also supported by you, but you have changed your stance now and accusing me of removal. I have added valid discussions that took place in Universities and conferences.Defamation/Anti/Defamation American Academy of Religion meeting, to give information on scholarly discussions at the Academy and not related to BJP. --Spdiffy (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This biography of a living person will not consist of extensive coverage of a pseudo-controversy ginned up by right-wing NRI Rajiv Malhotra. Here is a good, uniquely honest description of the pseudo-controversy: . &mdash; goethean &#2384; 12:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I endorse having a description of Martha Craven Nussbaum's version of the pseudo-controversy (partially available at above external link and published by Harvard University Press) added to the article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, not all agree with the pseudo-controversy conspiracy theory. For ex, this article by Jayant Bapat of Monash University, Australia, who writes "extraordinary repartee to it by Rajiv Malhotra of the Infinity Foundation on the Suklekha webpage which was then re-posted on RISA-L network." and further points out, "Rajiv Malhotra's scathing attack on both of them is based on the lack of adequate proof in White's assertions about the origin of Tantra and on the attempts by these two, especially Doniger, to bring in current Hindu chauvinism into the discussion." Is Prof. Jayant Bapat from BJP ? Obviously if Martha Craven Nussbaum's version is added, then Jayant Bapat's version will also be added, as per NPOV. Spdiffy (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I offer a passage by one of the most important contemporary writers of our time, published by one of the most important university presses, and in response you claim that Nussbaum and HUP engage in "conspiracy theory" and you dig out some nobody from a college in Australia that no one has ever heard of, to "balance" Nussbaum. I guess Fox News isn't the only one who claims to be fair and balanced while making a genuinely hilarious mockery of the words. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Eh, did you check the publisher? Ever heard of Springer? "most important contemporary writer" is a peacock. Spdiffy (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's a fact. Read her article. (The egg-throwing crowd hasn't gotten to it yet, so it is accurate). &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriately page lock
This article has copyright violations, reliable sources removed and despite of this the page has been locked. I have raised my concerns at admin noticeboard. Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Its a pity that a admin overlooks it and locks the page. Spdiffy (talk) 05:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A pity for who? Certainly not for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is interested in accurate coverage of Doniger's 40-year academic career, not in assisting Rajiv Malhotra's right-wing crusade against American scholars. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 12:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Page protection endorsed at ANI. Please discuss any proposed changes on this talk page. After a consensus has been reached, please post an template here with details of the requested edit. Toddst1 (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your comments and decision at ANI. We will work on this and do the needful. Rgrds, Spdiffy (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This is just another boring Hindutva hotspot. We get redlink accounts trying to introduce cheap and transparent propaganda, a sure sign that the article was brought up on some Hindu nationalist internet forum somewhere. Page protection is giving this too much credit. goethean is entirely right, it shouldn't even be necessary to mention this stuff on the talkpge. WP:BLP, WP:TIGERS, rollback, block the throwaway accounts and move on. --dab (𒁳) 10:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is also some copy pasted material attributed to CV and the consensus is to remove them. Anyway, when the protection lock expires, this will be done, thanks for your cleanup. Rgrds, Spdiffy (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, there may be many reasons for consensus to develop to remove the text, but the fact that it is copy-pasted may not represent a problem as long as it is not creative text. I didn't see anything else that constituted a copyright infringement, and as long as it is non-creative, even directly copied text is not plagiarism if it is cited. But there is a lot of text here, and it's possible that I've overlooked some creative text. If so, please point it out, and I'll remove it immediately, as we should not display copyrighted text outside of policy provisions once it has been identified. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Charge of "Cherry-picking quotations" made at ANI
Here, (right before he called me a racist) User:Spdiffy accuses me of "cherry-picked quotes" in the following terms:

Also the Book Review section is full of opinion peices and cherry picked quotes, to give an example: * Wendy_Doniger has a quote from David Arnold's [http://thebrowser.com/content/beheading-hindus-david-arnold-times-literary-supplement- 29-july "Beheading Hindus"], but this review also contains discussions of the shortcomings of the book, which are nowhere to be seen.

I excerpted the penultimate two sentences of the review, in which Arnold summarizes his review. If one is attempting to fairly summarize the review, why would one select the critical portions, and ignore the summary? Arnold's review comes down the side of the scholars, not on the BJP/RSS/egg-throwers' (BRET) side. I couldn't include the entire final paragraph (which I don't have a problem with including, in principle), as that would be removed as a copyright violation. I have no problem including balanced material, but there is no legitimate NPOV reason to include only critical material. There is no legitimate NPOV reason to pretend that Doniger is anything but a mainstream scholar. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, so now RSS has come into picture :) There are several other reviews which needs to be included for WP:NPOV, not just quotes from couple of handful reviews which is fact picking. --Spdiffy (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This section is a quotefarm now. Spdiffy (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Spdiffy, you should give it a rest. Your ANI post is a blatant misrepresentation of the situation. Your attempts at denouncing goethean would put a four-year-old to shame.

I am interested to see that you appear to think that BJP is a "race". In this case, I am happy to inform you that my race is "Wikipedian", and that we do strongly discriminate against such races as "internet troll", "sock puppet" and "ideological pov-pusher".

There are plenty of sites on the internet where you are free to indulge in rabid nationalism. Please stop spamming this talkpage.

If there must be a WP:BATTLEGROUND, let it be at Talk:Rajiv Malhotra, the article on the guy who is trying to escalate this smear-campaign, not at the BLP article of a scholar that happened to be picked as a target. If Malhotra is notable for taking potshots at Doninger, this doesn't automatically make Doninger notable for having been shat on by Malhotra. WP:DUE. --dab (𒁳) 10:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Blatant POV: The disappearance of Criticism
I start reading this talk, it starts with POV issue because this article has too much of criticism and NOW the POV issue should be that an apparent attempt to hide Wendy's criticism. The blockquotes just emphasize one POV and the other POV is completely removed. I urge admins to reinstate the Criticism, Discussions and protests, Psychoanalysis sections all of which have RS references. More criticism AND praise links: [ http://www.rightsidenews.com/200910226954/global-terrorism/hinduism-studies-and-dhimmitude-in-the-american-academy.html Right Side News] by Dr. M. Lal  Goel, NYT -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 11:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

blatant, eh? and you have a rightsidenews.com url to prove it, too. As you continue 'reading this talk', it will become apparent that the material was removed for good reason. We have standards and won't report on random name-calling found on the internets. --dab (𒁳) 11:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The edit-summary was the sections was "bull****" by BJPers. I felt BBC was not part of the Illerate BJP brigade. I see no reference from the sections which is non-RS. If criticism is to removed, the admins should also remove the cherry-picked quotes POV quotes for NPOV. This version has RS references for the sections. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 11:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The standards does not disallow criticism. The current version (read quotes) not only over overwhelm the article or but also appear to take Wendy praiser's side, ignoring her criticism, a clear violation of the standards. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 11:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz, you are rehashing what has just been discussed. Please don't do that. This is an article about an academc. Obviously all academic criticism of her academic work are perfectly fair game. Read WP:DUE. --dab (𒁳) 12:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's "rightsidenews.com" article is taken from politicalislam.com, a site which at first appears to be purely educational and pro-Islam (they even sell an abridgement of the "Koran"!), but all of their recommended books equate political Islam with terrorism. It appears to be a stealthy right-wing Hindu, anti-Muslim site. Congratulations on finding a perfectly neutral source for articles criticizing Wendy Doniger. Much more reliable than that silly New York Times Book Review. I don't think that rabidly anti-Muslim websites are of equal reliability as top-tier, global publications such as The New York Times Book Review, etc. And I think that Redtigerxyz understands this perfectly well. [comment has been edited for lack of servility] &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Analysis and suggestion
I looked at the Criticism section that was deleted, and found it to be a mixed bag. For example: That said, it's not only the removed Critcism section that has problems. The current Works section (aside: there are two sections so-named!) is essentially a quote farm, and as a reader when I encounter such sections my POV radar is activated and I essentially don't trust anything the article has to say. I assume I am not alone in this. I had suggested to Spdiffy on my talk page that he (and others) can try developing a balanced Critical appraisal section (instead of segregated "praise" and "criticism" sections) for this article in userspace. I think that would be a more fruitful approach than simply re-adding the previous criticism section, or trying to edit it in mainspace, where it is certain to set off edit-wars. Abecedare (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * is a context-less misrepresentation. My reading of the BBC quote is that it is intended as a cheeky attention-grabbing introduction, rather than sincere criticism. See the full interview for context.
 * The quote needs to be attributed and not presented as a fact in the encyclopedia's voice. Also reading this in isolation, one would think the WD wrote the entries for Hinduism, Islam and Christianity, which of course was not the case.
 * The Witzel quote is personally interesting because IMO it suggests the opinion he holds of her work, but the quote is a throwaway line in a larger and unrelated article, and presenting it as criticism here meets the definition of quote-mining.
 * I haven't looked at the context of this yet, and this may be well-worth mentioning as part of larger review of her work, but not in isolation. FWIW I can't recall any JSTOR review of a translation in which the reviewer didn't point out at least some mis- or non-ideal translations. So we really have to look at whether the reviewer say, "this work shouldn't be trusted", or "I would have translated some words and phrases differently".
 * There are several citations to "Invading the sacred: an analysis of Hinduism studies in America". I am not commenting on them yet, since I have not read the book, or checked its reviews etc.
 * The egg-throwing incident is worth including, since it is reflective of the passionate opposition that WD has aroused in some circles (irrespective of whether that opposition is justified). Also currently, Niranjan Roy reaction to the egg-throwing is lacking context.


 * The quotations from book reviews were a quick, imperfect solution to balance out the outrageously negative collection of carefully picked quotations which comprised the attack section. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I guessed as much. I am not really questioning the aim in adding the quotes, but rather their effectiveness. Frankly, a critical appraisal in this article should not overly focus on "good" or "bad" reviews, but rather should provide a window to the reader (based on secondary sources) on the areas WD works in and the knowledge, philosophy and approaches she brings to bear, along with a few attributed comments. Readers are then free to judge what they think of the approach and the results. Abecedare (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to add a summarizing quotation from each review from the most notable publications. If her book has been panned by the TLS, I would have added a summary quotation from that review also. I could not find any reviews in notable Indian publications. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Currently, the article over-emphasizes on the good points. To be Neutral, even the quotes should be removed, till the dispute is resolved and an critical analysis section is formed on the talk, with a CONSENSUS. The egg-throwing (Egging) section is note-worthy as egging is a type of protest. Quoting from LGBT themes in Hindu mythology about Wendy: "The scholarship of Wendy Doniger, which focuses on interpretation of Hindu texts through psychoanalysis, has been criticised and regarded as unreliable." references: Antonio De Nicholas, Krishnan Ramaswamy, Aditi Banerjee Invading the Sacred., p.66. (O it was part of the old version too, why was this removed?) -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 12:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Discussions and protests" is necessary in the article as it conveys a sense of protest and outrage by (what this talk calls) "Illiterate BJPers". Wendy Doniger's use Freudian psychoanalysis is challenged by some, which needs to be documented. Kazanas's reference removal is also unexplained. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the analysis of Abecedare, but I could not understand why the UNDUE, POV quote farm is retained in the article, when ONLY the criticism is removed, either both should be included or both should be removed till the dispute is resolved and some neutral "Critical analysis" is formed. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Further Analysis and Suggestion
The difficulty with most of the discussion is that it revolves around “controversy”, as if controversy should be the focus of the article. The article should primarily be a biography of Doniger, what she has done, what she teaches, and what she has written about. A section on controversy should be quantitatively in proportion to that biographical material. That might be at the most one pithy quote of criticism and one of rebuttal, and it might be none at all. Given the history of this article it may be that the best way to achieve a normative standard would be to give the controversy quantitatively what it gets on biographies of persons who are similarly controversial. I have suggested Bart Ehrman before as an article we might look to for a comparison.

As another example if you look at the Wikipedia Barack Obama article it is not about his eligibility for the presidency because of facts relating to his and his parents citizenship, or about disagreement with his views, it is biographical facts about his life and work. The Doniger article at times has looked like an Obama article that would refer to him as controversial without mentioning that he is President of the United States and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. For the avoidance of doubt I am not comparing Obama to Doniger, or attempting honor by association, I am comparing the form that biographies take, versus blog spots or editorials. If you google the citizenship issue it takes up many pages on the web, but that is not the focus of the Obama Wiki bio. Nor are the opinions of others about him or his views the focus of the article.

If you google “Bart Ehrman controversy” you see many pages that are not on Wikipedia as Ehrman bio because that are essentially op-ed pieces, but they look like many former versions of the Doniger Wiki biography; but they don’t look like the Bart Ehrman Wiki bio itself, which is a bio and not an op-ed piece.

Therefore I would suggest that what is needed is not settling whether the positive or negative quotes deserve prominence, but taking them to blogs and op-ed forums, and instead putting here on Wiki a biography, and agreeing not only on what positive and negative quotes and observations should be included, but to the relative space that should be provided to them in the Wiki bio. I make the suggestion that one positive and one rebuttal would be more than generous as I do not see even that on either the Ehrman or the Obama bio pages. I make the assumption that we are all familiar with the guidelines here: WP:BLP in its Criticism and praise section, and that we could in a partisan fashion parse them back and forth to support one view or another, but I am convinced that it is a matter of taking all that to other forums and to simply stating biographical facts here, as on similar Wiki bios of controversial living persons. Meetoohelp (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No. I agree with you. That's why I added the section about Panjaj Mishra. Add some more laudatory sections about Doniger. That's fine with me. We have to respect NPOV. Views of religion are subjective in nature. Everyone has their opinion. The Catholic view of Christianity is different from the Eastern Orthodox view. So is with everyone's view of what Hinduism says and doesn't. I am no means a right-wing. Raj2004 (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Dab, I respect your opinion at times. At least you aim for NPOV unlike some. Raj2004 (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit
I request that an admin remove the section entitled "Works"; it is a quote-farm.

It was added in order to balance the excessive negative material which was in the "Criticism" section. However, the criticism section has been removed. If the "criticism" section remains removed, the "Works" section can be removed as well. However, if the unbalanced, excessively one-sided "Criticism" section is re-added to the article, the "Works" section should also be re-added in order to avoid unbalance. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above. By far the most interesting things about Doniger's work is that it is controversial and challenging - it is this that makes her notable!. The current quote farm with none of the critical attention makes the article look unbalanced and poorly written. Both criticism and the quote farm should be worked on on the talk page and only added when the balance between the two is correct. Yob  Mod  17:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done this as the request was uncontested. Here is the removed section: {{hide|click "show" to view|

Asceticism and Eroticism in the Mythology of Siva
Bruce Long wrote about Doniger's first book:

The Hindus: An Alternative History
In the Times Literary Supplement, David Arnold wrote of Doniger's 2009 The Hindus: An Alternative History:

In the New York Times, Pankaj Mishra wrote:

In the Washington Post, Michael Dirda wrote:

In October 2009, Indian journalist Nilanjana S. Roy claimed that what offends Doniger's opponents is that she often knows more about Hindu traditions than Doniger's critics do. Roy also claimed that egg-throwing is itself a foreign idea to India, which should be condemned by Indian religious traditions. Roy also claimed that Hindu fundamentalists are "terrified" by the prospect of multiple version of Hinduism

Translation of Vastsyayana's Kamasutra
In a review for The Hindu of Doniger and Sudhir Kakar's Oxford World's Classics translation of Vastsyayana's Kamasutra, Kala Krishnan Ramesh wrote: }} Regards, Skomorokh,  barbarian  21:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand what was the need to balance the old Criticism section, and some of my edits to the article also attempted to do just that. In many former versions of the article, those dueling opinion quotes were inappropriately its dominant content. I would like to endorse your other suggestion, that rather than add back the criticism section with an equal time ethos for opposing opinions about Doniger, as if a blog spot or an op-ed section, that to make this biography conform to a normative Wikipedia form, those sections should both be left off. That Doniger has attracted controversy and why has a place in the article, but observing the history of the page, the long and dueling opinion quotes did not serve it well. How about a sentence like: “Doniger is a scholar of Sanskrit literature, myth, religion, and culture. Her work approaches texts with the tools of a philologist, and as books written by people. That can be a source of aggravation to people who approach those books with reverential bias. Her work has attracted controversy.” Meetoohelp (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I agree with Goethean's comment above, and think the article at this moment, without the various reviews, is acceptable without needing to add the sentences I suggested above. Meetoohelp (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

New criticism section
The "criticism" section added by User:Raj2004 is not a neutral or accurate depiction of the reception of Doniger's work and should be removed immediately per WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. It also uses Invading the Sacred, a contentious, partisan, and unreliable source. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * However, a criticism section is needed. So please improve it instead of removing it. Shii (tock) 00:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * However, a criticism section is needed.
 * A criticism section most assuredly is not needed, per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. A neutral, well-sourced section on the reception of Doniger's ideas is needed. A criticism section is not needed, and in order to be taken seriously, you will need to cite a Wikipedia policy rather than simply assert opinions without evidence. In the absence of such, I am removing the section per my above reasoning. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 00:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be interesting as long as a debate is ongoing and new points are brought forward. Once a debate has been exhausted, particularly after it becomes clear that one "side" in the debate has no case whatsoever, it tends to turn into just a boring game of fly-swatting :( --dab (𒁳) 10:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Geez Louise, all I meant is that she's a controversial figure and the points that have been made against her were by influential figures, not that they shouldn't be put in contrast with her widespread approval throughout academia. Shii (tock) 19:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a little surprised that this section is removed. It should be restored. You should also add sections that praise Professor Doniger. But removing a negative criticism section is not NPOV. Raj2004 (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Goethan I respectfully disagree. A neutral section on a controversial scholar is not credible. However, I agree that the criticism section needs to be balanced, which I have done. Raj2004 (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 *  A neutral section on a controversial scholar is not credible. 
 * WP:NPOV is one of the three pillars of Wikipedia policy and all edits must adhere to it, especially a biography of a living person. I suggest that you read up on Wikipedia policy before continuing to edit war for your changes to this article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Also I note that Goethan has been blocked in the past for edits. I agree that the criticism section on Wendy Doniger needs to be balanced though. Raj2004 (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you find a valid argument for your edits which does not necessitate commenting on individual editors. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The edits are well-balanced. We have good sources, the New York Times, BBC News, etc. Pankaj Mishra is a well-respected commentator on the left. His views balances the views of the right. The current criticism section is much improved. Furthermore, this section is balanced and thus presents both sides of the story, the hallmark of NPOV. Raj2004 (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the NPOV policy states: "It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Therefore, material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV."

Other editors can further condense it up I feel that the current section reflects a NPOV view. Indeed, Professor Witzel, who is not at all on the Hindu right, has criticized her scholarship. Thus further strengthens the balanced point of view. Raj2004 (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Grabbing the most negative statements from the entire history of press coverage of a person, shoving it all into their article, and conveniently overlooking all of the positive material which has been said about them, is not just non-neutral editing, it is patently dishonest. This is what you have done. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well then go ahead tone it down but don't remove it. Put in both positive and negatives. For example, the article states this negative about Doniger but states this positive about her. This harsh criticism about Doniger was extracted from a Wikipedia excerpt on LGBT themes in Hindu mythology. I did not wrote the original criticism on her so I don't know the whole story.

The only new original info I added is regarding Pankaj Mishra, which I can vouch for, is accurate. To remove any true negative criticism about her is intellectually dishonest. Doniger is indeed a controversial figure, regardless whether you believe in her views or not. Raj2004 (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To remove any true negative criticism about her is intellectually dishonest.
 * Oh, is it. Then this article will include everything negative about Doniger ever written. Which would undoubtedly please the enemies of scholarship immensely. Doniger is a controversial figure among certain highly politicized groups. Not in academia. Not in America. Not in the West. Barack Obama is also a highly contrioversial figure among certain highly politicized, poorly informed people. That doesn't mean that their outrageously inaccurate charges against him should be parroted obediently and everything else should be suppressed, as you have done here. Your additions are unbalanced and should be removed immediately. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 23:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

But views on religion are varied. Religion is not science, e.g., like the laws of gravity. Everyone will have an opinion. The Catholic view of Christ is very different from the Protestant view of Christ for example. Catholics venerate Mary unlike Protestants. Please go ahead and make more positive remarks about Doniger. That's fine. I added the section on Pankaj Mishra. You said that she's respected in academia. Even academics like Professor Witzel have some critical comments about her. Raj2004 (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Not so in America? What world are you living on? The Hindu American Foundation is critical of Doniger. CORRECTION: THEY RECENTLY PUBLISHED A COMMENT: http://www.hafsite.org/media/pr/imagined-hindu-history And they are not even a right wing group like the VHP. Even you have your own point of view. Raj2004 (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV states that "significant-minority views" should be included. Even the views of those who criticize her should be respected as well as those who praise her. That's an objective encylopedia. Raj2004 (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your rewrites are fine, Goethan I toned both sides down to make it more NPOV. I stated "many critics," because there are be many who are critical of her on other grounds. Also, some may praise her. This makes it neutral. Raj2004 (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excessive critical commentary should not be included in the biography of a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The current rewrite should reflect that each group's views is a perspective of some, not all. This is why the edits were made. Raj2004 (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The criticism section (I realize that it has been retitled) is quite badly written and looks as though it was intended to highlight some sensational remarks made about Doniger. It needs to be rewritten at least, and there is a case for removing it. Gigi-Ko! (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Gigi, what do those books actually state? There is case for removing it if the comments are not accurate. But I heard that Wendy Doniger has been criticized for her interpretations. Please give those true negative criticism. Please report the criticism accurately even though it may be negative. Raj2004 (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Gigi, I rewrote the section using her university magazine, from the University of Chicago. Raj2004 (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Goethan, the use of "harassed by Hindu nationalist" in the section is not NPOV. Trying to bury legitimate criticism by masking a section header is disingenuous. Also you don't seem to be even-handed in NPOV. You bash Hindu nationalists but don't want to allow any criticism of scholars like Doniger. Raj2004 (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Goethean is "bashing Hindu natioanlists" because, unlike Doniger, they keep trying to undermine Wikipedia. Doniger, and especially her Wikipedia artice, is indeed being harassed by Hindu nationalits. The question is whether this fact is at all notable to her biography. We don't usually put incidents like "was once shouted at by a homeless person" or "was at one point mugged in a dark alley" in scholars' biographies. --dab (𒁳) 15:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Trying to bury legitimate criticism by masking a section header is disingenuous. 
 * Using a section header to draw attention to politicized attacks on a scholar is also disingenuous.


 * If you want to write a neutral, factual, well-sourced section on the academic response to Doniger's work, you go right ahead. But cutting and pasting decontextualized garbage into a WP:BLP like this is irresponsible. You are using Wikipedia to defame a living person. That puts the Wikipedia project at risk. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not defaming anyone. This was extracted from an article from the University of Chicago. No wonder you were blocked. Raj2004 (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there are some out there who are crazies. But let's be civil here by presenting all points of view. Don't delete anything that is not your point of viewRaj2004 (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Dab from my experiences in the past, tries to be NPOV unlike Goethan. Raj2004 (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The current version of "Doniger's interpretation of Hindu texts" is somewhat better. It still does not seem to be very well written, however, and it definitely seems slanted against Doniger. Further improvement to make it neutral is required. Gigi-Ko! (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If I had any more reverts available to me, I would remove the material immediately. This is not an argument over "interpretation of texts". This is about the harassment of a scholar by political thugs like Rajiv Malhotra who know nothing of Sanskrit and less of Indian history. User:Raj2004 has edit warred with dab and myself in order to insert the text. He should be blocked for edit warring on this article. He has also edit warred in order to keep his POV, inaccurate header which acts as the Wikipedia equivalent of a blinking neon sign in order to drive traffic to his favored section of the article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Geothan why you are such a fan of Doniger? Are you a former student? I don't do the bidding of any and just want to present both sides, and remove the unnecessary such as egg throwing incident and the blatantly false statement that Mr. Malhotra is the only one critical of Doniger; The Hindu American Foundation is critical of Doniger. CORRECTION: THEY RECENTLY PUBLISHED A COMMENT: http://www.hafsite.org/media/pr/imagined-hindu-history And they are not even a right wing group like the VHP. I don't care about either side as I concede that there as many right-wing kooks and clearly as many kooks in the left-wing, as we have seen.

Moreover, Goethan himself has been blocked for excessive disruption in the past. Raj2004 (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please avoid personal attacks in your comments? They are not helpful and do not strengthen your position. That Doniger has been assaulted because of her views as expressed in her books certainly seems relevant, and I doubt there is any valid reason why that information should be removed. Gigi-Ko! (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. That's fine but why was this removed: Kazanas, Nicholas. Indo-European Deities and the Rgveda. Journal of Indo-European Studies, vol. 29, nos. 3-4 (Fall & Winter 2001), pp. 257-293. Footnote #14 on page 283. This seems to be a well-respected academic journal. Can you explain why? I don't know. Raj2004 (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You used that reference to source the views of unnamed generic "some scholars". Kazanas speaks for Kazanas and not unnamed generic "some scholars." &mdash; goethean &#2384; 02:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok that's fine. I will edit that way then. Raj2004 (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for putting double brackets around his name. That way, our readers can see that what you've done is to isolate a single sentence from the harshest critic of Doniger, even though that critic is not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. This is the problem when people with political agendas who don't give a crap about scholarship or facts find the worst thing that anyone has ever said a about a scholar and present it as the consensus of scholarly opinion. What you are writing is fiction. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 03:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In Hinduism a scholar is not created by writing books! Instead, the scholar is created by living the widsom of Hinduism. It is very clear from the writings of Wendy Doniger that she does not understand Hinduism, because it simply does not reflect in her writings. A knower of Hinduism unites people, not divides them. My previous edits to her page were removed by someone! The fact that quite a few members of Hindu society do not agree with Wendy's writings should be respected. And, we must on the main page add a section conveying this position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.16.50 (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Hindu nationalists
The currently written piece is slightly slanted towards the left and disparages anyone who has any legitimate criticism about Professor Doniger. Unbelievable. Raj2004 (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "The left"? What...OH you mean scholars and facts. Yeah, it is. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 02:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop any personal attacks. It is clear that you are a left-wing advocate and Mr. Malhotra is a right wing advocate. There are politics in any religion. There are religious scholars on the left and religious scholars on the right. Scholarship varies in religion. I don't think you are a practicing Hindu to understand. To analogize, a christian religious scholar who favors homosexual marriage is clearly on the left. The left-handed cult in Shaktism, for example, is clearly opposite of the conservative traditions in Shaktism. Raj2004 (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Suffice to say that I don't subscribe to your ideas of left, right and whatever. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPA and stop speculating on the motivations of fellow editors. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 02:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section
I still don't understand why the section header "Criticism" was removed. Many biographies on Wikipedia have criticism sections on controversial people, except for Doniger. Raj2004 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Doniger is a scholar, not a politician. For scholars, a section accurately describing the reception of their academic work is more appropriate than a random collection pot-shots from nobodies. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 02:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism" sections are inherently bogus. If a creditable work specifically devoted to someone's scholarship can be sourced, fine. Otherwise it's all sound-bites, cherry-picking and POV-pushing. If there's a notable controversy or issue involving the person, then that should have its own dedicated article. Leave the BLP out of it. rudra (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Doniger is not a politician but I believe that this is not handled in a fair way. Contrast this with an article on the controversial Catholic theologian, Mary Daly; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Daly#Controversy_and_criticism Can Goethan and Rudrasharman write something like that? I will reintroduce my introduction, and you can rewrite it in a similar style like the Mary Daly article? Raj2004 (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Mary Daly article discusses facts that Daly allegedly got wrong. Go ahead and prove me wrong but as far as I know, there is no discussion in reliable sources of facts that Doniger allegedly got wrong, just nebulous allegations that she is an uppity American female who should stay the fuck away from Brahminism. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 13:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

well, Mary Daly, as the article stated, did not say anything that can be interpreted multiple ways. As you know, religion has multiple interpretations; so I don't think adding this is wrong so long as it is counterbalanced, which it is by your constructive additions. It seems that two well respected academics disagree on her interpretation: "Michael Witzel, professor of South Asian studies at Harvard, who has also been accused by Hindu nationalists of being anti-Hindu, has questioned her translations and her proclivity for finding sexual meanings in ancient texts. [8] Nicolas Kazanas, a Greek Indologist, has stated that she seems to be obsessed with only one meaning of myths: the most sexual imaginable." Again, religion has multiple interpretations; so I don't think adding this is wrong so long as it is counterbalanced, which it is by your constructive additions. Academics throughout time have been criticized for their interpretations so I don't think adding balanced views is a problem, as it has been done.

Raj2004 (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I know, Doniger just interpreted things in a different way; I don't think she made a misstatement of any uncontestable fact. But then again there are so few contemporary Indologists around who are controversial. Raj2004 (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

you are welcome to cite academic criticism of her work. Why don't you do that and establish she is indeed controvresial. Just as long as you stop discussing tomato-throwers and ideological cranks like Kazanas. Cite academic reviews of her work. --dab (𒁳) 15:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)--dab (𒁳) 15:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Witzel's critique was actually a tangent, on a very respected mailing list yes, but which nevertheless I'm sure can be wikilawyered out of contention. The original context was English translations of the RV: Witzel opined that a new one was needed, noting why he was unsatisfied with existing efforts. Someone asked him to substantiate his remarks, and the thread took off. (See the old Indology Listserv archive for Nov 1995. The posts are in inverse chronological order, so you have to scroll to the bottom and work upwards for the thread.  Start with the last but one, #232.)  Witzel then posted thrice. which someone later helpfully collated.  Rajiv Malhotra cited a couple in his "Wendy's Child Syndrome" essay, which is the basis for the statement in the UoC article about Doniger cited in the BLP. rudra (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no need for accusations of wikilawyering in relation to removing the contents of an email message from the article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're in luck, then, because Doniger isn't worth criticizing in a book. An email message is about all she warrants, even though in this case, it amounts to a self-published work by an expert in his own field.  But then again, you're the wikilawyer, not me. rudra (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I do not think Doniger is interesting as an Indologist. She appears to represent the generation of academics that form the very nadir of postmodernist gender trash. But it isn't proper to try and denigrate a scholar in a Wikipedia artice because you think their work is crap. If they are uninteresting, they will just have a very brief article, if any at all. The Hindutva tomato-throwing hooligans are just bullies and have nothing to do with Doninger's quality as a scholar or notability. These people wouldn't be in a position to assess her work. Tomato-throwing isn't an acceptable mode of academic recension. If these Hindutva bigots want to make a pathetic spectacle of themselves they are free to do that, but they cannot expect to have every one of their moves documented on Wikipedia. WP:ENC. --dab (𒁳) 08:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I support the idea of restoring a "Criticism" section to the article. Criticism of her is noteworthy enough to some Hindus to justify a balanced summary of what the controversy is about.  Having read the long transcript of talk here, I would suggest that the statements about the controversy that are already in the text of the current version of the article be moved to a distinct section so the reader can quickly locate the issue.  I regret if this suggestion positions me as a "Hindutva tomato-throwing hooligan". Buddhipriya (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wendy is a controversial personality and criticism section should be added to the article to make the article balanced. Please do not sourced content by calling the sources poor. Discuss as to why they are poor sources. Without criticism, the article would like portraying a particular POV and does not make the article neutral. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A criticism section is inherently one-sided and not neutral. The article already has a balanced, accurate account of the reception of Doniger's work, sourced to high-profile, mainstream sources. Your contributions were not accurate, neutral, or needed, or helpful. Please read the entire debate on this page in order to understand why your addition is counter to Wikipedia policy. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the article already covers the criticism/controversy with the Novetzske material. So your contribution is redundant. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Relevant policies include WP:NPOV WP:RS WP:V WP:DUE WP:3RR WP:BRD. Note that your Hindustan Times source is an opinion editorial and a reliable souce for nothing but the author's opinon. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Professor Kazanos?
Pardon my ignorance, Dab. Why do you have objections towards him? I am curious as I do not know much about him. This site (http://nalandainternational.org/IndusConference/Participants.htm) seems to suggest that he is a scholar. If so, his views may be included in the Doniger article. I recognize one of the participants though. (Edwin Bryant. Thanks for the clarification. Raj2004 (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The details were posted once to the Talk page of an article which no longer exists. You can see a summary here.  rudra (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Raj2004 (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment
I do not understand the use of WP:NPOV to say that criticism sections should be removed. Is claiming that criticism exists a violation of NPOV? Shii (tock) 18:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Would it be okay to simply write on the Barack Obama page under the header CRITICISM: "Some scholars think that Obama is a terrorist", and then throw in some links to Rush Limbaugh and Osama bin Laden? If that is not okay, then you should be able to figure out why it is also not okay to allow right-wing Hindus who hate Doniger to summarize the reception of her work, 95% of which is uncontroversial. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read the talk pages and wiki pages on PN Oak, Max Muller, Romila Thapar, Monier Williams and you will see how the western definition of 'scholars', 'ligitimate commentators', 'researchers' and 'reputable sources' changes based on western interests. Interestingsly Indian 'right wingers' are the most educated and forward looking in their society - contrary to the right wingers of 'Christian west'. I would encourage people of 'your kind' [Christian right wingers] to keep posting your comments - as that will keep a good record of 'Christian' thought process and argumentative styles for future record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.118.244.2 (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, random epithets being thrown at Obama is quite different from actual criticism. Doniger's most recent book begins with a thorough discussion of the criticism aimed at her. Is this somehow "not notable"? Shii (tock) 20:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

look, you want to discuss things like criticism sections in bio articles in general, I suggest you take it to WP:VP or WP:BIO. "claiming that criticism exists" is not the same as a criticism section. It has been stated repeatedly that peer reviewed criticism is very welcome. So why don't you just begin adding such criticism instead of draggin this on and on? --dab (𒁳) 20:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, because it's been removed repeatedly. Also, why does it have to be peer reviewed? Doesn't response from the subject of her works suffice as important? Shii (tock) 20:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * no. --dab (𒁳) 21:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what I call Orientalist discourse. Shii (tock) 00:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * it is not a discourse, "orientalist" or otherwise. It is one scholar writing books and holding lectures, and a lynch mob lobbing eggs. If you can reference an actual academic discourse, again, please do it already. --dab (𒁳) 17:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * random epithets
 * A good description of the "criticism" of Doniger. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 23:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional Comments
When one examines the content under dispute IMHO, there is also a problem with verifiability along with WP:NPOV, WP:WTA : In the current shape its not advisable to include the content under dispute, at least a serious neutral and accurate rewrite is needed. Happy editing. --TheMandarin (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In 2003, in response to pressure from conservative Hindu political activists, Microsoft excised an article she wrote for the Encarta encyclopedia... [Emphasis mine] is not present in the cited source. The "conservative Hindu political activists" is Shankart Shanu. The "excised" part should be written accurately, i.e the article was replaced with Arvind Sharma of McGill University.
 * The Next statement attributed to Martha Nussbaum is out of context when applied to the previous encyclopaedia sentence, "..the tacit assumption behind the attacks on Doniger is that sex has something about it something shameful and.." Also "notes that" should be "argues" as per WP:WTA
 * The Next statement "One leading antagonist..." is also WP:NPOV.
 * The "egg was lobbed" is also only partially complete. Arvind Sharma discusses the complete issue in "Hindus and scholars" Spring 2004 Vol. 7, No. 1, "Meanwhile, during a public lecture in London last November Wendy Doniger had an egg thrown at her and was vociferously questioned about her qualifications to speak on Hinduism. According to witnesses, she avoided giving an answer when pointedly asked whether she had herself been psychoanalyzed. It was clear that the Hindu faith community in the United Kingdom had joined the fray."  If the egg incident is being mentioned, then its also necessary to include the "questioned about her qualifications" part neutrally or completely remove the "egg";

Hooligans disrupting a lecture is simply not WP:DUE material for an academic bio article, sorry. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here. What this really is about is the rise of Hindu fundamentalism in the USA, apparently modelled both on Hindu fundamentalism in India and on Protestant Christian fundamentalism in the US. If people want to discuss this very relevant topic, Hinduism in the United States would be a proper venue, but I doubt that the "egg lobbed" at Doniger will be notable enough to be mentioned even there. --dab (𒁳) 17:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it isn't -- Malhotra's initiative and case are quite distinct from the Hindu fundos who took up their own cudgels on his "behalf" -- but this Talk page is not the place to sort that out. What may be relevant is that Doniger et al have been successful in casting the issue in just those terms, in order to have reasonable minded people dismiss it, of course.  (See, e.g. Shankar Vedantam's article in the Washington Post.) Arvind Sharma's essay is the best treatment, by far. rudra (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Apropos of Vendatam's article and others like it all too eager to lump everything into a "Hindutva" bogeyman, see this article about the Laine affair. It really is not that simple. rudra (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "We are trying to write an encyclopedia here." Really? I was under the impression this was a hagiography. Shii (tock) 21:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)