Talk:Wendy Doniger/Archive 1

External links

Please read & be prepared to discuss the external links if you choose to argue my changes. You will find most points already defended in detail there. --Pranathi 21:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments by Academcs (feel free to contribute):

This article presents a balanced point of view, and brings to light relevant controversies, that are not aimed to be defamatory to Prof. Doniger. I find it a cause of befuddlement that the neutrality of this article has come into question. If any specific criticisms to the article persist, then they should be voiced; or else the article's "flagged" status should be re-evaluated.

I am pleased to see that many changes have been made in this article since I last visited. The rhetoric has been toned down considerably, and replaced by a fair summary of the conflicts between Prof. Doniger and some members of the Hindu community. Well done. -Jmh123 01:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

POV?

How is this article POV? If there is more to be said about her, please put it on the page. The controversy section is not a minority view as can be seen by the links provided. It is the view of the Hindu community, a very valid viewpoint, considering that see her 'claim to fame' is her 'expertise' on Hinduism.

I don't agree that this is POV. Please continue discussion here in the talk page. If I don't hear responses back, I will remove POV label shortly. --Pranathi 00:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"The view of the Hindu community" - who are you to say that the "Hindu community" has ever spoken with one voice. Do you speak for the "Hindu community?" Just because a certain sect has become offended by Doniger's scholarship does not place her into the context of contraversial.

By all means, every scholar offends somebody, but in the academic study of religion, Doniger is not controversial, but in fact mainstream. You could argue that she is controversial with certain members of various Hindu communities who take issue with her scholarship, that I will agree with. 7.28.05

Dear 7.28.05,

From one of your links about an essay in an Indian website: In two years, Malhotra’s essay received more than 22,000 hits and generated 445 comments (several by Malhotra himself) and two response essays. Most readers agreed with his conclusion.

She may be mainstream among westerners in the 'academic study of religion', but not among practising Indian Hindus. She has not only offended one sect (Ramakrishna mission, whose saint was specifically targeted by her student), but all sects (Ganesha, Durga etc devotees) within Hinduism. On a personal level, I would ask you to approach any practising Hindu, familiarise them with her work and ask them if it is controversial. The Hindu community does not have one central spokesperson/voice, like the Pope in Christianity. So on a more broader level, is there one Hindu community leader, priest etc that will agree with her? A lot has been written/petitioned against her by the Hindu community, show me one in support of her 'scholarship' by a respected voice in the community. Otherwise, in my book and many other Hindus, that is 'the view of the Hindu community'.

In her defense she acknowledges that she is reinterpreting hindu texts and shedding 'light' on parts that are not mainstream ideas. The US academe speak as if they are orchestrating a rennaissance in Hinduism by focussing on sexual imagery. But for the most influential person in US Hinduism studies to be obsessed with sexuality and to completely ignore the major philosophical aspects of Hinduism - is that one sided or not, considering her views are the most popular ones in the US study of Hinduism? In reality, her views are not mainstream at all but at most an alternative perspective as she herself acknowledges.. Hindus that challenge her are accused of hiding 'real' Hinduism under a public mask. So what is real Hinduism, that which Wendy defines? If her views are challenged, the accused are painted as right-wing hindu fundamentalists - an ad hominem argument that is not 'scholarly', right?

Also, of the many that have written against her only some are from the Ramakrishna mission. The controversy section is now POV in my opinion. We will need to work on it.-- Pranathi 02:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you; upon reading my additions to the "Controversy" section, I feel that it does overcompensate by focusing specifically on the Ramakrishna mission. People outside of this organization have equally valuable criticisms of Doniger as well!

But as a Hindu - I always react strongly when I feel a person is attempting to speak for Hinuism. My POV is actually that there is no "Hinduism" but in fact many "Hinduisms." My goal is that Doniger is not raked across the coals, in this article, for engaging the Puranas and other text with the academic tools she has on hand. Indeed, she is a western engaged in the study of South Asian literature - there are bound to be post-colonial issues in hers, or any, approach to these text, whether conscious or unconscious. Her attempt, by my judgement, is only to add to the volumes of studies on South Asian mythological traditions.

Also, to further place her studies in a broader context, it is worth mentioning that there are many scholars of Hinduism, and many South Asian scholars, who do not find the above mentioned fault with Doniger's scholarship: T.G. Vaidyanathan, Gananath Obeyesekere, Sudhir Kakar, Mallanaga Vatsyayana, Tamal Krishna Goswami, and many others. This can not be reduced to an East vs West confrontation, that would indeed be a blanket overstatement and a dangerous oversimplication.

I will take a stab at a rework on the "Controversy" section for this article. Please let me know in what ways you feel it falls short of the desired goal of NPOV. I want to work with you on this.

Thank you for engaging in this discussion with me, I find it highly valuable. Let us continue to find a balance for this article. Thank you for you time and your contributions. 7.29.05

I am glad that we are on common ground and appreciate your efforts to un-POV this article. I am going to attempt to reply briefly and will follow up in detail later..

First of all, I don't agree that there are many Hinduisms - there are many sects but all hold the vedas/basic concepts as the foundation. Many people, without sufficient grounding and in light of the broad range of areas/concepts covered, think of it as a free for all, but I don't. That is why I stress practising Hindu & hold mostly enlightened people only as being authoritative. It is easy to theorize (especially with something as abstract as religion or philosophy) but that does not constitute religion. religion is less theory and more experience IMO. That is my POV and may color some of my arguments.

Next, Wendy's work is mostly criticized because of her complete blindsidedness to topics other than sexuality. For someone known as THE authority in Hinduism, she ignores all philosphical aspects of the religion (which is a major part of it) in her encycpdc entry on Hinduism. Instead she focusses on sexuality to an audience mostly unfamiliar with the religion - in her entry in encyc and also as a teacher. Her students follow her and US Hinduism studies is all about sexuality (which should be a side bar possibly) and less about 'real' Hinduism. Also, for a scholar in Hinduism and with a professed love for it, she has called the Gita, comparable with the Bible in Christianity, a book of lies. The Gita only has 2 characters in dialogue, absolutes no social references, mythological figures etc - just pure philosophy. Her comment is that it goads people to kill - that is the context in which the dialogue is set but is for the most part only an excuse for the dialogue. Is she biased or the ones that criticize?

Also, of the people you mentioned T.G. Vaidyanathan's primary field is Eng Lit, Gananath Obeyesekere's Anthropology, Sudhir Kakar's Organizational behaviour and Humanities, Mallanaga Vatsyayana - I am not sure the ancient Kamasutra author was speaking from a Hindu context but I will concede, Tamal Krishna Goswami - can you point me to references on his agreement? Most of these people may be of Indian descent but that does not qualify them as religious or community leaders.

I guess that wasn't brief but I have to go... Thanks for bearing w me. --Pranathi 02:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I am glad the article is more NPOV. However, there are some phrases that I'd like to discuss.

• It's significant to note... some from the Ramakrishna Mission, .. Doniger's writings. The article is on Wendy but controversy about Kirpal dominates the section. Maybe we can reduce that? for 1, I'd like to see - It's signfcnt.. that many in the Hindu comm have spoken out..

• Others .. attack the character and personal integrity .. Jeffery Kripal. They have responded in like and have focussed on attacking the motives of the criticizers without seriously addressing the accusations on scholarship. I feel this should be noted or sentence removed.

• As a result of these protest by many members of various Hindu communities, in 2003, Microsoft Encarta removed an entry on Hinduism by Doniger. This content was removed after protesters argued that its contents were offensive. The real reasons that Encarta rmvd entry is not made clear. Independent of other criticisms against her and it's offensive nature, the entry was plainly biased and lop-sided in it's focus on sex, while ignores all other (philosophical etc) aspects.

• As there are translation issues .. the question remains if these errors change the broad scope of their work, or if they are minor errors. There is no objective answer .. a part of an ongoing academic dialogue. That is Doniger's and Kirpal's argument. Maybe change wording to show their POV and not state it as a fact?

Also, I would like to rearrange the order of the external links. The links in her defense are placed before those of her criticism. Response to criticism should follow the criticism itself.

On another note, I don't think Vatsayana would agree with her. He may have been explicit in his descriptions of sex, but would probably have disagreed with her psychoanalysis, distortion of Puranas and contempt of the Gita among the many other charges against her. Let's not speak for him? --Pranathi 05:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Just in passing, I'd like to congratulate you both on the intelligent and civil way you are conducting this debate and working on this article, depite coming from very different points of view. I've removed the {{bio-stub}} tag - this article has clearly progressed beyond a stub. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 08:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Pranathi,

I'll try to be brief, because I agree with the vast majority of what you wrote above. Since you have listed 5 issues, I will respond to each.

• I agree.

• I wanted to show that although this is an academic discussion, some critiques have gone beyond pen and paper. One example is the incident in which Doniger was egged (fairly innocent, though it demonstrates that the issues are beyond academic discussion.

• I agree. The reason should be listed and show that Doniger's emphasis was unbalanced and focused mostly on sex and gender, to the exclusion of... Here we would need to list what she excludes in her studies, those oppropriate areas which are neglected in her studies. I do not know if I feel qualified to expound on what the contents should of been... That is an interesting area!

• I agree. This can be shown as Doniger and Kripal's POV. I just think it needs to be stated, and identifying it as their POV is probably most appropriate.

• I agree. The links should be in reverse order.

Take care,

8/3/2005

Thanks for helping work me through this. I have tried to present things from a balanced POV. Please let me know if you find any shortcoming.--Pranathi 21:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Pranathi,

Rock on! I think this looks Great! Of course, there will be changes to be made in the furture as things progress; but for the present, I think this article reads very well. Please let me know if you have any further comments. I do not feel as though I can offer anything more to the article. I appreciate all of the work that you have put into these efforts and appreciate your flexibility in communication. Take care.

Thanks. 8/8/05

Works

Do we need the complete list of works by Wendy Doniger? It seems a bit unnecessary, and definitely shouldn't be formatted as a numbered list. Could someone who knows the subject cut it down to just the major works? The rest can be found through the external links. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the formatting but not about the number of works listed. It's pretty typical. — goethean ॐ 16:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

FLAGGED

The following was put onto the article page, I have removed and put it here and flagged the article for discussion:

Please note the critique of this entry on a March 13, 2006 H-Asia posting by Peter Gottschalk. The neutrality of this article is disputed, and it should be flagged.

KsprayDad 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Doniger has attracted a certain amount of criticism from people who appear to represent a very conservative strain of Hinduism.- who decides that her detractors are conservative? - doniger herself? I would like backup for this sentence, if it is to stay. Also how was it determined that only a minority of Hindus speak against her? Please see the first section in talk called 'POV?' for related discussion and stats supporting the number of critics. I am inclined to revert the recent anonymous edits. --Pranathi 19:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I know very little about Doniger or this controversy beyond what I have read in this article, but I would support reversion (indeed, I'm just about to do it myself). I have contacted both anon editors who have made changes recently and invited them to this talk page, and to provide sources. I would like to see the "March 13, 2006 H-Asia posting by Peter Gottschalk" mentioned above, but without it, it's hard to see what else we can do but revert to the version reached after the earlier discussion. I'd suggest keeping the POV flag on for the moment, but if no more sources are provided or discussion ensues within a couple of weeks, it could come off.--OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The March 13, 2006 H-Asia posting is long and deals with other entries not of concern here, so I'll summarize it. It asserts that Wikipedia was usurped to impugn article Doniger and Kripal. The article of Doniger as it appeared at the time of the posting gave little space to any overall understanding of her work and focused overwhelmingly on the objections of a supposedly large number of protestors. The evidence of Hindu criticism of Doniger offered by the article derives, actually, only from two writers: Sankrant Sanu and Rajiv Malhotra. Although the external links show more balance, some have nothing to do with her at all. Moreover, the list of her works included many mistakes. Finally, the posting noted that since so many students use Wikipedia, it behooved scholar-teachers to address the mistakes. ~~ In light of those concerns, I've entered edits of the article. But more should be done such as the replacement of the Kripal paragraph with a line identifying him as one of Doniger's students: there is an article devoted to him and the link is in the Doniger article. A line should be enough. Furthermore, unless more external links or published sources from Hindu critics can be listed, no substantial claim can be made that the majority of Hindus speak against Doniger. I dare say, most Hindus do not know her name or work. The "evidence" offered above for the number of protesting Hindus refers to the number of hits for an online essay criticizing her and some 445 notes of response. A hit cannot be considered an endorsement since someone might only happen upon the article after googling Doniger's name. And in comparison with nearly 1 billion Hindus, I'd say that 445 is not very convincing. If there's so much contention out there, then certainly we can find the evidence in scholarly and popular materials in India, the US, & the UK. User:Pgottschalk 11.03, 26 March, 2006.

The Hindus referred to in the parah are Hindus in the US. Those in India would not know much of her work, as Pgottschalk mentions. I will try to edit to that effect. --Pranathi 02:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe the notice should remain. This article falls heavily on one side of an issue. The purpose of the tag is to call the article to the attention of any who might wish to provide another perspective or to discuss other elements of her career beyond this particular controversy. -Jmh123 17:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the tag to 'unbalanced' to reflect your concern, Jmh123. My opinion is that the article is fairly balanced though. My search (not including her actual works) gave the same proportion of info as in this page - with regards to info about her person or her work vs the controversy. I could not find much that discusses 'other elements of her career beyond this controversy' that is not already on this page. The most conspicuos thing about her on soft or hard copy is this controversy. Seeing by other comments on this talk page, this article has already been brought to the 'attention' of people on her side of the controversy, who are welcome to add verifiable material. --Pranathi 20:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I do believe there is the need for more information about her, and I hope some folks were respond accordingly. I may do some research myself and see what I can come up with, if I can find the time this summer. -Jmh123 22:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Jmh123, I propose we give a timeframe to the tag. (I think every biography does not need to be perfectly balanced between praise and criticism. Say, Gandhi and Narendra Modi would not have criticism and biographic detail in the same proportion.) Say June 18th?--Pranathi 21:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

recent edits (request neutral observer to resolve issues as of Aug 13th 2006)

While most of the edits are okay, I'd like to question a few:

subjects or interpretation ?

while ignoring philosophical aspects and most major concepts in Hinduism. was changed to rather than on more traditional philosophical interpretations. The sentence was not questioning her interpretation of the scriptures - it was trying to highlight that she focusses on some topics within hinduism and completely ignores significant other topics (such as philosophy). The critique is that being a scholar on Hinduism, she doesn't touch any of the major topics.

She believes that Hinduism as practiced is relatively unrelated to the philosophical basis of the religion, and her work has frequently used the tools of psychoanalysis to analyse the form of that practice, and those parts of the scriptures that validate that form. Thus I believe the altered formulation is correct. Hornplease 22:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The sentence is now Specifically, Doniger has been critiqued for focusing on and presenting subjects such as sex and gender-related interpretations of the Hindu scriptures rather than on more traditional philosophical interpretations. I am confused. So you are saying that the practice of Hinduism has been sex and gender related rather than philosophical? This includes the bhakti tradition, the jnana tradition, Hindu temple worship and yoga tradition (to quote a few)? What is her understanding of the practice of hinduism and what is she basing her knowledge on? If I am understanding you correctly, that is a major criticism of in itself to identify the practice of Hinduism so incorrectly, possibly based on fringe practices.

Also this is the criticism section. The sentence as it is, with its original formulation is a criticism. If you would like to add an additional criticism that is fine, but I don't agree with changing the meaning of the original one. If you are trying to add Wendy's defense to the sentence, then that should also be an additional sentence but not an alteration of the criticism.--Pranathi 00:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The criticism should be then itself critiqued, which gets us into some trouble. Safest to leave the edit as is; if you read the wording, it specifies that it is her interpretation that is gender-related etc. Along with being more accurate. the additional point is made that much of the criticism levelled at her is actually/also levelled at the school of religious studies that uses such methods.Hornplease 06:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I was criticizing the justification that you mentioned that Wendy gives for her interpretation. I think though we are digressing from the actual sentence at hand.

Again, the sentence was changed to say - her interpretation. It originally intended only to speak to her focussing on one subject (not the interpretation) vs mainstream topics. If her interpretation of Hinduism as being sex and gender related rather than philosophical is also criticized, I would recommend adding it in addition to existing verbiage but not changing existing sentence.

Again, the criticism should stand by itself. If any defense of Wendy is to be made, such as she believes that Hinduism as practiced is really mostly sex and gender related and not philosophical, so her focus on these subjects is an accurate presentation - that should be in addition to the existing verbiage. --Pranathi 01:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A BBC site once introduced her as Professor Wendy Doniger is known for being rude, crude and very lewd in the hallowed portals of Sanskrit Academics. All her special works have revolved around the subject of sex in Sanskrit texts… Note that it did not say interpretation of texts as sexual.. --Pranathi 19:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Nor did it say 'all her work'. The point is irrelevant. Hornplease 15:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither does the original sentnc say all her work - it merely says she focuses on it. How is the point irrelevant? Please respond to the parah I bolded above as well.--Pranathi 00:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

little vs insufficient

giving little space was changed to giving insufficient space. I think 'little' is more appropriate for the treatment of Hindu theology and philosophy in the encarta article. See link given. Insufficient doesn't speak to the degree of insuffiency.

The link is not to the Encarta article, in the absence of seeing the context of the allegations, I think we need to stick with the most neutral phrasing. Hornplease 22:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

But we are talking about the Sanu's allegation itself which says 'little' rather than 'insufficient'. Even if the link was to the encarta article itself it would be my word against yours (original research) as to the insufficiency of treatment. --Pranathi 00:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the allegation will have to be stated, once again, in the most reasonable manner possible. My interpretation of the blog posts provided were that he was demanding more space for traditional interpretations. That needs to be put on, not 'little'.Hornplease 06:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The word 'little' was used by him. I will concede on this one though since it does not change the sentence much.--Pranathi 01:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

scholarly analysis vs allegation

scholarly analysis was changed to allegation. I think allegation and allege both don't need to be in the same sentence. I will change to simple 'analysis'.

--Pranathi 22:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best to remove the second 'alleged', so that the sentence reads "also provoked one allegation of deep-seated prejudice against Hinduism in US academe." Thanks!Hornplease 22:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If you read the link it is an allegation as well as an analysis of the alleged prejudice. I think both should be in the sentence.--Pranathi 00:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy with "attempts an analysis". Hornplease 06:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism says These sections must not be created to marginalize criticism or critics of the article's topic or imply that this criticism is not true while the more positive claims in the rest of the article are. Wendy's work is stated forthright, and not as attempts to do something. The critics work should be stated as the same and not marginalized. For example, article states that Wendy translated many sanskrit texts. Even though it's alleged that she is only re-translations or paraphrasing, the statement is left intact since the criticism is seperate from a general description of her work. --Pranathi 01:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The sections should indicate that the criticism comes from a single, small, group of individuals, untrained and unqualified in the specific subject in which Ms Doniger is one of the leading experts. We wont even go into their motives, which over the last couple of weeks of reading around I fear I know fairly well. I dont have to marginalize them, just indicate that, and ensure that the weight given their opinions in the article reflects that as well.Hornplease 15:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have not seen any indication that they are a single group? Do they go by a name? They are not speaking from the standpoint of being experts in the field but as being part of the culture that is being studied - an emic analysis. (Despite her US qualifications, I personally do not consider her the leading expert in Sanskrit or Indic studies. She may have studied Sanskrit as a 'foreign' language course for a few years for her academic degrees while there are many scholars in India that have done their whole education in Sanskrit studies. I have done my entire education in English and yet am not an expert in the language, I find it strange that someone with a few years of study could translate texts from a far more difficult language.) You have the right to form your opinions on the motives of the critics but I would ask that you maintain neutrality in your edits. Same applies for me. --Pranathi 18:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Misc

I will change shortly unless I hear objections/comments/suggestions.--Pranathi 21:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, Hornplease.--Pranathi 00:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your patience. Hornplease 06:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

My main objections, as mentioned above, are that the criticism is changed and softened or sentence is changed to decrease the value of the critic. --Pranathi 01:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the critic is given too much value in the first place. He's writing a blog, its not an academic journal. He's not even an expert, he's some sort of engineer. Finally, he's a lone individual, with perhaps one or two allies. We have to take a step back and realise this guy is not a serious academic critic, but an angry guy with a computer. That's why I also object to the automatic revert of the last edit made by some anon, which I thought was quite reasonable. Hornplease 06:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

His introduction is given truthfully as author of a blog and founder of infinity foundation. Nowhere is the impression given that he is writing in an academic journal. And I think he is more that what you make it out to be - a lone, angry guy with a computer - he has pretty good standing in the American Hindu community and his foundation has given grants to fields such as Indic studies in many reputable American Universites (Harvard, Columbia etc). His criticism is only covered in the first parah of 'Effect of her work', the rest of the criticism is from other people. Also given his major complaint of Indic and Hinduism studies in the US not employing many Hindus, being handled only from an outsiders view, and being clique-like, without a foot in reality etc it is natural that academic journals would not carry his viewpoint. The anon edit said that an acedemic response would be the most balanced response to her work - that is POV. The reader can make his own opinion given the facts and without weasel words. --Pranathi 21:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The point being that it should state in the article that this the criticisms are not being carried out by actual scholars of the work, or people with expertise in the field, but with someone without that. "Good standing in the American Hindu community" and grants to Harvard - which I have not been able to confirm , by the way , - do not mean that his opinion should be given as much worth as you seem to think it should. It is not POV to say that the criticisms of experts should be made by experts. The anon edit was bang on, in my opinion. There are no weasel words other than in suggesting that this single guy/site whom we are relying on for our 'criticism' is entitled to be given as much of a listen as we seem to be giving him. That's what needs to be changed. Hornplease 17:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Grants to Harvard - [1]. A quick search on the net can give you more [2]. He has also published in many magazines. Being her strongest critic, I think it is surprising that there is only one parah devoted to his criticism in the article. It is POV to say that criticisms of experts should be made by experts - especially when their expertise (of a foreign subject/language) as a whole is in question, which is one of his major criticisms. It is the point of view (POV) of RISA vs Malhotra and others that have criticized RISA (in this case). If that point about experts is so obvious, it need not be pointed out to the reader who would think so anyway. If the reader is not inclined to think so, then you are pushing him towards that direction and in effect using Wikipedia:Weasel words by adding a general statement that has nothing to do with the facts of the article. If something on those lines be added, I can only say that Malhotra's complaints about RISA and the whole field of Indic studies be also included to balance it, which is beyond the scope of this article.

We are not relying on this single guy but several in the criticism section. I still think the reader can be left to judge whether he can be deemed to be given the listen or not, regardless of what you or me thinks. --Pranathi 19:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but criticism of work studyinh a foreign subject/language is best done by experts in the field of the study of that very subject/language. Making that point is not POV. NPOV in this case is best served by the balance of informed opinion. This individual, strongest critic or no, is not an expert in the field, and that needs to be pointed out, in case the reader does not know, and also reflected in the weight we give his views in the article, otherwise we make the error of giving him 'equal validity'. See WP:RS. This is the basic point. Your claim would be that there is nobody in the field who is capable of making the same criticisms, which is patently absurd, and POV in itself.

A sensible reader will come to his own conclusions. If we wish to link at the bottom to the Indology article, which has a large section full of precisely the same critiques, we can do so. However, the meta-critique of Sth asian studies has no place in this article.

We are including the link to his full criticism. I am not suggesting that he be written out of the article. That is sufficient. Anything much more than that is giving him more importance than his stature as a critic seems to deserve. Hornplease 22:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

When I mentioned foreign subject/language, I meant foreign subject and language to Doniger. If a whole area of study ('scholarship') is devoted to a culture/religion in the US from an outsider's persepctive but natives to the culture contend that it is incorrect and biased - it is not a simple black/white question of 'academic' merits 'rule' anymore -it is an emic vs etic, native vs researcher debate.

I do not object to noting that he is not an 'expert' in the field - as long the wording is neutral in nature. I object to specific comments that emphasise academic responses are the most balanced responses - a point which need not be made if it is so obvious (and should not be made if it is not). --Pranathi 00:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

'minor' mistranslations

interpreting 'lap' as 'genitals', and 'head' as 'phallus' easily show idiotic bias no matter what one says. Not to mention, there have been MANY a scholars who misinterpret, misanalyse, and the like. Ascribing to their certificates or the like doesn't show their professionality. Not every successful business takes a course in MBA, not every smart man has to take similiar professional studies..

Further action

So I came here in response to an RfC and its clear there was much to be fixed. In particular, a single critic, not an expert in the field, monopolises the criticism; all the criticism is from blogs, which do not satisfy WP:RS; and the criticism paragraphs unbalance the entire article. This is an unacceptable state of affairs for an article on someone who is prominent enough to be chair of the committee on social thought. The article is going to have to be cut down severely to regain a modicum of balance; The individual objections o her critic will merely be indicated; specific references to the Kripal controversy will be deleted. Otherwise the entire article is unacceptable. Hornplease 14:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is the single critic that monopolises the criticism? Malhotra is limited to one parah. I don't think severe trimming would help - maybe adding her/referencible objections (not general objections) to his criticism and more about other elements of her career could bring balance - as the RfC you refer to mentions. It also says I removed a POV tag - but fails to mention that I replaced it with an 'Off balance' tag and explained myself on the talk page.

I don't think Malhotra's citicism is insignificant in that it has been widely read and commented upon. It's part of the course work in Indic studies course work several Univs- see Indian philosophy course work in Washington Univ [3] and South Asian studies course in UPenn [4]. His letter in Chicago Univ's magazine on Doniger generated many responses that agree with him [5]. His piece was originally a column in e-zine sulekha.com www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=239156 and now redirects to the blog --Pranathi 23:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Severe trimming is the only possibility. We do not need to discuss the material of his objections in such detail. I have reviewed the links you have mentioned, - the WashU thing, for example, is titled "Hinduphilia, Hinduphobia, and Blasphemy and Defamation Issues" - and I feel that the broader point that Malhotra is trying to make is best made in some other article. Here we only need to linkt to him and indicate that he is an enthusiastic amateur, who represents the view of an insignficant minority among the academic profession who object to psychoanalysis of traditional cultures in general. Hornplease 15:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Religion is a soft subject, one about which it can be difficult to write well. It has subtle philosophical aspects, as well as sociological, cultural and historical aspects.

There is often a divergence between those who practice religion and those who study it as a scholarly subject. When theories about religion diverge too far from practice, we can get results that are counterintuitive or even nonsensical.

One might posit that there are two types of scholars of religion: those who are primarily concerned with its living practice; and those more concerned with theories - or even deconstructions - of religion. We should be careful to distinguish between them, since, while each approach may have its value, their applications differ.

With the criticism of Wendy Doniger by Sakrant Sanu and others, we have a special case. Here, intelligent, articulate practitioners of Hinduism are sending the message that a Western scholar of Hinduism, Wendy Doniger - who is not a practitioner - is acting as a deconstructionist. What's more, they're claiming that there are issues of social conscience at bar. If Hinduism is a living religion (or superset), and is considered a home by millions of people, what are the real world consequences of deconstructing that home while people are living in it?

Sakrant Sanu makes a persuasive claim that the article on Hinduism in the Encarta Encyclopedia* should be about Hinduism as it is practiced in the main by millions of Hindus, and that it should be reasonably sympathetic to the views of the practitioners, as he demonstrates to be the case for the articles on Christianity and Islam.

His complaint, in essence, is that a biased or deconstructionist article by Doniger has replaced what ought to be a sympathetic article on living practice. Sanu claims that Doniger's preoccupation with sex, blood, and gore - however novel and interesting - not only fails to adequately represent Hinduism as it is practiced by most Hindus, but that like the fruit of the poisoned tree, it travels down the food chain, and is "used by various religious fundamentalists and hate groups to label Hinduism a cult." Nor does this problem affect only Indians, but also Western practitioners of Hinduism seeking acceptance from friends, family, and society.

This divergence between practitioners and theorists (or deconstructionists) is something to which we ought be sensitive. Tempting as it may be to simply put Doniger's credentials up against Sanu's and declare a knockout in her favor, we should reach a nonsensical result by that method. We should be saying (in effect): "Oh bosh! Who cares for practitioners? What do they know? Rely on reports from Hindus about their own religion? No way. Western theorists know better!" It is just such post-colonial hubris and dunsical folly to which Sanu and Pranathi are objecting; and I fully agree with them. This is a case where a Western scholar may enjoy a good reputation among others of her ilk because she is an interesting deconstructionist; but those touting her deconstructions seem heedless of the consequences for practicing Hindus.

One of the coarser injustices that can ensue: Some Hindus go to build a temple in New Jersey, but find that the community is violently opposed because they think (based on their "encyclopedic" knowledge) that the Hindus might want to carry out animal sacrifices, eat ordure, hold black masses, or engage in forbidden sex acts. Thank you, Wendy Doniger! Your obsession has become their oppression.

If we have somehow developed tunnelvision and think that all Western scholars approach Hinduism the way Doniger does, we need only turn to Mary Pat Fisher's college textbook Living Religion (currently in its sixth edition with Prentice Hall) for a refreshing change of pace. Her very first words in the preface to the second edition are:

Religion is not a museum piece. It is alive in people and places around the world. Living Religions is a sympathetic approach to what is living and significant in the religious traditions of our world. ... The emphasis throughout is on the personal consciousness of believers and their own account of themselves, their religion, and reality at large. ... One [feature] is personal interviews with followers of each faith, providing first-person accounts of each religion as perceived from within the tradition. ... In addition, the book incorporates extensive quotations from primary sources to give a direct perception of the flavor of each tradition. ... A new feature is teaching stories from each faith. Each boxed narrative is told without analysis, just as a person within the faith would hear it...

Fisher takes a sensible, balanced approach to Hinduism that seems rooted in humility and a belief that scholars must be fair and honest brokers of information about the religions they study. Perhaps Fisher is aware how easy it is for Western scholars to get Hinduism wrong, and that's why she includes personal storytelling, as well as "full-color and black and white photographs of contemporary religious life, holy places, and images of sacred art." Living practitioners may provide a valuable check on scholarship, and ensure that scholars do not present a biased, overly theoretical, or deconstructive view in places like Encarta where what's needed is clear, accurate information.

Fisher's chapter on Hinduism concludes with a suggested reading list of 13 books - beginning with the Bhagavad-Gita, and including works by such noted Yogis as Swami Vivekananda and Paramahansa Yogananda. Would it be too bold of me to infer from Doniger's lack of inclusion that Fisher knows Doniger is a deconstructionist whose eccentric take on Hinduism is inappropriate for a beginning survey on the subject?

I believe Doniger has earned the criticism being volleyed at her by practicing Hindus (and some scholars) - including the criticism that she has transmitted her deconstructionist approach to student Jeffery Kripal - and that she is therefore partly responsible for the debacle in which Sri Ramakrishna was falsely depicted as a homosexual. To quote Swami Tyagananda of the Ramakrishna Order from his critique of Kripal: "Bengalis know the language, the culture, the source materials better than any American Ph.D. student who stays in Calcutta for eight months, reads Bengali with the help of a dictionary, and then tells the Bengalis that they are reading Ramakrishna wrong. Strangely enough, they find this sort of thing patronizing and arrogant."

The nature of the controversy Doniger has provoked is such that criticism from intelligent, articulate Hindu practitioners should be admitted even where their scholarly credentials are not on a par with Doniger's, or where the publications in which they hold forth are not as learned. Since there are some cries of cultural imperialism here, we should not lend fuel to the fire by insisting that only Western scholars of Doniger's rank may treat with her. Indeed, many practicing Hindus seem to feel it's Doniger who is the (less-than-enthusiastic) amateur.

I don't believe the problem is with "an insignficant minority among the academic profession who object to psychoanalysis of traditional cultures in general," as Hornplease wrote above. I think the issue is deconstructions of religion which stray ridiculously far from the way the religion is actually practiced, which are defamatory toward the living practitioners, which are substituted for accurate, unbiased information in a place like Encarta, and which make their way down the food chain until they do tangible harm to the practitioners.

While the crit section could be tightened a bit, the way to keep the article balanced as a whole is not to "cut down the criticism severely," but rather to build up the portion which presents Doniger's POV. She should be allowed to stand firmly on her own two feet before being subjected to fair-minded criticism. If she is indeed popular among Western scholars, it should not be difficult to find Wikipedians who can present positive aspects of her career and writings in greater detail.

* According to Abhijit Bagal, "sometime in late 2003, Microsoft removed the article on Hinduism in Encarta by Wendy Doniger and replaced it with an article written with an 'emic' viewpoint by Professor Arvind Sharma, Birks Professor of Comparative Religion, McGill University." This move might be interpreted by critics of Doniger as corroboration that however novel her deconstructions, she is not a good source for accurate information about the living practice of Hinduism. Fencingchamp 01:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Fencingchamp for his articulate and well-argued contribution here. While I agree with many points that you made, I restate - as I did above - that this is not the page for this kind of analysis to be carried out. An academic should be critiqued by the standards of academia. If it is the standards of academia that are to be critiqued, then we must do so on the appropriate page - which is, indeed, Indology, where a sizeable proportion of the article consists of exactly the objections you have so painstakingly laid out. Please do consider joining the discussion there. Hornplease 15:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hornplease, thank you for your courtesy. As I see it, the core issues here are:

- the criticism that Wendy Doniger is not a good source for accurate information about how Hinduism is actually practiced in the main by millions of Hindus.

- the criticism that scholarship should be carried out in an ethical manner; and that when Doniger deconstructs a living religion, and substitutes the deconstruction for accurate information, this can harm practitioners of the living religion.

- the criticism that Doniger has also imparted her deconstructionist approach to students such as Jeffery Kripal, and that this has resulted in further harm.

- the concern that Ms. Doniger's work as a scholar not be hermetically sealed in an ivory tower, and shielded from fair-minded criticism by intelligent, articulate Hindu practitioners.

These issues are fairly specific to Doniger, though I don't doubt they are discussed in more general terms under Indology. If the criticism were (hypothetically) that "Ms. Doniger is a Western Indologist, and all Western Indologists do such-and-such..." then it would more properly be confined to Indology. But the problem is:

1. All Western Indologists do *not* do such-and-such. (Mary Pat Fisher is an example of one who does not follow Doniger's approach.)

2. Doniger is criticized for having done a number of *specific* things, responsibility for which devolves to her and not to Indologists in general.

To more directly address your claim that "An academic should be critiqued by the standards of academia": This is more true when the subject is a hard science, and the theories at bar affect only inanimate objects or other academics. For example, quantum theory should be critiqued by other scholars in the field, not by attempting to survey the opinions of protons and electrons (nor the character "Quark" from Deep Space Nine). "Practicing particles" (to coin a phrase) cannot speak up articulately and tell us whether a certain theory is off the wall. Nor is someone's theory of particles likely to harm the particles themselves.

But as a professor of religious studies, Doniger is dealing with a soft subject, a subject intimately connected with the lives of millions of people. If she mischaracterizes the practices of those people (as is alleged), the consequences naturally reverberate beyond the halls of academia.

I doubt most Hindus would dispute Doniger's right to deconstruct Hinduism, provided the deconstructions are clearly labeled and published in an appropriate context. However, Doniger's critics seem to be claiming that *she does not know she is deconstructing Hinduism*, and therefore inappropriately places her deconstructions in publications like Encarta where what's needed is accurate information about living practice.

This article is not about "Wendy Doniger the scholar," but simply "Wendy Doniger." If her actions as a scholar are alleged to have had harmful social consequences, criticism from articulate Hindus does not seem out of bounds. This amounts to "social consequences of Wendy Doniger's scholarship," as reported by members of society who claim to have been harmed. In a soft subject like religion where the academics often stand at such a distance from the living practitioners, to include such criticism seems fair.

I previously quoted a passage from Mary Pat Fisher not only to show that some scholars take a decidedly different approach than Doniger, but also to show that Fisher believes *direct reportage from practitioners provides an important check on scholarship.* This implies that an academic in the field of religious studies may reasonably be criticized by living practitioners who claim she got it wrong, and that such criticism should not be quashed simply because some of the critics are not themselves academics. Fencingchamp 02:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's go over this again. Your two points are that:

1. All Western Indologists do *not* do such-and-such. (Mary Pat Fisher is an example of one who does not follow Doniger's approach.)

2. Doniger is criticized for having done a number of *specific* things, responsibility for which devolves to her and not to Indologists in general.

In answer to point 1, Mary Fisher is not a 'Western' Indologist, in the manner in which the term should be used. She is not within the mainstream academic community, as far as I can tell. I have not been able to find a publication by her in a mjor peer reviewed journal on JSTOR, for example.

In answer to point 2, if the *specific* criticisms of Doniger are valid, it should not be hard to find people making that criticisms in *reliable sources* rather than on blogs. In other words, people whose job it is to make those criticisms. For example, Witzel crticises her translations, and I wouldnt dream of asking you to remove that. But dont privilege all the other stuff to the same level on this page, as it belongs elsewhere. Hornplease 06:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the comments about Rajiv Malhotra being an amateur. His credentials are impeccable. The foundation he heads is doing a phenomenal job in correcting anomalies that have crept into Indic studies.

The emphasis on academic credentials is misplaced, more so if one considers that academe in the humanities/Religion ( especially in this case) is more of a cartel that brooks no dissent. More pertinent is the question of whether History/Religion can be considered science? Science is about possibilities( no absolutes) and History supposedly about truth ( absolute). Creative story telling in History/Religion studies can have harmful contemporary consequences . Anyways, I digress.

I second the comments so beautifully articulated by Fencingchamp. Wendy Doniger deserves a pov from one of her supporters. As do those that think her work and influence have demonized their beliefs.

Varahamihira 07:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Varahamihira

Varahamihira, you do not specify why these comments should be on this article rather than where they are relevant, namely on the Indology article. You have also not explained why academic credentials are misplaced, other then to say it is a 'cartel' (literally, a group into which entry is restricted) which of course it is, for quality control reasons. Also Mr. Malhotra is not a professional academic. That is a matter of record. He is an engineer. Please reconsider you statements in this light. Hornplease 07:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The power of an idea or a well made argument is not diminished by where it is, or is not published. Ramanujan did brilliant math on a scrap book. It is absurd to argue that ideas/arguments merit consideration only if published in certain journals, or only if approved by a bunch of sheep that agree with them( peer reviewed journals)!! Academics don't have a monopoly over ideas, just as they don't have the sole rights to control the manufacture and distribution of memes.

Malhotra makes very powerful arguments that are as good as any academic's, if not better. Any critique of doniger's work and influence will be incomplete/farcical without them.

As regards to why this page, I cannot put it any better than FencingChamp. I agree where he says those that are affected by her work, and about whom public opinions are formed based on her work, have a right to critically examine her work and voice their concerns. And yes, voice it on this page so as to give a balanced view about wendy doniger for others perusal. Varahamihira 08:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Varahamihira

Malhotra is simply not qualified to take on Doniger. His arguments would be considered puerile, facile, or beside the point by an Indologist. If you disagree with that, you might be correct, and I might even agree with you, but, once again, that is a criticism of academic indology, and does not belong here. As I said before, all that is required is a link indicating that further criticism of the 'project' to which Doniger 'belongs' is available in the Indology article.

All have a right to critique Doniger's work, but on Wikipedia, we do not give all opinions equal value. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:RS again. We give the professionals more weight. Hornplease 08:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hornplease, to respond briefly, you seem to be turning Wendy Doniger into "The Woman in the High Castle." Even Mary Pat Fisher, whose textbook Living Religions is used by many universities - and is in its sixth edition with Prentice Hall - you consider unworthy to treat with Doniger. O where o where is the Anti-Doniger - a Wendy Doniger from an alternate universe who has the same qualifications, and can therefore refute the Doniger from this dimension? :-)

Wendy Doniger is a person. It is alleged that her work as a scholar has had certain social consequences. What's wrong with discussing the alleged social consequences, while pointing out that those complaining are (merely) practicing Hindus - not residents of Wendyloka? Fencingchamp 08:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Malhotra is simply not qualified to take on Doniger. His arguments would be considered puerile, facile, or beside the point by an Indologist." POV. There are Indologists who will disagree with you.

This is about criticism of Wendy Doniger's work and influence in particular. A cursory glance of Malhotra'a seminal essay RISA Lila 1 will tell you that without much effort.

I think you are unnecessarily nitpicking here. au contraire it would be POV if Malhotra's critique is not included here. Malhotra is as good a professional as those that have made careers demonizing Hindus. The fair thing to do would be to give the views of Doniger and the insiders she examines an equal footing. Let the reader judge for himself/herself. Now that would truly be NPOV. Over and Out. Varahamihira 09:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Varahamihira

Please frame your replies with reference to the guidelines laid out in WP:RS and [WP:NPOV]]. Adherence to them is not 'nitpicking'. Criticism of Doniger's scholarship, if they are major, will be available from major scholars in major, peer-reviewed, publications. That is basic. If they are unavailable, then they are not to be given the same consideration, and are to be labeled as such. Criticisms of the field itself are of less relevance to this article, and should be indicated with a link to the appropropriate article. That is all that I am saying, not attempting to exalt this person, whom I had not conisdered with any great care before I was sent here by an RfC. Please note: NPOV is not "equal footing". Hornplease 09:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Malhotra's work has been cited in the new york times, Washingtonpost, and Univ of chicago magazine, not to mention, commented upon by numerous academics. That it has elicited such a response( for and against) is reason enough to vouch for it's quality. I don't think I want my intelligence insulted or your time wasted anymore. Done. Varahamihira 09:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Varahamihira

Hornplease, WP:RS gives more importance to academic journals/opinion only in fields such as science, medicine and law. Even WP:NPOV mentions only that 'science' and psuedoscience are not to be given equal validity. In a field such as religion, weightage should be given to both Emic and etic viewpoints. You cannot treat soft subjects like religion from a academic tower and stiffle all dissent coming from the subject being treated. You may have responded to an RfC, but with all due respect, I do not see you as neutral, acknowledging your biases, or responding to valid objections. The way I see it you are only repeating your stand and won't budge from it. --Pranathi 20:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Pranathi:I am attempting only to come to some compromise about this. In my personal opinion, this malhotra fellow is in a tiny minority, and shouldnt be mentioned at all. The criticism section should more appropriately e titled 'controversy', the same way that such non-academic criticism is titled in articles on, for example, the economists who defend globalization. However, I havea attempted to meet your ideas halfway, only mentioning that to an unbiased observer - which I am, since I care very little about how Doniger is perceived - the criticism section of this article is unbaloanced (perhaps in the same way, ironically, that you claim the social science of Indology is unbalanced). I strongly, however, object to religion being called a 'soft subject', by which it seems you mean something on which all opinions are of equal weight. This is not the case. I suggest you re-read the WP:RS discussion with reference to history. This is the appropriate comparison, and I think you will have to refine your arguments in response to that.

Varamihira: Dan Brown's work has also been 'cited' in the mainstream press and 'commented on' by many academics. That does not mean it can be assumed to be academically reputable. Please see the discussion on the Dan Brown page for details. I am not insuolting your intelligence, just urging you to re-familiarise yourself with the appropriate WP policies. Hornplease 21:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hornplease, If the article is unbalanced, it should be balanced with alternate perspectives but not by trimming. If you are basing your opinion on Malhotra only based on academic sources, you may have concluded that he is in minority, but the argument here is that academic merit is not the only criteria for inclusion. I think the comparison to history would be more valid if we were discussing the history of Hinduism and we were comparing the traditional Hindu account to the academic account. Even in that case, in most articles in WP, both accounts are given mention and qualified with sources (for example, see Hinduism#Origins_and_society). In this case, Doniger is commenting on the real-life, current practice of the religion and its preaching which Malhotra says is in direct conflict with it's practioners' version. Most of her subject is based on taking native understanding of a living religion and packaging it to a foreign audience - and cannot be compared to History which is a reconstruction of events which may be based on many sources such as archeology, belief, legend, genetics, science. --Pranathi 22:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

She is not describing current practice, she is analysing it. An academic rather than layperson's critique would attack the analysis, rather than attack it for being less of a description. Your description of what you believe her work to be is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of religious studies, or any form of sociology. The purpose of sociology is not translation, but explication. There is no reason why a domestic audience would not understand Doniger's packaging any more than a foreign one. THey might, of course, like it less. Your point is simply that she has analysed it without respect to the fact that it is a living religion. This might be true. But this is what religious studies people in academia do. Are you going to waste your time and ours by tacking this criticism onto every RS scholar in WP? What about other people in jobs that piss people off? Will pacifists tack their dislike of the military on to every article about famous generals?

I do not claim that academic merit is the only criteria for inclusion. I indicate that, given that Malhotra's writing has dubious academic merit, the weight given his views should be reduced, and the fact that he is basically a lone, amateur critic be noted.

You have not made your case that RS is a different case from history. I am saying that it is the closest parallel available for which we have clear guidelines, and so we should follow them. Also, thanks for pointing out that section of the Huinduism article. You're right, its unbalanced. Hornplease 22:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In the Microsoft Encarta 'Hinduism' article she was supposed to describe it, not analyse it. In her Philadelphia Inquirer comment that the Gita is a dishonest book she was talking to the layperson about Hinduism, not analysing it.

I believe my case for history being a different case from the description of a religion is made well. You are argueing that the criticism section is about an analysis of Hinduism whereas it actually covers her incorrect 'description' of the religion for the large part.

See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion, specifically - Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources. The religion's take on history is very much as valid as the historians and merits mention, as in the section I pointed out.

On another note, Malhotra also criticizes Freudian analysis of Hindu topics quoting that the RS folks carrying it out are not qualified in psychoanalysis, which is disputed as pseudoscientific, and whose methods are rarely used among academia (psychiatrists & psycologists) today. The criticism is that they use outdated methods of a subject they are not trained in and apply them in unfamiliar settings. The discussion reaches beyond the confines of 'academic' study of religion. To draw attention to Wiki policy here, psuedoscience is not given equal validity, and Doniger is accused of pioneering/championing the use of psychoanalysis in Indology. Is it not appropriate to state the fact that she uses psychoanalysis in her treatment (analysis) of Hinduism and that she is not trained in it and that pyschoanalysis is controversial and disputably pseudoscience?

Again, you are repeating the charge that Malhotra is a lone, amatuer critic - in spite of several evidences offered to the contrary. What we agree here is that he is not an academic, where you don't agree is that his emic view must be represented.

Just as you are not 'nitpicking' as claimed above, I am trying to give representation to the emic view's criticism that is specific to Doniger. If it was a waste of time, as you claim, you should be able to give a satisfactory reponse to the objections raised. --Pranathi 04:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the views above. Hornplease is just repeating himself/herself ad nauseam, and is unwilling to rationally engage with the issues. If he/she is the editor here, I vote to seek a more mature and balanced editor. I think Hornplease should excuse herself/him from this page in order to facilitate a more nuanced engagement, instead of the shrill rhetoric on display here. Varahamihira 17:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Varahamihira

I think it's a bit much to be called unbalanced and immature, frankly, when I think I have maintained my patience pretty well.

To take your points one by one, pranathi: (1) the point about psychoanalysis can be made, as long as it is mentioned that it is a common tendency among sociologists of religion and culture (2) WP policy on NPOV on religion is not as relevant to the discussion we were having as WP:RS on history, which is what I quoted. Please have a look at that and reply. (3)You have not given me any indication that there have been any other critical analyses, even of a semi-cholarly nature, that back up Malhotra, merely evidence that his work has been widely discussed. (I responded to that with my Dan Brown example above.) That is why, I continue to say "lone". As for "amateur", that is self-evidently accurate.

As for the Encarta article, we have no information about what she was asked to do, or indeed what the article in its entirety said, instead of the context-less quotes in Malhotra's blog. If you want to put in the statement that she was attacked for analysing rather than describing, thats OK with me.

I think thats a more than satisfactory response. I await your reply.

Finally, varamihira, I am not 'the' editor here. I cant even recall if Ive actually edited the page. I'm just trying to sort out the issues as far as possible on what is currently easy to view as a seriously unbalanced, POV-pushing page. Hornplease 16:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

1) That sounds good. Do you have a source though for the statement that pyschoanalysis is common among sociologists. It is controversial, is it not? 2) How is NPOV on religion not relevant? Please explain. Also, I have given reasons to why WP:RS on History is not comparable since it is not as soft a subject and the emic viewpoint does not play an imp role in History. 3) Dan Brown is a fictional writer and atmost may be claiming to be reconstructing history. His novel much better fits into the WP:RS on History to determine if his theories be given validity in WP. You first mentioned your impression of Malhotra as a lone, angry guy with a computer. I was referring to the fact that your talk does not reveal any backing away from that description of 'lone' (until now) inspite of evidences to the contrary. Within the emic community he is well backed, so he is 'lone' in academic circles, though his work is part of courses in the field? You don't acknowledge his credentials as 'emic' to the subject - that is another reason why I think you are not neutral. 4)What does an encyclopedia usually carry? A description or an analysis..? In an article titled 'Hinduism', I think the argument of 'we don't know what she was asked to write', in her defense, is really stretched. That only reinforces to me that you do have a POV inspite of you insisting that you don't- you have also mentioned that you have marked opinions about her critics' motives. Again, she was not 'attacked' for 'analysing' rather than 'describing' (another ex of marginalizing the criticism by incorrect representation) - she was 'criticized' from an 'emic' viewpoint for incorrect 'description' of Hinduism, along with the other criticisms on the page. By the way, the page carries criticism of the encarta article by Sanu, not Malhotra. --Pranathi 23:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) It is no more controversial than the use of quantitative analysis, which is not pseudoscience. (2) I had said Malhotra is not a RS for criticism of her analysis. Hence WP:RS is more relevant. The fact that Malhotra has an emic viewpoint about Hinduism does not alone mean it deserves to be in here. So do I, so do any number of people, and it is not clear they agree with Malhotra. I am neutral about this in that I do not see any reason to privilege Malhotra in the absence of a. wide corroboration of his analysis (not merely discussion of his article) b. a clear, reliable source indicating what the primary experiential viewpoint is and c. a clear understanding of whether criticisms of a field belong in an article on an individual. Finally, I disagreed that religion is a 'softer' study than history. I would like you to define that precisely, so I am sure I am not misunderstanding you. He is a 'lone' angry man; you have not been able to point to his criticisms being in any way representative of informed dissent from Doniger's work. If it is not, or criticism is uninformed, you can at best call it 'controversy' rather than privileging it with the word 'critical', 'analysis' etc., which give him more substance than he seems to be due.

(4)I am not defending Doniger's Encarta article. I am saying I do not know what it was supposed to do. I disagree with your representation of her critics here; it is clear that she was using the toold available to her to write a scholarly article of the sort that she had published elsewhere, and her critics thought it was inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, believing that it should be more descriptive of daily life and ritual.

Pranathi, I think you have a serious POV problem here, and I observe that you have been closely associated with this page for a long, long time. I suggest to you that you take a back seat for a month or two, see what happens to the page, and then return to discuss whatever changes have taken place. This is what I always recommend to people who begin to think that they own pages on WP. Hornplease

I am not sure why you removed and edited previous dicussion. Assuming an keystroke error, I replaced it. Religion (esp Hinduism, not being defined by a central authority) is a softer study than History because it is defined by its practioners and not outsiders. Outsiders, such as academia that is not emic, only tries to study the phenomenon and possibly interpret it but cannot change its definition. History (of religion) is defined by a reconstruction using theories based on available tools such as archeology, literature etc. An emic or otherwise biased viewpoint may distort the facts to suit their version of History - an objective, outsider viewpoint is desirable here. That is why I call Religion a softer subject than History and say that WP:RS on History is not applicable to it.

The word 'analysis' was used for Dr.Gautam Sen's article. Again, I don't understand why you assign everything to Malhotra.

(4) I think the section already mentions what her critics (Sanu) think. If you think they wanted it to be more descriptive of daily life and ritual, I am assuming you haven't read the criticism. They want it to be less about fringe practices and more about concepts and philosophy.

I agree I have a POV (and you do not acknowledge yours). I think the criticism section should be left in place without trying to marginalize the critics or their criticism. They cover many people that speak for the religion from an emic point of view and discuss her treatment of Hinduism (not her analysis or interpretation of it). To balance the article, please add content that shows her defense of criticism or expand on her work. I do not think I own this page - note I did not change any of your edits, merely discussed them. You have not responded to objections I gave above (in prior sections) but only suggested that criticism be severly trimmed. User:Fencingchamp and User:Varahamira have both objected to that, as I have.

My suggestion is (since we cannot see the other's viewpoint) that we discontinue this discussion. Ideally, I would like a neutral observer (non emic, unrelated/unfamiliar to Indology) to resolve the issues at hand. --Pranathi 01:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

How surprising, Hornplease is exciting controversy again. He subtlely subverts the article with POV and pulls the truth out from under it.Bakaman%% 01:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hindu Nationalism

Must the Wiki page of every indologist be merely a litany of complaints by Hindu Nationalists. If Doniger is interested in sex, and not contemporary hinduism this is hardly worthy of criticism. It is like telling a Shakespeare scholar he should study Milton. Criticisms of a student of hers should not be on her page. Also, those of us who still read books do find a list of someone's works very useful. Tibetologist 00:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes the bogeyman of "Hindu nationalism" to scare all the academic children. How exactly in your astute academic analysis did you determine that all those who criticise Doniger subscribe to "Hindu nationalism." Or is that merely the default cover, the blanket ad hominem, that avoids any response to substantive criticism.

And indeed if you so easily locate this bogeyman on "every Wiki page of every indologist" it may well point the sloppy nature of indological studies and its flag bearers that they are unable to come with anything else to say other than repeat "Hindu nationalism" like some kind of mantra to ward off evil. If Indological studies is indeed at the state of the intellectual laziness of this poster (and there is some evidence it is) then a cleaning of the stables may well be warranted. Or at least doing something about the stench. 67.160.120.89 05:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Fleshed out the section on controversy, giving citations. Incidentally someone had removed almost the entire material regarding controversies about Doniger's scholarship from the article turning it into a hagiography. Secret mission under pseudonyms by Wendy's children? Sankrant 08:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a time when the entire article was a diatribe against her as well; a balance is probably best. If the sole or primary content of a bio is to be criticism, it should not be cast as a bio, but as an article under a different name. See WP:BLP. -Jmh123 18:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There's not a single mention of User:Sankrant's source, Invading the Secret, on Google[6] or WorldCat[7]. Is there any way to independently confirm that the title exists? — goethean ॐ 18:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it does not appear when you type "secret" into the search box at the publisher's website[8]. — goethean ॐ 18:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[9] - Sacred, not Secret. -Jmh123 18:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OOPS. — goethean ॐ 18:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We're linking to a blog. That's unacceptable, even if it's been republished by Rupa, which is not demonstrated as far as I can see. Unless a good reason is provided, I'll remove the link to Sankrant Sanu's blog put in by user:Sankrant. (Coincidence?) Hornplease 21:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me--more than fine. Thanks. -Jmh123 21:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. — goethean ॐ 21:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

So done. Hornplease 19:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Doniger and the egg

Of course the source is reliable, but it's a silly statement to include in the bio. Someone threw an egg at her and missed. Not everything that's published in a reliable source needs to be in Wikipedia. I'm sure there are better stories about attacks on Doniger at conferences and meetings--I've heard some--but I think the article is in danger of being tipped towards WP:Undue weight as it is. -Jmh123 18:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I look at it differently. A scholar was physically, if unsuccessfully, attacked because of her views on religion. To me, that's a big deal. — goethean ॐ 18:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that there have been worse attacks on her--perhaps not physical--but certainly more frightening. The egg story minimalizes this, in my opinion. I won't get into an edit war over it. You're entitled to your opinion. Makes her opponents look pretty silly. OK by me. She isn't being attacked for her views on religion, by the way, but for her scholarship, not the same. Just as in the case of Christianity or Judaism, there are some who are more extreme in their beliefs than others. -Jmh123 18:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you have well-sourced information about other attacks on her, write it up. It can replace the egg thing. Not a big deal. — goethean ॐ 18:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, because as I have already stated, this entry already risks carry undue weight regarding this issue. Thanks, though--good work. -Jmh123 18:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah the infamous (and perhaps non-existent) egg surfaces again. The repetition of the apocryphal story merely shows how much is invested in the depiction of the "scholar as victim" self-portrayal -- battling for academic excellence among the barbarian hordes. I spoke to an eyewitness at the talk. They said that there was some commotion that a small object was thrown towards the stage, it was hardly clear who it was thrown at or whether it was thrown at all -- it was also definitely not an egg since a thrown egg would leave a messy residue and no object whatsoever was recovered later. Including this incident, though oft repeated by Ms. Doniger, is puerile -- amplifying it into a "physical attack" is a pathetic clutch at the straws of victimhood when none exists. But then again, not particularly surprising -- after all the White European settlers in America always told stories of how they were being victimized and attacked by the barbarian native "Indian" hordes -- while they clinically accomplished the genocide of the natives. So these scholars, safe in their academic citadels and controlling the discourse by their "authority" about native traditions can turn around and play victim to the gallery. Puck42 06:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The egg incident is cited to a reliable source. If you have a source that qualifies for Wikipedia's reliable source policy which has a different account of the incident, feel free to share your info. Otherwise, your comments are not helpful. — goethean ॐ 14:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)