Misplaced Pages

Talk:Michael Witzel: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:04, 13 August 2006 editBakasuprman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,844 edits Proponents of Aryan invasion theory are not Xtian fundamentalists← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:29, 6 September 2024 edit undoJtbobwaysf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,444 edits Dismissal of HEF-campaing - Pacific News Service: cmt 
(447 intermediate revisions by 72 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|listas=Witzel, Michael|
{{WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes
|needs-photo=yes}}
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject India|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=low}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archive = Talk:Michael Witzel/Archive %(counter)d
|algo = old(30d)
|counter = 1
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
}}


==Accusations of racism==
Witzel has frequently been accused of racism, based on both his published works and comments made in public. Tok Thompson notes:
{{talkquote|"Finally, the startling claim that the book proves the existence of two races, going against all other scholarly data, would have profound implications for global society as a whole, yet these implications are never discussed by the author. Instead, in his conclusion he claims that the reason Abrahamic religions have made inroads into the global south in recent times is simply because Laurasian myth is "better" and "more complete" than any ever formulated by the Gondwana themselves (430), a remarkably naïve view of global political history. To conclude: this book will no doubt prove exciting for the gullible and the racist, yet it is useless—and frustrating—for any serious scholar. This is a work which should never have reached book publication stage: a whole series of scholarly checks and balances—ranging from Harvard's venerable Folklore and Mythology Department, to the editors and reviewers at Oxford University Press—should have been in place to guide the scholarly inquiry, which would have prevented the socially irresponsible publication of such grandiose, brash, and explicitly racist claims based on ill-informed, highly problematic scholarship."<ref>Tok Thompson (2013), , Journal of Folklore Research</ref>}}


,
{{talkquote|Following the Nazi horrors and the American Civil Rights Movement race is now a dirty word. This does not mean that racial prejudices have been eradicated the way polio has been eradicated. Some writers, even academics at supposedly prestigious institutions continue to produce works advancing racist positions behind thinly veiled sophistic arguments while avoiding overtly racist terms. The Origins of World Mythologies is the latest addition to this dubious genre by a singular scholar."<ref name="Rajaram">N.S. Rajaram (2014), , the pioneer</ref>}}


He argues that
== Question about Shrikant Talageri and Aryan Invasion Theory ==
{{talkquote|"If supported , the notion of the superior white and inferior dark races will be scientifically validated. This is the real agenda of the book, but its ‘science’ is rubbish. it does not even rise to the level of pseudo-science. Mythology is just a camouflage to push this prejudice that is simply not worth spending time over. Except for the terminology, its arguments are indistinguishable from those of Houston Chamberlain, Arthur de Gobineau and other race theorists who provided justification of the Nazi idea of superior Aryan race. But their source was European, more specifically Teutonic German." <ref name="Rajaram"/>}}


Adluri and Bagchee cite Lincoln's opinion:
Is there a difference between the two Talageri titles "Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian Nationalism" and "Aryan Invasion Theory: A Reappraisal", or are they the same book? (I've seen both advertised on the internet, with 1993 as date of publication. 129.22.46.197 Jan 18 2005
{{talkquote|" "Worse still, when treating the myths of non-literate societies, Witzel consistently ignores the more recent, more reliable, and less prejudicial work of British, American, and French anthropologists, in favor of dated German literature steeped in the Kulturkreis paradigm, which used a mix of racial, cultural, and geographic factors to categorize the world's peoples in ways that naturalized, legitimated, and reinforced the privilege of Europe’s colonial powers" (Lincoln 2015, 444). "Scholars who worked within this paradigm identified with many disciplines (Ethnologie, Anthropologie, Volkskunde, Völkerkunde, Rassenkunde, and Rassenwissenschaft ), but shared a large number of assumptions no longer intellectually or morally tenable. More important than differences in disciplinary orientation distinction between Germans and Austrians, the latter of whom tended to be missionaries and whose racism could be softer (condescension, rather than contempt). Equally important is the difference between works written prior to 1920, whose subtexts justify colonial expansion and domination, and those written after 1930, which were strongly inflected by Nazi ideology. Works of the 1920s either continued the former trend or anticipated the later, and sometimes both. Witzel relies on a great many works written by scholars of this sort, not just for data, but for many important lines of interpretation. Those he cites directly include Adolf Bastian, Hermann Baumann, Fritz Bornemann, Erich Brauer, Ernst Dammann, Otto Dempwolf, Hans Findeisen, Leo Frobenius, Martin Gusinde, Beatrix Heintze, Hermann Hochegger, Adolf Jensen, Karl Jettmar, Walter Lehmann, R. Lehmann-Nitsche, Johannes Maringer, Hans Nevermann, Alois Pache, Heinz Reschke, Hans Schärer, Paul Schebesta, Wilhelm Schmidt, August Schmitz, Carl Leonhard Schultze-Jena, Wilhelm Staudacher, Paul Wirz, and Josef Dominik Wölfel. There is now a large critical literature on scholarship of this sort, including Gothsch (1983); Marx (1988); Fischer (1990); Linimayr (1994); Jacobeit et al. (1994); Hauschild ed. (1995); Streck ed. (2000); and Evans (2010)" (Ibid., 447n4). "Rather incredibly, Witzel cites one testimony of this sort as a confirmatory antecedent of his own position. The passage cited is taken from Baumann (1936, 1), a work written by a learned scholar and committed Nazi, whose research in Africa was meant to justify German colonization of inferior peoples. He is, moreover, one of the authors on whom Witzel relied most heavily, with more than a hundred citations; on his life and work, see Braun (1995)" (Ibid., 448n7)."<ref name="VA_JB">Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Bagchee, </ref>}}


In their view,
== Links ==
{{talkquote|"Witzel’s case is not an anomaly. It is evidence of the system's "normal" functioning. The Humboldtian research university developed primarily as a means for Germany to accelerate the production of new knowledge (including the new ideas of race, historicism, and nationhood) and to funnel them into the world in a bid for intellectual and cultural parity with the Western powers, England and France. Under this system's auspices, the university professor, previously in the mold of the English gentleman-scholar, was tasked with developing the historical and anthropological research that would affirm German exceptionalism. Enhanced publishing opportunities, with the departmental journal and the dissertation series as their crux, were central to this initiative."<ref name="VA_JB"/>}}


They add:
Two users, {{user|69.110.152.89}} and {{user|Witzel}}, are removing (critical) links from this article. I kindly ask them to read ] and to stop removing them. I've also removed the following link from the page, it doesn't belong here . --] 18:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
{{talkquote|"Thus, through the German government's efforts, which unthinkingly poured money into Indology, his colleagues' collusion, who initiated him into their publishing networks, and the system’s institutional inertia, which places academic credentials above valid argument, Witzel's problematic views attained a wide circulation and were canonized as "scholarship." As with Schlegel 1819 (the source of the terms arisch and Arier and the thesis that the Germans were originally known as Aryans when they lived in the Orient; see Wiesehöfer 1990), Lassen 1830 (the source of the thesis of a special proximity between the Aryans and the "warlike Germans"), Schlegel 1834 (the source of the biracial theory of Indian origins), and Klapproth 1823 (the source of the term indogermanisch; see Shapiro 1981) toxic ideas that originally emerged in Germany to assure the Germans of their identity (as rational, heroic, and culturally and intellectually superior) entered into the world thanks to a publishing system designed to serve the professoriate."<ref name="VA_JB"/>}}


Witzel has also been a controversial figure at Harvard University:
:Witzel, Please explain why you have removed the criticism section and the associated link. I will reinsert if I don't hear back. --] 19:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
* Students have accused him of being a "tyrant"<ref>"no writer attributed" june 5, 1996), ([https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1996/6/5/former-sanskrit-chair-remains-controversial-pduring/?page=single ''Former Sanskrit Chair Remains Controversial
::your statement was general and unreferenced. If you refer to some specific dispute (such as Talageri), you may have a point. But just stating "He is criticized" is not encyclopedic. He is criticized for criticizing Hindutva.... by Hindutva people. Big surprise. Note that we have ] for the debunking of 19th century colonialist views and its political importance in India today. As such, it treats a socio-political topic. Otoh, we have ], for discussion of contemporary academic opinion on actual migrations of the early Bronze Age. Needless to say, MEJ Witzel is involved in the latter, not the former (except for when the former threatens to spill over to the latter), and is afaik well within academic mainstream. He is special, maybe, in even condescending to discuss fringy theses. His views of Vedic dialectology have been criticized for being over-confident. Feel free to discuss actual criticsm along these lines, if you think you are capable of doing so. ] <small>]</small> 21:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Students Grumble in Spite of Changes''], thecrimson.com</ref>
:To say he is criticized for criticizing Hindutva is a bit too simplistic, some of his critics have voiced relevant criticisms like his mistranlation of a verse of the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra. --] 01:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
* There has also been "friction" between him and other professors in the department, and graduate students have complained that Witzel has "behaved unprofessionally." <ref>Jonathan A. Lewin (june 7, 1996), , thecrimson.com</ref>
* An online petition accusing Michael Witzel of being an "Aryan supremacist" has asked Harvard University's administration to "terminate" its association with Witzel and "disband" his department.<ref>Janamejayan, Dr. Subramanian Swamy, (2011), , janamejayaneconomics.wordpress.com</ref>
<br>
{{reflist-talk}}
] (]) 02:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


:Look, I can appreciate some of what you're saying, but ultimately, this is just too lengthy. Please condense your explanation to address the removal of the sourced material only. Thank you. ] 03:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
***
Historical studies by different scholars have always resulted in contradicting theories. Mr.Witzel's position on Aryan Invasion Theory, which I believe is true, must be countered by logical facts. Instead, some of the contributors attack and harp on national sentiments is unacceptable. History is a record of past events and not a novel to inspire patriotism.


::The article is written like a self-promotional document at an academic department. It needs to be pruned down and made readable for the general public.


::Also, the serious criticism by ], Tok Thompson and others needs to be made a part of the story. ] (]) 16:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
:Witzel, Please explain why you have removed the criticism & external links. Dbachmann -is it not encyclopedic enough? Also note how his critics are painted as nationalist while his supporters as Marxist are removed promptly. But aren't most of the Indian supporters of the theory from the Marxist camp? --] 19:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


:::Some comments:
well, his critics ''are'' nationalist. I don't think this is disputed. I have no idea what Marxism has to do with anything here. This is not about Indian politics, it is about an Indologist doing Indology regardless of Indian politics. The Injunctive bit is laughable, it is well known Panini doesn't discuss it, I hardly think Witzel can claim that as his own discovery. So if somebody comes up with an argument supporting the contrary, that is not a point made against Witzel in particular. I agree that the "flamewar" external links are less than notable. ] <small>]</small> 22:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
:::* Tok Thompson (2013), , Journal of Folklore Research - so, that's one critical scholarly review of one book by Witzel. Does that make him a racist? And who's Tok Thompson?
:::''If the 'flamwar' links are less than notable, how did you find them suitable to add yourself in ], where they originated?'' --] 00:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:::* N.S. Rajaram (2014), , the pioneer: not ]
: how about the content
:::* Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Bagchee, - self-published; not ]
::Michael Witzel is criticized for his allegedly errored scholarship and squelching voices critical of his theory with ad hominem attacks about their nationalistic nature.
:::* "no writer attributed" june 5, 1996), (, thecrimson.com - ], an undergraduate student's newspaper. Any other source available?
:::* Jonathan A. Lewin (june 7, 1996), , thecrimson.com - idem
:::* Janamejayan, Dr. Subramanian Swamy, (2011), , janamejayaneconomics.wordpress.com - seriously?
:::] and POV-pushing. ] -] 18:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
{{od}}
N.S. Rajaram is a fringe academic fraud, masquerading as a scholar. ] gives significant impressions, in the regard.


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


Adluree and Bagchi - <s>WBre</s> Since, we are going by self-published papers, read by ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
:Witzel's contention is that he is an academic and his critics are nationalist, therefore his theory is correct seeing that it is ''unbiased'' - ''you are just repeating his contention''. His critics argue against it saying that his logic is flawed. When you attack the reasons for critcism instead of the criticism itself - you are hiding behind the critics' reputation or worse, a bad reputation that you helped create. You may hold Witzel up as a great personality (let me know if I am assuming too much) but his critics should also be allowed to speak in Misplaced Pages - editorship is not just for the elite, as you well know. The external links were lifted from Talageri's entry. Let me know how you would like to clean them up and I will do the same on both entries.


:{{yo|Winged Blades of Godric}} - WBre? ] -] 06:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
:By Marxist, I am referring to the other edits made by 59.92.144.155 - that his supporters among Indians are mostly Marxist. Just as the Indian majority of the Indian homeland theory are nationalists the opposers are Marxists. Why these quick edits changing anything negative about the man. Is he untouchable? --] 23:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
::Sorry, weird stuff. ]] 07:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


*Are any of these sources high quality ]? First have to follow ] which means we are not going to use self published stuff to do ] nor on the other hand are we going to use it for ]. Are any of these allegations of racism actually decent ]? Please note that our BLP policies also apply to talk pages. Thanks! ] (]) 07:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
you must be kidding, that's about as far from npov as it gets. Which are you disputing, that Witzel is an academic (hello, Harvard?), or that his opponents are nationalist? Maybe it is too sweeping to imply that they are ''all'' nationalist? But non-nationalist "opponents" will not style themselves as "Witzel debunkers", they will maybe criticise this point or that, but that will not make them an arch-nemesis of Witzel's, that's just academia as usual. The Talageri episode is maybe not very much to the credit of either party, and it is not notable enough to unroll in detail. We can place a link to Talageri, I suppose, and mention that the two were in dispute. This is not an article about Talageri's book, or about criticism of the book. Take a detailed discussion of the debate to the books' article, if you do think it should be treated at all. Talageri's criticism is laughable, from a scholarly viewpoint. You are free to cite academic reviews of Witzel's works. In fact, I can see if I can find any for you. The emphasis is on ''academic'' here; just mudslinging by a Hindutva author looking to get even for a devastating criticism of his book will not fly. Hell, everybody can say "your logic is flawed" without even reading your work. I have no idea what T means by saying W "violates every principle set up by himself", but hey, it sounds good, doesn't it. I will not vouch for the quality, let alone infallibility of Witzel's work, of course, but at least it deserves to be criticised by his peers, and not by some political author with an axe to grind. ] <small>]</small> 00:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


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


Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Bagchee, authors of The Nay Science (Oxford Univ Press, 2014) allege many of Witzel's publications are actually self-published and recycled works:
So here's my suggestion for you:
{{talkquote|"Michael Witzel's CV is perhaps the best example. For the first part of his career, his publications were restricted mainly to German venues interspersed with minor Indian and Nepali and German journals. The dissertation (Witzel 1974) was self-published. The journals included the Journal of the Ganganath Jha Research Institute, Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik, and the Journal of the Nepal Research Centre (the latter, again, controlled and paid for by Germans). The latter offers another example of how German Indologists were reliant on starting their own, mostly short-lived publishing venues: eight volumes appeared intermittently from 1977 to 1988, four volumes between 1993 and 2001, and the journal was then dormant for eight years, until briefly revived—for a single issue—in 2009. Chapters were published in various Festschriften (for Wolfgang Voigt, Paul Thieme, Karl Hoffmann, B. R. Sharma, Wilhelm Rau, J. C. Heesterman) and some Japanese proceedings. The first major publication was Willem Caland's Kleine Schriften (Witzel 1990), but it was paid for by the Glasenapp Stiftung (type 3 in our typology above). The Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies finally started in 1995, thus assuring Witzel of a publishing venue. The term "journal" may be an exaggeration, since "issues" consist of unformatted, unedited mostly one-article pdf files uploaded to the internet. Many articles were published more than once. "How to Enter the Vedic Mind? Strategies in Translating a Brāhmaṇa Text" (Witzel 1996a), first published in Translating, Translations, Translators from India to the West (in the Harvard Oriental Series, whose editorship Witzel assumed in 1990), reappeared as Witzel 2013. "Early Sanskritization" (Witzel 1994), first published in the Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, reappeared in the Journal of the Indological Society of Southern Africa (Witzel 1996b) and in Recht, Staat und Verwaltung im klassischen Indien (Witzel 1997). The latter was not coincidentally edited by Witzel’s "old friend" Bernhard Kölver (Witzel 2014a, 16n44). Two edited volumes (Witzel, ed. 1997, and Osada and Witzel, eds. 2011) followed. Both were published in the Harvard Oriental Series by the Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies and its successor since 2011, the Department of South Asian Studies. Witzel functioned as series editor, illustrating how firmly entrenched the German model of the department as a vehicle for a mandarin professoriate's career interests has become. Witzel's edition of the Kaṭha Āraṇyaka, self-published from "Erlangen-Kathmandu" in 1974, reappeared in Witzel's Harvard Oriental Series in 2004. Once again, it was published by Witzel’s chair, the Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University.". (Source: Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Bagchee, )}}
:Witzel has been in dispute with ] over the latter's 2000 '']''.
] (]) 14:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
You want details of the controversy, you click on the link. Before you add criticism to ''this'' article, you'll first have to add more detail of ''what'' is being criticised, precisely. Particulars can also go to ] (such as disputes over the location of individual schools or tribes). ] <small>]</small> 00:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


:Best example of what? ] -] 15:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
::So you ARE really saying Witzel cannot be touched except by fellow 'academics' from western universities (who are accused of and ) or Indian Marxist Indologists (who have their own axe to grind). I am not disputing his academic status or that maybe his opposers are nationalistic, but would like to point out that ] attacks on the critic is not scholarly. This is not about Talageri's book or criticism of it - the majority of the content I added was about Talageri's criticism of Witzel's theory - the little I added on criticism of Talageri's book was to satisfy the Witzel camp (I can remove it happily). If Talageri's citicism is laughable from a scholarly viewpoint, you should be able to mention that in the page itself. Again, I think rather than suspect/mudsling the critic, we should present his criticism and leave it to the reader to judge. You can always add Witzels opinion of his critics and their qualifications. I am open to changing the content but not to trimming it one line per your suggestion - even the single line you suggested is about Talageri's book and does not mention his criticism of Witzel's development of his theory. --] 01:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
:Ah, right:
:{{talkquote|Due to the more open and competitive nature of its market, the situation differs somewhat in the United States. There is greater separation between chairs/departments and publishing organs, and publishers are answerable to the reading public’s interests, in contrast with Germany, where the state is both the financial backer of and buyer of last resort for Indological publications. But German publications are translatable into institutional status and, ultimately, a foreign publishing contract. Many German Indologists’ CVs reveal how they progressively built up a dossier of home-grown publications, before securing international positions.}}
:Talking about ]. The suggestion that Witzel's ] -] 15:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
:Andrew Nicholson, :
:{{talkquote|A more serious problem is The Nay Science’s criticism of many of today’s major Indological scholars. In footnotes, the authors fault James L. Fitzgerald and Angelika Malinar in particular for their erroneous application of the “pseudocritical” methods of German Indology to the Mah ābh ārata and the Bhagavad Gītā, respectively. In discussing Hauer, the authors write that “ with all other Indologists, his scholarship was placed entirely in the service of religious, nationalistic, or ethnocentric needs” (p. 277). Sweeping statements such as this appear frequently, but the authors of The Nay Science fail to substantiate these charges with any sustained analysis of the interpretive mistakes of living scholars. As it stands, the evidence presented against contemporary Indological scholarship in this book consists primarily of guilt by association.}}
:{{talkquote|Perhaps in the name of a corrective to previous injustices, the authors consistently deny the hermeneutical charity to their German objects of study that they extend to Gandhi and to the authors of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute’s critical edition of the Mah ābh ārata. The latter example is particularly perplexing: the authors of the BORI critical edition self-consciously borrowed and applied the principles of textual criticism pioneered by 19th century Germans in their edition of the Mah ābh ārata. Ethnocentrism, plagiarism, and bias transcend national boundaries, and a more even-handed study would have at least alluded to the ways in which “German Indology” has become a trans-cultural phenomenon that has been applied and transformed by thinkers beyond Europe. What makes certain non-German historical-critical and text-critical scholars praiseworthy, while others are condemned? As valuable as this book is in its critique of scientism in philology, because of the authors’ rhetorical choices, The Nay Science may exacerbate the false idea that there is an impassable gulf between the practice of Indology in continental Europe and the way it is practiced elsewhere, especially in North America. In reality, these boundaries are disintegrating thanks to the increasing interactions of a younger generation of European, North American, South American, and Asian Indologists.}}
:To remind you: Nicholson is the academic author who was ungratefully plagiarized by Malhotra. ] -] 15:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
:: Wait, the long passage quoted above is not in ''Nay Science''. Where did it appear, if at all it did? -- ] (]) 21:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
:::, a self-published paper (oh irony). ] -] 06:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
*Please be aware of ] and also be aware that we are not going to cover every claim and counterclaim like some sort of academic journal. ] 'this professor said this and that professor said that' is ] on this article. Be advise that ] applies on this article, so people should just start removing what they think is improperly sourced or certainly anything defamatory and we will discuss it here. If you re-add the content without consensus you may get a ban. Thanks! ] (]) 07:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
::I find more than bizzarre when Joshua Jonathan has spent years to safeguard this BLP from repeated attempts of politically-motivated, poorly sourced smear against the subject, only to be associated with (should I say accused of?) maintaining "defamatory" content about the BLP's subject. It's absolutely dismaying. –] (]) 08:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)


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


{{yo|Jtbobwaysf}}<br>
:: It was on-topic - criticism was not about the migration theory but about W's specific analysis of the RigVeda to prove his theory - W does not try to trace vedic dialects but vedic lineages described in the Rig Veda - the AIT is not being discussed here. I will reinsert, please discuss before deleting (Witzel you too).--] 06:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
You changed the header "Criticism of "Indigenous Aryans"" into "Discussion of "Indigenous Aryans"," edit-summary
{{talkquote|Criticism of "Indigenous Aryans": ], we dont need to give unnecessary weight to this in section title.}}
WP:NOCRIT says "Articles should include significant criticisms of the subject while avoiding undue weight and POV forking"; the header summarizes the topic of the section, namely Witzel's criticism of Indigenous Aryanism, and not criticism aimed at Witzel, so WP:NOCRIT does not apply here. I also don't see why it would be undue to call criticism criticism in a header.


Same for this edit , edit-summary
Michael Witzel works on Aryan Invasion of the Indian sub-continent invited angry reactions from the Hindu nationalists. Any work on ancient history of India and invasion of Aryans from the middle east to India were vehemently protested by the more ardent believers among Hindu nationalists. Using History as a political tool has created unnecessary controversy around his works.
{{talkquote|remove this word from ] based on ]. do not re-add without consensus on talk, see ] policy}}
which removed
{{talkquote|A critic of the arguments made by ] writers and sectarian historical revisionism,}}
from the lead. This is not a criticism directed at Witzel, but a summary of Witzel's stance, as described in the article.


WP:BLPRESTORE says
User {{user|69.110.152.89}} just removed the criticisms and links again, as far as I can see there is no consensus to remove those on this page so I reverted them. ] 23:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
{{talkquote|To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the ] is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Misplaced Pages's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.}}
Burden of proof refers to verifiability; it's quite obvious that Witzel is "a critic of the arguments made by ] writers and sectarian historical revisionism." ] - ] 06:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)


:You are incorrect, you are required to follow ]. Be cautious of taking these actions, I have already warned you on your talk page and violating BLP policies could result in you getting banned from this article or the entire topic. Thanks! ] (]) 07:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
::: ''I will not vouch for the quality, let alone infallibility of Witzel's work, of course, but at least it deserves to be criticised by his peers, and not by some political author with an axe to grind'' So you think you can decide ''who'' can criticise you and who cannot? This arbitrary brading of critics is not very scholarly. So what if he is a nationalist? Who are you to decide who his peers are? --]] 06:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


::A mere link to ] does not suffice for your statement "you're incorrect"; you'll have to be specific, and answer to my objections. Selectively removing info refefenced to a source while retaining other info referenced to that source is not "good-faith BLP objections," and begs further explanation. Otherwise, it's simply ]. ] - ] 07:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
==Review of links==
Let us review these critical links then. If you can cite criticism in reputable journals, that's fine, but we won't link to every troll on the internet.
* This guy must be joking. ''hán'' has been interpreted as 3rd singular injunctive for at least two centuries. Indra the dragon slayer is a central theme of the Rigveda. This has nothing to do with Witzel at all. Witzel was pointing out the obvious, not his own views in particular, and this author does nothing but show his own ignorance. This author is aware of Panini, but unaware of the Injunctive (which is general knowledge among Rigvedic scholars, and not Witzel's idea at all), which really goes to illustrate Witzel's point that Panini is unaware of the Injunctive. This article is a joke if you have some background knowledge, and just empty drivel if you don't. ] <small>]</small> 10:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


:::My understanding is that you are not permitted to restore disputed information to a BLP if we are stating it is a BLP issue (which we are). I have clearly stated it is UNDUE, poorly sourced, and critical. That is more than enough in my understanding. You are engaging in ] by re-adding and I have opened a case at ] for the edits. Thanks! ] (]) 09:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
::-'' I don't see any relation between your comments and that of the argument - the author says the phrase Witzel quotes is not in the Rigveda - simple yes/no statement. but really you're comments don't matter unless you are a 'scholar' yourself. I am understanding your interpretation of RigVedic scholars to be western scholars of a foreign language as opposed to Indian scholars of a native language - the author is the principal of a Vedic academy of Gurvayoor where, IMO, the study of Sanskrit & vedas is more rigourous than in any Univ. I am sorry, but I can only see Witzels arrogance repeated in your comments.'' --] 23:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


::::You restored four edits; I've numbered them for you. Be explicit, and explain per edit why they are "UNDUE, poorly sourced, and critical." mere statements do not suffice; that way you can remove anything you don't like. ] - ] 10:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
* the same goes for these -- apparently WItzel has been taking it upon themselves to inform Hindutva people of trivial knowledge known to Rigveda scholars for at least a century, and it is attacked for it. These are attacks on a strawman, they are shooting the messenger, while they should really be denigrating philology as a whole if its results don't fit their preconceptions. ] <small>]</small> 10:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


=== Criticism of "Indigenous Aryans"===
::''- same repsonse as above. Who are these mysterious Rigvedic scholars and why does Witzel not defend them if he believes them to be correct and can quote them confidently. and yes, really why shoot the messenger by accusing him of Hindutva - he is a scholar himself - 'only' is that he is a native scholar'' --] 23:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
You changed the header "Criticism of "Indigenous Aryans"" into "Discussion of "Indigenous Aryans"," edit-summary
{{talkquote|Criticism of "Indigenous Aryans": ], we dont need to give unnecessary weight to this in section title.}}
WP:NOCRIT says "Articles should include significant criticisms of the subject while avoiding undue weight and POV forking"; the header summarizes the topic of the section, namely Witzel's criticism of Indigenous Aryanism, and not criticism aimed at Witzel, so WP:NOCRIT does not apply here. I also don't see why it would be undue to call criticism criticism in a header.<br>
What is "UNDUE, poorly sourced, and critical" about this? ] - ] 10:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
:I also disagree with the change as it is based on a clear misapplication ], which is about "negative criticism of the ''article subject''", not about notable engangement of the person in criticism or as a critic. We can explicitly call them "critics" and explicitly refer to their observational stance on whatever topic "criticism", as long as this characterization of the person's activity is properly sourced. I don't see that this objection has been raised; instead, I have seen just a mechanical removal/replacement of a word associated with a non-policy essay that talks about a ''completely different'' issue.
:] is not a blank cheque for merrily disregarding ]. It needs ''substance''. –] (]) 08:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)


=== "A critic of the arguments"===
* -- I am beginning to feel sorry for Mr. Witzel. This article is at least not quite so ridiculous, but Witzel is again attacked ''in lieu'' of western scholarship as a whole. Well, I am prepared to keep that link, it shows the gist of the "controversy", and it is not quite so embarassing for the critics as the others. ] <small>]</small> 10:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
This edit , edit-summary
{{talkquote|remove this word from ] based on ]. do not re-add without consensus on talk, see ] policy}}
removed
{{talkquote|A critic of the arguments made by ] writers and sectarian historical revisionism,}}
from the lead. This is not a criticism directed at Witzel, but a summary of Witzel's stance, as described in the article. What is "UNDUE, poorly sourced, and critical" about this? ] - ] 10:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
:Same as above. ] is incorrectly evoked here. –] (]) 08:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)


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


{{yo|RealPharmer3}}<br>
* this is at last a critique of some of Witzel's own work. The content of this chapter is basically a rehash of Witzel's claims, with interspersed disparaging comments, concluding in "Witzel, as we have seen, violates every single norm and basic principle, set up by himself, in the analysis of the Rigveda". We have seen nothing of the kind, except empty rhetorics. This is extremely poor, ''ad hominem'' "scholarship". But we can let the link stand to speak for itself. ] <small>]</small> 10:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
you removed a reference () and a statement attributed to Witzel with this reference,
{{talkquote|In an interview with rediff India abroad Senior editor Suman Guha Mazumder, Witzel acknowledged that the intentions of the Hindu Education Foundation and Vedic Foundation to correct misrepresentations of Hinduism were good, but the way they went about it was sectarian, narrow, and historically wrong.}}
with the argument "Interview is not a high quality reliable source in accordance to WP:BLP", but retained other statements from Witzel from the same source; that's inconsequent. WP:BLP says nothing about interviews, but might be considered ], which is allowed.


Your next edit , edit-summary
::''- ad hominem? I believe that is the term used for Witzel. This is not a rehash - but a point by point breaking down of Witzels logic used in his work.'' --] 23:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
{{talkquote|removed material that is not a high-quality reliable source (Pacific News Service), as per WP:BLP. The inclusion of material should comply with WP:CRIT}}
which removed
{{talkquote|The HEF campaign was dismissed by critics as "one driven by the sectarian agenda of the Sangh Parivar, a term commonly used to describe the Hindu nationalist triumvirate of India's Bharatiya Janata Party, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad."<ref name="pacificnews">{{cite news| first = Ashfaque| last = Swapan| title = Compromise Reached on California Textbook Controversy About Hinduism| publisher = Pacific News Service| date = March 3, 2006|url=http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=6d7fd82d03a4981040f985cc4f279604| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060404041618/http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=6d7fd82d03a4981040f985cc4f279604| url-status=dead| archive-date = April 4, 2006}}</ref> In a letter to the Board of Education, Vinay Lal, a history professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, wrote:<br>"As far as I am aware, the Hindu Education Foundation and Vedic Foundation and their supporters do not number among their ranks any academic specialists in Indian history or religion other than Professor Bajpai himself. It is a remarkable fact that, in a state which has perhaps the leading public research university system in the United States, these two foundations could not find a single professor of Indian history or religion within the UC system (with its ten campuses) to support their views. Indeed, it would be no exaggeration to say that they would be hard pressed to find a single scholar at any research university in the United States who would support their views."<ref name="pacificnews" />}}
{{reflist-talk}}
but retained other text also referenced to this source. I also don't see why the information should be removed. And again, this is not a criticism of Witzel. ] - ] 06:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC) ] - ] 06:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)


=== - "Sectarian, narrow, and historically wrong" - Rediff-interview===
:Have you read it and also Talageri's 2001 response to the Witzel review? Again I think your judgement is too simplistic, but I'd like to see a neutral account of the dispute by somebody who is neither a Witzel nor a Talageri follower. --] 01:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
you removed a reference () and a statement attributed to Witzel with this reference,
{{talkquote|In an interview with rediff India abroad Senior editor Suman Guha Mazumder, Witzel acknowledged that the intentions of the Hindu Education Foundation and Vedic Foundation to correct misrepresentations of Hinduism were good, but the way they went about it was sectarian, narrow, and historically wrong.}}
with the argument "Interview is not a high quality reliable source in accordance to WP:BLP", but retained other statements from Witzel from the same source; that's inconsequent. WP:BLP says nothing about interviews, but might be considered ], which is allowed. What is "UNDUE, poorly sourced, and critical" about this? ] - ] 10:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)


:The content is sourced to rediff, which is laughable. Thanks! ] (]) 11:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
* -- these are below comment.
] <small>]</small> 10:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


::If these are Witzel's own comments then it is acceptable, as the subject oc a BLP can be quoted on themselves. You also haven't explained yet how this undue or ] (an essay, by the way), nor why you retained the source for other pieces of info. ] - ] 12:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
:: my responses in italics above. The more I contnue this dialogue, the more I get the impression of arrogance and dismissing native scholars (as Hindutva vadis etc). Since in Misplaced Pages, we quote sources and don't do independent research, the important element to deciding what can and cannot be included in this page are sources.


::{{yo|Slp1}} now that you're involved, maybe you can explain, or defend, why some info referenced to the Reditt-interview was removed with an appeal to ], while other info referenced to the same source was retained? Regards, ] - ] 13:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
:: Witzel, see that last link in your edits . The descr is less about the link of Ts criticism of W and more about targetting T. Unless we reach a compromise, the disputes on this article will need to be escalated. --] 23:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
:::I am not involved. I am acting as an administrator since you seem to want to revert to the information you want to include without consensus into a BLP. ] (]) 13:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)


::::{{yo|Slpq}} I double-checked; the Reditt-interview is not used as a reference anymore; apologies. But maybe you can give your take on this interview as a sort of self-published source, since this is Witzel himself on his own opinions? Regards, ] - ] 13:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
:::"who are these mysterious scholars"? I am glad for your question: They include, notably, ], who wrote 120 years ago. It doesn't matter where a scholar is born. It does matter if he has political preconceptions (which you seem to admit these critics do), and it matters even more if they are aware of Oldenberg. If you ignore Oldenberg, you are having a 19th century argument. Something, for some reason, these Hindutva scohlars seem to delight in, what with denouncing British colonialists for imperialistic views etc. Hello? This is 2005, not 1870. We quote sources, on Misplaced Pages. ''Reputable'' sources, i.e. peer reviewed ones. None of the links above qualifies as such. Just because something has an URL doesn't make it a "source". I can put up a geocities page with a giant title "Witzel is stupid" in blinking pink letters. That doesn't make it a "source". ] <small>]</small> 08:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::Without pronouncing one way or the other on this particular source or interview, IF a reliable source has conducted the interview (and so can trusted to transcribe and check the person's words completely and correctly), then a quote from an interview might be useable source in an article about that person. However, as a primary source it must be used with ''extreme'' caution. There are massive, massive potential problems with ] that would violate ], ] and ]. If it is important, then a secondary source will have picked it up, so use that. ] (]) 14:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}
Hey @] - I see a lot of discussion has gone down since going to sleep last night... I'm happy to talk about my thoughts here and elsewhere as I go through the updates. Please help me understand why you feel an interview is an appropriate source to include in a ] because I don't believe that an interview transcript or a Pacific News Service article is reliable by any means for inclusion of an article like this. It's not sufficient based on my interpretation of the policy.<br>
Additionally, states that the burden of proof to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material is on those who wish to bring back material that does not fit the guidelines outlined. This burden refers to ] - Thus, the content being included should come from a reliable source, which it clearly does not. I dont believe it was appropriate to revert edits without any discussion either. ] (]) 14:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)


:{{yo|RealPharmer3}} thank you for your response. Let's split the topics, as I already did: the Reditt-interview, and the Pacific News Service article; in this thread, we treat the Reditt-source.
:I think Oldenberg belongs to the Talageri dispute, not the Panini dispute. Talageri has also replied about the Oldenberg issue in his 2001 response to Witzel's review. --] 01:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:The point of high quality sources for BLP is, I think, to protect the subject of a BLP against unjustified attacks. Yet, the quote you removed is an opinion of Witzel himself. Since self-published sources, that is, sources authored by the subject on the subject, are allowed, it seems to me that an interview with Witzel is acceptable. Removing this quote to me looks like ]: removing something you don't like. You may disagree with Witzel's opinions, but that's not a reason to censor them.
:Furthermore, the Wiki-article says:
:{{talkquote|Witzel was accused of being biased against Hinduism, an allegation he denies.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/news/education/story/14116858p-14946146c.html |title=Education&nbsp;— Hindu history ignites brawl over textbooks |last1=Ranganathan |first1=Deepa |website=sacbee.com|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080625050046/http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/news/education/story/14116858p-14946146c.html |archive-date=June 25, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/02.01.06/hindus-0605.html |title=Battling the Past |publisher=Metroactive.com |access-date=May 16, 2012}}</ref><ref>, Social Forces, Volume 85; Issue 2</ref>}}
:{{reflist-talk}}
:The first source, sacbee.com, doesn't look very reliable to ''me''. It actually says:
:{{talkquote|The Hindu groups termed Witzel a racist with leftist leanings and demanded that Harvard shut down his department.}}
:It also says;
:{{talkquote| "The proposed edits come out of a very sectarian approach to history," said Witzel, the Harvard professor. "They view all of Hinduism through one narrow lens. ... It's people on the very fringe who want to dispute these points."<br>"I don't think you could find a single scholar of Indian history in the entire United States who teaches at a research university who would support (the Hindu groups') position," said Vinay Lal, a history professor at UCLA. "Most people on their side are Indian engineers, physicists, chemists, who think their opinion is just as good as those who have spent a lifetime studying these subjects."}}
:I think you have to agree that there is a certain one-sidedness in removing the Reditt-source, while retaining the sacbee.com source, which contains more or less the same info as the Reditt-source ("sectarian") and the Pacific News (a quote by Vinay Lal)(sorry, now I do bring it up here). And, to be honest, it does support the impression of ]. I'm quite sure that that's not your intention, but combined with an edit-warring warning after one revert it does not help to assume good faith, as you may understand. ] - ] 16:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)


::Well, {{u|RealPharmer3}}, why is this info "pushing views beyond the requirements of ]", as you stated here ? ] - ] 04:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Oldenberg's primary field was Buddhism and Pali. Even his entry in wiki does not mention he was a Vedic scholar. He wrote 120 years ago and is not available for comment. To discuss Panini and Sayana, who wrote millenia ago on the Veda, why do you need to reference his work. Can Witzel (being a 'scholar' himself) not speak to it independently - referencing his knowledge of Oldenberg.
::I have replaced the quote with another quote from Witzel hinself, backed by a better source. ] - ] 06:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::Regarding "sectarian," see also Bose (2008) p.16:
::{{talkquote|Th ere are two major problems with the HEF’s and VF’s edits. First, they are not consistent with prevailing scholarship on Indian history. Second, they represent a sectarian perspective aligned with extremist Hindu groups in India such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Vishwa Hindu Pari-shad (VHP), which have been responsible for numerous violations of civil liber-ties and human rights against religious minorities, women, Dalits, and Adivasis. Both the RSS and VHP belong to the militant Hindu conglomerate known as the Sangh Parivar, which champions the transformation of India’s secular democracy into a Hindu nation. At the ideological level, militant Hindu nation-alism, or Hindutva, has evolved into a distinct form of fascism that creates an opposition between “insiders” and “outsiders,” seeking to assert Hindu religious identity in nationalist and culturalist terms.}}
::Witzel clearly is not a lonely voice in his critisms - but that should already be clear from the fact that his letter was signed by 50 scholars. ] - ] 07:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)


=== Dismissal of HEF-campaing - Pacific News Service===
::::Also curious, did Oldenberg/Witzel etc ever write in Sanskrit - there are many Rigveda scholars that have learnt ONLY in sanskrit their entire life and cannot read their books in english, german etc- not to dismiss their work, but if they are commenting on a sanskrit text, one may have thought he'd want to reach out to a sanskrit audience unless he was writing solely for a western audience who will take their word as the authority. So in effect, they are taking discussion of Sanskrit out of it's territory (where their theories may not have stood a chance) and provoking native sanskrit scholars to respond to work in english and german. It is like taking a scientific theory and disecting it with philosophy and blaming protesting scientists for not having an idea of philosophy.
Your next edit , edit-summary
{{talkquote|removed material that is not a high-quality reliable source (Pacific News Service), as per WP:BLP. The inclusion of material should comply with WP:CRIT}}
which removed
{{talkquote|The HEF campaign was dismissed by critics as "one driven by the sectarian agenda of the Sangh Parivar, a term commonly used to describe the Hindu nationalist triumvirate of India's Bharatiya Janata Party, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad."<ref name="pacificnews">{{cite news| first = Ashfaque| last = Swapan| title = Compromise Reached on California Textbook Controversy About Hinduism| publisher = Pacific News Service| date = March 3, 2006|url=http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=6d7fd82d03a4981040f985cc4f279604| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060404041618/http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=6d7fd82d03a4981040f985cc4f279604| url-status=dead| archive-date = April 4, 2006}}</ref> In a letter to the Board of Education, Vinay Lal, a history professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, wrote:<br>"As far as I am aware, the Hindu Education Foundation and Vedic Foundation and their supporters do not number among their ranks any academic specialists in Indian history or religion other than Professor Bajpai himself. It is a remarkable fact that, in a state which has perhaps the leading public research university system in the United States, these two foundations could not find a single professor of Indian history or religion within the UC system (with its ten campuses) to support their views. Indeed, it would be no exaggeration to say that they would be hard pressed to find a single scholar at any research university in the United States who would support their views."<ref name="pacificnews" />}}
{{reflist-talk}}
but retained other text also referenced to this source. I also don't see why the information should be removed. And again, this is not a criticism of Witzel. What is "UNDUE, poorly sourced, and critical" about this? ] - ] 10:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)


:This so called pacific news is just syndicated content from a website called and . This india today is "developed by https://codeblendlabs.com/" doesnt look even remotely reliable...The other content is sourced to rediff, which is laughable. Thanks! ] (]) 11:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
::::And of course it is convenient to dismiss native scholars (many that can't defend themselves in English) as Hindutva because the prof of a reputed 'American' univ says so. I never said the criticism was political - I said that allegations of politics should not be used the red herring to tackling actual ''issues'' with the work. your comment 'delight in .. denouncing.. imperialist views..' that is another off-topic, I won't comment. Please point me to wikipolicy that quotes only 'reputable' sources and what qualifies as 'reputable'. Not only that, most of the links point to articles that ''Witzel has responded to'' - does that make them 'reputable' now - a 'Harvard' prof has responded to their contents individually. --] 18:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::the whole point is, your scholars are attacking ''Witzel'' because he is translationg ''Oldenberg's'' views into English for them. This has been the results of Western Sanskrit philology for 120 years, and your scholars are reading these results ''now'', and they bash ''Witzel'' for it. You can either dismiss Western scholarship (including the inherently Western concept of an ]) altogether (many Indian scholars do), or you can take their results at face value, and consider them for their merit. In either case, leave Witzel alone, he is just an heir to this tradition, he didn't build it. But sure, if Witzel considers these authors worthy of a retort, you may reference them both, the criticism and the retort. ] <small>]</small> 18:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


::The same quote from Vinay Lal appears at . So far for ] with regard to point 4; please explain how ] and ] applies here. ] - ] 11:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have added to my comment a bit above (edit conflict).
::::::Western sanskrit philology in '''German''' - that 'my' scholars never had access to - the poor fellows were probably thinking someone writing on sanskrit would write in sanskrit. Noone is dismissing western scholarship on the whole - only it's treatment of Sanskrit and Hinduism related topics - pls don't deviate from topic (just curious- any example of Indians dismissing encyclopedia?). Right, Witzel may be heir to the tradition only - but he is in a position to correct the mistakes of western scholarship ''in indology'' - or aleast to make changes to it's workings. Instead he is adamant in his position and only acts to further the mistakes made (ex: calif board of Ed episode). That is why he is being criticized, as the living defender of this tradition. If he thinks western scholarship is correct, he should be able to defend it, being a 'scholar' himself, or accept that Oldenberg was mistaken in some areas. --] 19:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


:Well, {{u|RealPharmer3}}, why is this info "pushing views beyond the requirements of ]", as you stated here ? ] - ] 04:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:well, western scholarship is indebted to the ], not to a lineage of gurus. This implies the principle of ]. We are indebted to Oldenberg for foundational insights, but we know more than him. No westerner worth his salt will defend a statement based on '']'' alone. This is a clash of mentalities; traditional Indian scholars take for granted that people repeat statements by Oldenberg, Bohtlingck, Muller, Monier-Williams etc. out of respect or awe, while the simple reason is that much of their views have been ''corrobated'' by later scholarship. If Oldenberg was wrong on something, that's out of the window. It is just that you will note that he was wrong surprisingly rarely. Oldenberg didn't come up with the Injunctive, if I remember correctly, we are indebted to ] for that. You will never be able to orally preserve a text for three millennia by the critical method alone, for this feat, Indian scholarship is ''much'' better suited. And without this ability, Western scholarship would have no material to go on from. So nobody ''expects'' traditional Indian scholars to give a shit about western scholarship, they can dismiss it as puerile and be done. But as soon as they pretend to enter an argument ''within'' the 'critical method' (such as claims of astronomical evidence in the texts), they will be judged by it.
:I have replaced the "sectarian"-quote by another quote, backed by a better source, and replaced the source for Cinay Lal's letter, which has been widely referred to in newspapers, journals and books, with a better source. ] - ] 06:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:this is a topic far beyond the scope of this page. You are right that Witzel appears to be active both as a scholar, and in political debates. Both areas may be documented. The sad thing is that Witzel's ''political'' opponents attempt to attack him on ''scholarly'' turf. This makes them look ridiculous. Frawley is evidently not qualified to criticize Witzel. Let him publish his criticism in an Indological journal first. If Witzel is active in a political debate in the state of California, he is of course open to political criticism, and you are free to refer us to such. Political criticism masquerading as scholarship is not acceptable, and the rant summarliy smearing "Western scholars" as racists, bigots, Ku Klux Klan members or white suprematists is clearly not the sort of link we want. If you can provide a sober account of the schoolbook debate in California, I am sure we can agree to use it as a source. ] <small>]</small> 12:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:And it appears that Pacific News Service is quite a ceptable; see . ] - ] 07:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::Hi @] - I saw that about Pacific News Service - thank you very much. The editor also mentioned, "Without a doubt, PNS produced opinionated journalism with a strong point of view, but I am unaware that they regularly published falsehoods. Sadly, the economic crisis of 21st century journalism led them to close down in 2017" which seems a bit concerning as well though." Thoughts?
::Additionally, I don't feel good about putting quotes by the subject within a section dealing with a heated controversy, as it is currently. The material should be from an independent high-quality secondary source. '''The direct quotes currently illustrate Witzel's interpretations of the events through his own words not a secondary source''', which clearly does not aligned with . Primary sources are generally the best source for its own content - do not put ] on its contents. I also believe it is not appropriate to sequentially combine the quotes here if it has not been written that way or produced elsewhere in a high-quality and secondary source independent of the subject (see ). Nonetheless, quotes do not feel appropriate to me, especially because of the controversy - these should be replaced with information from secondary sources.
::Obviously, the controversy stirred up heat on many forums and media outlets that may be independent, reliable, and most importantly one step removed from it. It would be far more beneficial to have information like that included rather than the subjects words. Lastly, I dont have an incredible amount of experience with the controversy or how big it may have been (learned more here as i researched) - but I worry for the subjects safety and well-being if it is indeed serious. He had an opinion on the events that occurred, and I'm sure there is another side of the story as well, but using his quotes about those who disagreed with him to paint the picture as ''matter of fact'' not only seems suspicious, but also seems like a safety risk. ] (]) 22:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)


:::To paraphrase you: 'the direct quotes currently illustrate Witzel's interpretations of the events through his own words as given by a secondary source, media outlets one step removed from it'. ] - ] 03:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:Well, he made remarks on Hindus that strongly seem to be racist. If he had made the same remarks on Christians or Muslims, he would probably have been compared to worse things.
::::Hey @] - ''That's a good one!'' Unfortunately, that is not at all what I'm saying - nice try. One step removed would be using the information from the secondary source alone, not the words that came from his own mouth as an analysis of the controversial events that have occurred. The quotes in this context are not necessary here for the reasons i mentioned above, and I don't believe there is a good enough justification for its inclusion in the manner it's being used.
::::This source also seems to be concerning as Witzel is one of the authors on it . Please see ]. I dont think it is appropriate for inclusion. ] (]) 07:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Even self-published sources by the article's subject are acceptable, so this one certainly is; see ]. What you are doing now is questioning the reliability of Witzel himself, just like the HEF and the VF did. As I noticed before: you seem to intend to ] Witzel's opinions, of all things on the page dedicated to him. The subject's opinions are relevant on a page on the subject.
:::::But you know what? I get your point, due to {{tq|that is not at all what I'm saying}}. You should try to communicate what your real objections are, instead of dwelling so much on the details of policies: 'I find it unnecessarily offensive, shall we paraphrase Witzel's quotes, and do we really need two of them?' Regards, ] - ] 08:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Hey @] - I'd like to urge you to have a discussion that actually addresses the concerns that are being raised instead of trying to label me or ]. I've already said, I have no problem with positive, negative, or neutral information - but the citations should be coming from high-quality reliable sources as mentioned in ]
::::::I don't agree with your interpretation of the policies listed at ]. My issue is not that Witzel is not an expert in his field or somehow not reliable - but the nam is human and he's directly involved in the events that occurred - that does make for heated opinions, whether you'd like to think so or not. I'm urging you to use reliable sources, because that's what the policy outlines - not me. ] (]) 18:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}
Viveswaran et al. (2009) has five authors, is published in a scholarly journal, and is cited 99 times. That makes it quite reliable, according to the definition of reliable sources. ] - ] 20:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)


:Hey @] - Yes, you are right, if it was any other page, it would be reliable. Not sure i can continue explaining the same thing again and again, for it not to be addressed appropriately or discussed. As an experienced editor, is it all right to utilize a source that Witzel co-authored (as the second author) to support the events that he was directly involved in? Are we going to ignore that @] said about PNS? Do you think it is a good idea to use Witzel's own quotes to characterize the controversy? ] (]) 01:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
::So, in summary, you say -
::* Indian scholarship is not qualified to judge any research into Sanskrit and Indology, ''though they are vastly more familiar with it in quality (a lifetime of focussed learning) and quantity (handful of western scholars vs numerous native sanskrit academies''), because their methods are very inferior to the ']' (''though the same Indian ''sanskrit'' scholars made say advances in ] 300 years before Europe, or say they came up with the ] that changed mathematics in the west forever'').
::* Indian scholarship is very prone to Ipse dixit while western is almost never.
::* Western is based on critical method and logic while Indian is just repetitive of older work - in other words not innovative (''I guess Panini, Ramanuja, Sankaracharya, purva paksha methodology and Hindu revivals through the ages etc don't coun''t) in any way.


*
::I don't understand the context for the outburst - is this the reason you give for western scholars not engaging native scholars and their not writing in sanskrit (bad team spirit)? Well, I agree this topic is not for this page and I will refrain from further commenting on something so prejudiced & arrogant from get go. I will continue to think that they don't write in sanskrit because despite all their rhetoric on 'philological' discoveries they really cannot capably write in sanskrit and their theories will not stand much chance in the language. Let's leave it at that - 2 opposing POVs.
::Your queries have already been answered:
- ::But, unlike you, I think Indian scholarship does need to give a ''s'' about western in the face of the that they are doing ''in isolation'' - especially because they have wider reach (hello, Harvard). --] 20:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::* Visvesvaran et al. (2009):
:::* {{tq|Even self-published sources by the article's subject are acceptable, so this one certainly is; see ]. What you are doing now is questioning the reliability of Witzel himself, just like the HEF and the VF did.}}
::well, evidently, the West was ''crap'', scientifically, up to 1780 or so. The Indians taught the Arabs, and the Arabs taught the Europeans. So yes, India had science way before Europe. That's great, but that's history. No, these were not the "same" Indian scholars. These people lived 2000 years ago, while those you quote are alive now (''see'', you're doing it again. India had excellent scholars in 500 BC. Therefore, they must still be excellent. Talageri is from India. Therefore, Talageri must be an excellent scholar.) Yes, I would like to believe that "Indian" scholarship is excellent. But if it is, it will not matter if it is "Indian", since it will have value for itself, and not by virtue of being ''from'' somewhere. You earnestly seemed to consider Talageri an example of serious Indian scholarship. But I wouldn't judge summarily from having seen a few sad Internet pages. I am certain that Indians are producing excellent scholarship, I am just afraid that this will be of much less interest to you, because their conclusions will not nearly be as polemical as T's. ] <small>]</small> 00:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:::* {{tq|Viveswaran et al. (2009) has five authors, is published in a scholarly journal, and is cited 99 times. That makes it quite reliable, according to the definition of reliable sources.}}
:::Additionally, the info from this source is also backed by other sources;
::* PNS has been removed;
::* Witzel's views:
:::* {{tq|the subject of a BLP can be quoted on themselves}}
:::* {{tq|Even self-published sources by the article's subject are acceptable, so this one certainly is; see ]}}
:::* {{tq|'the direct quotes currently illustrate Witzel's interpretations of the events through his own words as given by a secondary source, media outlets one step removed from it'}}
:::On a page about Witzel, statements by Witzel, attributed to Witzel, from reliable secondary sources, are perfectly fine to present Witzel's views. Nevertheless, they have been paraphrased, and the quotes themselves have been moved to a note.
:::And I have added explanatory info on the views of the opponents, explaining what kind of impression some texts gave them, and why they wanted them to be changed.] - ] 06:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Hey @] - I don't agree with many of your interpretations of the policies. That said, I do appreciate you finally laying out the discussion topics and addressing some of them.
:::It's very challenging to have a constructive conversation while you're making significant edits to the page. I will leave you with it! Happy editing. ] (]) 14:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)


*Please only use the actual news source and stop using syndicated content. Also the ongoing editing when other editors are objecting is a sign problematic editing. ] (]) 18:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:It is perfectly okay to criticize T. and declare that he can be polemical, but I would say that some writings of Witzel can also be criticized and are clearly polemical. T. himself later also considered his chapters critical of Witzel and others as "unnecessary and superfluous" (Talageri 2001: Chapter 1). I agree that many views of Talageri deserve to be criticized or are open to criticism, but he certainly deserves better than sweeping and polemical criticism à la Witzel. --] 01:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


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


{{yo|Doug Weller|RegentsPark|Vanamonde93|Bishonen}} may I ask the lot of you to keep an eye on this page for the next few weeks, given this thread ], and especially my lates comment ? I think you all me know me well enough to know that I don't do such a mass-appeal for frivolous reasons; you all have seen me editing at India-related pages for many years, and you all know what efforts I put in those pages, and what kind of responses I've recieved once and a while. Regards, ] - ] 04:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
From Pranathi: "Indian scholarship is not qualified to judge any research into Sanskrit and Indology, though they are vastly more familiar with it in quality (a lifetime of focussed learning) and quantity (handful of western scholars vs numerous native sanskrit academies), because their methods are very inferior to the 'critical method' (though the same Indian sanskrit scholars made say advances in calculus 300 years before Europe, or say they came up with the decimal system that changed mathematics in the west forever). "
- All this about calculus and decimal points is irrelevant. In 15th century India there was a widely held belief in the existence of elephant headed gods and various beastly idols. It wasn't more advanced in Europe either, with belief that every sunday Europeans literally ate the flesh and blood of Jesus. But today, no respectable scientist will discuss the core dogmas of Hinduism or Christianity or any religion in scientific terms.
Yet during this "irrational" medieval period, Indian mathematicians still made advancements in calculus, and Europeans still made advancements in physics (i.e. Newton's concepts of gravity, which were not known to any other part of the world besides Europe even if Indians had knowledge of calculus theorems). Nazi Germany (sorry to bring it up, but Nazi Germany is a good thought experiment analogy for the discussion) invented practical rocket flight and invented jet engines before any other nation, but despite their scientific prowess, we agree that Nazi culture and Nazi historiography was fundamentally flawed, biased, and irrational. No matter how great a nation's mathematical or hard science knowledge is, it is still very difficult to critically examine history and social issues without being biased one way or the other due to one's upbringings, inherent prejudices, and cultural biases.
I don't know who is more correct, Witzel or Talageri, but it appears you (Pranathi) are suggesting that the exceptional mathematical genius of Indian mathematicians in 1400 AD automatically translates into universal genius in every field for every Indian in every era. History shows this is not true and every nation will try to read history (and sometimes even science) to benefit and justify their own agendas. The social sciences are far more prone to personal bias than is math, and the achievements of Indian mathematicians do not make imply that Indian historiography is up to par critically, even if it is. Likewise we shouldn't blindly consider any western treatment of the subject to be automatically "critical" but your assumptions about exceptional Indian scholarship is far too hasty and based on poor logic. Jan. 3 2006 12:40 EST 66.213.109.25


:@ ]Will try. ] ] 07:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:The Indian mathematicians of the day were sanskrit scholars - Dab was talking of western scholarship (on the whole, not just in hinduism) and it's 'critical method' being superior to Indian which he said simply parrots older work. My assumptions of exceptional Indian sanskrit scholarship is not based on math (which I was only argueing to Dab's points) but are based on again - quality (rigour of study of language and texts) and quantity (# of traditional and non-trad sanskrit academies in India vs few learned people outside). Hinduism has rejuvented itself over the ages, opened itself to self-criticism, changes and innovation more than any other - and it's scholars are accused of parroting predecessors without question? I'm surprised you did not have anything to say about dab's insiniuations covering the 'entire' Indian scholarship but had much to say on my defense of it. I do not claim to know who is better either, Witzel or Talageri (my perception is that Talageri is not a sanskrit 'scholar' even, but his topics do not involve the language but content in rigveda) - but I would like to present both sides without POV . And in the process, if people run down Indian sanskrit scholarship with high and mighty statements - without even engaging them (most that don't know english) then I think I am not wrong in my defense. If any western treatment of the Hindu & sanskrit history claims to be critical it should pass the quality assurance test of native scholarship - not acceptability (as you say, assuming 'native bias') but the accuracy test.

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

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

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

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

:Reading this debate and the points Pranathi brings up I think ihe intimately personal religious convictions of native sanskrit scholars is less a "understanding" than a serious burden on the critical rigor of their research. Even in the west, religio-historical traditions held by the monotheist religions to be true for millenia have only been dispelled by modern "critical" scholarship, the process of which is not constantly mindful of fitting results with pre-conceived articles of faith. As religious faith has declined in Europe, European history has been more elucidated; the best work done on religious history/mythology in Europe tends to be done by "outsiders" and not those who are personally connected with the religious tradition in question. The lifetime familiarty and unmatched volume of native Indian research into ancient Indian history is definitely not a guarantor of "rigor," if their lifetime of erudition contaminates research inclinations, resulting in their findings to justify their personal mysticism, theological preconceptions, and simple personal pride. That Indians should be more pious today than 500 years ago suggests that Indian historical scholarship would be biased, and would be more keen to play into the religious expectations of the average Hindu reader. The 19th c. Raj administration's "orthodox" history of India likely promoted a Eurocentric bias to serve the Victorians' racial/cultural prejudices and governance needs for India, but there can be an element of truth beneath the "western" view of the matter, and a native Hindu-centric religious/nationalist bias is not an entirely attractive alternative. These are just somethings to think about and not related to the Witzel article itself, and is just commentary on the unfounded zeal of the "Hindu viewpoint" crusades found on Misplaced Pages (including several inaccuracies in Indian astronomers pages that I have corrected). Personally I am in favor of the theory of Indo-European origin in north INdia but even Talageri's books go over the top, such as seriously claiming that Aztec language was influenced by Sanskrit. There is definitely a national pride agenda underneath all of this, and it undermines otherwise good science. 129.22.46.197 1.23.2006
===Arbitrary branding of published books===
"''Reputable sources, i.e. peer reviewed ones. None of the links above qualifies as such. Just because something has an URL doesn't make it a "source". I can put up a geocities page with a giant title "Witzel is stupid" in blinking pink letters. That doesn't make it a "source''"&ndash; So you are arbitrarily rejecting a whole bunch of critical books as being "un- reputable"?
Also, "''well, western scholarship is indebted to the ], not to a lineage of gurus. This implies the principle of ]. We are indebted to Oldenberg for foundational insights, but we know more than him. No westerner worth his salt will defend a statement based on '']'' alone.''"&ndash; If this in't racist and prejudiced, I don't know what is! If you believe that the Indian scholarship is not capable of and/or western scholarship is indeed alone capable of this "critical method", I don't see why you should even edit the Indian articles, because you will be continuing to do so under such heavy-weight bias!
I can understand your opposition to nationalism (I am also with you on that) but your systematic branding of Hindus who oppose your theories as "nationalists" and the heavy-handed criticism of the ancient Guru tradition of Eastern tradition goes beyond the understandable to the bizarre.--]] 14:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

::CRsorry to say, but Western scholars are not the authorities on Hinduism. If you look at Hinduism it is logical anyways. Hinduism is scientific, Western Scholarship is specualtive. I think Indian scholars (usually scientists) have more peer review than Western scholars (who speculate - linguists, historians, etc.) ] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 04:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Staying on the subject ==

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

This article has also had POV adjectives and personal attacks in it. I have removed them, and I will do so again if it becomes necessary. Those tempted to restore them are advised to review ]. Those who persist in personal attacks or inappropriate postings will be formally warned, which is the first step in the disciplinary process that can result rogue editors being banned. Please help keep Misplaced Pages a credible impartial encyclopedia and ] a soapbox. --] ] 05:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==textbook thingy==
ok, so now the controversy has hit the news, it can have its own article, where media coverage can be discussed with ''sourced'' statements. . ] <small>]</small> 16:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

== Remove Neutrality Tag? ==

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

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

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

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

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

=== Fairness and sympathetic tone ===

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

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

=== How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues? ===

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

===What should be linked to===
# On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view.
:::The article has currently three external links in the External links section. All three external links point to Michael Witzel pages. The third link claims to be for "pro and contra" pages, but is Michael Witzel's own page and basically gives only one side of the debate and does not link to all sides of the debate. There should be at least two critical links that are not Michael Witzel's own pages. (The body of the article has 18 external links, with only one being a critical site.)
# Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of an article. Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. See ]. ] --] 18:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

== Proponents of Aryan invasion theory are not Xtian fundamentalists ==

I rewrote the contentious sections and removed all the references to Christian fundamentalists, missionaries, etc. I don't know what religion Witzel professes, if any, but I see no evidence that his writing is fundamentalist in any way. I believe that there is evidence for some Aryan migration, and I'm a Buddhist. ] 02:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
:Most of the preponents of AIT are '''white supremacists''' actually, but yes, xian-fundoos is misleading here.] 02:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Most supporters of the Aryan invasion theory ''were'' a little "white supremacist". The AIT theory was a part of 19th century scholarship that is long gone. What scholars hold to nowadays is the ''Indo-Aryan migration theory'', which is investigated by scholars of all races, colours, and creeds. Are you going to tell, say, an African linguist studying the spread of Indo-European dialects that he's a white supremacist? ] 03:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
::Nein mein freund. California textbooks (another cock-up from Herr Witzel in a sep article) clearly says that Aryans 'invaded', not 'migrated'. AIT is believed by Witzel and other such W.N. people in the "Great White Aryan (ridiculous) North", as they call it. Name me an African linguist who specialises in these matter who subscribes to AIT (not white Africans btw).] 03:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
:CRculver, most Indian historians are scientists, and dont subscribe to speculative garbage meant to promote an agenda like AIT.] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

==Latest attack from Herr Witzel==
:This article is not dated so I'm suspicious as to whether this little screed of his is before or after Talageri's rebuttal. Please clarify. Thanks.] 02:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

: It took a bit of research, but I think I supplied a reasonable chronology. ] 03:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
::OK, good. has Talageri refuted any of Herr Witzel's *ahem* "research" (using the term 'research' loosely here 'course) ?] 03:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

: Please do not make ad hominem attacks ("Herr Witzel", "screed") on the Talk page. Our work as editors should be dispassionate. ] 03:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

:Witzel is German. Why is "Herr Witzel" an attack? Screed (from Websters) is defined as a long tirade on any subject. Most academics engage in childish tirades, that's why they are in academics (including me). Herr Witzel is no different. Now, if I called him a "Kraut", THAT would be an attack, but I didn't, did I?] 03:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Netaji, you restored your preferred version and removed all the chronology that I researched. You also reinstated the claim that Dalits are Christians. This is silly. Most Dalits are Hindus; some have converted, to Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam. You seem to be claiming that one particular organization that supported Witzel's campaign is Christian-supported, therefore all Dalits are Christians. You don't believe that, do you? Surely a Dalit can argue against caste discrimination and remain a Hindu. And yes, calling someone "Herr Witzel" is an attack. I also perceive it as an attempt to slur the man. ] 03:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
::My dear Madam: The chronology deletion was a mistake, sorry. However, the organizatin that attacked Hindus in calif was one of Dalit Christians, so it should be mentioned. I will qualify accordingly. Oh, and Dalits are not Hindus.] 03:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

: Untouchables aren't Hindus? That's an interesting hypothesis. The rest of the world believes that they are. ] 03:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
::They don't.] 03:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that if any Dalits believe themselves to be Hindu, that they're mistaken? Do you have the authority to expel them? ] 04:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
:A dalit who regards himself as a Hindu is not a Dalit, he is a Hindu.] 05:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

::Hey folks why is "Herr Witzel" an attack? Is "Herr" a slur? Since which century? "Herr" is an honorific among the ol' Germans, is it not?] 06:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

::: In the forms of English spoken by most contributors to Misplaced Pages, the use of "herr" when describing a German (or anyone else) is understood as calling that person a fascist. Nearly everyone here perceives it as a personal attack, and I ask that you cease making such attacks, and instead maintain the decorum and dispassionate approach to the article's subject that Misplaced Pages depends on. ] 06:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Really? This is news to me, and I've been speaking English quite fluently since I was a little boy. The title "Herr" is widely used by Germans today also, and last time I checked, "Herr" is correlated to fascism only in the minds of people who watch too many Hollywood movies. If you think that "Herr" is an insult, then ask a neutral third party (I like this ] guy, he's pretty neutral on most issues) to make the determination. Until you do, I will continue to address him by his full Teutonic title(s) "Herr Doktor M. von Witzel".] 07:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::By the way, why did you address CRCulver in German ("Nein mein freund"). Do you think he is German? So the <b>real</b> reason you are using German is to hint at something else - a supposedly 'fascist' idiology, I presume? ] 20:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
:::: Considering that he lives and works in the United States and lectures in English, your use of "herr" continues to be inappropriate and, as I mentioned, would be construed by most English speakers as pejorative. If you do not stop this, as well as making bitter accusations at the man here on this page, I will have no choice but to request arbitration. I've edited articles on bloodthirsty dictators where contributors were capable of editing dispassionately and level-headed, why you can't do the same on an article about a simple historian and historical linguist is beyond me. ] 07:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

== Over-emphasis of Christian Dalit organization ==

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


Netaji, if you can come up with an article specifically accusing Witzel of being a Christian fundie, we can link to it. You can't put that material in the article as if it were widely-accepted fact. ] 04:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
::Witzel is not a Bible Thumper per se. He is an anti-Hindu bigot, though. Can't stand the fact that we're among the most well-represented ethnic minority in the US I guess. Probably gets his goat that niggers like us do better than him. Plus, the spanking he got from Talageri probably didn;t help either...] 06:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
::just finding an "article accusing Witzel" is not enough. There are foaming diatribes out there on fundamentalist sites. Anybody can post anything to the internet. Accusations become linkable if they appear in reputable media outlets, or are raised by people who are themselves notable. We can't have trolls stating "he's an anti-Hindu bigot" in the indicative voice, even here on talk: Misplaced Pages is not a hate forum, and we cannot allow libel especially of living people. Any more of this, and I will roll back the talkpage and block the trolling accounts. ] <small>]</small> 06:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
::So Talageri is not notable, is he? No dogs and Indians allowed on wikipedia, eh?] 06:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

::Agree with Dbachman that arbit blogs from nobodies shouldn't be linked. But Vamadeva Shastri and Shrikant Talageri are hardly 'nobodies'. Plus, if Herr Witzel said that Hindus in North America should not be allowed to cremate their dead, and that they are racially inferior, then what is he other than a bigot?] 06:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latest revision as of 18:29, 6 September 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Witzel article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Science and Academia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
Note icon
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
WikiProject iconGermany Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIndia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Accusations of racism

Witzel has frequently been accused of racism, based on both his published works and comments made in public. Tok Thompson notes:

"Finally, the startling claim that the book proves the existence of two races, going against all other scholarly data, would have profound implications for global society as a whole, yet these implications are never discussed by the author. Instead, in his conclusion he claims that the reason Abrahamic religions have made inroads into the global south in recent times is simply because Laurasian myth is "better" and "more complete" than any ever formulated by the Gondwana themselves (430), a remarkably naïve view of global political history. To conclude: this book will no doubt prove exciting for the gullible and the racist, yet it is useless—and frustrating—for any serious scholar. This is a work which should never have reached book publication stage: a whole series of scholarly checks and balances—ranging from Harvard's venerable Folklore and Mythology Department, to the editors and reviewers at Oxford University Press—should have been in place to guide the scholarly inquiry, which would have prevented the socially irresponsible publication of such grandiose, brash, and explicitly racist claims based on ill-informed, highly problematic scholarship."

,

Following the Nazi horrors and the American Civil Rights Movement race is now a dirty word. This does not mean that racial prejudices have been eradicated the way polio has been eradicated. Some writers, even academics at supposedly prestigious institutions continue to produce works advancing racist positions behind thinly veiled sophistic arguments while avoiding overtly racist terms. The Origins of World Mythologies is the latest addition to this dubious genre by a singular scholar."

He argues that

"If supported , the notion of the superior white and inferior dark races will be scientifically validated. This is the real agenda of the book, but its ‘science’ is rubbish. it does not even rise to the level of pseudo-science. Mythology is just a camouflage to push this prejudice that is simply not worth spending time over. Except for the terminology, its arguments are indistinguishable from those of Houston Chamberlain, Arthur de Gobineau and other race theorists who provided justification of the Nazi idea of superior Aryan race. But their source was European, more specifically Teutonic German."

Adluri and Bagchee cite Lincoln's opinion:

" "Worse still, when treating the myths of non-literate societies, Witzel consistently ignores the more recent, more reliable, and less prejudicial work of British, American, and French anthropologists, in favor of dated German literature steeped in the Kulturkreis paradigm, which used a mix of racial, cultural, and geographic factors to categorize the world's peoples in ways that naturalized, legitimated, and reinforced the privilege of Europe’s colonial powers" (Lincoln 2015, 444). "Scholars who worked within this paradigm identified with many disciplines (Ethnologie, Anthropologie, Volkskunde, Völkerkunde, Rassenkunde, and Rassenwissenschaft ), but shared a large number of assumptions no longer intellectually or morally tenable. More important than differences in disciplinary orientation distinction between Germans and Austrians, the latter of whom tended to be missionaries and whose racism could be softer (condescension, rather than contempt). Equally important is the difference between works written prior to 1920, whose subtexts justify colonial expansion and domination, and those written after 1930, which were strongly inflected by Nazi ideology. Works of the 1920s either continued the former trend or anticipated the later, and sometimes both. Witzel relies on a great many works written by scholars of this sort, not just for data, but for many important lines of interpretation. Those he cites directly include Adolf Bastian, Hermann Baumann, Fritz Bornemann, Erich Brauer, Ernst Dammann, Otto Dempwolf, Hans Findeisen, Leo Frobenius, Martin Gusinde, Beatrix Heintze, Hermann Hochegger, Adolf Jensen, Karl Jettmar, Walter Lehmann, R. Lehmann-Nitsche, Johannes Maringer, Hans Nevermann, Alois Pache, Heinz Reschke, Hans Schärer, Paul Schebesta, Wilhelm Schmidt, August Schmitz, Carl Leonhard Schultze-Jena, Wilhelm Staudacher, Paul Wirz, and Josef Dominik Wölfel. There is now a large critical literature on scholarship of this sort, including Gothsch (1983); Marx (1988); Fischer (1990); Linimayr (1994); Jacobeit et al. (1994); Hauschild ed. (1995); Streck ed. (2000); and Evans (2010)" (Ibid., 447n4). "Rather incredibly, Witzel cites one testimony of this sort as a confirmatory antecedent of his own position. The passage cited is taken from Baumann (1936, 1), a work written by a learned scholar and committed Nazi, whose research in Africa was meant to justify German colonization of inferior peoples. He is, moreover, one of the authors on whom Witzel relied most heavily, with more than a hundred citations; on his life and work, see Braun (1995)" (Ibid., 448n7)."

In their view,

"Witzel’s case is not an anomaly. It is evidence of the system's "normal" functioning. The Humboldtian research university developed primarily as a means for Germany to accelerate the production of new knowledge (including the new ideas of race, historicism, and nationhood) and to funnel them into the world in a bid for intellectual and cultural parity with the Western powers, England and France. Under this system's auspices, the university professor, previously in the mold of the English gentleman-scholar, was tasked with developing the historical and anthropological research that would affirm German exceptionalism. Enhanced publishing opportunities, with the departmental journal and the dissertation series as their crux, were central to this initiative."

They add:

"Thus, through the German government's efforts, which unthinkingly poured money into Indology, his colleagues' collusion, who initiated him into their publishing networks, and the system’s institutional inertia, which places academic credentials above valid argument, Witzel's problematic views attained a wide circulation and were canonized as "scholarship." As with Schlegel 1819 (the source of the terms arisch and Arier and the thesis that the Germans were originally known as Aryans when they lived in the Orient; see Wiesehöfer 1990), Lassen 1830 (the source of the thesis of a special proximity between the Aryans and the "warlike Germans"), Schlegel 1834 (the source of the biracial theory of Indian origins), and Klapproth 1823 (the source of the term indogermanisch; see Shapiro 1981) toxic ideas that originally emerged in Germany to assure the Germans of their identity (as rational, heroic, and culturally and intellectually superior) entered into the world thanks to a publishing system designed to serve the professoriate."

Witzel has also been a controversial figure at Harvard University:

  • Students have accused him of being a "tyrant"
  • There has also been "friction" between him and other professors in the department, and graduate students have complained that Witzel has "behaved unprofessionally."
  • An online petition accusing Michael Witzel of being an "Aryan supremacist" has asked Harvard University's administration to "terminate" its association with Witzel and "disband" his department.


References

  1. Tok Thompson (2013), , Journal of Folklore Research
  2. ^ N.S. Rajaram (2014), Recycled racism in a new bottle, the pioneer
  3. ^ Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Bagchee, Theses on Indology
  4. "no writer attributed" june 5, 1996), ([https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1996/6/5/former-sanskrit-chair-remains-controversial-pduring/?page=single Former Sanskrit Chair Remains Controversial Students Grumble in Spite of Changes], thecrimson.com
  5. Jonathan A. Lewin (june 7, 1996), Sanskrit Dept. in Disarray, Students, Officials Say, thecrimson.com
  6. Janamejayan, Dr. Subramanian Swamy, (2011), Citizens to End Racism in Academia: Sign and Fwd. petition against Witzel, Harvard U., janamejayaneconomics.wordpress.com

LogicalistAnalyst (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Look, I can appreciate some of what you're saying, but ultimately, this is just too lengthy. Please condense your explanation to address the removal of the sourced material only. Thank you. El_C 03:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The article is written like a self-promotional document at an academic department. It needs to be pruned down and made readable for the general public.
Also, the serious criticism by Bruce Lincoln, Tok Thompson and others needs to be made a part of the story. PhilipSamueli (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Some comments:
WP:CHERRYPICKING and POV-pushing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

N.S. Rajaram is a fringe academic fraud, masquerading as a scholar. His article over here gives significant impressions, in the regard.

Thompson is reliable and accurate but a single source ain’t sufficient for incorporating such a laden word, in light of our BLP policies.

Adluree and Bagchi - WBre Since, we are going by self-published papers, read this by Jürgen Hanneder. ~ Winged Blades 19:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: - WBre? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, weird stuff. WBG 07:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Witzel's mostly self-published

Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Bagchee, authors of The Nay Science (Oxford Univ Press, 2014) allege many of Witzel's publications are actually self-published and recycled works:

"Michael Witzel's CV is perhaps the best example. For the first part of his career, his publications were restricted mainly to German venues interspersed with minor Indian and Nepali and German journals. The dissertation (Witzel 1974) was self-published. The journals included the Journal of the Ganganath Jha Research Institute, Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik, and the Journal of the Nepal Research Centre (the latter, again, controlled and paid for by Germans). The latter offers another example of how German Indologists were reliant on starting their own, mostly short-lived publishing venues: eight volumes appeared intermittently from 1977 to 1988, four volumes between 1993 and 2001, and the journal was then dormant for eight years, until briefly revived—for a single issue—in 2009. Chapters were published in various Festschriften (for Wolfgang Voigt, Paul Thieme, Karl Hoffmann, B. R. Sharma, Wilhelm Rau, J. C. Heesterman) and some Japanese proceedings. The first major publication was Willem Caland's Kleine Schriften (Witzel 1990), but it was paid for by the Glasenapp Stiftung (type 3 in our typology above). The Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies finally started in 1995, thus assuring Witzel of a publishing venue. The term "journal" may be an exaggeration, since "issues" consist of unformatted, unedited mostly one-article pdf files uploaded to the internet. Many articles were published more than once. "How to Enter the Vedic Mind? Strategies in Translating a Brāhmaṇa Text" (Witzel 1996a), first published in Translating, Translations, Translators from India to the West (in the Harvard Oriental Series, whose editorship Witzel assumed in 1990), reappeared as Witzel 2013. "Early Sanskritization" (Witzel 1994), first published in the Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, reappeared in the Journal of the Indological Society of Southern Africa (Witzel 1996b) and in Recht, Staat und Verwaltung im klassischen Indien (Witzel 1997). The latter was not coincidentally edited by Witzel’s "old friend" Bernhard Kölver (Witzel 2014a, 16n44). Two edited volumes (Witzel, ed. 1997, and Osada and Witzel, eds. 2011) followed. Both were published in the Harvard Oriental Series by the Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies and its successor since 2011, the Department of South Asian Studies. Witzel functioned as series editor, illustrating how firmly entrenched the German model of the department as a vehicle for a mandarin professoriate's career interests has become. Witzel's edition of the Kaṭha Āraṇyaka, self-published from "Erlangen-Kathmandu" in 1974, reappeared in Witzel's Harvard Oriental Series in 2004. Once again, it was published by Witzel’s chair, the Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University.". (Source: Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Bagchee, Theses on Indology)

LogicalistAnalyst (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Best example of what? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, right:

Due to the more open and competitive nature of its market, the situation differs somewhat in the United States. There is greater separation between chairs/departments and publishing organs, and publishers are answerable to the reading public’s interests, in contrast with Germany, where the state is both the financial backer of and buyer of last resort for Indological publications. But German publications are translatable into institutional status and, ultimately, a foreign publishing contract. Many German Indologists’ CVs reveal how they progressively built up a dossier of home-grown publications, before securing international positions.

Talking about WP:CHERRYPICKING. The suggestion that Witzel's
Andrew Nicholson, Review of The Nay Science: A History of German Indology by Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Bagchee:

A more serious problem is The Nay Science’s criticism of many of today’s major Indological scholars. In footnotes, the authors fault James L. Fitzgerald and Angelika Malinar in particular for their erroneous application of the “pseudocritical” methods of German Indology to the Mah ābh ārata and the Bhagavad Gītā, respectively. In discussing Hauer, the authors write that “ with all other Indologists, his scholarship was placed entirely in the service of religious, nationalistic, or ethnocentric needs” (p. 277). Sweeping statements such as this appear frequently, but the authors of The Nay Science fail to substantiate these charges with any sustained analysis of the interpretive mistakes of living scholars. As it stands, the evidence presented against contemporary Indological scholarship in this book consists primarily of guilt by association.

Perhaps in the name of a corrective to previous injustices, the authors consistently deny the hermeneutical charity to their German objects of study that they extend to Gandhi and to the authors of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute’s critical edition of the Mah ābh ārata. The latter example is particularly perplexing: the authors of the BORI critical edition self-consciously borrowed and applied the principles of textual criticism pioneered by 19th century Germans in their edition of the Mah ābh ārata. Ethnocentrism, plagiarism, and bias transcend national boundaries, and a more even-handed study would have at least alluded to the ways in which “German Indology” has become a trans-cultural phenomenon that has been applied and transformed by thinkers beyond Europe. What makes certain non-German historical-critical and text-critical scholars praiseworthy, while others are condemned? As valuable as this book is in its critique of scientism in philology, because of the authors’ rhetorical choices, The Nay Science may exacerbate the false idea that there is an impassable gulf between the practice of Indology in continental Europe and the way it is practiced elsewhere, especially in North America. In reality, these boundaries are disintegrating thanks to the increasing interactions of a younger generation of European, North American, South American, and Asian Indologists.

To remind you: Nicholson is the academic author who was ungratefully plagiarized by Malhotra. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Wait, the long passage quoted above is not in Nay Science. Where did it appear, if at all it did? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Theses on Indology, a self-published paper (oh irony). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Please be aware of WP:SOAP and also be aware that we are not going to cover every claim and counterclaim like some sort of academic journal. WP:NOTGUIDE 'this professor said this and that professor said that' is WP:UNDUE on this article. Be advise that WP:BLPRESTORE applies on this article, so people should just start removing what they think is improperly sourced or certainly anything defamatory and we will discuss it here. If you re-add the content without consensus you may get a ban. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I find more than bizzarre when Joshua Jonathan has spent years to safeguard this BLP from repeated attempts of politically-motivated, poorly sourced smear against the subject, only to be associated with (should I say accused of?) maintaining "defamatory" content about the BLP's subject. It's absolutely dismaying. –Austronesier (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Criticism

@Jtbobwaysf:
You changed diff the header "Criticism of "Indigenous Aryans"" into "Discussion of "Indigenous Aryans"," edit-summary

Criticism of "Indigenous Aryans": WP:NOCRIT, we dont need to give unnecessary weight to this in section title.

WP:NOCRIT says "Articles should include significant criticisms of the subject while avoiding undue weight and POV forking"; the header summarizes the topic of the section, namely Witzel's criticism of Indigenous Aryanism, and not criticism aimed at Witzel, so WP:NOCRIT does not apply here. I also don't see why it would be undue to call criticism criticism in a header.

Same for this edit diff, edit-summary

remove this word from WP:LEAD based on WP:NOCRIT. do not re-add without consensus on talk, see WP:BLPRESTORE policy

which removed

A critic of the arguments made by Hindutva writers and sectarian historical revisionism,

from the lead. This is not a criticism directed at Witzel, but a summary of Witzel's stance, as described in the article.

WP:BLPRESTORE says

To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Misplaced Pages's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Burden of proof refers to verifiability; it's quite obvious that Witzel is "a critic of the arguments made by Hindutva writers and sectarian historical revisionism." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You are incorrect, you are required to follow WP:BLPRESTORE. Be cautious of taking these actions, I have already warned you on your talk page and violating BLP policies could result in you getting banned from this article or the entire topic. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
A mere link to WP:BLPRESTORE does not suffice for your statement "you're incorrect"; you'll have to be specific, and answer to my objections. Selectively removing info refefenced to a source while retaining other info referenced to that source is not "good-faith BLP objections," and begs further explanation. Otherwise, it's simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
My understanding is that you are not permitted to restore disputed information to a BLP if we are stating it is a BLP issue (which we are). I have clearly stated it is UNDUE, poorly sourced, and critical. That is more than enough in my understanding. You are engaging in WP:TE by re-adding and I have opened a case at WP:ANI for the edits. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
You restored four edits; I've numbered them for you. Be explicit, and explain per edit why they are "UNDUE, poorly sourced, and critical." mere statements do not suffice; that way you can remove anything you don't like. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Criticism of "Indigenous Aryans"

You changed diff the header "Criticism of "Indigenous Aryans"" into "Discussion of "Indigenous Aryans"," edit-summary

Criticism of "Indigenous Aryans": WP:NOCRIT, we dont need to give unnecessary weight to this in section title.

WP:NOCRIT says "Articles should include significant criticisms of the subject while avoiding undue weight and POV forking"; the header summarizes the topic of the section, namely Witzel's criticism of Indigenous Aryanism, and not criticism aimed at Witzel, so WP:NOCRIT does not apply here. I also don't see why it would be undue to call criticism criticism in a header.
What is "UNDUE, poorly sourced, and critical" about this? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I also disagree with the change as it is based on a clear misapplication WP:NOCRIT, which is about "negative criticism of the article subject", not about notable engangement of the person in criticism or as a critic. We can explicitly call them "critics" and explicitly refer to their observational stance on whatever topic "criticism", as long as this characterization of the person's activity is properly sourced. I don't see that this objection has been raised; instead, I have seen just a mechanical removal/replacement of a word associated with a non-policy essay that talks about a completely different issue.
WP:BLPRESTORE is not a blank cheque for merrily disregarding WP:BRD. It needs substance. –Austronesier (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

"A critic of the arguments"

This edit diff, edit-summary

remove this word from WP:LEAD based on WP:NOCRIT. do not re-add without consensus on talk, see WP:BLPRESTORE policy

removed

A critic of the arguments made by Hindutva writers and sectarian historical revisionism,

from the lead. This is not a criticism directed at Witzel, but a summary of Witzel's stance, as described in the article. What is "UNDUE, poorly sourced, and critical" about this? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Same as above. WP:NOCRIT is incorrectly evoked here. –Austronesier (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Reddif-interview and Pacific News Service

@RealPharmer3:
you removed diff a reference (rediff.com interview) and a statement attributed to Witzel with this reference,

In an interview with rediff India abroad Senior editor Suman Guha Mazumder, Witzel acknowledged that the intentions of the Hindu Education Foundation and Vedic Foundation to correct misrepresentations of Hinduism were good, but the way they went about it was sectarian, narrow, and historically wrong.

with the argument "Interview is not a high quality reliable source in accordance to WP:BLP", but retained other statements from Witzel from the same source; that's inconsequent. WP:BLP says nothing about interviews, but might be considered WP:BLPSELFPUB, which is allowed.

Your next edit diff, edit-summary

removed material that is not a high-quality reliable source (Pacific News Service), as per WP:BLP. The inclusion of material should comply with WP:CRIT

which removed

The HEF campaign was dismissed by critics as "one driven by the sectarian agenda of the Sangh Parivar, a term commonly used to describe the Hindu nationalist triumvirate of India's Bharatiya Janata Party, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad." In a letter to the Board of Education, Vinay Lal, a history professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, wrote:
"As far as I am aware, the Hindu Education Foundation and Vedic Foundation and their supporters do not number among their ranks any academic specialists in Indian history or religion other than Professor Bajpai himself. It is a remarkable fact that, in a state which has perhaps the leading public research university system in the United States, these two foundations could not find a single professor of Indian history or religion within the UC system (with its ten campuses) to support their views. Indeed, it would be no exaggeration to say that they would be hard pressed to find a single scholar at any research university in the United States who would support their views."

References

  1. ^ Swapan, Ashfaque (March 3, 2006). "Compromise Reached on California Textbook Controversy About Hinduism". Pacific News Service. Archived from the original on April 4, 2006.

but retained other text also referenced to this source. I also don't see why the information should be removed. And again, this is not a criticism of Witzel. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

- "Sectarian, narrow, and historically wrong" - Rediff-interview

you removed diff a reference (rediff.com interview) and a statement attributed to Witzel with this reference,

In an interview with rediff India abroad Senior editor Suman Guha Mazumder, Witzel acknowledged that the intentions of the Hindu Education Foundation and Vedic Foundation to correct misrepresentations of Hinduism were good, but the way they went about it was sectarian, narrow, and historically wrong.

with the argument "Interview is not a high quality reliable source in accordance to WP:BLP", but retained other statements from Witzel from the same source; that's inconsequent. WP:BLP says nothing about interviews, but might be considered WP:BLPSELFPUB, which is allowed. What is "UNDUE, poorly sourced, and critical" about this? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The content is sourced to rediff, which is laughable. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
If these are Witzel's own comments then it is acceptable, as the subject oc a BLP can be quoted on themselves. You also haven't explained yet how this undue or WP:CRIT (an essay, by the way), nor why you retained the source for other pieces of info. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
@Slp1: now that you're involved, maybe you can explain, or defend, why some info referenced to the Reditt-interview was removed with an appeal to WP:RS, while other info referenced to the same source was retained? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
I am not involved. I am acting as an administrator since you seem to want to revert to the information you want to include without consensus into a BLP. Slp1 (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
@Slpq: I double-checked; the Reditt-interview is not used as a reference anymore; apologies. But maybe you can give your take on this interview as a sort of self-published source, since this is Witzel himself on his own opinions? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Without pronouncing one way or the other on this particular source or interview, IF a reliable source has conducted the interview (and so can trusted to transcribe and check the person's words completely and correctly), then a quote from an interview might be useable source in an article about that person. However, as a primary source it must be used with extreme caution. There are massive, massive potential problems with cherrypicking quotes that would violate WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. If it is important, then a secondary source will have picked it up, so use that. Slp1 (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Joshua Jonathan - I see a lot of discussion has gone down since going to sleep last night... I'm happy to talk about my thoughts here and elsewhere as I go through the updates. Please help me understand why you feel an interview is an appropriate source to include in a WP:BLP because I don't believe that an interview transcript or a Pacific News Service article is reliable by any means for inclusion of an article like this. It's not sufficient based on my interpretation of the policy.
Additionally, WP:BLPRESTORE states that the burden of proof to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material is on those who wish to bring back material that does not fit the guidelines outlined. This burden refers to WP:Verifiability - Thus, the content being included should come from a reliable source, which it clearly does not. I dont believe it was appropriate to revert edits without any discussion either. diff RealPharmer3 (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@RealPharmer3: thank you for your response. Let's split the topics, as I already did: the Reditt-interview, and the Pacific News Service article; in this thread, we treat the Reditt-source.
The point of high quality sources for BLP is, I think, to protect the subject of a BLP against unjustified attacks. Yet, the quote you removed is an opinion of Witzel himself. Since self-published sources, that is, sources authored by the subject on the subject, are allowed, it seems to me that an interview with Witzel is acceptable. Removing this quote to me looks like WP:CENSOR: removing something you don't like. You may disagree with Witzel's opinions, but that's not a reason to censor them.
Furthermore, the Wiki-article says:

Witzel was accused of being biased against Hinduism, an allegation he denies.

References

  1. Ranganathan, Deepa. "Education — Hindu history ignites brawl over textbooks". sacbee.com. Archived from the original on June 25, 2008.
  2. "Battling the Past". Metroactive.com. Retrieved May 16, 2012.
  3. "Multiculturalism and "American" Religion: The Case of Hindu Indian Americans", Social Forces, Volume 85; Issue 2
The first source, sacbee.com, doesn't look very reliable to me. It actually says:

The Hindu groups termed Witzel a racist with leftist leanings and demanded that Harvard shut down his department.

It also says;

"The proposed edits come out of a very sectarian approach to history," said Witzel, the Harvard professor. "They view all of Hinduism through one narrow lens. ... It's people on the very fringe who want to dispute these points."
"I don't think you could find a single scholar of Indian history in the entire United States who teaches at a research university who would support (the Hindu groups') position," said Vinay Lal, a history professor at UCLA. "Most people on their side are Indian engineers, physicists, chemists, who think their opinion is just as good as those who have spent a lifetime studying these subjects."

I think you have to agree that there is a certain one-sidedness in removing the Reditt-source, while retaining the sacbee.com source, which contains more or less the same info as the Reditt-source ("sectarian") and the Pacific News (a quote by Vinay Lal)(sorry, now I do bring it up here). And, to be honest, it does support the impression of WP:CENSOR. I'm quite sure that that's not your intention, but combined with an edit-warring warning after one revert it does not help to assume good faith, as you may understand. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, RealPharmer3, why is this info "pushing views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV", as you stated here diff? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
I have replaced the quote with another quote from Witzel hinself, backed by a better source. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Regarding "sectarian," see also Bose (2008) p.16:

Th ere are two major problems with the HEF’s and VF’s edits. First, they are not consistent with prevailing scholarship on Indian history. Second, they represent a sectarian perspective aligned with extremist Hindu groups in India such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Vishwa Hindu Pari-shad (VHP), which have been responsible for numerous violations of civil liber-ties and human rights against religious minorities, women, Dalits, and Adivasis. Both the RSS and VHP belong to the militant Hindu conglomerate known as the Sangh Parivar, which champions the transformation of India’s secular democracy into a Hindu nation. At the ideological level, militant Hindu nation-alism, or Hindutva, has evolved into a distinct form of fascism that creates an opposition between “insiders” and “outsiders,” seeking to assert Hindu religious identity in nationalist and culturalist terms.

Witzel clearly is not a lonely voice in his critisms - but that should already be clear from the fact that his letter was signed by 50 scholars. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Dismissal of HEF-campaing - Pacific News Service

Your next edit diff, edit-summary

removed material that is not a high-quality reliable source (Pacific News Service), as per WP:BLP. The inclusion of material should comply with WP:CRIT

which removed

The HEF campaign was dismissed by critics as "one driven by the sectarian agenda of the Sangh Parivar, a term commonly used to describe the Hindu nationalist triumvirate of India's Bharatiya Janata Party, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad." In a letter to the Board of Education, Vinay Lal, a history professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, wrote:
"As far as I am aware, the Hindu Education Foundation and Vedic Foundation and their supporters do not number among their ranks any academic specialists in Indian history or religion other than Professor Bajpai himself. It is a remarkable fact that, in a state which has perhaps the leading public research university system in the United States, these two foundations could not find a single professor of Indian history or religion within the UC system (with its ten campuses) to support their views. Indeed, it would be no exaggeration to say that they would be hard pressed to find a single scholar at any research university in the United States who would support their views."

References

  1. ^ Swapan, Ashfaque (March 3, 2006). "Compromise Reached on California Textbook Controversy About Hinduism". Pacific News Service. Archived from the original on April 4, 2006.

but retained other text also referenced to this source. I also don't see why the information should be removed. And again, this is not a criticism of Witzel. What is "UNDUE, poorly sourced, and critical" about this? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

This so called pacific news is just syndicated content from a website called and india west today. This india today is "developed by https://codeblendlabs.com/" doesnt look even remotely reliable...The other content is sourced to rediff, which is laughable. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
The same quote from Vinay Lal appears at OutlookIndia. So far for WP:RS with regard to point 4; please explain how WP:UNDUE and WP:CRIT applies here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, RealPharmer3, why is this info "pushing views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV", as you stated here diff? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
I have replaced the "sectarian"-quote by another quote, backed by a better source, and replaced the source for Cinay Lal's letter, which has been widely referred to in newspapers, journals and books, with a better source. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
And it appears that Pacific News Service is quite a ceptable; see diff. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Joshua Jonathan - I saw that about Pacific News Service - thank you very much. The editor also mentioned, "Without a doubt, PNS produced opinionated journalism with a strong point of view, but I am unaware that they regularly published falsehoods. Sadly, the economic crisis of 21st century journalism led them to close down in 2017" which seems a bit concerning as well though." Thoughts?
Additionally, I don't feel good about putting quotes by the subject within a section dealing with a heated controversy, as it is currently. The material should be from an independent high-quality secondary source. The direct quotes currently illustrate Witzel's interpretations of the events through his own words not a secondary source, which clearly does not aligned with WP:PRIMARY. Primary sources are generally the best source for its own content - do not put undue weight on its contents. I also believe it is not appropriate to sequentially combine the quotes here if it has not been written that way or produced elsewhere in a high-quality and secondary source independent of the subject (see WP:SYNTH). Nonetheless, quotes do not feel appropriate to me, especially because of the controversy - these should be replaced with information from secondary sources.
Obviously, the controversy stirred up heat on many forums and media outlets that may be independent, reliable, and most importantly one step removed from it. It would be far more beneficial to have information like that included rather than the subjects words. Lastly, I dont have an incredible amount of experience with the controversy or how big it may have been (learned more here as i researched) - but I worry for the subjects safety and well-being if it is indeed serious. He had an opinion on the events that occurred, and I'm sure there is another side of the story as well, but using his quotes about those who disagreed with him to paint the picture as matter of fact not only seems suspicious, but also seems like a safety risk. RealPharmer3 (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
To paraphrase you: 'the direct quotes currently illustrate Witzel's interpretations of the events through his own words as given by a secondary source, media outlets one step removed from it'. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Hey @Joshua Jonathan - That's a good one! Unfortunately, that is not at all what I'm saying - nice try. One step removed would be using the information from the secondary source alone, not the words that came from his own mouth as an analysis of the controversial events that have occurred. The quotes in this context are not necessary here for the reasons i mentioned above, and I don't believe there is a good enough justification for its inclusion in the manner it's being used.
This source also seems to be concerning as Witzel is one of the authors on it diff. Please see WP:BLP. I dont think it is appropriate for inclusion. RealPharmer3 (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Even self-published sources by the article's subject are acceptable, so this one certainly is; see WP:BLPSPS. What you are doing now is questioning the reliability of Witzel himself, just like the HEF and the VF did. As I noticed before: you seem to intend to WP:CENSOR Witzel's opinions, of all things on the page dedicated to him. The subject's opinions are relevant on a page on the subject.
But you know what? I get your point, due to that is not at all what I'm saying. You should try to communicate what your real objections are, instead of dwelling so much on the details of policies: 'I find it unnecessarily offensive, shall we paraphrase Witzel's quotes, and do we really need two of them?' Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Hey @Joshua Jonathan - I'd like to urge you to have a discussion that actually addresses the concerns that are being raised instead of trying to label me or casting aspersions. I've already said, I have no problem with positive, negative, or neutral information - but the citations should be coming from high-quality reliable sources as mentioned in WP:BLP
I don't agree with your interpretation of the policies listed at WP:BLP. My issue is not that Witzel is not an expert in his field or somehow not reliable - but the nam is human and he's directly involved in the events that occurred - that does make for heated opinions, whether you'd like to think so or not. I'm urging you to use reliable sources, because that's what the policy outlines - not me. RealPharmer3 (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Viveswaran et al. (2009) has five authors, is published in a scholarly journal, and is cited 99 times. That makes it quite reliable, according to the definition of reliable sources. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Joshua Jonathan - Yes, you are right, if it was any other page, it would be reliable. Not sure i can continue explaining the same thing again and again, for it not to be addressed appropriately or discussed. As an experienced editor, is it all right to utilize a source that Witzel co-authored (as the second author) to support the events that he was directly involved in? Are we going to ignore that @Cullen328 said diff about PNS? Do you think it is a good idea to use Witzel's own quotes to characterize the controversy? RealPharmer3 (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Your queries have already been answered:
  • Visvesvaran et al. (2009):
  • Even self-published sources by the article's subject are acceptable, so this one certainly is; see WP:BLPSPS. What you are doing now is questioning the reliability of Witzel himself, just like the HEF and the VF did.
  • Viveswaran et al. (2009) has five authors, is published in a scholarly journal, and is cited 99 times. That makes it quite reliable, according to the definition of reliable sources.
Additionally, the info from this source is also backed by other sources;
  • PNS has been removed;
  • Witzel's views:
  • the subject of a BLP can be quoted on themselves
  • Even self-published sources by the article's subject are acceptable, so this one certainly is; see WP:BLPSPS
  • 'the direct quotes currently illustrate Witzel's interpretations of the events through his own words as given by a secondary source, media outlets one step removed from it'
On a page about Witzel, statements by Witzel, attributed to Witzel, from reliable secondary sources, are perfectly fine to present Witzel's views. Nevertheless, they have been paraphrased, and the quotes themselves have been moved to a note.
And I have added explanatory info on the views of the opponents, explaining what kind of impression some texts gave them, and why they wanted them to be changed.Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Hey @Joshua Jonathan - I don't agree with many of your interpretations of the policies. That said, I do appreciate you finally laying out the discussion topics and addressing some of them.
It's very challenging to have a constructive conversation while you're making significant edits to the page. I will leave you with it! Happy editing. RealPharmer3 (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep an eye

@Doug Weller, RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, and Bishonen: may I ask the lot of you to keep an eye on this page for the next few weeks, given this thread Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring User:Joshua Jonathan, and especially my lates comment diff? I think you all me know me well enough to know that I don't do such a mass-appeal for frivolous reasons; you all have seen me editing at India-related pages for many years, and you all know what efforts I put in those pages, and what kind of responses I've recieved once and a while. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@ ]Will try. Doug Weller talk 07:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Categories: