Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:04, 13 August 2006

Biography Unassessed

This 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Question about Shrikant Talageri and Aryan Invasion Theory

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

Links

Two users, 69.110.152.89 (talk · contribs) and Witzel (talk · contribs), are removing (critical) links from this article. I kindly ask them to read WP:NPOV and to stop removing them. I've also removed the following link from the page, it doesn't belong here . --Machaon 18:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Witzel, Please explain why you have removed the criticism section and the associated link. I will reinsert if I don't hear back. --Pranathi 19:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

your statement was general and unreferenced. If you refer to some specific dispute (such as Talageri), you may have a point. But just stating "He is criticized" is not encyclopedic. He is criticized for criticizing Hindutva.... by Hindutva people. Big surprise. Note that we have Aryan Invasion Theory for the debunking of 19th century colonialist views and its political importance in India today. As such, it treats a socio-political topic. Otoh, we have Indo-Aryan migration, for discussion of contemporary academic opinion on actual migrations of the early Bronze Age. Needless to say, MEJ Witzel is involved in the latter, not the former (except for when the former threatens to spill over to the latter), and is afaik well within academic mainstream. He is special, maybe, in even condescending to discuss fringy theses. His views of Vedic dialectology have been criticized for being over-confident. Feel free to discuss actual criticsm along these lines, if you think you are capable of doing so. dab (ᛏ) 21:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

To say he is criticized for criticizing Hindutva is a bit too simplistic, some of his critics have voiced relevant criticisms like his mistranlation of a verse of the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra. --Machaon 01:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

well, his critics are nationalist. I don't think this is disputed. I have no idea what Marxism has to do with anything here. This is not about Indian politics, it is about an Indologist doing Indology regardless of Indian politics. The Injunctive bit is laughable, it is well known Panini doesn't discuss it, I hardly think Witzel can claim that as his own discovery. So if somebody comes up with an argument supporting the contrary, that is not a point made against Witzel in particular. I agree that the "flamewar" external links are less than notable. dab (ᛏ) 22:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

If the 'flamwar' links are less than notable, how did you find them suitable to add yourself in Rigveda, where they originated? --Pranathi 00:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

how about the content

Michael Witzel is criticized for his allegedly errored scholarship and squelching voices critical of his theory with ad hominem attacks about their nationalistic nature.

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

Witzel's contention is that he is an academic and his critics are nationalist, therefore his theory is correct seeing that it is unbiased - you are just repeating his contention. His critics argue against it saying that his logic is flawed. When you attack the reasons for critcism instead of the criticism itself - you are hiding behind the critics' reputation or worse, a bad reputation that you helped create. You may hold Witzel up as a great personality (let me know if I am assuming too much) but his critics should also be allowed to speak in 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.

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

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

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

So here's my suggestion for you:

Witzel has been in dispute with Shrikant G. Talageri over the latter's 2000 The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis.

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

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

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

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

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

User 69.110.152.89 (talk · contribs) just removed the criticisms and links again, as far as I can see there is no consensus to remove those on this page so I reverted them. VegaDark 23:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Review of links

Let us review these critical links then. If you can cite criticism in reputable journals, that's fine, but we won't link to every troll on the internet.

• This guy must be joking. hán has been interpreted as 3rd singular injunctive for at least two centuries. Indra the dragon slayer is a central theme of the Rigveda. This has nothing to do with Witzel at all. Witzel was pointing out the obvious, not his own views in particular, and this author does nothing but show his own ignorance. This author is aware of Panini, but unaware of the Injunctive (which is general knowledge among Rigvedic scholars, and not Witzel's idea at all), which really goes to illustrate Witzel's point that Panini is unaware of the Injunctive. This article is a joke if you have some background knowledge, and just empty drivel if you don't. dab (ᛏ) 10:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• -- these are below comment.

dab (ᛏ) 10:17, 27 December 2005 (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.

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

"who are these mysterious scholars"? I am glad for your question: They include, notably, Hermann Oldenberg, who wrote 120 years ago. It doesn't matter where a scholar is born. It does matter if he has political preconceptions (which you seem to admit these critics do), and it matters even more if they are aware of Oldenberg. If you ignore Oldenberg, you are having a 19th century argument. Something, for some reason, these Hindutva scohlars seem to delight in, what with denouncing British colonialists for imperialistic views etc. Hello? This is 2005, not 1870. We quote sources, on 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". dab (ᛏ) 08:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I have added to my comment a bit above (edit conflict).

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

well, western scholarship is indebted to the critical method, not to a lineage of gurus. This implies the principle of standing on the shoulders of giants. We are indebted to Oldenberg for foundational insights, but we know more than him. No westerner worth his salt will defend a statement based on ipse dixit alone. This is a clash of mentalities; traditional Indian scholars take for granted that people repeat statements by Oldenberg, Bohtlingck, Muller, Monier-Williams etc. out of respect or awe, while the simple reason is that much of their views have been corrobated by later scholarship. If Oldenberg was wrong on something, that's out of the window. It is just that you will note that he was wrong surprisingly rarely. Oldenberg didn't come up with the Injunctive, if I remember correctly, we are indebted to Paul Thieme for that. You will never be able to orally preserve a text for three millennia by the critical method alone, for this feat, Indian scholarship is much better suited. And without this ability, Western scholarship would have no material to go on from. So nobody expects traditional Indian scholars to give a shit about western scholarship, they can dismiss it as puerile and be done. But as soon as they pretend to enter an argument within the 'critical method' (such as claims of astronomical evidence in the texts), they will be judged by it.

this is a topic far beyond the scope of this page. You are right that Witzel appears to be active both as a scholar, and in political debates. Both areas may be documented. The sad thing is that Witzel's political opponents attempt to attack him on scholarly turf. This makes them look ridiculous. Frawley is evidently not qualified to criticize Witzel. Let him publish his criticism in an Indological journal first. If Witzel is active in a political debate in the state of California, he is of course open to political criticism, and you are free to refer us to such. Political criticism masquerading as scholarship is not acceptable, and the rant summarliy smearing "Western scholars" as racists, bigots, Ku Klux Klan members or white suprematists is clearly not the sort of link we want. If you can provide a sober account of the schoolbook debate in California, I am sure we can agree to use it as a source. dab (ᛏ) 12:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

So, in summary, you say -

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

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

- ::But, unlike you, I think Indian scholarship does need to give a s about western in the face of the damage that they are doing in isolation - especially because they have wider reach (hello, Harvard). --Pranathi 20:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

From Pranathi: "Indian scholarship is not qualified to judge any research into Sanskrit and Indology, though they are vastly more familiar with it in quality (a lifetime of focussed learning) and quantity (handful of western scholars vs numerous native sanskrit academies), because their methods are very inferior to the 'critical method' (though the same Indian sanskrit scholars made say advances in calculus 300 years before Europe, or say they came up with the decimal system that changed mathematics in the west forever). " - All this about calculus and decimal points is irrelevant. In 15th century India there was a widely held belief in the existence of elephant headed gods and various beastly idols. It wasn't more advanced in Europe either, with belief that every sunday Europeans literally ate the flesh and blood of Jesus. But today, no respectable scientist will discuss the core dogmas of Hinduism or Christianity or any religion in scientific terms.

Yet during this "irrational" medieval period, Indian mathematicians still made advancements in calculus, and Europeans still made advancements in physics (i.e. Newton's concepts of gravity, which were not known to any other part of the world besides Europe even if Indians had knowledge of calculus theorems). Nazi Germany (sorry to bring it up, but Nazi Germany is a good thought experiment analogy for the discussion) invented practical rocket flight and invented jet engines before any other nation, but despite their scientific prowess, we agree that Nazi culture and Nazi historiography was fundamentally flawed, biased, and irrational. No matter how great a nation's mathematical or hard science knowledge is, it is still very difficult to critically examine history and social issues without being biased one way or the other due to one's upbringings, inherent prejudices, and cultural biases.

I don't know who is more correct, Witzel or Talageri, but it appears you (Pranathi) are suggesting that the exceptional mathematical genius of Indian mathematicians in 1400 AD automatically translates into universal genius in every field for every Indian in every era. History shows this is not true and every nation will try to read history (and sometimes even science) to benefit and justify their own agendas. The social sciences are far more prone to personal bias than is math, and the achievements of Indian mathematicians do not make imply that Indian historiography is up to par critically, even if it is. Likewise we shouldn't blindly consider any western treatment of the subject to be automatically "critical" but your assumptions about exceptional Indian scholarship is far too hasty and based on poor logic. Jan. 3 2006 12:40 EST 66.213.109.25

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

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

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

"Btw, The elephant-headed god is revered more today than in 15th century. The point here is that the worship is an external element of the underlying philosophy. Smartas, the denomination that reveres him, believe that God, who is without form and limitless, can be worshiped with physical form to help the limited human intellect visualize & reach a more personal relation with Him. In Hinduism, reaching God is never one step but many steps for people at different spiritual levels. So the Smartas, who believe in advaita, would probably consider meditating on the unmanifest as the higher next step. Then, as now, the elephant headed god is not dogma, in fact there is not much that is dogma in the religion - which explains the diverse philosophies that it encompasses.(Pranathi)"

That's not necessarily true, I have Sikh friends who go back to Punjab and witness violent controversy over itinerant preachers who claim to be the 11th guru, thus directly going against the dogma of the Granth Sahib's perpetual guru status. Now it could be argued that Sikhism was simply Hinduism corrupted by Abrahamaic Islam but many respectable Hindu nationalists do not belittle Sikhism, Hindunationalists I talk to respect Sikhism (like Jainism or Buddhism) as another legitimate manifestation of Indian religion, only they will say that these unique Hindu religions have been alienated from one another because of British policies. Furthermore Sikh history is the history of native resistance to foreign imperialism (namely the Mughals). Clearly dogma is alive and well in genuine Indian religions, apologetics not withstanding.

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

Reading this debate and the points Pranathi brings up I think ihe intimately personal religious convictions of native sanskrit scholars is less a "understanding" than a serious burden on the critical rigor of their research. Even in the west, religio-historical traditions held by the monotheist religions to be true for millenia have only been dispelled by modern "critical" scholarship, the process of which is not constantly mindful of fitting results with pre-conceived articles of faith. As religious faith has declined in Europe, European history has been more elucidated; the best work done on religious history/mythology in Europe tends to be done by "outsiders" and not those who are personally connected with the religious tradition in question. The lifetime familiarty and unmatched volume of native Indian research into ancient Indian history is definitely not a guarantor of "rigor," if their lifetime of erudition contaminates research inclinations, resulting in their findings to justify their personal mysticism, theological preconceptions, and simple personal pride. That Indians should be more pious today than 500 years ago suggests that Indian historical scholarship would be biased, and would be more keen to play into the religious expectations of the average Hindu reader. The 19th c. Raj administration's "orthodox" history of India likely promoted a Eurocentric bias to serve the Victorians' racial/cultural prejudices and governance needs for India, but there can be an element of truth beneath the "western" view of the matter, and a native Hindu-centric religious/nationalist bias is not an entirely attractive alternative. These are just somethings to think about and not related to the Witzel article itself, and is just commentary on the unfounded zeal of the "Hindu viewpoint" crusades found on 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"– So you are arbitrarily rejecting a whole bunch of critical books as being "un- reputable"? Also, "well, western scholarship is indebted to the critical method, not to a lineage of gurus. This implies the principle of standing on the shoulders of giants. We are indebted to Oldenberg for foundational insights, but we know more than him. No westerner worth his salt will defend a statement based on ipse dixit alone."– If this in't racist and prejudiced, I don't know what is! If you believe that the Indian scholarship is not capable of and/or western scholarship is indeed alone capable of this "critical method", I don't see why you should even edit the Indian articles, because you will be continuing to do so under such heavy-weight bias! I can understand your opposition to nationalism (I am also with you on that) but your systematic branding of Hindus who oppose your theories as "nationalists" and the heavy-handed criticism of the ancient Guru tradition of Eastern tradition goes beyond the understandable to the bizarre.--→Talk 14:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

We're talking about OLDEN TIMES. Not NOW. And make the distinction between pandits and gurus. Pandits are priests, they learn vedic rituals, not nuances and subtleties of scripture. maybe at one time they were, but not anymore. There are dozens of gurus in India who are qualified to speak about this and they take the form of college professors with genuine credentials. And what is this about submitting work for review? Nobody did it in Europe at the time that you are assuming. - {{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.) Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Content discussion

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

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

The objection that I have is that it is criticism that has been cleverly turned around to criticize Swaminathan (whom this page is not about nor the criticism is valid). The point is that W is in a position (Harvard prof) that should back up his statements and is not in the position of maybe a schoolboy that can say 'well, that's what my textbooks say'. I will revise the original sentence to accomodate your views. --Pranathi 01:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

yes, the criticism is valid. Swaminathan was out of his element, criticizing Witzel for claims that were not his own. This is not the point to discuss the Vedic Injunctive, but people who are not familiar with Vedic grammar will not realize how ridiculous this criticism is. Pranathi, are you familiar with Vedic grammar, and with the Injunctive in particular? The whole discussion is entirely beside the point, and I am afraid you are trying to use it for empty point-scoring without understanding the matter. dab (ᛏ) 11:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

I daresay there could be a "Politics" section, seeing MW's apparent involvement with California politics. I must say up front that I have no idea about Californian politics, and must take your sources for what they are worth. You still seem to be unable to write that section in an NPOV manner. Please try again, referencing as much as you can, and "writing for the enemy" for NPOV. Also, statements like "Notably, this incident brought into focus academic consensus on the archeological and DNA evidence that repudiates the Indo-Aryan migration theory." are completely pulled out of the air. This is (a) again a statement not related to California politics, but a scholarly matter, and (b) unreferenced and false. It is ridiculous to state that DNA evidence invalidates IA migration. Nobody expects more than a few % of immigrants relative to the native population. My advice therefore, if you want to have a "Politics" section

1. document each assertion about what happened (from sources other than Hindu discussion forums, e.g. Californian newspapers)
2. keep the "Politics" section free from assertions about Bronze Age India
3. If you want to make statements about "scholarly consensus" on Bronze Age India on this or any article, cite academic sources supporting it.

Looking forward to your revised "Politics" section, dab (ᛏ) 07:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

PS, if you want to argue that the textbook controversy is notable beyond MW's involvement, I suggest you create California textbook controversy or similar, where the whole thing may be discussed in context. We will then of course to that article from here, saying that MW is an involved party in this controversy. dab (ᛏ) 16:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

I had very high regard for 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 WP:NPOV encyclopedic facts into worthy articles on those subjects instead of losing sight of the purpose of a biography.

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

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

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

StanZegel deleted critical external links saying "emoving links that belong in another article, not a biography." Some of these links like the Talageri chapter on Witzel focus on Michael Witzel and I see no reason to remove them. I have the impression that new rules are invented for the Witzel article that wouldn't count in other articles like for example N.S. Rajaram, which has links to the Witzel attacks on Rajaram. Instead of inventing new rules for this article, 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? --Machaon 20:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

And why again was the link to the Talageri (2000) chapter on Witzel removed. The whole chapter is a study focusing on Witzel's scholarship (not on his political activities). 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. --Machaon 10:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It is funny when somebody claims that this article is a biography and nobody but the self appointed gatekeepers can edit or delete the contents or links.The whole ideology of 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. . dab (ᛏ) 16:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Remove Neutrality Tag?

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

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

I have restored it because the article as a whole still lacks balance. As can be seen by comments elsewhere on this page, postings critical of her seem to have a short half-life.

I added this tag because the article in its present state is very unbalanced. It reads like a press release from the Sheehan scheduling office. It allows very little criticism, and what critical things are shown are followed by refutations, swinging the balance back to a very lopsided approach. Balance needs to be added to this article, and the discussion above shows that others have tried but have not been successful.

Several npov problems are stated above. Maybe some 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. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view

Fairness and sympathetic tone

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

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

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

The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that most of us are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each others' perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented. When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit 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.Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view

What should be linked to

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

The article has currently three external links in the External links section. All three external links point to Michael Witzel pages. The third link claims to be for "pro and contra" pages, but is Michael Witzel's own page and basically gives only one side of the debate and does not link to all sides of the debate. There should be at least two critical links that are not Michael Witzel's own pages. (The body of the article has 18 external links, with only one being a critical site.)

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

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

Injunctive

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

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

Talageri, again

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

After I posted this, someone - I think Subhash Bose - directed us to the Talageri article, which states that his accusations are contained in chapter 9 of the book. The book is linked online. I went to the link and read Chapter 9, which I urge people to do. I saw the part where he said that Witzel had clearly not read his previous book before criticising it, and thought that it would bring much needed clarity to the discussion by stating how he came to that conclusion. Thus I included it in the article. I think it may be persuasive for some. However, to have my careful edit reverted with the comment "that was blatantly POV and false" or whatever is a bit much. I've included the link to the Talageri chapter. Hornplease 05:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Look dude. You have not tried to present an unbiased perspective on the issue. You have essentially dismissed Talageri's argument altogether with veiled POV. I have kept your statements, but qualified them properly and with quotes from the book itself to explain Talageri's reasoning better. If that Witzel bloke can't spell his name right (not once, but EVERY TIME), or state the title correctly, somethin's fishy in Denmark here. I am a physicist, and I always cite correctly and consistently in all of my papers, and follow the spelling of the names of the authors according to their own publications. This is true for all academics of my acquaintance. These so-called 'Indologists' clearly engage in a lot of shady/shoddy scholarshipNetaji 08:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Proponents of Aryan invasion theory are not Xtian fundamentalists

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

Most of the preponents of AIT are white supremacists actually, but yes, xian-fundoos is misleading here.Netaji 02:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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).Netaji 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.Bakaman _Bakatalk 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.Netaji 02:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It took a bit of research, but I think I supplied a reasonable chronology. Zora 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) ?Netaji 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. CRCulver 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?Netaji 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. Zora 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.Netaji 03:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

They don't.Netaji 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? Zora 04:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A dalit who regards himself as a Hindu is not a Dalit, he is a Hindu.Netaji 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?Netaji 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. CRCulver 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 Blnguyen 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".Netaji 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 real reason you are using German is to hint at something else - a supposedly 'fascist' idiology, I presume? 212.199.22.37 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. CRCulver 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?Netaji 05:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So most Indian Americans are disgusted that Hindus wanted to change the texts that compared Hindus to monkeys, is it? Wow, talk about the quintessential self-loathing Hindu! Must be more of the buggers than I thought, eh?Netaji 06:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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...Netaji 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. dab (ᛏ) 06:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So Talageri is not notable, is he? No dogs and Indians allowed on wikipedia, eh?Netaji 06:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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?Netaji 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!--D-Boy 07:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

This stinks of anti-hindu christian rhetoric. - Varun 71.245.160.178 22:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Farmer is not a major scholar

The article I referenced clearly states that Steve Farmer is a fringe element. Ol' Herr Witzel is the one major scholar who touts the view (big surprise coming from someone like Herr Witzel) that Indus valley people were uncivilized. Therefore, the majority consensus is still that it's a script. Provide proof that more than 2 mainstream scholars say otherwise, or I'll revert after 24 hrs.Netaji 06:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

From TFA:

"Now academic outsider Steve Farmer"

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

Saying that it isn't a script is not the same thing as saying that the Indus Valley civilization wasn't a "civilization," whatever that means. It was a large complex society, that seems to have done some things, like sanitation, better than they're done today. Script or not has nothing to do with the status of those prehistoric folks. Nor is it clear why it should matter so much. People rummaging the past for something about which to be proud show that they don't think much of their present status or achievements. Myself, I think contemporary Indian art (dance, music, movies, literature) outweighs any prehistoric ruins. Be proud of A.R. Rahman and Vikram Seth if you're going to be proud of anything. Zora 09:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A.R. Rehman......ewwww. The only contemporary Indian art of worth are small movies like Shwaas (the blind kid) and Iqbal and etc (Movies with themes). The Bollywood stuff are rip-offs of Western Movies spoken in Hindi. We look to the past for inspiration (and respite from crappy Bollywood movies).Bakaman%% 00:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP

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

Concerning the Indus script and other points of scholarly debate, this isn't the Indus script article. Suffice it to say that MW thinks it isn't a script, while other entertain the possibility. Such difference of opinion is perfectly normal and no reason for a hateful feud. We can easily say that Talageri and Frawley harshly criticize Witzel, for whatever that may be worth, but weasling like "many scholars" should be avoided (Frawley is not so much a 'scholar' as a religious figure, and serious scholars would shun association with such a politically motivated witchhunt even if factually disagreeing with Witzel on certain points. academic disputes do not equal online smearing campaigns). Since there is an ongoing smearing campaign, I insist that the BLP guidelines are followed with the utmost care. dab (ᛏ) 12:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

For all I care, you guys can worship Witzel as the irrefutable prophet of Indology, but I sincerely request all involved to stop making ad hominem attacks on Hindu authors or publishing houses. You are welcome to disagree with them, but wikipedia allows even "extreme minority" views. So all critics can be treated for what they are and specifially, mention can be made of allegations of "smear campaign" in the article. Note these are only allegations and not facts. Thanks. --→Talk 14:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

of course. even "extreme minority" views may be mentioned on Indus script. They may not be cited on this article, however, to create a false impression about mainstream opinion. This is the Witzel article, not the Indus script article. It is sufficient to say that Witzel's opinion on the script is such-and-such, this is not the place to discuss every other opinion advanced. Please, the smear campaign is all over the internet, there is no reason to play naive, some of the stuff I've seen was obviously written by people foaming at the mouth (allusions to the Nazis are popular of course: it's always good to gesture at the Nazis when you have no real case). Witzel may be right or wrong in his opinions, like any other scholar, that's beside the point. But we shall keep this article clear of attempts by his political opponents to single him out as dishonest or incompetent, or to mis-characterize mainstream positions as Witzel's personal opinions. dab (ᛏ) 23:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, some may be on a smear campaign. But there are some people who say 'x and y, therefore Witzel is wrong'. Of course their polemics may be mixed with allegations of Nazi, Racist etc, but couldn't we filter out the irrelevant parts? --→Talk 05:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles