Talk:Michael Witzel

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."

[According to N.S. Rajaram],

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 [i.e., if Witzel's thesis is 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 [Lincoln could have added: Indologie]), 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

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:

• Tok Thompson (2013), [2], 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?
• N.S. Rajaram (2014), Recycled racism in a new bottle, the pioneer: not WP:RS
• Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Bagchee, Theses on Indology - self-published; not WP:RS
• "no writer attributed" june 5, 1996), (Former Sanskrit Chair Remains Controversial Students Grumble in Spite of Changes, thecrimson.com - The Harvard Crimson, an undergraduate student's newspaper. Any other source available?
• Jonathan A. Lewin (june 7, 1996), Sanskrit Dept. in Disarray, Students, Officials Say, thecrimson.com - idem
• Janamejayan, Dr. Subramanian Swamy, (2011), Citizens to End Racism in Academia: Sign and Fwd. petition against Witzel, Harvard U., janamejayaneconomics.wordpress.com - seriously?

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^Godric 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^converse 07:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Are any of these sources high quality WP:RS? First have to follow WP:BLPSPS which means we are not going to use self published stuff to do WP:PUFFERY nor on the other hand are we going to use it for WP:CRIT. Are any of these allegations of racism actually decent WP:RS? Please note that our BLP policies also apply to talk pages. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2024 (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."[108]. (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 [publications are irrelevant, or lack scholarly status, is misplaced. Ironic, by the way, to use a quote from a self-published paper to create this suggestion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

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 “[as] 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:
[1] 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.

[2] 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 Wikipedia'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)

[1] Criticism of "Indigenous Aryans"

[1] 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)

[2] "A critic of the arguments"

[2] 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:
[3] 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.

[4] 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

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)

[3] - "Sectarian, narrow, and historically wrong" - Rediff-interview

[3] 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 [other] 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

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)

[4] Dismissal of HEF-campaing - Pacific News Service

[4] 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

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 [India West https://web.archive.org/web/20060414051849/http://indiawest.com/ archive] 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)

• 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. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:29, 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 Wikipedia: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)

@[[User:Joshua Jonathan|Joshua Jonathan] ]Will try. Doug Weller talk 07:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)