Talk:Wendy Doniger/Archive 6

Waugh

There seems to be some academic criticism of Doniger by Professor Gregory Price Grieve, Ph.D. University of Chicago. see, http://books.google.com/books?id=NleE_GnZ_NgC&pg=PA262&dq=wendy+doniger+criticism&hl=en&ei=k342TKq3NIT58AaMl5CcAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCTge#v=onepage&q=wendy%20doniger%20criticism&f=false , pg. 262 Please See if this is a credible academic criticism.

Raj2004 (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a good find, Raj. I wouldn't call it a criticism, but the authors cite the conflict between Doniger and Malhotra as an example of the inherent dangers of the academic study of religion vis-a-vis religious tradition (I question the extent to which our telecom entrepreneur can claim to authentically represent the Hindu tradition, but whatever). Perhaps stereotypically, the critic of Doniger cited by the authors, Kazanas, shows up on Wikipedia as a proponent of ultra-right-wing, non-reality-based Out-of-India theories, along with Nazi and not- coincidental-Hindutva fellow-traveler Koenraad Elst.[1] I endorse adding a reference to this passage to the article. — goethean ॐ 02:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but the good professor hit the nail on the head by politely noting that a key problem is the tension between any rigorous academic analysis and fragility of our analytic activities and cites Jameson by noting that analytic tools can no longer distinguish distinguish tradition and is drowned in its own subjectivity. "Once we abandon a tradition's general story, we are left to accept whatever our analytic categories dictate. and cut loose from from the traditions this way, there is no longer an authoritative version. So I think the professor basically states a good point: there was always be an inherent tension between academic criticism, which is devoid of ties to a religious tradition, and religion in practice. So if any one wants to add this view, which I think accurately represents the issues without trashing either side, please feel free to add. Raj2004 (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the essay that you are citing is "Dispatches from Memory: Genealogies of Tradition" by Earle H Waugh.[2] The book is co-edited by Grieve. — goethean ॐ 13:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Goethean I am actually referring to 2nd-4th paragraphs of pg. 264 citing Jameson. Raj2004 (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

p264 is not available for preview for me. — goethean ॐ 23:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

sorry again, I meant pg. 263. Raj2004 (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]Well, that would be problematic in my opinion, as the Jameson passage doesn't seem to me to be talking about Doniger directly. The passage quoted from Malhotra refers to "Wendy's children", but that's Malhotra, not Waugh or Grieve. The Jamison passage would be an appropriate source for a more general article on the conflict between Hinduism and academia, but not Doniger's biographical article. p.262 can be used in this article. Feel free to get more opinions on the subject. — goethean ॐ 01:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he cites Jameson generally but then concludes at end of pg. 263: "Once we abandon a tradition's general story, we are left to accept whatever our analytic categories dictate. Cut loose from the traditions this way, there is no longer an authoritative version with which to deal with." This is why academic analysis will always have tension with tradition, which was my point that I stated earlier. Raj2004 (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Professor Waugh cites Doniger as a prime example of the problems and limitations of academic analysis of religious tradition. It may be long but please don't delete the entire section, at [[3]]. He cites Jameson as one scholar who states the problems of academic inquiry. Just because you find it hard to accept that there are legitimate academic criticism of the academic method to religious tradition does not mean that you should delete the entire section. I don't understand why the entire section is deleted. This is the problem with followers of academia such as Goethean. They are as bad as the Maholtra group; they criticize you if you don't bring in academic critics. But if you bring in scholars who are skeptical of the academic method to the religious traditions, they are merely dismiss the insert as "tangential" and as "non-notable,' and "nonsensical." What the left really want like the right is their own point of view. Rational debate is no longer the norm for these guys. Raj2004 (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The material is not appropriate to the subject of this article, which is a biographical article on Wendy Doniger. What light does your passage shed on Doniger's biography? Please follow WP:BRD rather than edit-warring, as you did here. — goethean ॐ 21:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It is you who engaged in edit warring. Professor Waugh's commentary is directly relevant to this article. Yes, my initial paragraph may have been lengthy but Professor Waugh uses Professor Doniger as part of the problem with supposedly neutral interpretations of religious tradition. Without context, he argues that anything goes. His commentary is entirely appropriate for the controversy section as he is an academic and you supposedly respect opinions of academics. However, when it does not suit your agenda, and even if you put in a credible academic source, you find some problems with it. Raj2004 (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that your summary of Waugh is hilariously inaccurate. You take Waugh's discussion of Jameson and write that Waugh is talking about Doniger, which he clearly is not. Please stop damaging the article. — goethean ॐ 00:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not. He cites Doniger as one example of the problem with academia. Please stop reinterpreting Professor Waugh's conclusions.

Raj2004 (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Waugh is quite obviously talking about Doniger in that article. Also following BLP guidelines does not equal writing a fawning autobiography of the person in question.Pectore^talk 05:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Really, who do you think you're kidding? This article spends more space talking about the views of Hindu right-wingers — an extreme minority viewpoint — than it does about Doniger's views or her achievements, an absurdly unbalanced and unacceptable situation. It is only due to my strenuous efforts that I have kept this article from becoming nothing more than pure character defamation, which is what the Hindu right wingers desperately want. But instead of improving the article, you two only want to shovel an obviously inaccurate summary of clearly unrelated garbage into the controversy section. Forget it. — goethean ॐ 12:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If I was so right-wing, why would I gather your input earlier in the discussion? Waugh on pg. 262 cites Doniger as a prime example. Waugh states that "Despite the claims of objectivity, the rise and development of professional interpreters has not guaranteed either accuracy or inter-cultural peace. A key problematic that the academic study of religion currently faces derives from the increasing awareness of the fragility of our analytical activities; these activities apparently attend any intelligent encounter with religious verities. The issue may be brought into focus by the controversy surrounding the work of historian of religion Wendy Doniger." The rest are clearly implied in the rest of the pages. That's why my summary is clearly more accurate than yours. Raj2004 (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop digging this hole. Stick to what the source actually says, rather than what you wish it said. — goethean ॐ 00:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I am not wishing. That was a direct quote.Raj2004 (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, you can keep on asserting the garbage charge of defamation. As an attorney, I know that defamation does not extend to statements of opinion. It only extends to statements of fact that are asserted to be true and malicious. Raj2004 (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

geothean got absolutely slaughtered. In the above.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.108.17 (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC) 

Professor Waugh

I e-mailed Professor Waugh to clarify what he meant by that cited paragraph. Here's what he said, "Religious traditions are not necessarily in conflict with academic analysis as is implied in the second statement; rather the conflict is between academic analysis of the tradition that pays no attention to the tradition's own analytic frameworks but rather applies systems that have no relationship to it, and whose assumptions arise out of quite different perceptions of the human. The notion of scientific neutrality might work in the physical sciences, but there are serious flaws in it when applied in the humanities and social sciences. .....I have doubts about the legitimacy of applying an analytic system so obviously rooted in European sexual-psychological theory willy-nilly to other religious traditions as if it would apply without remainder. As a tool, perhaps. As a creative engagement, sure. But as a robust and accurate treatment of the religious culture..that I can't buy." If you have any objections, he said to e-mail him directly. Raj2004 (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section is Heavily Biased

The criticism section only mentions the criticism of Doniger, while only detailing the response to the criticism. The only statement is a vague third party paraphrase of a statement by Rajiv Malothra, that has no direct criticism of Doniger's writings. The section does not even mention the controversy around the publication of the Encarta article on Hinduism, which was criticized for having a political and social agenda, laced with Doniger's own speculations and critical innuendos, and explaining esoteric practices that are violent and sexual and performed by small numbers of people.

The criticism of critics is also very shallow, talking around the criticism and not addressing anything in particular. There is only a meaningless quote about them being "freelance critics" that are "[claiming] to represent the sentiments of Hindus", and another one about Doniger's popularity. I don't know who is claiming to represent Hindu culture and thought more, and why that matters; an argument about this is frivolous. The only relavence that this would have to a wikipedia article would be the general opinion and perhaps some reaction it may have cited that was of significance. But it is not written in that context, and has the tone of simply dismissing the criticism.

Furthermore, it is clear that the section has an agenda to attack any offense that a Hindu may take from the POV of being a right-wing extremist Hindutva conspiracy, which is equally offensive as what is found offensive by the wikipedians here and those that are cited as defending Doniger. I have found this bias to be systemic throughout wikipedia. When I write something, regardless of what I believe, I show all significant and notable sides to the topic. A Hindu getting upset about something should be regarded with the same weight as any other, if it is significant to the topic. The view should certainly be expressed if the feeling is significant regarding the actual controversy, but when it is the only view that is represented and emphasized so heavily, it is clear that it is biased. The removal of references to actual critiques also shows that (and no, "the section is too long already" is not a good reason). I don't have time currently, but when I get to this, I will rewrite this section to be more balanced. To start, some resources I've found and cited by others: [4][5]

NittyG (talk) 08:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately when I looked at the reliable sources for this some years ago they did not take Hindu accounts seriously and did not describe their objections in detail. Shii (tock) 01:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Censoring Criticism

Aditi Banerjee's opinion in Outlook magazine is a legitimate critique made by referring to Doniger book contents. It was disconcerting to see goethean remove the reference that was part of criticism section, citing it as not reliable. If we apply gothean's censorship standards, book review opinions that is provided in the Reception section would need to go;

Criticism section deals with what has been published about Doniger. Censoring criticism because someone does not like it is totalitarian.

Kshatriyaaz (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Outlook magazine is comparable to Time or Newsweek. Shii (tock) 10:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There is not room in the article to mention every opinion piece written about Doniger. Banerjee is far from the most notable figure to write on Doniger. Thus there is no reason to choose to include this particular piece. — goethean ॐ 14:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a reason to include Outlook magazine piece. It is relevant to the subject. Kshatriyaaz (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There are hundreds of articles that are relevant to the subject. You have not given a compelling reason why this piece needs to be included. — goethean ॐ 18:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Banerjee article in Outlook, despite my general agreement with goethean here that there are numerous articles that are relevant and mentioning all of them would needlessly increase the length of the controversy section, there does seem to be a fairly strong sentiment that the Banerjee article should be included here. However, the recent addition reads more like a rant. I suggest it be rewritten. I'll make some corrections, but I'd be happy to have some collaborative assistance. (Olimproof14 (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for the note. I have removed the section. This article is regularly vandalized by angry Hindu conservatives. Any negative material needs to be well-sourced. — goethean ॐ 01:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it vandalism, it's ordinary POV pushing that needs to be judged on its merits (Invading the Sacred is a response of notable formality, but an ordinary opinion article may be insufficinet) Shii (tock) 04:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh look, I contradict myself from sixteen months ago. I contain multitudes... Shii (tock) 04:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Witzel comment

Oh my God! User:Pectore has found an off-hand comment buried in a long piece by Michael Witzel in which Witzel says something negative about Wendy Doniger! Huzzah! Pectore is now edit warring to have the comment placed in Doniger's biography. First, he has placed it in the controversy section, but he is not writing about a controversy. It is a single comment — taken completely out of context and summarized inaccurately of course — by one scholar about the translation habits of another scholar. It dishonest to pretend that this single comment is important or indicative of the response of scholars to Doniger's work. — goethean ॐ 03:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this quote shouldn't be used in the way that User:Pectore is doing—Witzel's comment is not a global evaluation of Doniger's translation practices, and we have no indication that the comment represents a widely-held opinion of Doniger's work. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I also agree-- something can be said about how Doniger's translation style links to the controversy, and concievably a non-involved person could say it, but that specific quote is out of context. Shii (tock) 03:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)