Talk:Michael E. J. Witzel/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: textbook thingy

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Injunctive

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Talageri, again

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Proponents of Aryan invasion theory are not Xtian fundamentalists 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Farmer is not a major scholar

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. --Babub→Talk 14:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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? --Babub→Talk 05:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:BLP]]

message: My attention has again been drawn to this article and the discussions on this page. 
Real, factually based criticism is fine but a lot has been said here for something that is close to nothing: Talageri's name and book was quoted by me *twice* in my 1995 paper, in 2 footnotes, and merely as a reference (supplied, in fact, by the book editor G. Erdosy). No special, detailed criticism of T. was offered, merely lining him up with others who write in a similar vein.
That this has ticked him off, is understandable as it comes from an amateur historian who claims (in the introduction to his book) that he has solved the Rgveda problem (and much else) for all eternity. But none of this belongs in a biographical article. Other editors may further cut this episode down to size.  Zora has a ready spent a lot of time in figuring out the details but did not have access to the 1995 book. Here, I leave it at referencing the actual facts.
As I said here late last winter: find something REAL to criticize in 35 years of publications and do not come up with anecdotal matters  such as the T. complaint  (based on my *5* words in *2* footnotes dealing with him!) This is ridiculous, but of course motivated by other objectives that can be clearly seen on this page.  
Moderators be aware! 
M.Witzel, 8/23/06
: Prof Witzel, just to let you know, you can generate a timestamped signature automatically by typing four tiles after your comment. Like so: ~~~~ This is the preferred way of going about it. I've corrected a couple of typos above, hope that's okay with you. CRCulver 17:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: to the point, he is right. The Talageri debate thing has no place in a biographical article; if the affair is notable to Talageri's book, do discuss it on the article on Talageri's book. There should not be more than a brief sentence linking to that here. (ᛎ) qɐp 17:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the section doesn't belong. It states that there is a pattern of misstating his name (based on a few typos in a single book) and implies that this was done intentionally to ridicule him. The latter is especially a problem by WP:BIO standards. Antonrojo 03:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talageri debate

message: Witzel, see WP:AB before editing this article. Babub→Talk 02:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Autobiography

message: how are we supposed to assume good faith for this edit, when the very link you post says pretty much the opposite of what you claim? Quite apart that this is not the textbook controversy article,  is about "a crucial affidavit by eminent historian and president of the Indian History Congress, D N Jha"  who according to the Times of India said
:"The technology, crafts and commerce of the Harappans are also not reflected in the Rigveda, nor does it bear testimony to the existence of their planned urban settlements and large structures built of burnt bricks."
:Giving a hint of the Aryan origin debate in India, Jha asked the court not to fall for the "indigenous Aryan" claim since it has led to "demonisation of Muslims and Christians as foreigners and to the near denial of the contributions of non-Hindus to Indian culture".
which is pretty much what the Witzel faction had been saying all along.
dab (ᛏ) 13:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hkelkar

message: Hi - we are having a discussion over at frame tale about the oldest frame tale and Witzel came up as a source, it is mentioned briefly in this article "1986, 1987" - does anyone know which work by Witzel where he talks about the oldest frame tale collections? -- Stbalbach 17:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you need to cite Witzel as a reference that the Mahabharata qualifies as the earliest known frame tale, this is widely known and in no way associated with Witzel in particular. dab (𒁳) 10:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest frame tale? 

message: it is well possible to compile a decent "criticism" section based on academic reviews of Witzel's publications. It is, sadly, painfully obvious that no good faith attempt at this has been made. The "indigenous Aryans" polemics against Witzel can go to the "politics" section if at all notable. If you are so interested in making Witzel look bad, go to a library and dig up some reviews. They are sure to contain some negative points, and you can then gleefully list them here. Just make a little effort and go for academic reviews if you want to portray the criticism as coming from academia. dab (𒁳) 10:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Criticism"

message: I have found the following Wiki page to be helpful in researching how particular web sites are used on Wikipedia: Special:Linksearch.  I use this often when doing linkspam removal.  The tool shows that the Harvard Crimson is cited very frequently.  I mention this not to argue one way or the other for inclusion of it, but to make sure everyone is aware of the link analysis tool.  Buddhipriya 20:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Buddhipriya. That tool shows that the Harvard Crimson is used over 100 times as a reference solely on Biography articles, in addition to another 300+ uses in other articles. ॐ Priyanath  talk 21:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In trying to understand any clear basis for ruling a site in or out, I re-read WP:ILIKEIT#This_number_is_big and noticed the suggestion that "Editors should stick to looking for multiple independent reliable sources."  Did anyone else cover the story, or is the Crimson the only paper that has anything on it.  What ever happened to the suit, by the way? Can a source for that be found? If so, that would be a second source, and an actual legal ruling or published settlement would be more noteworthy. Just a thought. Buddhipriya 05:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding use of web sites as reliable sources 

message: I noticed that an interview with Witzel  has been the subject of back-and-forth reversions.  What would be the basis for not including an interview with him? Buddhipriya 02:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The interview's fine. It's the framing of the statement that's partially problematic, but definitely the other link, which links to a website disallowed by WP:BLP. I don't think the interview's particularly useful, but if someone wants to add it to the external links, they can go ahead. Hornplease 16:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I found the interview worthwhile because it gives Witzel's direct response to the criticism.  I agree that the other web site is not appropriate, but I would suggest adding the interview as a link. However the article does not now have an external link section, and I would avoid adding one because it will be a magnet for attack pieces.  Therefore I think the interview should be worked into the article by referring to it in connection with the fact that he is controversial.  Do you agree with this approach? Buddhipriya 20:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, and I have done so. Hornplease 20:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pornplease's current edit is decent and I can live with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.144.249 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'm overjoyed. Now why don't you get yourself an account? If nothing else, we'd be able to mock your login name in reply.:) Hornplease 20:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  !! world does not revolve according to your rules, my friend. This match was fixed more than 6000 years ago. 6K is more than 2K. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.144.249 (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful if all parties would try to comply with Wikipedia:Civility as part of an effort to reach agreement on controversial material. Buddhipriya 21:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree; but I suspect that an IP that refuses to get an account and is probably someone's sockpuppet is unlikely to value civility greatly. Hornplease 21:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that is possible.  However sometimes leading by example can encourage other editors to remain calm despite provocation. Buddhipriya 21:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about the Witzel interview 

message: I do not think it is clear in the article that David Frawley's criticism that is cited as  is a direct response to Witzel's criticism of Frawley in 
. Can this be made more clear?  Buddhipriya 22:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some rewriting of that section seems certainly in order to bring that out. Hornplease 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Frawley criticism 

message: I believe that the court decision, removed by hornplease, must be included in the article. The source also qualifies WP:BLP. The court acknowledges that professors like Witzel are biased. There is, afterall, a reason that nobody in the mainstream academia criticised the fringe views of Witzel on Indus script.--nids(♂) 13:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The court says nothing of the kind. Hornplease 19:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Court does not directly discusses about the bias of Witzel, but acknowledges that SBE failed to work within the prescribed guidlines of neutrality. It was mainly because of Witzel and friends that HVF had to file the court case. Now that it has gone against him is no reason to not include the courts decision.--nids(♂) 20:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the court doesn't discuss it, we can't include it per WP:OR. Hornplease 20:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It does, and on the talkpage as well, so please edit the above comments or I will do so per policy. Hornplease 23:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have commented out my previous reply because Hornplease thought that it violates WP:BLP, and i didnt want to escalate the situation. Hornplease, getting back to real thing, will RfC be fine for you.nids(♂) 08:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could wait a little and see who else weighs in? I have no objection to any form of dispute resolution, though it's a waste of time on anything this obvious. Hornplease 17:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have asked for a third opinion.nids(♂) 05:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  court decision 

message: I have asked several times why this is relevant for an encyclopaedia bio. Please note it should satisfy wP:BLP, be relevant to his notability, etc, etc. I am holding off on the revert for 12 hours as I am tired of kkm's editwarring, but cannot do so for longer than that because of BLP issues. Hornplease 06:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also tired of your edit warring and reverts w/o reason.  it is relevent because it discusses his standing as a department head and removal thereof.  it is not accusatory and is based on fact from a wp:rs source. Therefore, it stands as it should.  There is nothing in WP:BLP that states that facts about a living person should not be stated! Kkm5848 03:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but BLP indicates that it should be relevant to his notability. This does not seem relevant to his notability,and your argument does not address how it is. He is not notable as a famous department head, but as a Sanskrit professor. I am thus removing it. Hornplease 06:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if he is notable as a Sanskrit professor, you might as well remove most of the things he as done since most of his work has been in areas outside of sanskrit studies Kkm5848 05:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kkm 5848, that's not really true, but even were it so: are you really saying that because Witzel, a professor of Sanskrit, is best known for his work on ancient Indian history and prehistory, that this purported mismatch is so egregious as to dispel the usual requirements of relevance, giving us license to include anything we like in the article? That if a scholar does work outside his field (according to the your apparently very strict criteria,) his bio is henceforth a free-for-all by this very fact?Proabivouac 19:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crimson article