Talk:Wendy Doniger

NPOV tag

This article is not neutral. It contains more criticism than actual biographical details about Doniger. — goethean ॐ 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

it's the usual attempt to present the religious nationalist hatemongery as "scholarship". The article as it stands is a BLP nightmare and needs to be fixed badly. Criticism that is actually notable and based on scholarly argument needs to be separated from the egg-throwing nationalist mob. The egg-throwing may be notable in its own right, but the article almost manages to suppose that throwing eggs at people is an act of scholarly criticism. --dab (𒁳) 14:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There's also the usual attempt to present the real scholarship as hindutva hatemongery. Sharma, De Nicolas, Witzel, and the Encarta dispute are clearly in the 'scholarship' category, but editors keep trying to paint them as hate-filled hindutvas. Even Witzel was demonized by Doniger's acolytes for not rushing to her defense, but instead exposing her 'scholarship'. The criticism section should be half as long, and focus on the scholarship, imo. Priyanath ^talk 01:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Name

Is her name "Wendy Doniger" or "Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty"? Shreevatsa (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violations and use of Self published sources

This article has copyright violations, and uses Doniger's CV, a self-published source, clearly not acceptable since it fails WP:RS. It looks like that 90% of the article is built on her CV!

The Works section has text plagiarized from Publications . Also wikipedia is not indiscriminate collection of information, the works in-progress and other translations ( few in progress! ) are WP:UNDUE

The Biography section also has content plagiarized from Divinity School Faculty page - "Wendy Doniger's research and teaching interests revolve around two basic areas, Hinduism and mythology. Her courses in mythology address themes in cross-cultural expanses, such as death, dreams, evil, horses, sex, and women; her courses in Hinduism cover a broad spectrum that, in addition to mythology, considers literature, law, gender, and psychology."

Moreover, the "Biography" section has some unencyclopedic material, attributed to her CV, but not present there , for ex : "As a professor she has mentored over 60 students through their PhDs and now has many (doctoral) grandchildren and great-grandchildren."

Even the section "Book Reviews" ( all pertaining to the The Hindus ) has extensive quotes and has copy vio., moreover, this uses non-RS, like "Harvard Bookstore, On Our Shelves: http://209.50.238.122/onourshelves/title.php?isbn=1594202052 ", note this is site does not even have a proper domain name!and some wordpress links : http://acharyavidyasagar.wordpress.com

Needs massive cleanup. I will be removing the plagiarized content. Rgrds, Spdiffy (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have most of plagiarized content, also , Wikipedia is not "A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."; Add only notable information. Spdiffy (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your cleanup. However, the article is now unbalanced and not neutral. The article gives the impression that Doniger is controversial or a renegade, when in fact the mainstream view is that she is a distinguished author and university professor who has been demonized by the Hindu right-wing. — goethean ॐ 14:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Most racist article on wikipedia I have ever seen

I must object to this whitewashing of the blatant racism and orientalism in Doniger's works. She essentially claims that Hinduism does not exist, which paves the way for the derecognition of and racial discrimination against Indian minorities in western countries. Furthermore, the pro-Doniger editors are deliberately misrepresenting reviews of Doniger's work to present an article that legitimizes racism against Indians. For instance, review is misrepresented to say that Hindus are stupid and don't know their own religion, whereas the review says that "Doniger knows more than her critics". This kind of misrepresentation is the most appalling example of vicious and revisionist racist diatribe I have ever seen on wikipedia.Moral student (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You actually had a good point in the midst of all that self-victimizing blather. I have corrected the oversight. Thanks for the observation. — goethean ॐ 18:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)