Talk:David Frawley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

	This article is part of the Astrology WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the astrological content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Unsourced criticism 2 Looking for references regarding this subject 3 Editorial by Witzel on Frawley 4 Nussbaum quote 5 BLP

[edit] Unsourced criticism

I removed the unsourced criticism, because criticism needs to be sourced (and it was also pov). --Rayfield 17:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Answer to the above:

Don't you think it would be reasonable to add some criticism? The article looks like a hymn to Dr. Frawley, as if it were written by himself. As I am not much acquainted with the Wiki system, I don't really get how to "source" something - at first glance the article on Frawley is also not sourced.

Anyway, as I am doing my thesis on the Rigveda and therefore (believe myself to) have at least some ability of judging the discussions (also involving Michael Witzel) - Dr. Frawley having an important part in them - I would appreciate it if someone could help to "source" the criticism, or explain to me how "sourcing" is done. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.221.87.219 (talk • contribs)

Negative information about living persons must always be sourced. To see how, read WP:REF. For neutrality issues, read WP:NPOV. --Rayfield 17:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

um, any information, on people both living or dead, must be sourced. At present, the introduction is a fawning eulogy. The article gives no source whatsoever. It won't do to just drop what you don't like and keep what you like. Care to source any of the extolling praise, or shall we remove that as unsourced too? In fact, the criticism was attributed, to Witzel. To whom shall we attribute the claim that Frawley's presentation is "lucid" and "recognized by the tradition"? dab (ᛏ) 13:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just following official Wikipedia policy, by which:

Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criteria A6).

Jimmy Wales has said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [1]

I removed the criticism because it was unsourced. --Rayfield 17:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for references regarding this subject

I am trying to locate references to David Frawley in books published by academic publishing houses (e.g, Oxford University Press, Harvard University Press, etc.) Can anyone assist me in identifying such titles? Currently the article lacks strong references for many points. Buddhipriya 05:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No one has replied to this question, but I am still trying to find references to Frawley in books published by academic sources. Are there any such references? Buddhipriya 20:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually did make an effort to find some. Other than the Bergunder work, which appears to be the major scholarly work on the subject of revisionist history of this ilk, academic references to DF are few. Hornplease 00:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If Frawley is mentioned in Bergunder, can you please add a citation to the article telling what it says about him? I assume you are referring to Michael Bergunder, "Contested Past", Historiographia Linguistica xxxi:1 (2004), 59–104. The dearth of academic citations in the article is the problem. Buddhipriya 00:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thats the one. There's also a related article in a book: [1] and [2]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) 01:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Editorial by Witzel on Frawley

I found the following editorial by Michael E. J. Witzel that is very critical of David Frawley and am wondering if this would be considered as notable criticism: [3]. The dispute over this particular issue is mentioned on the article for Witzel where Frawley's side of the story is linked: [4] Normally I am not a big fan of using web links as sources, but since I have been unable to find mentions of Frawley in academic books, turning to established sources such as The Hindu and opinion published therein by notable high-profile critics such as Witzel seems fair game. Do other editors agree? Currently there is no criticism section in the article for David Frawley which seems odd since he is in fact controversial. Buddhipriya 22:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It is permissible under WP:RS, certainly. If nothing else can be found online, then it is a start. Hornplease 00:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been no objection to the addition of this material to the article, so I added a criticism section and put both the Witzel editorial and the Frawley reply into it. Buddhipriya 03:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nussbaum quote

Among other changes, Kkm5848 has removed the quote from Martha Nussbaum (I've just put it back) on the grounds that she's not an expert in this area. It's true that her academic expertise is not in ancient India, but the point she's making doesn't require expertise in Indology, but a knowledge of philological method generally. However, if we can find a comment by an expert in the field then we should replace Nussbaum's quote. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP

Akhilleus' whitewashing (probably to protect Witzel) of Frawley counterattacks are unacceptable under BLP. BLP should definitely apply more to the subject of the page in this context than the criticizer. The characterization of Frawley's work by Witzel is POV also, so keeping only Witzel's vitriol violates NPOV.Bakaman 20:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please elaborate, because I don't understand why you think these are BLP violations.

The Nussbaum quote: "Even David Frawley, the most determined opponent of the "Aryan Migration" theory, does not contest the linguists' most basic claims" is not a criticism. It's a characterization of Frawley's methodology. Why do you think it's a BLP violation?

Your preferred version of the Witzel bit reads: "Frawley replied to this criticism in an article of his own showing how Witzel's translation of Sanskrit was tainted by his own motivations." This isn't close to an NPOV summary of Frawley's response, nor is it particularly useful to a reader who wants to find out what's going on without reading Frawley's article. (The summary of Witzel's article isn't that helpful, either--Witzel's claim is not that Frawley has "weak knowledge of Sanskrit", as if Frawley doesn't know how to conjugate verbs or something--his claim is that Frawley reads certain texts in an anachronistic manner.) Can you explain why the version "Frawley replied to this criticism in an article of his own." is a BLP violation? If you think a more detailed summary of Frawley's response is in order, I agree--but that summary should be phrased in a NPOV manner.

By the way, when an editor speaks of such things as "Witzel's vitriol" and tries to insert obvious BLP violations into Witzel's biography, it's a reasonable conclusion that some protection is required. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed "tainted by his own motivations" to "motivated by his own biases", which I think is more neutral language. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)