Talk:Michael Witzel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Footnote format

Would anybody object to formatting the footnotes in this article to follow the style guidelines at WP:CITE? This would not involve changing any of the links, deleting or combining notes, or anything underhanded. I have in mind only formatting each note so that readers can see a short description of what the external link is: a title taken from the webpage, preferably. Katherine Tredwell 18:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A tedious, terrible task. Go ahead. I have been looking at it and postponing it for months. Hornplease 21:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I've dealt with worse. The process has started. I took the liberty of separating something that looks like text from notes, and of converting an embedded external link to a footnote. Katherine Tredwell 04:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I also took the extra step of updating the links to Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies articles because the journal has moved. I hope I have linked to the correct articles. It looks like many of the footnotes are external links to the same articles, which means the notes section can be simplified. Katherine Tredwell 05:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandhya Jain material

Re:

"Sandhya Jain of the Daily Pioneer notes that Prof. Witzel worked with Christian Evangelical groups who were supproting Witzel against the Hindu groups edits shows his anti-Hindu bias.[1]

First, that is an opinion piece, not a news report. That something shows Witzel's motivations is an opinionated guess, not a fact. Supposing this is the same Sandhya Jain, "political ideologue" is an apt description. You may agree with what you read there, but it is hardly a font of disinterested observation.
Even as pure opinion, this "note" is a particularly cheap shot - no one believes Witzel to be a Christian evangelical himself - would Jain really believe they are united in hatred of Hindus? Something which squarely addresses the issues at hand, even in a biased way, would be far more informative. Finally, it's ungrammatical. Someone could clean that up. The other problems are rather more inherent.Proabivouac 19:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

<comment removed>

The above comment keeps on getting removed on various grounds: that it's a violation of BLP, that it's "vulgar", that it's off-topic. I agree that it's not very kindly worded, but it is a comment on the reliability of a source that editors have tried to use for this article, so it's not off-topic. As for the alleged BLP violation, I simply don't see it; what I see is an editor's very negative opinion of a journalist. This comment would be entirely inappropriate in an article, but as this is a talk page comment, with a signature clearly indicating that the comment is the opinion of an individual editor, I don't see the problem. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not free speech zones for inflammatory ad-hominem commentary. FCYTravis 04:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
FCY, please unprotect the page, I'm not going to revert your removal, and non-admins need to be able to comment here. In my view, terms like "maladroit hack" are not "inflammatory ad hominem commentary". We need to be able to have a frank discussion of sources if we're going to build a decent article. And if a journalist is a political hack, we need to be able to say that. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you even know who Jain is? Or is "Bakaman says one thing, I'll go with the opposite" the defining philosophy here? Bakaman 05:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Other than what's been said here, I don't know anything about Jain. My concern here is that I think a talk page post is being deleted without good cause. On a talk page, where comments are flagged are the opinion of a single editor, characterizations such as the comment that was deleted are not BLP violations, and by the standards that seem to prevail around here, they're not uncivil comments either. To be clear, if you called a writer that I personally admire a "maladroit hack" or a "political ideologue", I wouldn't delete those comments. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Obviously you didnt read the page, look at the history, or do anything. If you did you may have noted that the defender of BLP deleted huge chunks of talk page text "under WP:BLP". Of course "he deserves praise" doesn't he? Quit the bs, no one is going to believe you are a concerned editor with no axe to grind.Bakaman 05:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Um, what? When I said he deserved praise, that was for his actions on articles; as I think I've made clear, I'm not a big fan of deleting talk page posts, but I do think that racial insults by banned users should be removed. Now, why I should have an intimate knowledge of edits from 2006, when I never read this article before August 2007, I'm not sure. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
From WP:TPG: "No insults: Don't make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist." Are you seriously telling me you can't have a discussion of sources without gratuitously insulting their writing skills? Please. Talk pages are for discussion of Wikipedia articles, not to provide a platform for taking unsupported ad-hominem cheap shots at people. FCYTravis 04:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
To further demonstrate the point, the above post from Proabivouac remains, even though it is quite critical of Ms. Jain. Why? Because it's written in a civil tone conducive to further discussion and does not feature gratuitous insults and cheap shot attacks. We are better than that. FCYTravis 05:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I dunno, I think the supposedly uncivil comment has sparked more discussion than the civil one. Whether that's improved the article, though... --Akhilleus (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I made the deletions Bakasuprman refers to barely a few weeks after BLP first came out, I think. I was still feeling my way around; On reflection, I think they were perhaps borderline. Certainly, having references to racl supremcsts, and "Herr W." did seem to me to be making a certain absurd and hateful comparison. Also "Great White ARyan north". On reflection, I could perhaps have left "bible thumper" and "acts like a fool". Also "demonizer of Hindus" and whatnot. Really, on the whole, the talkpage has not suffered without those examples of Bakasuprman's deathless prose. I was partly thinking of the fact that it is certain that Witzel reads this page, so it did seem simple politeness, as nobody was making a coherent, relevant argument in the portions I excised, merely pointlessly venting anger against the academic in question. The recently excised text, I notice, calls a certain journalist a tlntlss prtisn hack, or something. The biggest qualitative difference is that (a) it is part of a specific argument about sources, so it has a point. There are also quantitative differences (a single reference, as opposed to paragraphs of bile going nowhere); not to mention the probably unimportant difference to you that it is extremely unlikely that SJ will ever read this page, but certain that MW will. In any case, for all I know, someone has an RS reference for "prtisn hack". Having just spent some time reading a few things published under this individual's byline, I suspect that that is not beyond the realms of possibility. Hornplease 05:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Note: I will blank portions of the above after I have judged everyone has had a chance to read it. Or feel free to do it yourselves. Hornplease 05:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jain material, again

All this is very offtopic. Sandhya Jain's column is considered wp:rs as per [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkm5848 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read the discussion you linked to, it would have been clear that Sadhya Jain's columns are WP:RS for her opinions, not for facts. Citing her for facts is liable to get you laughed at. rudra 21:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see this discussion; whether or not Jain's column is a reliable source (several editors don't seem to think so, I don't have an opinion), the sentence you put back in does not characterize her work as an opinion piece, and states that Witzel has an anti-Hindu bias as if it were an objective fact. That's definitely against BLP. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The line said according to Sandhya Jain... Kkm5848 16:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It should be fairly obvious that a number of editors don't find that sufficient. If you want this material in the article, you might try rephrasing to make it clear that this is Jain's point of view, and not necessarily anyone else's. For my part, I don't think we need the material at all, so I'm removing it. And please note that as currently phrased I think the material violates BLP. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Kkm did so and it was unceremoniously removed. There is no reason for patent doublethink to dictate the actions of certain editors. Jain is a respected columnist (no matter what rudra reads in the local ISO rag) being published in a mainstream paper. Her opinions stand.Bakaman 02:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the civil note there, it's always nice to be accused of acting like a character from 1984. As already noted, the bit people are trying to put into the article sounds like it's saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that Witzel is anti-Hindu. Now, I know that some editors here do in fact believe that Witzel is anti-Hindu, but I think they would agree that the NPOV policy (not to mention BLP) requires that that opinion be flagged and qualified as a particular source's point of view. If you're interested in building an NPOV article, you might try rephrasing the quote you're trying to put in to better reflect that it's Jain's opinion. (I'm not interested in rephrasing the material because I don't think it belongs at all.) --Akhilleus (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why you feel that anything that anybody states that is unkind to Witzel should be removed on teh grounds of WP:BLP or for another reason. The line clearly states that she considers this to be true. Considering that she works as a columnist for a major news paper which is known for its editorial oversite -- makes this material that is allowable on WP--Regardless of what your opinion is of her! If you believe the line should be rewritten, you are free to do so! Furthermore, please do point to the specific policy you are referring toKkm5848 04:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to be understanding the comments above. There are two issues here: a number of editors think that Jain is a poor source, and should not be used. The second issue, which is the reason that I've been reverting, and the issue I've noted in each of my comments above, is that the wording you're inserting makes it sound as if Wiztel's "anti-Hindu bias" is an objective fact. The sentence you (and Bakasuprman) are trying to put in reads: "Sandhya Jain of the Daily Pioneer notes that Prof. Witzel worked with Christian Evangelical groups who were supporting Witzel against the Hindu groups edits shows his anti-Hindu bias." The verb "notes" implies that Jain is recording a fact--in this case, the "fact" of Witzel's "anti-Hindu bias." To state as a fact that Witzel is biased against Hindus is an obvious BLP violation, and your insistence on including the sentence in this form doesn't speak well of your intentions towards Witzel or your commitment to building a neutral article. (The sentence is also poorly written and unclear.)

If you're actually interested in something other than mindless edit-warring, you need to do two things. First, you need to rephrase the sentence so that it's absolutely clear that Witzel's "anti-Hindu bias" is not a fact, but the opinion of a particular source. The train of thought here seems to be that Jain believes that Witzel's (alleged) collaboration with evangelical Christians indicates that he is biased against Hindus.

Second, (and more difficult), you need to establish a consensus that this sentence belongs. Several editors have already indicated that Jain is a poor source for this article, so I'd say at present there isn't a consensus that her work should be used here. The allegation that this sentence tries to make certainly seems open to question--did Witzel actually work with evangelical groups? If he did, why exactly would this indicate an anti-Hindu bias?

By the way, Kkm, in this edit [3] you removed a sentence on the grounds that its citation was incomplete. The citation is to an interview that appeared on the web, so that's about as complete a citation as you'll get. Please don't remove it again without discussion--because it looks as if you're removing a positive characterization of Witzel and replacing it with negative information. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I will make the chagne to the Sandhya jain statement. The Rediff.com interview needs a link to the interview, not to rediff.com otherwise it is not a reference! Kkm5848 23:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Undid my change since SJ is not alone in this statement. His anti-hindu stance is also mentioned in the oakland tribune. [[4]]. If you have issues with this, please discuss here prior to starting a revert war. Kkm5848 00:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, gee. One person quoted in the Oakland Tribune thinks that Witzel has an anti-Hindu bias. Who's the person quoted? Gautam Desai, the president of the Bay Area chapter of the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh. Since Desai and Witzel were on opposite sides of a political controversy, we cannot give Desai's opinion the status of an objective characterization.
I have no idea what problem you're having with the link to the rediff.com interview. The link's working for me.
As far as "edit warring", it's pretty simple; stop trying to put BLP violations in the article and there will be no edit war. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
There should be no edit warring for any reason, I thought admins were supposed to uphold policy. Sadly, I was mistaken here. It is not a BLP violation by any means and we can hardly consider what rudra reads in the Islamic Sevak Sangh newspapers. There is no consensus that this is remotely close to a BLP violation, especially since Jain is a mainstream columnist who has written extensively on political issues (this is hardly a scholarly issue at hand, it is completely political).Bakaman 01:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's a political issue, and you and Kkm5848 apparently want to take a politicized opinion and portray it as fact. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Akhilleus, you are resorting to original research. Both articles are in WP:RS sources with editorial oversight. If you have problems, find other WP:RS sources that detract from their statement and we can also put that in the article. Kkm5848 18:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, you really don't seem to be understanding the comments above. It's apparent, not just in your attempts to restore the bit of text we've been discussing, but in much of your editing on this article, that you believe Witzel is biased against Hindus. You're free to hold whatever opinion you wish, but the article cannot state as fact that Witzel has an anti-Hindu bias. It should not even include this opinion without the strongest of sourcing, and a number of editors have already indicated that they do not consider Jain a strong source. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
A number of editors have also indicated that they consider SJ a source. Furthermore, she is supported by the article in the oakland tribune, which you also removed. The last time I checked, the Oakland Tribune is a WP:RS source w/ an editorial board == all that is required of sources. Please quote the sections of BLP policy you feel are violated over the next two days, or I will reinsert the reverted sections. Kkm5848 20:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Read the comments above; I've explained in detail why this is a BLP violation, and I'm quite tired of repeating myself. As for the Oakland Tribune, I've commented about that as well; the fact that one person is quoted in that article as saying that Witzel is biased doesn't establish it as a fact. Your points about whether these sources are reliable sources is simply irrelevant; it's how this material is being characterized within the article, and whether it belongs in the article at all, that's at issue. On the most charitable interpretation, I'd say there's no consensus on these points, and when we're dealing with a BLP, and there is no consensus on whether negative information should be included in the article, it should not be included. If you put the material back in without substantive dicussion (and I don't consider your recent comments to be substantive, since you never directly address the concerns that I've raised), I will consider your editing disruptive. As I'm sure you're aware, policy indicates that disruptive editing on BLPs may result in a block. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a quote from WP:BLP

Reading into your comments, I would say you are conducting original research into an article published by a reputable source with editorial oversight to disqualify it from the article instead of using reliable sources. Is this your interpretation of WP policy on BLP?!? From this definition, anything that portrays Witzel in a negative portrayal would be considered a violation of BLP which is clearly not the intent of the policy!

From WP:BLP policy discussion page:

The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The SJ & Oakland Tribune article meet all the criteria mentioned in this policy statement. Kkm5848 06:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Jain is a partisan in the dispute, writing in a marginal and partisan publication, restating CAPEEM allegations as facts. Desai is a partisan as well, he may well speak for the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh, but he is not a spokesperson for unspecified "other members of the Hindu community". the "worked with", again is a CAPEEM allegation, not a reliably sourced fact, the description of the Dalit Freedom Network to buttress an argument is non-neutral. Doldrums 06:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Desai is quoted in the oakland tribune, a newspaper with editorial oversight. Are you accusing the Oakland tribune as being a partisan newspaper? Jain is also a writer in a major newspaper--are you accusing the the Pioneer of also being partisan? I have not quoted the Organizer, or the many other news sources who feel similarly because they are partisan news-sources!
  • So you are saying that the fact that this is mentioned in a major newspaper is not a reliably sourced fact while quoting witzel makes a fact properly sourced?!?
  • You do not seem to know your newspapers very well. The pioneer, what you call a "Marginal and partisan publication" is a middle-sized english medium newspaper [1] according to WP. It also meets WP guidelines as a reliable source!Kkm5848 23:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see.

  • The views of Jain are not "relevant to the subject's notability". Witzel is notable because of his academic work and position at Harvard; this political stuff is not a major part of his career.
  • The material you're trying to insert "appears to side with the critics" by portraying Witzel's so-called bias as a fact.
  • The material "represents the views of a tiny minority"; in all this edit warring, you've come up with exactly two sources that support your view. If this were truly a majority opinion, you'd be able to find more sources.
  • The material makes a claim "that rel[ies] on guilt by association"--I can see no other reason for including the sentence "Among the Christian organizations he worked with was the Dalit Freedom Network whose president, Joseph D'Souza also heads the All-India Christian Council."
  • The material is "biased and malicious"--I don't think this point needs much explication. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Alright, if Witzel is notable for his academic work and position at Harvard, lets remove all material not related to that including the section regarding his role in the California debate. The fact is that he is a prominent personality who has involved himself outside of his primary role as an academic at Harvard, and if we are to discuss those roles, all sides involved should be represented to present a fair view. To censor a view you don't like seems quite unbecoming for an admin on wp.
  • It doesn't represent the views of a tiny minority. I am not posting sources that you would consider "Partisan" which concur with these two, un-bias sources (That being the "Pioneer" and the "Oakland Tribune").
  • How is this guilt by association? It is a stated fact that he worked with these people, and was stated in the sources mentioned as well. Kkm5848 23:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    The "Pioneer" source is a column - an opinion piece - not a news article. That isn't necessarily a horribly bad thing, but "Sandhya Jain of the Daily Pioneer notes that" means "this is an established fact and it is observed by Sandhya Jain". That's not permissible unless it is an established fact. That sentence could be rewritten more neutrally:
    "Sandhya Jain of the Daily Pioneer says that Witzel has a Hindu bias, citing his work with Christian Evangelical groups"
    I don't really have a position on whether such a modified sentence is appropriate for the article or not - I don't know anything whatsoever about the subject - I'm only pointing out that the statement in dispute is clearly inappropriate. --B 00:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I dont mind utilizing the statement given by "B", it is more or less representative of the text.Bakaman 03:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
B's rewrite would at least address the problem of siding with the critics. Nevertheless, the other problems remain, and Kkm's reply doesn't really address them. Kkm, are you sure you understand the difference between an opinion piece and a news report? Because Jain is a columnist, and it's readily apparent simply from reading her column that she's not impartial. And really, we don't expect a columnist to be impartial; the reason you have a column is to express your views. As for the Oakland Tribune, you really seem to be misunderstanding something very basic about newspaper articles; when someone is quoted, it means that they say something; it does not mean that the paper endorses the quote.
In any case, the article has now been protected, so no one's going to edit it until this problem is solved. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I am fine with the re-written statement by B. It is representative of what has been said. I know that Sandhya Jain is writing a column and that the article in the Oakland Tribune is quoting someone. That being said, both newspapers have editorial oversite -- and stand by the articles they publish. If you feel so strongly that everything quoted should be neutral, you would have to remove every statement by Witzel as well -- since he is obviously biased about himself as well. --Doing this doesn't seem to make sense to me. All points of view should be represented, instead of removing all points of view. Kkm5848 08:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Considering that there has been no additional response in over a week, I am going to consider this dispute resolved. Kkm5848 01:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
If you've decided not to include the Jain material, then yes, the dispute is resolved. However, if you want to include the Jain material, you're still going to have to demonstrate why this statement is relevant to Witzel's notability, and show that the material represents more than the views of a tiny minority. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe that quoting two news articles that are npov are sufficient. You you would like references from sources who you would consider to be bias and that show that more than a tiny minority feel as such, I can provide that as well. As I said above, I agreed to posting the revised version of the mention. You have not responded to my questions above either!Kkm5848 16:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This is very tedious, because I keep on having to repeat basic points that have been made many times. Such as: the Jain piece is not a "news article". It's not npov. It's an editorial, and one with a very clear point of view, that involves stating that the subject of our article is biased against Hindus. Second, the Oakland Tribune piece is a news article, but it doesn't report as a fact the supposed "anti-Hindu bias" of our subject. It quotes Gautam Desai (who's involved in the California textbook debate) as saying that Witzel belongs to an "anti-Hindu group". You apparently think that by printing this quote, the Oakland Tribune's editorial board has endorsed the conclusion that Witzel is anti-Hindu; but this is obviously not the case.
As I've already said, all you've done is show that two people (Jain and Desai) think that Witzel is anti-Hindu. Two people is a tiny minority. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Editors may wish to consider this essay (written by an ArbComm member) as well as this post, which expands on the subject.[5] Both seem to me to be highly relevant here, and suggest to me that even the shorter version should not be included. Slp1 18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional sources

Here is another reference

You're going to have to explain why you think these references are relevant. However, the only one of these sources that comes from a major publication is [6], which is a copy of an article from the Pioneer--but note that at the top of that page, it says that the article is clearly defamatory. I suppose that illustrates that another writer from the Pioneer is biased against Witzel, but I don't see why that should concern us. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You are correct, but look at who is saying that it is defamatory (Steve Farmer, an associate of Witzel and thus obviously bias himself). I only used it because it was convenient copy of the actual article w/ citation. Perhaps, you would prefer this [7]. The others are all publications with credibility. Now, I suppose you will have to define what you mean by major publications. Suffice it to say, that this view point is not a viewpoint of a "tiny minority". These sources are relevent because they independently state similar things as Sandhya Jain. Kkm5848 23:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The word is "biased", not "bias". Yes, Farmer is an "associate" of Witzel, but are you going to tell me that this is a neutral piece of journalism? This is another opinion piece (to characterize it charitably),
hamilton.indymedia.com doesn't qualify as a reliable source--anyone can publish stories there, with no editorial control. I wouldn't say that gives it any credibility. lokvani.com looks like a community newsletter, hardly the kind of source we want to rely on for the kind of claim you're trying to make. haindavakeralam.org and letindiadevelop.org are both political sites, not journalism or scholarship.
You still haven't indicated how these sources support whatever text you want put in the article. Most of the articles don't have anything that's obviously relevant. And of course, none of this demonstrates that your negative opinion of Witzel is widely shared or significant enough to be included in Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
"Stop this anti-Hindu tirade", Hindustan Times, Dec 9, 2005

The point is that what Sandhya Jain is pointing out is not unique and not the single point of view of a small minority. many people have pointed out his anti-hindu tendencies. I have not asked that every one be mentioned, but that a single one does get noted because he is notable for this (not in academic circles, but among the circles of many Hindus). Kkm5848 04:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

done:

While Witzel has been criticised by those supporting the original changes, who question his expertise of the subject and his appointment to the expert panel...

move on. Doldrums 04:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It is not solely about his expertise if you have been reading the discussion so far. if sounds like any piece that is negative about witzel is defined as an "opinion" piece and relegated to a tiny minority. Dude, stop the POV pushing already. There is no such thing as a purely NPOV article--everyone pushes an agenda. If we want to sterilize the article, we would have to remove every reference to every article since all of them have some sort of agenda. Especially the quotes from Witzel himself who is the least NPOV.
The Second Daily Pioneer article is not an "op-ed" piece. Now, you stating that it is is purely speculative (and incorrect) and WP:OR.
What I am stating with these references are:
What Sandhya Jain is stating is not isolated and relegated to the tiny minority (which is why using here was objected to in the first place).
If you disagree, do read the articles. If you are unable to do so, than I can start pulling snippets from them and spoonfeed you the relavent bits.
All that being said, I posted 8 references in total, of which you feel 3 are disqualified. What about the other 5
Please define what you mean by "Widely shared" and "significant" since I feel it is and having this number of supporting evidences is sufficient! Kkm5848 14:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This piece in the Pioneer is by Kanchan Gupta. This page lists Gupta as one of the paper's columnists--like Sandhya Jain. Ergo, Gupta's piece is a column, which represents his own point of view (in contrast to a news story where the reporter presumably presents facts in a neutral manner). But really, any reasonable person should be able to look at paragraphs like "Boorish comments denigrating India, Hindus and Hinduism by a self-proclaimed 'Indologist' who is on the faculty of Harvard University has unleashed a fierce debate over the increasing political activism of 'scholars' who teach at this prestigious American university" and realize that they're not dealing with a news report.

And Kkm, not only are you doing a bad job of understanding what kind of source Gupta's column is, once again, you're misreading what I've written. I don't think any of the new sources you've given us are worth using for this article. Except for the pieces from the Pioneer, these sources are websites that are essentially self-published (indymedia), lack editorial control, and/or belong to political organizations. The Pioneer is a major newspaper with editorial control, etc. But Jain and Gupta are columnists, not reporters. Their op-ed pieces should not be used as sources for inflammatory material like what you've been trying to include. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Another source http://capeem.org/docs/CompelWitzel.pdf (court document in the CAPEEM case in california showing Witzel's associations to aforementioned groups).

Akhilleus, instead of continuing to do WP:OR, why don't you provide citations stating why these are not usable and that Gupta is a columnist writing an op-ed piece? State where you find that all the sources do not have editorial control and also provide proof from "major" news publications showing that they are associated with political organizations. You have done nothing but ask for evidence and throw tantrums without a shred of evidence. Lets see you provide evidence to refute the citations I have provided. Provide a definition of what you consider to be "MAJOR PUBLICATION"! You have yet to provide an answer to the number of questions I have asked of you in this and previous entries! Kkm5848 22:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Kkm, there's a basic disconnect between what I'm writing and what you're writing. For instance, you seem to have totally ignored the fact that I linked to where the Pioneer itself says that Gupta is one of its columnists. To refresh your memory, the link is [8]. It really can't be any plainer--Gupta's writing represents his opinion, not a netural reporting of facts.
again, that's WP:OR until you show me a page stating exactly that this specific article is an op-ed piece. Kkm5848 17:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
As for "major publication", this should be self-explanatory: reputable news organizations, i.e. magazines, newspapers, and the like with an established reputation. Major metropolitan newspapers like the Oakland Tribune, Chicago Tribune, etc., qualify. Websites of political organizations like letindiadevelop.org, user-contributed "journalism" like indymedia, and community websites like lokvani.com don't qualify. If you've got more questions about this, perhaps it would be helpful if you solicited the opinions of some uninvolved users through a post on WP:RS/N.
again, WP:OR unless you can prove that letindiadevelop.org is a political organization. Kkm5848 17:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The court filing you linked to can't be used either. It's a primary source, which Wikipedia articles shouldn't use without commentary from a secondary source. It obviously represents the viewpoint of an organization that's in dispute with Witzel, so its claims aren't going to be anything close to neutral. And, from a cursory reading of the document, it appears that it relies on a claim of guilt by association: Witzel and some Christian groups were on the same side of the California textbook dispute, therefore Witzel is anti-Hindu. It's unsurprising that you would cite this document, because you've used the same logic of guilt by association in your edits: [9] [10].
Here it is again. The point of the presentation is not to show that Witzel is anti-hindu, but to show that worked with anti-hindu organizations -- which is exactly what that source shows--it refers to primary sources to prove this point, and hence is actually a secondary source. Kkm5848 17:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You've made it very apparent that you think Witzel is guilty of religious bias, and that you want the article to say so. But you really need to keep in mind that this is a very serious accusation, and that if the article is going to say anything of the sort, we need the highest quality of sourcing. In general, your editing on this article has made it plain that you have a low opinion of Witzel, e.g. [11] [12]. I have very serious doubts about your neturality and good faith in this matter. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Whatever my viewpoint on Witzel, I do know that a large group of people do consider him to be anti-Hindu and I don't believe in censoring such a large group of people. Based on your edit history, I could say the exact thing about you -- that you hold him in very high esteem and attempt to censor any edit that shows him in anything less than a positive light. Kkm5848 17:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea why you're so determined to show that you don't understand what a columnist is, but until you figure out the meaning of this page, I can't say that I trust your evaluation of any source. Your argument that a court filing is a secondary source is further proof of this--you don't understand the distinction between primary and secondary sources. As for my connection or esteem for Witzel, I have none--I haven't read much of his work, and don't know much about Indology. What I do know is that accusing people of religious bias is contrary to the BLP policy. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Criticism of Witzel in this manner is very relevant to his notability vis-a-vis Indian politics (which concern....oh about one sixth of the world), ergo it meets WP:BLP to note that a number of prominent columnists and observers of Indian politics have commented on him in a negative fashion. I don't know what your pointed attacks are all about, but calling yourself neutral is little more than a joke, and that too not a very funny one. Your edits on David Frawley, whining on admin boards, and antics on arbcom, more or less destroyed any figment of neutrality you ever had.Bakaman 18:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you show that this particular criticism of Witzel is common among more than the columnists of the Pioneer and participants in the California textbook matter? Because two newspaper columns don't demonstrate that 1/6 of the world cares about Witzel, or that this is anything but the view of a tiny minority. It's nice that you understand what a columnist is, though, perhaps you can explain it to Kkm. Thanks for your even-handed evaluation of my neutrality; I'm not sure where I claimed I was. I did say that I don't have any connection to Witzel, or particular esteem for him--but I think that you and Kkm are determined to include claims of anti-religious bias in this article--you haven't exactly made it a secret that you personally believe Witzel is "anti-Hindu". --Akhilleus (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

I've posted on WP:RSN asking for some outside input on the sourcing for the disputed material. For the benefit of uninvolved editors, the kind of edit that's under dispute is [13] [14] [15]. The sources for this material are:

Sources that Kkm5848 claims support his edits are:

Kkm5848 hasn't explained what content in sources 3-8 is relevant to the material he wants to include, and some of the sources don't seem to support his claims. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents
Number 1 and 3 are opinion columns and can only be used as such, and it is not clear to me (who knows nothing of the subject) how notable their opinions are. This would need to be shown BTW As a warning for other editors, the articles also crash my Firefox webbrowser!
Numbers 4-7 are websites without the required editorial control. Number 8 is a court document putting only one side of the story.
Number 2 is the most useful, and I don't see that anybody has noticed this on page 1 of the article [16]

" Patel and members of the Hindu Education Foundation have obtained letters of support from other scholars, Hindu temples and Indian organizations, including the Foundation for Hindu Religious Studies, the Fremont-based Friends of India Society International in Northern California, the Milpitas-based Jain Center of Northern California, the Fremont-based Gujarati Cultural Association, and Vedic Dharma Samaj. The groups also accused Witzel of having an "anti-Hindu" and "anti-India" agenda -- a charge he denies -- and solicited the support of Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont, and Rep. Linda Sanchez, D- Lakewood, who asked the state superintendent to investigate Witzel's background."

Would this not be useful? The charge and the denial seems well sourced to me. I don't see any reliably sourced information for the links with Christian organizations part, however. Slp1 03:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I had missed that. Thanks for pointing it out. This now looks like a better source, but the basic problem remains: is this a notable enough opinion to include in the article, or does it belong to a tiny minority? I haven't seen any evidence that makes me believe that anyone except for the people involved in the California textbook matter hold this opinion, nor does it seem that these charges of bias are a common feature of reporting about the textbook controversy. There's also the problem that these charges seem to have been made as part of maneuvering for a court case--some discussion about this, and this relevance of Witzel's alleged bias, is in the talk page archives. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I begin to think that the accusations (and the denials) are notable within the text-book context, given the phrasing of the above quote ("these groups"), the opinion columns and the fact that Witzel himself says "I always get misrepresented that I am a Hindu hater, but I am not. I hate people who misrepresent history" in the Rediff.com interview. I think it can be phrased carefully so it is clear that these are accusations not facts, and that they are denied.
I would reiterate that the claims from the opinion columns about possible links with Christian evangelical groups are not appropriately sourced and should not be in the article.Slp1 13:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that these accusations should be included in the article. I found three more news stories that mention them: [17] from the Sacramento Bee, [18] from the Wall Street Journal, reprinted (possibly illegally) by letindiadevelop.org, and [19] from the Metro, a weekly paper in San Jose. This story is pretty detailed, and even mentions the hate e-mail that Witzel's received.

But other news reports don't mention these accusations at all, e.g. [20] from the Christian Science Monitor, [21] from the San Francisco Chronicle (mentions W. only once), [22] from the San Francisco Chronicle (mentions Wizel only once), [23] from the Times of India (mentions W. only once), [24] from the Sacramento Bee (doesn't mention Witzel at all), and [25] from the Stanford Daily (more of an opinion/commentary piece than a news report, and from a college paper). These are just the stories I could access; many of the links at Californian Hindu textbook controversy are dead, and I'm not that good with Lexis-Nexis searches, so I'm sure there are sources that I've missed.

My point here is that news coverage of this controversy generally devotes little or no space to accusations of bias on W.'s part. When they are mentioned, it's usually in a dismissive fashion. For instance, the Wall Street Journal article says: "A petition from Hindu advocates called on Harvard to end its association with 'Aryan Supremacist Creationist hate mongering.'" That presentation implies that the people who signed the petition are a bit loopy. Even the article in the Metro, which is fairly detailed, treats the accusations as something to be laughed off. For these reasons, I don't think we should give the accusations any airtime.

However, if a consensus develops that this material must be included, it has to be phrased carefully, as Slp1 says. It might be as simple as changing

While Witzel has been criticised by those supporting the original changes, who question his expertise of the subject and his appointment to the expert panel, his efforts have received the support of academics and other South Asian community groups.

to

Witzel's efforts received the support of academics and some South Asian community groups, but attracted criticism from those supporting the original changes, who question his expertise on the subject and his appointment to the expert panel; some supporters of the original changes have accused Witzel of being biased against Hinduism.

The article text would need to include the appropriate footnotes, of course. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have done a Factiva search, and did not find much more than you did. Many of the articles, focus appropriately, as you point out, on the controversy rather than much about the players. However, there is a peer-reviewed scholarly article from Social Forces, called Multiculturalism and "American" Religion: The Case of Hindu Indian Americans Volume 85; Issue 2. The full article is not on line, but here is the abstract [26], and I could email copies of the article to anybody who wishes. The text says:

"Witzel and Farmer swung into action and publicized the matter to other scholars of India via the Internet. On November 8, Witzel sent a letter to the California Board of Education with signatures from 46 other prominent academics specializing in Indian studies. The letter urged the board to reject the controversial edits proposed by the Hindu groups on the basis that they were "not of a scholarly but of a religious-political nature ... primarily promoted by Hindutva supporters." Witzel also pointed out that the same revisions that the Hindu groups were trying to make in California textbooks had been temporarily inserted in textbooks in India when the Indian central government was led by a Hindutva party (between 1998 and 2004) and had since been removed when that government had been voted out of power. Various Indian American groups those opposed to the efforts of the VF-HEF-HAF (which included some scholars, secular Indian Americans and Dalits or lower castes) and those supportive of these groups - mobilized their respective constituencies. Through a spate of articles on Internet websites, discussion groups, newspapers and magazines, both sides tried to get their views heard by a wider public. Articles by secular Indian American groups and some scholars meticulously traced and publicized the links between the Vedic Foundation, Hindu Education Foundation, Hindu American Foundation and Hindutva groups in the United States and India, and they criticized the changes as trying to promulgate a sanitized view of history and deny oppression (IPAC 2006, Maira and Swamy 2006). Groups supportive of the VF, HEF and HAF on the other hand, denounced the scholars, secular Indian American and Dalit groups as "anti-Hindu."

. There was also another article on 20 February 2006 in The Oakland Tribune

"The Hindu Education Foundation, the Vedic Foundation and the Hindu American Foundation deny any connections to Indian political organizations. In turn, they have accused their critics of being anti-Hindu, a charge Witzel and members of FOSA deny.

, as well as another reference to anti-Hindu allegations against W in an "The Hindu" article by David Frawley (who I gather is a critic!!). As noted above there are also other articles that mention Witzel (in passing or not) who don't talk about the specific allegation. On the whole though, I tend to think it is part of the story and adequately sourced, and believe your phrasing above is excellent. I would suggest adding "an allegation that he denies", however. Slp1 23:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for fiding sources. If you have access to Project Muse, the article you mention can be found at http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/social_forces/v085/85.2kurien.pdf. I'll note that even in this article, the accusations are mentioned as a detail of the larger story, rather than something deserving attention in and of themselves. So, personally, I'd still leave them out, but now that we have an actual news story and an article in a peer-reviewed journal, I'm less concerned about the BLP implications--as long as we adopt your suggestion of adding "an allegation that he denies"--this wording would link nicely with the following sentence, "Rejecting criticism that he was a 'Hindu hater', Witzel said, 'I hate people who misrepresent history.'" --Akhilleus (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with this...except, we should remove the last statement..."I hate people..." which is from an interview - being a first hand report (and not second hand) as stated as a requirement earlier and also an obviously bias source...and also being completely irrelevnet. 24.219.146.189 03:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, 24.219.146.189--have you edited this article before? The quote from Witzel is obviously relevant, it's an illustration of him denying allegations of bias. I'm putting it back in. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of article

I just finished adding a bunch of categories for this article -- and I'm wondering why the name of the article includes his initials. Is there really any reason it shouldn't be simply Michael Witzel? Cgingold (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree.--Slp1 (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've checked a couple of his publications that are listed in the article and they're credited either to "Michael Witzel" or "M. Witzel", so I'm going to go ahead and change the name of the article. If there's some reason why we should be using "Michael E. J. Witzel" instead, it can always be moved back. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LEAD

I was wondering why this article does not have a proper lead section. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Because no one's written one yet. What information do you think is missing? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

User:relato, Pls dont try to mix up frawley with lal.- Bharatveer (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You are again repeating the same . Can I know the reason?-Bharatveer (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
According to the sources, they criticise Witzel for the same reason. The article should state that much. I see no reason not to. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)