Talk:Rajiv Malhotra

Swarajya cites

Pandey55jee, Blacklisting means that the url's should be removed. It doesn't necessitate removing the content and the citations. I wonder if you have actually read the page to make sure that your removals don't affect its coherence?

Pinging Joshua Jonathan. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I see a lot of removed info that's not sourced to Swarajay; so why was that removed? Besides, Swarajay cites Malhotra on himself; there's no problem with that, I think. By the way, how does a one-week old account, with 35 edits, know about WP:QS, WP:SPB, WP:RSP#Swarajya diff? Or Citation bot diff? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I saw the edit on the Maratha dynasty page. Pandey55jee (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Please follow WP:BRD when an edit is reverted and achieve WP:CONSENSUS. Repeating my first sentence: Blacklisting means that the url's should be removed. Citations should not be removed. Full citations except for the URL's need to be given. If you are able to do that, please do so. Otherwise, leave it alone and let somebody else attend to it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Malhotra - doctorate

I have lately been hearing Malhotra being referred to as Dr. Malhotra. If he has one, why isn't it being mentioned. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Plotinus

@WikiLinuz: regarding this edit, where exactly in those sources does Malhotra say that Plotinus (3rd c. CE) was influenced by specifically Advaita Vedanta, which was hardly existent at that time? And when exacrly did Plotinus live in an Indian ashram? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Malhotra makes these claims his book "Being Different", p. 523. Further more, he takes references from the scholarly works of Harris, R. Baine, "Neoplatonism and Indian Thought" on the chapter 3, "Plotinus and the Upanisads" and chapter 5, "Buddhi in the Bhagavadgita and Psyché in Plotinus", p. 215 to support his claim, which is where the mention of Plotinus and the Upanishads, specifically the Non-dual Vedanta comes into context. He mentioned this work as one of his references. Although there isn't a mention of Plotinus "living in an Indian ashram", there is a mention of Christian theologists uses Plotinus's theories, combined with distorted "Christian Yoga" which packaged and resold to India on the book p. 190 p.505 p.522 p.523. —WikiLinuz (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Where exactly does he refer to Haines: in Being Different, or in the lectures? Pagenumber 215 can't be correct; chapter 5 starts at p.65. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

p. 215 doesn't correspond to Neoplatonism and Indian Thought, but it's a reference for Malhotra's Being Different. I should have mentioned that. All the page numbers I've mentioned refers to Malhotra's work. —WikiLinuz (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Use of potentially biased citations

While adressing Rajiv Malhotra as a Hindutva ideologue, the editor gave the citation of an Article by Scroll.in which is infamous for its Marxist Marxist ideologies. The author of the article too,is involved in Radical Islamic agendas. Hence it's credibility is not assured. Therefore it would be better that the lines be removed from the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by श्वेतकेतु (talk • contribs) 06:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, please take a look at these: WP:BIASEDSOURCES and RS-NPOV. Also, make sure to sign your message by entering ~~~~ at the end of your text. WikiLinuz (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

How exactly is Shoaib Daniyal involved in "Radical Islamic agendas"? It sounds more like you're using standard Hindutva terminology to discredit opponents. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks like you're completely unfamiliar with the Indian Politics.Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Please answer the question. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hindutva Dispute

There has been a conflict regarding whether or not Malhotra is Hindutva. Let us discuss here. Ahciwbxj (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Right-wing Hindu groups in the US have recently adopted the charge of academic elitism as a way to neutralize professors seen to be critical of their agenda. Since the spurious claims the right-wing often made in the name of Hinduism, history, etc. have seldom found any support amongst serious scholars of Sanskrit, South Asian History or the Humanities more generally, the Hindutva brigade has sought to dismiss the entire academic infrastructure as an elitist and allegedly ‘neo-colonialist’ enterprise devoted to the continued denigration of Hindus and India. Most interestingly, it is the institution of peer reviewing that has been singled out for the most pungent criticism. Rajiv Malhotra, one of the foremost strategists behind the meteoric rise of public Hindutva in the US, in a much-quoted article in 2004 dubbed the university system a ‘peer review cartel’. According to him, peer reviewing was a way of ensuring a cartel-like control over knowledge production that kept out voices such as his.
— Mukharji, Projit Bihari (2017-07-03). "Embracing academic elitism". South Asian History and Culture. 8 (3): 355–356. ISSN 1947-2498.

TrangaBellam (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to quote him on the right wing like Hindutva. This is an unsolicited opinion which has nothing to do with Hindutva ideology which is posted here as a valid criticism. Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

To whom are you talking? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

He outright rejects Hindutva in his book Being Different.

2607:FEA8:AA03:9600:8DD5:E5E6:FC28:A539 (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Who cares? People misrepresent themselves all the time. We go by reliably published sources. Doug Weller talk 08:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rajiv Malhotra/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 20:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I will take this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking this one up. Looking forward to working with you. Matarisvan (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I am going to quickfail this nomination based on quickfail criterion 1: it is a long way from meeting the GA criteria. I will outline a selection of problems below:

• The article excessively relies on the writings of the article subject, which cannot be considered reliable sources in this context. The words "According to Malhotra" appear thirteen (!) times. This means that there is no way of knowing if the "Criticism of Christian Yoga" section, for example, is a "main aspect of the topic", or just WP:UNDUE. 32 of the 41 citations in this section are to Malhotra's writings; it would much more preferable if it was 3 out of 41.
• There are also occasions where there appears to be original research. The paragraph summarizing the subversion of Biblical cosmology by the principal [sic] of Rta is not verifiable in the cited text, although, considering the lack of use of page numbers, I may have missed it.
• MOS:LEAD, part of criterion 1b), is not met. Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, I would expect an article of close to 7,000 words (including notes) to have three or four paragraphs. The current two short paragraphs unsurprisingly are unable to properly summarize the article, especially as information such as the translation of the Tengyur do not appear in the body. As it stands, the lead does not adequately "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"—his books and reception are not discussed in any detail whatsoever.
• The article's layout is very confused. All the subsections in the section titled "Infinity Foundation" have nothing to do with the foundation itself. Instead, there is an in-depth discussion of his ideals and criticism of American academia, followed by subsections for each of his books (later duplicated in the "Books" subsection). I do not think that this article meets MOS:LAYOUT as it stands.
• The (uncaptioned) infobox image is from a now-offline website which reserved all copyright (Copyright @ All Rights Reserved at bottom). This means that the image used is definitely incorrectly tagged, and probably ineligible to be on Commons anyway.
• Per MOS:EMBED, "embedded lists should be used only when appropriate". This article has four embedded lists, and I think only one of them (on the stages of the U-Turn theory) is necessary—the rest can be converted to prose.
  To sum up, there are considerable problems with GA criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, and so I am stopping this review here. Feel free to renominate once you have fixed the problems, and ping me if you have any questions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.