Talk:Hindu studies

Comments

• Article name : "Studies in Hinduism" seems like a better article name than "Hindu Studies".

• "Beginning with British philology in the colonial period, Hindu studies has been practiced largely by Westerners, due in part to the Indian Constitution's ban on religious studies." -- I am not aware of any ban.

• "similarly, Wendy Doniger quickly stopped responding to Hindu complaints" : Needs context

• "Although no Western Hindu scholar responded to this post," : The source cited says the contrary, see p.249 , "...they did not ignore him"

• "for the most part scholars ignored the discussion;" : AFAIK, Huston Smith, Gayatri Spivak, S.N. Balagangadhara, Rajat Kanta Ray, James Geral Larson to mention a few are involved in the discussion.

• "Hindu objections were overruled and the book was given a national award": The award was given in 1995 and the controversy started only sometime after this. --TheMandarin (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• "This book also went virtually unreviewed in Western academia" : Probably not accurate. Invading the Sacred is included in the Religion additional content section of Britannica. Also see review from Anantanand Rambachan , International Journal of Hindu Studies, Jeffery D. Long's review. To point to a review and say that its "virtually unreviewed" borders synthesis.

• The article currently does not include all the perspectives, "Hindu studies" is not limited to the controversy alone and has been carried out from few centuries and includes broader aspects and studies.

All the best, --TheMandarin (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Pastel box

A pastel box has been added to this page, but without any explanation. Whoever added it should use this talk page to explain, or I will remove it. Shii (tock) 04:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sentences

A bold attempt. Even if the article becomes primarly about the criticism/controversy/waste-of-time, there are probably enough sources (unfortunately) for an article. However, as it stands, several of the sentences make no sense. Plus the chronology seems to be mixed up, e.g. (AFAIK) the controversy started (in a big way) only after Malhotra's article. Shreevatsa (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hindu studies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120714222654/http://invadingthesacred.com/content/view/25/39/ to http://invadingthesacred.com/content/view/25/39/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)