Talk:Indra's Net (book)

Help needed

I just moved this page, but intended the title to be in italics. What went wrong? Problem solved Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Naming convention for books

Please note the following text from the naming conventions for books:

Subtitles
Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book (or other medium, such as a movie, TV special or video game) does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name. The only exception to that is short titles, for disambiguation purposes
...
Standard Disambiguation
To disambiguate, add the type of literary work in parentheses, such as "(novel)", "(novella)", "(short story)", "(dialogue)", "(essay)", "(play)", etc. If none of these specific qualifiers applies, also "(book)" can be used. Note however that this qualifier would usually be perceived as indicating a non-fiction type of writing.
    If further disambiguation is needed, add the author's surname in parentheses: "(Orwell novel)", "(Asimov short story)", etc. In this case it is not advised to leave out the qualifier of which type of book it is, unless completely redundant, which may happen for some non-fiction books like Histories (Herodotus)/Histories (Tacitus).

Clearly, the current title ("Indra's Net: Defending Hinduism's Philosophical Unity") is not adequate, as the subtitle is clearly not "short". I will move the page again to simply "Indra's Net (book)". --Presearch (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: Because there was a redirect with history, I seem to be blocked from moving the page myself. I have filed an administrative request (DIFF) for a non-controversial move, since I presume that no one is likely to dispute that the subtitle is long, and therefore the current name is discrepant from the book naming convention. -- Presearch (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Further update: The admin who responded to the request seems to have misread it, so now we are back at "Indra's Net". On their talk-page, I have requested the admin move it to "Indra's Net (book)". -- Presearch (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Resolved: We are now at "Indra's Net (book)". The admin pointed out various complexities regarding how "Indra's Net" could be used as a redirect. I am archiving the thread below (from User talk:BDD. --Presearch (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

ARCHIVING <<<Please fix error in move to "Indra's Net (book)">>>

The following text is copied from the user talk page User talk:BDD

Dear BDD, many thanks for quickly responding to the request to move "Indra's Net: Defending Hinduism's Philosophical Unity" to "Indra's Net (book)", and doing related cleanup of spurious implausible redirects. However, while you moved the page to "Indra's Net", my actual request was that it be moved to "Indra's Net (book)". I wish to reiterate that request (I could do it again on the request page, but it seems simpler to do it here). If you are curious, optional additional background, merely FYI, is in the next paragraph.

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND: Part of the reason for wanting the name to have "(book)" is that there is already a page called "Indra's net" (small n). The large-N "Indra's Net" was the original site of the page, and a few hours ago it had been moved to the very lengthy title. So now with your move we are full circle. I am inclined to agree that the large-N "Indra's Net" (without "book") sows confusion. For example, in checking "page view history" for the large-N page, I kept getting the history for the small-n page. That is, the page-view tool has a bug, and confuses the large-N and small-n pages. If the page view tool has this problem -- along with the other editor who moved to the long-long title that you started with -- think of what sorts of confusion it is likely to sow in the average user. Therefore, I again request that the page be moved to "Indra's Net (book)". Many thanks -- Presearch (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed Indra's Net already redirected to the book, so I moved per WP:SUBTITLE and WP:CONCISE. WP:DIFFCAPS specifically allows for cases like this, but you probably know the subject better than I do. I can make Indra's Net redirect to Indra's net, and move the book to Indra's Net (book). I wanted to make sure you were ok with this, because Indra's Net should not redirect to Indra's Net (book), per WP:UNDAB. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see there's a problem. Question: Could "Indra's Net" be turned into a disambiguation page? Or could we turn it into a redirect to a newly created page "Indra's Net (disambiguate)" or "Indra's net (disambiguate)"? One reason I ask is that over time, I suspect more pages with similar names may accrue. For example, there seem to be additional books called "Indra's Net", although at present the one we've been moving around is the only one with a WP article. Thus, it may be wise to start building disambiguation page somewhere. Thus my request above. What do you think? --Presearch (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we'd need another page before creating a dab. Right now, there are only two articles that could be called "Indra's Net." Anyway, I'll go ahead and move the book, redirecting Indra's Net to the religious topic. --BDD (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, good, sounds like we've done the best we can. And thanks for all your cleanup! FYI, I expect to soon copy this thread to the article's talk page, so that we know how we got to where we are now. Thanks again. -- Presearch (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"Indra's Net (book)" is fine. Sorry for all the re-re-redirects. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Origins of the image - or the metaphor?

The following was modified by Presearch:

"The book's central metaphor is "Indra's Net", a metaphor used in the Avatamsaka Sutra(Jones 2003 p.16)}(Kabat-Zinn 2000 p.225) and further developed by Huayen Buddhism.(Jones 2003 p.16)(Odin 1982 p.17) According to Malhotra, the image was first mentioned in the Atharva Veda (c. 1000 BCE),(Malhotra 2014 p.4-5,310)(Note: |Verse 8.8.6. says: "Vast indeed is the tactical net of great Indra, mighty of action and tempestuous of great speed. By that net, O Indra, pounce upon all the enemies so that none of the enemies may escape the arrest and punishment." And verse 8.8.8. says: "This great world is the power net of mighty Indra, greater than the great. By that Indra-net of boundless reach, I hold all those enemies with the dark cover of vision, mind and senses."(Ram 2013 p.910-911))} where the net is one of Indra's weapons, indrajalam,(Goudriaan 1978 p.211) used to snare and entangle enemies,(Beer 2003 p.154) but also signifies magic or illusion.(Debroy 2013)(Note:According to Goudriaan, the speaker pretends to use a weapon of cosmical size.(Goudriaan 1978 p.214) The net being referred to here "was characterized there as the antariksa-, the intermediate space between heaven and earth, while the directions of the sky were the net's sticks (dandah) by means of which it was fastened to the earth. With this net Indra conquered all his enemies."(Goudriaan 1978 p.214)) For Malhotra, Indra's Net metaphorically expresses..."

By removing part of this info the proper meaning of "Indra's Net" in the Atharva Veda, and the difference with the Buddhist metaphor, is hidden. It's highly ironic that Malhotra uses a Buddhist metaphor to defend Vivekananda's interpretation of Hinduism.

It's OK in my view to include that in a footnote - it doesn't substantially distract from the article, although in my opinion it doesn't really add significant understanding, since we do not provide info for interpreting the more unusual parts of the image in context. However, with regard to claims of irony, you sound like you may be viewing Malhotra as in some sort of competition with Buddhism. That is not categorically the case. But he is concerned about how the Hindu/Buddhist relationship has been represented in the many western contexts. You can read the following passage from the book, and decide for yourself where the greater irony lies. This is from Indra's Net, page 17:

It is interesting to note that over a period of many centuries Buddhist thinkers across East Asia have meticulously preserved the Sanskrit terms originally used to define Buddhist ideas, and fully credited Indian sources. Recently, however, as Buddhist ideas have travelled to the West and spread across many disciplines, the tendency has been to disconnect Hinduism from these ideas.

(note: I do not believe this text should be included/cited on the page, since the book is hundreds of pages long, and this issue would not satisfy WP:DUE for the page) --Presearch (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The association of Ïndrajal" with "black magic" has been made by Vithal C Nadkarni in the Economic Times. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not an expert in interpreting the Vedas and their influences on later times. Reading those verses some of the language sounded similar to the "illusion" of Maya. To really interpret those Atharva verses it would seem one should interpret them in the context of other Atharva and Vedic verses, and how their interpretations were drawn on over time, and influenced later South Asian imagery and philosophy. But that is almost entirely beyond the scope of the book, and thus of this page. The book mentions the later Buddhist developments of the Indra's Net image, and how they have subsequently influenced the West, but seeks little or not at all to put it in the broader context of influence from other examples of Vedic verses. --Presearch (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

"the foundation for Vedic cosmology"

Now what is Malhotra saying here?

"...the profound cosmology and outlook that permeates Hinduism. Indra's Net symbolizes the universe as a web of connections and interdependences.... I seek to revive it as the foundation for Vedic cosmology and show how it went on to become the central principle of Buddhism, and from there spread into mainstream Western discourse across several disciplines.(Malhotra 2014 p.4)"

So, Malhotra wants to revive is as "the foundation for Vedic cosmology" and "show how it went on to become the central principle of Buddhism". That's quite a leap in time, from the present (or future) to the ancient past. Was the metaphor of "Indra's net" the foundation of Vedic cosmology, or was the idea of interconnectedness the foundation of Vedic cosmology? And was this notion of interconnectedness taken over by (Huayen) Buddhism, or was the image of Indra's Net turned into a metaphor of interconnectedness? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Malhotra has been a bit imprecise in his language, although when reading the book itself, that's hardly noticeable, because one sees the flow of the book's thought/argument. I read him as claiming that the interconnected cosmology has always (more or less) been implicit in Hinduism. To make that cosmology explicit, both the image of Indra's Net (minus the Atharvic battle portions) and the philosophical articulation/associations of that image (as done especially in Buddhism, as Malhotra mentions) are useful. So he is not seeking to change Hindu cosmology (which in his view has 'always' been interconnected), but to revive Indra's net as an image, and use it to represent of that cosmology. Since Indra's net has been used as a cosmological metaphor in Buddhism, its use in this way might also be said to be a revival. This is mildly complicated, but getting hung up on it would be a mistake, since the bulk of the book is not about Indra's Net as an image, but is about the ideas that it points to. --Presearch (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD for plagiarism charges

I have reverted the section on plagiarism charges added by User:Mohanbahn per the WP:BRD process ("Bold, Revert, Discuss"). This section of the talk page is being started for the "Discuss" portion o fthis process. The plagiarism allegations seemingly may or may not be appropriate for this page, and I believe their appropriateness should be discussed before they are entered. As far as I can tell, there are no reliable secondary sources that have covered this topic. For example, no news outlet has covered the allegations. Covering such material is therefore contrary to the emphasis of Wikipedia on non-primary reliable sources (WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY). Furthermore, it seems obvious that failure to observe reliance on such sources would open up Wikipedia to abuse: People who disagreed with a book, no matter how meticulously documented, could make a spurious charge of plagiarism, launch a petition, and have that be given coverage in the Wikipedia book article, even if the charges were totally absurd and never went anywhere (I am not saying that is the case with the current charges, I am merely expressing concern about proceeding with lack of secondary sources). Therefore I am inclined to think that the plagiarism charge should not be covered on this page until and unless we can do so with sources that better accord with key Wikipedia principles (WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY). --Presearch (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

A secondary concern was that the specific section inserted by Mohanbahn covered some irrelevant info (charges about a different book Breaking India), and failed to give a citation for the petition itself (at Change.org). If and when a section is deemed appropriation for insertion, these deficiences should also be addressed. --Presearch (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right, but I also expect reliable secondary sources on this issue to come up cery soon. And it's clear that Malhotra has got a major problem here... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The citation to the petition cannot be given as change.org is blacklisted by wiki. The links given were enough to substantiate the charges. The only reason not to carry the charges is to shield Malhotra. When there is documentary evidence that plagiarism has taken place, that texts have been lifted and added to Indra's Net and Breaking India, I don't see why they should not be carried on wiki. Also, I don't know why Presearch calls the info "irrelevant", instances of plagiarism have been found in two of his books -- clear evidence provided in the petition -- so plagiarism sections should be added to wiki entries of both these books.

OK. Since the matter has been covered by various periodicals it should be added to wiki now. Here are links to secondary sources.

1. http://www.firstpost.com/living/historian-richard-fox-young-accuses-writer-rajeev-malhotra-plagiarism-2331532.html
2. http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/american-hindu-conservative-writer-rajiv-malhotra-mired-plagiarism-controversy-32036
3. https://www.reddit.com/r/hinduism/comments/3c8quf/confirmed_widespread_plagiarism_found_in_hindu/

-Mohanbhan (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Mohanbhan, thanks for the links to the news sources (though I would be very wary of regarding reddit as a secondary WP:RS on this type of issue). I inserted a section into the book article that is based entirely on the Firstpost and The News Minute sources that you supplied (though I suppose the latter might(?) be debatable as an WP:RS -- only Firspost appears to be indexed in Google News). But TNM seemed reasonably balanced, so I used it. Please note that each of the two aforementioned sources covered perspectives from both the accused and the accuser; For non-POV WP coverage on this topic, I think it is important to give both perspectives, and a bit of objective information about the accuser would also seem fully appropriate (in this case, a bit about his scholarly focus). I have tried to be reasonably balanced in all of these nuances. I imagine the controversy will evolve over time, and every now and then the section will need updating -- which will again demand reasonable balance to maintain a neutral POV that is appropriate for Wikipedia. Best --Presearch (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you have included this development; I appreciate it, also because of the balanced approach. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This might be a storm in a tea cup. Malhotra's style is to present purva paksha and prati paksha (extant view and my view). It is possible that he didn't provide enough citations in the purva paksha parts or used too much verbatim text of his sources, but it would be an understandable slip-up. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

As a mere observer of all of this, I suspect that Malhotra hit the nail on the head when he tweeted "credit was given even when no quotation marks. Making mountains out of molehills to evade the issues I raise?" But since that hadn't yet been quoted in the press coverage, it seems inappropriate to quote it in the article, for various reasons. Also, Kautilya, thanks for fixing that London-based error (I got it confused with something else) --Presearch (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead: Vivekananda, Yoga, and Vedanta

The book has very little to say about Hinduism in general. It is an appeal against the thesis of neo-Hinduism, and a defense of Vivekananda's synthetical view of Yoga and Vedanta. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I differ with above comment. Book not only questions the Neo-Hinduism thesis but also highlights key aspects of Hinduism and relates it to metaphor of Indra's Net as well as Forest. As a practising Hindu, I can relate to the ideas given in the book. Adiagr (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Missing citation

The source contains harv references to Malhotra|2014 and Malhotra|2014b. Do they mean the same? - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Agehananda Bharati

As usual, it's usefull to compare Malhotra's presentation of the scholars he opposes, with the sources themselves. It's typical that Malhotra does not mention that Bharati was a professor for 30 years, and that he was inititiated into the Dasanami Sannyasi order. It's also typical that Malhotra uses the term "contemporary Hinduism," where Bharati uses the term "Hindu Renaissance." I wa sreading chapter four this morning, and I already suspected that Malhotra inflates neo-Vedanta to include all of contemporary Hinduism; well, he does. It's another sign that Malhotra absolutely can't be regarded as a serious source on Hinduism. I'm even beginning to wonder why we, at Wikipedia, provide him such an extensive platform for his anti-academic crusade. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes, what a nice quote from Bharat:

"The modal attitude of the Renaissance is anti-scholarly and anti-intellectual in the sense R. Hofstadter uses this term. It is camouflaged until there is a confrontation with scholarly dialogue within the Indian tradition." (Bharati (1970) p.272)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Since Malhotra has single handedly taken up the issue of wrong representations of Hinduism, personal attacks are bound to come from people who are "academics" but clearly have no "Shraddha". Misquoting Rajiv Malhotra is one sure way of identifying such tendencies. Here is what Malhotra says on his use of Contemporary Hinduism in chapter 1 of Indra's Net:

Branding of contemporary Hinduism as a faux Neo-Hinduism is a gross mischaracterization of both traditional and contemporary Hinduism. (In this book) I will use "contemporary Hinduism" in a positive sense and distinct from the dismissive "Neo-Hinduism", and show that contemporary Hinduism is a continuation of a dynamic tradition.

Adiagr (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a pity that you disregard academics; those are the kind of people who have learned to think critically and ask questins, instead of merely stating "truths." There's more to shraddha than blindly following someone else.

And yes, the term "contemporary Hinduism" does suggest that this term covers all of contemporary Hinduism, which it doesn't. A faithfull writer would make clear that Bharati uses the term "Hindu Renaissance"; omitting this is misleading.

Also typical: according to Malhotra, Bharati says that millions of modern, Westernized Indians are drawn to neo-Vedanta because of "the Hindu fear of sexual impotentence." Malhotra further states that "Bharati refers to a number of recent highly sexualized and Freudian readings of Tantra which are themselves misguided." (Indra's Net p.85-86)

What Bharat writes, is that he believes that "the restraints which the Indian Renaissance imposes on the individual" [...] "is to be found in Hindu India's fear of loss of power, epitomized by the fear of the loss of semen." Bharati further writes "P. Spratt oversimplifies the situation in a grandiosely Freudian manner" (Bharati (1970) p.285). That's quite different form both "fear of sexual impotentence" and from the suggestion that Bharati uses "highly sexualized and Freudian readings of Tantra" to defend this thesis.

Calling a critical attitude a lack of "shradda" is a nice example of these restraints. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Adiagr: for a friendly note: thanks for the summary of Malhotra's "eight myths." It's a good addition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

One Point: I have seen academicians asking questions on a liberal religion like Hinduism (That in-fact welcomes exploration and debates) but a sudden silence on some other religions that believe in "Only one path". Is objectivity only for one religion and not for the other? By the way Malhotra has mentioned that Bharati was initiated into Sanyas. Read Chapter 2 if you can. So chronologically speaking, Bharati came to India first, got initiated into Sanyas and then went to North America. His criticism of Contemporary Hinduism took place in his second avatara as an academician.Thanks for your encouragement. Adiagr (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot of highly critical writing on Christianity, also from theologians and other Christians. Actually, a lot of the western influences on Vivekananda and others came from liberal Christians (c.q. esotericists) who were highly critical of the truth-claims of Christianity. See Swedenborgianism, Unitarianism and Universalism.

I'll read chapter 2 again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Table

Hi Adiagr. I'm sorry for your efforts in creating this table, but I don't think it belongs here. It's simply WP:UNDUE, that is, too much. This is an encyclopedic article, not an extended synopsis. It also come close WP:COPYVIO, that is, copying too much text from a source. And it comes too close to turning this article into a WP:SOAPBOX, using it to publish the ideas of the author. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Agreed. Adiagr (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry again for the effort you put in it. I hope you didn't have to type all the text manually... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No issues. The points that you raised were quite valid. As a relatively new editor, I am learning each day. Adiagr (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

"Rajiv"

We don't mention authors by only using their first name. That's something you do in private - which raises a question... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This is more of a cultural issue. In Indian social tradition, mentioning only surname is considered quite impolite, whereas you can use the first name in written communications where frequent references are made. So it is more of an usage and cultural issue. Adiagr (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Serious? I didn't know that. It strikes me as rather inpolite. In Germany, it's even worse: you can only use "du," "you," instead of "Sie," after mutual agreement on this. Indeed a cultural difference. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Adiagr: I don't agree that there is such tradition in India unequivocally. In my experience, first name only use is limited to friends and family. But, in any case, this is English Wikipedia, and we should follow the rules of polite speech in English. Last name is acceptable, and full name when needed for disambiguation. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: In India surname will NEVER, I repeat never be used without the honorific. Try mentioning: "Sharma come here". or "Malhotra was saying so and so", whether in spoken or written communication, in India. It would be considered to be extremely impolite. Anyway, this is a relatively small issue and was not intentional. Adiagr (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Chapter 2

Interestingly, Indological scholarship is getting more nuanced on the varieties and mutual influences of Indian religions and traditions; scholars are more open, again, to the "big picture" and the mutual influences. Not only within the Hindu-traditions, but also between the Hindu and Buddhist tradtitions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Length

Adiagr, please remember also that WP:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article states

There is no universal set length for a synopsis, though it should not be excessively long. While longer descriptions may appear to provide more data to the reader, a more concise summary may in fact be more informative as it highlights the most important elements.

A while back the only available book article writing guidance seemed to indicate 700-900 words even for non-fiction (I think that's still the guideline for fiction books). When I first wrote the article about Indra's Net a year ago I kept the synopsis to about that length. Remember that with a very long article, readers can get tired and stop reading. Do you want to reach a wide readership, or a readership self-selected to those very interested in the topic? Please beware of undermining your own goals. Best regards -- Presearch (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Presearch. Interested readers can read the book itself; the Wiki-article can be written in such a way as to invitee raders to go the book (both supporters and opponents!) Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

OK. Will try to keep it concise. Adiagr (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion following WP:BRD, September 2019

In the past couple of days, editor WBG made numerous large changes to this article (on the book Indra's Net) without prior discussion. The changes altered some sections of the page that had been stable for many years. I have reverted per WP:BRD protocol to enable evaluation and discussion of these changes. My own initial thoughts will follow in the next post. --Presearch (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

First, I think editor WBG should be aware that there have been earlier versions of this page (going back perhaps 3 or 4 years) that had received the scrutiny (at that time) of quite a number of experienced editors who have a variety of different perspectives. That is one of the reasons why I think the numerous large changes done by WBG should be discussed.

OK, now for my opening comments on the substance of the changes. First, WBG deleted the entire section that described the content of the book. I am inclined to agree with WBG that this section did indeed large changes. But I don't see his(/her) wholesale deletion of the entire section as a good step. A few years ago (approximately 6 Sep 2015 or possibly slightly earlier) there was a fairly stable and much shorter version of the content summary that was more aligned with the WP guidelines for how to write articles about books (e.g., HERE. Rather than simply deleting the current summary, I would suggest a better step would be to revert to that earlier stable shorter version.

Second, WBG has deleted references to a variety of reviews of the book. Some of them he/she claimed were not from reliable sources. But we must remember that whether or not a source is reliable depends on the topic for which it is being used as a source. This is not an article about Hinduism itself. This is an article about a BOOK about Hinduism. And when we are citing reviews in a section that is describing how the book was RECEIVED, we are essentially citing the sources as authorities about how the author of the sources was REACTING (i.e., how they received) the book. Therefore a source that would not meet the bar for a RS about Hinduism per se can certainly be a RS about the views of the author of the source.

There are my two main opening comments. I appreciate that WBG is earnest about improving the article, but I think the proposed changes have sometimes gone too far. Sifting wheat from chaff is a key purpose of WP:BRD. I will now attempt to insert two links into what I wrote above, before I run out of time. --Presearch (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Which source do you feel to be reliable? Please mention the specifics rather than leveraging generic arguments. I can certainly take a re-look ....

Interpretation of any controversial book (which this satisfies by a few miles or so) shall be per secondary sources. ∯WBG^converse 16:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I plan on rewriting the content-section (almost all of which is sourced to secondary literature); please give me some time .... ∯WBG^converse 16:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Citing or not citing Swarajya

An editor has just removed citations to Swarajya, with the change-log statement that "rm deprecated source Swarajya (should never be used for anything) per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, and especially not claims about living people". This is a book review article where part of the content involves characterizing the range of opinions expressed in reaction to the book. These Swarrajya citations in some cases were to cite the opinions of the authors - about which they surely are reliable -- so it is unclear to me that all of these removals are warranted. Therefore I am transferring here a snapshot of the ratings of the magazine, as an aid to discussion.

The magazine's listing at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources on 12 May 2021 is as follows:

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Uses
		List	Last	Summary
Swarajya		1 2	2020	Due to persistent abuse, Swarajya is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. Swarajya is considered generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In the 2020 discussion, most editors expressed support for deprecating Swarajya. Editors consider the publication biased or opinionated. Swarajya was formerly the parent publication of OpIndia, and frequently republishes content from OpIndia under the "Swarajya Staff" byline. See also: OpIndia.	<see original>

The legend at the listing page gives the categories "Generally Unreliable" and "Blacklisted" the following interpretations (12 May 2021):

Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable.

Blacklisted: Due to persistent abuse, usually in the form of external link spamming, the source is on the spam blacklist or the Wikimedia global spam blacklist. External links to this source are blocked, unless an exception is made for a specific link in the spam whitelist.

Having followed the two "list" links, it is not entirely clear to me why Swarajya (as opposed to OpIndia) was blacklisted, rather than merely deprecated. But even leaving that aside, there are questions such as: Should some of the Swarajya citations be retained as reliable sources for the author's own opinions? This post is intended as a resource for such potential discussions. --Presearch (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this thread; I was about to do the same. The Swarajya-link is used in a note, not as a reference, to lead readers to a letter written by Malhotra himself. Per WP:NPOV and WP:SELFSOURCE, I think this is a wise thing to do. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If the author's opinions were noted nowhere except in the deprecated source, that's a bad sign. Is there literally no other source for them? - David Gerard (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if the author's opinions were noted elsewhere, but if so, it would be a sign of polarized discourse. And indeed discourse on these issues has been unfortunately polarized. --Presearch (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

There's was a response in Swarajya by Rambachan, one of the scholars whose writings were criticized in the book. Swarajya was open-minded enough to publish a lengthy response by Rambachan (not a right-winger himself) to the book' criticisms of him, but that link was just deleted from the "Sources" section. But obviously Rambachan is (tautologically) a reliable source for his own response. I think that link too should be restored. I don't seem to have the ability to restore the link myself -- perhaps someone else could restore it? Thank you --Presearch (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "noted nowhere"; Swarajya published Malhotra's response. As such, it's a valid source per WP:SELFSOURCE.

Revarding Rambachan's response: I've reinserted the source, but the url can't be restored, since swarajya.com is blacklisted for links. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)