Talk:Audrey Truschke

---

One of the sources used in the section detailing her "targetting" cite a critical piece published on Newslaundry, which can hardly be described as a plateform of the Hindu right. While many sources do note she has been criticised by the Hindu right, it would not be correct to claim or imply that all criticism has been rightist. The first citation to the Scroll piece which details the students' petetion, does not use the word "right wing" even once. This should be rectified. 59.90.60.94 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newslaundry has not been described as "Hindu Right". What exactly should be rectiified? Please state it in "change X to Y" format. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would change the second paragraph of the lead section to Truschke has been accused of having prejudiced views on Hinduism, making offensive statements and has been a frequent target of harassment by right-wing Hindu nationalists.

The section name should be changed to a generic "Criticism", with a separate subsection on harrassment. Particularly, the articles in the Hindu and the Newslaundry article which are critical of Truschke, and which are not right wing, should be given equal weight to the Wire and Vice coverage of harrasment. Currently, it gives the false impression that Truschke has only been accused of prejudiced views against Hindus by right-wingers or that only right-wingers have criticised her. 59.90.60.94 (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kautilya3, any update on my comment? Do I put in a formal edit request? Do you have any objections? 117.194.200.183 (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Op-eds weigh less. Best, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:TrangaBellam, it is not just about an op-ed. My concern is that the section fails to properly contextualise and summarise the very sources it cites, relying instead on the two Vice and Wire (which write all articles in the style of an op-ed) pieces for the tone. Consider the view of Zutsi in the Hindu, which summarises also the Scroll article:

It is this very premise, however, that is flawed (or falsified) as Girish Shahane pointed out in a critique published in Scroll: "The problem with the actions specified above is not just that they seem abhorrent to modern individuals, but that they undercut the liberal policies of previous Mughal rulers, something Truschke herself admits. Bringing up modern morality is a red herring, because the namazi, as his eldest brother Dara Shikoh contemptuously called him, was a bigot not just by our standards but by those of his predecessors and peers." [/br] Instead of responding with reasoned argument, Truschke trotted out a litany of the "mean tweets" and hate mail she has received. While these can be harsh, they are in no way a licence to tar all critics with the same brush. [/br] I too have been subjected to threats when I published a series of trenchant articles critical of Hindutva politics, but I would be wary of using the toxic utterances of Internet trolls to deflect from genuine shortcomings in my work or, worse, label everyone who disagreed with me as an irredeemable bigot.

So you would need to reflect that all sources aren't hyperventilating about Hindutva and academic freedom in their assessment of the subject and the controversies, and that they cover her Aurangzeb, Ramayana and Hinduphobia petition controversies in its own right, instead of reducing them to "targetting" received because of her stances. 117.194.200.183 (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Op-eds weigh less. Best, TrangaBellam (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are putting all the weight in the section then? Vice and Wire? Because other than that I only see the weightless "op-eds" cited for most of the content. If they weigh less at least make them weigh less on both sides and cut the crap. The WaPo article is gone, so I can't see what its tone was, or if it was also an op-ed. Was it pulled from the website or just moved? Put an archive in place please. 117.194.200.183 (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reference number? Please maintain a civil discourse.

Arguably, Israel is such a case, and some Jewish groups outside Israel have deployed the charge of anti-semitism to deflect legitimate criticism of the state’s policies towards Palestinians and its treatment of its own Muslim citizens. Similar tactics are being employed against academics by pro-Hindutva groups in the Indian diaspora. For example, Audrey Truschke, a historian at Rutgers specialising in the Mughal period of Indian history, is one of the parties being sued for defamation by the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), a group that claims to be neutral and non-partisan, but is clearly aligned with Hindutva nationalism
— Sikka, S. (2022), Indian Islamophobia as Racism. The Political Quarterly, 93: 469-477. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.13152

-- TrangaBellam (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WaPo is number 32. HAF has already been depicted as Hindu right here and in its own article, you don't need to worry about that. I am specifically concerned about the students' petetion section—aside from the Wire which says once that the members of the "Hindu right" have placed the position, Scroll and Hindu refer to them simply as Hindu students concerned about the Dharma. The statement came after some students of the Hindu community expressed concern about the views expressed by Truschke, who is an associate professor of history at Rutgers University, alleging that the historian taught students that “Hinduism is inherently oppressive, racist, misogynistic and violent”. Note that this is not an op-ed. I believe this assessment by the sources should be respected and the whole thing placed under a controversy section, along with the reception of Aurangzeb (since there too the academic controversy and accusations of hatred and denial are separate from any "targetting"); while the social media messages and perhaps the litigation can go under the targetting section. The social media section above can be folded into the controversy section. This is the most rational structure given the sources and the best practices I have seen here. 117.194.200.183 (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two missions are reconcilable: students can be safe and supported in their identities and intellectually challenged at the same time. We insist that a critical examination of Hindutva, a political ideology, is not the same thing as Hinduphobia. Dr. Truschke’s critique of the former rests on its majoritarian expression in India, in ways that threaten the safety, security, and equality of Muslims and other minorities. Her public scholarship resists the use of history and religious texts to accomplish those ends. This pursuit points to a desire to uphold the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion. We have every confidence in Dr. Truschke’s respect for Hindus and Hinduism and its compatibility with a critique of Hindu nationalism as a social and political enterprise.
— Who's who of S. Asian academia

Hmm. The entire episode had Hamline vibes — snowflake students weaponized by conservative organizations (MSA/HAF) to cry wolf. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I swear I'm not trying to nitpick, but a defence of her work by her institution as "critical examination" cannot be extrapolated as accusing the students of having right-wing ties. The statement does not say so, and doesn't even really even imply it. I'm not sure whatever organisation these students were affiliated with had any ties to the HAF. If it is so that can be further clarified in the article. RSS might simultaneously be the Muslim Brotherhood and the IDF of India, but that is still not enough to justify the state of this article—the crux here is that the students' petition and the Aurenzeb controversy cannot be pigeonholed as "right wing targetting". 117.194.200.183 (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is a student petition in and of itself does not carry much weight, and if we omit the "Hindu right" label, we would be using the students to elide strongly sourced descriptions of the vast majority of the criticism. Also; controversy sections are a dreadful idea. I have yet to see a controversy section, in any Wikipedia article, that was an improvement on folding criticism into the appropriate section of the biography. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

strongly sourced descriptions of the vast majority of the criticism. Yeah, I think that claim is untrue, or at least presently unsubstantiated. The current version masterfully says she was accused of genocidal whitewashing and trolled by the Hindu right, only alluding to the fact that it wasn't just the Hindu right accusing her of whitewashing the genocidal tendencies of Aurangzeb. And then the strong sourcing in the students petetion consists of a Wire article calling the students right wing, with a letter from her colleagues basically denying accusations of Hinduphobia without commenting on the nature of the accusations or the accusers themselves, against the Scroll and the Hindu articles which neutrally cover the petitions without labelling them. The nature of these two to me seems very much like the "translation controversy", but they're instead clubbed with the litigation from the HAF and some complaints of hate mail. That is irrational. 157.35.84.145 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Truschke’s short biography on Aurangzeb blew up in the faces of right-wing extremists last year because of its scholarly, albeit humanising, account of the Mughal emperor and his importance in 17th century politics.
— Vice ref

Aurangzeb isn’t Truschke’s only foray into shaping debate around Mughal India. She has a regular presence on social media, where she patiently rebuts the trolls, making her somewhat of a hate figure for India’s Hindutva wing on social media.
— Scroll.in

[Truschke] also has often come under attack from right wing trolls on Twitter for her controversial statements on Indian culture and history backed with historical evidences.
— New Indian Express

So, I need citations for it wasn't just the Hindu right accusing her of whitewashing the genocidal tendencies of Aurangzeb. If you are using op-eds, please use someone with a demonstrated expertise in S. Asian history. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAF is right-wing Hindu? Really? According to who? Academics who are not open to criticism and label anyone who diagrees "right-wing" to undermine their stance? HAF has pushed progressive issues like LGBTQ rights and economic equality. But Wiki administration is locked in its biases.

There is also no mention in this article that "The court further stated that "some of Truschke's statements are arguably verifiably false... The court further noted that Viswanath's claim that HAF has "parent organisations" in India is plausibly verifiably false."

https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/us-court-dismisses-defamation-suit-filed-by-hindu-american-foundation-against-five-defendants-over-al-jazeera-article-217413

HAF's case didn't meet the standards for defamation in the US - that is a technicality. That doesn't mean that Wiki leaves out important parts of the verdict that clearly state that Truschke and Viswanathanade false claims. Liberalvedantin (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This thread has become tedious and meandering. TrangaBellam's quotes clearly provide enough justification for the wording of the second paragraph of the lead. So, I am closing the thread. If you woud like to make a new point, please start a new thread. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]