This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
André Wink article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have added a few negative (and positive) reviews of Wink's works. Please flag, if there are any errors in quoting and representation. TrangaBellam ( talk) 12:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
...he noted Wink's first volume to treat "both Islam and Muslims in a largely monolithic and undifferentiated fashion"...? TrangaBellam ( talk) 13:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
...he noted Wink's first volume to treat "both Islam and Muslims in a largely monolithic and undifferentiated fashion". [14]...And, [14] was
Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1995). "Of Imarat and Tijarat: Asian Merchants and State Power in the Western Indian Ocean, 1400 to 1750". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 37 (4): 754. ISSN 0010-4175TrangaBellam ( talk) 14:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
As currently things stand, the positive reviews are top. Mixed in between and negative at end.
This, however, uses our discretion to qualify positive, mixed and negative. So, I propose that reviews be sorted chronologically. The earlier the date of publication, the higher it is placed. Or, reverse. TrangaBellam ( talk) 14:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Where does the author note ...His discussion of the economic impact of early Islamic expansion into India relies primarily on only two narrow regions, Kashmir and Bengal...
?
...the biggest section of which is the fifth and final chapter entitled 'The Maharajas of India'. Only two of the maharajas are located in the north, in Kashmir and Bengal, while the ones to whom the author directs most attention are from south India: the Gurjara-Pratiharas, the Rashtrakutas, and the Cola-mandalam...
Also, where does the author note ...The book is a reprieve from small scale histories that characterizes South Asian historiography...
?
...World history is needed. It is needed both as a reprieve from and as a correction to the regional, small-scale histories that characterize too much of the historiography of South Asia and also South Asian Islam. But one can dare to hope for world-historical scholarship that takes account of biases and non-equivalencies of data better than Wink has done, at least in this volume....
What's the issue with the "reprieve" aspect? TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Please propose your version and your issues with the current one.
I understand your removal of sharply negative commentary like "caricature" and "numerous broad and unsupported statements" to be modes of whitewashing.
TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Version 1: D. N. Maclean noted Wink's proposed series to promise "a greater Islamic India, analysed in terms of a world history centred on the Indian Ocean"; in the first volume, he focused on the initial expansion of Muslims into the East and their economic activities at the frontiers. [1] Wink, in his description of Sindh, followed colonial historians to sketch an "economically and culturally marginal" territory dominated by rebellions; in antithesis to primary sources. [1] The chapter on non-Arab India did "break some new ground" by challenging R.S. Sharma's thesis of feudalism. [1] However, on the whole, the work was a reductive, unsubtle and "ahistorical caricature" of a complex past; Maclean criticized Wink's "cavalier" usage (and control) of primary sources given the abundance of unattributed quotes, numerous broad and unsupported statements, and "chaotic transliterations" including misreadings. [1] Wink's tendency to reify religions and engage in "quasi-orientalist musings" were noted to be the more serious issues of perspective, which compromised his analysis. [1]
Version 2: Historian Derryl MacLean who specializes in Islamic studies, notes Wink's first volume focuses on the initial expansion of Muslims into the East and their economic activities at the frontiers. [1] Wink, like British historians, views Sind as 'the wild frontier of Indian civilization", with the rather "unhappy picture of a rebellious and unruly tribal region economically and culturally marginal to both India and the Middle East". [1] In other chapters, Wink covers new ground by rejecting "feudalist interpretation of early medieval India" such as in the works of R.S. Sharma, and emphasizes the "larger economic and social world" that included regions controlled by Hindu kingdoms enabled by what Wink calls "Islam". [1] MacLean commends Wink for his initiative and the publication on "early medieval India, a notoriously difficult period" for historians. Yet, he also criticizes him for exhibiting "signs of hasty research and composition", "quasi-orientalist musings", "chaotic transliteration, some of which are clearly misreadings", and the cavalier manner with unattributed quotes from primary sources in parts of the book. MacLean's more serious concern with Wink's volume 1 is the tendency therein to make Islam and Hinduism more real than the abstraction they are in reality. In Wink's approach, "Islam becomes a rubric for an economic complex", which is a "reductive and unsubtle" approach, states MacLean. [1]
References
...MacLean commends Wink for his initiative and the publication on "early medieval India...
...Wink is to be commended for venturing to ascend the slippery slopes of early medieval India...
...a view which owes more to Elliot and Dowson than the primary sources....) is removed.
...complex history of early Islamic India is reduced to a series of ahistorical caricatures...)
...while numerous broad and unsupported statements are introduced. It is surprising to read...
unattributed quotesonly. Such ain't the case.
...sources are cited for areas to which they do not refer...
for his initiative and the publication, how about
for his initiative and welcome glimmers of insight on non-Arab India... p. 536. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 19:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
... Historian D. N. Maclean, who specializes in Islamic studies noted Wink's proposed series to promise "a greater Islamic India, analysed in terms of a world history centred on the Indian Ocean"; in the first volume, he focused on the initial expansion of Muslims into the East and their economic activities at the frontiers. Wink sketched Sindh as an "economically and culturally marginal" territory dominated by rebellions; Maclean notes this view to owe more to colonial historians than primary sources. The chapter on non-Arab India provided "welcome glimmers of insight" and did "break some new ground" by challenging R.S. Sharma's thesis of feudalism. However, on the whole, Wink's work exhibited signs of "hasty research and composition" affecting his larger conjectures and portrayed a reductive, unsubtle and "ahistorical caricature" of a complex Indo-Islamic past. Maclean criticized his "cavalier" usage of primary sources given the abundance of unattributed quotes, "numerous broad and unsupported statements", and "chaotic transliterations" including misreadings. Wink's tendency to reify Islam and Hinduism along with engaging in "quasi-orientalist musings" were noted to be the more serious issues of perspective, compromising his analysis ...TrangaBellam ( talk) 10:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
References
Historian D. N. Maclean, who specializes in Islamic studies, noted Wink's first volume focuses on the initial expansion of Muslims into the East and their economic activities at the frontiers. Wink sketched Sindh as an "economically and culturally marginal" territory dominated by rebellions, a view supported more to colonial historians than primary sources. The chapter on non-Arab India provided "welcome glimmers of insight" and did "break some new ground" by challenging R.S. Sharma's thesis of feudalism. However, states MacLean, Wink's work exhibited signs of "hasty research and composition" affecting his larger conjectures and portrayed a reductive, unsubtle and "ahistorical caricature" of a complex Indo-Islamic past. Maclean criticized his "cavalier use of primary sources", "numerous broad and unsupported statements", and "chaotic transliterations" some of which are "clearly misreadings". MacLean's more serious concern with Wink's volume 1 is the tendency therein to make Islam and Hinduism more real than the abstraction they are for most people. In Wink's approach, "Islam becomes a rubric for an economic complex", which is a "reductive and unsubtle" approach, states MacLean.
"quasi-orientalist musings"and
"unattributed quotes". I don't agree with you on reify. The last line is not needed.
Historian D. N. Maclean, who published Religion and society in Arab Sind in 1984, noted Wink's first volume focuses on the initial expansion of Muslims into the East and their economic activities at the frontiers. Wink sketched Sindh as an "economically and culturally marginal" territory dominated by rebellions, a view supported more to colonial historians than primary sources. The chapter on non-Arab India provided "welcome glimmers of insight" and did "break some new ground" by challenging R.S. Sharma's thesis of feudalism. However, states MacLean, Wink's work exhibited signs of "hasty research and composition" affecting his larger conjectures and portrayed a reductive, unsubtle and "ahistorical caricature" of a complex Indo-Islamic past. Maclean criticized his "cavalier manner with unattributed quotes from primary sources", "numerous broad and unsupported statements", "quasi-orientalist musings" and "chaotic transliterations" some of which are "clearly misreadings". MacLean's more serious concern with Wink's volume 1 is the tendency therein to make Islam and Hinduism more real than the abstraction they are. In Wink's approach, "Islam becomes a rubric for an economic complex", states MacLean.
Asif raises in his main thesis, in a number of ways, the problem of Pakistan’s historiography. Now that Pakistan is a nation based largely on the Indus basin, should it not pursue the history of the region it occupies, with justifiable pride in its early past that gave the world Mehrgarh, Harappa, Mohenjo Daro and Taxila, and in medieval times, Sikhism, and the monuments of Lahore and Thatta? ... For this very reason Asif’s book is important for us in India, to read and learn from. The importance of his message is by no means diminished just because we cannot agree with his dating of the Chachnåma. [1]
References
@ Kingsif: In light of your comments here, could you review the discussions above, recheck the sources, and explain what changes would address your comments. I have been editing wikipedia much longer than you, and the general community consensus has long been that it is a poor practice to leave permanent tags on articles. Our goal ought to be to understand, discuss any concerns on the article's talk page in light of the cited sources, and address any reasonable concerns. This is to help improve the quality of the article. So, please explain in light of the cited sources and our BLP policies, which paragraphs need to revised and how. Let us collaborate and improve this article together. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 19:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
André Wink article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have added a few negative (and positive) reviews of Wink's works. Please flag, if there are any errors in quoting and representation. TrangaBellam ( talk) 12:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
...he noted Wink's first volume to treat "both Islam and Muslims in a largely monolithic and undifferentiated fashion"...? TrangaBellam ( talk) 13:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
...he noted Wink's first volume to treat "both Islam and Muslims in a largely monolithic and undifferentiated fashion". [14]...And, [14] was
Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1995). "Of Imarat and Tijarat: Asian Merchants and State Power in the Western Indian Ocean, 1400 to 1750". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 37 (4): 754. ISSN 0010-4175TrangaBellam ( talk) 14:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
As currently things stand, the positive reviews are top. Mixed in between and negative at end.
This, however, uses our discretion to qualify positive, mixed and negative. So, I propose that reviews be sorted chronologically. The earlier the date of publication, the higher it is placed. Or, reverse. TrangaBellam ( talk) 14:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Where does the author note ...His discussion of the economic impact of early Islamic expansion into India relies primarily on only two narrow regions, Kashmir and Bengal...
?
...the biggest section of which is the fifth and final chapter entitled 'The Maharajas of India'. Only two of the maharajas are located in the north, in Kashmir and Bengal, while the ones to whom the author directs most attention are from south India: the Gurjara-Pratiharas, the Rashtrakutas, and the Cola-mandalam...
Also, where does the author note ...The book is a reprieve from small scale histories that characterizes South Asian historiography...
?
...World history is needed. It is needed both as a reprieve from and as a correction to the regional, small-scale histories that characterize too much of the historiography of South Asia and also South Asian Islam. But one can dare to hope for world-historical scholarship that takes account of biases and non-equivalencies of data better than Wink has done, at least in this volume....
What's the issue with the "reprieve" aspect? TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Please propose your version and your issues with the current one.
I understand your removal of sharply negative commentary like "caricature" and "numerous broad and unsupported statements" to be modes of whitewashing.
TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Version 1: D. N. Maclean noted Wink's proposed series to promise "a greater Islamic India, analysed in terms of a world history centred on the Indian Ocean"; in the first volume, he focused on the initial expansion of Muslims into the East and their economic activities at the frontiers. [1] Wink, in his description of Sindh, followed colonial historians to sketch an "economically and culturally marginal" territory dominated by rebellions; in antithesis to primary sources. [1] The chapter on non-Arab India did "break some new ground" by challenging R.S. Sharma's thesis of feudalism. [1] However, on the whole, the work was a reductive, unsubtle and "ahistorical caricature" of a complex past; Maclean criticized Wink's "cavalier" usage (and control) of primary sources given the abundance of unattributed quotes, numerous broad and unsupported statements, and "chaotic transliterations" including misreadings. [1] Wink's tendency to reify religions and engage in "quasi-orientalist musings" were noted to be the more serious issues of perspective, which compromised his analysis. [1]
Version 2: Historian Derryl MacLean who specializes in Islamic studies, notes Wink's first volume focuses on the initial expansion of Muslims into the East and their economic activities at the frontiers. [1] Wink, like British historians, views Sind as 'the wild frontier of Indian civilization", with the rather "unhappy picture of a rebellious and unruly tribal region economically and culturally marginal to both India and the Middle East". [1] In other chapters, Wink covers new ground by rejecting "feudalist interpretation of early medieval India" such as in the works of R.S. Sharma, and emphasizes the "larger economic and social world" that included regions controlled by Hindu kingdoms enabled by what Wink calls "Islam". [1] MacLean commends Wink for his initiative and the publication on "early medieval India, a notoriously difficult period" for historians. Yet, he also criticizes him for exhibiting "signs of hasty research and composition", "quasi-orientalist musings", "chaotic transliteration, some of which are clearly misreadings", and the cavalier manner with unattributed quotes from primary sources in parts of the book. MacLean's more serious concern with Wink's volume 1 is the tendency therein to make Islam and Hinduism more real than the abstraction they are in reality. In Wink's approach, "Islam becomes a rubric for an economic complex", which is a "reductive and unsubtle" approach, states MacLean. [1]
References
...MacLean commends Wink for his initiative and the publication on "early medieval India...
...Wink is to be commended for venturing to ascend the slippery slopes of early medieval India...
...a view which owes more to Elliot and Dowson than the primary sources....) is removed.
...complex history of early Islamic India is reduced to a series of ahistorical caricatures...)
...while numerous broad and unsupported statements are introduced. It is surprising to read...
unattributed quotesonly. Such ain't the case.
...sources are cited for areas to which they do not refer...
for his initiative and the publication, how about
for his initiative and welcome glimmers of insight on non-Arab India... p. 536. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 19:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
... Historian D. N. Maclean, who specializes in Islamic studies noted Wink's proposed series to promise "a greater Islamic India, analysed in terms of a world history centred on the Indian Ocean"; in the first volume, he focused on the initial expansion of Muslims into the East and their economic activities at the frontiers. Wink sketched Sindh as an "economically and culturally marginal" territory dominated by rebellions; Maclean notes this view to owe more to colonial historians than primary sources. The chapter on non-Arab India provided "welcome glimmers of insight" and did "break some new ground" by challenging R.S. Sharma's thesis of feudalism. However, on the whole, Wink's work exhibited signs of "hasty research and composition" affecting his larger conjectures and portrayed a reductive, unsubtle and "ahistorical caricature" of a complex Indo-Islamic past. Maclean criticized his "cavalier" usage of primary sources given the abundance of unattributed quotes, "numerous broad and unsupported statements", and "chaotic transliterations" including misreadings. Wink's tendency to reify Islam and Hinduism along with engaging in "quasi-orientalist musings" were noted to be the more serious issues of perspective, compromising his analysis ...TrangaBellam ( talk) 10:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
References
Historian D. N. Maclean, who specializes in Islamic studies, noted Wink's first volume focuses on the initial expansion of Muslims into the East and their economic activities at the frontiers. Wink sketched Sindh as an "economically and culturally marginal" territory dominated by rebellions, a view supported more to colonial historians than primary sources. The chapter on non-Arab India provided "welcome glimmers of insight" and did "break some new ground" by challenging R.S. Sharma's thesis of feudalism. However, states MacLean, Wink's work exhibited signs of "hasty research and composition" affecting his larger conjectures and portrayed a reductive, unsubtle and "ahistorical caricature" of a complex Indo-Islamic past. Maclean criticized his "cavalier use of primary sources", "numerous broad and unsupported statements", and "chaotic transliterations" some of which are "clearly misreadings". MacLean's more serious concern with Wink's volume 1 is the tendency therein to make Islam and Hinduism more real than the abstraction they are for most people. In Wink's approach, "Islam becomes a rubric for an economic complex", which is a "reductive and unsubtle" approach, states MacLean.
"quasi-orientalist musings"and
"unattributed quotes". I don't agree with you on reify. The last line is not needed.
Historian D. N. Maclean, who published Religion and society in Arab Sind in 1984, noted Wink's first volume focuses on the initial expansion of Muslims into the East and their economic activities at the frontiers. Wink sketched Sindh as an "economically and culturally marginal" territory dominated by rebellions, a view supported more to colonial historians than primary sources. The chapter on non-Arab India provided "welcome glimmers of insight" and did "break some new ground" by challenging R.S. Sharma's thesis of feudalism. However, states MacLean, Wink's work exhibited signs of "hasty research and composition" affecting his larger conjectures and portrayed a reductive, unsubtle and "ahistorical caricature" of a complex Indo-Islamic past. Maclean criticized his "cavalier manner with unattributed quotes from primary sources", "numerous broad and unsupported statements", "quasi-orientalist musings" and "chaotic transliterations" some of which are "clearly misreadings". MacLean's more serious concern with Wink's volume 1 is the tendency therein to make Islam and Hinduism more real than the abstraction they are. In Wink's approach, "Islam becomes a rubric for an economic complex", states MacLean.
Asif raises in his main thesis, in a number of ways, the problem of Pakistan’s historiography. Now that Pakistan is a nation based largely on the Indus basin, should it not pursue the history of the region it occupies, with justifiable pride in its early past that gave the world Mehrgarh, Harappa, Mohenjo Daro and Taxila, and in medieval times, Sikhism, and the monuments of Lahore and Thatta? ... For this very reason Asif’s book is important for us in India, to read and learn from. The importance of his message is by no means diminished just because we cannot agree with his dating of the Chachnåma. [1]
References
@ Kingsif: In light of your comments here, could you review the discussions above, recheck the sources, and explain what changes would address your comments. I have been editing wikipedia much longer than you, and the general community consensus has long been that it is a poor practice to leave permanent tags on articles. Our goal ought to be to understand, discuss any concerns on the article's talk page in light of the cited sources, and address any reasonable concerns. This is to help improve the quality of the article. So, please explain in light of the cited sources and our BLP policies, which paragraphs need to revised and how. Let us collaborate and improve this article together. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 19:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)