Talk:William Dalrymple (historian)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

I started this page with a brief overview based on the little I know and the books I've read. There's little on the net in terms of specific biographical bits, so contributions welcome. If anyone wants to start separate pages for any of the books, the best thing would probably be to take the paragraph about the book from this article (and replace is with a concise one-sentence summary), paste it in the new article and then expand etc. I look forward to seeing this article grow! Frikle 04:42, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just in passing White Mughals may be an awful book in so many ways but it is not a novel. Anyone mind if I make that clear on the web page? Lao Wai 3 July 2005 14:32 (UTC)

Contents 1 Section removed 2 Protected= 3 Dalrymple again 4 Narrative history

[edit] Section removed

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.

In regard to the 'Controversies' section, this was highly critical material presented as fact in a non-neutral manner - dependent on one source.--Doc^g 19:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected=

I have removed this section again. It was poorly cited and certainly biased. I have also locked this page, until editors can agree a neutral version here. I will unprotect when something neutral is worked out. --Doc^g 14:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dalrymple again

Lao Wai I have amended your intro to Dalrymple. Whatever you think of his work (and your comments on his White Mughals show you are not an admirer) to call him a "journalist and popular historian" is inaccurate and inadequate. I studied South Asian history to MA level and his specialist essays were set texts- and if he ever worked as a journo it was years ago. For better or worse, he was best known as a travel writer when he was young, and is a respected historian of the late mughals. I think "popular historian" is simply not accurate when his history work has won major academic awards such as the Wolfson Prize. You seem to be a specialist in Chinese not Indian history and so are probably unaware the reception his new book has had in India, Pak and the UK. It may not be to your taste (have you read it?) but it has changed the understanding of our First War of Independence. Why this attempt to cut him down when you seem to have posted nothing else that shows any interest on the history of South Asia? AZIZ

Sorry to move this here but as another anon is editing this, I have nowhere else to reply. A journalist and popular historian is exactly what Dalrymple is. I would like to know the course in which his works were set texts. He is a travel writer and has never done much more. The Wolfson Prize is not an academic award, but a popular history award. As it makes clear. The rest is an ad hominem I see no reason to reply to. Lao Wai 12:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a western writer who knows more about Indian Muslim architecture than Dalrymple? qp10qp 16:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that a trick question? I would think the answer might well be "all of them", but is it relevant? No one is claiming he is or is not an expert on Indian Muslim architecture. Lao Wai 16:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

All of them? But he is the only one who has written in English about certain buildings. You were saying he is just a travel writer, which is why I made the point. qp10qp 16:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? Such as? I did not say he was just a travel writer actually. If you think that he wrote good things about pre-Mughal architecture, please include it in the article. I have no problems with that. But I could list two dozen books on Indian Islamic architecture by people like Praduman Kumar Sharma, R Nath, Ebba Koch and Sayed Mahmudul Hasan. The only one Jutta? Lao Wai 16:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You said "He is a travel writer and has never really done much more". This is breathtakingly unfair when you consider he spent five years over White Mughals, whose two-column notes (not to mention previous copious footnotes) stretch from page 511 to page 551, and whose bibliography stretches from page 552 to page 566. Dalrymple is a different writer now from when he wrote In Xanadu.

"It is one of the quirks of modern Indian historiography that the Deccan still remains largely unstudied: little serious work has been done on any of the Deccan courts, and this remains espaecially true of its cultural history: Deccani paintings are still routinely misattributed to the Mughal or Rajput ateliers...The history of Hyderabad and the wider Deccan remains a major lacuna: for every book on the Deccan sultanates, there are a hundred on the Mughals; for every book on Hyderabad, there is a shelf on Lucknow. As the historian George Michell recently noted in the introduction to a Deccani volume of The New Cambridge History of India, "few scholars, Indian or foreign, have worked extensively in the Deccan, which remains little visited and surprisingly unexplored." See George Michell and Mark Zebrowski, The New Cambridge History of India 1.7: Architecture and Art of the Deccan Sultanates, (Cambridge, 1999)." (Dalrymple, White Mughals, xliv.)

qp10qp 17:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me grant all this is true - although George Mitchell has dozens of books on the southern kingdoms, many since 1999 - what does that have to do with Dalrymple? What do you think he, the leading popular historian of the Mughals, has contributed to the "de-Mughalification" of Indian history? Lao Wai 17:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What it has to do with Dalrymple is that Dalrymple was quoting Michell. Even if more work has been done since Michell wote that in 1999, it doesn't change the fact that Dalrymple was first to some of the primary sources, which he had to translate or have translated himself. The term "popular historian" is unhelpful here, in my opinion: firstly because Dalrymple has progressed from being merely a popular historian who refers to secondary sources, to a popular historian who breaks new ground; secondly because although he sells lots of books, he does not fall into the category of popular historians like, say, Stephen Turnbull, who churn out one book after another by summarising the primary work of others—like glorified Wikipedia editors. qp10qp

Fine. I admit that my coffee is just kicking in and so I'm probably a little more tetchy than I should be, but so what? I don't get it. No one is slagging off Dalrymple's architectural criticism, if any. Dalrymple does not speak any Asian language and so he did not translate a thing. So can we all agree that the whole issue of southern Indian architecture is irrelevant?

As for popular historian, I don't see what the problem is. I am happy to say he is a popular historian who breaks new ground. His sales are irrelevant. I expect that Turnbull does use primary material, but so what? Dalrymple is luckier in that most of his sources are English because he works on the English in India. Turnbull should be so lucky. But this is quibbling of minor details. What is unacceptable is the description that I removed. If you would like to think of a better phrasing I am open to anything - except hagiography. 10:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Narrative history

I agree with Qp10qp that the term "popular historian" used by Lao is unhelpful and unfair in this case since it is usually used about writers who rely on secondary sources while my copy of The Last Mughal has nearly one hundred pages of scholarly apparatus, has won a major history prize (the Duff Cooper) and has been widely praised for discovering a whole range of new primary sources in Urdu and Persian. How about we compromise with "narrative historian" a term which has been used about historians both in and out of academe such as Simon Schama, John Demos and Anthony Beevor? Lao is clearly a clever guy, but it seems to me that he has some sort of vendetta going here, as his contributions about Dalrymple have all been notably negative. I am new here, but I thought the idea was to attempt a voice of neutrality rather working off personal dislikes? --Aziz32 03:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)aziz

Lao I don't want to get into some sort of argument here, or ding dong back and forward with edits and counter-edits, but I do agree with Qp10qp that the term "popular historian" you insist on using by is unhelpful (Qp10qp calls is "breatakingly unfair") in this case since it is usually used about writers who rely on secondary sources while my copy of The Last Mughal sitting here has nearly one hundred pages of scholarly apparatus. Moreover the book has won a major history prize (the Duff Cooper) and has been widely praised for discovering a whole range of new primary sources in Urdu and Persian. How about we compromise with "narrative historian" a term which has been used about historians both in and out of academe ranging from Simon Schama and John Demos and Anthony Beevor? Lao Wai you are clearly a clever guy, and I take back my comments on South Asian history since you seem to know about George Michell and Ebba Koch and so on, but it seems to me that he has some sort of vendetta going here, as your contributions about Dalrymple have all been notably negative. I am new here, but I thought the idea was to attempt a voice of scholarly neutrality rather working off personal dislikes? So here is what I have done: 1. change pop historian to narrative historian 2. corrected the fact that all six books have won prizes. 3.add the names of the journals he reviews for 4. been more speciific about his broadcasting 5. Tie up the thematic links bewteen Holy Mountain and White Mughals and 6. replaced the Amartya Sen quote you removed. Can you live with these changes?--Aziz32 03:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have moved a comment from my comment page to here because there is no other way to reply. Schama is a real historian. He does not belong in the same category as Beevor or Dalrymple. I have no vendetta. I came across this webpage and saw it was massively unencyclopedia and I assumed either written by Bill himself or his publisher. An opinion I have yet to change. You assume good faith and I will too "Aziz". I am all for neutrality which is why not one single opinion of mine on the man or his work is included - unlike the obsequiousness of the prior edit. Since when does the use of secondary sources rule out footnotes (I assume that is what you mean by "scholarly apparatus"?)? The Duff Cooper is, again, a non-scholarly award although scholars have won it. Not notably historian's historians, which is a good thing and a bad thing, but real historians. Again you assume bad faith when there is no evidence of it. Nor do you have any evidence for that smear given all I have done is bring the article back to a more neutral tone - you cannot point to a single negative comment apart from the "popular historian" which I do not regard as negative. I do not think the Sen comments are relevant but I did waver over it. And by the way, by his own admission, Dalrymple did not find those sources in Urdu and Persian, nor can he read them. He paid others to do the real historical work. Lao Wai 10:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which sources we are speaking about here (I have not read Dalrymple's latest book), but he certainly did find some of the Persian and Urdu sources he used for White Mughals. And, contrary to what Lao Wai implies above, most of the footnotes and endnotes in that book are to primary, not secondary sources, the majority unpublished: it's quite a staggering achievement. Dalrymple is, in my opinion, a far superior historian to Schama, who makes many mistakes, particularly when trying to toss off TV programmes away from his specialist area. As for Turnbull, it appears to me that he quotes primary sources which have already been published, and does not, like Dalrymple, perform original scholarship himself. qp10qp 16:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not denying what he might have found - except that he did not as he admits that he cannot read either language. He may have paid someone else to find them. Good for him. I don't think I have implied a thing about his sources. I have said he is lucky that so many of his primary sources are in English as that seems to be the only language he can deal with. Schama has written seriously good books like the Embarrassment of Riches. He is a historians' historian. Dalrymple has not. But it is not that relevant and no doubt time will tell. I could, if pushed, enquire about his other books where the sources are not in English. I notice someone is claiming he has something to say about Christian-Muslim relations. However we are now arguing over trifles. I am happy enough with the article as it is. I notice another red editor has turned up. Lao Wai 18:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't let you get away with some of the things you are saying. We see him talking in Indian languages in documentaries, though I can't say how well he is speaking them. He's had a flat in India for years and regards himself as partly resident there. If you say that all the sources he has found were found by people he paid to find them, then you are calling him a liar, as he has said that he found some of the sources for White Mughals himself in Hyderabad. What would be your evidence to question that? Schama, far from being a historians' historian, has largely descended into being a dabbler in what ever interests him, and his books receive harsher reviews than Dalrymple's. Schama also fails to keep up with the latest research and depends too heavily on his own generalisations (he should never have allowed himself to go into print about the Anglo-Saxons, because he made a fool of himself on the subject). Christian-Muslim relations are not a trifle: Dalrymple's views on that issue are at the core of his writing: "At a time when respectable academics talk of a Clash of Civilisations, and when East and West, Islam and Christianity appear to be engaged in another major confrontation, this unlikely group of expatriates provides a timely reminder that it is indeed very possible—indeed it has always been possible—to reconcile the two worlds." qp10qp 21:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take your word he talks a Indian language to some degree. But I doubt it is Persian. The fact he lives in a nice neighbourhood in Delhi doesn't mean much. I know Indians who do so and can only speak English. I am simply quoting my recollection of what he said. He may have found some primary sources for WM but they would have been in English, wouldn't they? Did the book use any non-English source materials? Schama has descended but whatever he is doing now, he used to do very good stuff indeed. He gets a completely different class of reviewer in a much tougher field. He is not a popular historian in a minor area. Schama should not, I agree, have wandered so far. You miss my point about Dalrymple and Christian-Muslim relations - I very much doubt that D speaks Arabic, Syriac, Armenian, Persian, Georgian or even Greek. Those books, presumably, rely on secondary sources entirely. Nor, of course, does it follow he has much to say of interest about Christian-Muslim relations. The presumably forced relationship between an English ruler and a Mughal colonial subject is unlikely to occur again. However none of this is relevant and unless there is a point here, I am happy to drop it. Lao Wai 17:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As for this article, it is not very good, I agree. To improve it to good-article standard would take me a week of adding material, researching, referencing, and I don't think it is worth it. To balance the article, I would certainly add more criticism of him, but the material would be nothing like your criticisms. It would concern some of the controversies he has engaged in with people like V.S.Naipaul and Bernard-Henri Levy, and it would focus on weaknesses in his work which have been identified by critics—for example, the over-indulgent detailing in White Mughals and his inability to write effectively about contemporary figures, like some of those he treated in The Age of Kali. qp10qp 21:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing what you can produce. Lao Wai 17:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)