'''Controversies on BLP Articles'''
== David Frawley ==
(Biography of a Living Person article)
Comment: Compare this with the Michael Witzel and Nicholas Kazanas
articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_Search_of_the_Cradle_of_Civilization&diff=91984997&oldid=72722238
Adds:
See also
*[ [ National mysticism ] ]
*[ [ Nationalism and archaeology ] ]
[ [ :Category:Pseudohistory ] ]
Comment:Of course pagan religions like Hinduism have a "national"
element (sacred rivers, sacred mountains), and a prominent mystical
element when compared to Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Frawley&diff=59832944&oldid=56190483
Dr. Frawley is heavily criticized by most leading Indologists such as
Michael Witzel (Wales Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University) for
spreading pseudo-scientific ideas regarding (Rig-)Vedic culture and
literature.
Comment:Unsourced
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Frawley&diff=prev&oldid=60174775
Probably Dbachmann as an anonym IP sockpuppet:
Don't you think it would be reasonable to add some criticism? The
article looks like a hymn to Dr. Frawley, as if it were written by
himself. As I am not much acquainted with the Wiki system, I don't
really get how to "source" something - at first glance the article on
Frawley is also not sourced.
Anyway, as I am doing my thesis on the Rigveda and therefore (believe
myself to) have at least some ability of judging the discussions (also
involving Michael Witzel) - Dr. Frawley having an important part in
them - I would appreciate it if someone could help to "source" the
criticism, or explain to me how "sourcing" is done. Thanks.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by
81.221.87.219 (talk • contribs)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Frawley&diff=60333839&oldid=60197437
Dbachmann comes and replys for his probable IP sock:
um, ''any'' information, on people both living or dead, must be
sourced. At present, the introduction is a fawning eulogy. The article
gives no source whatsoever. It won't do to just drop what you don't
like and keep what you like. Care to source any of the extolling
praise, or shall we remove that as unsourced too? [ [ User:Dbachmann|
dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small>
13:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_Search_of_the_Cradle_of_Civilization&diff=prev&oldid=113304909
notion of "[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ]".
Deletes:To many Hindus, the idea that the Vedas were written by
descendants of tribes that immigrated from [ [ Central Asia ] ] seems
like a convenient myth perpetuated by European historians eager to
attribute Hinduism's greatest artifact to non-Indians. For this
reason, the "[ [ Aryan Invasion Theory ] ] debate" in India has strong
political overtones, and Feuerstein ''et al'' 's theory is thus
welcomed by many Indians as an alternative to current theories.
Changes to:The "[ [ Aryan Invasion Theory ] ] debate" in India has
strong political overtones, and Feuerstein ''et al'' 's theory is to
be seen in this context as a work of [ [ Hindutva ] ]
[ [ ideology ] ].
[ [ :Category:Hindutva ] ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryans&diff=prev&oldid=113825278
[ [ David Frawley ] ] who sees the origin of all world civilizations
in Northern India, 10,000 - 6,000 BCE. civilizations derive from
India, represented e.g. by [ [ David Frawley ] ] or [ [ Graham
Hancock ] ]<ref>related to [ [ pseudoarchaeology|
pseudoarchaeological ] ] fantasies involving "[ [ Ruins in the Gulf of
Cambay ] ]"; c.f. Witzel (2006:230, note 57)</ref>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:In_Search_of_the_Cradle_of_Civilization&diff=prev&oldid=116747705
um, this is a classical case of national mysticism, and the
classification is well referenced. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small>
10:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:In_Search_of_the_Cradle_of_Civilization&diff=prev&oldid=116751853
:::maybe you would care to back up your claim that "Sokal attacks all
Hindus"? Are ''you'' saying every Hindu believes in pseudoscientific
nonsense and indulges in mob violence, or are you saying Sokal says
this? Based on ''your'' presumed edit history of trolling and edit
warring, I am assuming the former, I must say. Yes, Sokal is anti-
religion (not anti-Hindu in particular, saying "he attacks all Hindus"
is like accusing someone who said "I don't like television" of
attacking the BBC), and he attacks this book because it presents
religious fundamentalism in the guise of "scholarship". You may be
"anti-religion" like Sokal, or "pro-religion", or you may have no
opinion on the matter, but this doesn't change the fact that this book
''does'' misrepresent religious sentiment as "scholarship". Remember
that this book is not openly about Hinduism at all. It pretends to
discuss "Ancient India". Sokal
exposes that it is in fact about ideological currents in Hinduism,
something that you seem to take for granted, but the reader may not
have your background knowledge on the topic. [ [ User:Dbachmann|
dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</
small> 10:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_Search_of_the_Cradle_of_Civilization&diff=prev&oldid=116735966
Comment:POV, one-sided.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_Search_of_the_Cradle_of_Civilization&diff=prev&oldid=119670053
the book is exemplary of a series of ideological [ [ Hindutva ] ]
[ [ Historical revisionism (negationism)|revisionist ] ] literature
appearing since the 1990s, and has only been reviewed academically as
such (in the "Hindu nationalism and 'Vedic science'" chapter of Sokal
2006). [ [ :Category:National mysticism ] ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Frawley&action=historysubmit&diff=399790677&oldid=339902102
A lot more propaganda against Frawley and removals by Dbachmann. In
the lead he adds:
In publications such as ''[[In Search of the Cradle of
Civilization]]'' (1995), Frawley has also defended theories of
[[historical revisionism]] advocating the "[[Indigenous Aryans]]"
ideology popular in [[Hindu nationalism]].
Removes various links:
*[
http://www.yogachicago.com/may01/choprafrawley.shtml Frawley and
Deepak Chopra in Dialogue]
*[
http://www.yogachicago.com/jul04/frawley.shtml Frawley: Reuniting
Yoga and Ayurveda]
=== Frawley on Indian history ===
*[
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/
aryan_frawley_1.html The Aryan-Dravidian Controversy] Article by David
Frawley
*{{cite paper | author=Frawley, David | title=Witzel's vanishing ocean
- How to read vedic texts any way you like |year=2002 | url=http://
voiceofdharma.org/indology/ReplytoWitzel.html }}
*{{cite paper | author=Kazanas, Nicholas | title=Rigvedic town and
ocean: Witzel vs Frawley |year=2002 | url=
http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/
english/documents/RigVedicTownandOcean.pdf |format=PDF}} Article by
Kazanas (pdf)
===Video links===
* [
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2946504203837402171 David
Frawley Interview]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Frawley&diff=399790315&oldid=399789267
He removes quotes and changes the accurate sentence:
In books such as ''[[The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India]]'' and
''[[In Search of the Cradle of Civilization]]'', Frawley criticizes
the 19th century [[Racial groups in India (historical definitions)|
racial interpretations of Indian prehistory]], such as the theory of a
conflict between invading [[Aryan race|caucasoid Aryans]] and
Dravidians.<ref>Arvidsson 2006:298 Arvidsson, Stefan (2006), Aryan
Idols: Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science, translated by
Sonia Wichmann, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.</
ref>
to the one reflecting Dbachmann's own opinion:
In essays and books such as ''[[In Search of the Cradle of
Civilization]]'' (1995), Frawley endorses the "[[Indigenous Aryans]]"
scenario propagated in [[Hindu nationalism]] during the
1990s.<ref>Arvidsson 2006:298 Arvidsson, Stefan (2006), Aryan Idols:
Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science, translated by Sonia
Wichmann, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.</ref>
== Shrikant G. Talageri ==
(Biography of a Living Person article)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shrikant_G._Talageri&diff=22259499&oldid=22213961
His views are related to [ [ Hindutva|nationalist hinduism ] ] and
critics consider his works to border on [ [ pseudoscience ] ].
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Rigveda:_A_Historical_Analysis&diff=22895220&oldid=22328781
[ [ :Category:Hindutva ] ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shrikant_G._Talageri&diff=prev&oldid=112076329
Comment:wants to merge book
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shrikant_G._Talageri&diff=prev&oldid=118223496
(wants to merge/delete Talageri's book)
== Nicholas Kazanas ==
(Biography of a Living Person article)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_Kazanas&diff=111603020&oldid=90054434
{{dated prod|concern = {{{concern|unnotable, article created to push
fringecruft}}}|month = February|day = 28|year = 2007|time = 15:42|
timestamp = 20070228154248}} He has published a papers suggesting an
[ [ Out of India ] ] scenario for Proto-Indo-European in [ [ JIES ] ],
which has met with devastating criticism from mainstream academia. He
is personally acquainted with [ [ Subhash Kak ] ], another amateur
author who like Kazanas publishes prolifically his "[ [ Indigenous
Aryans ] ]" views.
Comment:Wants to delete the article with "Prod". At the same time he
modifies the lead and claims that Kazanas has only a Master's degree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicholas_Kazanas&diff=prev&oldid=112037776
"biography article" on a WP:NPF teacher who published a couple of
papers. Created to push ideological fringecruft. Kazanas' notability
can be fully addressed in the articles on the subjects treated in his
papers (out of India and indigenous Aryans). dab
(𒁳) 09:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment:Nominates for deletion. One of the reasons is his claim that
Kazanas has only a Master's degree, which he added in the article
previously
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicholas_Kazanas&diff=prev&oldid=112068556
Comment:One of the reasons for deletion is his claim that Kazanas has
only a Master's degree, which he added in the article previously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicholas_Kazanas&diff=prev&oldid=112792763
*he does not. the ''phonebook'' is a reliable secondary source, yet we
don't allow articles on anyone just on grounds of being listed in the
phonebook. That Kazanas is the "main proponent" of the "Out of India"
theory speaks volumes about the notability of ''that'', but this is
the Kazanas AfD, not the OIT one. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small>
12:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment:Secondary reviews of Kazaans' work by JP Mallory, Asko Parpola
and his favorite Witzel are now "phonebook" references.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_Kazanas&diff=prev&oldid=150612411
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_Kazanas&diff=prev&oldid=117006755Comment:The
Article for Deletion result was KEEP, and nomitated the article for
deletion himself. He redirects (deletes) the article to "Out of India"
after the AFD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_Kazanas&diff=prev&oldid=118503157
Comment:The Article for Deletion result was KEEP, and nomitated the
article for deletion himself. He wants to redirect (delete) the
article to "Out of India" after the AFD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=prev&oldid=118225738
:indeed. It has long transpired that Kazanas is Subhash Kak's
meatpuppet. If he was at least an expert in anything we could cite him
regardless of this, but so far we only know that he runs a Yoga
institute in Greece and allegedly has a M.A. in something.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(𒁳) ] ]</small> 10:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_Kazanas&diff=prev&oldid=118464109
(deletes facts)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_Kazanas&diff=prev&oldid=118502895
unprotects an article where he was himself edit-warring with another
editor
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=prev&oldid=120233467
:JIES offered a fringe author the possibility to state his case. After
three issues, they had to close the debate, since he was obviously
impervious to rational criticism. We can well state that Kazanas
brouht up the OIT thing in JIES and was torn apart, if only to
document that the 1990s "recent evidence" presented by VoI has left no
impression whatsoever on academic mainstream. This doesn't qualify
Kazanas as an academic or scholar in his own right. He is a painfully
obivous <s>sockpuppet</s> proxy of S. Kak et al., and it is no
coincidence that he keeps a homepage on
voi.org. He's just a member of
the gang. He stated their case in JIES and was shot down, end of
story. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(𒁳) ] ]</small> 14:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Other authors and Biography of a Living Person articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=prev&oldid=112038910
yes, Lal is a ''comparably'' reasonable voice (which isn't saying much
with all the pseudoscience flying around). But of course I cannot
vouch that he never proffered nonsense. I haven't seen him claim "5th
millennium Sanskrit", which would be supreme nonsense of course, and I
think this is just once again you misreading your sources. He quite
reasonably says that the Harappan culture has its roots in the 5th
millennium, and he ''comparatively'' reasonably dates the RV to
"before 2000 BC" (based on a single(!) verse saying "Sarasvati flows
to the Sea", which is blatant naivete to any philologist) which is
"only" some 500 years before its accepted date. [ [ User:Dbachmann|
dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</
small> 09:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=prev&oldid=112844654
:Rudra is quite right, Bakaman's selective policy-awareness
nonwithstanding. He still has the sanity to wrap it in conditionals,
but this statement clearly puts Lal in the loony camp. "a language
called Sanskrit", heh. By the same argument, you can prove that the
Sumerians really spoke Aramaean. Shame on any archaeologist who argues
nonsense like that, even if he never saw a linguistics textbook in his
life. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(𒁳) ] ]</small> 17:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryans&diff=prev&oldid=113340640
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryans&diff=prev&oldid=113391836
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sita_Ram_Goel&diff=prev&oldid=118482692
as well as two decipherment claims of the [ [ Indus script ] ] as
encoding Sanskrit or Indo-Aryan, by [ [ S. R. Rao ] ]<ref>Dawn and
Devolution of the Indus Civilisation (Aditya Prakashan, Delhi 1992)</
ref> and N. Jha and [ [ N. S. Rajaram ] ]<ref>The Deciphered Indus
Script: Methodology, Readings, Interpretations, Aditya Prakashan, 2000
[
http://www.indiastar.com/wallia27.htm ]; review: "[
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1720/17200040.htm Horseplay in Harappa ]" by
Witzel and Farmer</ref>
Comment:Propagandistic/one-sided POV that is unrelated to the
biography article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biblia_Impex_India&diff=prev&oldid=118515214
(POV)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eminent_Historians:_Their_Technology,_Their_Line,_Their_Fraud&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Secular_Agenda&diff=226410326&oldid=162939872
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vishal_Agarwal&diff=prev&oldid=119260427
,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vishal_Agarwal&diff=prev&oldid=119482944
(wants to delete article)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vishal_Agarwal&diff=prev&oldid=119664412
,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vishal_Agarwal&diff=prev&oldid=119679135
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vishal_Agarwal&diff=prev&oldid=119679283
In fact the Visa steel plant director turns out to be the rather more
notable Vishal Agarwal than our Hindutva zealot. [ [ User:Dbachmann|
dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</
small> 08:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bias_in_education&diff=prev&oldid=119682673
Deletes References (edit summary: rm lobbyist literature)
== Subhash Kak ==
(Biography of a Living Person article)
General Comments: Biography of a living person article. Compare his
behaviour at this article to his behaviour at Michael Witzel. BLP
policy matters more for Witzel than for Kak apparently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=30477341&oldid=27679773
The co-authored ''In Search of the Cradle of Civilization'' (1995)
participates in [ [ Hindutva ] ] polemics on the origins of Indian
culture.
Edit summary:“the guy is a hindutva kook. Can we say
*that* in the article please, if he is all that notable?
”
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=8489199&oldid=4888562
Probably the whole article should be removed, or reduced to 2
sentences; Mr. Kak, I think it is bad style to write an enthusiastic
article about your own person!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=109061949&oldid=108746775
hm, Mel, it is not conceivable that Jagged 85 is Kak. Jagged is
''far'' too active on Wikipedia and clearly a bona fide Wikipedian.
Kak ''does'' visit Wikipedia in spells, but never does a lot of
editing outside touting his own person. As for Kal's "fame", it's just
that Kak has apparently figured out the weakness of contemporary
academia. You just keep bombarding journals with your articles, and
after a while, people will accept you as an authority just because
your name keeps coming up with google. After this, your "fame" is self-
perpetuating, you don't even need to build a coherent case on
anything. He may be a decent cryptographer, but seeing his tactics in
fields were he is an amateur, I begin to doubt even that.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(𒁳) ] ]</small> 13:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=37666088&oldid=37613053
so what does it take to be described as a "philosopher" on Wikipedia?
He seems to self-describe as a philosopher (and generally as a
genius), and I suspect the statement above is Kak's own.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 12:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_mind&diff=prev&oldid=109628480
removes Kak
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multiverse_%28science%29&diff=prev&oldid=109627367
removes Kak
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Architecture_of_Knowledge&diff=prev&oldid=110811514
redirects article to Subhash Kak
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decimal_sequences_for_cryptography&diff=prev&oldid=110816374
redirects/deletes article
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kak%27s_three_stage_protocol&diff=prev&oldid=110811679
redirects article
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_error_correction&diff=prev&oldid=109626928
removes Kak
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kak_neural_network&diff=prev&oldid=110811360
redirects article
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Etymology_of_the_names_of_India&diff=102029620&oldid=101099571
Comment: Dbachmann removes references to Kak in some articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Astronomical_Code_of_the_Rigveda&diff=prev&oldid=110811126
redirects article to Subhash Kak (the article had no "merge" in the
previous version)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmiri_literature&diff=110813330&oldid=110631047
deletes many writers, among them Subhash Kak
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vyasa&diff=prev&oldid=110813557
deletes paragraph and reference because the reference is S. Kak
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sayana&diff=110828737&oldid=106463504
deletes S. Kak reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speed_of_light&diff=110855738&oldid=110586134
deletes S.Kak reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Light&diff=prev&oldid=110812724
deletes S.Kak reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_phenomena_named_after_people&diff=prev&oldid=110811315
deletes reference to Kak
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_neural_network&diff=prev&oldid=110811263
deletes reference to Kak
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parallel_universe_%28fiction%29&diff=prev&oldid=110812975
deletes reference because it is a Kak paper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Astronomical_Code_of_the_Rigveda&diff=51250049&oldid=49565991
As a work of [ [ numerology ] ] and [ [ archaeoastronomy ] ], it has
little or no acceptance in mainstream Indology
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Astronomical_Code_of_the_Rigveda&diff=108050348&oldid=107341397
Kim Plofker, Review of Kak (1994), ''Centaurus'' 38 (1996), 362-364.
[
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0010&L=indology&D=0&P=35607
][
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0010&L=indology&D=0&P=35709
]</ref> as futile, since it is based on the structure of the Rigveda
as redacted by [ [ Shakalya ] ] in the late [ [ Brahmana ] ] period,
not anything intrinsic in the oldest portions of the text.
Comment:Pfloker's is a negative review, Pfloker could be contradicted
by other reviews?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mankind_Quarterly&diff=110068634&oldid=69544080
Adds:
===New Right, unite!===
{{see|Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies
%29#Later_racialised_theories}}
it is very funny to see Alain de Benoist and Subhash Kak united as
contributors in a racist/nationalist journal: their outlook is really
comparable, ethnic nationalism paired with mythic fantasies of noble
"Aryan" forbears, just that Benoist of course places the Proto-Indo-
Europeans in Europe, while Kak places them in India, each implying, I
suppose, concentric circles of racial degradation around the original
homeland. This makes them 100% related in terms of their mindset, and
100% opposed in its application to geography [ [ User:Dbachmann|
dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</
small> 14:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Comment:So Kak is a Nazi?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=next&oldid=109063093
Especially, seeing how perfectly informed you are on all things Kak, I
put it to you, are you, in fact, Subhash Kak or an associate of
his? ..Especially, if you argue that Plofker's review concerns an
''obsolete'' (apparently, Kak has ''changed his mind'' concerning the
7th millennium, then?), feel free to add academic reviews of the
''current'' edition. To my mind, anyone capable of publishing with a
straight face nonsense like 7th millennium Indo-Aryans, does not
really require to be reviewed any further.
Comment:The book by Kak does not claim 7th millennium Indo-Aryans (ask
dab for the page number)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=108282451&oldid=108253485
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Subhash_Kak&diff=108050025&oldid=108049393,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=108049393&oldid=107261026)
His [ [ archaeoastronomy|archaeoastronomical ] ] claims in his
''[ [ The Astronomical Code of the Rigveda ] ]'' (1994) are to the
effect of vastly extending the [ [ Vedic period ] ], postulating the
arrival of ethnic Indo-Aryans to the 7th millennium BC, which has
earned the book scathing reviews by Indologists<ref>Michael Witzel,
"Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian
Texts," [
http://www1.shore.net/~india/ejvs/ejvs0703/ejvs0703d.txt
''Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies,'' Vol. 7 (2001) issue 3 (May),
§28 ]</ref> and historians of science.<ref>Kim Plofker,
Review of Kak (1994), ''Centaurus'' 38 (1996), 362-364.[
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0010&L=indology&D=0&P=35607
][
http://listserv.
linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0010&L=indology&D=0&P=35709 ]</
ref> .. His co-authored ''[ [ In Search of the Cradle of
Civilization ] ]'' (1995) led to an intensification of the polemics on
the origins of Indian culture and supported the [ [ Out of India
theory ] ].<ref>[ [ Edwin Bryant ] ], [ [ The Quest for the Origins of
Vedic Culture ] ]: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate. Oxford University
Press, 2001.</ref> In the same and earlier edits, he deletes positive
reviews on Kak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=110129697
consistent with what we've come to expect, "The secrets of Ishbar" on
amazon has two anonymous readers, coincidentially identified by the
same handle "A reader", touting it unanimously as "a masterpiece". dab
(𒁳) 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment:This must have been Kak! There are 100'000's of search results
for "Reviewer: A reader" at Amazon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=110125409
deletes part of bibliography
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=110128600
He co-authored ''[ [ In Search of the Cradle of
Civilization ] ]'' (1995) fuelling the polemics in [ [ Indian
politics ] ] surrounding [ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ] and thg [ [ Out of
India theory ] ].<ref>[ [ Edwin Bryant ] ], [ [ The Quest for the
Origins of Vedic Culture ] ]: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate. Oxford
University Press, 2001.</ref>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=110133737
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=112346422
Politically, he takes a staunchly [ [ jingoist ] ] stance, endorsing
Indian "nuclear deterrance" against China, denouncing "socialist
ideas" in the [ [ Indian constitution ] ], the "Soviet-style ideas of
the [ [ Congress party ] ]" and "terrorists from across the
[ Pakistani ] border".<ref>2002
pbs.org interview [
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/india/debate1.html ]
[
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/india/debate3.html ]</ref>
Comment: This all in the first paragraph of the article. The source is
maybe not a reliable/notable source, and he misrepresents them.
Kak does not say he endorses nuclear deterrance, but says only:India
has pursued its nuclear ambitions for a variety of geopolitical
reasons including that of a deterrence against China.
I didn't find a denoucment of the ""socialist ideas" in the [ [ Indian
constitution ]") at the link, but it may be there somewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=112346422
While his contributions to [ [ cryptography ] ] and [ [ quantum
information ] ] processing have only been minimal, he also publishes
on various topics such as the [ [ history of science|history ] ] and
[ [ philosophy of science ] ], [ [ History of astronomy|ancient
astronomy ] ], and [ [ history of mathematics ] ], and is notable for
his contributions to the topic of "[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ]". He has
been called "one of the leading intellectual luminaries of the Hindu-
nationalist diaspora" by [ [ Alan Sokal ] ] (2006).[
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/india/debate3.html ]</ref>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=150787935&oldid=prev
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=110590042
I think we've pretty much solved this now. This isn't publishing, it's
guerilla warfare.
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diskussion%3ASubhash_Kak&diff=11416279&oldid=7282947
(probably Dbachmann, see
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/83.78.182.199
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gothi&diff=30451058&oldid=28199527)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=110816757
ok, I've done a few merges. We'll need to look out for future creation
of Kakiana-cruft, Kak appears to have made a habit letting Wikipedia
know of pretty much every new paper he puts out... [ [ User:Dbachmann|
dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</
small> 12:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=114362412,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=114508213,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=114367017
(rv. Kak's main notability, belongs in intro.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=114372900
::please fix it then... we do have enough material for an independent
[ [ Hindutva pseudoscience ] ] by now, and should discuss this topic
in context there. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small>
20:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=114400565
::Blasphemer! Kak is a fount of couplets immortal, like ''[
http://www.indiastar.com/kak10poems.html The sparrow that built its
nest / feeds the chicks without rest ]'', putting Kalidasa himself to
shame. (oh dear, I will always think of Borges in tennis skirts now
when I hear Kak's name...) [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small>
22:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=114508844
I believe, since Professor Kak so delights in having things named
after him, he'd be pleased if we should coin a new term for his
lyrical work, which clearly stands as a class of its own,
''[ [ :wikt:kakopoeia|Kakopoeia ] ]''. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small>
10:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=114551475
Estonian? Dear sir, it is pure Greek. Seeing the prodigious talents of
the professor, I assume it is only a matter of time before he takes up
the
[ [ :wikt:κακοφωΜία|
musical arts ] ]? It is an astounding feat that a single man should be
able to tackle so many diverse subjects, and yet not rise above
mediocrity in a single one! [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small>
14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC) ( what do you get if you cross a kook and a
quack?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Freedom_skies/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=117261704
:this is blooming nonsense: [ [ Subhash Kak ] ] is professor of
''Electrical Engineering'' with a predilection for ideological
dabbling in fields where he is an amateur. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small>
11:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=117264308
He is notable for publications outside of his field, , from an India-
centric "[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ]" ideology, in which Sokal discusses
pseudoscientific aspects of [ [ Hindutva ] ] ideology, under which he
includes of some of Kak's work.are steeped in the ethnocentric
"[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ]" ideology,but found a supporter in German
Indologist [ [ Klaus Klostermaier ] ])"
Deletes:These sequences have fairly good [ [ autocorrelation ] ]
properties ..and also for real data if some small additional
processing is allowed. ..Although it is also open to the [ [ Man in
the middle attack|man-in-the-middle attacks ] ] like the BB type of
quantum cryptography protocols, it uses only quantum transformations
which makes it quite different from other systems.
See also
*[ [ Fashionable Nonsense ] ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_astronomy&diff=157362677&oldid=157357466
rudra's "deKakification" was not a personal attack, but a call to
remove crank sources, such as Kak and Frawley, from this article. This
is a serious topic of the history of science, and [ [ WP:UNDUE ] ]
applies for non-peer-reviewed sources. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(ð’ ³) ] ]</small> 12:20, 12 September
2007 (UTC)
Subhash Kak Part 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=109269257&oldid=109222081
He has also claimed to have "resolved the [ [ twin paradox ] ]".
Comment:This is based on a press release not written by Kak, probably
not a reliable source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=109139046&oldid=109138890
According to state-of-the-art physics, there is nothing unresolved
about the so-called [ [ twin paradox ] ], and a vast majority of
theoretical physicists considers Kak's statements meaningless.
Comment:Based on poor source (press release), and no source for
"meaningless"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=109122939&oldid=109121769
indeed. For our purposes, I am still glad he published this thing,
since of course we have more Wikipedia editors capable of recognizing
BS in the field of physics than in the field of Vedic studies, so this
is likely to add some context. Anyone who solves mysteries of ancient
Vedic astronomy, and then goes on to "solve the twin paradox" will, I
should think, be screaming "crank" at any editor with only the dimmest
background knowledge in these fields :) [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(ᅵ) ] ]</small>
19:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=109311287
I have to admit I feel rather gleeful about this myself :)
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>
[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 15:03,
19 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=110274955
Anyway, most journals have a crappy article now and again, just
because Kak got to publish in IJTP doesn't automatically mean the
journal is bad. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small>
07:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=110332382
we should do an [ [ International Journal of Theoretical Physics ] ]
then (and document that study you mention, too, under [ [ Peer
review ] ]!) Any given paper still needs to be considered for its own
merits of course. But this does of course streamline well with the
rest of our "Kakiana" here. Kak must be something like unofficial
world champion of said "loophole in contemporary science".
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(𒁳) ] ]</small> 14:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=110335663
but I begin to wonder, what sort of joint is [ [ Louisiana State
University ] ] if "one of our professors got an article published in
some minor journal" prompts an enthusiastic press release(?!?)
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(𒁳) ] ]</small>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Subhash_Kak I am sorry, you are not
making sense. How is any of this "mutually exclusive"? The connection
is obvious. You want nucular deterrence of Pakistan because you
believe in "Indigenous Aryans" threatened by Muslim invaders. The
point is that Kak is not an Indologist. His "Indological writings" are
suffused with his political agenda. Why would Wikipedia even bother to
report the political views of a Louisiana computer scientist if it
wasn't for his "Indological" publications? We do not have enough
material to fill an entire "politics" section. All we have is that
interview, which at present is cited in order to put his "Indological"
views into perspective. We may consider renaming the section in
question. (Dab uses a harmless interview
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/india/debate1.html
from which he makes his predefined conjectures (original research),
the reference would not be a reliable source in other wikipedia
articles.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=110395839
:hah, so the local English teacher was really impressed with the local
Vedic -whiz-kid-slash-poet-prince's latest foray into theoretical
physics. The "scientific community" will be eternally grateful for the
Louisiana breakthrough in understanding Einstein, I am sure :) (in
reality, the release was written by Kak himself, of course. The
wording is exactly his style, I know, I've honed my skills with
Wikipedia sockpuppetry :) Poor Mr. Bertholet's role was just to say
"ok", that's journalism for you, I think we should categorize Kak
above all as a public relations expert - he would have been a great
success in that line of work (as opposed to a "[ [ Potemkin village|
potemkin ] ]" success) ) [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small>
19:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 19:21, 23 February 2007)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=111834216
is notable for his contributions to the [ [ Hindu nationalist ] ]
topic of "[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ]"....Kak consequently takes a
staunchly [ [ jingoist ] ] stance politically,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=113304232
(POV, selective quoting, see also Talkpage)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=113306802
(deletions, adds single pov)
==Voice of India==
(the article was also protected by Dbachmann himself for months, even
though he is one of the warring parties)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=118282948
Wants to merge/redirect the book articles of books by Koenraad Elst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Update_on_the_Aryan_Invasion_Debate&diff=prev&oldid=118498021
wants to merge/redirect book
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voice_of_India&diff=119937871&oldid=119935629
seeing the nature of the firm as a lobbyist platform rather than a
bona fide publishing house
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voice_of_India&oldid=118303326
It is notable for books supportive of Hindu nationalist (Hindutva)
sentiment, Together with Aditya Prakashan, founded by Goel in 1963, it
is a major outlet for the revival of "communalist" Hindu revisionism
and propaganda since the 1980s, targeting a nostalgic audience of
expatriate Indians in the USA in particular.
Comment: also adds information about the Internet domain and the name
of the owner of the website. Since when do wikipedia pages about
publishing houses include such information?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Voice_of_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voice_of_India&diff=119046004&oldid=118745420
Adds long "racist", irrational pov quote without also adding any
opinion/response by Hindus
[ [ :Category:Propaganda in India ] ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voice_of_India&diff=119312612&oldid=119295819
,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voice_of_India&diff=119454800&oldid=119423727
,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voice_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=121002796
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voice_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=136804361
"VOI Propaganda"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voice_of_India&diff=179388843&oldid=179384169
Deletes an important Hindu reply and Hindu opinion from the article:
The Greek Indologist Nicholas Kazanas, in a reply to Witzel, wrote:
"One wonders too at the relevance of his next rather irrational
comment: “Ironically, many of those expressing these anti-
migrational views are emigrants themselves, engineers or technocrats
like N S Rajaram, S Kak and S Kalyanaramam, who ship their ideas to
India from US shores†. What indeed has this absurd statement to do
with facts and evidence?… Then, it continues in the same tone of
irrelevance and contempt, forgetting how many Universities and
Journals spend enormous funds on useless hypotheses and ostracise all
non-immigrationists: “They find allies in a broader assortment of
home-grown nationalists including university professors, bank
employees, and politicians (S. S. Misra, S. Talageri, K. D. Sethna, S.
P. Gupta, Bh. Singh, M. Shendge, Bh. Gidwani, P. Chaudhuri, A.
Shourie, S. R. Goel). They have even gained a small but vocal
following in the West among "New Age"
writers or researchers outside mainstream scholarship, including D.
Frawley, G. Feuerstein, K. Klostermaier, and K. Elst. Whole publishing
firms, such as the Voice of India and Aditya Prakashan, are devoted to
propagating their ideas†. Here two further points are worthy of
note: first, Prof Witzel obviously does not know what “New Ageâ€
writers are; second, the whole passage has the shrill tones of
McCarthyism or any totalitarian dogmatism (and censorship). Instead of
emitting such strident emotional cries and witch-hunt slogans, Prof
Witzel and his followers had better re-examine their unfounded
linguistic assumptions and recall the words of Edmund Leach, who was
neither an Indian nationalist technocrat, nor a New-Age writer, but a
solid, mainstream pillar of the academic establishment. The RV Date -
a Postscript', by N Kazanas. Athens, Greece.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voice_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=121280994
it's a real world socio-political controversy spilling over into
scholarship, and we are ''reporting'' on scholars protesting bad faith
pseudoscholarly publicity stunts. Wikipedia is indeed a vehicle to
elaborate on political disputes and conflicts (have you ever taken a
glance at [ [ Israeli-Palestinian conflict ] ]? At all?
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(𒁳) ] ]</small> 22:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voice_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=121497606
There is this publishing company, owned by a well-known author of
political titles in the Muslim vs. Hindu row in Indian politics, and
it has put out a dozen titles or two of historical revisionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archaeology_of_Ayodhya&diff=160934820&oldid=151451266
removes book, replaces it with Frontline article, and link to
"Nationalism and ancient history"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_astronomy&diff=159133938&oldid=159113617
Kak can blow your mind just by his tenacious imperturbability :) I
think the point is that in the 1990s, when this was all just scattered
fringe literature, nobody anticipated just how much criminal energy
the VoI authors would invest into orchestrating this, and academia
only started to take note when the whole edifice was in place, at or
around 2001. That's 6 years ago now, and things have pretty much
fallen back into place. This whole thing raised its head and died
within Wikipedia's lifetime... [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(ð’ ³) ] ]</small> 09:33, 20 September
2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosamaple&diff=prev&oldid=119946440
The people who "mix scholarship with pathetic politics" are [ [ Voice
of India ] ] (off-wiki) and [ [ User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and
nationalism|assorted sock artists ] ] (on-wiki), and I am doing what I
can to prevent their undermining Wikipedia. You are welcome to help.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(𒁳) ] ]</small> 11:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Koenraad Elst
(wants to delete all his book articles)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koenraad_Elst&diff=prev&oldid=149533074
have long wondered why Elst would ridicule himself by playing the
Hindutvadis' meatpuppet, until I realized that the connection is a
mutual dislike of Islam. Hindutva meets Dutch anti-Islamism, that's
what they call an "unholy alliance" I suppose :) But I really wonder
why these people couldn't just be anti-Islamic like everyone else,
without fabricating all the bogus Bronze Age scholarship.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(ð’ ³) ] ]</
small> 12:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koenraad_Elst
alright, so it turns out Elst is up to his knees in the Flemish New
Right. I don't know how this could have been missed for so long. He co-
edited the neo-fascist TEKOS journal[
http://www.geocities.com/vlaamsbedrog/waw/tekos_waw.html
] from 1992, together with "pagan high priest" [ [ Koenraad
Logghe ] ], whom he joined at the "[ [ World Congress of Ethnic
Religions ] ] [
http://wcer.org/members/sasia/india/definitions.htm ],
a European neopagan network which suddenly in 2001 developed ties to
[ [ Vishva Hindu Parishad ] ] [
http://wcer.org/congress/2001cong.htm
]. Here another interesting page on Elst[
http://ca.geocities.com/zydenbos2001/z2elst.html
]. Most of the sources on this are in Dutch, but it turns out that
Elst acted as "Islam expert" for the [ [ Vlaams Blok ] ], appearing as
"guest speaker" at Neo-Nazi conferences. This surely puts Elst's
eccentric "Indology" into perspective: as an attempt at uniting ultra-
right Flemish neopagans and ultra-right Hindus in their fight against
Islam. In the light
of all this, it is crystal clear that Elst is a neo-nazi or neo-
fascist by any other name. At least his editorial involvement with
TeKoS is a verifiable matter of record. His ''[
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/dutch/islamvoorongel1.html
Islam voor Ongelovigen ]'' is a florilegium of his TeKoS articles on
Islam 1989-94. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(ð’ ³) ] ]</small> 11:49, 28 October
2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koenraad_Elst&diff=prev&oldid=182166938
Again smears Elst as a Fascist:
you say "synthesis" but what you mean is that you are going to nitpick
until you successfully obfuscate the fact that Elst has his sympathies
equally divided between Neo-Fascism, Flemish nationalist Islamophobia
and Hindu nationalism. --dab 12:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Stephen Knapp
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Knapp&diff=156891412&oldid=156235772
Vivekananda
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swami_Vivekananda&diff=155581686&oldid=144706637
User:dab, Please discuss here why you feel that the sentence "He is a
major figure in Hinduism and India" is a tall claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=119239654
Vivekananda's quote is classical pseudoscience, and he is in the
article because the current propaganda artists take recourse to his
stuff. I really don't see a problem. The article has been AfDd three
times now, on no other grounds than [ [ WP:IDONTLIKEIT ] ]. You know
how it works: find an academic review of Sokal and Meera, and we'll
add it. That will be the only way forward. Allegations that the
article attacks a religious community are empty. The "Voice of Dharma"
crowd decided to masquerade their ideology as scholarship, and as a
result they will have to accept that their material is criticised as
if it had been scholarship. If they had never pretended to voice
anything but religious or devotional musings, there would be no need
to discuss pseudoscience. As it happens, Wikipedia has been under
attack for two years by people who push these fantasies as if it were
scholarship, and it is necessary to draw a line per [ [
WP:FRINGE ] ]. I wouldn't dream of ridiculing religious piety, but
claiming the ancient rishis harnessed nuclear power in 7000 BC etc.
for me falls rather outside the category of mere piety.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(𒁳) ] ]</small> 10:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
== Michael Witzel ==
Comment: Compare this with the Subhash Kak and Nicholas Kazanas
articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=32907458
(Witzel writes to Dbachmann)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=32713535&oldid=32699118
well, his critics ''are'' nationalist. I don't think this is disputed.
I have no idea what Marxism has to do with anything here. This is not
about Indian politics, it is about an Indologist doing Indology
regardless of Indian politics. ..I agree that the "flamewar" external
links are less than notable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rig_Veda&diff=12251475&oldid=12251407
the "flamewar" external links which he later finds non-notable were
orignially added by dab at Rigveda
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=32974574&oldid=32926180
Something, for some reason, these Hindutva scohlars seem to delight
in, what with denouncing British colonialists for imperialistic views
etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=32721559&oldid=32718315
you must be kidding, that's about as far from npov as it gets. Which
are you disputing, that Witzel is an academic (hello, Harvard?), or
that his opponents are nationalist? Maybe it is too sweeping to imply
that they are ''all'' nationalist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=32721993&oldid=32721559
Talageri's criticism is laughable, from a scholarly viewpoint. You are
free to cite academic reviews of Witzel's works. In fact, I can see if
I can find any for you. The emphasis is on ''academic'' here; just
mudslinging by a Hindutva author looking to get even for a devastating
criticism of his book will not fly. Hell, everybody can say "your
logic is flawed" without even reading your work. I have no idea what T
means by saying W "violates every principle set up by himself", but
hey, it sounds good, doesn't it. I will not vouch for the quality, let
alone infallibility of Witzel's work, of course, but at least it
deserves to be criticised by his peers, and not by some political
author with an axe to grind. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 00:44, 26
December 2005 (UTC)
Comment:Witzel is of course himself political. Witzel criticized
Talageri in one publication without even reading Talageri's work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=32863291&oldid=32853584
The content of this chapter is basically a rehash of Witzel's claims,
with interspersed disparaging comments, concluding in "Witzel, as we
have seen, violates every single norm and basic principle, set up by
himself, in the analysis of the Rigveda". We have seen nothing of the
kind, except empty rhetorics. This is extremely poor, ''ad hominem''
"scholarship".
Comment:Hm, Witzel has done ad hominem scholarship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=32627799&oldid=32619947
He is criticized for criticizing Hindutva.... by Hindutva people. Big
surprise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=33022281&oldid=33019962
You can either dismiss Western scholarship (including the inherently
Western concept of an [ [ encyclopedy ] ]) altogether (many Indian
scholars do), or you can take their results at face value, and
consider them for their merit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=33117665&oldid=33024869
well, western scholarship is indebted to the [ [ critical method ] ],
not to a lineage of gurus. This implies the principle of [ [ standing
on the shoulders of giants ] ]. We are indebted to Oldenberg for
foundational insights, but we know more than him. No westerner worth
his salt will defend a statement based on ''[ [ ipse dixit ] ]''
alone. This is a clash of mentalities; traditional Indian scholars
take for granted that people repeat statements by Oldenberg,
Bohtlingck, Muller, Monier-Williams etc. out of respect or awe, while
the simple reason is that much of their views have been ''corrobated''
by later scholarship. If Oldenberg was wrong on something, that's out
of the window. It is just that you will note that he was wrong
surprisingly rarely. Oldenberg didn't come up with the Injunctive, if
I remember correctly, we are indebted to [ [ Paul Thieme ] ] for that.
You will never be able to orally preserve a
text for three millennia by the critical method alone, for this feat,
Indian scholarship is ''much'' better suited. And without this
ability, Western scholarship would have no material to go on from. So
nobody ''expects'' traditional Indian scholars to give a shit about
western scholarship, they can dismiss it as puerile and be done. But
as soon as they pretend to enter an argument ''within'' the 'critical
method' (such as claims of astronomical evidence in the texts), they
will be judged by it.
this is a topic far beyond the scope of this page. You are right that
Witzel appears to be active both as a scholar, and in political
debates. Both areas may be documented. The sad thing is that Witzel's
''political'' opponents attempt to attack him on ''scholarly'' turf.
This makes them look ridiculous. Frawley is evidently not qualified to
criticize Witzel. Let him publish his criticism in an Indological
journal first. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 12:57, 29
December 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=33121107&oldid=33117665
Political criticism masquerading as scholarship is not acceptable, and
the rant summarliy smearing "Western scholars" as racists, bigots, Ku
Klux Klan members or white suprematists is clearly not the sort of
link we want.
*Comment:This does not apply if it is "Hindu fascism" or Hindutva.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=67393343&oldid=67393173
:just finding an "article accusing Witzel" is not enough. There are
foaming diatribes out there on fundamentalist sites. Anybody can post
anything to the internet. .. We can't have trolls stating "he's an
anti-Hindu bigot" in the indicative voice, even here on talk:
Wikipedia is not a hate forum, and we cannot allow libel especially of
living people. Any more of this, and I will roll back the talkpage and
block the trolling accounts. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 06:45, 3
August 2006 (UTC)
Comment:...except of course if the article is about a Hindutva Nazi
like Kak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=67624283&oldid=67609743
per [ [ WP:BLP ] ], and especially [
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046433.html
]: I warn 'Netaji' in particular that his disparaging and libellous
tone is unacceptable, and I will issue blocks without further warning
for such behaviour...Frawley is not so much a 'scholar' as a religious
figure, and serious scholars would shun association with such a
politically motivated witchhunt even if factually disagreeing with
Witzel on certain points. academic disputes do not equal online
smearing campaigns). Since there is an ongoing smearing campaign, I
insist that the BLP guidelines are followed with the utmost care.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 12:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
*Comment:Except for the Subhash Kak article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=68294581&oldid=68277917
allusions to the Nazis are popular of course: it's always good to
gesture at the Nazis when you have no real case). Witzel may be right
or wrong in his opinions, like any other scholar, that's beside the
point. But we shall keep this article clear of attempts by his
political opponents to single him out as dishonest or incompetent, or
to mis-characterize mainstream positions as Witzel's personal
opinions. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 23:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=89227206&oldid=72561464
[
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/India/US_text_row_resolved_by_Indian/articleshow/msid-1971421,curpg-2.cms
] is about "a crucial affidavit by eminent historian and president of
the Indian History Congress, [ [ D N Jha ] ]" who according to the
Times of India said
:"The technology, crafts and commerce of the Harappans are also not
reflected in the Rigveda, nor does it bear testimony to the existence
of their planned urban settlements and large structures built of burnt
bricks."
:Giving a hint of the Aryan origin debate in India, Jha asked the
court not to fall for the "indigenous Aryan" claim since it has led to
"demonisation of Muslims and Christians as foreigners and to the near
denial of the contributions of non-Hindus to Indian culture".
which is pretty much what the Witzel faction had been saying all
along.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 13:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment:And Dbachmann claims to be neutral and not partake in the
polemics of the debate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=32974574&oldid=32926180
"who are these mysterious scholars"? I am glad for your question: They
include, notably, [ [ Hermann Oldenberg ] ], who wrote 120 years
ago. ..If you ignore Oldenberg, you are having a 19th century
argument. Something, for some reason, these Hindutva scohlars seem to
delight in, what with denouncing British colonialists for
imperialistic views etc. Hello? This is 2005, not 1870. We quote
sources, on Wikipedia. ''Reputable'' sources, i.e. peer reviewed ones.
None of the links above qualifies as such. Just because something has
an URL doesn't make it a "source". I can put up a geocities page with
a giant title "Witzel is stupid" in blinking pink letters. That
doesn't make it a "source". [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 08:04, 28
December 2005 (UTC)
Comment:Oldenberg is false explanation according to talkpage
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bharatveer&diff=68215934&oldid=68204800
:Witzel is fiercly anti-Hindutva. If you think that this equals "anti-
Hindu" or even "anti-Hindu", you have a seriously distorted view.
That's like saying being anti-Bush is being anti-American (which has
been said, of course, same old "who isn't for us is against us"). Why
are you bringing up Witzel? I didn't refer to the Witzel article. I am
not Witzel, and I have never met him. I am not keeping you from
documenting the controversies surrounding the man, as long as you stay
''fair'' and within [ [ WP:BLP ] ]. A man may have a bad temper and
political tendencies, and still be a brilliant scholar, and I am
protecting the Witzel article against all-too transparent attempts at
conflating politics and scholarship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=prev&oldid=114509408
deletes criticism (if you would cite a scholar of the field in
question, not confused religionists?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=prev&oldid=115024240
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=prev&oldid=119966448
Thus, Witzel et al. turn out "anti-Hindu" simply because they are
Sanskritists.
===California Textbook controversy===
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Californian_Hindu_textbook_controversy&oldid=36657119
Comment: typical "neutral" start of article by Dbachmann (Hindutva,
Hindu right, and allegations of a North Indian vs. South Indian, and
Uppercaste vs. lowercaste conflict)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Californian_Hindu_textbook_controversy&diff=36924331&oldid=36859301
I know; the writeup summarizes the CSM report which was not written by
Witzel, you may say it gives the "academic", or "western" pov. But
feel free to heap opposing povs on this, I created this article to
take the heat of Hindu outrage at Descartes and the Western conspiracy
of "[ [ Enlightenment ] ]" from poor [ [ Michael Witzel ] ]'s article
who is apparently being shot as the messenger. [ [ User:Dbachmann|
dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small>
10:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Comment: With an "enlightenment" like
this, who needs the Dark Ages? Also typical how Witzel needs to be
protected from the slightest criticism, while it is always ok to smear
those Hindus. Besides, Hindu thinkers have more in common with
Descartes than Witzel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Californian_Hindu_textbook_controversy&diff=36926398&oldid=36925236
imdiversity.com is at least not a Hindu forum, but it seems still to
be a lobby organization you'd expect to automatically take the side of
an ethnic minority, never mind if their cause makes sense or not.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 10:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Californian_Hindu_textbook_controversy&diff=next&oldid=36926398
(never mind that the "fair portrayal of history" demanded admittedly
flies in the face of scholarly consensus). In politics, playing too
dirty will just backfire [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 10:45, 27
January 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Californian_Hindu_textbook_controversy&diff=66755668&oldid=66743371
This is a sad case of playing the discrimination card, and I am
actually pleasantly surprised it didn't work out, even in California.
That must mean that they really, ''really'' have no case at all. But
of course they are free to spew Vitriol all over the internet, just
''off'' Wikipedia, thanks. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 22:52, 30
July 2006 (UTC)
== Dwijendra Narayan Jha ==
Comment: Compare this with the Subhash Kak and Nicholas Kazanas
articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dwijendra_Narayan_Jha&diff=prev&oldid=113837399
(non-neutral start of an article about an anti-Hindu historian)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dwijendra_Narayan_Jha&diff=prev&oldid=113886560
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dwijendra_Narayan_Jha&diff=prev&oldid=113886953
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Californian_Hindu_textbook_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=113854594)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dwijendra_Narayan_Jha&diff=prev&oldid=113888313
==Irfan Habib and RS Sharma==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ram_Sharan_Sharma&action=historysubmit&diff=336034218&oldid=335813199
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irfan_Habib&diff=143915301&oldid=143893758
(Apparently criticism is not allowed if the "historian" is anti-Hindu
or at least of the Islamo-Marxist school.)
'''Controversies on articles'''
==Rigveda==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rigveda&diff=24637838&oldid=24637131
These questions are tied to the debate about the [ [ Indo-Aryan
migration ] ] (termed "[ [ Aryan Invasion Theory ] ]") vs. the claim
that Vedic culture together with Vedic Sanskrit originated in the
[ [ Indus Valley Civilisation ] ], a topic of great significance in
[ [ Hindutva|Hindu nationalism ] ], addressed for example by [ [ Amal
Kiran ] ] and [ [ Shrikant G. Talageri ] ].
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rigveda&diff=22895150&oldid=22895011
divides bibliography into Western philology and (in a later edit) into
hindu historical
Racist Rigveda
*sadly, this article is very, very, far from being encyclopedic or
even factual. It's a sermon. An eulogy. I made a few edits, but they
do very little. The Vedas don't condone discrimination? Varna has
nothing to do with skin color? I believe that many Hindus believe so
(and this may of course be asserted), but that's just because most
Hindus have never actually read the vedas, or if they have, they
didn't bother to translate. The Rigveda, for example (9.73.5) talks
about the blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the
heavens the swarthy skin which Indra hates. dab (ᛏ)
17:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hinduism
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=21558098&oldid=21557041
Adds:
The tribes hostile to the Indo-Aryans in such warlike encounters are
described as dark-skinned, e.g. RV 9.73.5:
:''O'er Sire and Mother they have roared in unison bright with the
verse of praise, burning up riteless men,''
:''Blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the
heavens the swarthy skin which Indra hates.'' 08:02, 22 August 2005
Comment:On the same day he deletes anti-racist discussion at Indo-
Aryans
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryans&diff=21560720&oldid=21274442
Comment:deletes anti-racist discussion from article one hour after
adding Rigveda racist claims to the Indo-Aryan migration article (he
didn't move the deleted text to the Aryan Race article) 09:15, 22
August 2005
Deletes: "Arya has also been interpreted by some as a term refering to
only blond-haired and blue-eyed people. But apart from four gods
([ [ Indra ] ], [ [ Agni ] ], [ [ Rudra ] ] and [ [ Savitar ] ], gods
that are associated with the sun or with the lightning), there is in
Sanskrit literature according to Michael Witzel only one golden-haired
(hiranyakeshin) person , i.e. Hiranyakeshin, the author of the
Hiranyakeshin-Shrauta-Sutra. (J. Bronkhorst and M.M. Deshpande. 1999;
p.390) While it is possible that this person was golden-haired, the
author's name could also refer to one of the epithets of the Supreme
Lord [ [ Vishnu ] ]. These descriptions could also be poetic
allegories: solar deities and gods associated with the sun were often
described as golden-haired. On the other hand, there are references in
Sanskrit literature where the [ [ hair ] ] of Brahmins is assumed to
be black. For example, [ [ Atharva Veda ] ] 6:137. 2-3 contains a
charm for making "strong black hairlocks" grow and in
[ [ Baudhayana ]
]’s Dharma-Sutra 1:2, (also cited in [ [ Shabara ] ]’s Bhasya on
[ [ Jaimini ] ] 1:33) we read the verse “Let him kindle the
sacrificial fire while his hair is still black†. Some verses of the
[ [ Rig Veda ] ] have been interpreted racially. Hans Hock (1999b)
studied all the occurrences that were interpreted racially in
Geldner's translation of the Rig Veda and concludes that they were
either mistranslated or open to other interpretations. He writes that
the racial interpretation of the Indian texts "must be considered
dubious." (p.154) Hock also notes that "early Sanskrit literature
offers no conclusive evidence for preoccupation with skin color. More
than that, some of the greatest Epic heroes and heroines such as
[ [ Krishna ] ], [ [ Draupadi ] ], [ [ Arjuna ] ], [ [ Nakula ] ] and
(...) [ [ Damayanti ] ] are characterized as dark-skinned. Similarly,
the famous cave-paintings of [ [ Ajanta ] ] depict a vast range of
skin colors. But in none of these contexts do we find that darker skin
color disqualifies
a person from being considered good, beautiful, or heroic." (p.
154-155) Draupadi is also often called by the name Krsnā
("black") in the [ [ Mahabharata ] ]. According to another examination
by Trautmann (1997) the racial evidence of the Indian texts is soft
and based upon an amount of overreading. He concludes: "That the
racial theory of Indian civilization still lingers is a miracle of
faith. Is it not time we did away with it?" (p.213-215) The earliest
still existing commentary on the Rig Veda is the one by [ [ Sayana ] ]
(14th century). According to Romila Thapar (1999, The Aryan question
revisited), "There isn't a single racial connotation in any of
Sayana's commentaries."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rigvedic_tribes&diff=next&oldid=61448595
The [ [ Aryan ] ] tribes mentioned in the [ [ Rigveda ] ] are
described as semi-[ [ nomadic ] ] pastoralists, subdivided into
villages (''vish'') and headed by a tribal chief (''[ [ raja ] ]'').
They formed a [ [ warrior ] ] society, engaging in [ [ endemic
warfare ] ] and [ [ cattle raid ] ]s among themselves and against the
darker-skinned<ref>described in e.g. [ [ RV 9 ] ].41.1 as ''tvac
krshna'' "black skin" or 9.73.5 ''tvac ashikni'' "swarthy skin"</ref>
[ [ Dasa ] ]. 30 June 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dasa&diff=71554045&oldid=71551432
Comment:adds the "racist" Rigveda verses to Dasa 24 August 2006
==Indigenous Aryan Theory==
General Comment:(The Indigenous Aryan Theory article was created by
Dbachmann, and marked as OR by other editors. It's a Dbachmann
propaganda and OR article.) He also protected the article after edit-
warring in it with other editor. Other articles he protected after
editing them include N.S. Rajaram and Haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA).
Violated 3 Revert Rule on 28 March/1 February.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=108051353&oldid=106501092
The concept is notable in [ [ Indian politics ] ] as part of [ [ Hindu
nationalist ] ] propaganda
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=110032660&oldid=110032195
The implicit argument is that "Indigenous Aryans" take away any claim
of priority from the Dravidian population, making both groups equally
"autochthonous" while at the same time facilitating the portrayal of
Islam as a recent and "foreign" [ [ Islamic conquests of India|violent
intrusion ] ] into a monolithic and immutable native Indo-Aryan
(Hindu) culture of incalculable antiquity
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=104865215&oldid=104802496
{{see|Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies)|Nationalism
and ancient history}}
The theory is a minority position in scholarly debate, but it plays a
significant role in [ [ Indian politics ] ], and notably as part of
the political discourse of the [ [ Bharatiya Janata Party ] ] and the
wider [ [ Hindu nationalism|Hindu nationalist ] ] movement, which
typically does not make the distinction of "Indo-Aryan", "Indo-
Iranian" and "Proto-Indo-European", using "[ [ Aryan ] ]" as a diffuse
cover term for any or all of these. Proponents often argue that the
mainstream invasionist scenarios are biased by [ [ colonialist ] ]
agendas of 19th century [ [ British India ] ]. The notion plays an
important part in the self-definition of [ [ Hindu nationalism ] ] ,
which contrasts indigenous [ [ Hinduism ] ] with the invasive
[ [ Mughal Empire ] ]. In this context, the notion of "indigenous"
Hinduism vs. "invasive" [ [ Islam ] ] is employed to fan hostility
between the adherents of these religions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=110032195&oldid=110030708
The concept is of great notability in [ [ Indian politics ] ] as the
stated ideology of [ [ Hindu nationalist ] ] ("Hindutva") movements.
It is based on [ [ Hindu reform movements|Hindu reformist ] ] currents
such as [ [ Arya Samaj ] ] or [ [ Gayatri Pariwar ] ] that emerged in
the 19th century. It is designed as the ideological counterpart of the
[ [ Anti-Brahmanism ] ] of [ [ Dravidistan ] ] or "[ [ self-respect
movement|self respect ] ]" movements on one hand, effectively
reflecting the conflict of Indo-Aryan vs. Dravidian [ [ ethnic
nationalism ] ] (the main ethnic division of the population of the
[ [ Republic of India ] ]), and the conflict between [ [ Hinduism ] ]
and [ [ Islam in India ] ] on the other hand (the main religious
division of the Republic of India).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=94506740&oldid=94501459
[ [ :Category:Historical revisionism (political) ] ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=99764649&oldid=97929583
[ [ :Category:National mysticism ] ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=94499337&oldid=94496945
{{see|Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies)|Nationalism
and ancient history}} The notion plays an important part in the self-
definition of [ [ Hindu nationalism ] ] (as set out by [ [ V.D.
Savarkar ] ] in his 1923 ''[ [ Hindutva – who is a
Hindu? ] ]''), which contrasts indigenous [ [ Hinduism ] ] with the
invasive [ [ Mughal Empire ] ], und thus cannot by definition accept
that elements of Hinduism entered India by cultural diffusion or
migration. In this context, the notion of "indigenous" Hinduism vs.
"invasive" [ [ Islam ] ] is employed to fan hostility between the
adherents of these religions. External links
*[
http://www.friendsofsouthasia.org/textbook/AmartyaSen_On_Hindutva.html
The Hindutva Movement and Reinventing of History - FOSA ] by
[ [ Amartya Sen ] ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=108283348
The difference between "indigenous Aryans" and "PIE origins in India"
is that the former consists of two imprecise but emotional terms, and
as such does not constitute a well-defined claim at all, but a
sentiment or propaganda jingle, while the latter is a clear hypothesis
that can be meaningfully argued about. Most of the edit-wars we get on
the topic originate with editors affected by the "sentiment" side,
they don't care what "indigenous" or "aryans" means, they just know in
their bellies that aryans must be indigenous. [ [ User:Dbachmann|
dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</
small> 07:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=110289455&oldid=110269916
I'm all but convinced now that we've talked to Sbhushan under other
handles before. What he keeps tagging isn't "OR", it's a simple layout
of the basic context summarized from the articles linked, stating the
context available for rational debate on the concept. Nothing
controversial at all. I realize that the debate is not ''supposed'' to
be rational, it being all propaganda and patriotic gut feeling, but we
are an encyclopedia, and we'll have to put even the most misty
jingoist nonsense into some sort of encyclopedic context.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(𒁳) ] ]</small> 09:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&oldid=94506740
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=110032195&oldid=110030708
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&oldid=110314277
it qualifies as pseudohistory or revisionism ... It is based on Hindu
reformist currents such as Arya Samaj or Gayatri Pariwar that emerged
in the 19th century. ...
**It is designed as the ideological counterpart of the [ [ Anti-
Brahmanism ] ] of [ [ Dravidistan ] ] or "[ [ self-respect movement|
self respect ] ]" movements on one hand, effectively reflecting the
conflict of Indo-Aryan vs. Dravidian [ [ ethnic nationalism ] ] (the
main ethnic division of the population of the [ [ Republic of
India ] ]), and the conflict between [ [ Hinduism ] ] and [ [ Islam in
India ] ] on the other hand (the main religious division of the
Republic of India). The implicit argument is that "Indigenous Aryans"
take away any claim of priority from the Dravidian population, making
both groups equally "autochthonous" while at the same time
facilitating the portrayal of Islam as a recent and
"foreign" [ [ Islamic conquest of India|violent intrusion ] ] into a
monolithic and immutable native Indo-Aryan (Hindu) culture of
incalculable antiquity.
Repercussions of these divisions have reached [ [ California ] ]n
courts with the [ [ Californian Hindu textbook controversy|Californian
Hindu textbook case ] ], where according to the Times of
India<ref>[
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/India/US_text_row_resolved_by_Indian/articleshow/msid-1971421,curpg-2.cms
US text row resolved by Indian, 9 Sep, 2006 ] </ref> historian and
president of the Indian History Congress, [ [ D. N. Jha ] ] in a
"crucial affidavit" to the superior court of the state of California,
:"Giving a hint of the Aryan origin debate in India, [ ... ] asked the
court not to fall for the 'indigenous Aryan' claim since it has led to
'demonisation of Muslims and Christians as foreigners and to the near
denial of the contributions of non-Hindus to Indian culture'."
The theory is a minority position in scholarly debate, but it plays a
significant role in Indian politics, and notably sees use as
propaganda by the Bharatiya Janata Party, which typically does not
make the distinction of "Indo-Aryan", "Indo-Iranian" and "Proto-Indo-
European", using "Aryan" as a diffuse cover term for any or all of
these.
[ [ :Category:Hindutva ] ][ [ :Category:Historical revisionism
(political) ] ] [ [ :Category:National mysticism ] ]Comment:All
criticism of the AIT must be BJP propaganda, Hindutva, Revisionism,
Pseudohistory and Anti-Islamic and Anti-Christian. Only the pro-AIT is
not political.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rudrasharman&diff=prev&oldid=110318342
we should mention the term on [ [ indigenous Aryans ] ], since it is
of course part of the same propaganda machine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=110710654
The concept is notable in [ [ Indian politics ] ] as part of [ [ Hindu
nationalist ] ] propaganda. In its extreme forms, postulating "Aryans"
in the [ [ Neolithic ] ] period (7th to 5th millennia BC), it
qualifies as [ [ pseudohistory ] ] or [ [ national mysticism ] ],
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=111538716
then ''make our day'' and [ [ WP:AfD ] ] it already. Maybe it will
finally get you banned for [ [ WP:POINT ] ], one may hope.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(𒁳) ] ]</small> 08:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=prev&oldid=111614669
um, the "indigenous Aryans" article ''is'' about propaganda. It's so
categorized. It's stated up front. It's all referenced. It's so much
glorified gibberish spiced with testosteron. I'm sorry, but you are
not making sense. ''As'' propaganda, it doesn't make strict scholarly
sense, and there can be all sorts of "corollaries" from it, including,
but not limited to OIT, since ''[ [ ex falso quodlibet ] ]''. While
otoh "OIT" is at least a well-defined proposal which in a certain
sence includes an "indigenous Aryan" position ''a fortiori''.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(𒁳) ] ]</small> 17:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=prev&oldid=111605915
the term may have been coined by Bryant, but it is in wider use as a
term for Hindu nationalist propaganda (as shown in the article). I
would be most happy to devote one line to it being pseudoscholarly
bullshit pushed by "religious fanatics" (as you [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIndigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=111583305&oldid=111580971
seem to agree ]). But if we're going to discuss "evidence" for the
"theory" (as opposed to simply discuss the political agendas
involved), we will damn well be allowed to spell out just what
proposal it is for which we're looking for evidence. We ''agree'' it's
bullshit, alright? We are giving brief background on ''why'' it is
bullshit. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(𒁳) ] ]</small> 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=111588689
e.g. [ [ B.B. Lal ] ] who in [
http://www.geocities.com/ifihhome/articles/bbl001.html
The Homeland of Indo-European Languages and Culture: Some Thoughts ]
claims that the Rigveda "must predate 2000 BC" based on geological
(sic!) evidence.</ref>
Comment:The alleged source is an unpublished article that seems to be
misquoted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=111626427
I've blocked {{vandal|Sbhushan}} for persistent trolling and edit-
warring on [ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ], plus a 3RRvio in reaction to a
warning. I am also uncertain of his sock status (we get many trolls of
that kind that may or may not be identical). Since I am involved in
the article being trolled, I am posting this block here for review,
and I will not consider any adjustment "wheel warring" but will accept
it as uninvolved advice. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(í ˆ) ] ]</small> 18:26, 28
February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=111627425
I've blocked Sbhushan for 48h over his last revert (after warning) to
impress on him that he is out of line. See also [ [ WP:AN/
I#Sbhushan ] ]. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small>
18:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Comment:Blocks an User who disagrees
with him. Claims the user had 3RRvio without giving evidence. Claims
that the user (history of 4 months) has a sock status.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASbhushan&diff=111631967&oldid=111625630
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=111646344
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=111666071
Comment:Unblocks him after user filed unblock request. See also the
comments by other adminstrators, who say "it was not patent nonsense,
vandalism, or simple disruption." and "Rather than blocking and then
reporting here, you should have come here first to request help from
uninvolved administrators."
*WP:3RRvio at Indigenous_Aryan_Theory from 28.2./1.3. 2007. He also
protects the page. (Wikipedia:Protection policy says "Do not protect a
page you are editing, unless against BLP violations or simple
vandalism, or unprotect a page in order to start editing it.")
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=111836454$
adds:
Pseudoscience and Postmodernism
{{see|Hindutva}}
Nanda (2003) argues that the [ [ pseudoscience ] ] at the core of
Hindu nationalism was unwittingly helped into being in the 1980s by
the [ [ postmodernism ] ] embraced by Indian leftist "postcolonial
theories" like [ [ Ashis Nandy ] ] and [ [ Vandana Shiva ] ] who
rejected the universality of "Western" [ [ science ] ] and called for
the "indigenous science" (Sokal 2006:32).
Nanda (2003:72) explains how this relativization of "science" was
employed by Hindutva ideologues during the 1998 to 2004 reign of the
[ [ BJP ] ]: :''any traditional Hindu idea or practice, however
obscure and irrational it might have been through its history, gets
the honoric of "science" if it bears any resemblance at all, however
remote, to an idea that is valued (even for the wrong reasons) in the
West.'' Criticism of the irrationality of such "Vedic science" is
brushed aside by the notion that :''The idea of 'contradiction' is an
imported one from the West in recent times by the Western-educated,
since ‘Modern Science’ arbitrarily
imagines that it only has the true knowledge and its methods are the
only methods to gain knowledge, smacking of Semitic dogmatism in
religion.'' (Mukhyananda 1997:94)
Comment:For once better referenced than usual, but not reported
neutrally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=111843301
Witzel (2006:204) traces the "indigenous Aryan" idea to the writings
of Golwalkar and Sarvarkar. Golwalkar (1939) denied any immigration of
"Aryans" to the subcontinent, stressing that all Hindus have always be
"children of the soil", a notion Witzel compares to the Nazi
''[ [ Blut und Boden ] ]'' mysticism contemporary to Golwalkar. Since
these ideas emerged on the brink of the internationalist and socially
oriented Nehru-Gandhi government, they lay dormant for several
decades, and only rose to prominence in the 1980s in conjunction with
the relativist revisionism outlined above, most of the revisionist
literature being published by the firms ''Voice of Dharma'' and
''Aditya Prakasha''....e.g. by [ [ David Frawley ] ] who sees the
origin of all world civilizations in Northern India, 10,000 - 6,000
BCE.Comment:For once better referenced than usual, but not reported
neutrally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=112036859
The proposition of "indigenous Aryans" thus does not correspond to a
single identifiable opion, but to a sentiment that may result in
various, partly mutually exclusive, specific claims united by a common
ideology.<ref>Thus, [ [ Koenraad Elst ] ] postulates a Proto-Indo-
Iranian Harappan culture, while [ [ Nicholas Kazanas ] ] argues that
the Indo-Aryan Rigveda must predate the Harappan culture. The unifying
ideology is apparent in that there is no academic controversy
''among'' proponents of "out of India" scenario aimed at resolving
such contradictions.</ref>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=112042069
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=112042249
===article progress, category===
alright, so a picture begins to emerge. I've never been interested in
treating these subjects, but it turns out it is impossible to discuss
the Vedic period on Wikipedia without solving this. I think we are
making slow but steady progress exposing what's actually going on. The
aim must be to turn the eternally broken [ [ Aryan Invasion Theory
(history and controversies) ] ] into a clean [ [ WP:SS ] ] summary,
and somehow categorize this whole cottage industry. Something like
[ [ :Category:Hindutva revisionism ] ] seems in order, and we may need
an article to address this phenomenon of the rise of "Hindutva
[ pseudo ]science" since the 1980s directly. We have:
*[ [ :Category:Hindutva ] ], [ [ :Category:Historiography of India ] ]
*[ [ Hindutva ] ]
*[ [ Hindu nationalism ] ] (scope and relation to "Hindutva" unclear)
*[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ]
*[ [ Out of India ] ]
*[ [ Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) ] ]
*[ [ Hindu reform movements ] ]
authors/books
*[ [ Subhash Kak ] ]
*[ [ N. S. Rajaram ] ]
*[ [ David Frawley ] ]
*[ [ Nicholas Kazanas ] ]
*[ [ Georg Feuerstein ] ]
*[ [ Shrikant G. Talageri ] ]
*[ [ In Search of the Cradle of Civilization ] ]
*[ [ The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis ] ]
the underlying structure of this propaganda effort isn't at all
obvious from the beginning due to the conscious effort to make it
appear larger and less coordinated than it is (a central role seems to
be taken by the ''[ [ Voice of Dharma ] ]'' publishing house, which
would seem to need its own article). You initially think these are
just a motley crew of your average crackpot authors until the pattern
emerges. It is a rather serious topic, since this is ultimately about
lying to the Indian (and expatriate Indian) public, misleading it into
mindless radicalism, and Nanda isn't just Godwining when she draws the
obvious parallel to the "Aryan supremacy" cruft of 1930s fascism.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(𒁳) ] ]</small> 10:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryans&diff=prev&oldid=112080460
I am considering moving it to [ [ Hindutva revisionism ] ] above, as
it turns out "indigenous Aryans" are only the tip of a regular iceberg
of pseudoscience flying around here. If we do that, we should
''also'' merge the "AIT (history and controversies)" article, which at
the moment exists just a dump anyway. We cannot merge this with OIT
though: we cannot merge OIT here, since OIT has (granted, minor)
aspects that are not ideologically motivated but bona fide
scholarship, and we cannot merge this to OIT, since the scope of
"indigenous Aryans" is obviously not restricted to OIT.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(𒁳) ] ]</small> 15:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=112584145*'''speedy
keep''' (no brainer), and '''move''', per the discussion on talk,
either to simple [ [ indigenous Aryans ] ], or to a wider scope like
[ [ Hindutva revisionism ] ], [ [ Hindutva and pseudoscience ] ] or
similar. The [ [ Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) ] ]
should be either {{tl|split}}, or be a concise [ [ WP:SS ] ] article;
this is all editing business, not Afd business, and we'd have
rectified things month ago were it not for our resident Hindutva
trolling team. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small>
16:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=112584145
"Indigenous Aryan position" is just a term for what ''proponents'' (or
should we say, ''disseminators'') prefer to call things like "exciting
new emerging evidence found by eminent professors" (and permutations,
ad nauseam), which is hardly preferable as an article title.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(𒁳) ] ]</small> 16:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=112792315
just because there are a couple of editors on Wikipedia who attempt to
''abuse'' the project as a propaganda tool? Much to the contrary, it
requires an extra effort to screen out the propagandist pov-pushing
and create a solid and well-referenced article describing their
approaches. "Indigenous Aryan" is just one central aspect of this
propaganda stunt, and I agree the article could be '''moved''' to
[ [ Hindutva propaganda ] ], [ [ Hindutva pseudoscience ] ],
[ [ Hindutva revisionism ] ] or whatever you prefer, but Wikipedia
will '''not''' allow propagandists, or those misled by propagandists,
succeed in pretending that their propaganda does not in fact exist and
its discussion belongs "deleted". Quoth the arbcom,
"[ [ Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-
Pakistan#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox|use of Wikipedia for political
propaganda is prohibited. ] ]" Yet this is ''constantly''
done by our resident "Hindutva half-dozen". It is time we protected
Wikipedia more effectively against such attacks, since attacks they
are. This AfD is just a little incident in this epic story, of course,
but it is very instructive on the present state of things.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(𒁳) ] ]</small> 11:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=112866185
if Wikipedia wasn't spammed by Hindutva trolls, it would be much
easier to reach FA quality again. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small>
19:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryans&diff=prev&oldid=113059029
(revert)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=113059325
wow, Indian elementary school syllabus is now "Truth"? Would that be
before or after the 1998-2004 indoctrination stunt by the BJP
government? I suppose we should turn to Turkish elementary school
syllabus to establish the Truth of [ [ Pan-Turkism ] ], then?
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(𒁳) ] ]</small> 13:46, 6 March 2007
(UTC)Comment:"indoctrination stunt"? What about the indocrination
stunt of Islamist and Marxist educators?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryans&diff=prev&oldid=113269045
The concept is notable in [ [ Indian politics ] ] as part of [ [ Hindu
nationalist ] ] propaganda. ..or [ [ national mysticism ] ] (revert)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=113286156
but whatever we read in the Vedas is universal truth (that's
[ [ Biblical literalism ] ] by any other name,
I ''appreciate'' that there is "pseudo-secularism" in India that is
''also'' motivated by political agendas. But you need to appreciate
that this is not the issue here at all. I would not allow such "pseudo-
secularism" any more Comment: He rather supports pseudo secularism
than fight it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryans&diff=prev&oldid=113337873
. No, it shouldn't be "a subsection of AIT page", it should be a
subsection of a larger "[ [ Hindutva ideology ] ]" page,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryans&diff=prev&oldid=113341046
Or those arguing that this is a topic of scholarship, not national
mysticism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryans&diff=prev&oldid=113269045
a) it is well sourced (Sokal, Nanda, ...) and (b) it isn't the "belief
of millions", it's the hobby horse of a handful of cranks. It wasn't
in the Puranas last time I checked.) (edit summary)
==Historiography and nationalism==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historiography_and_nationalism&diff=62227631&oldid=62171803
In ancient times, ethnicities often derived their or their rulers'
origin from divine or semi-divine founders of a mythical past (for
example, the [ [ Anglo-Saxons ] ] deriving their dynasties from
[ [ Woden ] ]; see also [ [ Euhemerism ] ]). In modern times, such
mythical [ [ aetiology|aetiologies ] ] in nationalist constructions of
history were replaced by the frequent attempt to link one's own ethnic
group to a source as ancient as possible, often known not from
tradition but only from archaeology or philology, such as Armenians
claiming as their origin the [ [ Urartians ] ], the [ [ Albanians ] ]
claiming as their origin the [ [ Illyrians ] ], the [ [ Georgians ] ]
claiming as their origin the [ [ Hayasa-Azzi ] ], or [ [ Hindu ] ]
nationalists claiming as their origin the [ [ Indus Valley
Civilization ] ] — all of the mentioned groups being known only
from either ancient historiographers or
archaeology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historiography_and_nationalism&diff=94027071&oldid=92952802
adds link to (see [ [ Aryan Invasion Theory (propaganda) ] ])
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28propaganda%29&oldid=94027099
makes redirect Aryan Invasion Theory (propaganda) to AIT
==Indo-Aryan migration==
General comments: He moved the AIT article to "Indo-Aryan migration",
not a clear or even neutral title for a theory either (http://
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-
Aryan_migration&diff=prev&oldid=113387179)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geo.plrd&diff=prev&oldid=109048657
What is the difference between a "chatpage" and a talkpage? I find
that too much time is wasted with idle chatter on ''talk'' pages
already. If you want to move the article, you should make a proposal
on talk, preferably after familiarizing yourself with the topic. If
you find I am in violation of OWN, you should take up the matter with
me directly, and failing that, open a user conduct RfC. If I "OWNed"
the article in any way, it would have been cleaned up months ago. But
since I recognize that the article cannot be "owned", it will probably
remain broken indefinitely. The policy in question is
[ [ WP:UNDUE ] ]. I am well aware of scholarly mainstream opinion on
the matter. The article is under constant attack from editors who
either cannot understand or do not want to respect WP's principle of
[ [ WP:NPOV ] ] means that views are presented in proportion to their
academic notability. I realize that the topic is not ''only'
' academic, and that it plays an unfortunate role in Indian religious
nationalist propaganda. This is why we have [ [ Aryan Invasion Theory
(history and controversies) ] ] which has the sole purpose of
documenting the political side of the topic. We do get an endless
influx of Hindu propagandist editors bent on misrepresenting academic
opinion. WIN is just a comparatively harmless example of these. The
only thing that stands between these editors and a Wikipedia that is
instrumentalised for political propaganda is Wikipedia policy and the
investment of editors ready to engage in anti-propaganda vigilantism.
I am prepared to discuss with anyone who brings up clean academic
references in good faith. I am not prepared, nor am I obliged by
Wikipedia policy, to discuss anything else. regards,
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(𒁳) ] ]</small> 10:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=54875203&oldid=52272218
It is asking a lot to quote the piles of pseudo-academic works
motivated by religious or nationalist agendas, but at least those
authors are at least trying to ''imitate'' scholarship.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 11:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=68390702&oldid=68381238
It is enough that the Hindukush is ''the'' classical invasion route
into India, with a long string of known precedents. [ [ User:Dbachmann|
dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small>
12:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=68577852&oldid=68576981
That we don't hear more of this is obviously due to the nationalist
side being not interested in honest debate, they want Paleolithic
Aryans in 80,000 BC, and they don't care about anything west of the
Khyber Pass :) [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 09:44, 9
August 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=next&oldid=68597183
There is no reason whatsoever to assume chariots for the IVC except
for the desire to score points in the IAM debate. In scholarship
(unlike politics), a desire to score points is not a strong argument
in favour of anything. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 12:33, 9
August 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=72375613&oldid=71590584
Where do you get your ideas, WIN? From crackpot websites? From your
Swami? From foaming redneck politicians?
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛎ''') ] ]</small>
[ [ User:Dbachmann|qɐp ] ] 12:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=100201129&oldid=100198348
your 1.) is precisely the sort of national mysticism uninformed by
cultural or linguistic change that we want to keep separate from
scholarly debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=109120035&oldid=109107385
indeed. but I dare you to catch me doing that. While I clean out such
bad faith material regularly, and, lo and behold, they only ever go in
one direction, and then I get told off for being "biased".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=109782812&oldid=109778185
indeed. the "downward spiral" is entirely an artifact in the
interpretation of angry Hindutva propagandists who like to allege the
"invasion" scenario was a bad faith conspiracy from the beginning (for
reasons best known to themselves, I have ''yet'' to hear how
colonialists could profit ideologically from a Bronze Age invasion).
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(𒁳) ] ]</small> 10:14, 21 February 2007
(UTC)Comment:This is an apologist view of British colonialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=next&oldid=109853176
I've seen many things on Wikipedia, but now you have managed to create
a pov fork of a talkpage, congratulations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=79419634&oldid=79413758
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=72445220&oldid=72442693
(as is often postulated by Indian patriotic sentiment),
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=prev&oldid=114594187
You mean [
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history_1.shtml
]. Page 4 is essentially a disclaimer, "dear Indian patriots, ~we know
you don't like it, please don't fry us". [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small>
18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=prev&oldid=114902794
,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=prev&oldid=115018387
Comment:there are desperate also those that try to build a case for
the non-presence of the horse in Neolithic India, for transparent
ideological reasons.
==AIT==
General comments: He got the article moved to AIT(history and
controversies). Late he wants to make a disambiguation page from AIT
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_Invasion_Theory_
%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=prev&oldid=113073213), splitting
the article to Indigenous Aryans, Hindutva revisionism and other
articles. Dbachmann also cannot imagine that the AIT could in any way
have been used as a moral justification for the British imperialists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=78528136&oldid=76722061
our stark raving radical Hindu blogs and 'tribute' websites. If
anything, we should do away with links such as [
http://www.atributetohinduism.com/aryan_invasion_theory.htm this ] (a
rambling anonymous writeup on some religious site):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=79274531&oldid=79274505
if it were not for the constant disruption on the part of the
propagandists. What we want to document here are notable opinions on
the socio-religious propaganda that is being handed around in India.
The topic of this article is wound up with Hindu nationalism, and it
is impossible to write an encyclopedic article about nationalism if
the nationalists are trying to write a ''nationalist'' article at the
same time. But I wish you all the best cleaning up this mess, of
course. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 16:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=83485558&oldid=83483805
I still don't see, after all this time, how the notion of an
prehistoric invasion of the Indian subcontinent (on top of the dozen
or so known historical invasions along the same route) would in any
way bolster or further chauvinist, colonialist, racist or Eurocentric
views. Seriously, I don't. I can see how the idea may be welcome to
Dravidian or Dalit campaigners, but I simply don't see any stakes in
the debate from the pov of a colonialist agenda. 193.43 appears to
just have felt like dropping a few provocative comments on a Wikipedia
talkpage. In any case I do not see any suggestion for improvement of
the article. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 19:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=94027142&oldid=94026028
(AIT), is a controversial polemical term used in [ [ Indian
politics ] ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=94026028&oldid=93943301
changes "Sites critical of AIT and/or AMT" to "examples of Hindu sites
"debunking Aryan Invasion"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=62061247&oldid=62042124
[ [ :Category:Hindutva ] ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=60326161&oldid=60324733
Those "AIT supporters" who condescend to enter into the political
debate however have also used the underlying motives of their
opponents to buttress their arguments. They believe that the other
side's polemics are motivated by a strong feeling that the Hindu
religion, with its highest texts in Vedic Sanskrit, would become less
"authentic" if it were to be accepted that the origin of this language
were outside the sacred places of the Indian subcontinent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=prev&oldid=113073951
(removes reference, no editsummary)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryans&diff=prev&oldid=113325328
. It's an awkward non-topic created as a tempoaray trashcan for
ideological chaff that gathered on the main article. We agree it's
redundant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=prev&oldid=113075092
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=prev&oldid=119705547
==OIT==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=71344786&oldid=71338352
surprisingly enough, our resident Hindutva crowd neglected to talk
about an OIT almost completerly...This is much like dealing with
biblical literalists, the hallmark of fundamentalism, and has nothing
to do with scholarship, even ''if'' the occasional scholarly source is
waved about. See 'Bakatalk' just above for a quaint example, parroting
what actual editors told him over at Witzel's article (as if we were
writing some biography here). Half of the time, these editors fail the
Turing test completely, we might as well be dealing with an armada of
chatterbots unleashed from an underground BJP headquarters :o)
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 08:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=76058900&oldid=76041247
, or we turn this into the "[ [ Hindutva propaganda and Indo-
European ] ]" article and put it in [ [ :Category:Propaganda ] ].
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=79203615&oldid=79203590
:*tag the whole article as [ [ :Category:Pseudoscience|
pseudoscientific ] ] [ [ :Category:Hindutva|Hindutva ] ]
[ [ :Category:propaganda|propaganda ] ] and be done with it
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=79852059&oldid=79846960
:rolleyes: more likely, these kids are teased because their parents
are fundamentalist loonies... [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 14:47, 6
October 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=80185005&oldid=79951163
Sen is commenting ''on'' the "AIT controvesy", he is not alleging to
have done any research of his own, he is simply commenting on the
bizarre constellation of scholarship vs. brute nationalism. His voice
thus belongs in a "political implications" section. Or, once again, we
could clean this article of all unscholarly exploits and confine those
to the one that is ostensibly about the jingoism, [ [ Aryan Invasion
Theory (history and controversies) ] ]. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 10:05, 8
October 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=82012949&oldid=82012915
we should address that, not random misguided national mysticism, try
to "de-colonialize your mind" on some other forum, WIN.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=85675530&oldid=85675478
Frawley is a raving crackpot. Kak is a kook. Kazanas is lunatic
fringe. You listed a dozen names, which is a good start, but as your
list stands, it is a frightful hodge-podge of fringy academics and
outright cranks, [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 16:07, 4
November 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=89454243&oldid=89452346
The sad fact is that this field is teeming with raving lunatics and
chaotic dilletants, and unless we are strict, it will just degenerate
into a befuddled "Aryans were magic space aliens in 50,000 BC" type of
writeup again. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 14:57, 22
November 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=91977477&oldid=91976426
PCT is at least as respectable as OIT. The only difference being that
the latter has hosts of uninformed young nationalists touting it on
the internet, while the former is proposed by a couple of fringy but
distinguished Italian archaeologists. Until we agree that the number
of internet users that take pride in pushing the theory out of
nationalist pride is completely irrelevant, there can be no progress.
We are now getting Armenian nationalsts pushing the [ [ Armenian
hypothesis ] ], see [ [ Talk:Armenia ] ] recently, the only difference
is that there are 7 million Armenians as opposed to 700 million Indo-
Aryans, so that the incidence of nationalist propaganda on Indo-Aryan
related articles is expected to be about 100 times higher. Which is
what we indeed observe. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small>
11:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=next&oldid=91791853
You are quite obviously not here for encyclopedic discussion of the
topic, but simply for unenlightening brute and boring single-topic pov
pushing. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(𒁳) ] ]</small> 14:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=94492995&oldid=94490516
This is the [ [ Indigenous Aryan Theory ] ] touted by the
[ [ Bharatiya Janata Party|BJP ] ]. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small>
11:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=113064608"out
of India" is *de facto* 99% inspired by ideology. (edit summary)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories&diff=prev&oldid=113819419
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=prev&oldid=113830921
==Rajput==
*guys, a little help on my "RfC"? I don't want to feed them, but
they're happily chewing away at me. If they are trolls, block them,
ok? If they are poor misguided users, teach them manners please :
( these Hindutva people are a serious problem, you see, there's any
number of them in India, and many of them have internet access. Am I
expected to singlehandedly combat bigotry in India? dab
(ᛏ) 21:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/
IncidentArchive57
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zora&diff=32344308&oldid=32344214
you don't want to be an admin?? You are one of the most saintly
Wikipedians I know, with seemingly infinite patience, and great social
skills. I can stick around on Rajput, but I felt let down, people on
AN told me simply "don't feed the trolls". These are not simply trolls
in the narrow sense, they do not pretend to be clueless brutes, it is
difficult to believe, but I think they are fully serious. It is
pointless to waste time with them, because even if you get them to
listen to sense, there are millions of more clueless people where they
came from, and especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet
access. I feel for these people, because they are in an actual ethnic
conflict, and must feel actual hate, but I don't feel responsible for
babysitting them, Wikipedia is not for them. Seeing the state of
things, I was prepared to run a tight ship, block for PAs and reverts,
which of course resulted in [ [ Wikipedia:
Requests for comment/Dbachmann (2)|this "RfC" ] ] (where nobody
bothered to comment) and now FireFox says he considers me "involved".
Involved with protecting policy, yes, but I couldn't care less about
the topic itself. So unless I get some community backup, I cannot
speak the only language these people understand. [ [ User:Dbachmann|
dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small>
09:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=32253135&oldid=32251977
:who gave internet access to these people :( ? [ [ User:Dbachmann|
dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small>
17:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARajput&diff=32090373&oldid=32090210
deletes talk page comment by another user that is critical of
Dbachmann
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wisesabre&diff=32345338&oldid=32071223
your presence is sorely needed here. I don't expect you get many Hindu
trolls on ur:, but they really seem to flock to en:. Ultimately, they
will end up at [ [ WP:RFAr ] ] if they go on like this. Their
behaviour is more than enough for the arbcom to ban them, but somebody
has to take the time for an arbitration case. I am committed to
restoring a sane working environment at en:, where Hindus, Muslims and
"whiteboys" can work together in peace. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 10:09, 22
December 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=32011979&oldid=32005846
I read all 61 of my books and neither westerners nor muslims read any
other book (perhaps a few pages of Ibbetson was read) that they are
pushing as references. Is this really scholarship? Now this admin
blocked me for being disruptive!!! even though they are reverting the
hell out of this page, all of them. Comment:This user was blocked at
RfAr (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADbachmann&diff=32231260&oldid=32226142
Because you reverted a particular editors changes, this shows you have
a 'slight' bias to either a certain point of view, or against a
particular editor(s). [ [ User:FireFox|<span
style="color:black;cursor:crosshair;">Fir</span> ] ][ [ WP:EA|<span
style="color:green;cursor:crosshair;">e</span> ] ][ [ User
talk:FireFox|<span style="color:red;cursor:crosshair;">Fox</span> ] ]
13:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&oldid=43113774#References
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&oldid=39762172#References
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&diff=45839396&oldid=45758053
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&diff=32573451&oldid=32572907
*Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (2)
*Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann
*Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput
*Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rajput/Proposed decision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BostonMA/DBachmann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BostonMA/RegardingDBachmann
==Indo-Aryans==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryans&oldid=21642811
Origins - The spread of Indo-Aryan languages is connected with the
spread of the chariot in the first half of the second millennium BC.
Archaeologically, these cultures ultimately trace back to the
Andronovo culture and the BMAC; the separation of Indo-Aryans proper
from Proto-Indo-Iranians dates to roughly 1800 BC. The Nuristani
languages probably split in such early times, and are either
classified as remote Indo-Aryan dialects, or as an independent branch
of Indo-Iranian. By 1500 BC, Indo-Aryans had reached Assyria in the
west and the Punjab in the east. Comment:typical "neutral" start of an
article by Dbachmann
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryans&diff=prev&oldid=21560720
Comment:He deletes the anti-racist discussion, without moving them to
Aryan Race as he claims.
Probably Dbachmann as an IP sockpuppet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryans&diff=25015266&oldid=21677310
:there is no section "Origins"; you mean the "pre-Vedic" section?
details of this discussion go to the main article, [ [ Indo-Aryan
migration ] ]. What do you mean "no sources are given"? I count about
a dozen references in this short paragraph. You'll have to be specific
about what you don't like. Obviously ''everything'' is disputed in
this area. What this section is supposed to do is summarize the
mainstream scholarly view. 23:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC) 83.76.209.47
==British Raj==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=18901765
well, I wouldn't have liked to see how the Maharajas would have dealt
with the drought, without any railway to even transport the food and
all. But of course it should be mentioned. Hm, Guptadeepak, we are
here to discuss the History of India, no? I'm just pointing out where
I perceive bias, I don't intend to insert inverse bias. [ [ User:
130.60.142.65|130.60.142.65 ] ] 17:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC) Comment:This
is an apologist view of British colonialism. Trains were not charity,
they were used to economically exploit the country. Thailand had
trains too and was never colonized. Famines happen where there is no
democracy and free press.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=prev&oldid=102518344
As it happened, "India" didn't merely "overthrow" British rule, it
fell to pieces at the same moment, and the
[ [ Partition_of_India#Population_exchanges|pieces jumped at each
other's throat ] ] without delay. Not exactly the image of a
downtrodden but proud people finally rid of their cruel oppressor
living happily ever after, as it's frequently depicted on these
talkpages. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(𒁳) ] ]</small> 21:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=prev&oldid=98186204
Comment: Deletes the word "democratic". Changes: India emerged as a
modern democratic [ [ nation-state ] ] in 1947, after it overthrew
foreign occupation by widespread use of [ [ nonviolent resistance ] ]
as a means of social protest.
to:Politically controlled by the [ [ British East India Company ] ]
from the early 18th century and directly administered by [ [ British
raj|Great Britain ] ] starting the mid-19th century, India became a
modern [ [ nation-state ] ] in 1947 after a struggle for independence
Edit summary:("democracy" is not the logical opposite of "occupation".
nothing wrong with the previous version.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=102639997&oldid=102639270
as I understand it, the idea is that people would like to phrase the
brief reference to British rule in India so as to imply illegality. If
"colonisation of Inda" doesn't do that for you, I would suggest
'''"gardual annexation of India"'''. The "gradual" is necessary
because the entities annexed were individual princely states, which
were indeed "annexed", and I put it to you that this term should have
sufficient connotations of illegal military conquest to satisfy your
patriotic feelings. I put it to you that a unified India would not
have been possible without the British, and that your very pan-Indian
patriotism ultimately owes its existence to said "annexation", without
which the subcontinent would as likely as not still be fragmented into
so many princely states, but this isn't for us to establish here.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(𒁳) ] ]</small> 10:44, 23 January 2007
(UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=86235850
Hindu nationalists will likely be more actively anti-Islamic, because
that conflict is actively ongoing, but they also feed on a lot of anti-
Christian conspiracy theories, and paranoia related to the British
Raj. A lot of British infrastructure and organisation went into
building modern India, and among fanatics of Hindu purity and
superiority, this seems to have triggered some sort of schizophrenia,
triggering strange fantasies of evil Christian conspiracies vs.
millennia of monolithic "Aryan" civilization. These are just the
lunatic fringes I meet when dealing with ancient history, I am not
saying this is anything like an openly mainstream mindset (at least I
hope not). [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 08:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC) (He also
deletes a reply to his post
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=86248870)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poverty_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=363201376
==Arya==
The article "Arya" which existed for a long time was merged upon
Dbachmann's suggestion into the "Aryan" article.
==Aryan==
The use of the term to designate speakers of all Indo-European
languages in scholarly usage is now regarded by some scholars as an
"aberration to be avoided."
Comment:This sentence is ironically sourced to Witzel, a linguist who
still believes in a racial, not only cultural meaning, of the term.
Not sure who addded the sentence.
Notions of an elite "Aryan race" only survive in nationalist contexts,
to include White nationalism, Indian nationalism and Iranian
nationalism.
Comment: Of course for the Hindus Aryan does not refer to "Aryan
race". Not sure who added the sentence.
In present-day India, the original ethno-linguistic signifier has been
less emphasized, the denotation having been semantically supplemented
by other, secondary, meanings—the term is widely used in India in
the names of business enterprises.
Comment: Of course these "secondary" meanings were also in earlier
important, for instance in Buddhism. Not sure who aded the sentence.
==India and Indians==
General comments:Some editors wanted to move the India article to
Republic of India, and to merge Hindu to Hinduism.
Dbachmann is obsessed with wanting to move the India article to
Republic of India, and (together with other editors, including Paul
Barlow) also claims that India was not in existence before the
British. Even it was technically true, it is irrelevant, as modern
nation states did not actually exist back then as they do now,
including what is now China. There was a generally Indic civilization
and culture spread throughout most of the subcontinent, which is what
we refer to when speaking of "India" and "Indians" in that time
context. Apart from that, some Indian pre-British Indian states did
cover a surprisingly large area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&oldid=68603136#Reply_to_your_.22stop_harassing_me.22_comment_in_my_talk_page
mediapersons? haha, Bharatveer, I assure you I had only the best image
of Indians before I met the 'fundies' on Wikipedia. Needless to say, I
do not assume that anything like most Indians have your sort of
paranoia. Again, I am not interested in the "de-colonization of the
Hindu mind" and anything of that sort, I am not interested in your
anxieties, and I am not interested in you. I am just asking you to
leave me alone: I am editing articles on topics in which I am
competent and you are not. Some of them just happen to impinge on the
ancient history of India: I am very much interested in the Bronze Age,
and I am qualified to write about ancient history and comparative
linguistics. It figures that you should feel so strongly about my
comment about "clueless Indians" since you are obviously one of them.
This has nothing to do with anti-Indian sentiment, since I obviously
recognize that there is plenty of cluelessness in any nation on earth.
But I happen to find, empirically, here on Wikipeida, that in few
other fields is cluelessness force-fed to people quite as obstinately
as in India-related articles. I don't know the reasons for this, and I
am not interested in them, I just want it to stop. I still don't know
what is so objectionable about my famous comment. The fact that I
recognize that India is so technologically advanced that even remote
rural areas (aka 'shitholes') are going online? thank you, now stop
smearing me all over the place. dab (ᛏ) 16:25, 7
August 2006 (UTC)
Comment:It is hard not to read this other than as a personal attack on
another editor, essentially calling that editor a 'clueless indian'.
This comment is rude and insulting to the editor involved. DBachmann
acknowledges that there are clueless people of other nationalities.
However, even under the assumption that the editor involved is
clueless as alleged, it is unnecessary in Wikipedia to make such
direct insults, and so it is equally unnecessary to mention the
nationality of the editor involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=prev&oldid=100865784
India as in "Ancient India" is neither a nation nor a state but a
[ [ region ] ].
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=104665554&oldid=104663691
alright, I begin to see the problem. This article is in a deadlock.
you'd mention another couple of dances or festivals rather than
characterize the main political powers in India? ''Dances and
festivals''?? Why not flora and fauna, common diseases and cuisine,
and popular expletives? (and I note this is always about BJP, no
objection to labelling the INC as left-center? BJP is your standard,
run-of-the-mill nationalist party, just like FN in France). If you
mention one fact about Indian politics, it will be the fundamental
divide between these two blocks. I can see where this is going.
Groping for any argument that is handy instead of coming clear with
your agenda is not a very clever trick, and it is not good faith
editing. You will find that until you decide to enter a bona fide
discussion with F&f et al., all you will acheive is just freezing this
article. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(ð&#
x92;³) ] ]</small> 20:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Comment:FN
in France is a xenophobic, racist party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=152645685
what's happening? Are summer holidays over at American high schools,
and all the ABCD trolls flocking back to give Wikipedia grief? --
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(ð’ ³) ] ]</
small> 07:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC) (ABCD is a slur, ABCD=American Born
Confused Desi)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=next&oldid=104627136
Your BJP example might be a little disingenious, but fwiiw, I agree we
shouldn't waste space on heaping up adjectives. BJP is notable for
being ''nationalist far-right''. That's 21 characters, and if we're
going to mention BJP at all, these 21 characters are well invested for
pointing out why we do. As it is, the politics section doesn't make
clear the nature of the BJP intermezzo. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small>
18:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Comment:Far right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bharatveer&diff=68194382&oldid=68181618
stop harassing me. I am not anti-Hindu or anti-Indian: I have no
interest in Indian politics, and only limited interest in contemporary
Hinduism. I would just like to contribute to articles on ancient Indo-
Iranian texts in peace, and in accordance with academic mainstream. If
you think that scholarly discussion of the history of India and
Hinduism is "anti-Indian" or "anti-Hindu", that is entirely your own
problem. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 14:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caucasian_race&diff=prev&oldid=10196890
Indians are referred to as Caucasian? really? see [ [ :Image:Map of
skin color distribution.gif ] ] according to which East Asians have a
lighter complexion that Indians. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] 12:22, 23
Nov 2004 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=112045276
But I cannot help but note that while we get a lot of Hindu editors,
depressingly the vast majority appears to be entirely clueless,
without editorial skills to speak of (a language problem, I suppose),
and bent on piling on rambling nonsense. I really appreciate if you
can invest some effort into patrolling these articles and remove the
more obvious crust of the piled up rambling. .. I suggest you try a
similar approach with the articles you mention. [ [ User:Dbachmann|
dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</
small> 10:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=113272459
Nothing like the tag team of nationalist trolls that are pushing this
RfC. I'll be very happy to accept any outside evaluation of the
"manuscript" case, no RfC is necessary, just use [ [ Talk:Illustrated
manuscript ] ]. The real problem are the bunch of Hindu ideologist
editors who insist their [ [ cargo cult science ] ] is as good as any
other science, and go ad hominem when their attempts are exposed. Let
us not let Wikipedia become a platform for ethnic nationalism. If we
had a half-dozen of German editors RfCing me because I tried to expose
[ [ Nordic theory ] ] as pseudoscientific nonsense and suppressing
fringe authors arguing there may be something to it in spite of
everything, they would be blocked as trolls in five minutes. Can we
please apply the same measure to all flavours of racist nonsense and
ethnic supremacism? [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(ð’&#
x81;³) ] ]</small> 08:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=136286520
the only people that care about [ [ Indian mathematics ] ] are Indians
with a collective inferiority complex. And we both know that the less
educated or self-assured you are, the more aggressively you will push
your national honour on the most absurd points. Our problem is not
with real kooks so much as with second-generation expatriate youths
who are shedding their testosterone properly intended for tribal
warfare in front of the screen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=316463211&oldid=316463090
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=285056814&oldid=285048572
you are right. The articles [[Hindu-Arabic numeral system]], [[Arabic
numerals]] and [[Indian numerals]] have been kept separate in order to
appease the angry young Hindu editors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxist_historiography&diff=prev&oldid=336035272
*Talk:Ancient Egypt, Talk:Afrocentrism
On these and related sites, Dbachmann complains that while White
Nationalists are not respected on Wikipedia, the Black Afrocentrists
are too much tolerated on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADaGizza&diff=80372423&oldid=80363316
too often I am accused of being a clueless meddling whiteboy by Hindus
for being involved in areas where I ''do'' have expertise.
Comment:I take objection to his comment which could not unreasonably
be construed as suggesting that Hindu editors of wikipedia are racist.
I would also like to point out that if Dbachmann suffers from a
negative image among some editors, that he might be able to attenuate
that negative image by accepting that it is inappropriate behavior for
him to make comments such as his "It figures that you should feel so
strongly about my comment about 'clueless Indians' since you are
obviously one of them." Of course it is unlikely that Hindus have
called him a "whiteboy" (he offers no link), but he may have been
called "clueless". I will not comment on his so-called "expertise",
the said user is of course also known for his many obvious factual
mistakes, but this text is only concerned about bias, not about
factual mistakes, in line with Wikipedia's policy of "assume good
faith". It is in any case well known that wikipedia's pov-warriors are
rather ignorant of the subjects they edit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbachmann/Parliamentary_nationalism
(makes a list that attempts to show that India has the most
nationalists in any country. He does this by including moderate center-
right parties (BJP, wich was the ruling party some years ago) for
India, while for all other countries he only includes extreme far-
right parties without any of the other rightist and conservative
parties. No wonder then that in Dab's statistic countries which are
effectively ruled by a right-wing goverenment like Berlusconi's Italy
rank lower than India.) If he wouldn't lie that much with his
"statistics", the list would look very different.
Parliaments listed by the fraction of nationalist parties
* >27% India (2004) BJP 22.16% Nationalist Trinamool Congress
2.07%, Shiv Sena 1.81%, Nationalist Congress Party 1.80% + others
* 22.1% Turkey (2007) Nationalist Movement Party 14.3%, Motherland
Party (Turkey) 3.7%, Young Party 3.5%, Great Union Party 0.6% (not
counting Republican People's Party (Turkey) 11.9%)
* 12.7% Italy (2006) National Alliance (Italy) 11.5%, Social
Alternative 1.2%
* 12.3% Russia (2003) Rodina/Fair Russia 9.2% + 1.9% + 1.2%
* 9.5% Poland (2005) League of Polish Families 8.0%, Patriotic
Movement 1.1%, Polish National Party 0.3%, National Rebirth of Poland
0.1%
* 8.2% Spain (2004) Convergence and Unity 3.3%, Basque Nationalist
Party 1.6%, Canarian Coalition 0.9%, Galician Nationalist Bloc
0.8%,Andalucista Party 0.7%, Aragonese Council 0.4%, Basque Solidarity
0.3%, Navarra Yes 0.2%
* 5.5% France (2007), National Front (France) 4.29%, Movement for
France 1.2%
* 3.5% UK (2005), SNP 1.5%, BNP 0.7%, Sinn Féin 0.6%, Plaid Cymru
0.6%
* 3.0% Sweden (2006) Sweden Democrats 2.93%, National Democrats
(Sweden) 0.06%
* 2.3% Greece (2004) Popular Orthodox Rally 2.2%, Hellenic Front
0.1%
* 1.6% Germany (2005), NPD
* 1.0% Switzerland (2003), SD
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=252851421
Surprise, some [[American-Born Confused Desi|ABCD]] jokers have
discovered this article once again.
Edit summary: yes, by ABCD I mean [[American-Born Confused Desi|
ABCD]].
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shrikant_G._Talageri&diff=130533520&oldid=126242633
Dbachmann deletes article on author Talageri, an author with opposing
views
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_mysticism&oldid=139849258
He must be especially proud of this pov-ish article, as he linked to
this version of the article at one time from his userpage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_astrology&diff=332474135&oldid=332474021
introduces unrelated political smears against Hindus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aratta
I have reduced the paragraph to something I consider sensible, keeping
the Witzel and the Rohl reference. Citing bona fide scholars like
Witzel or Rohl alongside obvious kooks like Elst or Kavoukjian is
silly. If you have a good reference, why dilute it with crappy ones?
dab (ð’ ³) 13:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ram_Sharan_Sharma
"Marxist" is a slur thrown around by the religious right in India. It
basically means "anyone to the poltical left of Attila the Hun". Just
because some critic gave the epithet "Marxist" to this author doesn't
make it so. It's also interesting how this supposedly Marxist
historian doesn't seem to have published anything about Marxism at
all. --dab (ð’ ³) 20:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Comment: He has
absolutely no problem if much worse "slurs" are applied to Hindus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Hindu_politics&diff=273607239&oldid=273604780
adds [Hindu Taliban]]{{·}}[[Saffronization]]<br/> [[Kar Sevaks]]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=P._N._Oak&diff=prev&oldid=239946426
Dbachmann links PNO to VOI, Elst, Gautier and to Hindu politics, when
in fact these people, for example Elst, have critcized PNO and are not
directly related.
Also, to paraphrase, the only ones who care for PNO seem to be anti-
Hindu pov warriors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_and_other_religions&diff=prev&oldid=156888785
deletes literature
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=184470592
Comment implying that Hindus should not be allowed to edit Hindu
political articles (and equating Hindus (and Armenians and African-
Americans like deecevoice) with Nazis).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=192927937
User comment on Dbachmann: I almost had the illusion that you were
sincere in your criticism of Nazi-POV pushers, and really thought
about making a rectification to my opinion that you are not.[http://
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Nordic_race&diff=192788522&oldid=192743215] Still I don't get
it: Since I am fighting this POV pushing of Zara1709 for a long time
now, I wonder why you would be so vehemently AGAINST such edits IF I
would be the editor, but AGREE to such edits now they are made by a
well known Nazi-POV pusher that you consider a friend? Please tell me
at once, you still think to be credible in accusing others of a hidden
agenda?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=325903391#Race_and_Intelligence
One of many places where Dbachmann takes a position against "leftist"
PC (political correctness) and against the claim that racial studies
(as in the rightwing Mankind Quaterly) are pseudoscience. Maybe not
very controversial stuff here, but it's one of many places that show
again and again that he really is only obsessive with ideological
smears ("fascism", "racism", "rightwing",...) when it can be used
against Indians (or also sometimes balkans, kurds, and afrocentrists).
On his talkpage he also says: I do have an interest in ancient
history, but I have been dealing with puerile nationalists abusing
ancient history to make themselves feel better about their ingroup
since 2004, so I am just a little tired of the exercise. --dab (ð’ ³)
08:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC). Again not very controversial at first
sight, though the jargon used here (ingroup,outgroup) is very commonly
used by neo-nazis and anti-semites like Kevin Macdonald.
He also criticizes a respected Hindu editor only because his signature
includes the Indian flag. He also tries to find allies with some Hindu
editors, who do not know or do not care about his biases, to form a
common task force to gain more power in this area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Secular_Agenda&diff=226410326&oldid=162939872
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eminent_Historians:_Their_Technology,_Their_Line,_Their_Fraud&diff=226409626&oldid=226298281
Dbachman deletes article on book critical of dishonest scholarship and
censorship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Br%C4%81hm%C4%AB_script
Seriously, we still get Elst/Rajaram/Kak style "Voice of India" type
trolling about Indigenous Aryans, in the year 2012? This is just so
2006. Leodescal, we have been there. People have tried this. Nothing
came of it. So please don't bother, you are six years late. --dab
(ð’ ³) 12:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)