'''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)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Out_of_India_theory&diff=569963781&oldid=565520436
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Out_of_India_theory&diff=569963862&oldid=569963781
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)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuv%C4%81da
Dbachmann adds: The term ManuvÄ da is used by proponents of extreme Hindu nationalism for a propsed return to the societal values of traditional Hindu Dharmashastra, as governed by Manusmá¹›ti. This would involve the return to the ancient caste system, legally abolished with the formation of the Republic of India.
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. He attacks African-American editors like deecevoice. As in other areas, his edits seem more rightwing than anything else (he only quotes leftist sources when it suits him, ie in Hindu topics when attacking Hindus).
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/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)
==Islam and Islamism==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Development_Front&diff=109282314&oldid=109101755 They may well be a "militant Islamist" group, I wouldn't know, but before we're not going to state that as a fact if it is disputed. As it is, we don't even have a source that calls them "militant Islamist". One article calls them as "shadowy outfit", and I don't doubt they are. But usually, you can tell a group is "militant Islamist" because they tell you they are, waving rifles and shouting a lot. A group that does ''not'' self-identify as militant Islamist shouldn't be so called lightly, certainly not on WP. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 11:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Comment:Compare with his edits on "Hindutva" articles. If it's Hindutva, we're less strict about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor&diff=prev&oldid=26509161Comment:Supports adminship of an Islamist and Anti-Hindu editor
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonymous_editor&diff=34219045&oldid=34214560 ah, congratulations! I hadn't followed RFAs recently, or I would have supported you, of course. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 07:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Comment:Supports adminship of an Islamist and Anti-Hindu editor
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TerryJ-Ho&diff=93348674&oldid=93314836 [ [ Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/Proposed_decision#TerryJ-Ho_banned|this ] ] is appalling. A user with a clean reputation is given the same penalty as the confirmed returning insidious Hindutva sockpuppeteer from hell? For ''pointing out'' that the user is the returning insidious Hindutva sockpuppeteer from hell, a circumstance that the arbcom [ [ Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/Proposed_decision#Sockpuppets_2|acknowledges ] ] on the very same page? Do arbcommers even read cases anymore, or do they simply sign where it says "support". All sorts edit Wikipedia. Including fascists. I know ''I'' have called fascists fascists on-wiki. Thank you arbcom, I am sure people will be really motivated to stand up against fascist editors seeing that they will be treated as one and the same. So TerryJ-Ho was incivil? Towards an obnoxious sockpuppeteer that has cost Wikipedia dozens of wasted man-hours? Well,
ban him for 24 hours, then, or for a week at most, but this is simply out of proportion. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 11:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Comment:Defends Islamist and Anti-Hindu editor against the Hindutva editor from Hell
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=prev&oldid=93349140 ==arbcom sheep votes==
I would be interested in your opinion on [ [ User_talk:TerryJ-Ho#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FHkelkar_2|this ] ]. It appears to me that the arbcom in their anxiety to ''appear'' even-handed mete out symmetric penalties for very asymmetric offenses. I understand their approach, too, that's why I wouldn't want an arbcom office. But by cracking down on anti-ideological vigilants they are seriously harming WP's immunity system preventing us from becoming a propaganda hosting service. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 11:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment:Defends Islamist and Anti-Hindu editor
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nadirali&diff=107604019&oldid=107603239 This strikes me as an "anti-Pakistani" RfAr. It is an open secret that WP has Pakistani vs. Indian tag teams pitted against one another. This makes it very tedious and frustrating for neutral editors to get anything done, and it would be the job of the arbcom to implement sanctions that allow admins to deal swiftly and effectively with such unproductive behaviour. As such, this RfAr is necessary. But surely the arbcom doesn't want to rehash "India vs. Pakistan" with a sleuth of different usernames every four weeks. The pattern of the problem should be recognized and addressed. You would expect that a good faith RfAr would list both sides of the Indo/Pak divide, but as it happens, only Pak editors are accused, while the Indian team isn't so much as mentioned. Both sides are misbehaving (Unre4l was particularly hilarious, while the Indian team acheiving an essential deadlock on [ [ India ] ] recently), and both should
be reviewed. Feel free to cite this diff in your "statement" section as my outside view (there is no third party comments section at this stage). regards, [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 17:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_Ram_Janmabhoomi_attack_in_Ayodhya&diff=prev&oldid=116756605 Removes [ [ :Category:Islamist terrorism ] ] Edit summary:(correct me, but "Islamist terror" would be unlikely to target a mosque?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NDF&diff=prev&oldid=116755338 (deletes militant, compare with his edits in "Hindutva" articles) (
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communalism_%28South_Asia%29&diff=prev&oldid=116756269)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communalism_%28South_Asia%29&diff=prev&oldid=116755077
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindutva&diff=prev&oldid=117956193
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Understanding_Islam_through_Hadis&diff=prev&oldid=118284029 Deletes that the book is a study on the Sahih Muslim, adds: The book is an [ [ anti-Muslim ] ] florilegium from a [ [ Hindu nationalist ] ] perspective on the [ [ Sahih Muslim ] ], the second most important collection of [ [ Hadith ] ]s, and as such part of the "[ [ communalism (South Asia)|communalist ] ]" culture war in India. Deletes [ [ :Category:Islamic studies books ] ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=104865215&oldid=104802496 In this context, the notion of "indigenous" Hinduism vs. "invasive" [ [ Islam ] ] is employed to fan hostility between the adherents of these religions. (POV, if not Original research)
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 is designed as the ideological counterpart of .... 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 ... 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. (POV, if not Original research)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=79618625 The relation of Hindu to Hindutva is about the same as [ [ Islam ] ] to [ [ Islamism ] ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindutva&diff=prev&oldid=117526105 POV (claims that Golwalkar was a Nazi supporter, a very disputed (and probably wrong) view, compares him with an "Islamist"...)
==Hindutva==
(Wants to merge Hindu nationalism into Hindutva)
Often uses neologisms like "Hindu nationalist mysticism", a term which can be interpreted as national socialism
Hint: Count how many times the word Hindutva occurs
*Category:Hindutva created by Dbachmann, who OTOH thinks that the category of another politicized neologism, "Eurabia", should be deleted. Compare with Eurocentrism, which he claims does not exist (although he himself is proof to the contrary, with his and his fellows constant minimizing of non-European, non-Arabian cultures, science and history and by cultural chauvinism). (Hindutva is a neologism, and often pejorative term), Articles added to category by Dbachmann: Dayananda Sarasvati, Tilak, The Rigveda-A Historical Analysis, AIT, BJP. (He puts the wrong Dayananda Saraswati into the Hindutva category, as he is not aware that there other famous Hindus with the same name.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=prev&oldid=104628966 national parties like the center-left [ [ Indian National Congress ] ], the nationalist far-right [ [ Bharatiya Janata Party ] ],
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=prev&oldid=104628987 BJP is notable for being ''nationalist far-right''.
Comment:far right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=prev&oldid=104825849 If the BJP is merely "conservative", I would venture, George W. Bush is a renaissance humanist. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 12:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_Vedic_religion&diff=23333011&oldid=23332932 Arguments from Astronomy, or, worse, geology (Sarasvati), are usually worthless Hindutva red herrings, and at best circumstantial evidence (see the ''Pleiades'' reference in the [ [ Rigveda ] ] article [
http://users.primushost.com/~india/ejvs/ejvs0502/ejvs0502.txt ]). [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 09:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=79618625 When I use the term ''[ [ Hindutva ] ]'' I am referring to the fanatical/fundamentalist [ [ national mysticism|national mysticists ] ]. "Hindutva" is a recent and artificial term and refers to precisely this attitude, combining Hinduism with extremist right-wing nationalist politics: The relation of Hindu to Hindutva is about the same as [ [ Islam ] ] to [ [ Islamism ] ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindutva&diff=prev&oldid=111849531 Central concepts of Hindutva surround [ [ National mysticism ] ] and the notion of "[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ]"...These notions correspond to an [ [ irredentist ] ] and [ [ jingoist ] ] stance in questions of contemporary [ [ Indian politics ] ]...* emphasizing historical oppression of [ [ Hindu ] ]s...and the call to "reverse" the influence resulting from these intrusions...* denunciation of [ [ British colonialism ] ] and [ [ Communism ] ] alike for a perceived weakening of [ [ Hindu ] ]s...* The irredentist call...* denunciation of the [ [ Government of India|Indian government ] ] as too passive
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindutva&diff=prev&oldid=112039750 and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindutva&diff=prev&oldid=112081385 Central concepts of Hindutva surround [ [ National mysticism ] ] and the notion of "[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ]" These notions correspond to an [ [ irredentist ] ] and [ [ ethnic nationalism|ethnic nationalist ] ] stance in questions of contemporary [ [ Indian politics ] ]:
Edit summary:which term is pejorative here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vedic_Science_%28Hindutva%29&diff=prev&oldid=118514360
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudo-scientific_currents_in_Hindutva_propaganda&diff=prev&oldid=117987737
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_extremism&diff=prev&oldid=113839573
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindutva_propaganda&diff=prev&oldid=112791356 (possible move target)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindutva_revisionism&diff=prev&oldid=112791376 (possible move target)
Comment:wants to create article "Hindutva revisionism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindutva:_Who_is_a_Hindu%3F&diff=prev&oldid=113057355 identifying Hindus with the inheritors of a postulated [ [ Aryan race ] ] "[ [ indigenous Aryans|indigenous ] ]" to [ [ Greater India ] ]. {{cquote|the [ [ Aryan ] ]s who settled in India at the dawn of history already formed a nation, now embodied in the Hindus.... Hindus are bound together not only by the tie of the love they bear to a common fatherland and by the common blood that courses through their veins and keeps our hearts throbbing and our affection warm but also by the tie of the common homage we pay to our great civilisation, our Hindu culture."|(p. 108)}}Comment:false statement, selective quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hindu_nationalism&diff=prev&oldid=113070461 the article certainly needs constant monitoring and cleanup. The only topic with a comparable activity of nationalist editors is the [ [ Macedonia ] ] complex. It also needs to be merged to [ [ Hindutva ] ], since, by both articles' admission, the terms are used interchangeably (see section above). [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(ᅵ) ] ]</small> 14:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_nationalism&diff=prev&oldid=113072125
Deletes: The early Congress leaders like [ [ Bal Gangadhar Tilak ] ] wanted a free and united nation, with recognition of Indian heritage; and worked towards a consciousness liberated from foreign cultural and political intrusions. But owing to the separatist politics of the [ [ Muslim League ] ], a different expression arose in the era that was specifically Hindu. Many Hindus harbored negative emotions as many great Hindu temples, monuments and communities had been savaged by pogroms conducted by Muslim rulers like [ [ Babar ] ], [ [ Aurangzeb ] ], [ [ Nadir Shah ] ], [ [ Muhammad Ghori ] ], [ [ Mahmud of Ghazni ] ], [ [ Timur Lame ] ] and [ [ Ahmad Shah Abdali ] ]. Changes Hindu to Hindu nationalist movements: Hindu nationalist movements desired freedom not only from European [ [ colonialism ] ], but also wanted to avoid a return [ [ Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent|Muslim rule ] ].
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=113270678 I don't know how this is an "incident", but I could certainly do with some admins backing up my eternal struggle with our resident propagandists. Help prevent Wikipedia from becoming a platform for national mysticism and shoddy pseudo-scholarship (um, more than it already is, that is). Look into [ [ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Aryan Theory ] ] and [ [ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Kazanas ] ] while you're at it. It will also be instructive to review block log and contribs of {{vandal|Sisodia}} (was involved in an arbcom case within two weeks of his registring). [ '''Yes''', this is a call for you to get involved here. Don't leave me sitting in it for another two months, and then ''tsk'' me disapprovingly as you find me in the middle of a ring of screaming Indian patriots two monts from now ] Thanks, [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(ð&#
x92;³) ] ]</small> 07:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=113289909 There ''is'' a Hindutva propaganda being sneaked onto Wikipedia, and we ''have'' to be vigilant about this. Bona fide points sympathetic to the propagandists can still be made, but they will have to be scrutinized with extra care. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 10:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=113290191 There ''is'' a Hindutva campaign to instrumentalize Wikipedia (mainly implemented by your typical young male Indian American ("[ [ ABCD ] ]") engineering or math student), and we ''have'' to be vigilant about this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saffron_%28disambiguation%29&diff=prev&oldid=113837754
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=next&oldid=180371779
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_pseudoscience&diff=prev&oldid=117608297 Of course this article was created under pressure and harassment from our Hindutva troll(s)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_extremism&diff=prev&oldid=117714861 Hindutva *is* our article on "Hindu extremism")
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_nationalism&diff=prev&oldid=118262556 (pov change)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindutva&diff=121427542&oldid=121425871 (pov, e.g. [ [ :Category:Propaganda in India ] ][ [ :Category:Pseudoscience ] ][ [ :Category:Historical revisionism (political) ] ][ [ :Category:National mysticism ] ][ [ :Category:Hindutva|Pseudoscience ] ])
Dbachmann tries again to make the case that Islamic and Christian fundamentalism is just the same as political Hinduism, as usual he tries to establish a moral equivalence between political Hinduism and Islamism, the latter being responsible for the deaths of literally hundreds of thousands of people around the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hindutva&diff=270179739&oldid=270179489
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=438735938&oldid=438735610#Gandhi
The usual tired cliches about how it is the RSS that starts riots, the RSS should hold readings of the Quran (which actually also critics of Islam find would be a good idea, and why does the same not count for Muslims?), and how the British gave railways and the Indians should therefore be thankful for colonialism (the railroads were used for economic exploitation), and also claiming he also or even primarly focuses on European fascism, while it is clear that on wikipedia he is only obsessed by Hindu (and to a smaller degree, afrocentric) nationalism.
==Arya Samaj==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swami_Dayananda_Saraswati&diff=prev&oldid=117527012 Dayananda and his Arya Samaj provide the ideological underpinnings of the [ [ Hindutva ] ] movement of the 20th century,
Comment:Is he against Hinduism AND Hindutva, as they are the same?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arya_Samaj&diff=prev&oldid=117527582 The doctrines of Arya Samaj are identified as [ [ religious fundamentalism ] ] by Ruthven (2007:108).
[ [ :Category:Fundamentalism ] ]
==Hindutva Propaganda==
Comment: Edit history was deleted. Typical non-neutral pov article. Keywords: Hindutva,pseudoscience, pseudohistory, pseudoarchaeology, Hindu fundamentalism ethnic nationalism, Nazi blood and soil mysticism,revisionist literature, saffronized textbooks and curricula. Article contained pov against Dayanada, Vivekanda, Voice of India, Aditya Prakashan, B.B Lal, S.R. Rao, B.K. Thapar, S.P. Gupta, Savarkar, Golwalkar etc. (e.g. Dayananda's writings are recognized as having an element of religious fundamentalism.) He has also protected the article after editing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia_and_nationalism/Hindutva_and_pseudoscience
Of notable influence were the writings of Swami Dayananda Sarasvati and Swami Vivekananda. Dayananda Saraswati rejected...Dayananda's writings are recognized as having an element of religious fundamentalism....In 1900, Vivekananda said that ....n conjunction with the relativist revisionism outlined above, most of the revisionist literature being published by the firms Voice of Dharma and Aditya Prakashan......A. Ghosh, Bhan (p. 24) sees a rise in pseudo-scientific conclusions in emotional subjects like the "Archaeology of the Ramayana" by archaeologists such as B.B. Lal and S.P. Gupta. After 1990, "tradition-based archaeology" intensified, with scholars such as B.B Lal, S.R. Rao and B.K. Thapar .......Guha (2005) sees a rise in exploitation of archaeology for nationalist purposes in the wake of the 1992 destruction of the Babri Mosque and the ensuing "Ayodhya debate.....Voice of India and Aditya Prakashan are at the center of the allegations a cottage industry indulging in historical revisionism put forward
by Michael Witzel .....
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NCERT_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=117970868
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=119127986 This is an exposition of the fringe literature that is being pushed by authors with a Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) ideology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_propaganda&diff=prev&oldid=119238426
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_propaganda&diff=prev&oldid=119456775 ''comment''', can we close this AfD as undignified mudslinging? It does nothing but parade our resident and well-known "pov brigade" voting "delete" in unison. Not interesting, not the point of AfD, not flattering for anyone involved. Support your cherished pov by citing academic sources, not by on-wiki campaigning. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 09:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment:considering some of the insulting comments ('pov brigade' is a relatively benign example) you've made recently about Hindu editors, your accusations of undignified mudslinging are surprising.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_propaganda&diff=prev&oldid=119670872
*indeed. The editors at [ [ Nazi propaganda ] ] having the advantage of being able to build the article in peace without a bunch of Nazis pulling it down and indulging in general trolling hoping to confuse the unsuspecting reader. If our merry Hindutva band could behave for a few days, maybe we could make some actual progress. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 07:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_propaganda&diff=prev&oldid=119738975 if this is the case, I wonder why Wikipedia sees so much blatant abuse by pro-Hindutva editors, while I still have to see any trolling perpetrated by anti-Hindutva communalists (yeah, so there was {{user|John945}}, poor soul, no question the result of a concerted propaganda campaign by the united Marxist anti-BJP forces of India). I would love to believe poor Hindutvavadis are just the victim of anti-Hindu propaganda, but the only people making fools of themselves by trying to sell pathetic and blatant propaganda on Wikipedia happen to be pro-Hindutva. Anti-Hindu conspracy or no, the article in question isn't based on India-based Marxist media outlets, it is based on academic publications. Refute it by citing other academic publications if you can, but stop trying to conduct the debate on-wiki. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</
small> 15:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Comment:One only sees what one wants to see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_propaganda&diff=prev&oldid=119949527 the only hate I can see here is that of the rag-tag band of nationalist pov-pushers preferring to troll AfD over doing actual work and constructive editing.
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindutva propaganda The result was delete, who have a rough consensus and have put up and argued a much stronger argument in this debate, based on official policy. The responses to the delete comments based on NPOV and OR were less than satisfactory, and judging the article in the present and in the near future, I cannot see these concerns being fixed anytime soon, if at all. (compare this AFD with AFD of Nicholas Kazanas, Bias in South Asian Studies)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=121001448 [ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindutva propaganda|this ] ] deletion by {{user|Daniel.Bryant}} is nothing short of scandalous. There is nothing like a "consensus", and about half of the delete votes are from single-topic or trolling accounts. (Also says somewhere on ANI that an editor who voted in the AFD and commented on ANI is not neutral in this because he is Hindu)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel.Bryant&diff=121007676&oldid=121007522 You have deleted a well referenced article based on a blatantly bad faith AfD, where half of the "delete" votes were from pov-pushing accounts,This is a disheartening precedent of Wikipedia caving in under the sustained Hindutva attack, and I care enough about the project's immunity from ideological subversion to take your decision all the way to arbcom if necessary. regards, [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 17:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC) (The deleted article was not named "Crititcism of Hindutva")
*[ ? ] Claims that there are AFD votes (sympathies for Hindus) because of PC (political correctness) and (sympathies for) "poor indians"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_pseudoscience_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=117954197
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:Nobleeagle/Archive12: The present "supporters" are a Greek Yoga teacher, personal friend of the main source of contempoary Hindutva pseudoscience, and the author of Saffron Swastika...What do you want? There can be no disputing that the topic is spammed by unscholarly mysticism. The blatant contraditions between the various "indigenous Aryans" scenarios makes this more than evident. If your intention is really to obscure the existence of such blatant propaganda stunts, ..
==Saffronization==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saffronization&diff=prev&oldid=113839144 deletes: "an [ [ anti-Hindu ] ] slur by [ [ far left ] ] and [ [ Islamist ] ] groups, such as when addressing allegations of [ [ Hindu nationalist ] ] bias in education or otherwise "imposing Hindu Law" in society."
==Saffron terror==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saffron_terror&diff=337041233&oldid=337039346
deletes:
The word is most often used and in a sense coined by the secular political parties and the academia to counter-balance Islamic terror,<ref>[
http://www.dailypioneer.com/137435/Wages-of-politics-of-cynicism.html Wages of politics of cynicism] The Pioneer, November 28, 2008</ref> so that the muslim population are not selectively blamed.
==Indus Valley Civilization==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indus_Valley_Civilization&diff=7779795&oldid=7778585 this kind of statement makes me cringe. It's about as unscientiic as you can get. They practically admit that there is a desired outcome, rather than subscribing to neutral research. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] 10:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
===Indus script===
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indus_script&diff=63583711&oldid=63071841 ===Amateur research===The topic is popular among amateur researchers, and there are various decipherment claims. Several authors, such as [ [ Shikaripura Ranganatha Rao|S. R. Rao ] ] and R. Hasenpflug (2006 [
http://www.indus-civilization.info ]), have attempted to prove that the script encodes [ [ Vedic Sanskrit ] ]. These theories are not accepted by most scholars.
Comment:Puts Kak and others under Amateur research, but of course not the (non-mainstream view) Farmer-Witzel paper
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indus_script&diff=68073259&oldid=68072105 indeed. Kak is, as always, creating so much hot air beside the point. Should be ignored. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 21:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indus_script&diff=69023713&oldid=69023509 Kak is a sophisticated kook with 'renaissance man' aspirations. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 14:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indus_script&diff=75693611&oldid=75433949 I think our hero is a [ [ User talk:212.192.128.4|
kubannet.ru customer ] ] situated in Moscow :) [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 12:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
==Sarasvati River==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarasvati_River&diff=prev&oldid=25126124 It's just the conflating with the name "Sarasvati", a Hindutva idiosyncrasy, that makes the whole thing confusing. I have no problem with saying that Hindutva scholars make the identification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rigvedic_rivers&diff=prev&oldid=51236142 A minority opinion ascribes the loss of prominence of the Sarasvati to the dring up of the Ghaggar-Hakra
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarasvati_River&diff=prev&oldid=25013544 and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarasvati_River&diff=prev&oldid=25011909
Comment:Probably Dbachmann as IP sockpuppet (83.76.209.47) who exports part (but according to talkpage not all) of the text to another article
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarasvati_River&diff=prev&oldid=25126124 However, this article consistently confuses arguments abut the Ghaggar-Hakra River with arguments about the ''Vedic'' Sarasvati River as described in the texts. Sure there can be a short section discussing the proposed identification. But details about IVC archaeology and geology should go to the Ghaggar-Hakra article.
Also, did you read the information that was "deleted"? There were about five paragraphs saying exactly the same thing, along the lines of "recent satellite picutures, 500 IVC settlements, etc.". This stuff should be stated once, coherently, on the Ghaggar-Hakra article; this is not even disputed material, everybody believes (I think) that there were settlements along the River pre-2500 BC. It's just the conflating with the name "Sarasvati", a Hindutva idiosyncrasy, that makes the whole thing confusing. I have no problem with saying that Hindutva scholars make the identification. But the discussion of archaeology doesn't belong here: this is what we mean by the "principle of least surprise": Assume somebody is interested in IVC archaeology; they would expect this information in an article about IVC archaeology and geography of Pakistan, not in some article about Vedic texts. [ [ User:Baad|Baad ] ] 10:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment:Dbachmann replies for his probable IP sockpuppet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarasvati_River&diff=prev&oldid=114507399 ,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarasvati_River&diff=prev&oldid=114746860 ,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarasvati_River&diff=prev&oldid=116278548
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarasvati_River&diff=prev&oldid=115285768
==Ashvamedha==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashvamedha&diff=108048430&oldid=108046283 :Kak again :) you may not have noted that we have [ [ Subhash Kak|an article on the man ] ]. It's mostly vanity, he's been editing it himself. Still, I wonder this book hasn't been brought up before, all we had so far was some blog posting of his. A book is certainly better than a blog posting, even if its author is a crank with an ego problem ("acclaimed" indeed :) [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashvamedha&diff=108053026&oldid=108051675 :I'm not sure we should drag this article too deep into pseudoscholarly kookery. Wikipedia doesn't ''have'' to cite every village idiot. I'm sure you'll put it into context, but I fear it will open the gates to crapflooding the article. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(ᅵ) ] ]</small> 11:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashvamedha&diff=109070631&oldid=109050979 :::[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ] is really intended as the equivalent of [ [ Elvis sightings ] ] in this topic. We do not give a full list of "sightings" on [ [ Elvis ] ], and similarly, stuff like Kak's belongs there, not here. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 14:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashvamedha&diff=109050979&oldid=108976328 this is quite rich. I was so far prepared to assume that Kak is a bona fide engineer that just happens to dabble in Arya-Samaj-style "Vedic" kookery. But the relativity thing seems to establish that the guy is a complete fake beginning to end. No egineer worth his salt would spout such nonsense about general relativity. As it happens, we do have a full page "devoted to his kookery", it's at [ [ Subhash Kak ] ]. It appears it does need a bit of cleanup, since it seems to depict him as a serious researcher (and poet, of course). We'd also need to check if there is such a thing as a "[ [ Kak neural network ] ]". The article seems to rely on citations of Kak himself to establish that there is a type of neural network named after Kak. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 11:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashvamedha&diff=102963396&oldid=102962593 Kak is well known for producing nonsense as if his life depended on it. Provide an academic review of his "rigvedic astronomy", please? [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 19:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashvamedha&diff=next&oldid=52302008 Are there also people in India who are able to discuss history and religion without the all the gritted teeth and all the paranoia? Of course there should be articles on Indian sociology and politics, it's just not something I am terribly interested in, but if we had a good suite of articles on that, maybe our other articles wouldn't be burdened with so much fundamentalist cruft (I am thinking of [ [ Aryan Invasion Theory ] ], [ [ Bias in South Asian Studies ] ], [ [ Rajputs ] ] and all that, topics that are almost impossible to edit because of the never-ending stream of anonymous immature rants). [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 12:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashvamedha&diff=103243124&oldid=103241977 You, sir, are an Arya Samaj troll, as you admit yourself on the Arya Samaj forum, judging from your "avatar", an adolescent zealot, and further discussion is pointless. Do your edits, citing academic sources, or be silent. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 22:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
==Indo-Iranian origins==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gandhara_grave_culture&diff=58924883&oldid=58921170 [ [ Image:Indo-Iranian origins.png|thumb|300px|archaeological cultures associated with Indo-Iranian expansion (after [ [ EIEC ] ]). ] ]
Comment: image spammed to many articles with non-neutral image caption according to a talk page
==Indology==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indology&diff=116995370&oldid=116994453 small deletions, POV
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indology&diff=117498345&oldid=117117708 deletes links, some of these were maybe redundant, but belong to the Criticism section
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indology&diff=prev&oldid=116994996 (while in reality, there probably wouldn't exist printed editions of these works without academia)?
==Quantum quakery==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_quackery&oldid=118991045 (pov-ish article created by Dbachmann)
Quantum quackery and New Age "mystical physics" begin in earnest in the 1970s Fritjof Capra. In The Tao of Physics Capra asserts that quantum physics confirms Eastern mystical teachings, a claim taken up in the 1980s by Hindutva pseudoscience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deepak_Chopra&diff=prev&oldid=117968289
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Dancing_Wu_Li_Masters&diff=prev&oldid=118228418
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quantum_mysticism&diff=136803039&oldid=136802777 (what is a New-Age/quantum-mysticist agenda?)
==Other==
*Often deletes cited/referenced text without any edit-summary. Sometimes inserted errors/false claims into articles and talkpages. It is of course not a problem if a wikipedian inserts false claims, makes mistakes or is not widely read or ignorant about a topic, if he acts in good faith. This is only annoying because he too much likes others to believe that he is, and criticizes other wikipedians for the same mistakes but opposing pov.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=572889121&oldid=572888819
... I just want to insist that this is a propaganda term no bettern than "racist" or "witch" or "heretic", i.e. it cannot ever be used as if it was some objecive thing that can be discussed as a "fact" in Wikipedia's voice. .... Wikipedia has a lot of "western bias" to be sure, "western bias" these days mostly meaning that there is a gratuitous amount of "white guilt" and western self-depreciation and self-hatred. --dab (ð’ ³) 14:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
So the same guy who is busy in supporting the already vast amount Indian "self-depreciation" and "self-hatred" everywhere in wikipedia articles and on talk pages and is the most zealous propagandist for the Aryan Invasion theory on wikipedia (who says that he cannot understand how the theory could "in any way bolster or further chauvinist, colonialist, racist or Eurocentric views"), is also an apologist for racism and white supremacism.
*from his userpage: They will not be a position to intervene in the conflicts of those regions that are less lucky like some benevolent advanced alien race, as this decade is teaching a USA showing the same signs of decadence that are familiar from late Imperial Rome, and others of history's superpowers. "The West" will be more than happy to shut themselves in splendid isolation, or be glad if they can just keep out of the worst bits. The regions that will bleed for this "curb" or "Great 21st Century Turnaround" are those that show a Youth Bulge now, that is, Africa, Southwest, South and Southeast Asia.[ 5 ] These regions are already full of angry young men, and they will be even more so in 25 years' time. Angry young men are quick to embrace religion, nationalism and ideology, but these are essentially interchangable rationalizations for their anthropological impetus to fight until the population pyramid is back in shape.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rama%27s_Arrow&diff=prev&oldid=110298190 Rama's Arrow, in all friendliness, it does seem to me you are getting a little trigger happy with blocking users over India-related topics. I do suggest you go easy on blocking anyone involved in the great India-Pakistani tag team war, since you are yourself not exactly neutral in this. You can ''always'' post users you think deserve a block to [ [ WP:AN/I ] ] and see if an uninvolved admin agrees enough to block them for you.10:48, 23 February 2007
Comment:Does this also apply to Dbachmann himself, who is not exactly neutral in this, or only to Hindu admins? (Also comments on Rama Arrows RFA?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Asian_Stone_Age&diff=46955531&oldid=46951554 See also [ [ Ruins in the Gulf of Cambay ] ] for the recent [ [ pseudoarchaeology|pseudoarchaeological ] ] claims of submerged neolithic )or even paleolithical) settlements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bias_in_South_Asian_Studies&diff=51851238&oldid=48572948 This whole article reads like a hilarious parody of an Indian screaming "racist bigot imperialist Nazi" at anyone who feels that India is a nation like any other, or Hinduism is a religion like any other. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, take this stuff elsewhere. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 17:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bias_in_South_Asian_Studies&diff=51950959&oldid=51950603 your article is fascinating, but it is the fascination of a trainwreck, or of somebody hitting himself over the head repeatedly with a live penguin. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 07:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bias_in_South_Asian_Studies&diff=51852225&oldid=51852183 [ [ Indology ] ] is a stub, but here we host a detailed florilegium of every Hindu prejudice on the internet. This is not even a pov-fork of [ [ Indology ] ], it is an ''ab-initio'' pov-fest, completely one-sided, unsalvageably biased and unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. A short "history" and "alleged bias" section on [ [ Indology ] ] will be more than enough. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 17:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_mathematics&diff=prev&oldid=110290363 Fowler&fowler is a mature and academic editor proficient in the field, and Freedomskies is a zealous angry young man with an agenda. Just another instance of the well-known drawback of "anyone can edit" (vice-versa its many admitted boons). Enough said, really, the case couldn't be much more clear-cut. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 09:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:Nobleeagle/Archive12 The present "supporters" are a Greek Yoga teacher, personal friend of the main source of contempoary Hindutva pseudoscience [ Subhash Kak ], dab (𒁳) 08:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Argumentative_Indian
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=prev&oldid=105769484 why always this obsession with "world's oldest"? There is no native historiography in India, which means that any dating attempts are reduced to wild guessing. Just say things are "old", or "ancient" if you must, and go easy on the superlatives. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 10:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&oldid=104917479
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_mathematics&diff=prev&oldid=110681406 :as always when commenting on India related topics (he rarely comments on anything else), Bakaman is lost in wild-eyed paranoia, elevating his habitual playing of the "race-card" to some sort of fundamental editing principle. I have no idea why an editor with such an attitude is still with us at all. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 22:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rama%27s_Arrow&diff=53021034&oldid=53017913
*[ ] He sweepingly writes on a talkpage that greek mathematics (astronomy) predates Indian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rudrasharman&diff=prev&oldid=110810404 :yes, I was saddened to find that some of Wikipedia's major "Aryan trolls" work as ''physicists'' at an American university. They are typically in their twenties, mostly "[ [ American-Born Confused Desi ] ]", with a capital C in "Confused". While we could excuse teenage zeal, but people with an education in scientific method (at least of the [ [ User:Freedom skies|engineering ] ] variety) cannot claim such innocence. They do know better, and I put much of their aggression down to secretly knowing that they are pushing bullshit. At what point does patriotism induce you to switch off your brain, I could never understand. [ [ Subhash Kak ] ] is something like the archetype of this sort of affliction. The phenomenon is closely related to [ [ Crank (person)|crankery ] ] in general: obviously intelligent people unable to use their intelligence to review their basic axioms, using all their ingenuity for building a ludicrous
edifice based on flawed principles. They cannot be helped, of course, but we need better ways to effectively protect Wikipedia from them. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 11:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hindu-Arabic_numeral_system&diff=prev&oldid=61733334 People like Bharatveer seem to assume that because they are Indian, they must automatically be an expert on Indian history. Which is a terrible and extremely stupid mistake. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 20:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-European_studies&diff=92951438&oldid=92950379
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=146210095
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hindu-Arabic_numeral_system&diff=prev&oldid=61605000 It would be a great world in which people interested in a topic, ''even'' in a topic related to India (gasp) would do a minimal amount of scholarly research instead of all this breathless suprematism. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''') ] ]</small> 23:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:N._S._Rajaram&diff=prev&oldid=111838669 If you cannot, I suggest we merge this article into a treatment of Hindutva ideology in general, since per [ [ WP:BLP ] ] it is questionable to have an article on a living person that does not clearly qualify as a public figure. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 15:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=112047128 The Hindu nationalists who try to bullshit people into believing there is an academic controversy should by no means be presented as the "Hindu side". [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 10:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=prev&oldid=67646493
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=112046930 The Hindu nationalists who try to bullshit people into believing there is an academic controversy should by no means be presented as the "Hindu side".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=112074565 Since we can turn up solid academic authors saying that Kak is a complete ideologist crank, there is nothing that speaks against including that. But the sad reality is that there ''is'' no academic case to be made, this is a topic of pseudoscience, and the people pushing it are using the tools of cranks, not scholars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=113526158 I'm glad you know the feeling, although I imagine these Italian patriots at least forgo ethnic or national mysticisms and claims of proto-Latin in 4000 BC and the like. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 07:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment:He has never heard of Julius Evola and other such "national mysticists". Again this shows that he will go at great lenghts to imagine a Hindu fascism, but forgos this for some other nationalisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hindutva&diff=prev&oldid=114370486 Files checkuser with title: Hindutva sock army and calls editor Hindutva troll. Clerk note: Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hindutva sock army. PTO 20:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kennethtennyson&diff=prev&oldid=115120555
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Islamophobia&diff=prev&oldid=559051979
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamophobic_incidents&diff=prev&oldid=559050833
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurabia&diff=prev&oldid=559053025
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Immigration_and_crime
These and other edits in other articles by Dab show his bigoted double standard. On the one hand, in areas not related to India, his arguments are right-wing, he defends Scientific racism, talks about how important "immigration and crime" is, and defends anti-Islamic arguments and so on. But when it comes to India articles, he suddenldy uses leftwing sources and arguments in his fight against supposed Hindu nationalists, attacking them because of their alleged Islamophobia, and constantly smearing them with nazism and racism smears.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stereotypes_of_South_Asians&diff=560119734&oldid=559034848
Adds to the article: "More recently, since the early 20th century, large-scale [[immigration]] of South Asians to the western world..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stereotypes_of_South_Asians&diff=next&oldid=560119979
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive35
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive59
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=next&oldid=115524825 nobody has an interest in an endless series of "Indian patriot" arbcom cases, all alike ([ [ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan|1 ] ], [ [ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar|2 ] ], [ [ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput|3 ] ])
Comment:the problem there were only the "Indian patriots"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Congress_of_Ethnic_Religions&diff=next&oldid=167464967
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Hinduism&diff=533350392&oldid=532415863
adds the word "scientific racism" to article about the history of Hinduism:
During the 19th century, Hinduism developed a large number of [[new religious movement]]s, partly inspired by the European [[Romanticism]], [[nationalism]], [[scientific racism]] and [[esotericism]]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientific_racism&diff=prev&oldid=533983323
He added the word "scientific racism" to the article (history of hinduism), at the same time he defends scientific racism, saying in the article scienticif racism :"we already have an article on racism. This is not about "pseudoscientific" racism, it is about bona fide, if historical, racial classifications attempting to be reproducible and falsifiable."
"Since "racism" is ''today'' a bad word, people will continue to assume that anything called 'racism' in the ''past'' must automatically classify as evil. This creates a lot of moral outrage and people will go out of their way to emphasize just how wrong racial discrimination is. Ignoring that this article isn't about racial discrimination in the first place. It is simply about the history of what would now be described as [[human genetic variation]], avoiding the ''r'' word. The upshot is that perfectly innocent and perfectly valid observations about the variations in human populations as they developed over the past 40k years is branded "pseudoscientific" just because they were made 100 years ago and did use the word ''race'', not knowing that just the use of that term would turn people off a few generations later.
I have little hope that this article can ever be fixed and become an objective treatment both of the field, of its terminology, and its various historical misuses, because there will always be drive-by editors who see the word "racism" and go into moral berserk mode just to show "they are not racist". Some time it would help to stop and thing about semantics and knee-jerk reactions. --[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(ð’ ³)]]</small> 10:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Dbachmann complains that racism is today a "bad word" and complains about presumbably leftist critics of racism. At the same time, he writes in a wiki article ("history of hinduism") that Hindu revivalists were influenced by scientific racism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_the_Mahabharata_tribes&diff=548291001&oldid=547767297
Many unexplained deletions of material he doesn't like
claims that printing press came with muslims to india (and believes the date must be later than it is) [as this only shows his ignorance, this is not highlighted]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN#Conference_presentation_as_source_in_article_on_Ayurveda
We used to have an article on this. See User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism/Hindutva and pseudoscience. It may be time to revive the topic. See also Scientific foreknowledge in the Vedas, Historiography and nationalism. This is the topic you are looking at here. One thing this has certainly nothing to do with whatsoever is an actual scholarly evaluation of the date of the Rigveda. You are free to believe the Rigveda was composed by ancient aliens, but please do not waste Wikipedia's time with your views. The Rigveda depicts a society of the late Bronze Age. They have wheeled chariots and metal swords. I.e. the oldest hymns remember the earliest arrival of the Indo-Aryans, as reflected by the Gandhara culture. You might as well claim that the Iliad dates to 8000 BC, but you should not expect that anyone will think you worth listening to. See also WP:RANDY. --dab (ð’ ³) 09:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Hinduism&diff=533350392&oldid=532415863
deletes
At [[Kalibangan]] (at the [[Ghaggar]] river) the remains of what some writers claim to be [[fire]] [[altar]]s have been unearthed.<ref>B.B. Lal. Frontiers of the Indus Civilization.1984:57-58</ref> S.R. Rao found similar "fire altars" in Lothal which he thinks could have served no other purpose than a ritualistic one.<ref>S.R. Rao. The Aryans in Indus Civilization.1993:175</ref> The presence of fire altars and ritual sacrifice in these settlements and others has been accepted by authors such as [[Edwin Bryant (author)|Edwin Bryant]].<ref>The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate. Edwin Bryant. p160</ref> Cylindrical, phallus-shaped objects found associated with these fire altars have been hypothesized as proto-Shiva lingas.<ref>Cultural contours of India: Dr. Satya Prakash felicitation volume. By Satya Prakash, Vijai Shankar Åšrivastava. p34</ref>
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Die_Weltwoche&diff=next&oldid=551123673
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Die_Weltwoche&diff=next&oldid=551124589
tones down sections on racism (compare this with his edits in indian articles)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decline_of_Buddhism_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=533329501
deletion:
A continuing decline occurred after the fall of the [[Pala Empire|Pala]] dynasty in the 12th century CE, continuing with the later destruction of monasteries by Muslim invaders.<ref name="Merriam155" />
deletes " continuing with the later destruction of monasteries by Muslim invaders"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communalism_%28South_Asia%29&diff=prev&oldid=116761158 adds:
**movements in the [ [ Indian diaspora ] ]:
***[ [ Hindu Human Rights ] ]
***[ [ Hindu American Foundation ] ]
***[ [ Vedic Foundation ] ]
Movements opposing communalism:
*[ [ Friends of South Asia ] ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communalism_%28South_Asia%29&diff=prev&oldid=116996341 (but don't remove Hindu groups at the same time. All Hnidutva outfits are obviously "communal" by definition.)
adds:
**[ [ Arya Samaj ] ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Freedom_skies/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=117330938 will somebody finally use checkuser against the amazing Hindutva sock circus?? ...')
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Freedom_skies/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=117539960 your physical location is [ [ American-Born Confused Desi|not so relevant ] ]. I have yet to catch you doing an edit unrelated to India, and I've yet to catch you taking anything but a nationalist stance: your editing profile is that of a classic single-topic lobbyist. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 16:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_21&diff=prev&oldid=117555647 The two votes above can be safely disregarded as by adherents of known followers of precisely the fringy literature the article will discuss. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 17:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=118266051 the Grand Unified Hindutva Sock and Troll Circus?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=118459716 (conspiracy theory)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_propaganda&diff=prev&oldid=119709797 the rise of "Hindutva pseudoarchaeology" since the 1990s, so that there can be no doubt that this article is valid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism&diff=72571240&oldid=72416619 o ffs, what is it with this Hindu gerontophilia? ("O ffs", according to Internet slang means "Oh, for fuck's sake". )
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=next&oldid=40711362
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia_and_nationalism Indo-Pak/Indian nationalism, mostly Hindutva (Indigenous Aryans, Aryan Invasion Theory), but also some Dalitstan and other "communalism", and Pakistani patriotism.
Indian sandbox
the art of sockpuppeteering appears to be particularly popular among Indian patriots.
Comment:On what basis is it "mostly" Hindutva? Why a special section "Indian sandbox"? One of Wikipedia's special user pages, where an user tries to justify his obsession or prejudices with one topic by claiming that they're neutral, or treat all equally. But in fact other nationalisms, like Islamsim/Islamofascism or Christian fundamentalism (there seems to be some Christian fundamentalism in India and other articles) are of much less concern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel.Bryant&diff=prev&oldid=121427568 I am sorry to say this, but you have betrayed the trust placed in you, and I will be forced to compose an admin conduct RfC, and your case will also figure as a prominent example of WP beginning to cave in under the sustained propaganda attack in the Hindutva arbitration case that is certain to come up sooner or later.
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voice_of_India&diff=118324625&oldid=118324373 One of its major problems is concerted spamming, propaganda and/or pov-pushing efforts, and the case of the topic at hand is ''extremely'' bad, so that it is high time we sorted out the ideological lobbyists masquerading as scholars from actual academia. See also [ [ User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism ] ]. It's a veritable disease, and I'll only ever be able to scratch the surface. I would never even have touched this topic with a five foot pole if the propagandists hadn't attacked Wikipedia first. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳) ] ]</small> 19:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_astronomy&diff=118001796&oldid=117699312 deletes referenced section
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_astronomy&diff=118003451&oldid=118002684 deletes Subhash Kak reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_astronomy&diff=118003788&oldid=118003451 Such methods are generally rejected by mainstream scholarship, but since the 1980s have come to play a significant role in ideologically motivated literature in connection with [ [ Hindutva propaganda ] ].
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_astronomy&diff=118006071&oldid=118004283 Deletes: The [ [ Atharvaveda ] ], the [ [ Taittiriya Brahmana ] ], the [ [ Shatapatha Brahmana ] ], the [ [ Maitrayaniya Upanishad ] ], the Baudhayana Srauta Sutra<ref>Bryant 2001:257</ref> and the [ [ Vishnu Purana ] ] show such a constellation in the Krittika<ref> (Frawley 1991)</ref>. Jean Filliozat has argued that similar conclusions can be derived from Buddhist texts, that incorporated material from earlier Hindu texts.<ref>Bryant 2001:260</ref> Additionally, the legend of the cutting off of [ [ Prajapati ] ]'s head by [ [ Rudra ] ] could possibly indicate a date when [ [ Mrgasirsha ] ] marked the beginning of the year.<ref>(and when the sun rose in [ [ Orion (constellation)|Orion ] ] at the [ [ Vernal Equinox ] ]. Kak 1994:80) Subhash Kak. Birth and Early Development of Indian Astronomy. In Astronomy across cultures: The History of Non-Western Astronomy, Helaine Selin (ed), Kluwer, 2000</ref> Possibly, the
beginning of the year was later marked by [ [ Rohini ] ], Prajapati's daughter.<ref>Subhash Kak. Birth and Early Development of Indian Astronomy. In Astronomy across cultures: The History of Non-Western Astronomy, Helaine Selin (ed), Kluwer, 2000. Kak 1994:80. Santillana and Dechend (1969).</ref>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_astronomy&diff=158676465&oldid=158619049 :the only reason I haven't done it yet is because I couldn't think of a "npov" title yet. [ [ Vedic crank parade ] ] probably won't fly. [ [ Vedic archaeoastronomy ] ] may be to discrediting to the term "archaeoastronomy", which I understand can also cover ''actual'' historical astronomy. ideas? --[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(ð’ ³) ] ]</small> 07:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NCERT_controversy&diff=117970868&oldid=106004287
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NCERT_controversy&diff=119694579&oldid=119694402 ([ [ Romila Thapar ] ]'s ''Medieval India'' was criticised for being too sympathetic to Muslim viewpoints, and for showing too little enthusiasm for [ [ Hindu revivalism ] ]. ) Comment:It was in fact criticized for inaccuracies or revisionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vedas&diff=299879782&oldid=299879296 (the issue is of course the historical rewriting of Indian Marxist historians like Romila Thapar, which blackens Hinduism while glorifying Islam. Also a lot of other bias on that talkpage.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kumari_Kandam&diff=120256289&oldid=117389629 "In Dravidian national mysticism"
Protection while in page dispute: Indigenous Aryan Theory, N.S. Rajaram, Haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA), Hindutva propaganda, Nicholas Kazanas (unprotection), Subhash Kak
*I saw on your user page a section as noted above, and also read the relevant "discussion". I think virtual communities like wikipedia exposes many persons' real intent and mentality. They may retract later on fearing the backlash of the community, but they are what they are! Please do not worry - [ [ Abraham Lincoln ] ] had concluded: ''you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time''. Either the wiki-community has to get rid of proponents of racialism or the self-respecting wikipedians have to say good bye to wikipedia. The choice is ours, and there is always light after the tunnel. Please do not feel perturbed, and please continue to remain active. Regards.
* I denounce the extreme POVs explicitly and implicitly conveyed through the above remarks, and feel highly offended and annoyed at the same.
*My apologies - I'm simply not willing to compromise my neutrality. If Sbhushan wishes for another editor to defend or argue on his behalf, a request may be filed with the AMA through the links above. Otherwise, I am closing this mediation as unsuccessful on the grounds parties do not wish for mediator, unless there are any objections. I was referring to Dab's comment above:“ ..I would propose that you do not attempt to be "neutral", but try to understand whatever it is Sbhushan wants, and argue his case for him..-- Dab
*I submit this article for consideration for deletion given that this flies in the face of WP:UNDUE,WP:ATT,WP:NPOV. The highly prerogative title of the page makes it obvious that page is primarily meant to be an attack page. Hindutva is described by its proponents to be a Hindu revivalist movement, it is has been often derided by its opponents to be an extreme right wing ideology. Whatever may be one's opinion about Hindutva, i believe terms like Hindutva propaganda are personal opinions and the title hardly conforms to WP:NPOV. Much of the article consists of cherry picked quotes from two Papers by Michael Witzel and Nanda & Sokal. Witzel is a Sanskrit scholar, which hardly makes him an authoritarian voice to pass judgements on Indian political ideologies. Mr.Witzel is also considered to be controversial for his supposed anti-Indian/anti-Hindu bias [ 1 ]. It is basically like writing an article on Republican ideology sourced from Noam Chomsky artciles. Undue weightage is given to Witzel and Nanda's opinions on Hindutva.Whats more, on the lines of Hindutva propaganda we donot have Redneck propaganda,Islamist propaganda,Christian propaganda,Marxist propaganda. Also the article ends up making wild allegations like: during the 1930s, the Hindutva movement was influenced by Nazi mysticism, and pseudoscientific theories of racial supremacism. Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) leader M. S. Golwalkar in 1939 he wrote that "Germany has shocked the world by purging the country of the semitic race of the Jews, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by"This serious allegation against a major Indian ideology is based on untracable reference (# ^ Ruthven (2007:10ff.) ) by an obscure Scholar whose interest/expertise is unclear.Also the main contributor to this artilce User:Dbachmann had added a statement (since revised):..Its should be noted that Nathuram Godse (Gandhi's assasin) was NOT a member of RSS at the time and RSS was absolved by the Supreme Court of India of any hand in Gandhi's assasination.
Addition of content like this by Users like User:Dbachmann is shocking. RSS in past has not hesitated to sue anybody accusing it of hand in Gandhi assasination. Such irresponsible behaviour puts Wikipedia in a position where it can be sued.It should also be noted that admin User:Dbachmann who has created this article, has also sprotected it. Isnt this unfair use of admin powers uncalled for, especially when there has been no obivous trolling on the article... Given the condescending tone of this article towards its subject, this article falls squarely in the 'attack page' category.
*I resent this allegation of Dbachmann and deny completely that I am an avatar of Hkelkar or have been sent by a mailing list. I am not anyone's sock-puppet. I do not even know who Hkelkar is Dbachmann is constantly vandalizing my edits, and rather indulging as a propagandist of well known prejudiced and propagandist sources such as Michael Witzel in littering Wikipedia with factually incorrect information.
*Endorse - well-thought-out closure from a mess of an AfD that deleted a serious of quotes and fundamentally unrelated references strung together to compile a POV screed. OR synthesis, basically.
*I have, but this page is supposed to be about a publishing company, there are very few facts on this page, just selected quotes, point scoring and invective, the NPOV is one of the cornerstones of the encyclopedia, without it wikipedia has no value.
*I have no frame of reference for the vast majority of this debate. I have no opinion except that I feel admins should be held to a higher standard than those who simply contribute. In reading the talk pages I find Dbachmann condescending, bordering on rude. I don't see neutrality by a long shot. Anyone who feels so passionately about a subject should not be doing adminstrative functions on articles on that topic.
"His ability to understand that his sources present a particular POV, rather than the absolute truth has been a problem here and elsewhere. His ability to cite sources and his insight into issues and languages is quite valuable however. The answer is for him to be more aware of NPOV, particularly in the sense of giving attention and respect to a wide variety of different positions on an issue. One source alone will not do. Also, he must be more respectful of those who are believers'. It is clear he is not hindu, and that is because of his indifference and irreverence. Those are traits which would be best replaced with respect and modest."
*However, I am not willing to "drop it" in the sense that I still find your past and present comments highly objectionable, and I still have an issue with them.
*In my opinion, you have slapped all Indians in the face, and indeed more than that. You complain that no one has explained to you explicitly what is offensive in your comments. Perhaps you have not made inquiries to those you have offended? However, you cannot complain that no-one stated that they were offended [ 1 ], [ 2 ], or that they thought your comments were an expression of contempt for Indian users [ 3 ], [ 4 ], [ 5 ], [ 6 ]. For the benefit of all, however, I will attempt to explain why your comments are offensive. Substitute another place for India in your comments.
*Your response also seems to argue that the indefensible behavior of some editors with whom you were in conflict somehow justifies your own indefensible behavior.
*Dbachmann's use of ethnic, national and religious attributes of editors when making negative criticisms. It is unnecessary to mention the nationality, culture or religion of editors when discussing edits. To gratuitously mention such attributes of editors in the course of criticizing edits has all the appearances of being an insult to those of the mentioned nationality, culture or religion -- it has the appearance of an insinuation that faults an editor may have are somehow related to that editor's nationality, culture or religion. Whether an insult was intended or not, civility dictates avoiding mentioning such attributes.
*When administrators and major editors give the impression that it is OK to refer to the ethnicity of of editors when making negative comments, the result is that ordinary editors feel entitled to do the same.
*I also suggested that the best course when one offends is usually to acknowledge that one has been offensive (even if unintentionally), to apologize, and to avoid taking on airs that it is those who are offended that are in the wrong. Dbachmann has chosen not to follow that course of action.
*The unresolved issues that I expressed to dab here remain unresolved. Rather than becoming ameliorated over time, these issues have become, in my opinion, more aggrevated. That is his asset to Wikipedia. However, he also has qualities, which in my opinion are very detrimental to his working cooperatively with other editors, and these qualities have been becoming more pronounced. The behavior that led to the older conflict is habitual and ongoing. If the most recent unresolved issue with dab that I have recorded is old, this is due to my lack of interest in pursing the matter. At each step, dab has stated that he is unwilling to discuss further, and my instincts told me that raising new grievances would not help the resolution of the conflict.
*The above is added as a public service. As Dmcdevit said, it's a very bad idea to block someone you are in a dispute with. It may have been POV pushing and probably was 3RR (there are at least four partial reverts in that mess somewhere), but it was not patent nonsense, vandalism, or simple disruption. --[ [ User:BigDT|BigDT ] ] 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
*So Hindutva is some monolithic conspiracy huh? You are merely mirroring Guru Witzelji's tedency to deflect any crticism with shrill and paranoid accusations of Hindtvaadis. I daresay BJP doesnt give a for Witzel or Kak or any two bit scholar who tries to posture himself as pro-Hindu/anti-Hindutvadi. Stop picturing yourself as some sort of Wiki-saviour defending Wikipedia from those stupid nationalist zealot wogs. Except for certain User:Hkelkar i see no Hindutva trolling here. The India-Pakistan ArbComm VOTED to ban Pakistani nationalists but now you are construing it as some sort of Indian 'patriot' case. As for Rajput, it didnt even have anything to do with Hinduism or Hindtva.
*I have stated that I find dab's reference to national, religious and ethnic attributes of editors objectionable. You ask if I can imagine how hurtful it may be to be accused of one error, not once, but repeatedly. Of course I can. Although those defending dab's behavior have stated that his comment was an "error", as far as I am aware, he has never stated that his comment was an "error". Further, if dab had wished to avoid having his comment brought up repeatedly, the easiest course of action he could have taken, which would have taken all of maybe two lines, would have been to apologize for any unintended offense that he may have caused. I am sure that would have greatly reduced the occurances where his comments were brought up to him. I warned him long ago that he had harmed his relationship with Indians, and that an apology would be a wise course. However, instead of heading this advice, he attacked the messenger, as you seem to be inclined to do.
*I only want to point out the following.Stop gratuitous use of 'Hindutva' especially when you are not even able to define it in black and white.But keep your commentary and linguistic flourish out. It only shows that you have an emotional investment in all this. Being an admin and an editor for as long as you've been, you should know better than to write articles with a personally invested tone.
*All I can say is that Dbachmann's comments on your talk page weren't particularly civil or assuming good faith. Deleted. Ask him to move ArbCom if he presses. There have been gross civility problems with him in the past, where he resorted to racist comments. You can't invoke a supposed martyr who isn't even gone to defend your actions. Also, saying "I know you acted in good faith" does not mean you truly believe that, and you had just finished complaining that he's stupid and deleted it because of religious crusades.
*The article is nothing but culmination of quotes from 3 authors, Wizel, Nanda, Sokal, with POV quotes and weasel words filled between. The whole article looks as if created by first time user.
*I am not aware that dab has apologized for unintended offense, or stated that his comments merit such an apology. Perhaps I have overlooked something, or perhaps we have different views regarding what constitutes an apology. What I have been aware of are comments where he expressed that he has nothing to apologize for, that he owes no-one an apology and a intends to give no apologies. If I am mistaken, please point me to the sentence or sentences where he apologizes.I also disagree that the "famous" comment is offensive only if misunderstood. I do not believe I suffer from a lack of English comprehension, and so I will try to explain to you at least part of why I think the "famous" comment was inappropriate and offensive. repeating what I once wrote elsewhere... However, his difficulty in discussing matters in a non-accusatory way, his difficulty in listening to others and treating them with respect, these have a negative effect on the community, and make conflict resolution more difficult.
*Sundar is saying he got "satisfied" with his "clarification". I will just point out one such clarification. " no, it appears that Bharatveer has confused "shithole" with "arsehole" (understandable, seeing the fecal association). I do not think that this has anything to do with Indian village culture
*The article is laden with lengthy quotes backing up short statements, which seems to be bordering on WP:SYN and WP:OR...What the hell does that even mean? I am an educated person but I cannot parse the meaning of this article. There is a dearth of succinct declarative statements. There is also a tone to it that borders on a diatribe rather than an encyclopedic gathering of data. A reader with no preknowledge, like me, is left bewildered, and I cannot see how anyone with knowledge of the issue could be other than pissed off or proud.
*Bogus? I think you are the most interesting arbocase in the Wikipedia history. I can see another incident you caused just a few moments ago, by restoring erroneous and wrongly sourced allegations to [ [ Koenraad Elst ] ]. Are you still serious or is it ''you'' that is working towards a ''grand finale''? How come you thought I'll ever leave Wikipedia alone with you? Maybe it would be interesting to map your [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Angr friends ] and some all too obvious administrator
*This continued display of unwarranted personal attacks show you don't mind Wikipedia at all, not for the policies, not for the community and not for arbcom. You reject the most basic foundation of Wikipedia, that it should be a shared project between multiple editors - that might all have a different perspective. You don't even notice your nutshell assessment of Wikipedia "being the collaboration of dissenting editors" just reflects your troubled mind, utterly unable to make the distinction between honest editors and fascists. Why you should care anyway, the only one you ever intended to take serious is yourself. Arbcom neatly defined your POV pushing, your OR and your many other abuses. Instead of listening, keeping a low profile for a while and take heart you defy the concept of reasonable and polite persons. You act like an outsiders by acquiring the foul language first, and subsequently use it indiscriminated against all your adversaries - even when they take pains in cleaning your blunt, amateur
generalizations and other mess. You defile people by calling them names they don't deserve, engage in countless editwars, react aggressively when running out of arguments, or just walk away from the table for coming back later and make your predefined reverts anyway, and then even ''dare'' to call other people ''trolls''! Go on, make clear to everybody there is no cure for your trolling behaviour. Not at Wikipedia, anyway. Whatever your possible ambitions to become the King of Trolls himself, all future left for you might be the carreer of an anon troll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=192927937
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence (again also details his wiki-battles with Armenians, African Americans,..)
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence#DBachmann_violates_WP:BLP ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rokus01&diff=prev&oldid=180972629
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rokus01&diff=181007703&oldid=181007348
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&oldid=180400901#Thanks
<ref>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence#More_Dbachmann__incivility.2C_threats.2C_page-owning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence#Disruptive_behaviour_-_DBachmann_is_Uncivil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence#More_Dbachmann__incivility.2C_threats.2C_page-owning,
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=141556185#User:Dbachmann Comment by Sir Nicholas ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence#Disruptive_behaviour_-_DBachmann_is_Uncivil
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence#Anti-Hindu_remarks_by_Dbachmann ]
<ref>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence#Disruptive_behaviour_-_DBachmann_is_Uncivil</ref>, [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=141556185#User:Dbachmann
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29 ]</ref>
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=141556185#User:Dbachmann Comment by Sir Nicholas ]
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence#Disruptive_behaviour_-_DBachmann_is_Uncivil Blocks an editor in an editing dispute ]
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=111626427 ]
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=next&oldid=112073211 ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence#Nicholas_Kazanas:_Violations_of_WP:OWN.2C_WP:CIVIL.2C_and_abuse_of_admin_authority
:These are not simply trolls in the narrow sense, and 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.<ref>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zora&diff=32344214&oldid=32343076</ref>
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence#Anti-Hindu_remarks_by_Dbachmann ]
*[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput ]
*[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput/Evidence ]
*[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann ]
*[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29 ]
*[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_4 ]
*[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence ]
*[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar ]
*[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_propaganda ]
*[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bias_in_South_Asian_Studies ]
*[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_pseudoscience ][
*[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_pseudoscience_%282nd_nomination%29 ]
*[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_9 ]
*[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BostonMA/DBachmann ]
*[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hinduism/Archive_1 ]
*[
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=76163983&oldid=76088298#Vandalism ]
*[
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=141556185#User:Dbachmann ] (Accusations of WP:OWN, Revert-warring, 3RR,
*[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive217#Admin_Dbachmann_filled_article_by_his_derrogatory_and_libelous_POVs ]
*[
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 ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=125754054#Blocks_for_meatpuppetry_and_sockpuppetry
History of Kashmir,Kahsmir, and its Muslim invasions and rules (Sikander)
Category:Riots in Pakistan
Article on anti-Mojahir riots in Pakistan
Article on anti-Ahmadiya riots in Pakistan
Post Bugti Riots.
Direct Action Day
Bombay Riots
Balochistan Liberation Army
Nawab Akbar Bugti (specific to riots after his death)
Mukhtaran Mai
Poverty in Pakistan
History of Kashmir
List of banned films, books
Anti-hinduism
Pakistani Nationalism (add more on ethnic Balochi and Pushtun Nationalism, as well as stuff about the Mojahirs and Ahmadiyyas).
Persecution of Hindus
History of Bangladesh:deletions of bombings, terrorism, in bangl liberation war,...
Mukhtaran Mai
Islam in India (deletions of (moderate) views of hindu leaders like Vivekananda)
(Also as another of many examples, some members of the Fringe noticeboard will delete all kind of articles just because they pertain to their definiton of "fringe" and non-worthy, even if they report neutraly on a non-mainstream subject, for example articles on non-mainstream, non-Christian religions. Due to this, that board is pretty much everything that's wrong about wikipedia, one wikipedian said. Furthermore, the introduction of the prodding process, where articles can just be tagged for deletion instead of going through an discussion process, has facilitated the censorship of the less visited parts of wikipedia.)
***CRITICISMS OF WIKIPEDIA AND REFERENCES FROM OTHER WIKIPEDIANS AND WIKIPEDIA DISC./ARB. PAGES (TYPICAL BUT STILL INTERESTING WIKIPEDIA STUFF)***
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/sep/28/wikipedia.web20
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/
http://www.sai-fi.net/wikipedia/
http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Kate%27s_Tool
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Exposed_-_Anti-Israeli_Subversion_on_Wikipedia.asp
http://web.archive.org/web/20080105120715/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/Wikipedia.html
http://www.integraltransformation.blogspot.com/2008/12/sri-aurobindo-and-ken-wilber-on.html
http://www.integralworld.net/kazlev15.html
http://wikipediareview.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_deletion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PRODSUM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiScanner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias
http://sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/sathya-sai-baba-wikipedia-bias/
http://www.saisathyasai.com/wikipedia/
http://www.medhajournal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=589&Itemid=282
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28people%29/Archive_4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_against_censorship
http://koenraadelst.blogspot.de/2013/05/the-wikipedia-lemma-on-koenraad-elst.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/practice/a/wikipedia_women.htm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/anti-wikipedia-resource.html
http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com