Wikipedia leaks

Showing 1-4 of 4 messages
Wikipedia leaks 2/16/14 7:40 AM


Sites like wikipediareview (as well as Wikipedia talkpages) are full of detailed criticisms of prominent wikipedians like Slim Virgin. However, wikpedians who edit in less mainstream areas are not as often criticized. In this article, some criticism in India-related articles is detailed. Bias occurs everywhere in wikipedia, but to keep the draft concise, it is limited to this topic. (If the draft refers often to the edits of just a few editors, it is not because they are the most notable or because admins are more important, they are just by far the most "productive" editors on wikipedia.)


First it is very obvious that man wikipedians, often also the admins, are not unbiased editors as you would maybe expect from an encyclopedia. Here are some examples of bias against Indians:

"Why are you giving so importance to a Third World Contry person like Talageri? These religious beggers and low class people don't deserve this much attention." ("User:Truthlover")

"what's happening? Are summer holidays over at American high schools, and all the ABCD trolls flocking back to give Wikipedia grief? (ABCD is a slur, ABCD=American Born Confused Desi)" ("User:Dbachmann")

"your physical location is [[American-Born Confused Desi|not so relevant]]" (but apparently your race is, "Dbachmann", when commenting on a Hindu editor)

"You fucking little piece of shit stop fucking around with my page, you fucking dirty pagan! I know you're a Hindu Muppet!" ("User:Street Scholar")

"the only people that care about [ [ Indian mathematics ] ] are Indians with a collective inferiority complex... 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." ("Dbachmann")

" is at least not a Hindu forum, but it seems still to be a lobby organization you'd expect to automatically take the side of an ethnic minority, never mind if their cause makes sense or not." ("Dbachmann")

"The articles [[Hindu-Arabic numeral system]], [[Arabic numerals]] and [[Indian numerals]] have been kept separate in order to appease the angry young Hindu editors." ("Dbachmann")

"There is a group on wikipedia. A group of infidels(...) The infidel nation of India will be the start of the great Jihad. The unbelievers must be enlightened. All who call themselves Muslims here (...) must wage this Jihad on their keyboards, and then on their homes, and their villages. But the soldiers of Allah must verily take the holy war to the homes of the infidel." ("Nishan")

One administrator ("Dbachmann") was heavily criticized for saying this on wikipedia:

"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."

This is a comparatively mild version of wikipedia bias, but it has engendered a lot of controversy. The Indians criticized the admin because he refused to apologize for his comment even after being critcized heavily for it. The same user was also criticized for similar remarks and for his tendency to "use ethnic, national and religious attributes of editors when making negative criticisms". As an example he routinely refers to Hindu editors as Hindutva-trolls, -zeaolots, -kooks, -meatpuppets, -propagandists, -sockuppets, -sock army, -crowd and Hindutva editors from hell.

Many wikipedians have criticized him for this, arguing that:

* "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 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."

(some text removed, a fuller version is at


Wikipedia claims that "biographies of living persons" should be free from any bias. However, those of many Hindus are not the shining examples of a neutral enclopaedic article. One of wikipedia's most blatant examples of petty ad hominem attacks on a "biography of a living person" might be admin Dbachmann's attack on Hindu author Kak. This case also clearly shows the bigotry on wikipedia. Dbachmann laughs at Kak's poetry, deletes articles on his books, calls him all kind of names and claims that Kak is taboo and kooky because he is a physicist writing about Indology. But the same admin promotes the indological work of astrophysicist Kochar (because of course the latter happens to be an ally of the like-minded Witzel). So if you agree with Dbachmann's point of view, then it is okay to be a physicist and still write on Hinduism. But if you don't agree with Dbachmann's point of view, then it is kooky and taboo. Dbachmann also claims (without any credible proof) that the wikipedia article on Kak and the Amazon reviews on his books were written by Kak  himself. But the fact that anti-Hindus like Steve Farmer are spamming links and references to their own papers in wikipedia articles is not criticized. Nor is it a problem if the like-minded Prof. Witzel himself is removing criticism against his political campaigns from the California textbook controversy article. (Incidentally, according to a wikipedia edit, Witzel is known to have an email correspondence with administrator Dbachmann, who also happens to protect the Witzel page on wikipedia and insert Witzel's point of view (including the fringe ones, like his Indus-Script-is-not-a-Script-theory) into articles.)


Wikipedia is also a place where inconvenient truths are quickly removed. If once a serious study on censorship on wikipedia is undertaken it will almost surely also examine the case of the committed deletionist Hornplease. While many others are expert in censoring articles, not many do it with so many words and excuses as Hornplease. As one wikipedian said to him: "What you are in fact doing as visible to me is that you are systematically censoring and removing mention from wikipedia of atrocities committed against Hindus by Muslims and providing all bogus reasons for doing so."

If such wikipedia editors cannot censor an article (by blanking whole sections or deleting the entire article), they will start a defamation campaign. Not only individual authors (any Hindu who is too "pro-Hindu" for them), but whole book publishing firms are the victim of such defamations. Thus, an admin ("Dbachmann") claims that the books from a Hindu publishing house ("Voice of India") are the product of their "criminal energy" (and of course also accuses them of "publishing evil propaganda, revisionism and fringe works"). Dbachmann even adds the name of the owner of the website to the wikipedia article (which of course is not wikipedia practice, but as so often some admins are more equal than others).

Also telling is when the admin Old Mishehu deletes an article about Hindu slaves in medieval India with the comment that it appears to be "Hindutva fancruft".

One of the Islamist editors who specialized in the removal and censorship of human rights violations, persecutions and terrorist attacks against Hindus, Christians, Buddhists and other minorities in Pakistan and India was the editor "Anonymous editor". Despite (or rather because of this) he was elected as Wikipedia administrator. Soon afterwards, he suddnely disappeard from wikipedia just at the same time when the Canadian police arrested many Islamists in his Canadian home town due to a planned terrorist attack on the Canadian parliament.


There is on wikipedia no shortage of bullies and censorship cops that will work overtime to manipulate wikipedia. Wikipedia, as has often been stated, is as a rule unreliable in all areas that are in any sense political. As the proverb says, "There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and then there's Wikipedia." In this draft mostly anti-India bias are detailed. I have limited myself to this topic only to keep it short, but all politically charged areas in wikipedia suffer the same problems, especially on non-mainstream subjects. Of course there are also Indian and Hindu editors with an agenda, but it is easy to see that they not do have the same influence as their counterpart, and are quite clearly constantly bullied by the "anti-Hindu" editors.

Wikipedia is clearly unreliable in both theory and practice. The opportunities for misinformation are too numerous to mention. The power the higher echelons have for pushing their own agendas, and for simply behaving like bullies, is enormous. On subjects far removed from the political, wikipedia can be useful. The problem is that in anything to do with subjects of great debate and moment, there are attempts to manipulate. There are those who try, but consistently fail to present facts without them being twisted or obscured by those who don't like them. Those wishing to make a beneficial difference are generally beaten black and blue by the system, and whoever wants to have a go at them.

I personally believe that history will be more interested in the talk pages and edit logs than the content itself. What makes Wikipedia interesting for researchers are not the articles themselves (no student or scholar would ever rely on or quote from wikipedia), but the talkpages and the article histories. Wikipedia is not about fact at all. Its about truth. Its fairly easy to see the truth when you read between the lines and the diffs. And with a few printscreens, its easy enough to see the sort of stuff that needs to be ushered out of view. That's all about truth (and hiding it) as far as I can tell.

If you are into truth, then all that needs to be done is collect a few diffs. One could say they are only human. Which side of human? You have to work the truth out for yourself. Most of the time its really obvious. Wikipedia in my mind (and for my purposes) seems to be just a method of exposing the truth about power hungry individuals who want to paint the world in their own particular variety of sh*t. Those who are good at climbing the ladder, get to drop more influential lumps on any collection of info that is in the splatter path.

Nearly every article has a band of "campers" hanging around it, who are much more interested in maintaining their own version of the truth via the preferential enforcement of technicalities in Wikipedia's rules, than they are in the truth content of said articles. Wikipedia was a good idea, but it has been seriously corrupted by people like these, and the foundation has not done anything to address the problem. On the contrary, it has, in some cases, supported people who have worked hard to keep certain articles inaccurate.

Most pages of any significance have a group of people that have appointed themselves overseers, and resist new additions on general principle. Often, they have a collective ideology slant and have chased off everyone who disagrees in any significant way. In this state, the odd person coming along and trying to modify the article against the views of the established mass is shouted down, accused of going against consensus, and chased off.

The issue there in my experience is the same problem we have with US politics - too many people who care far too much about their own interpretation of the notability policy are in positions of influence. It doesn't matter if we're right. What matters to them is we don't agree with them. So they'll stomp on us and shit on us and delete entries anyway, out of spite or some twisted logic that what was originally founded as a public resource is somehow divinely theirs. The wikipedia editors that push this crap are the internet equivalent of The Religious Right in American politics, and are about as open to reason.


If you cannot see the truth, my brother in Islam, then you need to. The unbelievers are lying, as they usually do. There is a group on wikipedia. A group of infidels who sully the name of al-Islam and the noble men who fight and die in the name of Allah and the Prophet (pbuh).But the beautiful words of Allah himself tell us to be the instruments of terror when the infidel tries to fight us, so where is the wrong in that? Yet, the true shaheeds, the martyrs who fight and die for al-Islam, for pakistan, are misrepresented, sullied, and are the victims of Zionist-Hindu lies. This must change now.
Look at the edits of many editors, Jews and Hindus, and you will see them removing all the truth and replacing it with Zionist lies. The Hindu kafir has become the instrument of the evil Zionist Jew, and they are our enemy.
They fear us. They fear Pakistan, and they fear the greatest army of the house of Islam, and they fear the Islamic bomb. They fear the great Jihad that we stand ready to unleash upon the world. We will bring peace to the world through Jihad. We will wipe out all falsehoods. We will bring Islam to al-Harb again. The infidel nation of India will be the start of the great Jihad. The unbelievers must be enlightened. All who call themselves Muslims here, all who call themselves sons of Pakistan, must wage this Jihad on their keyboards, and then on their homes, and their villages. But the soldiers of Allah must verily take the holy war to the homes of the infidel. That is the goal of all the proud here on this blessed place where we have met.
Allah keep you all, my brothers.
Post Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:42 pm Nishan-e-Haider Joined: 25 Dec 2006 (nominates the article for deletion) (propaganda article, heavily biased) (Creates completely onesided, heavily biased article that claims that only Muslims are victims.
Yes there were some uncited text. You could have marked them as citation needed. Instead you chose to remove them unilaterally. In the process you have removed a some texts which had citations. Might I ask, why? (wants to move Noakhali genocide to Noakhali riots, the same user supports renaming the Gujarat riots article to Gujarat genocide or even to Gujarat Anti-Muslim riots)
Persecution by Muslim Invaders - Does all that crap really belong in this article? Invasions by foreign forces do not really fall under persecution, does it? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
"‘It’s A Myth That Muslim Rulers Destroyed Thousands Of Temples’"See here and this paper from Richard M Eaton shows that all the temple destruction stuff has no place in this article, at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
A riot is an act of spontaneous violence, how is it persecution? The Noakhali riots were carried out after rumors of attacks on Muslims on Calcutta. I dunno if such as that falls under persecution.  Darkness Shines (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
and much more...
[ [ Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Siddiqui ] ] was conducted approximately 8 months ago; since then, Siddiqui has been blocked numerous times for edit-warring and sockpuppetry.
*[ ANI report on Siddiqui's recent disruptive activities ]. he deletes all refernces to forcible conversions inspite of historically authentic sources provided such things did indeed happen according to neutral sources. User:Siddiqui here again edits out all refernces to forced slavery of Maratha women by writing "they married handsome Afghans". On Jammat-e-Islami User:Siddiqui deletes all refernces to JeI's alleged connections to terrorist outfits inspite of references provided. Here User:Siddiqui deleted all mentions to historical references of Mahmud of Ghazni's same-sex relationship. Scholar You fucking little piece of shit stop fucking around with my page, you fucking dirty [ [ pagan ] ]! I know you're a Hindu [ [ Muppet ] ]! side note: Well Hindu girls seem to like my nose as seen as though I've humped a few an I am dating one now (pov pushing)
*POV pushing at articles like Decline of Buddhism in India, Muhammed bin Qasim, Mahmud of Gazhni, NCERT controversy, Jayapala.

I have edited this article removing unbacked, preposterous claims attributed to Aurangzeb, replacing them with backed citations. There seems to be much misinformation about Aurangzeb from many Indians, who have painted him as a villian, in part as a result of the era of the hostility prior to the partition of South Asia. We should not allow such things to be common here, and I ask that everyone please make sure to be honest and just with your edits. Thank you. --AmmariKhan (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Admin, stopped editing in the week of the 2006_Toronto_terrorism_case
[ [ Talk:Terrorism_in_Pakistan ] ]
[ [ Talk:Terrorism_in_Kashmir ] ]
[ ]
[ [ Talk:Kargil War ] ]

'''Anonymous editor''' is an administrator of the [[English Wikipedia]].
Anonymous editor is a Canadian administrator. After months of very frequent editing, he suddenly stopped editing on June 4, 2006 (he returned on June 17, 2006 for two hours of editing), without saying goodbye. Some users like [[Bhadani]] continue to ask about his whereabouts from time to time on his talkpage. In the same week that he stopped editing, the media reported a large crackdown on Islamists who planned to attack the Canadian parliament []. It is very likely that there is any direct connection between his disappearance and this event. He is still officially an administrator of Wikipedia.
== Adminship ==
His first Request for Adminship failed. He was nominated by [[Slim Virgin]], and his supporters included some admins. His second Request for Adminship succeeded, he was nominated by [[FayssalF]]. He was again supported by some admins, some of which were criticized for their support votes.<ref>[]</ref>
== Charges of Islamism ==
This administrator was among the most controversial on Wikipedia. Some users claimed that he "is an Islamist"<ref>[]</ref>, one editor summarized his interactions with him like this: "it won't change what I have observed in the interactions I have had. The POV that I have observed is Islamist."<ref>[]</ref>
His edits focussed on articles about Islam, Canadian politics, Terrorism, Kashmir and Pakistan.
Some articles with controversial edits:
Some talk pages:
*[] "A problem user"
===List of controversial edits from RFA===
A list of controversial edits, from his RFA: []
*[] "A problem user"
*Comment: Sometimes deleted the whole statistics section because it contained information on numbers of people killed by terrorists and of numbers of Kashmiris that fled, other deletions, Edit wars, etc. Readers can judge themselves.
*[] removes the whole statistics section, because he doesnt like the information in it which states how many approx were killed by terrorists and how many Kashmiris had to flee their homeland.
*There were over 11 edits by AE (including 3RR) on terrorism in kashmir where AE insisted to have an npov tag with the words "npov because of a pro-indian bias", instead of the much more neutral plain npov tag (with explanation on talk) or the more fair mention of both pov's in the npov tag.
*[] Here he deletes that Pakistan was involved in the attack on Kashmir. It is however generally accepted that this was indeed the case. Should have been at least discussed on talk.
*[] deletes Human Right abuses/terrorists, rm taliban/bin laden
*[] I have to check this, seems like deletions
*[] Writes that Buddhists have never shown desire to "join india". Quite wrong for obvious reasons.
*[] same as above (the Buddhists in Kashmir have never shown any desire to join India)
*[] Deletions of for example statistics section and other material
*Comment: Many edit wars. I don't want to take sides and blame everything on AE, readers can judge for themselves. I think some of the discussions that AE was involved with also concerned this article. There was a proposed Request for comment, not sure if it was about this article or about other articles.
*[] See the history for edit wars
*[] deletions
*[] deletes taliban
*[] deletions
*[] deletions
*[] del
*[] del
*[] deletion of newspaper source
*[] deletion
*[] deletes reference from an important indian newspaper, explains this later by calling a blog site! See [] [] []
*[] deletes reference (
*[] deletes reference
*[ terrorism]: edit wars. Didn't look at this in great detail. Again I'm not blaming everything on AE.
*[] AE writes: "A few controversial historical records state that under his rule some of the populace was put to death while others do not state this." This edit is controversial and may be an attempt at revisionism. There are many contemporary and later histories that explicitly state the details about these Muslim rulers.
*[] large edits, deletes ext. links
*[] puts quotations about genocides under a section called "critical views". This is quite controversial.
*[] deletes sourced quote
*[] del
*Other articles
*[] deletion
*[] this is minor but the edit summary is very wrong
*[] ??
*[] deletions
*[] ??
*[] deletion
*[] Says that indian army commit more atrocities than the terrorists. This is a controversial and potentially false-claim and pov edit and should at least be sourced/discussed. (Terrrorist killed more than 30'000 people since about 1989, more than 300'000 fled).
*[] controversial and potentially false-claim edit with no sources
*[] deletes massacres on sikhs, other
*[] see above
*[] genocide is only population decrease
*Revert wars between September 25 and September 28: []
*[ edit war/del]
*[ edit war/del]
*[ edit war/del]
*[ deletes reference]
*[ ??]
*[ could be deletion]
*[ ??]
*[ ??]
==Known associates==
*[[SlimVirgin]] (nominated him for Adminship)
*[[FayssalF]] (nominated him for Adminship)
*[[Jayjg]] (supported both of his RFA's and was criticized for it <ref>[]</ref>)  Whitewashes the Aurangzeb article.
removes references
I am a little dubious of this source, currently used in the article. ...
Re: Wikipedia leaks 2/16/14 7:40 AM
'''Controversies on BLP Articles'''

== David Frawley ==
(Biography of a Living Person article)
Comment: Compare this with the Michael Witzel and Nicholas Kazanas articles.
See also
*[ [ National mysticism ] ]
*[ [ Nationalism and archaeology ] ]
[ [ :Category:Pseudohistory ] ]
Comment:Of course pagan religions like Hinduism have a "national" element (sacred rivers, sacred mountains), and a prominent mystical element when compared to Christianity. Dr. Frawley is heavily criticized by most leading Indologists such as Michael Witzel (Wales Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University) for spreading pseudo-scientific ideas regarding (Rig-)Vedic culture and literature.
Probably Dbachmann as an anonym IP sockpuppet:
Don't you think it would be reasonable to add some criticism? The article looks like a hymn to Dr. Frawley, as if it were written by himself. As I am not much acquainted with the Wiki system, I don't really get how to "source" something - at first glance the article on Frawley is also not sourced.
Anyway, as I am doing my thesis on the Rigveda and therefore (believe myself to) have at least some ability of judging the discussions (also involving Michael Witzel) - Dr. Frawley having an important part in them - I would appreciate it if someone could help to "source" the criticism, or explain to me how "sourcing" is done. Thanks. &#xE2;&#x80;&#x94;The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk &#xE2;&#x80;&#xA2; contribs)
Dbachmann comes and replys for his probable IP sock:
um, ''any'' information, on people both living or dead, must be sourced. At present, the introduction is a fawning eulogy. The article gives no source whatsoever. It won't do to just drop what you don't like and keep what you like. Care to source any of the extolling praise, or shall we remove that as unsourced too? [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 13:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC) notion of "[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ]".
Deletes:To many Hindus, the idea that the Vedas were written by descendants of tribes that immigrated from [ [ Central Asia ] ] seems like a convenient myth perpetuated by European historians eager to attribute Hinduism's greatest artifact to non-Indians. For this reason, the "[ [ Aryan Invasion Theory ] ] debate" in India has strong political overtones, and Feuerstein ''et al'' 's theory is thus welcomed by many Indians as an alternative to current theories.
Changes to:The "[ [ Aryan Invasion Theory ] ] debate" in India has strong political overtones, and Feuerstein ''et al'' 's theory is to be seen in this context as a work of [ [ Hindutva ] ] [ [ ideology ] ].
[ [ :Category:Hindutva ] ] [ [ David Frawley ] ] who sees the origin of all world civilizations in Northern India, 10,000 - 6,000 BCE. civilizations derive from India, represented e.g. by [ [ David Frawley ] ] or [ [ Graham Hancock ] ]<ref>related to [ [ pseudoarchaeology|pseudoarchaeological ] ] fantasies involving "[ [ Ruins in the Gulf of Cambay ] ]"; c.f. Witzel (2006:230, note 57)</ref> um, this is a classical case of national mysticism, and the classification is well referenced. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 10:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC) :::maybe you would care to back up your claim that "Sokal attacks all Hindus"? Are ''you'' saying every Hindu believes in pseudoscientific nonsense and indulges in mob violence, or are you saying Sokal says this? Based on ''your'' presumed edit history of trolling and edit warring, I am assuming the former, I must say. Yes, Sokal is anti-religion (not anti-Hindu in particular, saying "he attacks all Hindus" is like accusing someone who said "I don't like television" of attacking the BBC), and he attacks this book because it presents religious fundamentalism in the guise of "scholarship". You may be "anti-religion" like Sokal, or "pro-religion", or you may have no opinion on the matter, but this doesn't change the fact that this book ''does'' misrepresent religious sentiment as "scholarship". Remember that this book is not openly about Hinduism at all. It pretends to discuss "Ancient India". Sokal
exposes that it is in fact about ideological currents in Hinduism, something that you seem to take for granted, but the reader may not have your background knowledge on the topic. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 10:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Comment:POV, one-sided. the book is exemplary of a series of ideological [ [ Hindutva ] ] [ [ Historical revisionism (negationism)|revisionist ] ] literature appearing since the 1990s, and has only been reviewed academically as such (in the "Hindu nationalism and 'Vedic science'" chapter of Sokal 2006).  [ [ :Category:National mysticism ] ]
A lot more propaganda against Frawley and removals by Dbachmann. In the lead he adds:
In publications such as ''[[In Search of the Cradle of Civilization]]'' (1995), Frawley has also defended theories of [[historical revisionism]] advocating the "[[Indigenous Aryans]]" ideology popular in [[Hindu nationalism]].

Removes various links:
*[ Frawley and Deepak Chopra in Dialogue]
*[ Frawley: Reuniting Yoga and Ayurveda]
=== Frawley on Indian history ===
*[ The Aryan-Dravidian Controversy] Article by David Frawley
*{{cite paper | author=Frawley, David | title=Witzel's vanishing ocean - How to read vedic texts any way you like |year=2002 | url= }}
*{{cite paper | author=Kazanas, Nicholas | title=Rigvedic town and ocean: Witzel vs Frawley |year=2002 | url= |format=PDF}} Article by Kazanas (pdf)
===Video links===
* [ David Frawley Interview]
He removes quotes and changes the accurate sentence:
In books such as ''[[The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India]]'' and ''[[In Search of the Cradle of Civilization]]'', Frawley criticizes the 19th century [[Racial groups in India (historical definitions)|racial interpretations of Indian prehistory]], such as the theory of a conflict between invading [[Aryan race|caucasoid Aryans]] and Dravidians.<ref>Arvidsson 2006:298 Arvidsson, Stefan (2006), Aryan Idols: Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science, translated by Sonia Wichmann, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.</ref>

to the one reflecting Dbachmann's own opinion:

In essays and books such as ''[[In Search of the Cradle of Civilization]]'' (1995), Frawley endorses the "[[Indigenous Aryans]]" scenario propagated in [[Hindu nationalism]] during the 1990s.<ref>Arvidsson 2006:298 Arvidsson, Stefan (2006), Aryan Idols: Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science, translated by Sonia Wichmann, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.</ref>

== Shrikant G. Talageri ==
(Biography of a Living Person article)  His views are related to [ [ Hindutva|nationalist hinduism ] ] and critics consider his works to border on [ [ pseudoscience ] ]. [ [ :Category:Hindutva ] ]
Comment:wants to merge book (wants to merge/delete Talageri's book)

== Nicholas Kazanas ==
(Biography of a Living Person article) {{dated prod|concern = {{{concern|unnotable, article created to push fringecruft}}}|month = February|day = 28|year = 2007|time = 15:42|timestamp = 20070228154248}} He has published a papers suggesting an [ [ Out of India ] ] scenario for Proto-Indo-European in [ [ JIES ] ], which has met with devastating criticism from mainstream academia. He is personally acquainted with [ [ Subhash Kak ] ], another amateur author who like Kazanas publishes prolifically his "[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ]" views.
Comment:Wants to delete the article with "Prod". At the same time he modifies the lead and claims that Kazanas has only a Master's degree. Dbachmann wanted to delete the articles of a number of Hindu scholars, including also Rajiv Malhotra, Stephen Knapp, Nicholas Kazanas, Shrikant Talageri, Vishal Agarwal, .... and most book articles from Hindu scholars. "biography article" on a WP:NPF teacher who published a couple of papers. Created to push ideological fringecruft. Kazanas' notability can be fully addressed in the articles on the subjects treated in his papers (out of India and indigenous Aryans). dab (&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) 09:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment:Nominates for deletion. One of the reasons is his claim that Kazanas has only a Master's degree, which he added in the article previously
Comment:One of the reasons for deletion is his claim that Kazanas has only a Master's degree, which he added in the article previously. *he does not. the ''phonebook'' is a reliable secondary source, yet we don't allow articles on anyone just on grounds of being listed in the phonebook. That Kazanas is the "main proponent" of the "Out of India" theory speaks volumes about the notability of ''that'', but this is the Kazanas AfD, not the OIT one. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 12:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment:Secondary reviews of Kazaans' work by JP Mallory, Asko Parpola and his favorite Witzel are now "phonebook" references. Article for Deletion result was KEEP, and nomitated the article for deletion himself. He redirects (deletes) the article to "Out of India" after the AFD.
Comment:The Article for Deletion result was KEEP, and nomitated the article for deletion himself. He wants to redirect (delete) the article to "Out of India" after the AFD. :indeed. It has long transpired that Kazanas is Subhash Kak's meatpuppet. If he was at least an expert in anything we could cite him regardless of this, but so far we only know that he runs a Yoga institute in Greece and allegedly has a M.A. in something. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 10:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC) (deletes facts) unprotects an article where he was himself edit-warring with another editor :JIES offered a fringe author the possibility to state his case. After three issues, they had to close the debate, since he was obviously impervious to rational criticism. We can well state that Kazanas brouht up the OIT thing in JIES and was torn apart, if only to document that the 1990s "recent evidence" presented by VoI has left no impression whatsoever on academic mainstream. This doesn't qualify Kazanas as an academic or scholar in his own right. He is a painfully obivous <s>sockpuppet</s> proxy of S. Kak et al., and it is no coincidence that he keeps a homepage on He's just a member of the gang. He stated their case in JIES and was shot down, end of story. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 14:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Other authors and Biography of a Living Person articles yes, Lal is a ''comparably'' reasonable voice (which isn't saying much with all the pseudoscience flying around). But of course I cannot vouch that he never proffered nonsense. I haven't seen him claim "5th millennium Sanskrit", which would be supreme nonsense of course, and I think this is just once again you misreading your sources. He quite reasonably says that the Harappan culture has its roots in the 5th millennium, and he ''comparatively'' reasonably dates the RV to "before 2000 BC" (based on a single(!) verse saying "Sarasvati flows to the Sea", which is blatant naivete to any philologist) which is "only" some 500 years before its accepted date. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 09:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC) :Rudra is quite right, Bakaman's selective policy-awareness nonwithstanding. He still has the sanity to wrap it in conditionals, but this statement clearly puts Lal in the loony camp. "a language called Sanskrit", heh. By the same argument, you can prove that the Sumerians really spoke Aramaean. Shame on any archaeologist who argues nonsense like that, even if he never saw a linguistics textbook in his life. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 17:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC) as well as two decipherment claims of the [ [ Indus script ] ] as encoding Sanskrit or Indo-Aryan, by [ [ S. R. Rao ] ]<ref>Dawn and Devolution of the Indus Civilisation (Aditya Prakashan, Delhi 1992)</ref> and N. Jha and [ [ N. S. Rajaram ] ]<ref>The Deciphered Indus Script: Methodology, Readings, Interpretations, Aditya Prakashan, 2000 [ ]; review: "[ Horseplay in Harappa ]" by Witzel and Farmer</ref>
Comment:Propagandistic/one-sided POV that is unrelated to the biography article. (POV),_Their_Line,_Their_Fraud&action=history , (wants to delete article) ,  In fact the Visa steel plant director turns out to be the rather more notable Vishal Agarwal than our Hindutva zealot. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 08:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Deletes References (edit summary: rm lobbyist literature)

==Arun Shourie==,_Their_Line,_Their_Fraud&diff=226409626&oldid=226298281
Dbachman deletes article on book critical of dishonest scholarship and censorship

== Subhash Kak ==
(Biography of a Living Person article)

General Comments: Biography of a living person article. Compare his behaviour at this article to his behaviour at Michael Witzel. BLP policy matters more for Witzel than for Kak apparently.
(Dbachmann uses an interview as source, it's a WP:BLP, so WP:PRIMARY sources are out - that would include interviews with him, unless reliable secondary sources have comment on it. ) The co-authored ''In Search of the Cradle of Civilization'' (1995) participates in [ [ Hindutva ] ] polemics on the origins of Indian culture.
Edit summary:&#xE2;&#x80;&#x9C;the guy is a hindutva kook. Can we say *that* in the article please, if he is all that notable?&#xE2;&#x80;&#x9D; Probably the whole article should be removed, or reduced to 2 sentences; Mr. Kak, I think it is bad style to write an enthusiastic article about your own person! hm, Mel, it is not conceivable that Jagged 85 is Kak. Jagged is ''far'' too active on Wikipedia and clearly a bona fide Wikipedian. Kak ''does'' visit Wikipedia in spells, but never does a lot of editing outside touting his own person. As for Kal's "fame", it's just that Kak has apparently figured out the weakness of contemporary academia. You just keep bombarding journals with your articles, and after a while, people will accept you as an authority just because your name keeps coming up with google. After this, your "fame" is self-perpetuating, you don't even need to build a coherent case on anything. He may be a decent cryptographer, but seeing his tactics in fields were he is an amateur, I begin to doubt even that. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 13:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC) so what does it take to be described as a "philosopher" on Wikipedia? He seems to self-describe as a philosopher (and generally as a genius), and I suspect the statement above is Kak's own. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 12:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC) removes Kak removes Kak redirects article to Subhash Kak redirects/deletes article redirects article removes Kak redirects article
Comment: Dbachmann removes references to Kak in some articles redirects article to Subhash Kak (the article had no "merge" in the previous version) deletes many writers, among them Subhash Kak deletes paragraph and reference because the reference is S. Kak deletes S. Kak reference deletes S.Kak reference deletes S.Kak reference deletes reference to Kak deletes reference to Kak deletes reference because it is a Kak paper. As a work of [ [ numerology ] ] and [ [ archaeoastronomy ] ], it has little or no acceptance in mainstream Indology Kim Plofker, Review of Kak (1994), ''Centaurus'' 38 (1996), 362-364.[ ][ ]</ref> as  futile, since it is based on the structure of the Rigveda as redacted by [ [ Shakalya ] ] in the late [ [ Brahmana ] ] period, not anything intrinsic in the oldest portions of the text.
Comment:Pfloker's is a negative review, Pfloker could be contradicted by other reviews?
===New Right, unite!===
it is very funny to see Alain de Benoist and Subhash Kak united as contributors in a racist/nationalist journal: their outlook is really comparable, ethnic nationalism paired with mythic fantasies of noble "Aryan" forbears, just that Benoist of course places the Proto-Indo-Europeans in Europe, while Kak places them in India, each implying, I suppose, concentric circles of racial degradation around the original homeland. This makes them 100% related in terms of their mindset, and 100% opposed in its application to geography [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 14:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Comment:So Kak is a Nazi? Especially, seeing how perfectly informed you are on all things Kak, I put it to you, are you, in fact, Subhash Kak or an associate of his? ..Especially, if you argue that Plofker's review concerns an ''obsolete'' (apparently, Kak has ''changed his mind'' concerning the 7th millennium, then?), feel free to add academic reviews of the ''current'' edition. To my mind, anyone capable of publishing with a straight face nonsense like 7th millennium Indo-Aryans, does not really require to be reviewed any further.
Comment:The book by Kak does not claim 7th millennium Indo-Aryans (ask dab for the page number) (, His [ [ archaeoastronomy|archaeoastronomical ] ] claims in his ''[ [ The Astronomical Code of the Rigveda ] ]'' (1994) are to the effect of vastly extending the [ [ Vedic period ] ], postulating the arrival of ethnic Indo-Aryans to the 7th millennium BC, which has earned the book scathing reviews by Indologists<ref>Michael Witzel, "Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts," [ ''Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies,'' Vol. 7 (2001) issue 3 (May), &#xC2;&#xA7;28 ]</ref> and historians of science.<ref>Kim Plofker, Review of Kak (1994), ''Centaurus'' 38 (1996), 362-364.[ ][ http://listserv. ]</ref> .. His co-authored ''[ [ In Search of the Cradle of Civilization ] ]'' (1995) led to an intensification of the polemics on the origins of Indian culture and supported the [ [ Out of India theory ] ].<ref>[ [ Edwin Bryant ] ], [ [ The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture ] ]: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate. Oxford University Press, 2001.</ref> In the same and earlier edits, he deletes positive reviews on Kak. consistent with what we've come to expect, "The secrets of Ishbar" on amazon has two anonymous readers, coincidentially identified by the same handle "A reader", touting it unanimously as "a masterpiece". dab (&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment:This must have been Kak! There are 100'000's of search results for "Reviewer: A reader" at Amazon. deletes part of bibliography He co-authored ''[ [ In Search of the Cradle of Civilization ] ]'' (1995) fuelling the polemics in [ [ Indian politics ] ] surrounding [ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ] and thg [ [ Out of India theory ] ].<ref>[ [ Edwin Bryant ] ], [ [ The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture ] ]: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate. Oxford University Press, 2001.</ref> and Politically, he takes a staunchly [ [ jingoist ] ] stance, endorsing Indian "nuclear deterrance" against China, denouncing "socialist ideas" in the [ [ Indian constitution ] ], the "Soviet-style ideas of the [ [ Congress party ] ]" and "terrorists from across the [ Pakistani ] border".<ref>2002 interview [ ]
[ ]</ref>
Comment: This all in the first paragraph of the article. The source is maybe not a reliable/notable source, and he misrepresents them.
Kak does not say he endorses nuclear deterrance, but says only:India has pursued its nuclear ambitions for a variety of geopolitical reasons including that of a deterrence against China.
I didn't find a denoucment of the ""socialist ideas" in the [ [ Indian constitution ]") at the link, but it may be there somewhere. While his contributions to [ [ cryptography ] ] and [ [ quantum information ] ] processing have only been minimal, he also publishes on various topics such as the [ [ history of science|history ] ] and [ [ philosophy of science ] ], [ [ History of astronomy|ancient astronomy ] ], and [ [ history of mathematics ] ], and is notable for his contributions to the topic of "[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ]". He has been called "one of the leading intellectual luminaries of the Hindu-nationalist diaspora" by [ [ Alan Sokal ] ] (2006).[ ]</ref> I think we've pretty much solved this now. This isn't publishing, it's guerilla warfare. (probably Dbachmann, see and ok, I've done a few merges. We'll need to look out for future creation of Kakiana-cruft, Kak appears to have made a habit letting Wikipedia know of pretty much every new paper he puts out... [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 12:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC),, (rv. Kak's main notability, belongs in intro.) ::please fix it then... we do have enough material for an independent [ [ Hindutva pseudoscience ] ] by now, and should discuss this topic in context there. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 20:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC) ::Blasphemer! Kak is a fount of couplets immortal, like ''[ The sparrow that built its nest / feeds the chicks without rest ]'', putting Kalidasa himself to shame. (oh dear, I will always think of Borges in tennis skirts now when I hear Kak's name...) [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 22:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC) I believe, since Professor Kak so delights in having things named after him, he'd be pleased if we should coin a new term for his lyrical work, which clearly stands as a class of its own, ''[ [ :wikt:kakopoeia|Kakopoeia ] ]''. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 10:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Estonian? Dear sir, it is pure Greek. Seeing the prodigious talents of the professor, I assume it is only a matter of time before he takes up the [ [ :wikt:&#xCE;&#xBA;&#xCE;&#xB1;&#xCE;&#xBA;&#xCE;&#xBF;&#xCF;&#x86;&#xCF;&#x89;&#xCE;&#x153;&#xCE;&#xAF;&#xCE;&#xB1;|musical arts ] ]? It is an astounding feat that a single man should be able to tackle so many diverse subjects, and yet not rise above mediocrity in a single one! [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC) ( what do you get if you cross a kook and a quack?) :this is blooming nonsense: [ [ Subhash Kak ] ] is professor of ''Electrical Engineering'' with a predilection for ideological dabbling in fields where he is an amateur. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 11:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC) He is notable for publications outside of his field, , from an India-centric "[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ]" ideology, in which Sokal discusses pseudoscientific aspects of [ [ Hindutva ] ] ideology, under which he includes of some of Kak's work.are steeped in the ethnocentric "[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ]" ideology,but found a supporter in German Indologist [ [ Klaus Klostermaier ] ])"
Deletes:These sequences have fairly good [ [ autocorrelation ] ] properties ..and also for real data if some small additional processing is allowed. ..Although it is also open to the [ [ Man in the middle attack|man-in-the-middle attacks ] ] like the BB type of quantum cryptography protocols, it uses only quantum transformations which makes it quite different from other systems.
See also
*[ [ Fashionable Nonsense ] ] rudra's "deKakification" was not a personal attack, but a call to remove crank sources, such as Kak and Frawley, from this article. This is a serious topic of the history of science, and [ [ WP:UNDUE ] ] applies for non-peer-reviewed sources. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(ð' ³) ] ]</small> 12:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Subhash Kak Part 2 He has also claimed to have "resolved the [ [ twin paradox ] ]". Comment:This is based on a press release not written by Kak, probably not a reliable source. According to state-of-the-art physics, there is nothing unresolved about the so-called [ [ twin paradox ] ], and a vast majority of theoretical physicists considers Kak's statements meaningless.
Comment:Based on poor source (press release), and no source for "meaningless" indeed. For our purposes, I am still glad he published this thing, since of course we have more Wikipedia editors capable of recognizing BS in the field of physics than in the field of Vedic studies, so this is likely to add some context. Anyone who solves mysteries of ancient Vedic astronomy, and then goes on to "solve the twin paradox" will, I should think, be screaming "crank" at any editor with only the dimmest background knowledge in these fields :) [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xEF;&#xBF;&#x153;) ] ]</small> 19:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC) I have to admit I feel rather gleeful about this myself :) [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>
[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 15:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Anyway, most journals have a crappy article now and again, just because Kak got to publish in IJTP doesn't automatically mean the journal is bad. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 07:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC) we should do an [ [ International Journal of Theoretical Physics ] ] then (and document that study you mention, too, under [ [ Peer review ] ]!) Any given paper still needs to be considered for its own merits of course. But this does of course streamline well with the rest of our "Kakiana" here. Kak must be something like unofficial world champion of said "loophole in contemporary science". [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 14:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC) but I begin to wonder, what sort of joint is [ [ Louisiana State University ] ] if "one of our professors got an article published in some minor journal" prompts an enthusiastic press release(?!?) [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> I am sorry, you are not making sense. How is any of this "mutually exclusive"? The connection is obvious. You want nucular deterrence of Pakistan because you believe in "Indigenous Aryans" threatened by Muslim invaders. The point is that Kak is not an Indologist. His "Indological writings" are suffused with his political agenda. Why would Wikipedia even bother to report the political views of a Louisiana computer scientist if it wasn't for his "Indological" publications? We do not have enough material to fill an entire "politics" section. All we have is that interview, which at present is cited in order to put his "Indological" views into perspective. We may consider renaming the section in question. (Dab uses a harmless interview from which he makes his predefined conjectures (original research), the reference would not be a reliable source in other wikipedia articles.) :hah, so the local English teacher was really impressed with the local Vedic -whiz-kid-slash-poet-prince's latest foray into theoretical physics. The "scientific community" will be eternally grateful for the Louisiana breakthrough in understanding Einstein, I am sure :) (in reality, the release was written by Kak himself, of course. The wording is exactly his style, I know, I've honed my skills with Wikipedia sockpuppetry :) Poor Mr. Bertholet's role was just to say "ok", that's journalism for you, I think we should categorize Kak above all as a public relations expert - he would have been a great success in that line of work (as opposed to a "[ [ Potemkin village|potemkin ] ]" success) ) [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 19:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 19:21, 23 February 2007) is notable for his contributions to the [ [ Hindu nationalist ] ] topic of "[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ]"....Kak consequently takes a staunchly [ [ jingoist ] ] stance politically, (POV, selective quoting, see also Talkpage) (deletions, adds single pov)

==Voice of India==
(the article was also protected by Dbachmann himself for months, even though he is one of the warring parties) Wants to merge/redirect the book articles of books by Koenraad Elst. wants to merge/redirect book seeing the nature of the firm as a lobbyist platform rather than a bona fide publishing house It is notable for books supportive of Hindu nationalist (Hindutva) sentiment, Together with Aditya Prakashan, founded by Goel in 1963, it is a major outlet for the revival of "communalist" Hindu revisionism and propaganda since the 1980s, targeting a nostalgic audience of expatriate Indians in the USA in particular.
Comment: also adds information about the Internet domain and the name of the owner of the website. Since when do wikipedia pages about publishing houses include such information?
Re: Wikipedia leaks 2/16/14 7:42 AM
'''Controversies on articles'''

==Rigveda== 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 ] ]. 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 (&#xE1;&#x9B;&#x8F;) 17:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
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 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 Krsn&#257; ("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." 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 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. The concept is notable in [ [ Indian politics ] ] as part of [ [ Hindu nationalist ] ] propaganda 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 {{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. 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). [ [ :Category:Historical revisionism (political) ] ] [ [ :Category:National mysticism ] ] {{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 &#xE2;&#x80;&#x93; 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
*[ The Hindutva Movement and Reinventing of History - FOSA ] by [ [ Amartya Sen ] ] 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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 07:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 09:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC) and and
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>[,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. we should mention the term on [ [ indigenous Aryans ] ], since it is of course part of the same propaganda machine. 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 ] ], 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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 08:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 17:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 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 [ 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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC) e.g. [ [ B.B. Lal ] ] who in [ 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. 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|(&#xED; &#x88;) ] ]</small> 18:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</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. 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.")$
Pseudoscience and Postmodernism
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 &#xE2;&#x80;&#x98;Modern Science&#xE2;&#x80;&#x99; 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. 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. 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> and
===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 ] ]
*[ [ 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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 10:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC) 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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 15:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)*'''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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 16:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC) "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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 16:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC) 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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 11:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 19:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC) (revert) 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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 13:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Comment:"indoctrination stunt"? What about the indocrination stunt of Islamist and Marxist educators? The concept is notable in [ [ Indian politics ] ] as part of [ [ Hindu nationalist ] ] propaganda. ..or [ [ national mysticism ] ] (revert) 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. . No, it shouldn't be "a subsection of AIT page", it should be a subsection of a larger "[ [ Hindutva ideology ] ]" page, Or those arguing that this is a topic of scholarship, not national mysticism? 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== 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 ] ] &mdash; all of the mentioned groups being known only from either ancient historiographers or
archaeology. adds link to (see [ [ Aryan Invasion Theory (propaganda) ] ]) 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 ( 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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 10:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 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|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 11:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC) 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|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 12:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 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|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 09:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC) 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|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 12:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Where do you get your ideas, WIN? From crackpot websites? From your Swami? From foaming redneck politicians?  <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#xE1;&#x9B;&#x8E;''') ] ]</small> [ [ User:Dbachmann|q&#xC9;&#x90;p ] ] 12:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC) your 1.) is precisely the sort of national mysticism uninformed by cultural or linguistic change that we want to keep separate from scholarly debate. 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". 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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 10:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Comment:This is an apologist view of British colonialism.  I've seen many things on Wikipedia, but now you have managed to create a pov fork of a talkpage, congratulations. and (as is often postulated by Indian patriotic sentiment), You mean [ ]. 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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC) ,
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.

General comments: He got the article moved to AIT(history and controversies). Late he wants to make a disambiguation page from AIT (, 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. our stark raving radical Hindu blogs and 'tribute' websites. If anything, we should do away with links such as [ this ] (a rambling anonymous writeup on some religious site): 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|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 16:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia leaks YouC 2/17/14 12:06 AM
You can move on now. It was years ago. Nothing is as bad, after next second. You can recheck all these pages, most of the abusive material was deleted already.