Wikipedia Bias (examples of systemic bias in India-related articles)

Showing 1-9 of 9 messages
Wikipedia Bias (examples of systemic bias in India-related articles) 12/9/12 3:59 AM

Sites like wikipediareview (as well as Wikipedia talkpages) are full of detailed criticisms of prominent wikipedians like Slim Virgin and Jzg. However, wikpedians who edit in less mainstream areas are not as often criticized. In this draft, 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 the most active Wikipedians, especially also 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)

"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")

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 this 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. (Almost none of the victims of his name-calling have declared that they are Hindutvadis.) It would almost seem that he uses the word Hindutva on Hindus as others would use the word nigger.

Further exemplifying that every Hindu and every aspect of Hinduism that he disagrees with is "evil Hindutva", this admin even puts Swami Dayananda in the Hindutva category, who lived long before Sarvakar (who coined the term Hindutva). The same admin also criticizes the "Hindutvatis" for their denunciation of [ [ British colonialism ] ], claiming "Hindutva scohlars seem to delight in, what with denouncing British colonialists for imperialistic views". He is also an apologist of British colonoliasm when he writes that India benefited from it because of the railways which helped in times of famines. (But of course the railways were built for economical reasons or exploitation, and many countrys that were not colonized also got railways, including "third world" country Thailand, and colonized countries are more prone to famines than non-colonized ones). (Scholars, including Indian marxist scholars, who disagree with this or similar viewpoints, are then criticized of being "postmodern" or "postcolonial".)

Of course the fight against "Hindutva" is for many editors just a fight against Hinduism. Thus one administrator ("Dbachmann") claims that Dayananda's writings are recognized as having an element of religious fundamentalism and criticizes Vivekananda for alleged pseudo-science in an article with the poignant title "Hindutva propaganda" that was too extreme even for wikipedia standards and got deleted (if an article created by a long-standing admin can be deleted because of its bias and against the wishes of the admin, it is probably extreme).

Some of the same admins and editors maybe unsurprisingly also go at great lengths to equate Hinduism with fascism, racism and "national mysticism" (and also accuse Hindu editors both of racism and of playing the race card). The purpose of calling Hinduism "national mysticism" is of course to paint Hinduism and Hindus as proto-fascists, thereby smearing the Hindus/Asians/Pagans as evil, and at the same time making appear the Nazis and other racists as less evil (since everybody, Jews, Hindus/Pagans, Muslims and Afrocentrists are also Nazis). There are two explanations for this behaviour.

The first one is that they are fascists who are projecting their own racism on Hindus. There are of course many fascists who are projecting their own obvious racism, and that of their party, to Latino, Hindu, Jewish etc communities. (This does not mean that Hindu, Latino etc racists do not exist at all.)  But there are people who feel they must protect racism by projecting racism on those protesting racism (e.g. the BNP in the UK). That's the equivalent of the right wing meme, the Orwellian "to protest racism is racist."

The second explanation is that they are anti-fascists who believe (or want to believe) that Hinduism is a fascist and racist cult (this may be quite common among some Christians for example who are ignorant of Hinduism but believe that it is "from the devil").

That the latter explanation may be true in many cases is shown by an admin (Dbachmann) who advances his belief that Hinduism is racist, e.g. his opinion on the Hinduism article is:

"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."

And in the Indo-Aryan migration article he writes:
"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.''"

That Vedic Hinduism is racist is of course the opinion of nazi ideologues from Alfred Rosenberg to, as also of some colonial era scholars. But the point is that the admin in these cases thought that such statements deserve to be in the lead of articles like Rig-Veda and Indo-Aryans, and this without reference to other opinions on the subject. In fact he at the same time removed statements by scholars who think that Hinduism is not racial from articles, e.g. while claiming that the Rigveda is racist he also deleted passages that argue otherwise.

While such admins and editors like to routinely refer to Hindus and Hindu editors as "Hindutva fascists", they have no problem collaborating with real fascist-minded editors (if they are also anti-Indian) such as (in the case of admin "Dbachmann") the Islamists (according to some wikipedia editors, but also quite obvious from their edits) TerryJ-Ho, Nadirali and Anonymous editor.

One of wikipedia's most blatant examples on an attack on "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 his 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 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 commented: "What you are infact 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." (Although his censoring activities are not confined only to Islam-related political areas).

Another example is the administrator Dbachmann, who when he can not censor an article (by deleting it, e.g. articles of Hindu authors or books), will start a defamation campaign. Not only individual authors (pratically all Hindus or too "pro-Hindu"), but whole book publishing firms are the victim of such defamations. Thus, an admin ("Dbachmann") sweepingly claims that the books from a Hindu publishing house ("Voice of India") are the product of their "criminal energy" (besides of course also accusing them of publicizing 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 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.)

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


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
* Nadirali distorts content issues in political terms, "India vs. Pakistan:" [ ], [ ]
* Nadirali's anti-India rhetoric - [ | ], [| ], [ ], [ ],
[ ]
* Nadirali's open-attack on a troll exhibits his mentality[ ]: ''Second off that's a Pakistani page,so since your not Pakistani,stay off that page.''
* Nadirali removed messages and warnings from other editors - [ ], [ ], [ ] and alters the words of another user to insert anti-India comments[ ], [ ]

The Pakistan article includes this unsourced quote since ages: "During this period, Sufi missionaries played a pivotal role in converting a majority of the regional Buddhist and Hindu population to Islam." (although some Sufis were fanatical and not peaceful, the quote suggests the conversions were only peaceful)
* Personal attacks and anti-India, disruptive comments including multiple assertions of India(ns) "ripping off" Pakistan's history, akin to Nadirali: [ ], [ ], [ ], [ ], [ ], [ ], [ ], [ ], [ ], [ http://en. ], [ ] (Wants to censor information re. the genocide), California Text book controversy
Zora also writes that Indians should be like Kabir and love Islam, even though Kabirs followers are actually mostly Hindus, and certainly not accepted by Muslims at large

*[ [ User|Rushdie ] ] pov-pusher

Shah Jahan,Aurangzeb
[ [ 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.

*Irishpunktom (not active, used to be active (and very biased) on Wikipedia Current Events)

*eggman64 (pov pushing)

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)

*Tarikur (Jamaati islamist pov pushing)

aka Scott Zimmerle

*Admin001 (pov pusher)  Vandalism, pov pushing Masjid
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 unlikely 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).
Re: Wikipedia Bias (examples of systemic bias in India-related articles) Daniel Nicholson 12/9/12 4:23 AM
'''Controversies on BLP Articles'''

== David Frawley ==
(Biography of a Living Person article)
Comment: Compare this with the Michael Witzel and Nicholas Kazanas
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
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
*{{cite paper | author=Frawley, David | title=Witzel's vanishing ocean
- How to read vedic texts any way you like |year=2002 | url=http:// }}
*{{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.</

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.
"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
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
: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.
(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)

== 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.
The co-authored ''In Search of the Cradle of Civilization'' (1995)
participates in [ [ Hindutva ] ] polemics on the origins of Indian
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?
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 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>
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
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
[ [ :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
: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
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
: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?
Adds long "racist", irrational pov quote without also adding any
opinion/response by Hindus
[ [ :Category:Propaganda in India ] ]
"VOI Propaganda"
Deletes an important Hindu reply and Hindu opinion from the article:
The Greek Indologi...
Re: Wikipedia Bias (examples of systemic bias in India-related articles) Daniel Nicholson 12/9/12 4:24 AM
==Islam and Islamism==
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|
(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</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.
adminship of an Islamist and Anti-Hindu editor
ah, congratulations! I hadn't followed RFAs recently, or I would have
supported you, of course. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 07:45, 7
January 2006 (UTC)Comment:Supports adminship of an Islamist and Anti-
Hindu editor
[ [ 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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>
11:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Comment:Defends Islamist and Anti-Hindu
editor against the Hindutva editor from Hell
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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>
11:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment:Defends Islamist and Anti-Hindu editor
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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>
17:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Removes [ [ :Category:Islamist terrorism ] ] Edit summary:(correct me,
but "Islamist terror" would be unlikely to target a mosque?)
(deletes militant, compare with his edits in "Hindutva" articles)
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 ] ]
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)
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
The relation of Hindu to Hindutva is about the same as [ [ Islam ] ]
to [ [ Islamism ] ]
POV (claims that Golwalkar was a Nazi supporter, a very disputed (and
probably wrong) view, compares him with an "Islamist"...)

(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.)
national parties like the center-left [ [ Indian National
Congress ] ], the nationalist far-right [ [ Bharatiya Janata
Party ] ],
BJP is notable for being ''nationalist far-right''.
Comment:far right?
If the BJP is merely "conservative", I would venture, George W. Bush
is a renaissance humanist. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>
12:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
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
[ ]).
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 09:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
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 ] ]
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
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?
(possible move target)
(possible move target)
Comment:wants to create article "Hindutva revisionism"
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
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|(&#xEF;&#xBF;&#x153;) ] ]</small>
14:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
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 ] ].
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|(&#xF0;&#
x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 07:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>
10:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
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.
Of course this article was created under pressure and harassment from
our Hindutva troll(s)
Hindutva *is* our article on "Hindu extremism")
(pov change)
(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:
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)

==Arya Samaj==
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?
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.

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 .....
This is an exposition of the fringe literature that is being pushed by
authors with a Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) ideology.
''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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</
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.

*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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</
small> 07:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
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|
(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</
small> 15:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Comment:One only sees what one wants
to see.
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)
[ 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)
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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</
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" 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, ..

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==
The word is most often used and in a sense coined by the secular
political parties and the academia to counter-balance Islamic
Wages of politics of cynicism] The Pioneer, November 28,
2008</ref> so that the muslim population are not selectively blamed.

==Indus Valley Civilization==
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===
===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
[ ]), 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
indeed. Kak is, as always, creating so much hot air beside the point.
Should be ignored. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 21:42, 6
August 2006 (UTC)
Kak is a sophisticated kook with 'renaissance man' aspirations.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 14:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I think our hero is a [ [ User talk:|
customer ] ] situated in Moscow :) [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 12:52, 14
September 2006 (UTC)

==Sarasvati River==
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.
A minority opinion ascribes the loss of prominence of the Sarasvati to
the dring up of the Ghaggar-Hakra
Comment:Probably Dbachmann as IP sockpuppet ( who exports
part (but according to talkpage not all) of the text to another
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.

: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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>
10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
: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|(&#xEF;&#xBF;&#x153;) ] ]</small>
11:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:::[ [ 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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>
14:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>
11:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
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|
(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 19:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
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|
('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 12:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
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|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>
22:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

==Indo-Iranian origins==
[ [ 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

small deletions, POV
deletes links, some of these were maybe redundant, but belong to the
Criticism section
(while in reality, there probably wouldn't exist printed editions of
these works without academia)?

==Quantum quakery==
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.
(what is a New-Age/quantum-mysticist agenda?)


*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.

*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.
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?)
See also [ [ Ruins in the Gulf of Cambay ] ] for the recent
[ [ pseudoarchaeology|pseudoarchaeological ] ] claims of submerged
neolithic )or even paleolithical) settlements.
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|
('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 17:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
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|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 07:21, 7
May 2006 (UTC)
[ [ 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:Dbachma...
Re: Wikipedia Bias (examples of systemic bias in India-related articles) 5/19/13 4:00 PM
On Sunday, 9 December 2012 11:59:53 UTC,  wrote:

Oh please. Wikipedia is just the sum total of the people who turn up on the day. Wikipedia Review's viewpoint is dominated by malcontents who lost in debates on Wikipedia and refused to shrug their shoulders and move on.

Do you actually want to change the content? I can tell you how, from the perspective of someone who usually (but not always) gets a satisfactory result in content disputes.

1. Bring better sources. Good quality independent analytical sources with no obvious agenda. Historians, feature articles in news magazines with no obvious  political or national bias, even UN documents.
2. Be concise, specific, and make your comments actionable. "The whole of every article on Uzbekistan is WRONG!" - not actionable. "This statement is contradicted by the sources X, Y and Z, and is not supported by the source cited. I propose this change" - actionable, specific, can be checked by J Random Admin with no specific subject matter knowledge.
3. Demonstrate understanding of the opposing viewpoint. Ed Poor's essay on "writing for the enemy" remains a classic here. Try to put yourself in the other guy's shoes. If you can't respect your opponents as people, please, pretty please, fuck off.
4. Remember there's no deadline. "ZOMG! The sky is falling!" is senseless drama mongering and will make you no friends.
5. Take a break. A month, three months, six months. Long enough to allow you to actually forget about it. Take the articles off your watchlist, edit some stuff where you can be sure there is little conflict. Do some Wikignoming. See (4).
6. Make some friends on the other side. Talk offline. Maybe even meet up. Seriously? They are people too.
7. Ask for outside views. Dispute resolution, mediation, whatever. And remember: YOU ARE BIASED. You may even be wrong! Never forget this.
8. (actually 1 but I wanted to warm you up a bit first) Compromise. The best book on Wikipedia dispute resolution was written over 70 years before Wikipedia started, and on a different continent. It is called "Fattypuffs and Thinifers" and it purports to be a children's book. Do not be fooled: it is a profound treatise on dispute resolution. "I demand X" vs. "I demand Y" never works. "How can we best reflect both X and Y?" has provided some of our very best content.

I can tell you from long personal experience that howling "bias!" and demanding that your opponents are banned is more or less guaranteed to fail. The admin community as a whole does not give a flying fuck about your dispute, all we care about is the load on the servers and the drain on admin time pulling the warring parties apart.

Wikipedia's system of content generation is, without doubt, the worst imaginable, with the exception of all the others which have from time to time been tried (with apologies to Winston Churchill). Deal with it. Wikipedia is not going to change to accommodate you, so you have to learn the Wikipedia way.

And if you do this well, you will be a hero. You may even get to buy Jimbo a beer. He's a very nice man.

Your humble servant, JzG.
Re: Wikipedia Bias (examples of systemic bias in India-related articles) Michael Bednarek 5/19/13 9:26 PM
On Sun, 19 May 2013 16:00:06 -0700 (PDT), guy@... wrote in

>On Sunday, 9 December 2012 11:59:53 UTC,  wrote:
>Oh please. Wikipedia is just the sum total of the people who turn up on the day. Wikipedia Review's viewpoint is dominated by malcontents who lost in debates on Wikipedia and refused to shrug their shoulders and move on.
>Do you actually want to change the content? I can tell you how, from the perspective of someone who usually (but not always) gets a satisfactory result in content disputes.

I have the feeling the original poster might not be listening.

Michael Bednarek                           "ONWARD"
Re: Wikipedia Bias (examples of systemic bias in India-related articles) Eric 6/2/13 7:24 PM

"Michael Bednarek"  wrote in message

Let's face it Wikipedia is a bunch of group warfare that is mastered by the
quantity of edits you have under your belt. There is admins running around
with multiple sockpuppet accounts pushing their points as they carefully
monitor their favourite articles their sockpuppets wrote. The rules only
apply to newbies that attempt to crack the techniques being on the "in"
crowd. The policies are bullshit and most contradict another one tat can be
crammed up any newbie's ass when the need to defend a content is required
and another excuse cannot be thought up.

To really get anything you want inserted into an article you first have to
send barnstars to select editors so they will come up worth the lamest
excuses to attack any poor editor that wants to actually enter real
information in an article. If you attempt a second source reference it won't
apply, in this case. If you get another one backed by massive double blinded
research and multiple peer reviews you will be banned forever for violating
the WP:POINTy rule or forum shopping. Expressing your opinion about the
enforcing buddy admin will get you banned for not WP:AGF. yup Assholes are
Good For. Now go fuck yourself and your little secret world of control. It's
dying with it's participants continuously falling since 2010. ~~~~

Re: Wikipedia Bias (examples of systemic bias in India-related articles) Ivan Shmakov 6/8/13 12:19 PM
>>>>> Eric  <> writes:


 > Let's face it Wikipedia is a bunch of group warfare

        Let's face it: the dissatisfaction of the majority of the folks,
        who feel their ideas don't get the attention from "mainstream"
        (be it Wikipedia, scientific publications, magazines, TV shows,
        or something else) they think they desire, is not because of
        some evil mastermind likes to hide the truth, or wants them to
        suffer, but because no one really wants to /know/ about these
        ideas in the first place.

        ... I sincerely hope that in the near future, we'll have the
        software developed to facilitate unrestricted information
        sharing, and collaboration, between anyone interested in a
        particular subject.  Presumably, this will allow anyone with
        "real" information to share to see it clearly that the number of
        those interested in receiving it nears a big round zero.


 > To really get anything you want inserted into an article you first
 > have to send barnstars to select editors

        I've never had to do it myself, yet my edits are nevertheless
        accepted.  But then, I understand that Wikipedia is not about
        "get anything one wants" inserted; for it's rather like about
        creating a narrative explaining the basics of any notable
        subject to anyone interested in it.

 > so they will come up worth the lamest excuses to attack any poor
 > editor that wants to actually enter real information in an article.

        FSVO "real."


FSF associate member #7257
Re: Wikipedia Bias (examples of systemic bias in India-related articles) Eric 6/11/13 2:14 PM

"Ivan Shmakov"  wrote in message
You we had your shite removed as soon as you bragged about it. Somebody
found a poor excuse after learning how to play the game and shot you in the

I remember you bragged about your info post and we had one of the gang
remove it with a lame excuse. A few were asked to back it up and you would
have been banned if you did it again. Now we need to track down your
sockpuppets and get you off completely. Obvious you are full of shite with
your "supportive crap" here.

One more: Get a fucking job and get off WP:AGF, moron

Re: Wikipedia Bias (examples of systemic bias in India-related articles) 9/28/13 5:23 AM
On Monday, May 20, 2013 12:00:06 AM UTC+1, wrote:
> On Sunday, 9 December 2012 11:59:53 UTC,  wrote:
> Oh please. Wikipedia is just the sum total of the people who turn up on the day. Wikipedia Review's viewpoint is dominated by malcontents who lost in debates on Wikipedia and refused to shrug their shoulders and move on.
> Do you actually want to change the content? I can tell you how, from the perspective of someone who usually (but not always) gets a satisfactory result in content disputes.
> 1. Bring better sources. Good quality independent analytical sources with no obvious agenda. Historians, feature articles in news magazines with no obvious  political or national bias, even UN documents.
>>Sure, if all those politically contested articles would always use the best source available , but this is clearly not the case. Why don't you yourself take just such a reliable source, and try to fix the  bias in one of those articles, and for example try do document human rights abuses against Hindu Kashmiri Pandits, Buddhists in Kashmir or Christians and Hindus in Pakistan. It won't take long and you will get reverted and eventually banned. The other part of the problem, which is not entirely Wikipedias fault, is that the mass media in India and even parts of politicized scholarly resources have a very strong systemic anti-Hindu bias, for example see this article on the bias in the works of Romila Thapar, a very mainstream source in India