There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and then there's wikipedia 1

[Michael Ross]

There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and then there's wikipedia

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.)

BIAS

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")

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

CENSORSHIP

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.)

CONCLUSION

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.
http://www.pakhub.info/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=23
Post Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:42 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nadirali
* Nadirali distorts content issues in political terms, "India vs.
Pakistan:" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ganeshk&diff=91549160&oldid=91530327
], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ganeshk&diff=92074266&oldid=92072598
]
* Nadirali's anti-India rhetoric - [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=92583627
| ], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Szhaider&diff=prev&oldid=90923669|
], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=107497370&oldid=107496294
], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Szhaider&diff=prev&oldid=90823582
],
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Pakistan&diff=prev&oldid=90966340
]
* Nadirali's open-attack on a troll exhibits his mentality[
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nadirali&diff=prev&oldid=90918518
]: ''Second off that's a Pakistani page,so since your not
Pakistani,stay off that page.''
* Nadirali removed messages and warnings from other editors - [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nadirali&diff=prev&oldid=90915545
], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nadirali&diff=prev&oldid=90915471
], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nadirali&diff=prev&oldid=90915632
] and alters the words of another user to insert anti-India
comments[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistan&diff=prev&oldid=91036368
], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nadirali&diff=prev&oldid=91043460
]

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)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Unre4l
* Personal attacks and anti-India, disruptive comments including
multiple assertions of India(ns) "ripping off" Pakistan's history,
akin to Nadirali: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Unre4L&diff=prev&oldid=93072639
], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=93213243
], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:P%C4%81%E1%B9%87ini&diff=93692453&oldid=93688727
], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:P%C4%81%E1%B9%87ini&diff=93819841&oldid=93786192
], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:P%C4%81%E1%B9%87ini&diff=94300029&oldid=94223099
], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=90650271
], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:P%C4%81%E1%B9%87ini&diff=prev&oldid=93930642
], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Luna_Santin&diff=prev&oldid=94278569
], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:P%C4%81%E1%B9%87ini&diff=prev&oldid=94300029
], [ http://en.
wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators
%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=96433224 ], [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=98299350
]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xtremeownage
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aurangzeb&diff=prev&oldid=124270090

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Zora
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Partition_of_India (Wants to censor
information re. the genocide), California Text book controversy

*[ [ User|Rushdie ] ] pov-pusher

*User:Conjoiner
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=182243040#Advice

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=S_Seagal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kargil_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Siddiqui
[ [ Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Siddiqui ] ] was conducted
approximately 8 months ago; since then, Siddiqui has been blocked
numerous times for edit-warring and sockpuppetry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Siddiqui&diff=prev&oldid=41993012
*[
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&direction=next&oldid=99108901#Meatpuppetry_and_tag-team_edit-warring
ANI report on Siddiqui's recent disruptive activities ].
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism_in_Pakistan&diff=prev&oldid=34022676
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hinduism_in_Pakistan&diff=41518553&oldid=35836983
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_of_Ghor&diff=prev&oldid=34291506
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mughal_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=34291426
he deletes all refernces to forcible conversions inspite of
historically authentic sources provided
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ala_ud_din_Khilji&diff=prev&oldid=34291306
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Third_battle_of_Panipat&diff=prev&oldid=34569310
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".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamaat-e-Islami&diff=41540906&oldid=41539744
On Jammat-e-Islami User:Siddiqui deletes all refernces to JeI's
alleged connections to terrorist outfits inspite of references
provided.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmud_of_Ghazni&diff=42059552&oldid=41383349
Here User:Siddiqui deleted all mentions to historical references of
Mahmud of Ghazni's same-sex relationship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mahmud_of_Ghazni
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmud_of_Ghazni&diff=42145062&oldid=42144759
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Punjab_%28Pakistan%29&diff=34239376&oldid=34239295
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Punjab_%28Pakistan%29&diff=34239183&oldid=33508354
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Punjab_%28Pakistan%29&diff=34240494&oldid=34240366

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Street
Scholar
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AStreet_Scholar&diff=115131046&oldid=105331795
You fucking little piece of shit stop fucking around with my page, you
fucking dirty [ [ pagan ] ]! I know you're a Hindu [ [ Muppet ] ]!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Street_Scholar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad_bin_Qasim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_conquest_of_South_Asia
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_conquest_of_South_Asia&diff=prev&oldid=28537903
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iconoclasm&diff=prev&oldid=28322229
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_bin_Qasim&diff=next&oldid=30330790
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad_bin_Qasim&diff=prev&oldid=28389372
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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Tigeroo
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NCERT_controversy&action=history
(pov pushing)
*POV pushing at articles like Decline of Buddhism in India, Muhammed
bin Qasim, Mahmud of Gazhni, NCERT controversy, Jayapala.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=146492514#User:Tigeroo_reported_by_User:Arrow740_.28Result:.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_bin_Qasim&diff=prev&oldid=161968610
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decline_of_Buddhism_in_India&diff=162218544&oldid=162183804
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blnguyen&diff=183558914&oldid=183410346
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blnguyen&diff=prev&oldid=185074335

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/IP198
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Violence_in_Kashmir&diff=prev&oldid=161687205
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_bin_Qasim&diff=prev&oldid=161688882

*Irishpunktom (not active, used to be active (and very biased) on
Wikipedia Current Events)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AhmedPak
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decline_of_Buddhism_in_India&diff=123055855&oldid=prev

*eggman64 (pov pushing)

*Tarikur (Jamaati islamist pov pushing)

*Goethean http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=33757
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Hinduism&diff=367948800&oldid=367947977
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Hinduism&diff=367947977&oldid=367937670
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Hinduism&diff=366077735&oldid=366027436

*Admin001 (pov pusher)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Anwar+saadat
Vandalism, pov pushing
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim_conquest_in_the_Indian_subcontinent&diff=39651318&oldid=39644285
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim_conquest_in_the_Indian_subcontinent&diff=39532774&oldid=39517683
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_of_India_%28Marxist%29&diff=prev&oldid=141853196
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babri Masjid

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Anonymous+editor
Admin, stopped editing in the week of the 2006_Toronto_terrorism_case
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Kashmir_conflict&diff=47356835&oldid=47353594
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=47361678#Vandalism_and_pov_censoring_by_Anonymous_editor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor#Talk_pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir&diff=47542583&oldid=47355317
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Kashmir_conflict&diff=47542474&oldid=47356835
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lashkar-e-Toiba&diff=33429642&oldid=33429531
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lashkar-e-Toiba&diff=33140339&oldid=prev
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lashkar-e-Toiba&diff=prev&oldid=33429642
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lashkar-e-Toiba&diff=prev&oldid=33429003
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_conversion&diff=prev&oldid=14489025
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocides_in_history&diff=42853591&oldid=42762341
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir&diff=47355282&oldid=47353713
[ [ Talk:Terrorism_in_Pakistan ] ]
[ [ Talk:Terrorism_in_Kashmir ] ]
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terrorism_in_Kashmir/Archive_1 ]
[ [ Talk:Kargil War ] ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=70.50.118.95
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=67.71.63.134
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=900
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12421

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Danny
Yee
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eminent_Historians:_Their_Technology%2C_Their_Line%2C_Their_Fraud&action=history
(Maybe pov at Shivaji?, deletes book reviews at Romila Thapar and
claims that he is himself a book reviewer)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Garanj
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aurangzeb&diff=113833207&oldid=113761226
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gunawam-01
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aurangzeb&diff=113667700&oldid=112800194
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Huaran-54
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aurangzeb&diff=113677695&oldid=113667700

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Blueyellow9
I'm sorry but how are Amitabh Buchhan and Salman Rushdie film critics
and why are their thoughts on the film so prominently displayed?.. The
section on Bachhan and Rushdie needs to be removed and the "mixed
reaction" section needs to be cut down dramatically. If this page were
not locked, I would make these revisions myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=ImpuMozhi
Rajput, Wants to delete the article "Rajputs and Islamic invasions"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajputs_and_invasions_of_India&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TerryJ-Ho, [ [ User|
Lkadvani ] ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.27.81.68
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Buddhism_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=133109581

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Great_Soul
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Godhra_train_burning&diff=prev&oldid=176414679
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vishva_Hindu_Parishad&diff=177463947&oldid=177110877

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Relata_refero
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Hinduism&diff=187893288&oldid=187858355
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh&diff=187895192&oldid=187857584
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Hindus&diff=prev&oldid=187663419
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Hindus&diff=prev&oldid=187661894
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar&diff=prev&oldid=187661812
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Hindus&diff=prev&oldid=187662566
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aurangzeb&diff=prev&oldid=187653615
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_Forum_of_Britain&diff=prev&oldid=187653284
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pusyamitra_Sunga&diff=prev&oldid=187651841

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Asik5678
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Love_Jihad
Deletion request
a word love jihad is insulting a particular community, Jihad (arabic)
means struggle(english). they are saying love jihad. read the entire
article, they talking about one community. I don't know what is going
on in wikipedia, lot of pages are against a single community. if you
are not delete this page most of muslims they not believe in wikipedia
pages. i will some proof what they said in love jihad pages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Johnuniq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Famine_in_India#Churchill_quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nmkuttiady
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islam_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=354717843
==Muslim-Buddhist conflict==
Is it really necessary to have a subsection just because 10 years ago
(out of 1200 years of coexistence), there were a few minor incidents
''possibly'' communal in nature (that too directly related to a
political insurgency in the neighboring region)? Islam has been in
Ladakh for 1200 years. The region has always been peaceful in terms of
religious issues. What's the point in mentioning it here in an article
about Islam in India? Does it meet the notability standards of
wikipedia in this context (even for a passive mention in this article,
let alone a subsection)?[[User:Nmkuttiady|NMKuttiady]] ([[User
talk:Nmkuttiady|talk]]) 10:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malabar_Rebellion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Shinas (alias
User:O0I1E3S5, 117.193.37.73 )
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somnath&diff=401239884&oldid=401238374
deletes:
The following extract is from “Wonders of Things Created, and
marvels of Things Existing†by Asaru-L- Bilad, a 13th century Arab
[[geographer]]. It contains the description of Somnath temple and its
destruction:<ref>{{cite book|last=Elliot|first= Sir Henry Miers |
title=The history of India, as told by its own historians: the
Muhammadan period, Volume 11|year=1952|publisher=Elibron.com|
isbn=9780543947260|pages=98|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=9-
yUPk_Q5VsC&pg=PA98}}</ref>
<blockquote> “Somnath: celebrated city of India, situated on the
shore of the sea, and washed by its waves. Among the wonders of that
place was the temple in which was placed the idol called Somnath. This
idol was in the middle of the temple without anything to support it
from below, or to suspend it from above. It was held in the highest
honor among the Hindus, and whoever beheld it floating in the air was
struck with amazement, whether he was a Musulman or an [[infidel]].
The [[Hindus]] used to go on pilgrimage to it whenever there was an
eclipse of the moon, and would then assemble there to the number of
more than a hundred thousand."
[[File:Tomb of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni in 1839-40.jpg|220px|thumb|A
Painting of the tomb of Sultan [[Mahmud of Ghazni]], in 1839-40,
showing original Sandalwood Doors at Somnath, which he destroyed in ca
1024]]
“When the Sultan Yaminu-d Daula Mahmud Bin Subuktigin went to wage
religious war against India, he made great efforts to capture and
destroy Somnat, in the hope that the Hindus would then become
Muhammadans. As a result thousands of Hindus were forcibly converted
to Islam. He arrived there in the middle of Zi-l k’ada, 416 A.H.
(December, 1025 A.D.). “The king looked upon the idol with wonder,
and gave orders for the seizing of the spoil, and the appropriation of
the treasures. There were many idols of gold and silver and vessels
set with jewels, all of which had been sent there by the greatest
personages in India. The value of the things found in the temples of
the idols exceeded twenty thousand [[dinars]]."
</blockquote
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=399338753
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=399332148

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pahari_Sahib
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Direct_Action_Day&diff=188402569&oldid=188399143

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Doldrums
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence&oldid=179417765#.22unreliable.22_CCT
He has misrepresented sources [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_Gujarat_violence&diff=176738995&oldid=176656326
][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_Gujarat_violence&diff=163076650&oldid=163054200
][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_Gujarat_violence&diff=146497301&oldid=146496478
], gave undue weight to a politically motivated "sting" [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_Gujarat_violence&diff=prev&oldid=176145187
] and removed sources and relevant information [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_Gujarat_violence&diff=143942171&oldid=143888958
], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_Gujarat_violence&diff=next&oldid=144157687
].

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=A.J.A.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_and_Buddhism&diff=85709761&oldid=84568992
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Buddhist-Christian_parallels

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Moreschi
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=330440642
(Accuses a Hindu editor of trolling because of the Romila Thapar
talkpage)
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Moreschi
Reverts all (maybe useful) edits by Satbir_Singh on Kamboja pages

*[ [ User:Holywarrior|Holy---+---Warrior ] ] POV pushing. Christian
bias, made anti-Hindu remarks on Talk Page of [ [ California Hindu
Textbook Controversy ] ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hipocrite (Goa Inquisition articles)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/58.27.153.119
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_banned_films&diff=283294507&oldid=282131672
deletes:The Pakistani government has banned the import of Indian
films, leaving piracy as the only way to distribute them. [http://
www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=232370&sid=ENT&ssid=1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Johnmylove
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik (Insists that
Hindutva was a major influence on him.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/206.248.190.27
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim_conquest_in_the_Indian_subcontinent&diff=404390228&oldid=403302288

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Greenman201011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Greenkhan2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim_conquest_in_the_Indian_subcontinent&diff=393792277&oldid=393790941
(the usual massive deletions)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/139.52.167.35
Deletes:
An estimate of the number of people killed, based on the Muslim
chronicles and demographic calculations, was done by the author [[K.S.
Lal]] in his book ''[[Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval
India]]'', who claimed that between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the
population of Hindus decreased by 80 million. His work has come under
[[Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India#criticism|criticism]]
by historians such as Simon Digby ([[School of Oriental and African
Studies]]) and the [[Marxist historiography|Marxist historian]]
[[Irfan Habib]] for its agenda and lack of accurate data in pre-
[[census]] times. Lal has responded to these criticisms in later
works^{[Reference Needed]}. Historians such as [[Will Durant]]
contend that Islam spread through violence.<ref> {{cite book |
last=Durant |first= Will |authorlink=Will Durant |title="The Story of
Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage" (page 459)}}</ref><ref>{{cite
news | first =Koenraad | last =Elst | title =Was there an Islamic
"Genocide" of Hindus? | url
=http://www.kashmirherald.com/main.php?t=OP&st=D&no=138 | publisher =
[[Kashmir Herald]]| pages = | page = | date = 2006-08-25 | accessdate
=2006-08-25 }}</ref> [[Sir Jadunath Sarkar]] contends that that
several Muslim invaders were waging a systematic [[jihad]] against
Hindus in India to the effect that "Every device short of massacre in
cold blood was resorted to in order to convert heathen subjects."<ref>
{{cite book |last=Sarkar |first= Jadunath|authorlink=Jadunath Sarkar |
title=How the Muslims forcibly converted the Hindus of India, Pakistan
and Bangladesh to Islam }}</ref> In particular the records kept by al-
Utbi, Mahmud al-Ghazni's secretary, in the Tarikh-i-Yamini document
several episodes of bloody military campaigns.{{Citation needed|
date=May 2007}} Hindus who converted to Islam however were not
completely immune to discrimination due to the [[Caste system among
South Asian Muslims]] in India established by Ziauddin al-Barani in
the ''Fatawa-i Jahandari''.<ref>[http://stateless.freehosting.net/
Caste%20in%20Indian%20Muslim%20Society.htm Caste in Indian Muslim
Society]</ref>, where they were regarded as an "Ajlaf" caste and
subjected to discrimination by the "Ashraf" castes<ref name="one">
{{cite book
| title = Caste and Social Stratification Among Muslims in India

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Sandstein
(bias against Hindu editors like Bakasuprman...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=181238401
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bebe_Nanaki_Ji
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aeon_Center_for_Cosmology

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Fowler&fowler
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=121029350
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_India
Talk:Indian mathematics (like Dbachmann and others obsessed that
Indian science etc is getting overrated, but instead of being
objective going the opposite way and underrating it or claiming it
does not exist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&oldid=104917479
Talk:Indus Valley Civilization
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shrikant_G._Talageri&diff=prev&oldid=118477473
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_propaganda
I certainly have read some benighted trash produced by Hindutva
luminaries, among them Subhash Kak, B. B. Lal has also aggressively
insinuated itself into school curricula and so forth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_mathematics&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_mathematics&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Subhash_Kak
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mehrgarh&diff=106531803&oldid=106531346
censoring B.B. Lal
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vedic_period&diff=prev&oldid=105765661
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vedic_period&diff=prev&oldid=105766190
(totally unrelated to the article)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indus_Valley_Civilization&diff=106597410&oldid=106578393
censoring B.B. Lal and other Indian archaeologists
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indus_Valley_Civilization&diff=prev&oldid=106600802
spams racist commentaries on talk pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Unre4L&diff=prev&oldid=104158324
pov, spams racist commentaries on talk pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=101019566
calls himself a "neutral observer"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rueben_lys/India_RfC
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_independence_movement&diff=154225603&oldid=154198070
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fowler%26fowler&diff=prev&oldid=153346763

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hornplease
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedians_against_censorship&oldid=194081655#Censorship_against_.28pro-.29_Hindu_authors
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. I am sure it is evident by now to many editors
of wikipedia and administrators. Kindly do not censor articles please,
I dont want to argue with you anymore.Talk:Hindu_Temples_-
_What_Happened_to_Them and
Talk:Muslim_conquest_in_the_Indian_subcontinent
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muslim_conquest_in_the_Indian_subcontinent&diff=154230907&oldid=154226348
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence#.E2.80.99Cleansing.E2.80.99_of_articles_by_Hornplease
He has attacked [ [ Narendra Modi ] ] violating [ [ WP:NPOV ] ] and
[ [ WP:BLP ] ] in the process. After being confronted by Nearly
Headless Nick he tried to lie about sources that TerryJ-Ho
misrepresented, [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington&diff=next&oldid=90009075
] he proceeded to try to justify himself and accused me and hkelkar
of being politically motivated [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington&diff=next&oldid=90032299
] when Hornplease himself edits in a politically non-neutral fashion.
On an article I worked on for [ [ User:Bakasuprman/DYK|DYK ] ],
[ [ G.T. Nanavati ] ], was affected by Hornplease's POV-pushing as
well. He used an unreliable source [ http://www.countercurrents.org/links.htm
Countercurrents describes themselves as a progressive/alternative
site ] (meaning they are not mainstream and that they are partisan) to
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G.T._Nanavati&diff=77122978&
oldid=77121579 attack judge Nanavati ]. I removed the link per
[ [ WP:BLP ] ] and [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:G.T._Nanavati&diff=prev&oldid=77268999
requested him to discuss (albeit with some Bad humor) ] . He lies
about countercurrents for his reply and claims to have a real citation
that he cant cite [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:G.T._Nanavati&diff=next&oldid=77269088
] . Why should I wait for the supposed citation? [ [ WP:BLP ] ] and
[ [ WP:RS ] ] says all defamatory information not cited by mainstream
media should be removed so I did exactly that [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G.T._Nanavati&diff=next&oldid=77123054
]. G.T. Nanavati and his commission the [ [ Nanavati Commission ] ]
found members of the congress party responsible of the [ [ 1984 Anti-
Sikh riots ] ] in which innocent Sikhs were butchered in the streets
of New Delhi. Hornplease again had to attack the truth, and try and
find fringe criticism of Nanavati.
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Hindu&diff=81484009&oldid=81483529
]
Saying that he hasn't heard of the term "anti-Hindu" and calling it a
neologism, when the earliest use of it was by Sir Jadunath Sarkar in
the late 1800's, some neologism. Then he claimed that it was "used
only by right wing groups", another blatant lie on his part which I
proved again by citing academic sources [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Hindu&diff=81490036&oldid=81488469
] Then he himself backpedals and admits that non rightwing sources
have used the term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Buddhists&diff=prev&oldid=157202788
([ [ Buddhas of Bamyan ] ])
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel (Brinda
Karat,Kancha Ilaiah, Gail Omvedt)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/
Hindutva_propaganda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Hinduism-related_topics_notice_board#Dharmic_Religions
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bombay_Riots&diff=prev&oldid=136485182
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Californian_Hindu_textbook_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=125596956
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chittisinghpura_massacre&diff=114631934&oldid=113896236
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=155669755
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dalitstan&diff=prev&oldid=134034420
etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eminent_Historians:_Their_Technology%2C_Their_Line%2C_Their_Fraud&diff=124046560&oldid=124028729
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&diff=prev&oldid=134509668
adds RSS
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=154039060,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frontline_%28magazine%29&diff=prev&oldid=153127779
(Tibet)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Girilal_Jain&diff=153299959&oldid=153299732
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hari_Singh&diff=152650458&oldid=152648404,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hari_Singh&diff=115258807&oldid=115161293
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_Forum_of_Britain&diff=prev&oldid=151454349
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_nationalism&diff=prev&oldid=151886663
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_Students_Council&diff=prev&oldid=155669474
pov
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K._B._Hedgewar&diff=prev&oldid=136486122,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K._B._Hedgewar&diff=prev&oldid=134004713
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nandigram_dispute&diff=prev&oldid=157240764
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nandigram_SEZ_controversy&diff=130102251&oldid=129128281
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan_Studies&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan_Studies&diff=prev&oldid=143884953
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajendra_Singh_%28RSS%29&oldid=125959248
pov
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=127373983
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=152796683
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voice_of_India&diff=120678328&oldid=120654575
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pankaj_Mishra&diff=prev&oldid=105011834
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8&diff=prev&oldid=157175195#Dharmic_religion
Subhas Chandra Bose articles,Hindu Students Council, Marad_massacre,
Giriraj_Kishore, Template_talk:Hindu_politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedians_against_censorship&oldid=179508508#Censorship_against_.28pro-.29_Hindu_authors
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gujarat&diff=prev&oldid=114983830
Strangely, there seems to be no mention of the riots in the entire
article. Wonder why. It used to be in the lead. [ [ User:Hornplease|
Hornplease ] ] 04:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)(Compare with
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hizbul_Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=96727598
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=152796683
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=127373983
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=155674093
thapar
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=152426495#Out_of_India_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/
Hindutva propaganda
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romila_Thapar&diff=144418755&oldid=144417450
(Also defends the biased war movie "300" against criticism from
Iranians. This is not terrible of course, but not what you would
expect from somebody who claims to fight against "-ism's" when
convenient.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=71.227.191.140
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan_Studies&diff=prev&oldid=156221789

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=71.227.191.140
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amartya_Sen&diff=153835693&oldid=153073060

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/115.113.48.10

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Truthlover
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=41591899&oldid=41590869
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=41590869&oldid=40608810
Hypocricy is another name of all Hindu!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Witzel
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=prev&oldid=31635407
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=prev&oldid=32842143
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=prev&oldid=32698801
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Californian_Hindu_textbook_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=37016782
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=prev&oldid=45969328
In one of the emails produced by Dalit Freedom Network, Witzel notes
"(p)lease check what Wikipedia says about your organization… They
always put back what I erase." In reaction to the forwarded message,
DFN's Executive Director asks whether "(DFN) can… edit this
ourselves…I do not want to start being identified as a mission (sic)
organization… " …many principals of DFN are unabashed in their
antagonism towards Hinduism.
The URL given below shows how Witzel edited his multiple evangelical
posts, in the context of the California Textbook issue:
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Special:Contribu tions/65.78.20.179

[ [ User|Wikisceptic ] ] Not very active, but frequently insults
Indians and Hindus in talk pages, POV pushed Hindu orgs in [ [ List of
terrorist organizations ] ] that were not terrorist and removed
Christian orgs.

User:Xandar (Goa Inquisition)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goa_Inquisition&diff=108825180&oldid=108691621
Xander was a christen fanatic who repeatedly removed whole sourced
sections of article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Akhilleus
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goa_Inquisition&diff=161251792&oldid=161251577
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goa_Inquisition&diff=162394896&oldid=161483712

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Otto_ter_Haar
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Goa&diff=69886672&oldid=69883958

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=69.110.152.89
(69.110.152.90) (according to a search this IP brings up the name of
Steve Farmer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indus_script&diff=prev&oldid=51056762
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indus_script&diff=prev&oldid=51056584
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indus_Valley_Civilization&diff=prev&oldid=29755562
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indus_Valley_Civilization&diff=prev&oldid=11378916
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indus_script&diff=prev&oldid=9920041
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indus_script&diff=prev&oldid=9084415
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indus_Valley_Civilization&diff=next&oldid=11379346
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indus_Valley_Civilization&diff=prev&oldid=8750598
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indus_Valley_Civilization&diff=prev&oldid=8750805
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indus_script&diff=prev&oldid=9083937
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giovanni_Pico_della_Mirandola&diff=prev&oldid=75785836
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giovanni_Pico_della_Mirandola&diff=prev&oldid=75786063
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giovanni_Pico_della_Mirandola&diff=prev&oldid=75786442
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=prev&oldid=31303781
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=prev&oldid=34418133
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=prev&oldid=34418253
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=prev&oldid=34420254
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=prev&oldid=35696887
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=prev&oldid=35700137
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=prev&oldid=35972966

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=178247291#Walled_gardens_of_woo
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kambojas&diff=prev&oldid=177931724
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13870 WP:Fringe
theories noticeboard
The outcome is pretty clear and someone's work which seems to be
enclopaedic enough for inclusion is going to get nuked. This board is
pretty much everything that's wrong about WP. It's also one of the
Moreschi/Folantin meatpuppet tagteam's favorite arena of operations
these days

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Moreschi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence#Moreschi:_Presented_faulty_evidence_to_ban_Deeceevoice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fireplace
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=166095465&oldid=166093075
The family of pages at [ [ :Category:Integral theory ] ],
[ [ :Category:Integral thought ] ], [ [ :Category:Ken Wilber ] ], and
[ [ :Category:Sri Aurobindo ] ] go into great technical detail about
the beliefs and biographies surrounding fringe [ [ New Age ] ]-y
theories with little or no coverage in mainstream, independent
sources. I've recently prodded a bunch of them, but I expect those to
be contested by the authors. [ [ User:Fireplace|Fireplace ] ] 18:19,
21 October 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ken_Wilber&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Auroville&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seven_rays
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fireplace/draft3
Templates:
# {{tl|Integral thought}}
# {{tl|Integral theory}}
# {{tl|Integral theory3}}
# {{tl|Sri Aurobindo}}
Categories:
# [ [ :Category:Sri Aurobindo ] ]
# [ [ :Category:Integral theory ] ]
# [ [ :Category:Integral thought ] ]
# [ [ :Category:Ken Wilber ] ]
Recently prodded Integral Thought articles (most recent on top):
# [ [ Indra Sen ] ]
# [ [ Sujata Nahar ] ]
# [ [ Satprem ] ]
# [ [ K. D. Sethna ] ] (prod removed)
# [ [ Nolini Kanta Gupta ] ]
# [ [ Champaklal ] ]
# [ [ M. P. Pandit ] ]
# [ [ Richard Tarnas‎ ] ]
# [ [ Pavitra ] ]
# [ [ Mirapuri ] ]
# [ [ Chit-Tapas ] ]
# [ [ Nirodbaran ] ]‎
# [ [ Michael Zimmerman (philosopher) ] ]
# [ [ Integral yoga ] ] (prod removed)
# [ [ Holomovement ] ]‎
# [ [ Yasuhiko Kimura ] ]‎
# [ [ Edward Haskell ] ]
# [ [ Frank Visser ] ]‎‎‎
# [ [ Joseph Vrinte ] ]
‎# [ [ Brant Cortright ] ]‎
# [ [ Walter Kilner ] ]‎
# [ [ Non-physical entity ] ] (prod removed)‎
# [ [ Gross realm ] ]
# [ [ Causal realm ] ]
# [ [ Vision-logic ] ]
# [ [ Saniel Bonder ] ]‎
# [ [ Pre/trans fallacy ] ]
Other possible cruft:
# [ [ Evolution (metaphysics) ] ]
# [ [ Universal evolution ] ]
Articles that have been deleted/redirected/merged:
# [ [ Subtle realm ] ]
# [ [ The Life Divine ] ]
# [ [ Central being ] ]
# [ [ Outer being ] ]
# [ [ Arya (journal) ] ]
# [ [ Inner being ] ]
# [ [ Full Circle (book) ] ]
# [ [ Involution (Sri Aurobindo) ] ]
# [ [ Triple transformation ] ]
# [ [ Integral World ] ]
# [ [ VMeme ] ]
# [ [ Psychic being ] ]
# [ [ Collaboration (journal) ] ]
# [ [ Auroconf ] ]
# [ [ Subtle physical ] ]
# [ [ Vital (Sri Aurobindo) ] ]
# [ [ Physical (Sri Aurobindo) ] ]
# [ [ Overmind (Sri Aurobindo) ] ]
# [ [ Spiritualisation ] ]
# [ [ Integral transformative practice ] ]
# [ [ Incarnational spirituality ] ]
# [ [ Mental (Sri Aurobindo) ] ]
# [ [ Delight (Sri Aurobindo) ] ]
# [ [ Gnostic being ] ]
# [ [ Integral politics ] ]
# [ [ Integral Naked ] ]‎
# [ [ Integral ecology ] ]
# [ [ Supramentalisation ] ]
# [ [ The Mother (book) ] ]
# [ [ AQAL ] ]
# [ [ Letters on Yoga ] ]
# [ [ Involution (metaphysics) ] ]
# [ [ The Synthesis of Yoga ] ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Adam+Cuerden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Master_Hilarion
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Treatise_on_White_Magic&diff=177277595&oldid=177277412

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Rudrasharman
BLP violations against people like B.B. Lal and others
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_astronomy&diff=156948678&oldid=156913370
This article is in serious need of deKakification.
[ [ User:Rudrasharman|rudra ] ] 16:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_astronomy&diff=159113617&oldid=159111112
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_archaeogenetics_of_South_Asia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetics_and_archaeogenetics_of_South_Asia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a_%28Y-DNA%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JSR
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_metallurgy_in_the_Indian_subcontinent&diff=233281103&oldid=233261701

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bullamail
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chittisinghpura_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=113382158

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tariqgib
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shah_Jahan&diff=90101235&oldid=90101065
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shah_Jahan&diff=90101065&oldid=89055764

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Giggy
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangladesh_Liberation_War&diff=240587513&oldid=237764518

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TwoHorned
On a crusade against Koenraad Elst. He seems to be a follower of both
Islam and Guenon (if such a thing is possible), and is also anti-
pagan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Appoose
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Prashad&diff=253538072&oldid=253514682

CrCulver (pov, e.g. uninformed edit on
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Hinduism&diff=88907939&oldid=88900946)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nmkuttiady
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam_in_India
Muslim-Buddhist conflict Is it really necessary to have a subsection
just because 10 years ago (out of 1200 years of coexistence), there
were a few minor incidents possibly communal in nature (that too
directly related to a political insurgency in the neighboring region)?
Islam has been in Ladakh for 1200 years. The region has always been
peaceful in terms of religious issues. What's the point in mentioning
it here in an article about Islam in India? NMKuttiady (talk) 10:03, 8
April 2010 (UTC)

Mel Etitis
http://www.saisathyasai.com/wikipedia/wikipedia_admin_mel_etitis.html
http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Mel_Etitis
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=findpost&pid=27865

Paul Barlow
The most sensible of the editors with an anti-Hindu pov. Unless most
others, he actually listens to and respects other POVs than his own.
Still, when not confronted, he will generally be biased (and also
misinformed), and not acknowledge any "pro-Hindu" views while a priori
believing that the "anti-Hindu" pov is the correct one. He is much
less biased against other religions than Hinduism, for example insists
that Jihad is not central to Islamic doctrine. In articles he tries to
make Hindus like fanatics, by placing special emphasis on the most
fringe or lunatic of Hindus like P.N. Oak in the Taj Mahal article, or
he tries to emphazise the supposed beastilatiy component in the
article on the Vedic horse sacrifice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim_conquest_in_the_Indian_subcontinent&diff=28387513&oldid=28321952
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taj_Mahal/Archive2 Yes Muslims
destroyed Hindu temples at various times, but Shah Jahan didn't.
(Shah Jahan also destroyed temples during some time)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jayjg
General bigotry: Supports the deletion of an article about rape in the
bible, voted for the RFA of Wikipedia-Islamist Anonymous editor, etc.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayjg/Edits) Also collaborator of
controversial editor SlimVirgin.

pov crap and fringe stuff taken from a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Karthikcomplex
vandalized [ [ Vishwa Hindu Parishad ] ] and called it a "terrorist"
org.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mujeerkhan, Tarikur, Bhola,
BhaiSaab, My_Wikidness, NinaEliza, 203.196.207.119, Ikonoblast, Lee
Hunter (Kashmir terrorism), Esteqlal, Yousaf465, Maunus,
Pens_withdrawn, Basawala, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.140.128.142,
Mitth'raw'nuruodo, lalitshastri, Kathanar, {{User|Anirudh777}},
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geek1975, Jandolin, Bobfrombrockley
(neofascismandreligion/hindutva),
Muggle1982,Benjaminmarsh,SteveMcCluskey,65.78.20.179 (CA textbook
controversy),212.199.22.124,Bdebbarma (NLFT povpushing),DaGizza,
merzbow (on articles about famines in India during the British
Empire?),CrCulver (anti-hindu pov),Timothy Usher(on
talk:dbachmann),John_Kenney, citecop,Itsmejudith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Szhaider
*In response to my block, Szhaider attacks me on the lines of age,
race and religion: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Szhaider&diff=99216179&oldid=99215783
], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Szhaider&diff=99225030&oldid=99223228
], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Szhaider&diff=99236044&oldid=99228234
], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Szhaider&diff=99262729&oldid=99262631
].
*Szhaider's conspiracy theories: [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Szhaider&diff=100825644&oldid=100824849
]
*All of Szhaider's unblock requests were filled with abusive language
and attacks and summarily rejected by other administrators - [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASzhaider&diff=99372165&oldid=99209551
].

PROD (Deletion of articles without discussion)
Very incomplete list of notable articles that were prodded:
Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism,Standing
Alone in Mecca‎, Tantrika: Traveling the Road of Divine Love,Vishal
Agarwal, What the Koran Really Says,...

Some interesting AFDs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ali_Sina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anant_Priolkar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anjana_Mishra_rape_case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Hindu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bias_in_South_Asian_Studies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dharmic_religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Faith_Freedom_International
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindu_politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Historical_persecution_by_Muslims_%282nd_nomination%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Infidel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Inside_Islam:_A_Guide_for_Catholics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islam_and_domestic_violence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islam_and_Terrorism:_What_the_Quran_Really_Teaches_About_Christianity%2C_Violence_and_the_Goals_of_the_Islamic_Jihad_%282nd_nomination%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islamofascism_%28term%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islam_Unveiled
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jihad_Watch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Journey_into_the_Mind_of_an_Islamic_Terrorist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_books_critical_of_Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michel_Bauwens_%282nd_nomination%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_population_growth_in_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_Separatism_-_Causes_and_Consequences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicholas_Kazanas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Onward_Muslim_Soldiers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patrizia_Norelli-Bachelet%282nd_nomination%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Rose
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spiral_dynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Politically_Incorrect_Guide_to_Islam_%28And_the_Crusades%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Truth_About_Muhammad:_Founder_of_the_World%27s_Most_Intolerant_Religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Walter_Kilner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yvette_Rosser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:AMbroodEY/Fundy_Watch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam/Islam_and_Controversy_task_force/Watchlist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/WikiProject_Islam:SIIEG_%282nd_nomination%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indigenous_Aryan_Theory
http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Muslim_Slave_System_in_Medieval_India
(Od Mishehu deleted Muslim Slave System in Medieval India because
Expired PROD, concern was: No independent sources, couldn't find any
secondary treatments of this book. Appears to be fancruft for a
Hindutva polemic.)
Other deleted pages: Stephen Knapp, Hindu extremism, Hindu terrorism,
Hindutva revisionism, Vedic Science (Hindutva), Pseudo-scientific
currents in Hindutva propaganda,

Other articles with possible bias or white-wash issues:
Persecution of Hindus, Category:Riots in Pakistan, Wendy Doniger,
Article on anti-Mojahir riots in Pakistan,Article on anti-Ahmadiya
riots in Pakistan,Post Bugti Riots,Direct Action Day,Bombay
Riots,Balochistan Liberation Army, Nawab Akbar Bugti (specific to
riots after his death),Mukhtaran Mai,Poverty in Pakistan,Pakistani
Nationalism (on ethnic Balochi and Pushtun Nationalism, as well as
stuff about the Mojahirs and Ahmadiyyas), History of Bangladesh and
Bangladesh Liberation War articles, all Kashmir articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&diff=prev&oldid=252122202#Motion_to_amend_Bharatveer_case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-09-18_Orissa_religious_violence

User:Anacapa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cailil/Sneaky_vandalism_on_feminism_and_gender_studies_related_articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fireplace
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Integral_movement&diff=166111481&oldid=155181175

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Iamgaurav_2020
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism_in_Pakistan&diff=prev&oldid=443920623

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Vanished+user
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supermind&diff=166668253&oldid=166409808

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Paul_Pieniezny
(inserts lies for his attacks in biographies of living persons)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koenraad_Elst

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Indiancrusader
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pankaj_Mishra&diff=prev&oldid=252719662
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christianity_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=252922448

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Deepak_D%27Souza
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_in_India&diff=242902731&oldid=242902173

[Michael Ross]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Dbachmann
Obviously this section is larger than the others because the user
happens to be one of the users with the most edits on wikipedia. As in
other sections, it only lists examples which may show bias on
wikipedia. Factual errors, which are not clearly motivated by bias,
and of which there are many, are not listed.

'''Controversies on BLP Articles'''

== David Frawley ==
(Biography of a Living Person article)
Comment: Compare this with the Michael Witzel and Nicholas Kazanas
articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_Search_of_the_Cradle_of_Civilization&diff=91984997&oldid=72722238
Adds:
See also
*[ [ National mysticism ] ]
*[ [ Nationalism and archaeology ] ]
[ [ :Category:Pseudohistory ] ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Frawley&diff=59832944&oldid=56190483
Dr. Frawley is heavily criticized by most leading Indologists such as
Michael Witzel (Wales Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University) for
spreading pseudo-scientific ideas regarding (Rig-)Vedic culture and
literature.
Comment:Unsourced

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Frawley&diff=prev&oldid=60174775
Probably Dbachmann as an anonym IP sockpuppet:
Don't you think it would be reasonable to add some criticism? The
article looks like a hymn to Dr. Frawley, as if it were written by
himself. As I am not much acquainted with the Wiki system, I don't
really get how to "source" something - at first glance the article on
Frawley is also not sourced.
Anyway, as I am doing my thesis on the Rigveda and therefore (believe
myself to) have at least some ability of judging the discussions (also
involving Michael Witzel) - Dr. Frawley having an important part in
them - I would appreciate it if someone could help to "source" the
criticism, or explain to me how "sourcing" is done. Thanks.
&#xE2;&#x80;&#x94;The preceding unsigned comment was added by
81.221.87.219 (talk &#xE2;&#x80;&#xA2; contribs)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Frawley&diff=60333839&oldid=60197437
Dbachmann comes and replys for his probable IP sock:
um, ''any'' information, on people both living or dead, must be
sourced. At present, the introduction is a fawning eulogy. The article
gives no source whatsoever. It won't do to just drop what you don't
like and keep what you like. Care to source any of the extolling
praise, or shall we remove that as unsourced too? [ [ User:Dbachmann|
dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small>
13:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_Search_of_the_Cradle_of_Civilization&diff=prev&oldid=113304909
notion of "[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ]".
Deletes:To many Hindus, the idea that the Vedas were written by
descendants of tribes that immigrated from [ [ Central Asia ] ] seems
like a convenient myth perpetuated by European historians eager to
attribute Hinduism's greatest artifact to non-Indians. For this
reason, the "[ [ Aryan Invasion Theory ] ] debate" in India has strong
political overtones, and Feuerstein ''et al'' 's theory is thus
welcomed by many Indians as an alternative to current theories.
Changes to:The "[ [ Aryan Invasion Theory ] ] debate" in India has
strong political overtones, and Feuerstein ''et al'' 's theory is to
be seen in this context as a work of [ [ Hindutva ] ]
[ [ ideology ] ].
[ [ :Category:Hindutva ] ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryans&diff=prev&oldid=113825278
[ [ David Frawley ] ] who sees the origin of all world civilizations
in Northern India, 10,000 - 6,000 BCE. civilizations derive from
India, represented e.g. by [ [ David Frawley ] ] or [ [ Graham
Hancock ] ]<ref>related to [ [ pseudoarchaeology|
pseudoarchaeological ] ] fantasies involving "[ [ Ruins in the Gulf of
Cambay ] ]"; c.f. Witzel (2006:230, note 57)</ref>

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:In_Search_of_the_Cradle_of_Civilization&diff=prev&oldid=116747705
um, this is a classical case of national mysticism, and the
classification is well referenced. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>
10:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:In_Search_of_the_Cradle_of_Civilization&diff=prev&oldid=116751853
:::maybe you would care to back up your claim that "Sokal attacks all
Hindus"? Are ''you'' saying every Hindu believes in pseudoscientific
nonsense and indulges in mob violence, or are you saying Sokal says
this? Based on ''your'' presumed edit history of trolling and edit
warring, I am assuming the former, I must say. Yes, Sokal is anti-
religion (not anti-Hindu in particular, saying "he attacks all Hindus"
is like accusing someone who said "I don't like television" of
attacking the BBC), and he attacks this book because it presents
religious fundamentalism in the guise of "scholarship". You may be
"anti-religion" like Sokal, or "pro-religion", or you may have no
opinion on the matter, but this doesn't change the fact that this book
''does'' misrepresent religious sentiment as "scholarship". Remember
that this book is not openly about Hinduism at all. It pretends to
discuss "Ancient India". Sokal
exposes that it is in fact about ideological currents in Hinduism,
something that you seem to take for granted, but the reader may not
have your background knowledge on the topic. [ [ User:Dbachmann|
dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</
small> 10:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_Search_of_the_Cradle_of_Civilization&diff=prev&oldid=116735966
Comment:POV, one-sided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_Search_of_the_Cradle_of_Civilization&diff=prev&oldid=119670053
the book is exemplary of a series of ideological [ [ Hindutva ] ]
[ [ Historical revisionism (negationism)|revisionist ] ] literature
appearing since the 1990s, and has only been reviewed academically as
such (in the "Hindu nationalism and 'Vedic science'" chapter of Sokal
2006). [ [ :Category:National mysticism ] ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Frawley&action=historysubmit&diff=399790677&oldid=339902102
A lot more propaganda against Frawley and removals by Dbachmann. In
the lead he adds:
In publications such as ''[[In Search of the Cradle of
Civilization]]'' (1995), Frawley has also defended theories of
[[historical revisionism]] advocating the "[[Indigenous Aryans]]"
ideology popular in [[Hindu nationalism]].

Removes various links:
*[http://www.yogachicago.com/may01/choprafrawley.shtml Frawley and
Deepak Chopra in Dialogue]
*[http://www.yogachicago.com/jul04/frawley.shtml Frawley: Reuniting
Yoga and Ayurveda]
=== Frawley on Indian history ===
*[http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/
aryan_frawley_1.html The Aryan-Dravidian Controversy] Article by David
Frawley
*{{cite paper | author=Frawley, David | title=Witzel's vanishing ocean
- How to read vedic texts any way you like |year=2002 | url=http://
voiceofdharma.org/indology/ReplytoWitzel.html }}
*{{cite paper | author=Kazanas, Nicholas | title=Rigvedic town and
ocean: Witzel vs Frawley |year=2002 | url=http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/
english/documents/RigVedicTownandOcean.pdf |format=PDF}} Article by
Kazanas (pdf)
===Video links===
* [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2946504203837402171 David
Frawley Interview]



http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Frawley&diff=399790315&oldid=399789267
He removes quotes and changes the accurate sentence:
In books such as ''[[The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India]]'' and
''[[In Search of the Cradle of Civilization]]'', Frawley criticizes
the 19th century [[Racial groups in India (historical definitions)|
racial interpretations of Indian prehistory]], such as the theory of a
conflict between invading [[Aryan race|caucasoid Aryans]] and
Dravidians.<ref>Arvidsson 2006:298 Arvidsson, Stefan (2006), Aryan
Idols: Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science, translated by
Sonia Wichmann, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.</
ref>

to the one reflecting Dbachmann's own opinion:

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




== Shrikant G. Talageri ==

(Biography of a Living Person article)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shrikant_G._Talageri&diff=22259499&oldid=22213961
His views are related to [ [ Hindutva|nationalist hinduism ] ] and
critics consider his works to border on [ [ pseudoscience ] ].

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Rigveda:_A_Historical_Analysis&diff=22895220&oldid=22328781
[ [ :Category:Hindutva ] ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shrikant_G._Talageri&diff=prev&oldid=112076329
Comment:wants to merge book

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shrikant_G._Talageri&diff=prev&oldid=118223496
(wants to merge/delete Talageri's book)


== Nicholas Kazanas ==

(Biography of a Living Person article)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_Kazanas&diff=111603020&oldid=90054434
{{dated prod|concern = {{{concern|unnotable, article created to push
fringecruft}}}|month = February|day = 28|year = 2007|time = 15:42|
timestamp = 20070228154248}} He has published a papers suggesting an
[ [ Out of India ] ] scenario for Proto-Indo-European in [ [ JIES ] ],
which has met with devastating criticism from mainstream academia. He
is personally acquainted with [ [ Subhash Kak ] ], another amateur
author who like Kazanas publishes prolifically his "[ [ Indigenous
Aryans ] ]" views.
Comment:Wants to delete the article with "Prod". At the same time he
modifies the lead and claims that Kazanas has only a Master's degree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicholas_Kazanas&diff=prev&oldid=112037776
"biography article" on a WP:NPF teacher who published a couple of
papers. Created to push ideological fringecruft. Kazanas' notability
can be fully addressed in the articles on the subjects treated in his
papers (out of India and indigenous Aryans). dab
(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) 09:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment:Nominates for deletion. One of the reasons is his claim that
Kazanas has only a Master's degree, which he added in the article
previously

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicholas_Kazanas&diff=prev&oldid=112068556
Comment:One of the reasons for deletion is his claim that Kazanas has
only a Master's degree, which he added in the article previously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicholas_Kazanas&diff=prev&oldid=112792763
*he does not. the ''phonebook'' is a reliable secondary source, yet we
don't allow articles on anyone just on grounds of being listed in the
phonebook. That Kazanas is the "main proponent" of the "Out of India"
theory speaks volumes about the notability of ''that'', but this is
the Kazanas AfD, not the OIT one. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_Kazanas&diff=prev&oldid=150612411

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_Kazanas&diff=prev&oldid=117006755Comment:The
Article for Deletion result was KEEP, and nomitated the article for
deletion himself. He redirects (deletes) the article to "Out of India"
after the AFD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_Kazanas&diff=prev&oldid=118503157
Comment:The Article for Deletion result was KEEP, and nomitated the
article for deletion himself. He wants to redirect (delete) the
article to "Out of India" after the AFD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=prev&oldid=118225738
:indeed. It has long transpired that Kazanas is Subhash Kak's
meatpuppet. If he was at least an expert in anything we could cite him
regardless of this, but so far we only know that he runs a Yoga
institute in Greece and allegedly has a M.A. in something.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 10:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_Kazanas&diff=prev&oldid=118464109
(deletes facts)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_Kazanas&diff=prev&oldid=118502895
unprotects an article where he was himself edit-warring with another
editor

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=prev&oldid=120233467
:JIES offered a fringe author the possibility to state his case. After
three issues, they had to close the debate, since he was obviously
impervious to rational criticism. We can well state that Kazanas
brouht up the OIT thing in JIES and was torn apart, if only to
document that the 1990s "recent evidence" presented by VoI has left no
impression whatsoever on academic mainstream. This doesn't qualify
Kazanas as an academic or scholar in his own right. He is a painfully
obivous <s>sockpuppet</s> proxy of S. Kak et al., and it is no
coincidence that he keeps a homepage on voi.org. He's just a member of
the gang. He stated their case in JIES and was shot down, end of
story. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 14:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Other authors and Biography of a Living Person articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=prev&oldid=112038910
yes, Lal is a ''comparably'' reasonable voice (which isn't saying much
with all the pseudoscience flying around). But of course I cannot
vouch that he never proffered nonsense. I haven't seen him claim "5th
millennium Sanskrit", which would be supreme nonsense of course, and I
think this is just once again you misreading your sources. He quite
reasonably says that the Harappan culture has its roots in the 5th
millennium, and he ''comparatively'' reasonably dates the RV to
"before 2000 BC" (based on a single(!) verse saying "Sarasvati flows
to the Sea", which is blatant naivete to any philologist) which is
"only" some 500 years before its accepted date. [ [ User:Dbachmann|
dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</
small> 09:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=prev&oldid=112844654
:Rudra is quite right, Bakaman's selective policy-awareness
nonwithstanding. He still has the sanity to wrap it in conditionals,
but this statement clearly puts Lal in the loony camp. "a language
called Sanskrit", heh. By the same argument, you can prove that the
Sumerians really spoke Aramaean. Shame on any archaeologist who argues
nonsense like that, even if he never saw a linguistics textbook in his
life. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 17:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryans&diff=prev&oldid=113340640

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryans&diff=prev&oldid=113391836

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sita_Ram_Goel&diff=prev&oldid=118482692
as well as two decipherment claims of the [ [ Indus script ] ] as
encoding Sanskrit or Indo-Aryan, by [ [ S. R. Rao ] ]<ref>Dawn and
Devolution of the Indus Civilisation (Aditya Prakashan, Delhi 1992)</
ref> and N. Jha and [ [ N. S. Rajaram ] ]<ref>The Deciphered Indus
Script: Methodology, Readings, Interpretations, Aditya Prakashan, 2000
[ http://www.indiastar.com/wallia27.htm ]; review: "[
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1720/17200040.htm Horseplay in Harappa ]" by
Witzel and Farmer</ref>
Comment:Propagandistic/one-sided POV that is unrelated to the
biography article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biblia_Impex_India&diff=prev&oldid=118515214
(POV)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eminent_Historians:_Their_Technology,_Their_Line,_Their_Fraud&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Secular_Agenda&diff=226410326&oldid=162939872

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vishal_Agarwal&diff=prev&oldid=119260427
, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vishal_Agarwal&diff=prev&oldid=119482944
(wants to delete article)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vishal_Agarwal&diff=prev&oldid=119664412
, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vishal_Agarwal&diff=prev&oldid=119679135

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vishal_Agarwal&diff=prev&oldid=119679283
In fact the Visa steel plant director turns out to be the rather more
notable Vishal Agarwal than our Hindutva zealot. [ [ User:Dbachmann|
dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</
small> 08:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bias_in_education&diff=prev&oldid=119682673
Deletes References (edit summary: rm lobbyist literature)


== Subhash Kak ==

(Biography of a Living Person article)

General Comments: Biography of a living person article. Compare his
behaviour at this article to his behaviour at Michael Witzel. BLP
policy matters more for Witzel than for Kak apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=30477341&oldid=27679773
The co-authored ''In Search of the Cradle of Civilization'' (1995)
participates in [ [ Hindutva ] ] polemics on the origins of Indian
culture.
Edit summary:&#xE2;&#x80;&#x9C;the guy is a hindutva kook. Can we say
*that* in the article please, if he is all that notable?
&#xE2;&#x80;&#x9D;

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=8489199&oldid=4888562
Probably the whole article should be removed, or reduced to 2
sentences; Mr. Kak, I think it is bad style to write an enthusiastic
article about your own person!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=109061949&oldid=108746775
hm, Mel, it is not conceivable that Jagged 85 is Kak. Jagged is
''far'' too active on Wikipedia and clearly a bona fide Wikipedian.
Kak ''does'' visit Wikipedia in spells, but never does a lot of
editing outside touting his own person. As for Kal's "fame", it's just
that Kak has apparently figured out the weakness of contemporary
academia. You just keep bombarding journals with your articles, and
after a while, people will accept you as an authority just because
your name keeps coming up with google. After this, your "fame" is self-
perpetuating, you don't even need to build a coherent case on
anything. He may be a decent cryptographer, but seeing his tactics in
fields were he is an amateur, I begin to doubt even that.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 13:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=37666088&oldid=37613053
so what does it take to be described as a "philosopher" on Wikipedia?
He seems to self-describe as a philosopher (and generally as a
genius), and I suspect the statement above is Kak's own.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 12:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_mind&diff=prev&oldid=109628480
removes Kak
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multiverse_%28science%29&diff=prev&oldid=109627367
removes Kak
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Architecture_of_Knowledge&diff=prev&oldid=110811514
redirects article to Subhash Kak
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decimal_sequences_for_cryptography&diff=prev&oldid=110816374
redirects/deletes article
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kak%27s_three_stage_protocol&diff=prev&oldid=110811679
redirects article
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_error_correction&diff=prev&oldid=109626928
removes Kak
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kak_neural_network&diff=prev&oldid=110811360
redirects article
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Etymology_of_the_names_of_India&diff=102029620&oldid=101099571
Comment: Dbachmann removes references to Kak in some articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Astronomical_Code_of_the_Rigveda&diff=prev&oldid=110811126
redirects article to Subhash Kak (the article had no "merge" in the
previous version)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmiri_literature&diff=110813330&oldid=110631047
deletes many writers, among them Subhash Kak
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vyasa&diff=prev&oldid=110813557
deletes paragraph and reference because the reference is S. Kak
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sayana&diff=110828737&oldid=106463504
deletes S. Kak reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speed_of_light&diff=110855738&oldid=110586134
deletes S.Kak reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Light&diff=prev&oldid=110812724
deletes S.Kak reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_phenomena_named_after_people&diff=prev&oldid=110811315
deletes reference to Kak
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_neural_network&diff=prev&oldid=110811263
deletes reference to Kak
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parallel_universe_%28fiction%29&diff=prev&oldid=110812975
deletes reference because it is a Kak paper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Astronomical_Code_of_the_Rigveda&diff=51250049&oldid=49565991
As a work of [ [ numerology ] ] and [ [ archaeoastronomy ] ], it has
little or no acceptance in mainstream Indology
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Astronomical_Code_of_the_Rigveda&diff=108050348&oldid=107341397
Kim Plofker, Review of Kak (1994), ''Centaurus'' 38 (1996), 362-364.
[ http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0010&L=indology&D=0&P=35607
][ http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0010&L=indology&D=0&P=35709
]</ref> as futile, since it is based on the structure of the Rigveda
as redacted by [ [ Shakalya ] ] in the late [ [ Brahmana ] ] period,
not anything intrinsic in the oldest portions of the text.
Comment:Pfloker's is a negative review, Pfloker could be contradicted
by other reviews?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mankind_Quarterly&diff=110068634&oldid=69544080
Adds:
===New Right, unite!===
{{see|Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies
%29#Later_racialised_theories}}
it is very funny to see Alain de Benoist and Subhash Kak united as
contributors in a racist/nationalist journal: their outlook is really
comparable, ethnic nationalism paired with mythic fantasies of noble
"Aryan" forbears, just that Benoist of course places the Proto-Indo-
Europeans in Europe, while Kak places them in India, each implying, I
suppose, concentric circles of racial degradation around the original
homeland. This makes them 100% related in terms of their mindset, and
100% opposed in its application to geography [ [ User:Dbachmann|
dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</
small> 14:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Comment:So Kak is a Nazi?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=next&oldid=109063093
Especially, seeing how perfectly informed you are on all things Kak, I
put it to you, are you, in fact, Subhash Kak or an associate of
his? ..Especially, if you argue that Plofker's review concerns an
''obsolete'' (apparently, Kak has ''changed his mind'' concerning the
7th millennium, then?), feel free to add academic reviews of the
''current'' edition. To my mind, anyone capable of publishing with a
straight face nonsense like 7th millennium Indo-Aryans, does not
really require to be reviewed any further.
Comment:The book by Kak does not claim 7th millennium Indo-Aryans (ask
dab for the page number)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=108282451&oldid=108253485
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Subhash_Kak&diff=108050025&oldid=108049393,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=108049393&oldid=107261026)
His [ [ archaeoastronomy|archaeoastronomical ] ] claims in his
''[ [ The Astronomical Code of the Rigveda ] ]'' (1994) are to the
effect of vastly extending the [ [ Vedic period ] ], postulating the
arrival of ethnic Indo-Aryans to the 7th millennium BC, which has
earned the book scathing reviews by Indologists<ref>Michael Witzel,
"Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian
Texts," [ http://www1.shore.net/~india/ejvs/ejvs0703/ejvs0703d.txt
''Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies,'' Vol. 7 (2001) issue 3 (May),
&#xC2;&#xA7;28 ]</ref> and historians of science.<ref>Kim Plofker,
Review of Kak (1994), ''Centaurus'' 38 (1996), 362-364.[
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0010&L=indology&D=0&P=35607
][ http://listserv.
linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0010&L=indology&D=0&P=35709 ]</
ref> .. His co-authored ''[ [ In Search of the Cradle of
Civilization ] ]'' (1995) led to an intensification of the polemics on
the origins of Indian culture and supported the [ [ Out of India
theory ] ].<ref>[ [ Edwin Bryant ] ], [ [ The Quest for the Origins of
Vedic Culture ] ]: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate. Oxford University
Press, 2001.</ref> In the same and earlier edits, he deletes positive
reviews on Kak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=110129697
consistent with what we've come to expect, "The secrets of Ishbar" on
amazon has two anonymous readers, coincidentially identified by the
same handle "A reader", touting it unanimously as "a masterpiece". dab
(&#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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=110125409
deletes part of bibliography

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=110128600
He co-authored ''[ [ In Search of the Cradle of
Civilization ] ]'' (1995) fuelling the polemics in [ [ Indian
politics ] ] surrounding [ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ] and thg [ [ Out of
India theory ] ].<ref>[ [ Edwin Bryant ] ], [ [ The Quest for the
Origins of Vedic Culture ] ]: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate. Oxford
University Press, 2001.</ref>

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=110133737
and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=112346422
Politically, he takes a staunchly [ [ jingoist ] ] stance, endorsing
Indian "nuclear deterrance" against China, denouncing "socialist
ideas" in the [ [ Indian constitution ] ], the "Soviet-style ideas of
the [ [ Congress party ] ]" and "terrorists from across the
[ Pakistani ] border".<ref>2002 pbs.org interview [
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/india/debate1.html ]
[ http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/india/debate3.html ]</ref>
Comment: This all in the first paragraph of the article. The source is
maybe not a reliable/notable source, and he misrepresents them.
Kak does not say he endorses nuclear deterrance, but says only:India
has pursued its nuclear ambitions for a variety of geopolitical
reasons including that of a deterrence against China.
I didn't find a denoucment of the ""socialist ideas" in the [ [ Indian
constitution ]") at the link, but it may be there somewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=112346422
While his contributions to [ [ cryptography ] ] and [ [ quantum
information ] ] processing have only been minimal, he also publishes
on various topics such as the [ [ history of science|history ] ] and
[ [ philosophy of science ] ], [ [ History of astronomy|ancient
astronomy ] ], and [ [ history of mathematics ] ], and is notable for
his contributions to the topic of "[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ]". He has
been called "one of the leading intellectual luminaries of the Hindu-
nationalist diaspora" by [ [ Alan Sokal ] ] (2006).[
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/india/debate3.html ]</ref>

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=150787935&oldid=prev


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=110590042
I think we've pretty much solved this now. This isn't publishing, it's
guerilla warfare.

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diskussion%3ASubhash_Kak&diff=11416279&oldid=7282947
(probably Dbachmann, see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/83.78.182.199
and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gothi&diff=30451058&oldid=28199527)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=110816757
ok, I've done a few merges. We'll need to look out for future creation
of Kakiana-cruft, Kak appears to have made a habit letting Wikipedia
know of pretty much every new paper he puts out... [ [ User:Dbachmann|
dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</
small> 12:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=114362412,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=114508213,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=114367017
(rv. Kak's main notability, belongs in intro.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=114372900
::please fix it then... we do have enough material for an independent
[ [ Hindutva pseudoscience ] ] by now, and should discuss this topic
in context there. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>
20:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=114400565
::Blasphemer! Kak is a fount of couplets immortal, like ''[
http://www.indiastar.com/kak10poems.html The sparrow that built its
nest / feeds the chicks without rest ]'', putting Kalidasa himself to
shame. (oh dear, I will always think of Borges in tennis skirts now
when I hear Kak's name...) [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>
22:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=114508844
I believe, since Professor Kak so delights in having things named
after him, he'd be pleased if we should coin a new term for his
lyrical work, which clearly stands as a class of its own,
''[ [ :wikt:kakopoeia|Kakopoeia ] ]''. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>
10:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=114551475
Estonian? Dear sir, it is pure Greek. Seeing the prodigious talents of
the professor, I assume it is only a matter of time before he takes up
the
[ [ :wikt:&#xCE;&#xBA;&#xCE;&#xB1;&#xCE;&#xBA;&#xCE;&#xBF;&#xCF;&#x86;&#xCF;&#x89;&#xCE;&#x153;&#xCE;&#xAF;&#xCE;&#xB1;|
musical arts ] ]? It is an astounding feat that a single man should be
able to tackle so many diverse subjects, and yet not rise above
mediocrity in a single one! [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>
14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC) ( what do you get if you cross a kook and a
quack?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Freedom_skies/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=117261704
:this is blooming nonsense: [ [ Subhash Kak ] ] is professor of
''Electrical Engineering'' with a predilection for ideological
dabbling in fields where he is an amateur. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>
11:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=117264308
He is notable for publications outside of his field, , from an India-
centric "[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ]" ideology, in which Sokal discusses
pseudoscientific aspects of [ [ Hindutva ] ] ideology, under which he
includes of some of Kak's work.are steeped in the ethnocentric
"[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ]" ideology,but found a supporter in German
Indologist [ [ Klaus Klostermaier ] ])"
Deletes:These sequences have fairly good [ [ autocorrelation ] ]
properties ..and also for real data if some small additional
processing is allowed. ..Although it is also open to the [ [ Man in
the middle attack|man-in-the-middle attacks ] ] like the BB type of
quantum cryptography protocols, it uses only quantum transformations
which makes it quite different from other systems.
See also
*[ [ Fashionable Nonsense ] ]


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_astronomy&diff=157362677&oldid=157357466
rudra's "deKakification" was not a personal attack, but a call to
remove crank sources, such as Kak and Frawley, from this article. This
is a serious topic of the history of science, and [ [ WP:UNDUE ] ]
applies for non-peer-reviewed sources. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(ð’ ³) ] ]</small> 12:20, 12 September
2007 (UTC)

Subhash Kak Part 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=109269257&oldid=109222081
He has also claimed to have "resolved the [ [ twin paradox ] ]".
Comment:This is based on a press release not written by Kak, probably
not a reliable source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=109139046&oldid=109138890
According to state-of-the-art physics, there is nothing unresolved
about the so-called [ [ twin paradox ] ], and a vast majority of
theoretical physicists considers Kak's statements meaningless.
Comment:Based on poor source (press release), and no source for
"meaningless"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=109122939&oldid=109121769
indeed. For our purposes, I am still glad he published this thing,
since of course we have more Wikipedia editors capable of recognizing
BS in the field of physics than in the field of Vedic studies, so this
is likely to add some context. Anyone who solves mysteries of ancient
Vedic astronomy, and then goes on to "solve the twin paradox" will, I
should think, be screaming "crank" at any editor with only the dimmest
background knowledge in these fields :) [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xEF;&#xBF;&#x153;) ] ]</small>
19:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=109311287
I have to admit I feel rather gleeful about this myself :)
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>
[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 15:03,
19 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=110274955
Anyway, most journals have a crappy article now and again, just
because Kak got to publish in IJTP doesn't automatically mean the
journal is bad. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>
07:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=110332382
we should do an [ [ International Journal of Theoretical Physics ] ]
then (and document that study you mention, too, under [ [ Peer
review ] ]!) Any given paper still needs to be considered for its own
merits of course. But this does of course streamline well with the
rest of our "Kakiana" here. Kak must be something like unofficial
world champion of said "loophole in contemporary science".
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 14:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=110335663
but I begin to wonder, what sort of joint is [ [ Louisiana State
University ] ] if "one of our professors got an article published in
some minor journal" prompts an enthusiastic press release(?!?)
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Subhash_Kak I am sorry, you are not
making sense. How is any of this "mutually exclusive"? The connection
is obvious. You want nucular deterrence of Pakistan because you
believe in "Indigenous Aryans" threatened by Muslim invaders. The
point is that Kak is not an Indologist. His "Indological writings" are
suffused with his political agenda. Why would Wikipedia even bother to
report the political views of a Louisiana computer scientist if it
wasn't for his "Indological" publications? We do not have enough
material to fill an entire "politics" section. All we have is that
interview, which at present is cited in order to put his "Indological"
views into perspective. We may consider renaming the section in
question. (Dab uses a harmless interview http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/india/debate1.html
from which he makes his predefined conjectures (original research),
the reference would not be a reliable source in other wikipedia
articles.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=110395839
:hah, so the local English teacher was really impressed with the local
Vedic -whiz-kid-slash-poet-prince's latest foray into theoretical
physics. The "scientific community" will be eternally grateful for the
Louisiana breakthrough in understanding Einstein, I am sure :) (in
reality, the release was written by Kak himself, of course. The
wording is exactly his style, I know, I've honed my skills with
Wikipedia sockpuppetry :) Poor Mr. Bertholet's role was just to say
"ok", that's journalism for you, I think we should categorize Kak
above all as a public relations expert - he would have been a great
success in that line of work (as opposed to a "[ [ Potemkin village|
potemkin ] ]" success) ) [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>
19:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 19:21, 23 February 2007)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=111834216
is notable for his contributions to the [ [ Hindu nationalist ] ]
topic of "[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ]"....Kak consequently takes a
staunchly [ [ jingoist ] ] stance politically,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=113304232
(POV, selective quoting, see also Talkpage)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhash_Kak&diff=prev&oldid=113306802
(deletions, adds single pov)

==Voice of India==
(the article was also protected by Dbachmann himself for months, even
though he is one of the warring parties)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=118282948
Wants to merge/redirect the book articles of books by Koenraad Elst.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Update_on_the_Aryan_Invasion_Debate&diff=prev&oldid=118498021
wants to merge/redirect book

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voice_of_India&diff=119937871&oldid=119935629
seeing the nature of the firm as a lobbyist platform rather than a
bona fide publishing house

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voice_of_India&oldid=118303326
It is notable for books supportive of Hindu nationalist (Hindutva)
sentiment, Together with Aditya Prakashan, founded by Goel in 1963, it
is a major outlet for the revival of "communalist" Hindu revisionism
and propaganda since the 1980s, targeting a nostalgic audience of
expatriate Indians in the USA in particular.
Comment: also adds information about the Internet domain and the name
of the owner of the website. Since when do wikipedia pages about
publishing houses include such information?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Voice_of_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voice_of_India&diff=119046004&oldid=118745420
Adds long "racist", irrational pov quote without also adding any
opinion/response by Hindus
[ [ :Category:Propaganda in India ] ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voice_of_India&diff=119312612&oldid=119295819
, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voice_of_India&diff=119454800&oldid=119423727
, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voice_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=121002796

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voice_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=136804361
"VOI Propaganda"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voice_of_India&diff=179388843&oldid=179384169
Deletes an important Hindu reply and Hindu opinion from the article:
The Greek Indologist Nicholas Kazanas, in a reply to Witzel, wrote:
"One wonders too at the relevance of his next rather irrational
comment: “Ironically, many of those expressing these anti-
migrational views are emigrants themselves, engineers or technocrats
like N S Rajaram, S Kak and S Kalyanaramam, who ship their ideas to
India from US shores†. What indeed has this absurd statement to do
with facts and evidence?… Then, it continues in the same tone of
irrelevance and contempt, forgetting how many Universities and
Journals spend enormous funds on useless hypotheses and ostracise all
non-immigrationists: “They find allies in a broader assortment of
home-grown nationalists including university professors, bank
employees, and politicians (S. S. Misra, S. Talageri, K. D. Sethna, S.
P. Gupta, Bh. Singh, M. Shendge, Bh. Gidwani, P. Chaudhuri, A.
Shourie, S. R. Goel). They have even gained a small but vocal
following in the West among "New Age"
writers or researchers outside mainstream scholarship, including D.
Frawley, G. Feuerstein, K. Klostermaier, and K. Elst. Whole publishing
firms, such as the Voice of India and Aditya Prakashan, are devoted to
propagating their ideas†. Here two further points are worthy of
note: first, Prof Witzel obviously does not know what “New Ageâ€
writers are; second, the whole passage has the shrill tones of
McCarthyism or any totalitarian dogmatism (and censorship). Instead of
emitting such strident emotional cries and witch-hunt slogans, Prof
Witzel and his followers had better re-examine their unfounded
linguistic assumptions and recall the words of Edmund Leach, who was
neither an Indian nationalist technocrat, nor a New-Age writer, but a
solid, mainstream pillar of the academic establishment. The RV Date -
a Postscript', by N Kazanas. Athens, Greece.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voice_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=121280994
it's a real world socio-political controversy spilling over into
scholarship, and we are ''reporting'' on scholars protesting bad faith
pseudoscholarly publicity stunts. Wikipedia is indeed a vehicle to
elaborate on political disputes and conflicts (have you ever taken a
glance at [ [ Israeli-Palestinian conflict ] ]? At all?
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 22:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voice_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=121497606
There is this publishing company, owned by a well-known author of
political titles in the Muslim vs. Hindu row in Indian politics, and
it has put out a dozen titles or two of historical revisionism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archaeology_of_Ayodhya&diff=160934820&oldid=151451266
removes book, replaces it with Frontline article, and link to
"Nationalism and ancient history"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_astronomy&diff=159133938&oldid=159113617
Kak can blow your mind just by his tenacious imperturbability :) I
think the point is that in the 1990s, when this was all just scattered
fringe literature, nobody anticipated just how much criminal energy
the VoI authors would invest into orchestrating this, and academia
only started to take note when the whole edifice was in place, at or
around 2001. That's 6 years ago now, and things have pretty much
fallen back into place. This whole thing raised its head and died
within Wikipedia's lifetime... [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(ð’ ³) ] ]</small> 09:33, 20 September
2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosamaple&diff=prev&oldid=119946440
The people who "mix scholarship with pathetic politics" are [ [ Voice
of India ] ] (off-wiki) and [ [ User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and
nationalism|assorted sock artists ] ] (on-wiki), and I am doing what I
can to prevent their undermining Wikipedia. You are welcome to help.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 11:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Koenraad Elst
(wants to delete all his book articles)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koenraad_Elst&diff=prev&oldid=149533074
have long wondered why Elst would ridicule himself by playing the
Hindutvadis' meatpuppet, until I realized that the connection is a
mutual dislike of Islam. Hindutva meets Dutch anti-Islamism, that's
what they call an "unholy alliance" I suppose :) But I really wonder
why these people couldn't just be anti-Islamic like everyone else,
without fabricating all the bogus Bronze Age scholarship.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(ð’ ³) ] ]</
small> 12:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koenraad_Elst
alright, so it turns out Elst is up to his knees in the Flemish New
Right. I don't know how this could have been missed for so long. He co-
edited the neo-fascist TEKOS journal[ http://www.geocities.com/vlaamsbedrog/waw/tekos_waw.html
] from 1992, together with "pagan high priest" [ [ Koenraad
Logghe ] ], whom he joined at the "[ [ World Congress of Ethnic
Religions ] ] [ http://wcer.org/members/sasia/india/definitions.htm ],
a European neopagan network which suddenly in 2001 developed ties to
[ [ Vishva Hindu Parishad ] ] [ http://wcer.org/congress/2001cong.htm
]. Here another interesting page on Elst[ http://ca.geocities.com/zydenbos2001/z2elst.html
]. Most of the sources on this are in Dutch, but it turns out that
Elst acted as "Islam expert" for the [ [ Vlaams Blok ] ], appearing as
"guest speaker" at Neo-Nazi conferences. This surely puts Elst's
eccentric "Indology" into perspective: as an attempt at uniting ultra-
right Flemish neopagans and ultra-right Hindus in their fight against
Islam. In the light
of all this, it is crystal clear that Elst is a neo-nazi or neo-
fascist by any other name. At least his editorial involvement with
TeKoS is a verifiable matter of record. His ''[
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/dutch/islamvoorongel1.html
Islam voor Ongelovigen ]'' is a florilegium of his TeKoS articles on
Islam 1989-94. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(ð’ ³) ] ]</small> 11:49, 28 October
2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koenraad_Elst&diff=prev&oldid=182166938

Again smears Elst as a Fascist:
you say "synthesis" but what you mean is that you are going to nitpick
until you successfully obfuscate the fact that Elst has his sympathies
equally divided between Neo-Fascism, Flemish nationalist Islamophobia
and Hindu nationalism. --dab 12:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Knapp
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Knapp&diff=156891412&oldid=156235772

Vivekananda
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swami_Vivekananda&diff=155581686&oldid=144706637
User:dab, Please discuss here why you feel that the sentence "He is a
major figure in Hinduism and India" is a tall claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=119239654
Vivekananda's quote is classical pseudoscience, and he is in the
article because the current propaganda artists take recourse to his
stuff. I really don't see a problem. The article has been AfDd three
times now, on no other grounds than [ [ WP:IDONTLIKEIT ] ]. You know
how it works: find an academic review of Sokal and Meera, and we'll
add it. That will be the only way forward. Allegations that the
article attacks a religious community are empty. The "Voice of Dharma"
crowd decided to masquerade their ideology as scholarship, and as a
result they will have to accept that their material is criticised as
if it had been scholarship. If they had never pretended to voice
anything but religious or devotional musings, there would be no need
to discuss pseudoscience. As it happens, Wikipedia has been under
attack for two years by people who push these fantasies as if it were
scholarship, and it is necessary to draw a line per [ [
WP:FRINGE ] ]. I wouldn't dream of ridiculing religious piety, but
claiming the ancient rishis harnessed nuclear power in 7000 BC etc.
for me falls rather outside the category of mere piety.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 10:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


== Michael Witzel ==

Comment: Compare this with the Subhash Kak and Nicholas Kazanas
articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=32907458
(Witzel writes to Dbachmann)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=32713535&oldid=32699118
well, his critics ''are'' nationalist. I don't think this is disputed.
I have no idea what Marxism has to do with anything here. This is not
about Indian politics, it is about an Indologist doing Indology
regardless of Indian politics. ..I agree that the "flamewar" external
links are less than notable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rig_Veda&diff=12251475&oldid=12251407
the "flamewar" external links which he later finds non-notable were
orignially added by dab at Rigveda

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=32974574&oldid=32926180
Something, for some reason, these Hindutva scohlars seem to delight

in, what with denouncing British colonialists for imperialistic views

etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=32721559&oldid=32718315
you must be kidding, that's about as far from npov as it gets. Which
are you disputing, that Witzel is an academic (hello, Harvard?), or
that his opponents are nationalist? Maybe it is too sweeping to imply
that they are ''all'' nationalist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=32721993&oldid=32721559
Talageri's criticism is laughable, from a scholarly viewpoint. You are
free to cite academic reviews of Witzel's works. In fact, I can see if
I can find any for you. The emphasis is on ''academic'' here; just
mudslinging by a Hindutva author looking to get even for a devastating
criticism of his book will not fly. Hell, everybody can say "your
logic is flawed" without even reading your work. I have no idea what T
means by saying W "violates every principle set up by himself", but
hey, it sounds good, doesn't it. I will not vouch for the quality, let
alone infallibility of Witzel's work, of course, but at least it
deserves to be criticised by his peers, and not by some political
author with an axe to grind. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 00:44, 26
December 2005 (UTC)
Comment:Witzel is of course himself political. Witzel criticized
Talageri in one publication without even reading Talageri's work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=32863291&oldid=32853584
The content of this chapter is basically a rehash of Witzel's claims,
with interspersed disparaging comments, concluding in "Witzel, as we
have seen, violates every single norm and basic principle, set up by
himself, in the analysis of the Rigveda". We have seen nothing of the
kind, except empty rhetorics. This is extremely poor, ''ad hominem''
"scholarship".
Comment:Hm, Witzel has done ad hominem scholarship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=32627799&oldid=32619947
He is criticized for criticizing Hindutva.... by Hindutva people. Big
surprise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=33022281&oldid=33019962
You can either dismiss Western scholarship (including the inherently
Western concept of an [ [ encyclopedy ] ]) altogether (many Indian
scholars do), or you can take their results at face value, and
consider them for their merit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=33117665&oldid=33024869
well, western scholarship is indebted to the [ [ critical method ] ],
not to a lineage of gurus. This implies the principle of [ [ standing
on the shoulders of giants ] ]. We are indebted to Oldenberg for
foundational insights, but we know more than him. No westerner worth
his salt will defend a statement based on ''[ [ ipse dixit ] ]''
alone. This is a clash of mentalities; traditional Indian scholars
take for granted that people repeat statements by Oldenberg,
Bohtlingck, Muller, Monier-Williams etc. out of respect or awe, while
the simple reason is that much of their views have been ''corrobated''
by later scholarship. If Oldenberg was wrong on something, that's out
of the window. It is just that you will note that he was wrong
surprisingly rarely. Oldenberg didn't come up with the Injunctive, if
I remember correctly, we are indebted to [ [ Paul Thieme ] ] for that.
You will never be able to orally preserve a
text for three millennia by the critical method alone, for this feat,
Indian scholarship is ''much'' better suited. And without this
ability, Western scholarship would have no material to go on from. So
nobody ''expects'' traditional Indian scholars to give a shit about
western scholarship, they can dismiss it as puerile and be done. But
as soon as they pretend to enter an argument ''within'' the 'critical
method' (such as claims of astronomical evidence in the texts), they
will be judged by it.
this is a topic far beyond the scope of this page. You are right that
Witzel appears to be active both as a scholar, and in political
debates. Both areas may be documented. The sad thing is that Witzel's
''political'' opponents attempt to attack him on ''scholarly'' turf.
This makes them look ridiculous. Frawley is evidently not qualified to
criticize Witzel. Let him publish his criticism in an Indological
journal first. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 12:57, 29
December 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=33121107&oldid=33117665
Political criticism masquerading as scholarship is not acceptable, and
the rant summarliy smearing "Western scholars" as racists, bigots, Ku
Klux Klan members or white suprematists is clearly not the sort of
link we want.
*Comment:This does not apply if it is "Hindu fascism" or Hindutva.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=67393343&oldid=67393173
:just finding an "article accusing Witzel" is not enough. There are
foaming diatribes out there on fundamentalist sites. Anybody can post
anything to the internet. .. We can't have trolls stating "he's an
anti-Hindu bigot" in the indicative voice, even here on talk:
Wikipedia is not a hate forum, and we cannot allow libel especially of
living people. Any more of this, and I will roll back the talkpage and
block the trolling accounts. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 06:45, 3
August 2006 (UTC)
Comment:...except of course if the article is about a Hindutva Nazi
like Kak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=67624283&oldid=67609743
per [ [ WP:BLP ] ], and especially [ http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046433.html
]: I warn 'Netaji' in particular that his disparaging and libellous
tone is unacceptable, and I will issue blocks without further warning
for such behaviour...Frawley is not so much a 'scholar' as a religious
figure, and serious scholars would shun association with such a
politically motivated witchhunt even if factually disagreeing with
Witzel on certain points. academic disputes do not equal online
smearing campaigns). Since there is an ongoing smearing campaign, I
insist that the BLP guidelines are followed with the utmost care.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 12:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
*Comment:Except for the Subhash Kak article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=68294581&oldid=68277917
allusions to the Nazis are popular of course: it's always good to
gesture at the Nazis when you have no real case). Witzel may be right
or wrong in his opinions, like any other scholar, that's beside the
point. But we shall keep this article clear of attempts by his
political opponents to single him out as dishonest or incompetent, or
to mis-characterize mainstream positions as Witzel's personal
opinions. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 23:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=89227206&oldid=72561464
[ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/India/US_text_row_resolved_by_Indian/articleshow/msid-1971421,curpg-2.cms
] is about "a crucial affidavit by eminent historian and president of
the Indian History Congress, [ [ D N Jha ] ]" who according to the
Times of India said
:"The technology, crafts and commerce of the Harappans are also not
reflected in the Rigveda, nor does it bear testimony to the existence
of their planned urban settlements and large structures built of burnt
bricks."
:Giving a hint of the Aryan origin debate in India, Jha asked the
court not to fall for the "indigenous Aryan" claim since it has led to
"demonisation of Muslims and Christians as foreigners and to the near
denial of the contributions of non-Hindus to Indian culture".
which is pretty much what the Witzel faction had been saying all
along.
[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 13:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment:And Dbachmann claims to be neutral and not partake in the
polemics of the debate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=32974574&oldid=32926180
"who are these mysterious scholars"? I am glad for your question: They
include, notably, [ [ Hermann Oldenberg ] ], who wrote 120 years
ago. ..If you ignore Oldenberg, you are having a 19th century
argument. Something, for some reason, these Hindutva scohlars seem to

delight in, what with denouncing British colonialists for

imperialistic views etc. Hello? This is 2005, not 1870. We quote
sources, on Wikipedia. ''Reputable'' sources, i.e. peer reviewed ones.
None of the links above qualifies as such. Just because something has
an URL doesn't make it a "source". I can put up a geocities page with
a giant title "Witzel is stupid" in blinking pink letters. That
doesn't make it a "source". [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 08:04, 28
December 2005 (UTC)
Comment:Oldenberg is false explanation according to talkpage

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bharatveer&diff=68215934&oldid=68204800
:Witzel is fiercly anti-Hindutva. If you think that this equals "anti-
Hindu" or even "anti-Hindu", you have a seriously distorted view.
That's like saying being anti-Bush is being anti-American (which has
been said, of course, same old "who isn't for us is against us"). Why
are you bringing up Witzel? I didn't refer to the Witzel article. I am
not Witzel, and I have never met him. I am not keeping you from
documenting the controversies surrounding the man, as long as you stay
''fair'' and within [ [ WP:BLP ] ]. A man may have a bad temper and
political tendencies, and still be a brilliant scholar, and I am
protecting the Witzel article against all-too transparent attempts at
conflating politics and scholarship.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=prev&oldid=114509408
deletes criticism (if you would cite a scholar of the field in
question, not confused religionists?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel&diff=prev&oldid=115024240

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=prev&oldid=119966448
Thus, Witzel et al. turn out "anti-Hindu" simply because they are
Sanskritists.

===California Textbook controversy===

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Californian_Hindu_textbook_controversy&oldid=36657119
Comment: typical "neutral" start of article by Dbachmann (Hindutva,
Hindu right, and allegations of a North Indian vs. South Indian, and
Uppercaste vs. lowercaste conflict)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Californian_Hindu_textbook_controversy&diff=36924331&oldid=36859301
I know; the writeup summarizes the CSM report which was not written by
Witzel, you may say it gives the "academic", or "western" pov. But
feel free to heap opposing povs on this, I created this article to
take the heat of Hindu outrage at Descartes and the Western conspiracy
of "[ [ Enlightenment ] ]" from poor [ [ Michael Witzel ] ]'s article
who is apparently being shot as the messenger. [ [ User:Dbachmann|
dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small>
10:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Comment: With an "enlightenment" like
this, who needs the Dark Ages? Also typical how Witzel needs to be
protected from the slightest criticism, while it is always ok to smear
those Hindus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Californian_Hindu_textbook_controversy&diff=36926398&oldid=36925236

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

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 10:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Californian_Hindu_textbook_controversy&diff=next&oldid=36926398
(never mind that the "fair portrayal of history" demanded admittedly
flies in the face of scholarly consensus). In politics, playing too
dirty will just backfire [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 10:45, 27
January 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Californian_Hindu_textbook_controversy&diff=66755668&oldid=66743371
This is a sad case of playing the discrimination card, and I am
actually pleasantly surprised it didn't work out, even in California.
That must mean that they really, ''really'' have no case at all. But
of course they are free to spew Vitriol all over the internet, just
''off'' Wikipedia, thanks. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 22:52, 30
July 2006 (UTC)

== Dwijendra Narayan Jha ==

Comment: Compare this with the Subhash Kak and Nicholas Kazanas
articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dwijendra_Narayan_Jha&diff=prev&oldid=113837399
(non-neutral start of an article about an anti-Hindu historian)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dwijendra_Narayan_Jha&diff=prev&oldid=113886560

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dwijendra_Narayan_Jha&diff=prev&oldid=113886953
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Californian_Hindu_textbook_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=113854594)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dwijendra_Narayan_Jha&diff=prev&oldid=113888313

==Irfan Habib and RS Sharma==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ram_Sharan_Sharma&action=historysubmit&diff=336034218&oldid=335813199

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irfan_Habib&diff=143915301&oldid=143893758
(Apparently criticism is not allowed if the "historian" is anti-Hindu
or at least of the Islamo-Marxist school.)

[Michael Ross]

'''Controversies on articles'''

==Rigveda==

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rigveda&diff=24637838&oldid=24637131
These questions are tied to the debate about the [ [ Indo-Aryan
migration ] ] (termed "[ [ Aryan Invasion Theory ] ]") vs. the claim
that Vedic culture together with Vedic Sanskrit originated in the
[ [ Indus Valley Civilisation ] ], a topic of great significance in
[ [ Hindutva|Hindu nationalism ] ], addressed for example by [ [ Amal
Kiran ] ] and [ [ Shrikant G. Talageri ] ].

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rigveda&diff=22895150&oldid=22895011
divides bibliography into Western philology and (in a later edit) into
hindu historical

Racist Rigveda

*sadly, this article is very, very, far from being encyclopedic or

even factual. It's a sermon. An eulogy. I made a few edits, but they
do very little. The Vedas don't condone discrimination? Varna has
nothing to do with skin color? I believe that many Hindus believe so
(and this may of course be asserted), but that's just because most
Hindus have never actually read the vedas, or if they have, they
didn't bother to translate. The Rigveda, for example (9.73.5) talks
about the blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the

heavens the swarthy skin which Indra hates. dab (&#xE1;&#x9B;&#x8F;)
17:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hinduism

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=21558098&oldid=21557041
Adds:

The tribes hostile to the Indo-Aryans in such warlike encounters are
described as dark-skinned, e.g. RV 9.73.5:
:''O'er Sire and Mother they have roared in unison bright with the
verse of praise, burning up riteless men,''
:''Blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the

heavens the swarthy skin which Indra hates.'' 08:02, 22 August 2005
Comment:On the same day he deletes anti-racist discussion at Indo-
Aryans

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryans&diff=21560720&oldid=21274442
Comment:deletes anti-racist discussion from article one hour after
adding Rigveda racist claims to the Indo-Aryan migration article (he
didn't move the deleted text to the Aryan Race article) 09:15, 22
August 2005
Deletes: "Arya has also been interpreted by some as a term refering to
only blond-haired and blue-eyed people. But apart from four gods
([ [ Indra ] ], [ [ Agni ] ], [ [ Rudra ] ] and [ [ Savitar ] ], gods
that are associated with the sun or with the lightning), there is in
Sanskrit literature according to Michael Witzel only one golden-haired
(hiranyakeshin) person , i.e. Hiranyakeshin, the author of the
Hiranyakeshin-Shrauta-Sutra. (J. Bronkhorst and M.M. Deshpande. 1999;
p.390) While it is possible that this person was golden-haired, the
author's name could also refer to one of the epithets of the Supreme
Lord [ [ Vishnu ] ]. These descriptions could also be poetic
allegories: solar deities and gods associated with the sun were often
described as golden-haired. On the other hand, there are references in
Sanskrit literature where the [ [ hair ] ] of Brahmins is assumed to
be black. For example, [ [ Atharva Veda ] ] 6:137. 2-3 contains a
charm for making "strong black hairlocks" grow and in
[ [ Baudhayana ]
]’s Dharma-Sutra 1:2, (also cited in [ [ Shabara ] ]’s Bhasya on
[ [ Jaimini ] ] 1:33) we read the verse “Let him kindle the
sacrificial fire while his hair is still black†. Some verses of the
[ [ Rig Veda ] ] have been interpreted racially. Hans Hock (1999b)
studied all the occurrences that were interpreted racially in
Geldner's translation of the Rig Veda and concludes that they were
either mistranslated or open to other interpretations. He writes that
the racial interpretation of the Indian texts "must be considered
dubious." (p.154) Hock also notes that "early Sanskrit literature
offers no conclusive evidence for preoccupation with skin color. More
than that, some of the greatest Epic heroes and heroines such as
[ [ Krishna ] ], [ [ Draupadi ] ], [ [ Arjuna ] ], [ [ Nakula ] ] and
(...) [ [ Damayanti ] ] are characterized as dark-skinned. Similarly,
the famous cave-paintings of [ [ Ajanta ] ] depict a vast range of
skin colors. But in none of these contexts do we find that darker skin
color disqualifies
a person from being considered good, beautiful, or heroic." (p.
154-155) Draupadi is also often called by the name Krsn&#257;
("black") in the [ [ Mahabharata ] ]. According to another examination
by Trautmann (1997) the racial evidence of the Indian texts is soft
and based upon an amount of overreading. He concludes: "That the
racial theory of Indian civilization still lingers is a miracle of
faith. Is it not time we did away with it?" (p.213-215) The earliest
still existing commentary on the Rig Veda is the one by [ [ Sayana ] ]
(14th century). According to Romila Thapar (1999, The Aryan question
revisited), "There isn't a single racial connotation in any of
Sayana's commentaries."


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rigvedic_tribes&diff=next&oldid=61448595
The [ [ Aryan ] ] tribes mentioned in the [ [ Rigveda ] ] are
described as semi-[ [ nomadic ] ] pastoralists, subdivided into
villages (''vish'') and headed by a tribal chief (''[ [ raja ] ]'').
They formed a [ [ warrior ] ] society, engaging in [ [ endemic
warfare ] ] and [ [ cattle raid ] ]s among themselves and against the
darker-skinned<ref>described in e.g. [ [ RV 9 ] ].41.1 as ''tvac
krshna'' "black skin" or 9.73.5 ''tvac ashikni'' "swarthy skin"</ref>
[ [ Dasa ] ]. 30 June 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dasa&diff=71554045&oldid=71551432
Comment:adds the "racist" Rigveda verses to Dasa 24 August 2006

==Indigenous Aryan Theory==

General Comment:(The Indigenous Aryan Theory article was created by
Dbachmann, and marked as OR by other editors. It's a Dbachmann
propaganda and OR article.) He also protected the article after edit-
warring in it with other editor. Other articles he protected after
editing them include N.S. Rajaram and Haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA).
Violated 3 Revert Rule on 28 March/1 February.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=108051353&oldid=106501092
The concept is notable in [ [ Indian politics ] ] as part of [ [ Hindu
nationalist ] ] propaganda

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=110032660&oldid=110032195
The implicit argument is that "Indigenous Aryans" take away any claim
of priority from the Dravidian population, making both groups equally
"autochthonous" while at the same time facilitating the portrayal of
Islam as a recent and "foreign" [ [ Islamic conquests of India|violent
intrusion ] ] into a monolithic and immutable native Indo-Aryan
(Hindu) culture of incalculable antiquity

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=104865215&oldid=104802496
{{see|Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies)|Nationalism
and ancient history}}
The theory is a minority position in scholarly debate, but it plays a
significant role in [ [ Indian politics ] ], and notably as part of
the political discourse of the [ [ Bharatiya Janata Party ] ] and the
wider [ [ Hindu nationalism|Hindu nationalist ] ] movement, which
typically does not make the distinction of "Indo-Aryan", "Indo-
Iranian" and "Proto-Indo-European", using "[ [ Aryan ] ]" as a diffuse
cover term for any or all of these. Proponents often argue that the
mainstream invasionist scenarios are biased by [ [ colonialist ] ]
agendas of 19th century [ [ British India ] ]. The notion plays an
important part in the self-definition of [ [ Hindu nationalism ] ] ,
which contrasts indigenous [ [ Hinduism ] ] with the invasive
[ [ Mughal Empire ] ]. In this context, the notion of "indigenous"
Hinduism vs. "invasive" [ [ Islam ] ] is employed to fan hostility
between the adherents of these religions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=110032195&oldid=110030708
The concept is of great notability in [ [ Indian politics ] ] as the
stated ideology of [ [ Hindu nationalist ] ] ("Hindutva") movements.
It is based on [ [ Hindu reform movements|Hindu reformist ] ] currents
such as [ [ Arya Samaj ] ] or [ [ Gayatri Pariwar ] ] that emerged in
the 19th century. It is designed as the ideological counterpart of the
[ [ Anti-Brahmanism ] ] of [ [ Dravidistan ] ] or "[ [ self-respect
movement|self respect ] ]" movements on one hand, effectively
reflecting the conflict of Indo-Aryan vs. Dravidian [ [ ethnic
nationalism ] ] (the main ethnic division of the population of the
[ [ Republic of India ] ]), and the conflict between [ [ Hinduism ] ]
and [ [ Islam in India ] ] on the other hand (the main religious
division of the Republic of India).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=94506740&oldid=94501459
[ [ :Category:Historical revisionism (political) ] ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=99764649&oldid=97929583
[ [ :Category:National mysticism ] ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=94499337&oldid=94496945
{{see|Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies)|Nationalism
and ancient history}} The notion plays an important part in the self-
definition of [ [ Hindu nationalism ] ] (as set out by [ [ V.D.
Savarkar ] ] in his 1923 ''[ [ Hindutva &#xE2;&#x80;&#x93; who is a
Hindu? ] ]''), which contrasts indigenous [ [ Hinduism ] ] with the
invasive [ [ Mughal Empire ] ], und thus cannot by definition accept
that elements of Hinduism entered India by cultural diffusion or
migration. In this context, the notion of "indigenous" Hinduism vs.
"invasive" [ [ Islam ] ] is employed to fan hostility between the
adherents of these religions. External links
*[ http://www.friendsofsouthasia.org/textbook/AmartyaSen_On_Hindutva.html
The Hindutva Movement and Reinventing of History - FOSA ] by
[ [ Amartya Sen ] ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=108283348
The difference between "indigenous Aryans" and "PIE origins in India"
is that the former consists of two imprecise but emotional terms, and
as such does not constitute a well-defined claim at all, but a
sentiment or propaganda jingle, while the latter is a clear hypothesis
that can be meaningfully argued about. Most of the edit-wars we get on
the topic originate with editors affected by the "sentiment" side,
they don't care what "indigenous" or "aryans" means, they just know in
their bellies that aryans must be indigenous. [ [ User:Dbachmann|

dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</

small> 07:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=110289455&oldid=110269916
I'm all but convinced now that we've talked to Sbhushan under other
handles before. What he keeps tagging isn't "OR", it's a simple layout
of the basic context summarized from the articles linked, stating the
context available for rational debate on the concept. Nothing
controversial at all. I realize that the debate is not ''supposed'' to
be rational, it being all propaganda and patriotic gut feeling, but we
are an encyclopedia, and we'll have to put even the most misty
jingoist nonsense into some sort of encyclopedic context.

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|

(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 09:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&oldid=94506740
and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=110032195&oldid=110030708
and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&oldid=110314277
it qualifies as pseudohistory or revisionism ... It is based on Hindu
reformist currents such as Arya Samaj or Gayatri Pariwar that emerged
in the 19th century. ...
**It is designed as the ideological counterpart of the [ [ Anti-
Brahmanism ] ] of [ [ Dravidistan ] ] or "[ [ self-respect movement|
self respect ] ]" movements on one hand, effectively reflecting the
conflict of Indo-Aryan vs. Dravidian [ [ ethnic nationalism ] ] (the
main ethnic division of the population of the [ [ Republic of
India ] ]), and the conflict between [ [ Hinduism ] ] and [ [ Islam in
India ] ] on the other hand (the main religious division of the
Republic of India). The implicit argument is that "Indigenous Aryans"
take away any claim of priority from the Dravidian population, making
both groups equally "autochthonous" while at the same time
facilitating the portrayal of Islam as a recent and
"foreign" [ [ Islamic conquest of India|violent intrusion ] ] into a
monolithic and immutable native Indo-Aryan (Hindu) culture of
incalculable antiquity.
Repercussions of these divisions have reached [ [ California ] ]n
courts with the [ [ Californian Hindu textbook controversy|Californian
Hindu textbook case ] ], where according to the Times of
India<ref>[ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/India/US_text_row_resolved_by_Indian/articleshow/msid-1971421,curpg-2.cms
US text row resolved by Indian, 9 Sep, 2006 ] </ref> historian and
president of the Indian History Congress, [ [ D. N. Jha ] ] in a
"crucial affidavit" to the superior court of the state of California,
:"Giving a hint of the Aryan origin debate in India, [ ... ] asked the

court not to fall for the 'indigenous Aryan' claim since it has led to
'demonisation of Muslims and Christians as foreigners and to the near
denial of the contributions of non-Hindus to Indian culture'."

The theory is a minority position in scholarly debate, but it plays a
significant role in Indian politics, and notably sees use as
propaganda by the Bharatiya Janata Party, which typically does not
make the distinction of "Indo-Aryan", "Indo-Iranian" and "Proto-Indo-
European", using "Aryan" as a diffuse cover term for any or all of
these.
[ [ :Category:Hindutva ] ][ [ :Category:Historical revisionism
(political) ] ] [ [ :Category:National mysticism ] ]Comment:All
criticism of the AIT must be BJP propaganda, Hindutva, Revisionism,
Pseudohistory and Anti-Islamic and Anti-Christian. Only the pro-AIT is
not political.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rudrasharman&diff=prev&oldid=110318342
we should mention the term on [ [ indigenous Aryans ] ], since it is
of course part of the same propaganda machine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=110710654
The concept is notable in [ [ Indian politics ] ] as part of [ [ Hindu
nationalist ] ] propaganda. In its extreme forms, postulating "Aryans"
in the [ [ Neolithic ] ] period (7th to 5th millennia BC), it
qualifies as [ [ pseudohistory ] ] or [ [ national mysticism ] ],

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=111538716
then ''make our day'' and [ [ WP:AfD ] ] it already. Maybe it will
finally get you banned for [ [ WP:POINT ] ], one may hope.

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|

(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 08:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=prev&oldid=111614669
um, the "indigenous Aryans" article ''is'' about propaganda. It's so
categorized. It's stated up front. It's all referenced. It's so much
glorified gibberish spiced with testosteron. I'm sorry, but you are
not making sense. ''As'' propaganda, it doesn't make strict scholarly
sense, and there can be all sorts of "corollaries" from it, including,
but not limited to OIT, since ''[ [ ex falso quodlibet ] ]''. While
otoh "OIT" is at least a well-defined proposal which in a certain
sence includes an "indigenous Aryan" position ''a fortiori''.

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|

(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 17:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=prev&oldid=111605915
the term may have been coined by Bryant, but it is in wider use as a
term for Hindu nationalist propaganda (as shown in the article). I
would be most happy to devote one line to it being pseudoscholarly
bullshit pushed by "religious fanatics" (as you [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIndigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=111583305&oldid=111580971
seem to agree ]). But if we're going to discuss "evidence" for the
"theory" (as opposed to simply discuss the political agendas
involved), we will damn well be allowed to spell out just what
proposal it is for which we're looking for evidence. We ''agree'' it's
bullshit, alright? We are giving brief background on ''why'' it is
bullshit. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=111588689
e.g. [ [ B.B. Lal ] ] who in [ http://www.geocities.com/ifihhome/articles/bbl001.html
The Homeland of Indo-European Languages and Culture: Some Thoughts ]
claims that the Rigveda "must predate 2000 BC" based on geological
(sic!) evidence.</ref>
Comment:The alleged source is an unpublished article that seems to be
misquoted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=111626427
I've blocked {{vandal|Sbhushan}} for persistent trolling and edit-
warring on [ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ], plus a 3RRvio in reaction to a
warning. I am also uncertain of his sock status (we get many trolls of
that kind that may or may not be identical). Since I am involved in
the article being trolled, I am posting this block here for review,
and I will not consider any adjustment "wheel warring" but will accept
it as uninvolved advice. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xED; &#x88;) ] ]</small> 18:26, 28
February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=111627425
I've blocked Sbhushan for 48h over his last revert (after warning) to
impress on him that he is out of line. See also [ [ WP:AN/
I#Sbhushan ] ]. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>

18:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Comment:Blocks an User who disagrees
with him. Claims the user had 3RRvio without giving evidence. Claims
that the user (history of 4 months) has a sock status.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASbhushan&diff=111631967&oldid=111625630
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=111646344
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=111666071
Comment:Unblocks him after user filed unblock request. See also the
comments by other adminstrators, who say "it was not patent nonsense,
vandalism, or simple disruption." and "Rather than blocking and then
reporting here, you should have come here first to request help from
uninvolved administrators."

*WP:3RRvio at Indigenous_Aryan_Theory from 28.2./1.3. 2007. He also
protects the page. (Wikipedia:Protection policy says "Do not protect a
page you are editing, unless against BLP violations or simple
vandalism, or unprotect a page in order to start editing it.")

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=111836454$
adds:
Pseudoscience and Postmodernism
{{see|Hindutva}}
Nanda (2003) argues that the [ [ pseudoscience ] ] at the core of
Hindu nationalism was unwittingly helped into being in the 1980s by
the [ [ postmodernism ] ] embraced by Indian leftist "postcolonial
theories" like [ [ Ashis Nandy ] ] and [ [ Vandana Shiva ] ] who
rejected the universality of "Western" [ [ science ] ] and called for
the "indigenous science" (Sokal 2006:32).
Nanda (2003:72) explains how this relativization of "science" was
employed by Hindutva ideologues during the 1998 to 2004 reign of the
[ [ BJP ] ]: :''any traditional Hindu idea or practice, however
obscure and irrational it might have been through its history, gets
the honoric of "science" if it bears any resemblance at all, however
remote, to an idea that is valued (even for the wrong reasons) in the
West.'' Criticism of the irrationality of such "Vedic science" is
brushed aside by the notion that :''The idea of 'contradiction' is an
imported one from the West in recent times by the Western-educated,
since &#xE2;&#x80;&#x98;Modern Science&#xE2;&#x80;&#x99; arbitrarily
imagines that it only has the true knowledge and its methods are the
only methods to gain knowledge, smacking of Semitic dogmatism in
religion.'' (Mukhyananda 1997:94)
Comment:For once better referenced than usual, but not reported
neutrally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=111843301
Witzel (2006:204) traces the "indigenous Aryan" idea to the writings
of Golwalkar and Sarvarkar. Golwalkar (1939) denied any immigration of
"Aryans" to the subcontinent, stressing that all Hindus have always be
"children of the soil", a notion Witzel compares to the Nazi
''[ [ Blut und Boden ] ]'' mysticism contemporary to Golwalkar. Since
these ideas emerged on the brink of the internationalist and socially
oriented Nehru-Gandhi government, they lay dormant for several
decades, and only rose to prominence in the 1980s in conjunction with
the relativist revisionism outlined above, most of the revisionist
literature being published by the firms ''Voice of Dharma'' and
''Aditya Prakasha''....e.g. by [ [ David Frawley ] ] who sees the

origin of all world civilizations in Northern India, 10,000 - 6,000

BCE.Comment:For once better referenced than usual, but not reported
neutrally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=112036859
The proposition of "indigenous Aryans" thus does not correspond to a
single identifiable opion, but to a sentiment that may result in
various, partly mutually exclusive, specific claims united by a common
ideology.<ref>Thus, [ [ Koenraad Elst ] ] postulates a Proto-Indo-
Iranian Harappan culture, while [ [ Nicholas Kazanas ] ] argues that
the Indo-Aryan Rigveda must predate the Harappan culture. The unifying
ideology is apparent in that there is no academic controversy
''among'' proponents of "out of India" scenario aimed at resolving
such contradictions.</ref>

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=112042069
and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=112042249
===article progress, category===
alright, so a picture begins to emerge. I've never been interested in
treating these subjects, but it turns out it is impossible to discuss
the Vedic period on Wikipedia without solving this. I think we are
making slow but steady progress exposing what's actually going on. The
aim must be to turn the eternally broken [ [ Aryan Invasion Theory
(history and controversies) ] ] into a clean [ [ WP:SS ] ] summary,
and somehow categorize this whole cottage industry. Something like
[ [ :Category:Hindutva revisionism ] ] seems in order, and we may need
an article to address this phenomenon of the rise of "Hindutva
[ pseudo ]science" since the 1980s directly. We have:
*[ [ :Category:Hindutva ] ], [ [ :Category:Historiography of India ] ]
*[ [ Hindutva ] ]
*[ [ Hindu nationalism ] ] (scope and relation to "Hindutva" unclear)
*[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ]
*[ [ Out of India ] ]
*[ [ Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) ] ]
*[ [ Hindu reform movements ] ]
authors/books
*[ [ Subhash Kak ] ]
*[ [ N. S. Rajaram ] ]
*[ [ David Frawley ] ]
*[ [ Nicholas Kazanas ] ]
*[ [ Georg Feuerstein ] ]
*[ [ Shrikant G. Talageri ] ]
*[ [ In Search of the Cradle of Civilization ] ]
*[ [ The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis ] ]
the underlying structure of this propaganda effort isn't at all
obvious from the beginning due to the conscious effort to make it
appear larger and less coordinated than it is (a central role seems to
be taken by the ''[ [ Voice of Dharma ] ]'' publishing house, which
would seem to need its own article). You initially think these are
just a motley crew of your average crackpot authors until the pattern
emerges. It is a rather serious topic, since this is ultimately about
lying to the Indian (and expatriate Indian) public, misleading it into
mindless radicalism, and Nanda isn't just Godwining when she draws the
obvious parallel to the "Aryan supremacy" cruft of 1930s fascism.

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|

(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 10:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryans&diff=prev&oldid=112080460
I am considering moving it to [ [ Hindutva revisionism ] ] above, as
it turns out "indigenous Aryans" are only the tip of a regular iceberg
of pseudoscience flying around here. If we do that, we should
''also'' merge the "AIT (history and controversies)" article, which at
the moment exists just a dump anyway. We cannot merge this with OIT
though: we cannot merge OIT here, since OIT has (granted, minor)
aspects that are not ideologically motivated but bona fide
scholarship, and we cannot merge this to OIT, since the scope of
"indigenous Aryans" is obviously not restricted to OIT.

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|

(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 15:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=112584145*'''speedy
keep''' (no brainer), and '''move''', per the discussion on talk,
either to simple [ [ indigenous Aryans ] ], or to a wider scope like
[ [ Hindutva revisionism ] ], [ [ Hindutva and pseudoscience ] ] or
similar. The [ [ Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) ] ]
should be either {{tl|split}}, or be a concise [ [ WP:SS ] ] article;
this is all editing business, not Afd business, and we'd have
rectified things month ago were it not for our resident Hindutva
trolling team. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>

16:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=112584145
"Indigenous Aryan position" is just a term for what ''proponents'' (or
should we say, ''disseminators'') prefer to call things like "exciting
new emerging evidence found by eminent professors" (and permutations,
ad nauseam), which is hardly preferable as an article title.

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|

(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 16:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=112792315
just because there are a couple of editors on Wikipedia who attempt to
''abuse'' the project as a propaganda tool? Much to the contrary, it
requires an extra effort to screen out the propagandist pov-pushing
and create a solid and well-referenced article describing their
approaches. "Indigenous Aryan" is just one central aspect of this
propaganda stunt, and I agree the article could be '''moved''' to
[ [ Hindutva propaganda ] ], [ [ Hindutva pseudoscience ] ],
[ [ Hindutva revisionism ] ] or whatever you prefer, but Wikipedia
will '''not''' allow propagandists, or those misled by propagandists,
succeed in pretending that their propaganda does not in fact exist and
its discussion belongs "deleted". Quoth the arbcom,
"[ [ Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-
Pakistan#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox|use of Wikipedia for political
propaganda is prohibited. ] ]" Yet this is ''constantly''
done by our resident "Hindutva half-dozen". It is time we protected
Wikipedia more effectively against such attacks, since attacks they
are. This AfD is just a little incident in this epic story, of course,
but it is very instructive on the present state of things.

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|

(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 11:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=112866185
if Wikipedia wasn't spammed by Hindutva trolls, it would be much
easier to reach FA quality again. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>

19:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryans&diff=prev&oldid=113059029
(revert)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=113059325
wow, Indian elementary school syllabus is now "Truth"? Would that be
before or after the 1998-2004 indoctrination stunt by the BJP
government? I suppose we should turn to Turkish elementary school
syllabus to establish the Truth of [ [ Pan-Turkism ] ], then?

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|

(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 13:46, 6 March 2007
(UTC)Comment:"indoctrination stunt"? What about the indocrination
stunt of Islamist and Marxist educators?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryans&diff=prev&oldid=113269045
The concept is notable in [ [ Indian politics ] ] as part of [ [ Hindu
nationalist ] ] propaganda. ..or [ [ national mysticism ] ] (revert)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=113286156
but whatever we read in the Vedas is universal truth (that's
[ [ Biblical literalism ] ] by any other name,
I ''appreciate'' that there is "pseudo-secularism" in India that is
''also'' motivated by political agendas. But you need to appreciate
that this is not the issue here at all. I would not allow such "pseudo-
secularism" any more Comment: He rather supports pseudo secularism
than fight it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryans&diff=prev&oldid=113337873
. No, it shouldn't be "a subsection of AIT page", it should be a
subsection of a larger "[ [ Hindutva ideology ] ]" page,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryans&diff=prev&oldid=113341046
Or those arguing that this is a topic of scholarship, not national
mysticism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryans&diff=prev&oldid=113269045
a) it is well sourced (Sokal, Nanda, ...) and (b) it isn't the "belief
of millions", it's the hobby horse of a handful of cranks. It wasn't
in the Puranas last time I checked.) (edit summary)

==Historiography and nationalism==

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historiography_and_nationalism&diff=62227631&oldid=62171803
In ancient times, ethnicities often derived their or their rulers'
origin from divine or semi-divine founders of a mythical past (for
example, the [ [ Anglo-Saxons ] ] deriving their dynasties from
[ [ Woden ] ]; see also [ [ Euhemerism ] ]). In modern times, such
mythical [ [ aetiology|aetiologies ] ] in nationalist constructions of
history were replaced by the frequent attempt to link one's own ethnic
group to a source as ancient as possible, often known not from
tradition but only from archaeology or philology, such as Armenians
claiming as their origin the [ [ Urartians ] ], the [ [ Albanians ] ]
claiming as their origin the [ [ Illyrians ] ], the [ [ Georgians ] ]
claiming as their origin the [ [ Hayasa-Azzi ] ], or [ [ Hindu ] ]
nationalists claiming as their origin the [ [ Indus Valley
Civilization ] ] &mdash; all of the mentioned groups being known only
from either ancient historiographers or
archaeology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historiography_and_nationalism&diff=94027071&oldid=92952802
adds link to (see [ [ Aryan Invasion Theory (propaganda) ] ])
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28propaganda%29&oldid=94027099
makes redirect Aryan Invasion Theory (propaganda) to AIT

==Indo-Aryan migration==
General comments: He moved the AIT article to "Indo-Aryan migration",
not a clear or even neutral title for a theory either (http://
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-
Aryan_migration&diff=prev&oldid=113387179)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geo.plrd&diff=prev&oldid=109048657
What is the difference between a "chatpage" and a talkpage? I find
that too much time is wasted with idle chatter on ''talk'' pages
already. If you want to move the article, you should make a proposal
on talk, preferably after familiarizing yourself with the topic. If
you find I am in violation of OWN, you should take up the matter with
me directly, and failing that, open a user conduct RfC. If I "OWNed"
the article in any way, it would have been cleaned up months ago. But
since I recognize that the article cannot be "owned", it will probably
remain broken indefinitely. The policy in question is
[ [ WP:UNDUE ] ]. I am well aware of scholarly mainstream opinion on
the matter. The article is under constant attack from editors who
either cannot understand or do not want to respect WP's principle of
[ [ WP:NPOV ] ] means that views are presented in proportion to their
academic notability. I realize that the topic is not ''only'
' academic, and that it plays an unfortunate role in Indian religious
nationalist propaganda. This is why we have [ [ Aryan Invasion Theory
(history and controversies) ] ] which has the sole purpose of
documenting the political side of the topic. We do get an endless
influx of Hindu propagandist editors bent on misrepresenting academic
opinion. WIN is just a comparatively harmless example of these. The
only thing that stands between these editors and a Wikipedia that is
instrumentalised for political propaganda is Wikipedia policy and the
investment of editors ready to engage in anti-propaganda vigilantism.
I am prepared to discuss with anyone who brings up clean academic
references in good faith. I am not prepared, nor am I obliged by
Wikipedia policy, to discuss anything else. regards,

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|

(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 10:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=54875203&oldid=52272218
It is asking a lot to quote the piles of pseudo-academic works
motivated by religious or nationalist agendas, but at least those
authors are at least trying to ''imitate'' scholarship.

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|

('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 11:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=68390702&oldid=68381238
It is enough that the Hindukush is ''the'' classical invasion route
into India, with a long string of known precedents. [ [ User:Dbachmann|

dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small>

12:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=68577852&oldid=68576981
That we don't hear more of this is obviously due to the nationalist
side being not interested in honest debate, they want Paleolithic
Aryans in 80,000 BC, and they don't care about anything west of the
Khyber Pass :) [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 09:44, 9
August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=next&oldid=68597183
There is no reason whatsoever to assume chariots for the IVC except
for the desire to score points in the IAM debate. In scholarship
(unlike politics), a desire to score points is not a strong argument
in favour of anything. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 12:33, 9
August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=72375613&oldid=71590584
Where do you get your ideas, WIN? From crackpot websites? From your
Swami? From foaming redneck politicians?
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#xE1;&#x9B;&#x8E;''') ] ]</small>
[ [ User:Dbachmann|q&#xC9;&#x90;p ] ] 12:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=100201129&oldid=100198348
your 1.) is precisely the sort of national mysticism uninformed by
cultural or linguistic change that we want to keep separate from
scholarly debate.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=109120035&oldid=109107385
indeed. but I dare you to catch me doing that. While I clean out such
bad faith material regularly, and, lo and behold, they only ever go in
one direction, and then I get told off for being "biased".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=109782812&oldid=109778185
indeed. the "downward spiral" is entirely an artifact in the
interpretation of angry Hindutva propagandists who like to allege the
"invasion" scenario was a bad faith conspiracy from the beginning (for
reasons best known to themselves, I have ''yet'' to hear how
colonialists could profit ideologically from a Bronze Age invasion).

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|

(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 10:14, 21 February 2007
(UTC)Comment:This is an apologist view of British colonialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=next&oldid=109853176
I've seen many things on Wikipedia, but now you have managed to create
a pov fork of a talkpage, congratulations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=79419634&oldid=79413758
and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=72445220&oldid=72442693
(as is often postulated by Indian patriotic sentiment),

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=prev&oldid=114594187
You mean [ http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history_1.shtml
]. Page 4 is essentially a disclaimer, "dear Indian patriots, ~we know
you don't like it, please don't fry us". [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>

18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=prev&oldid=114902794
, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=prev&oldid=115018387
Comment:there are desperate also those that try to build a case for
the non-presence of the horse in Neolithic India, for transparent
ideological reasons.

==AIT==
General comments: He got the article moved to AIT(history and
controversies). Late he wants to make a disambiguation page from AIT
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_Invasion_Theory_
%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=prev&oldid=113073213), splitting
the article to Indigenous Aryans, Hindutva revisionism and other
articles. Dbachmann also cannot imagine that the AIT could in any way
have been used as a moral justification for the British imperialists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=78528136&oldid=76722061
our stark raving radical Hindu blogs and 'tribute' websites. If
anything, we should do away with links such as [
http://www.atributetohinduism.com/aryan_invasion_theory.htm this ] (a
rambling anonymous writeup on some religious site):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=79274531&oldid=79274505
if it were not for the constant disruption on the part of the
propagandists. What we want to document here are notable opinions on
the socio-religious propaganda that is being handed around in India.
The topic of this article is wound up with Hindu nationalism, and it
is impossible to write an encyclopedic article about nationalism if
the nationalists are trying to write a ''nationalist'' article at the
same time. But I wish you all the best cleaning up this mess, of
course. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 16:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=83485558&oldid=83483805
I still don't see, after all this time, how the notion of an
prehistoric invasion of the Indian subcontinent (on top of the dozen
or so known historical invasions along the same route) would in any
way bolster or further chauvinist, colonialist, racist or Eurocentric
views. Seriously, I don't. I can see how the idea may be welcome to
Dravidian or Dalit campaigners, but I simply don't see any stakes in
the debate from the pov of a colonialist agenda. 193.43 appears to
just have felt like dropping a few provocative comments on a Wikipedia
talkpage. In any case I do not see any suggestion for improvement of
the article. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 19:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=94027142&oldid=94026028
(AIT), is a controversial polemical term used in [ [ Indian
politics ] ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=94026028&oldid=93943301
changes "Sites critical of AIT and/or AMT" to "examples of Hindu sites
"debunking Aryan Invasion"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=62061247&oldid=62042124
[ [ :Category:Hindutva ] ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=60326161&oldid=60324733
Those "AIT supporters" who condescend to enter into the political
debate however have also used the underlying motives of their
opponents to buttress their arguments. They believe that the other
side's polemics are motivated by a strong feeling that the Hindu
religion, with its highest texts in Vedic Sanskrit, would become less
"authentic" if it were to be accepted that the origin of this language
were outside the sacred places of the Indian subcontinent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=prev&oldid=113073951
(removes reference, no editsummary)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryans&diff=prev&oldid=113325328
. It's an awkward non-topic created as a tempoaray trashcan for
ideological chaff that gathered on the main article. We agree it's
redundant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=prev&oldid=113075092

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=prev&oldid=119705547

==OIT==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=71344786&oldid=71338352
surprisingly enough, our resident Hindutva crowd neglected to talk
about an OIT almost completerly...This is much like dealing with
biblical literalists, the hallmark of fundamentalism, and has nothing
to do with scholarship, even ''if'' the occasional scholarly source is
waved about. See 'Bakatalk' just above for a quaint example, parroting
what actual editors told him over at Witzel's article (as if we were
writing some biography here). Half of the time, these editors fail the
Turing test completely, we might as well be dealing with an armada of
chatterbots unleashed from an underground BJP headquarters :o)

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|

('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 08:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=76058900&oldid=76041247
, or we turn this into the "[ [ Hindutva propaganda and Indo-
European ] ]" article and put it in [ [ :Category:Propaganda ] ].
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=79203615&oldid=79203590
:*tag the whole article as [ [ :Category:Pseudoscience|
pseudoscientific ] ] [ [ :Category:Hindutva|Hindutva ] ]
[ [ :Category:propaganda|propaganda ] ] and be done with it

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=79852059&oldid=79846960
:rolleyes: more likely, these kids are teased because their parents
are fundamentalist loonies... [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 14:47, 6
October 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=80185005&oldid=79951163
Sen is commenting ''on'' the "AIT controvesy", he is not alleging to
have done any research of his own, he is simply commenting on the
bizarre constellation of scholarship vs. brute nationalism. His voice
thus belongs in a "political implications" section. Or, once again, we
could clean this article of all unscholarly exploits and confine those
to the one that is ostensibly about the jingoism, [ [ Aryan Invasion
Theory (history and controversies) ] ]. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 10:05, 8
October 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=82012949&oldid=82012915
we should address that, not random misguided national mysticism, try
to "de-colonialize your mind" on some other forum, WIN.

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|

('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=85675530&oldid=85675478
Frawley is a raving crackpot. Kak is a kook. Kazanas is lunatic
fringe. You listed a dozen names, which is a good start, but as your
list stands, it is a frightful hodge-podge of fringy academics and
outright cranks, [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 16:07, 4
November 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=89454243&oldid=89452346
The sad fact is that this field is teeming with raving lunatics and
chaotic dilletants, and unless we are strict, it will just degenerate
into a befuddled "Aryans were magic space aliens in 50,000 BC" type of
writeup again. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 14:57, 22
November 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=91977477&oldid=91976426
PCT is at least as respectable as OIT. The only difference being that
the latter has hosts of uninformed young nationalists touting it on
the internet, while the former is proposed by a couple of fringy but
distinguished Italian archaeologists. Until we agree that the number
of internet users that take pride in pushing the theory out of
nationalist pride is completely irrelevant, there can be no progress.
We are now getting Armenian nationalsts pushing the [ [ Armenian
hypothesis ] ], see [ [ Talk:Armenia ] ] recently, the only difference
is that there are 7 million Armenians as opposed to 700 million Indo-
Aryans, so that the incidence of nationalist propaganda on Indo-Aryan
related articles is expected to be about 100 times higher. Which is
what we indeed observe. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>

11:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=next&oldid=91791853
You are quite obviously not here for encyclopedic discussion of the
topic, but simply for unenlightening brute and boring single-topic pov
pushing. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 14:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=94492995&oldid=94490516
This is the [ [ Indigenous Aryan Theory ] ] touted by the
[ [ Bharatiya Janata Party|BJP ] ]. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>

11:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=113064608"out
of India" is *de facto* 99% inspired by ideology. (edit summary)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories&diff=prev&oldid=113819419

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=prev&oldid=113830921

==Rajput==
*guys, a little help on my "RfC"? I don't want to feed them, but
they're happily chewing away at me. If they are trolls, block them,
ok? If they are poor misguided users, teach them manners please :
( these Hindutva people are a serious problem, you see, there's any
number of them in India, and many of them have internet access. Am I
expected to singlehandedly combat bigotry in India? dab
(&#xE1;&#x9B;&#x8F;) 21:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/
IncidentArchive57

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zora&diff=32344308&oldid=32344214
you don't want to be an admin?? You are one of the most saintly
Wikipedians I know, with seemingly infinite patience, and great social
skills. I can stick around on Rajput, but I felt let down, people on
AN told me simply "don't feed the trolls". These are not simply trolls

in the narrow sense, they do not pretend to be clueless brutes, it is
difficult to believe, but I think they are fully serious. It is
pointless to waste time with them, because even if you get them to
listen to sense, there are millions of more clueless people where they
came from, and especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet
access. I feel for these people, because they are in an actual ethnic
conflict, and must feel actual hate, but I don't feel responsible for

babysitting them, Wikipedia is not for them. Seeing the state of
things, I was prepared to run a tight ship, block for PAs and reverts,
which of course resulted in [ [ Wikipedia:
Requests for comment/Dbachmann (2)|this "RfC" ] ] (where nobody
bothered to comment) and now FireFox says he considers me "involved".
Involved with protecting policy, yes, but I couldn't care less about
the topic itself. So unless I get some community backup, I cannot
speak the only language these people understand. [ [ User:Dbachmann|

dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small>

09:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=32253135&oldid=32251977
:who gave internet access to these people :( ? [ [ User:Dbachmann|

dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small>

17:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARajput&diff=32090373&oldid=32090210
deletes talk page comment by another user that is critical of
Dbachmann

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wisesabre&diff=32345338&oldid=32071223
your presence is sorely needed here. I don't expect you get many Hindu
trolls on ur:, but they really seem to flock to en:. Ultimately, they
will end up at [ [ WP:RFAr ] ] if they go on like this. Their
behaviour is more than enough for the arbcom to ban them, but somebody
has to take the time for an arbitration case. I am committed to
restoring a sane working environment at en:, where Hindus, Muslims and
"whiteboys" can work together in peace. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 10:09, 22
December 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=32011979&oldid=32005846
I read all 61 of my books and neither westerners nor muslims read any
other book (perhaps a few pages of Ibbetson was read) that they are
pushing as references. Is this really scholarship? Now this admin
blocked me for being disruptive!!! even though they are reverting the
hell out of this page, all of them. Comment:This user was blocked at
RfAr (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADbachmann&diff=32231260&oldid=32226142
Because you reverted a particular editors changes, this shows you have
a 'slight' bias to either a certain point of view, or against a
particular editor(s). [ [ User:FireFox|<span
style="color:black;cursor:crosshair;">Fir</span> ] ][ [ WP:EA|<span
style="color:green;cursor:crosshair;">e</span> ] ][ [ User
talk:FireFox|<span style="color:red;cursor:crosshair;">Fox</span> ] ]
13:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&oldid=43113774#References
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&oldid=39762172#References
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&diff=45839396&oldid=45758053
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&diff=32573451&oldid=32572907
*Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (2)
*Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann
*Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput
*Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rajput/Proposed decision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BostonMA/DBachmann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BostonMA/RegardingDBachmann

==Indo-Aryans==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryans&oldid=21642811
Origins - The spread of Indo-Aryan languages is connected with the
spread of the chariot in the first half of the second millennium BC.
Archaeologically, these cultures ultimately trace back to the
Andronovo culture and the BMAC; the separation of Indo-Aryans proper
from Proto-Indo-Iranians dates to roughly 1800 BC. The Nuristani
languages probably split in such early times, and are either
classified as remote Indo-Aryan dialects, or as an independent branch
of Indo-Iranian. By 1500 BC, Indo-Aryans had reached Assyria in the
west and the Punjab in the east. Comment:typical "neutral" start of an
article by Dbachmann

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryans&diff=prev&oldid=21560720
Comment:He deletes the anti-racist discussion, without moving them to
Aryan Race as he claims.

Probably Dbachmann as an IP sockpuppet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryans&diff=25015266&oldid=21677310
:there is no section "Origins"; you mean the "pre-Vedic" section?
details of this discussion go to the main article, [ [ Indo-Aryan
migration ] ]. What do you mean "no sources are given"? I count about
a dozen references in this short paragraph. You'll have to be specific
about what you don't like. Obviously ''everything'' is disputed in
this area. What this section is supposed to do is summarize the
mainstream scholarly view. 23:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC) 83.76.209.47

==British Raj==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=18901765
well, I wouldn't have liked to see how the Maharajas would have dealt
with the drought, without any railway to even transport the food and
all. But of course it should be mentioned. Hm, Guptadeepak, we are
here to discuss the History of India, no? I'm just pointing out where
I perceive bias, I don't intend to insert inverse bias. [ [ User:
130.60.142.65|130.60.142.65 ] ] 17:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC) Comment:This
is an apologist view of British colonialism. Trains were not charity,
they were used to economically exploit the country. Thailand had
trains too and was never colonized. Famines happen where there is no
democracy and free press.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=prev&oldid=102518344
As it happened, "India" didn't merely "overthrow" British rule, it
fell to pieces at the same moment, and the
[ [ Partition_of_India#Population_exchanges|pieces jumped at each
other's throat ] ] without delay. Not exactly the image of a
downtrodden but proud people finally rid of their cruel oppressor
living happily ever after, as it's frequently depicted on these
talkpages. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 21:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=prev&oldid=98186204
Comment: Deletes the word "democratic". Changes: India emerged as a
modern democratic [ [ nation-state ] ] in 1947, after it overthrew
foreign occupation by widespread use of [ [ nonviolent resistance ] ]
as a means of social protest.
to:Politically controlled by the [ [ British East India Company ] ]
from the early 18th century and directly administered by [ [ British
raj|Great Britain ] ] starting the mid-19th century, India became a
modern [ [ nation-state ] ] in 1947 after a struggle for independence
Edit summary:("democracy" is not the logical opposite of "occupation".
nothing wrong with the previous version.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=102639997&oldid=102639270
as I understand it, the idea is that people would like to phrase the
brief reference to British rule in India so as to imply illegality. If
"colonisation of Inda" doesn't do that for you, I would suggest
'''"gardual annexation of India"'''. The "gradual" is necessary
because the entities annexed were individual princely states, which
were indeed "annexed", and I put it to you that this term should have
sufficient connotations of illegal military conquest to satisfy your
patriotic feelings. I put it to you that a unified India would not
have been possible without the British, and that your very pan-Indian
patriotism ultimately owes its existence to said "annexation", without
which the subcontinent would as likely as not still be fragmented into
so many princely states, but this isn't for us to establish here.

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|

(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 10:44, 23 January 2007
(UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=86235850
Hindu nationalists will likely be more actively anti-Islamic, because
that conflict is actively ongoing, but they also feed on a lot of anti-
Christian conspiracy theories, and paranoia related to the British
Raj. A lot of British infrastructure and organisation went into
building modern India, and among fanatics of Hindu purity and
superiority, this seems to have triggered some sort of schizophrenia,
triggering strange fantasies of evil Christian conspiracies vs.
millennia of monolithic "Aryan" civilization. These are just the
lunatic fringes I meet when dealing with ancient history, I am not
saying this is anything like an openly mainstream mindset (at least I
hope not). [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 08:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC) (He also
deletes a reply to his post
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=86248870)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poverty_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=363201376

==Arya==
The article "Arya" which existed for a long time was merged upon
Dbachmann's suggestion into the "Aryan" article.

==Aryan==
The use of the term to designate speakers of all Indo-European
languages in scholarly usage is now regarded by some scholars as an
"aberration to be avoided."
Comment:This sentence is ironically sourced to Witzel, a linguist who
still believes in a racial, not only cultural meaning, of the term.
Not sure who addded the sentence.

Notions of an elite "Aryan race" only survive in nationalist contexts,
to include White nationalism, Indian nationalism and Iranian
nationalism.
Comment: Of course for the Hindus Aryan does not refer to "Aryan
race". Not sure who added the sentence.

In present-day India, the original ethno-linguistic signifier has been
less emphasized, the denotation having been semantically supplemented
by other, secondary, meanings—the term is widely used in India in
the names of business enterprises.
Comment: Of course these "secondary" meanings were also in earlier
important, for instance in Buddhism. Not sure who aded the sentence.



==India and Indians==
General comments:Some editors wanted to move the India article to
Republic of India, and to merge Hindu to Hinduism.
Dbachmann is obsessed with wanting to move the India article to
Republic of India, and (together with other editors, including Paul
Barlow) also claims that India was not in existence before the
British. Even it was technically true, it is irrelevant, as modern
nation states did not actually exist back then as they do now,
including what is now China. There was a generally Indic civilization
and culture spread throughout most of the subcontinent, which is what
we refer to when speaking of "India" and "Indians" in that time
context. Apart from that, some Indian pre-British Indian states did
cover a surprisingly large area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&oldid=68603136#Reply_to_your_.22stop_harassing_me.22_comment_in_my_talk_page
mediapersons? haha, Bharatveer, I assure you I had only the best image
of Indians before I met the 'fundies' on Wikipedia. Needless to say, I
do not assume that anything like most Indians have your sort of
paranoia. Again, I am not interested in the "de-colonization of the
Hindu mind" and anything of that sort, I am not interested in your
anxieties, and I am not interested in you. I am just asking you to
leave me alone: I am editing articles on topics in which I am
competent and you are not. Some of them just happen to impinge on the
ancient history of India: I am very much interested in the Bronze Age,
and I am qualified to write about ancient history and comparative
linguistics. It figures that you should feel so strongly about my
comment about "clueless Indians" since you are obviously one of them.
This has nothing to do with anti-Indian sentiment, since I obviously
recognize that there is plenty of cluelessness in any nation on earth.
But I happen to find, empirically, here on Wikipeida, that in few
other fields is cluelessness force-fed to people quite as obstinately
as in India-related articles. I don't know the reasons for this, and I
am not interested in them, I just want it to stop. I still don't know
what is so objectionable about my famous comment. The fact that I
recognize that India is so technologically advanced that even remote
rural areas (aka 'shitholes') are going online? thank you, now stop
smearing me all over the place. dab (&#xE1;&#x9B;&#x8F;) 16:25, 7
August 2006 (UTC)
Comment:It is hard not to read this other than as a personal attack on
another editor, essentially calling that editor a 'clueless indian'.
This comment is rude and insulting to the editor involved. DBachmann
acknowledges that there are clueless people of other nationalities.
However, even under the assumption that the editor involved is
clueless as alleged, it is unnecessary in Wikipedia to make such
direct insults, and so it is equally unnecessary to mention the
nationality of the editor involved.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=prev&oldid=100865784
India as in "Ancient India" is neither a nation nor a state but a
[ [ region ] ].

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=104665554&oldid=104663691
alright, I begin to see the problem. This article is in a deadlock.
you'd mention another couple of dances or festivals rather than
characterize the main political powers in India? ''Dances and
festivals''?? Why not flora and fauna, common diseases and cuisine,
and popular expletives? (and I note this is always about BJP, no
objection to labelling the INC as left-center? BJP is your standard,
run-of-the-mill nationalist party, just like FN in France). If you
mention one fact about Indian politics, it will be the fundamental
divide between these two blocks. I can see where this is going.
Groping for any argument that is handy instead of coming clear with
your agenda is not a very clever trick, and it is not good faith
editing. You will find that until you decide to enter a bona fide
discussion with F&f et al., all you will acheive is just freezing this
article. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(&#xF0;&#
x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 20:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Comment:FN
in France is a xenophobic, racist party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=152645685

what's happening? Are summer holidays over at American high schools,

and all the ABCD trolls flocking back to give Wikipedia grief? --

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(ð’ ³) ] ]</

small> 07:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC) (ABCD is a slur, ABCD=American Born
Confused Desi)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=next&oldid=104627136
Your BJP example might be a little disingenious, but fwiiw, I agree we
shouldn't waste space on heaping up adjectives. BJP is notable for
being ''nationalist far-right''. That's 21 characters, and if we're
going to mention BJP at all, these 21 characters are well invested for
pointing out why we do. As it is, the politics section doesn't make
clear the nature of the BJP intermezzo. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>

18:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Comment:Far right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bharatveer&diff=68194382&oldid=68181618
stop harassing me. I am not anti-Hindu or anti-Indian: I have no
interest in Indian politics, and only limited interest in contemporary
Hinduism. I would just like to contribute to articles on ancient Indo-
Iranian texts in peace, and in accordance with academic mainstream. If
you think that scholarly discussion of the history of India and
Hinduism is "anti-Indian" or "anti-Hindu", that is entirely your own
problem. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 14:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caucasian_race&diff=prev&oldid=10196890
Indians are referred to as Caucasian? really? see [ [ :Image:Map of
skin color distribution.gif ] ] according to which East Asians have a
lighter complexion that Indians. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] 12:22, 23
Nov 2004 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=112045276
But I cannot help but note that while we get a lot of Hindu editors,
depressingly the vast majority appears to be entirely clueless,
without editorial skills to speak of (a language problem, I suppose),
and bent on piling on rambling nonsense. I really appreciate if you
can invest some effort into patrolling these articles and remove the
more obvious crust of the piled up rambling. .. I suggest you try a
similar approach with the articles you mention. [ [ User:Dbachmann|

dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</

small> 10:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=113272459
Nothing like the tag team of nationalist trolls that are pushing this
RfC. I'll be very happy to accept any outside evaluation of the
"manuscript" case, no RfC is necessary, just use [ [ Talk:Illustrated
manuscript ] ]. The real problem are the bunch of Hindu ideologist
editors who insist their [ [ cargo cult science ] ] is as good as any
other science, and go ad hominem when their attempts are exposed. Let
us not let Wikipedia become a platform for ethnic nationalism. If we
had a half-dozen of German editors RfCing me because I tried to expose
[ [ Nordic theory ] ] as pseudoscientific nonsense and suppressing
fringe authors arguing there may be something to it in spite of
everything, they would be blocked as trolls in five minutes. Can we
please apply the same measure to all flavours of racist nonsense and
ethnic supremacism? [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#

x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 08:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=136286520

the only people that care about [ [ Indian mathematics ] ] are Indians

with a collective inferiority complex. And we both know that the less
educated or self-assured you are, the more aggressively you will push
your national honour on the most absurd points. Our problem is not

with real kooks so much as with second-generation expatriate youths
who are shedding their testosterone properly intended for tribal
warfare in front of the screen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=316463211&oldid=316463090

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=285056814&oldid=285048572
you are right. The articles [[Hindu-Arabic numeral system]], [[Arabic

numerals]] and [[Indian numerals]] have been kept separate in order to
appease the angry young Hindu editors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxist_historiography&diff=prev&oldid=336035272

*Talk:Ancient Egypt, Talk:Afrocentrism
On these and related sites, Dbachmann complains that while White
Nationalists are not respected on Wikipedia, the Black Afrocentrists
are too much tolerated on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADaGizza&diff=80372423&oldid=80363316
too often I am accused of being a clueless meddling whiteboy by Hindus
for being involved in areas where I ''do'' have expertise.
Comment:I take objection to his comment which could not unreasonably
be construed as suggesting that Hindu editors of wikipedia are racist.
I would also like to point out that if Dbachmann suffers from a
negative image among some editors, that he might be able to attenuate
that negative image by accepting that it is inappropriate behavior for
him to make comments such as his "It figures that you should feel so
strongly about my comment about 'clueless Indians' since you are
obviously one of them." Of course it is unlikely that Hindus have
called him a "whiteboy" (he offers no link), but he may have been
called "clueless". I will not comment on his so-called "expertise",
the said user is of course also known for his many obvious factual
mistakes, but this text is only concerned about bias, not about
factual mistakes, in line with Wikipedia's policy of "assume good
faith". It is in any case well known that wikipedia's pov-warriors are
rather ignorant of the subjects they edit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbachmann/Parliamentary_nationalism
(makes a list that attempts to show that India has the most
nationalists in any country. He does this by including moderate center-
right parties (BJP, wich was the ruling party some years ago) for
India, while for all other countries he only includes extreme far-
right parties without any of the other rightist and conservative
parties. No wonder then that in Dab's statistic countries which are
effectively ruled by a right-wing goverenment like Berlusconi's Italy
rank lower than India.)
Parliaments listed by the fraction of nationalist parties
* >27% India (2004) BJP 22.16% Nationalist Trinamool Congress
2.07%, Shiv Sena 1.81%, Nationalist Congress Party 1.80% + others
* 22.1% Turkey (2007) Nationalist Movement Party 14.3%, Motherland
Party (Turkey) 3.7%, Young Party 3.5%, Great Union Party 0.6% (not
counting Republican People's Party (Turkey) 11.9%)
* 12.7% Italy (2006) National Alliance (Italy) 11.5%, Social
Alternative 1.2%
* 12.3% Russia (2003) Rodina/Fair Russia 9.2% + 1.9% + 1.2%
* 9.5% Poland (2005) League of Polish Families 8.0%, Patriotic
Movement 1.1%, Polish National Party 0.3%, National Rebirth of Poland
0.1%
* 8.2% Spain (2004) Convergence and Unity 3.3%, Basque Nationalist
Party 1.6%, Canarian Coalition 0.9%, Galician Nationalist Bloc
0.8%,Andalucista Party 0.7%, Aragonese Council 0.4%, Basque Solidarity
0.3%, Navarra Yes 0.2%
* 5.5% France (2007), National Front (France) 4.29%, Movement for
France 1.2%
* 3.5% UK (2005), SNP 1.5%, BNP 0.7%, Sinn Féin 0.6%, Plaid Cymru
0.6%
* 3.0% Sweden (2006) Sweden Democrats 2.93%, National Democrats
(Sweden) 0.06%
* 2.3% Greece (2004) Popular Orthodox Rally 2.2%, Hellenic Front
0.1%
* 1.6% Germany (2005), NPD
* 1.0% Switzerland (2003), SD




==Islam and Islamism==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Development_Front&diff=109282314&oldid=109101755
They may well be a "militant Islamist" group, I wouldn't know, but
before we're not going to state that as a fact if it is disputed. As
it is, we don't even have a source that calls them "militant
Islamist". One article calls them as "shadowy outfit", and I don't
doubt they are. But usually, you can tell a group is "militant
Islamist" because they tell you they are, waving rifles and shouting a
lot. A group that does ''not'' self-identify as militant Islamist
shouldn't be so called lightly, certainly not on WP.

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|

(&#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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor&diff=prev&oldid=26509161Comment:Supports
adminship of an Islamist and Anti-Hindu editor
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonymous_editor&diff=34219045&oldid=34214560
ah, congratulations! I hadn't followed RFAs recently, or I would have
supported you, of course. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 07:45, 7
January 2006 (UTC)Comment:Supports adminship of an Islamist and Anti-
Hindu editor

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TerryJ-Ho&diff=93348674&oldid=93314836
[ [ Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/
Proposed_decision#TerryJ-Ho_banned|this ] ] is appalling. A user with
a clean reputation is given the same penalty as the confirmed
returning insidious Hindutva sockpuppeteer from hell? For ''pointing
out'' that the user is the returning insidious Hindutva sockpuppeteer
from hell, a circumstance that the arbcom
[ [ Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/
Proposed_decision#Sockpuppets_2|acknowledges ] ] on the very same
page? Do arbcommers even read cases anymore, or do they simply sign
where it says "support". All sorts edit Wikipedia. Including fascists.
I know ''I'' have called fascists fascists on-wiki. Thank you arbcom,
I am sure people will be really motivated to stand up against fascist
editors seeing that they will be treated as one and the same. So
TerryJ-Ho was incivil? Towards an obnoxious sockpuppeteer that has
cost Wikipedia dozens of wasted man-hours? Well,
ban him for 24 hours, then, or for a week at most, but this is simply
out of proportion. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>

11:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Comment:Defends Islamist and Anti-Hindu
editor against the Hindutva editor from Hell

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=prev&oldid=93349140
==arbcom sheep votes==
I would be interested in your opinion on [ [ User_talk:TerryJ-
Ho#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FHkelkar_2|this ] ]. It appears
to me that the arbcom in their anxiety to ''appear'' even-handed mete
out symmetric penalties for very asymmetric offenses. I understand
their approach, too, that's why I wouldn't want an arbcom office. But
by cracking down on anti-ideological vigilants they are seriously
harming WP's immunity system preventing us from becoming a propaganda
hosting service. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>

11:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment:Defends Islamist and Anti-Hindu editor

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nadirali&diff=107604019&oldid=107603239
This strikes me as an "anti-Pakistani" RfAr. It is an open secret that
WP has Pakistani vs. Indian tag teams pitted against one another. This
makes it very tedious and frustrating for neutral editors to get
anything done, and it would be the job of the arbcom to implement
sanctions that allow admins to deal swiftly and effectively with such
unproductive behaviour. As such, this RfAr is necessary. But surely
the arbcom doesn't want to rehash "India vs. Pakistan" with a sleuth
of different usernames every four weeks. The pattern of the problem
should be recognized and addressed. You would expect that a good faith
RfAr would list both sides of the Indo/Pak divide, but as it happens,
only Pak editors are accused, while the Indian team isn't so much as
mentioned. Both sides are misbehaving (Unre4l was particularly
hilarious, while the Indian team acheiving an essential deadlock on
[ [ India ] ] recently), and both should
be reviewed. Feel free to cite this diff in your "statement" section
as my outside view (there is no third party comments section at this
stage). regards, [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>

17:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_Ram_Janmabhoomi_attack_in_Ayodhya&diff=prev&oldid=116756605
Removes [ [ :Category:Islamist terrorism ] ] Edit summary:(correct me,
but "Islamist terror" would be unlikely to target a mosque?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NDF&diff=prev&oldid=116755338
(deletes militant, compare with his edits in "Hindutva" articles)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communalism_%28South_Asia
%29&diff=prev&oldid=116756269)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communalism_%28South_Asia%29&diff=prev&oldid=116755077

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindutva&diff=prev&oldid=117956193

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Understanding_Islam_through_Hadis&diff=prev&oldid=118284029
Deletes that the book is a study on the Sahih Muslim, adds: The book
is an [ [ anti-Muslim ] ] florilegium from a [ [ Hindu nationalist ] ]
perspective on the [ [ Sahih Muslim ] ], the second most important
collection of [ [ Hadith ] ]s, and as such part of the
"[ [ communalism (South Asia)|communalist ] ]" culture war in India.
Deletes [ [ :Category:Islamic studies books ] ]


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=104865215&oldid=104802496
In this context, the notion of "indigenous" Hinduism vs.
"invasive" [ [ Islam ] ] is employed to fan hostility between the
adherents of these religions. (POV, if not Original research)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&oldid=94506740
and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&diff=110032195&oldid=110030708
and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryan_Theory&oldid=110314277
It is designed as the ideological counterpart of .... the conflict
between [ [ Hinduism ] ] and [ [ Islam in India ] ] on the other hand
(the main religious division of the Republic of India). The implicit
argument is that "Indigenous Aryans" take away any claim of priority
from ... while at the same time facilitating the portrayal of Islam as
a recent and "foreign" [ [ Islamic conquest of India|violent
intrusion ] ] into a monolithic and immutable native Indo-Aryan
(Hindu) culture of incalculable antiquity. (POV, if not Original
research)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=79618625
The relation of Hindu to Hindutva is about the same as [ [ Islam ] ]
to [ [ Islamism ] ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindutva&diff=prev&oldid=117526105
POV (claims that Golwalkar was a Nazi supporter, a very disputed (and
probably wrong) view, compares him with an "Islamist"...)

[Michael Ross]

==Hindutva==
(Wants to merge Hindu nationalism into Hindutva)
Often uses neologisms like "Hindu nationalist mysticism", a term which
can be interpreted as national socialism
Hint: Count how many times the word Hindutva occurs

*Category:Hindutva created by Dbachmann, who OTOH thinks that the
category of another politicized neologism, "Eurabia", should be
deleted. Compare with Eurocentrism, which he claims does not exist
(although he himself is proof to the contrary, with his and his
fellows constant minimizing of non-European, non-Arabian cultures,
science and history and by cultural chauvinism). (Hindutva is a
neologism, and often pejorative term), Articles added to category by
Dbachmann: Dayananda Sarasvati, Tilak, The Rigveda-A Historical
Analysis, AIT, BJP. (He puts the wrong Dayananda Saraswati into the
Hindutva category, as he is not aware that there other famous Hindus
with the same name.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=prev&oldid=104628966
national parties like the center-left [ [ Indian National
Congress ] ], the nationalist far-right [ [ Bharatiya Janata
Party ] ],

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=prev&oldid=104628987

BJP is notable for being ''nationalist far-right''.

Comment:far right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=prev&oldid=104825849
If the BJP is merely "conservative", I would venture, George W. Bush
is a renaissance humanist. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>

12:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_Vedic_religion&diff=23333011&oldid=23332932
Arguments from Astronomy, or, worse, geology (Sarasvati), are usually
worthless Hindutva red herrings, and at best circumstantial evidence
(see the ''Pleiades'' reference in the [ [ Rigveda ] ] article
[ http://users.primushost.com/~india/ejvs/ejvs0502/ejvs0502.txt ]).

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|

('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 09:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=79618625
When I use the term ''[ [ Hindutva ] ]'' I am referring to the
fanatical/fundamentalist [ [ national mysticism|national
mysticists ] ]. "Hindutva" is a recent and artificial term and refers
to precisely this attitude, combining Hinduism with extremist right-
wing nationalist politics: The relation of Hindu to Hindutva is about

the same as [ [ Islam ] ] to [ [ Islamism ] ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindutva&diff=prev&oldid=111849531
Central concepts of Hindutva surround [ [ National mysticism ] ] and
the notion of "[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ]"...These notions correspond
to an [ [ irredentist ] ] and [ [ jingoist ] ] stance in questions of
contemporary [ [ Indian politics ] ]...* emphasizing historical
oppression of [ [ Hindu ] ]s...and the call to "reverse" the influence
resulting from these intrusions...* denunciation of [ [ British
colonialism ] ] and [ [ Communism ] ] alike for a perceived weakening
of [ [ Hindu ] ]s...* The irredentist call...* denunciation of the
[ [ Government of India|Indian government ] ] as too passive

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindutva&diff=prev&oldid=112039750
and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindutva&diff=prev&oldid=112081385
Central concepts of Hindutva surround [ [ National mysticism ] ] and
the notion of "[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ]" These notions correspond to
an [ [ irredentist ] ] and [ [ ethnic nationalism|ethnic
nationalist ] ] stance in questions of contemporary [ [ Indian
politics ] ]:
Edit summary:which term is pejorative here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vedic_Science_%28Hindutva%29&diff=prev&oldid=118514360
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudo-scientific_currents_in_Hindutva_propaganda&diff=prev&oldid=117987737
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_extremism&diff=prev&oldid=113839573
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindutva_propaganda&diff=prev&oldid=112791356
(possible move target)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindutva_revisionism&diff=prev&oldid=112791376
(possible move target)
Comment:wants to create article "Hindutva revisionism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindutva:_Who_is_a_Hindu%3F&diff=prev&oldid=113057355
identifying Hindus with the inheritors of a postulated [ [ Aryan
race ] ] "[ [ indigenous Aryans|indigenous ] ]" to [ [ Greater
India ] ]. {{cquote|the [ [ Aryan ] ]s who settled in India at the
dawn of history already formed a nation, now embodied in the
Hindus.... Hindus are bound together not only by the tie of the love
they bear to a common fatherland and by the common blood that courses
through their veins and keeps our hearts throbbing and our affection
warm but also by the tie of the common homage we pay to our great
civilisation, our Hindu culture."|(p. 108)}}Comment:false statement,
selective quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hindu_nationalism&diff=prev&oldid=113070461
the article certainly needs constant monitoring and cleanup. The only
topic with a comparable activity of nationalist editors is the
[ [ Macedonia ] ] complex. It also needs to be merged to
[ [ Hindutva ] ], since, by both articles' admission, the terms are
used interchangeably (see section above). [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xEF;&#xBF;&#x153;) ] ]</small>

14:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_nationalism&diff=prev&oldid=113072125
Deletes: The early Congress leaders like [ [ Bal Gangadhar Tilak ] ]
wanted a free and united nation, with recognition of Indian heritage;
and worked towards a consciousness liberated from foreign cultural and
political intrusions. But owing to the separatist politics of the
[ [ Muslim League ] ], a different expression arose in the era that
was specifically Hindu. Many Hindus harbored negative emotions as many
great Hindu temples, monuments and communities had been savaged by
pogroms conducted by Muslim rulers like [ [ Babar ] ],
[ [ Aurangzeb ] ], [ [ Nadir Shah ] ], [ [ Muhammad Ghori ] ],
[ [ Mahmud of Ghazni ] ], [ [ Timur Lame ] ] and [ [ Ahmad Shah
Abdali ] ]. Changes Hindu to Hindu nationalist movements: Hindu
nationalist movements desired freedom not only from European
[ [ colonialism ] ], but also wanted to avoid a return [ [ Muslim
conquest in the Indian subcontinent|Muslim rule ] ].

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=113270678
I don't know how this is an "incident", but I could certainly do with
some admins backing up my eternal struggle with our resident
propagandists. Help prevent Wikipedia from becoming a platform for
national mysticism and shoddy pseudo-scholarship (um, more than it
already is, that is). Look into [ [ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/
Indigenous Aryan Theory ] ] and [ [ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/
Nicholas Kazanas ] ] while you're at it. It will also be instructive
to review block log and contribs of {{vandal|Sisodia}} (was involved
in an arbcom case within two weeks of his registring). [ '''Yes''',
this is a call for you to get involved here. Don't leave me sitting in
it for another two months, and then ''tsk'' me disapprovingly as you
find me in the middle of a ring of screaming Indian patriots two monts
from now ] Thanks, [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#

x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 07:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=113289909
There ''is'' a Hindutva propaganda being sneaked onto Wikipedia, and
we ''have'' to be vigilant about this. Bona fide points sympathetic to
the propagandists can still be made, but they will have to be
scrutinized with extra care. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>

10:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=113290191
There ''is'' a Hindutva campaign to instrumentalize Wikipedia (mainly
implemented by your typical young male Indian American
("[ [ ABCD ] ]") engineering or math student), and we ''have'' to be
vigilant about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saffron_%28disambiguation%29&diff=prev&oldid=113837754

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=next&oldid=180371779

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_pseudoscience&diff=prev&oldid=117608297
Of course this article was created under pressure and harassment from
our Hindutva troll(s)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_extremism&diff=prev&oldid=117714861
Hindutva *is* our article on "Hindu extremism")

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_nationalism&diff=prev&oldid=118262556
(pov change)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindutva&diff=121427542&oldid=121425871
(pov, e.g. [ [ :Category:Propaganda in India ] ]
[ [ :Category:Pseudoscience ] ][ [ :Category:Historical revisionism
(political) ] ][ [ :Category:National mysticism ] ]
[ [ :Category:Hindutva|Pseudoscience ] ])

Dbachmann tries again to make the case that Islamic and Christian
fundamentalism is just the same as political Hinduism, as usual he
tries to establish a moral equivalence between political Hinduism and
Islamism, the latter being responsible for the deaths of literally
hundreds of thousands of people around the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hindutva&diff=270179739&oldid=270179489

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=438735938&oldid=438735610#Gandhi
The usual tired cliches about how it is the RSS that starts riots, the
RSS should hold readings of the Quran (which actually also critics of
Islam find would be a good idea, and why does the same not count for
Muslims?), and how the British gave railways and the Indians should
therefore be thankful for colonialism (the railroads were used for
economic exploitation), and also claiming he also or even primarly
focuses on European fascism, while it is clear that on wikipedia he is
only obsessed by Hindu (and to a smaller degree, afrocentric)
nationalism.

==Arya Samaj==

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swami_Dayananda_Saraswati&diff=prev&oldid=117527012
Dayananda and his Arya Samaj provide the ideological underpinnings of
the [ [ Hindutva ] ] movement of the 20th century,
Comment:Is he against Hinduism AND Hindutva, as they are the same?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arya_Samaj&diff=prev&oldid=117527582
The doctrines of Arya Samaj are identified as [ [ religious
fundamentalism ] ] by Ruthven (2007:108).
[ [ :Category:Fundamentalism ] ]



==Hindutva Propaganda==
Comment: Edit history was deleted. Typical non-neutral pov article.
Keywords: Hindutva,pseudoscience, pseudohistory, pseudoarchaeology,
Hindu fundamentalism ethnic nationalism, Nazi blood and soil
mysticism,revisionist literature, saffronized textbooks and curricula.
Article contained pov against Dayanada, Vivekanda, Voice of India,
Aditya Prakashan, B.B Lal, S.R. Rao, B.K. Thapar, S.P. Gupta,
Savarkar, Golwalkar etc. (e.g. Dayananda's writings are recognized as
having an element of religious fundamentalism.) He has also protected
the article after editing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia_and_nationalism/Hindutva_and_pseudoscience

Of notable influence were the writings of Swami Dayananda Sarasvati
and Swami Vivekananda. Dayananda Saraswati rejected...Dayananda's

writings are recognized as having an element of religious

fundamentalism....In 1900, Vivekananda said that ....n conjunction

with the relativist revisionism outlined above, most of the
revisionist literature being published by the firms Voice of Dharma

and Aditya Prakashan......A. Ghosh, Bhan (p. 24) sees a rise in pseudo-
scientific conclusions in emotional subjects like the "Archaeology of
the Ramayana" by archaeologists such as B.B. Lal and S.P. Gupta. After
1990, "tradition-based archaeology" intensified, with scholars such as
B.B Lal, S.R. Rao and B.K. Thapar .......Guha (2005) sees a rise in
exploitation of archaeology for nationalist purposes in the wake of
the 1992 destruction of the Babri Mosque and the ensuing "Ayodhya
debate.....Voice of India and Aditya Prakashan are at the center of
the allegations a cottage industry indulging in historical revisionism
put forward
by Michael Witzel .....


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NCERT_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=117970868

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=119127986
This is an exposition of the fringe literature that is being pushed by
authors with a Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_propaganda&diff=prev&oldid=119238426



http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_propaganda&diff=prev&oldid=119456775
''comment''', can we close this AfD as undignified mudslinging? It
does nothing but parade our resident and well-known "pov brigade"
voting "delete" in unison. Not interesting, not the point of AfD, not
flattering for anyone involved. Support your cherished pov by citing
academic sources, not by on-wiki campaigning. [ [ User:Dbachmann|

dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_propaganda&diff=prev&oldid=119670872

*indeed. The editors at [ [ Nazi propaganda ] ] having the advantage
of being able to build the article in peace without a bunch of Nazis
pulling it down and indulging in general trolling hoping to confuse
the unsuspecting reader. If our merry Hindutva band could behave for a
few days, maybe we could make some actual progress. [ [ User:Dbachmann|

dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</

small> 07:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_propaganda&diff=prev&oldid=119738975
if this is the case, I wonder why Wikipedia sees so much blatant abuse
by pro-Hindutva editors, while I still have to see any trolling
perpetrated by anti-Hindutva communalists (yeah, so there was {{user|
John945}}, poor soul, no question the result of a concerted propaganda
campaign by the united Marxist anti-BJP forces of India). I would love
to believe poor Hindutvavadis are just the victim of anti-Hindu
propaganda, but the only people making fools of themselves by trying
to sell pathetic and blatant propaganda on Wikipedia happen to be pro-
Hindutva. Anti-Hindu conspracy or no, the article in question isn't
based on India-based Marxist media outlets, it is based on academic
publications. Refute it by citing other academic publications if you
can, but stop trying to conduct the debate on-wiki. [ [ User:Dbachmann|

dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</

small> 15:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Comment:One only sees what one wants
to see.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_propaganda&diff=prev&oldid=119949527
the only hate I can see here is that of the rag-tag band of
nationalist pov-pushers preferring to troll AfD over doing actual work
and constructive editing.

*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindutva propaganda The result was
delete, who have a rough consensus and have put up and argued a much
stronger argument in this debate, based on official policy. The
responses to the delete comments based on NPOV and OR were less than
satisfactory, and judging the article in the present and in the near
future, I cannot see these concerns being fixed anytime soon, if at
all. (compare this AFD with AFD of Nicholas Kazanas, Bias in South
Asian Studies)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=121001448
[ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindutva propaganda|this ] ]
deletion by {{user|Daniel.Bryant}} is nothing short of scandalous.
There is nothing like a "consensus", and about half of the delete
votes are from single-topic or trolling accounts. (Also says somewhere
on ANI that an editor who voted in the AFD and commented on ANI is not
neutral in this because he is Hindu)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel.Bryant&diff=121007676&oldid=121007522
You have deleted a well referenced article based on a blatantly bad
faith AfD, where half of the "delete" votes were from pov-pushing
accounts,This is a disheartening precedent of Wikipedia caving in
under the sustained Hindutva attack, and I care enough about the
project's immunity from ideological subversion to take your decision
all the way to arbcom if necessary. regards, [ [ User:Dbachmann|

dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#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"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_pseudoscience_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=117954197

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_9


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:Nobleeagle/Archive12: The
present "supporters" are a Greek Yoga teacher, personal friend of the
main source of contempoary Hindutva pseudoscience, and the author of
Saffron Swastika...What do you want? There can be no disputing that
the topic is spammed by unscholarly mysticism. The blatant
contraditions between the various "indigenous Aryans" scenarios makes
this more than evident. If your intention is really to obscure the
existence of such blatant propaganda stunts, ..


==Saffronization==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saffronization&diff=prev&oldid=113839144
deletes: "an [ [ anti-Hindu ] ] slur by [ [ far left ] ] and
[ [ Islamist ] ] groups, such as when addressing allegations of
[ [ Hindu nationalist ] ] bias in education or otherwise "imposing
Hindu Law" in society."

==Saffron terror==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saffron_terror&diff=337041233&oldid=337039346
deletes:
The word is most often used and in a sense coined by the secular
political parties and the academia to counter-balance Islamic
terror,<ref>[http://www.dailypioneer.com/137435/Wages-of-politics-of-
cynicism.html Wages of politics of cynicism] The Pioneer, November 28,
2008</ref> so that the muslim population are not selectively blamed.

==Indus Valley Civilization==

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indus_Valley_Civilization&diff=7779795&oldid=7778585
this kind of statement makes me cringe. It's about as unscientiic as
you can get. They practically admit that there is a desired outcome,
rather than subscribing to neutral research. [ [ User:Dbachmann|
dab ] ] 10:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

===Indus script===

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indus_script&diff=63583711&oldid=63071841
===Amateur research===The topic is popular among amateur researchers,
and there are various decipherment claims. Several authors, such as
[ [ Shikaripura Ranganatha Rao|S. R. Rao ] ] and R. Hasenpflug (2006
[ http://www.indus-civilization.info ]), have attempted to prove that
the script encodes [ [ Vedic Sanskrit ] ]. These theories are not
accepted by most scholars.
Comment:Puts Kak and others under Amateur research, but of course not
the (non-mainstream view) Farmer-Witzel paper

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indus_script&diff=68073259&oldid=68072105
indeed. Kak is, as always, creating so much hot air beside the point.
Should be ignored. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 21:42, 6
August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indus_script&diff=69023713&oldid=69023509
Kak is a sophisticated kook with 'renaissance man' aspirations.

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|

('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 14:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indus_script&diff=75693611&oldid=75433949
I think our hero is a [ [ User talk:212.192.128.4|kubannet.ru
customer ] ] situated in Moscow :) [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 12:52, 14
September 2006 (UTC)




==Sarasvati River==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarasvati_River&diff=prev&oldid=25126124
It's just the conflating with the name "Sarasvati", a Hindutva
idiosyncrasy, that makes the whole thing confusing. I have no problem
with saying that Hindutva scholars make the identification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rigvedic_rivers&diff=prev&oldid=51236142
A minority opinion ascribes the loss of prominence of the Sarasvati to
the dring up of the Ghaggar-Hakra

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarasvati_River&diff=prev&oldid=25013544
and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarasvati_River&diff=prev&oldid=25011909
Comment:Probably Dbachmann as IP sockpuppet (83.76.209.47) who exports
part (but according to talkpage not all) of the text to another
article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarasvati_River&diff=prev&oldid=25126124
However, this article consistently confuses arguments abut the Ghaggar-
Hakra River with arguments about the ''Vedic'' Sarasvati River as
described in the texts. Sure there can be a short section discussing
the proposed identification. But details about IVC archaeology and
geology should go to the Ghaggar-Hakra article.
Also, did you read the information that was "deleted"? There were
about five paragraphs saying exactly the same thing, along the lines
of "recent satellite picutures, 500 IVC settlements, etc.". This stuff
should be stated once, coherently, on the Ghaggar-Hakra article; this
is not even disputed material, everybody believes (I think) that there
were settlements along the River pre-2500 BC. It's just the conflating
with the name "Sarasvati", a Hindutva idiosyncrasy, that makes the
whole thing confusing. I have no problem with saying that Hindutva
scholars make the identification. But the discussion of archaeology
doesn't belong here: this is what we mean by the "principle of least
surprise": Assume somebody is interested in IVC archaeology; they
would expect this information in an article about IVC archaeology and
geography of Pakistan, not in some article about Vedic texts.
[ [ User:Baad|Baad ] ] 10:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment:Dbachmann replies for his probable IP sockpuppet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarasvati_River&diff=prev&oldid=114507399
, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarasvati_River&diff=prev&oldid=114746860
, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarasvati_River&diff=prev&oldid=116278548

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarasvati_River&diff=prev&oldid=115285768





==Ashvamedha==

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashvamedha&diff=108048430&oldid=108046283
:Kak again :) you may not have noted that we have [ [ Subhash Kak|an
article on the man ] ]. It's mostly vanity, he's been editing it
himself. Still, I wonder this book hasn't been brought up before, all
we had so far was some blog posting of his. A book is certainly better
than a blog posting, even if its author is a crank with an ego problem
("acclaimed" indeed :) [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>

10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashvamedha&diff=108053026&oldid=108051675
:I'm not sure we should drag this article too deep into
pseudoscholarly kookery. Wikipedia doesn't ''have'' to cite every
village idiot. I'm sure you'll put it into context, but I fear it will
open the gates to crapflooding the article. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xEF;&#xBF;&#x153;) ] ]</small>

11:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashvamedha&diff=109070631&oldid=109050979
:::[ [ Indigenous Aryans ] ] is really intended as the equivalent of
[ [ Elvis sightings ] ] in this topic. We do not give a full list of
"sightings" on [ [ Elvis ] ], and similarly, stuff like Kak's belongs
there, not here. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>

14:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashvamedha&diff=109050979&oldid=108976328
this is quite rich. I was so far prepared to assume that Kak is a bona
fide engineer that just happens to dabble in Arya-Samaj-style "Vedic"
kookery. But the relativity thing seems to establish that the guy is a
complete fake beginning to end. No egineer worth his salt would spout
such nonsense about general relativity. As it happens, we do have a
full page "devoted to his kookery", it's at [ [ Subhash Kak ] ]. It
appears it does need a bit of cleanup, since it seems to depict him as
a serious researcher (and poet, of course). We'd also need to check if
there is such a thing as a "[ [ Kak neural network ] ]". The article
seems to rely on citations of Kak himself to establish that there is a
type of neural network named after Kak. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>

11:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashvamedha&diff=102963396&oldid=102962593
Kak is well known for producing nonsense as if his life depended on
it. Provide an academic review of his "rigvedic astronomy", please?

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|

(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 19:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashvamedha&diff=next&oldid=52302008
Are there also people in India who are able to discuss history and
religion without the all the gritted teeth and all the paranoia? Of
course there should be articles on Indian sociology and politics, it's
just not something I am terribly interested in, but if we had a good
suite of articles on that, maybe our other articles wouldn't be
burdened with so much fundamentalist cruft (I am thinking of [ [ Aryan
Invasion Theory ] ], [ [ Bias in South Asian Studies ] ],
[ [ Rajputs ] ] and all that, topics that are almost impossible to
edit because of the never-ending stream of anonymous immature rants).

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|

('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 12:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashvamedha&diff=103243124&oldid=103241977
You, sir, are an Arya Samaj troll, as you admit yourself on the Arya
Samaj forum, judging from your "avatar", an adolescent zealot, and
further discussion is pointless. Do your edits, citing academic
sources, or be silent. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>

22:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

==Indo-Iranian origins==

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gandhara_grave_culture&diff=58924883&oldid=58921170
[ [ Image:Indo-Iranian origins.png|thumb|300px|archaeological cultures
associated with Indo-Iranian expansion (after [ [ EIEC ] ]). ] ]
Comment: image spammed to many articles with non-neutral image caption
according to a talk page

==Indology==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indology&diff=116995370&oldid=116994453
small deletions, POV

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indology&diff=117498345&oldid=117117708
deletes links, some of these were maybe redundant, but belong to the
Criticism section

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indology&diff=prev&oldid=116994996
(while in reality, there probably wouldn't exist printed editions of
these works without academia)?



==Quantum quakery==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_quackery&oldid=118991045
(pov-ish article created by Dbachmann)
Quantum quackery and New Age "mystical physics" begin in earnest in
the 1970s Fritjof Capra. In The Tao of Physics Capra asserts that
quantum physics confirms Eastern mystical teachings, a claim taken up
in the 1980s by Hindutva pseudoscience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deepak_Chopra&diff=prev&oldid=117968289
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Dancing_Wu_Li_Masters&diff=prev&oldid=118228418
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quantum_mysticism&diff=136803039&oldid=136802777
(what is a New-Age/quantum-mysticist agenda?)



==Other==

*Often deletes cited/referenced text without any edit-summary.
Sometimes inserted errors/false claims into articles and talkpages. It
is of course not a problem if a wikipedian inserts false claims, makes
mistakes or is not widely read or ignorant about a topic, if he acts
in good faith. This is only annoying because he too much likes others
to believe that he is, and criticizes other wikipedians for the same
mistakes but opposing pov.

*from his userpage: They will not be a position to intervene in the
conflicts of those regions that are less lucky like some benevolent
advanced alien race, as this decade is teaching a USA showing the same
signs of decadence that are familiar from late Imperial Rome, and
others of history's superpowers. "The West" will be more than happy to
shut themselves in splendid isolation, or be glad if they can just
keep out of the worst bits. The regions that will bleed for this
"curb" or "Great 21st Century Turnaround" are those that show a Youth
Bulge now, that is, Africa, Southwest, South and Southeast Asia.[ 5 ]
These regions are already full of angry young men, and they will be
even more so in 25 years' time. Angry young men are quick to embrace
religion, nationalism and ideology, but these are essentially
interchangable rationalizations for their anthropological impetus to
fight until the population pyramid is back in shape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rama%27s_Arrow&diff=prev&oldid=110298190
Rama's Arrow, in all friendliness, it does seem to me you are getting
a little trigger happy with blocking users over India-related topics.
I do suggest you go easy on blocking anyone involved in the great
India-Pakistani tag team war, since you are yourself not exactly
neutral in this. You can ''always'' post users you think deserve a
block to [ [ WP:AN/I ] ] and see if an uninvolved admin agrees enough
to block them for you.10:48, 23 February 2007
Comment:Does this also apply to Dbachmann himself, who is not exactly
neutral in this, or only to Hindu admins?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Asian_Stone_Age&diff=46955531&oldid=46951554
See also [ [ Ruins in the Gulf of Cambay ] ] for the recent
[ [ pseudoarchaeology|pseudoarchaeological ] ] claims of submerged
neolithic )or even paleolithical) settlements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bias_in_South_Asian_Studies&diff=51851238&oldid=48572948
This whole article reads like a hilarious parody of an Indian
screaming "racist bigot imperialist Nazi" at anyone who feels that
India is a nation like any other, or Hinduism is a religion like any
other. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, take this stuff elsewhere.

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|

('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 17:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bias_in_South_Asian_Studies&diff=51950959&oldid=51950603
your article is fascinating, but it is the fascination of a
trainwreck, or of somebody hitting himself over the head repeatedly
with a live penguin. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 07:21, 7
May 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bias_in_South_Asian_Studies&diff=51852225&oldid=51852183
[ [ Indology ] ] is a stub, but here we host a detailed florilegium of
every Hindu prejudice on the internet. This is not even a pov-fork of
[ [ Indology ] ], it is an ''ab-initio'' pov-fest, completely one-
sided, unsalvageably biased and unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a
soapbox. A short "history" and "alleged bias" section on
[ [ Indology ] ] will be more than enough. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 17:15, 6
May 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_mathematics&diff=prev&oldid=110290363
Fowler&fowler is a mature and academic editor proficient in the field,
and Freedomskies is a zealous angry young man with an agenda. Just
another instance of the well-known drawback of "anyone can edit" (vice-
versa its many admitted boons). Enough said, really, the case couldn't
be much more clear-cut. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>

09:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:Nobleeagle/Archive12 The
present "supporters" are a Greek Yoga teacher, personal friend of the
main source of contempoary Hindutva pseudoscience [ Subhash Kak ], dab
(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) 08:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Argumentative_Indian

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=prev&oldid=105769484
why always this obsession with "world's oldest"? There is no native
historiography in India, which means that any dating attempts are
reduced to wild guessing. Just say things are "old", or "ancient" if
you must, and go easy on the superlatives. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>

10:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&oldid=104917479

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_mathematics&diff=prev&oldid=110681406
:as always when commenting on India related topics (he rarely comments
on anything else), Bakaman is lost in wild-eyed paranoia, elevating
his habitual playing of the "race-card" to some sort of fundamental
editing principle. I have no idea why an editor with such an attitude
is still with us at all. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>

22:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rama%27s_Arrow&diff=53021034&oldid=53017913
*[ ] He sweepingly writes on a talkpage that greek mathematics
(astronomy) predates Indian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rudrasharman&diff=prev&oldid=110810404
:yes, I was saddened to find that some of Wikipedia's major "Aryan
trolls" work as ''physicists'' at an American university. They are
typically in their twenties, mostly "[ [ American-Born Confused
Desi ] ]", with a capital C in "Confused". While we could excuse
teenage zeal, but people with an education in scientific method (at
least of the [ [ User:Freedom skies|engineering ] ] variety) cannot
claim such innocence. They do know better, and I put much of their
aggression down to secretly knowing that they are pushing bullshit. At
what point does patriotism induce you to switch off your brain, I
could never understand. [ [ Subhash Kak ] ] is something like the
archetype of this sort of affliction. The phenomenon is closely
related to [ [ Crank (person)|crankery ] ] in general: obviously
intelligent people unable to use their intelligence to review their
basic axioms, using all their ingenuity for building a ludicrous
edifice based on flawed principles. They cannot be helped, of course,
but we need better ways to effectively protect Wikipedia from them.

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|

(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 11:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hindu-Arabic_numeral_system&diff=prev&oldid=61733334
People like Bharatveer seem to assume that because they are Indian,
they must automatically be an expert on Indian history. Which is a
terrible and extremely stupid mistake. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 20:11, 2
July 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-European_studies&diff=92951438&oldid=92950379

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=146210095

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hindu-Arabic_numeral_system&diff=prev&oldid=61605000
It would be a great world in which people interested in a topic,
''even'' in a topic related to India (gasp) would do a minimal amount
of scholarly research instead of all this breathless suprematism.

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|

('''&#5839;''') ] ]</small> 23:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:N._S._Rajaram&diff=prev&oldid=111838669
If you cannot, I suggest we merge this article into a treatment of
Hindutva ideology in general, since per [ [ WP:BLP ] ] it is
questionable to have an article on a living person that does not
clearly qualify as a public figure. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>

15:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=112047128
The Hindu nationalists who try to bullshit people into believing there
is an academic controversy should by no means be presented as the
"Hindu side". [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>

10:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=prev&oldid=67646493

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=112046930
The Hindu nationalists who try to bullshit people into believing there
is an academic controversy should by no means be presented as the
"Hindu side".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=112074565
Since we can turn up solid academic authors saying that Kak is a
complete ideologist crank, there is nothing that speaks against
including that. But the sad reality is that there ''is'' no academic
case to be made, this is a topic of pseudoscience, and the people
pushing it are using the tools of cranks, not scholars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=113526158
I'm glad you know the feeling, although I imagine these Italian
patriots at least forgo ethnic or national mysticisms and claims of
proto-Latin in 4000 BC and the like. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]

<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small>

07:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment:He has never heard of Julius Evola and other such "national
mysticists". Again this shows that he will go at great lenghts to
imagine a Hindu fascism, but forgos this for some other nationalisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hindutva&diff=prev&oldid=114370486
Files checkuser with title: Hindutva sock army and calls editor
Hindutva troll. Clerk note: Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for
checkuser/Case/Hindutva sock army. PTO 20:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kennethtennyson&diff=prev&oldid=115120555

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=next&oldid=115524825
nobody has an interest in an endless series of "Indian patriot" arbcom
cases, all alike ([ [ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-
Pakistan|1 ] ], [ [ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar|2 ] ],
[ [ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput|3 ] ])
Comment:the problem there were only the "Indian patriots"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Congress_of_Ethnic_Religions&diff=next&oldid=167464967

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communalism_%28South_Asia%29&diff=prev&oldid=116761158
adds:
**movements in the [ [ Indian diaspora ] ]:
***[ [ Hindu Human Rights ] ]
***[ [ Hindu American Foundation ] ]
***[ [ Vedic Foundation ] ]

Movements opposing communalism:
*[ [ Friends of South Asia ] ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communalism_%28South_Asia%29&diff=prev&oldid=116996341
(but don't remove Hindu groups at the same time. All Hnidutva outfits
are obviously "communal" by definition.)
adds:
**[ [ Arya Samaj ] ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Freedom_skies/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=117330938
will somebody finally use checkuser against the amazing Hindutva sock
circus?? ...')

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Freedom_skies/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=117539960

your physical location is [ [ American-Born Confused Desi|not so

relevant ] ]. I have yet to catch you doing an edit unrelated to
India, and I've yet to catch you taking anything but a nationalist
stance: your editing profile is that of a classic single-topic
lobbyist. [ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|
(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 16:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_21&diff=prev&oldid=117555647
The two votes above can be safely disregarded as by adherents of known
followers of precisely the fringy literature the article will discuss.

[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|

(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</small> 17:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=118266051
the Grand Unified Hindutva Sock and Troll Circus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=118459716
(conspiracy theory)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_propaganda&diff=prev&oldid=119709797
the rise of "Hindutva pseudoarchaeology" since the 1990s, so that
there can be no doubt that this article is valid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism&diff=72571240&oldid=72416619
o ffs, what is it with this Hindu gerontophilia? ("O ffs", according
to Internet slang means "Oh, for fuck's sake". )

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=next&oldid=40711362

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia_and_nationalism
Indo-Pak/Indian nationalism, mostly Hindutva (Indigenous Aryans, Aryan
Invasion Theory), but also some Dalitstan and other "communalism", and
Pakistani patriotism.
Indian sandbox
the art of sockpuppeteering appears to be particularly popular among
Indian patriots.
Comment:On what basis is it "mostly" Hindutva? Why a special section
"Indian sandbox"? One of Wikipedia's special user pages, where an user
tries to justify his obsession or prejudices with one topic by
claiming that they're neutral, or treat all equally. But in fact other
nationalisms, like Islamsim/Islamofascism or Christian fundamentalism
(there seems to be some Christian fundamentalism in India and other
articles) are of much less concern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel.Bryant&diff=prev&oldid=121427568
I am sorry to say this, but you have betrayed the trust placed in you,
and I will be forced to compose an admin conduct RfC, and your case
will also figure as a prominent example of WP beginning to cave in
under the sustained propaganda attack in the Hindutva arbitration case
that is certain to come up sooner or later.



*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Talk:Voice_of_India&diff=118324625&oldid=118324373 One of its
major problems is concerted spamming, propaganda and/or pov-pushing
efforts, and the case of the topic at hand is ''extremely'' bad, so
that it is high time we sorted out the ideological lobbyists
masquerading as scholars from actual academia. See also
[ [ User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism ] ]. It's a veritable
disease, and I'll only ever be able to scratch the surface. I would
never even have touched this topic with a five foot pole if the
propagandists hadn't attacked Wikipedia first. [ [ User:Dbachmann|

dab ] ] <small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(&#xF0;&#x92;&#x81;&#xB3;) ] ]</

small> 19:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_astronomy&diff=118001796&oldid=117699312
deletes referenced section
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_astronomy&diff=118003451&oldid=118002684
deletes Subhash Kak reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_astronomy&diff=118003788&oldid=118003451
Such methods are generally rejected by mainstream scholarship, but
since the 1980s have come to play a significant role in ideologically
motivated literature in connection with [ [ Hindutva propaganda ] ].
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_astronomy&diff=118006071&oldid=118004283
Deletes: The [ [ Atharvaveda ] ], the [ [ Taittiriya Brahmana ] ], the
[ [ Shatapatha Brahmana ] ], the [ [ Maitrayaniya Upanishad ] ], the
Baudhayana Srauta Sutra<ref>Bryant 2001:257</ref> and the [ [ Vishnu
Purana ] ] show such a constellation in the Krittika<ref> (Frawley
1991)</ref>. Jean Filliozat has argued that similar conclusions can be
derived from Buddhist texts, that incorporated material from earlier
Hindu texts.<ref>Bryant 2001:260</ref> Additionally, the legend of the
cutting off of [ [ Prajapati ] ]'s head by [ [ Rudra ] ] could
possibly indicate a date when [ [ Mrgasirsha ] ] marked the beginning
of the year.<ref>(and when the sun rose in [ [ Orion (constellation)|
Orion ] ] at the [ [ Vernal Equinox ] ]. Kak 1994:80) Subhash Kak.
Birth and Early Development of Indian Astronomy. In Astronomy across
cultures: The History of Non-Western Astronomy, Helaine Selin (ed),
Kluwer, 2000</ref> Possibly, the
beginning of the year was later marked by [ [ Rohini ] ], Prajapati's
daughter.<ref>Subhash Kak. Birth and Early Development of Indian
Astronomy. In Astronomy across cultures: The History of Non-Western
Astronomy, Helaine Selin (ed), Kluwer, 2000. Kak 1994:80. Santillana
and Dechend (1969).</ref>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_astronomy&diff=158676465&oldid=158619049
:the only reason I haven't done it yet is because I couldn't think of
a "npov" title yet. [ [ Vedic crank parade ] ] probably won't fly.
[ [ Vedic archaeoastronomy ] ] may be to discrediting to the term
"archaeoastronomy", which I understand can also cover ''actual''
historical astronomy. ideas? --[ [ User:Dbachmann|dab ] ]
<small>[ [ User_talk:Dbachmann|(ð’ ³) ] ]</small> 07:48, 18 September
2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NCERT_controversy&diff=117970868&oldid=106004287
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NCERT_controversy&diff=119694579&oldid=119694402
([ [ Romila Thapar ] ]'s ''Medieval India'' was criticised for being
too sympathetic to Muslim viewpoints, and for showing too little
enthusiasm for [ [ Hindu revivalism ] ]. ) Comment:It was in fact
criticized for inaccuracies or revisionism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vedas&diff=299879782&oldid=299879296
(the issue is of course the historical rewriting of Indian Marxist
historians like Romila Thapar, which blackens Hinduism while
glorifying Islam. Also a lot of other bias on that talkpage.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kumari_Kandam&diff=120256289&oldid=117389629
"In Dravidian national mysticism"

Protection while in page dispute: Indigenous Aryan Theory, N.S.
Rajaram, Haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA), Hindutva propaganda, Nicholas
Kazanas (unprotection), Subhash Kak

*I saw on your user page a section as noted above, and also read the
relevant "discussion". I think virtual communities like wikipedia
exposes many persons' real intent and mentality. They may retract
later on fearing the backlash of the community, but they are what they
are! Please do not worry - [ [ Abraham Lincoln ] ] had concluded:
''you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people
all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time''.
Either the wiki-community has to get rid of proponents of racialism or
the self-respecting wikipedians have to say good bye to wikipedia. The
choice is ours, and there is always light after the tunnel. Please do
not feel perturbed, and please continue to remain active. Regards.
* I denounce the extreme POVs explicitly and implicitly conveyed
through the above remarks, and feel highly offended and annoyed at the
same.
*My apologies - I'm simply not willing to compromise my neutrality. If
Sbhushan wishes for another editor to defend or argue on his behalf, a
request may be filed with the AMA through the links above. Otherwise,
I am closing this mediation as unsuccessful on the grounds parties do
not wish for mediator, unless there are any objections. I was
referring to Dab's comment above:&#xE2;&#x80;&#x9C; ..I would propose
that you do not attempt to be "neutral", but try to understand
whatever it is Sbhushan wants, and argue his case for him..-- Dab
*I submit this article for consideration for deletion given that this
flies in the face of WP:UNDUE,WP:ATT,WP:NPOV. The highly prerogative
title of the page makes it obvious that page is primarily meant to be
an attack page. Hindutva is described by its proponents to be a Hindu
revivalist movement, it is has been often derided by its opponents to
be an extreme right wing ideology. Whatever may be one's opinion about
Hindutva, i believe terms like Hindutva propaganda are personal
opinions and the title hardly conforms to WP:NPOV. Much of the article
consists of cherry picked quotes from two Papers by Michael Witzel and
Nanda & Sokal. Witzel is a Sanskrit scholar, which hardly makes him an
authoritarian voice to pass judgements on Indian political ideologies.
Mr.Witzel is also considered to be controversial for his supposed anti-
Indian/anti-Hindu bias [ 1 ]. It is basically like writing an article
on Republican ideology sourced from Noam Chomsky artciles. Undue
weightage is given to Witzel and Nanda's opinions
on Hindutva.Whats more, on the lines of Hindutva propaganda we donot
have Redneck propaganda,Islamist propaganda,Christian
propaganda,Marxist propaganda. Also the article ends up making wild
allegations like: during the 1930s, the Hindutva movement was
influenced by Nazi mysticism, and pseudoscientific theories of racial
supremacism. Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) leader M. S. Golwalkar
in 1939 he wrote that "Germany has shocked the world by purging the
country of the semitic race of the Jews, a good lesson for us in
Hindusthan to learn and profit by"This serious allegation against a
major Indian ideology is based on untracable reference (# ^ Ruthven
(2007:10ff.) ) by an obscure Scholar whose interest/expertise is
unclear.Also the main contributor to this artilce User:Dbachmann had
added a statement (since revised):..Its should be noted that Nathuram
Godse (Gandhi's assasin) was NOT a member of RSS at the time and RSS
was absolved by the Supreme Court of India of any hand in Gandhi's
assasination.
Addition of content like this by Users like User:Dbachmann is
shocking. RSS in past has not hesitated to sue anybody accusing it of
hand in Gandhi assasination. Such irresponsible behaviour puts
Wikipedia in a position where it can be sued.It should also be noted
that admin User:Dbachmann who has created this article, has also
sprotected it. Isnt this unfair use of admin powers uncalled for,
especially when there has been no obivous trolling on the article...
Given the condescending tone of this article towards its subject, this
article falls squarely in the 'attack page' category.
*I resent this allegation of Dbachmann and deny completely that I am
an avatar of Hkelkar or have been sent by a mailing list. I am not
anyone's sock-puppet. I do not even know who Hkelkar is Dbachmann is
constantly vandalizing my edits, and rather indulging as a
propagandist of well known prejudiced and propagandist sources such as
Michael Witzel in littering Wikipedia with factually incorrect
information.
*Endorse - well-thought-out closure from a mess of an AfD that deleted
a serious of quotes and fundamentally unrelated references strung
together to compile a POV screed. OR synthesis, basically.
*I have, but this page is supposed to be about a publishing company,
there are very few facts on this page, just selected quotes, point
scoring and invective, the NPOV is one of the cornerstones of the
encyclopedia, without it wikipedia has no value.
*I have no frame of reference for the vast majority of this debate. I
have no opinion except that I feel admins should be held to a higher
standard than those who simply contribute. In reading the talk pages I
find Dbachmann condescending, bordering on rude. I don't see
neutrality by a long shot. Anyone who feels so passionately about a
subject should not be doing adminstrative functions on articles on
that topic.
"His ability to understand that his sources present a particular POV,
rather than the absolute truth has been a problem here and elsewhere.
His ability to cite sources and his insight into issues and languages
is quite valuable however. The answer is for him to be more aware of
NPOV, particularly in the sense of giving attention and respect to a
wide variety of different positions on an issue. One source alone will
not do. Also, he must be more respectful of those who are believers'.
It is clear he is not hindu, and that is because of his indifference
and irreverence. Those are traits which would be best replaced with
respect and modest."
*However, I am not willing to "drop it" in the sense that I still find
your past and present comments highly objectionable, and I still have
an issue with them.
*In my opinion, you have slapped all Indians in the face, and indeed
more than that. You complain that no one has explained to you
explicitly what is offensive in your comments. Perhaps you have not
made inquiries to those you have offended? However, you cannot
complain that no-one stated that they were offended [ 1 ], [ 2 ], or
that they thought your comments were an expression of contempt for
Indian users [ 3 ], [ 4 ], [ 5 ], [ 6 ]. For the benefit of all,
however, I will attempt to explain why your comments are offensive.
Substitute another place for India in your comments.
*Your response also seems to argue that the indefensible behavior of
some editors with whom you were in conflict somehow justifies your own
indefensible behavior.
*Dbachmann's use of ethnic, national and religious attributes of
editors when making negative criticisms. It is unnecessary to mention
the nationality, culture or religion of editors when discussing edits.
To gratuitously mention such attributes of editors in the course of
criticizing edits has all the appearances of being an insult to those
of the mentioned nationality, culture or religion -- it has the
appearance of an insinuation that faults an editor may have are
somehow related to that editor's nationality, culture or religion.
Whether an insult was intended or not, civility dictates avoiding
mentioning such attributes.
*When administrators and major editors give the impression that it is
OK to refer to the ethnicity of of editors when making negative
comments, the result is that ordinary editors feel entitled to do the
same.
*I also suggested that the best course when one offends is usually to
acknowledge that one has been offensive (even if unintentionally), to
apologize, and to avoid taking on airs that it is those who are
offended that are in the wrong. Dbachmann has chosen not to follow
that course of action.
*The unresolved issues that I expressed to dab here remain unresolved.
Rather than becoming ameliorated over time, these issues have become,
in my opinion, more aggrevated. That is his asset to Wikipedia.
However, he also has qualities, which in my opinion are very
detrimental to his working cooperatively with other editors, and these
qualities have been becoming more pronounced. The behavior that led to
the older conflict is habitual and ongoing. If the most recent
unresolved issue with dab that I have recorded is old, this is due to
my lack of interest in pursing the matter. At each step, dab has
stated that he is unwilling to discuss further, and my instincts told
me that raising new grievances would not help the resolution of the
conflict.
*The above is added as a public service. As Dmcdevit said, it's a very
bad idea to block someone you are in a dispute with. It may have been
POV pushing and probably was 3RR (there are at least four partial
reverts in that mess somewhere), but it was not patent nonsense,
vandalism, or simple disruption. --[ [ User:BigDT|BigDT ] ] 21:19, 28
February 2007 (UTC)
*So Hindutva is some monolithic conspiracy huh? You are merely
mirroring Guru Witzelji's tedency to deflect any crticism with shrill
and paranoid accusations of Hindtvaadis. I daresay BJP doesnt give a
for Witzel or Kak or any two bit scholar who tries to posture himself
as pro-Hindu/anti-Hindutvadi. Stop picturing yourself as some sort of
Wiki-saviour defending Wikipedia from those stupid nationalist zealot
wogs. Except for certain User:Hkelkar i see no Hindutva trolling here.
The India-Pakistan ArbComm VOTED to ban Pakistani nationalists but now
you are construing it as some sort of Indian 'patriot' case. As for
Rajput, it didnt even have anything to do with Hinduism or Hindtva.
*I have stated that I find dab's reference to national, religious and
ethnic attributes of editors objectionable. You ask if I can imagine
how hurtful it may be to be accused of one error, not once, but
repeatedly. Of course I can. Although those defending dab's behavior
have stated that his comment was an "error", as far as I am aware, he
has never stated that his comment was an "error". Further, if dab had
wished to avoid having his comment brought up repeatedly, the easiest
course of action he could have taken, which would have taken all of
maybe two lines, would have been to apologize for any unintended
offense that he may have caused. I am sure that would have greatly
reduced the occurances where his comments were brought up to him. I
warned him long ago that he had harmed his relationship with Indians,
and that an apology would be a wise course. However, instead of
heading this advice, he attacked the messenger, as you seem to be
inclined to do.
*I only want to point out the following.Stop gratuitous use of
'Hindutva' especially when you are not even able to define it in black
and white.But keep your commentary and linguistic flourish out. It
only shows that you have an emotional investment in all this. Being an
admin and an editor for as long as you've been, you should know better
than to write articles with a personally invested tone.
*All I can say is that Dbachmann's comments on your talk page weren't
particularly civil or assuming good faith. Deleted. Ask him to move
ArbCom if he presses. There have been gross civility problems with him
in the past, where he resorted to racist comments. You can't invoke a
supposed martyr who isn't even gone to defend your actions. Also,
saying "I know you acted in good faith" does not mean you truly
believe that, and you had just finished complaining that he's stupid
and deleted it because of religious crusades.
*The article is nothing but culmination of quotes from 3 authors,
Wizel, Nanda, Sokal, with POV quotes and weasel words filled between.
The whole article looks as if created by first time user.
*I am not aware that dab has apologized for unintended offense, or
stated that his comments merit such an apology. Perhaps I have
overlooked something, or perhaps we have different views regarding
what constitutes an apology. What I have been aware of are comments
where he expressed that he has nothing to apologize for, that he owes
no-one an apology and a intends to give no apologies. If I am
mistaken, please point me to the sentence or sentences where he
apologizes.I also disagree that the "famous" comment is offensive only
if misunderstood. I do not believe I suffer from a lack of English
comprehension, and so I will try to explain to you at least part of
why I think the "famous" comment was inappropriate and offensive.
repeating what I once wrote elsewhere... However, his difficulty in
discussing matters in a non-accusatory way, his difficulty in
listening to others and treating them with respect, these have a
negative effect on the community, and make conflict resolution more
difficult.
*Sundar is saying he got "satisfied" with his "clarification". I will
just point out one such clarification. " no, it appears that
Bharatveer has confused "shithole" with "arsehole" (understandable,
seeing the fecal association). I do not think that this has anything
to do with Indian village culture
*The article is laden with lengthy quotes backing up short statements,
which seems to be bordering on WP:SYN and WP:OR...What the hell does
that even mean? I am an educated person but I cannot parse the meaning
of this article. There is a dearth of succinct declarative statements.
There is also a tone to it that borders on a diatribe rather than an
encyclopedic gathering of data. A reader with no preknowledge, like
me, is left bewildered, and I cannot see how anyone with knowledge of
the issue could be other than pissed off or proud.
*Bogus? I think you are the most interesting arbocase in the Wikipedia
history. I can see another incident you caused just a few moments ago,
by restoring erroneous and wrongly sourced allegations to [ [ Koenraad
Elst ] ]. Are you still serious or is it ''you'' that is working
towards a ''grand finale''? How come you thought I'll ever leave
Wikipedia alone with you? Maybe it would be interesting to map your
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Angr
friends ] and some all too obvious administrator
*This continued display of unwarranted personal attacks show you don't
mind Wikipedia at all, not for the policies, not for the community and
not for arbcom. You reject the most basic foundation of Wikipedia,
that it should be a shared project between multiple editors - that
might all have a different perspective. You don't even notice your
nutshell assessment of Wikipedia "being the collaboration of
dissenting editors" just reflects your troubled mind, utterly unable
to make the distinction between honest editors and fascists. Why you
should care anyway, the only one you ever intended to take serious is
yourself. Arbcom neatly defined your POV pushing, your OR and your
many other abuses. Instead of listening, keeping a low profile for a
while and take heart you defy the concept of reasonable and polite
persons. You act like an outsiders by acquiring the foul language
first, and subsequently use it indiscriminated against all your
adversaries - even when they take pains in cleaning your blunt,
amateur
generalizations and other mess. You defile people by calling them
names they don't deserve, engage in countless editwars, react
aggressively when running out of arguments, or just walk away from the
table for coming back later and make your predefined reverts anyway,
and then even ''dare'' to call other people ''trolls''! Go on, make
clear to everybody there is no cure for your trolling behaviour. Not
at Wikipedia, anyway. Whatever your possible ambitions to become the
King of Trolls himself, all future left for you might be the carreer
of an anon troll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=prev&oldid=192927937

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence
(again also details his wiki-battles with Armenians, African
Americans,..)
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence#DBachmann_violates_WP:BLP
]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rokus01&diff=prev&oldid=180972629
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rokus01&diff=181007703&oldid=181007348
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&oldid=180400901#Thanks
<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/
Hkelkar_2/Evidence#More_Dbachmann__incivility.2C_threats.2C_page-
owning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence#Disruptive_behaviour_-_DBachmann_is_Uncivil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence#More_Dbachmann__incivility.2C_threats.2C_page-owning,
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=141556185#User:Dbachmann
Comment by Sir Nicholas ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence#Disruptive_behaviour_-_DBachmann_is_Uncivil
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence#Anti-Hindu_remarks_by_Dbachmann
]
<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/
Hkelkar_2/Evidence#Disruptive_behaviour_-_DBachmann_is_Uncivil</ref>,
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=141556185#User:Dbachmann
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29
]</ref>
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=141556185#User:Dbachmann
Comment by Sir Nicholas ]
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence#Disruptive_behaviour_-_DBachmann_is_Uncivil
Blocks an editor in an editing dispute ]
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=111626427
]
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=next&oldid=112073211
]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence#Nicholas_Kazanas:_Violations_of_WP:OWN.2C_WP:CIVIL.2C_and_abuse_of_admin_authority
:These are not simply trolls in the narrow sense, and it is pointless

to waste time with them, because even if you get them to listen to
sense, there are millions of more clueless people where they came
from, and especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet
access. I feel for these people, because they are in an actual ethnic
conflict, and must feel actual hate, but I don't feel responsible for

babysitting them, Wikipedia is not for them.<ref>http://
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=User_talk:Zora&diff=32344214&oldid=32343076</ref>
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence#Anti-Hindu_remarks_by_Dbachmann
]
*[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput
]
*[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput/Evidence
]
*[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann
]
*[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29
]
*[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_4
]
*[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence
]
*[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar
]
*[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_propaganda
]
*[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bias_in_South_Asian_Studies
]
*[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_pseudoscience
][
*[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_pseudoscience_%282nd_nomination%29
]
*[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_9
]
*[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BostonMA/DBachmann ]
*[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hinduism/Archive_1
]
*[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=76163983&oldid=76088298#Vandalism
]
*[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=141556185#User:Dbachmann
] (Accusations of WP:OWN, Revert-warring, 3RR,
*[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive217#Admin_Dbachmann_filled_article_by_his_derrogatory_and_libelous_POVs
]
*[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=111646344
]
*[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=111666071
]

***CRITICISMS OF WIKIPEDIA AND REFERENCES FROM OTHER WIKIPEDIANS AND
WIKIPEDIA DISC./ARB. PAGES (TYPICAL BUT STILL INTERESTING WIKIPEDIA
STUFF)***
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/sep/28/wikipedia.web20
http://www.windycitymike.com/old/2006/08/02/why-i-quit-wikipedia/
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/
http://www.sai-fi.net/wikipedia/
http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Kate%27s_Tool
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Exposed_-_Anti-Israeli_Subversion_on_Wikipedia.asp
http://web.archive.org/web/20080105120715/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/Wikipedia.html
http://www.integraltransformation.blogspot.com/2008/12/sri-aurobindo-and-ken-wilber-on.html
http://www.integralworld.net/kazlev15.html
http://wikipediareview.com/
http://wikichix.org/wiki/WikiChix
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_deletion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PRODSUM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiScanner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias
http://sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/sathya-sai-baba-wikipedia-bias/
http://www.saisathyasai.com/wikipedia/
http://www.medhajournal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=589&Itemid=282
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28people%29/Archive_4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_against_censorship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/practice/a/wikipedia_women.htm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/anti-wikipedia-resource.html
http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com