The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Daniel Bryant 05:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindutva propaganda[edit]

Hindutva_propaganda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

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".[2].

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. [2].

Also the main contributor to this artilce User:Dbachmann had added a statement (since revised):

Following the assassination of Gandhi by a member of the RSS in 1948, Hindu extremism was discredited in Indian society for some decades.

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. Amey Aryan DaBrood© 20:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • any article will rely on a "bunch of authors". The point is, these are authors published in mainstream studies on nationalism and pseudoarchaeology. As always, if you can find similar publications that object to the opinions presented so far, you can add them. The problem is that the case is really too obvious to contest, no scholar in their right mind would deny that fringe science is used for political propaganda here. Find us a criticism of the allegations by a neutral third party, preferably peer-reviewed and not published by the Theosophical Society, and we'll be able to document a controversy. So far, for lack of scholarly objection, we are just documenting a straightforward case. dab (𒁳) 10:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless you can document that the BJP has been using the Indus script as a tool to get votes, there is absolutely no connection. Rather the synthesis of various unrel,ated thing, Theosophy, Vivekananda, various Indian authors, and conflating them to the BJP/VHP/RSS is obvious original research and implausible. Hindutva "propaganda" is more along the lines of "Muslims will be a majority in India in 3000C.E." or something like that, not the Indus script is Vedic post-Classical Sanskrit.Bakaman 16:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I raise an objection on the talk page to the name of the article, indicating that I would prefer it to be at Hindutva and Pseudoscience or some such title. The subject itself seems to be notable; note that your objection here is merely that the article is not sweeping enough. This is a strange contrast with your delete below. Hornplease 18:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but nobody is trying to "hush hush" anything. Please do not bring your own motives and conspiracy theories into this. Try and be as objective as possible when contributing on Wikipedia. Rama's arrow 02:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a lost cause? Please explain how any of the reasons you give above are (a) true and (b) a reason for deletion.
Note that this user has repeatedly been accused of misbehaviour by users other than dab, including me, and has featured prominently in several recent ArbCom cased. So Dab's comment is not out of line at all. Hornplease 18:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Users include BhaiSaab (talk · contribs), Szhaider (talk · contribs) and TerryJ-Ho (talk · contribs) (all banned by arbomc). Two fringe non-banned users in a sea of a million or so do not constitute a consensus, and featured prominently is more along the lines of, knowing a lot on the recent India-Pakistan (which featured Rama's Arrow) and Freedom Skies (an India-China battle). Infact hornplease has been featured prominently on arbcom himself, noted for misrepresenting policy, and also noted as the only user bent on attacking productive contributors on arbcom in the sea of overwhelming consensus against him and dab and whoever else these "other users" seem to be.Bakaman 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note (1) My only feature on arbcom has been in connection with presenting evidence against the above user; (2) I was not the only user presenting that evidence as a look at the HKelkar arbitration will establish; (3) The 'overwhelming consensus' that the above user is proud of is represented, in all its glory, by some of the contributors to this page; (4) The only person accusing me of misrepresentation is the above user. Again, have a look at the RfArb records for a good laugh. Note also this user's tendency towards useless argumentation; any discussion, even an AfD battle, is reduced to a personality or cultural clash. Even RfArbs on user conduct above are presented as 'India-China battles'. Sigh. Hornplease 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1)You presented evidence against hkelkar as well. (2) Yes you are right, you were with noted trolls that later became banned trolls (3) that's a complete misrepresentation, and it merely shows the user is unable to move on (4) personality clash also includes attacking people for their vote, a practice you seem to be practicing above this "discussion" and below this discussion.Bakaman 22:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1)You're right, I presented evidence against you and the banned troll. (2) I was 'with' the noted trolls? I specifically said that I had no direct knowledge of their behaviour, so I wouldnt discuss it. (3) I'm not the one refusing to move on. I pointed out that for this user to pretend to be a Wikipedian in excellent standing was a little odd, as he's noted for his tendency to get into brawls of this sort. (4) I don't attack people for their votes! ON the other hand, thinking that pointing out that you had not been 'threatened' by anyone is an attack on your vote, that is a fairly accurate reflection of your attitude here. Hornplease 22:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite any consensus of editors in Good standing agreeing with you. Unless User:BhaiSaab, User:Ikonoblast, et al. are suddenly in good standing your definition of my edits stands a fallacy. Just like most other discussions with the above user, the onus is not on the issue at hand, rather it is ad hominem attacks on the editors intelligence "you are incorrectly quoting policy", "you are too dumb to grasp the intricacies of deletion" ,etc.Bakaman 23:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this a bad faith nom? I've already elaborated my concerns regarding this article. Dont you have anything to say about that? Amey Aryan DaBrood© 05:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AMbroodEy rudra is merely parroting dab's spurious accusations of trolling and "bad faith" on the part of any editor with sensible disagreements.Bakaman 16:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this is the 3rd Afd in three weeks. Granted, the first one was closed out of process because it had been submitted by a sock (which in itself is telling). After an unsuccessful Afd, you are expected to wait for at least two months, and then present the reasons why you think the original AfD was flawed, or why the circumstances have changed. If you were just concerned with the title, you would come to the article's talkpage and do a move suggestion. dab (𒁳) 10:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop drawing parallels with unrelated articles. For starters i believe we do have a Criticism of Hinduism article. Secondly, you have no concrete evidence to link the said scholarships with corresponding Indian political movement. The Hindutva squat usually goes like "Evil vatican cospiring to Christianise India" or "Muslim boys luring Hindu girls" stuff... Plus Swami Vivekananda wasnt a Hindutvadi. Amey Aryan DaBrood© 17:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also for other nominations. I have no control over how Mr.Kelkar chooses to act. 2nd nom. was for Hindutva pseudoscience and NOT Hindutva propaganda. Amey Aryan DaBrood© 18:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'No concrete evidence'? Have you even read the article?Hornplease 19:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)s[reply]
  • Not just undocumented, but introduced, or retained, as "real scholarship" in other articles. That's the real agenda here. rudra 10:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, WP:FRINGE is invoked here? It's inapplicable in this case, but I suppose if Nicholas Kazanas is nominated again, you will be among the first invoking it again? No? Oh dear, I wonder why. Hornplease 19:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that can happen? See the edit-war there.--Scheibenzahl 20:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been moved, not redirected. I have frequently observed in the past that some pages are locked at the time that they are nominated for deletion. Finally, neither is an argument on the merits of the page, merely a veiled attack on an individual, and thus the vote should be disregarded. Hornplease 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than attacking one of wikipedias most prolific contributors (note recent issues of The Hindu) perhaps one must introspect into the blatant incorrectness of the view. Hornplease has unceasingly attacked those contributors not sympathetic to his point of view on things. It is rather unsurprising that he would choose to attack Indian admins, especially those that expressed opposition to hornpleases' unsavory behavior on arbcom.Bakaman 22:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I'm attacking Indian admins? Wow, that's nice. Who? The only Indian admin I've ever had a run-in with isnt even here. Has Bhadani ever discussed my behaviour? No? Then you were mischaracterising facts again? What a shock. Hornplease 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should tell us why your vote shouldnt be disregarded... your explaination after all consist of theree words... as for Bhadani i believe hes quite an experienced admin, he knows his business, so no need for you to draw paranoid implications. Amey Aryan DaBrood© 18:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your opinion, formed in stated ignorance. I am entitled to mine, based on observation. Hornplease 19:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather your observations are quite poor and have been criticized and defined as invalid by many users, most of whom are admins, and all of whom are knowledgeable on wikipolicy unlike you. The more despicable behavior is illustrated you since you seem perpetuating the "work" of Szhaider (talk · contribs), TerryJ-Ho (talk · contribs), Ikonoblast (talk · contribs) et al. And Bhadani is cited in [The Hindu]] see [3], and commended by Jimbo Wales.Bakaman 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, rather than repeat myself, why don't you point to these 'many admins'? (I know better than to ask you to point to the 'rather poor observation'.) Better still, file an RfC rather than cluttering up every page I'm on with an angry rant. Hornplease 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Care to elaborate why this article deserves to be kept? This article istelf appears to be a product of extreme hostility/prejudice of some editors towards a certain ideology/political school of thought. Amey Aryan DaBrood© 18:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination should be in good faith. You say above 'three-word reason'; at least the three words are possibly relevant. The Guide to Deletion says clearly that nominations should be in good faith; in other words, that the primary aim should be improvement of the encyclopaedia. A strong suspicion that this is not the primary aim is a sufficient reason, according to the Guide. Happy? Hornplease 19:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The suspicions are unfounded. Having a page serving as a loudspeaker for Witzel and Nanda does not better the encyclopedia, deleting it does, therefore Ambroodey put it up for afd.Bakaman 21:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. The fact that there are several quotes, that this is a well-known problem - consider the NCERT textbook thing - does not feature in your analysis? Your antipathy to 'loudspeaker's does not extend to genuinely non-notable individuals such as Nicholas Kazanas? No? I thought not.
The point that neither the above editor nor the original nominator seems to realise that notability is the criterion, and POV is only relevant at an AfD if its a POV-fork, is why I felt justified in my three-word justification. Which is considerably more justification than this speedy-keep deserved. Hornplease 22:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9 google hits from wikipedia mirrors does not meet a notability threshold. Everyone that comments on AFD is aware of what notability is, and asserting that only certain editors do not serves to show a predilection toward certain views and editors and not a reasoned argument, which is not being presented above.Bakaman 22:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not assuming Good Faith qualifies as Bad Faith? If yes then you are clearly in violation of that.--Scheibenzahl 20:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For this editor's stated motivation, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies.Hornplease 19:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith are we? Do as you preach. Amey Aryan DaBrood© 19:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One can view the "good faith" with dubiety with more or less the correct assumption that this user 's conduct on this page is not served for discussion or the purpose of a consensus. Rather it seems the motives present are to use "arguments presented" to denigrate users. Ambroodey attempt to end the hypocrisy perpetuated by this user will undoubtedly fail.Bakaman 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Hornplease 22:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarship associated with Hindutva movement or in agreement to Hindutva claims are generally associated with Hidutva propaganda.
 How can scholarship be 'propaganda'? Propaganda is by definition preaching/pontificating of a POV by someone who is devoid of scholarship.

Such claims are generally disregarded by mainstream scholars as consisting of pseudoscience, pseudohistory and pseudoarchaeology.
So does that mean there is no Hindu/tva scholarship at all that 'mainstream scholars' dont consider as p-p-p?

It has been suggested that such scholarship is associated with the religious fundamentalism or ethnic nationalism, and are a product of Indian politics. Others have accused this allegation as being anti-Indian.

(INSERT:) Please be aware that the passages you are quoting were the result of a sweeping edit by Scheibenzahl (talk · contribs), and do not reflect the state of the article at the point that this AfD was registered. The edit was then reverted six times, effectively leaving it in place. The changes could even be interepreted as sabotage, especially when an AfD is in the offing and interested parties are likely to consult the current state of the article without too much attention to who contributed what when. You may see further discussion of this very paragraph on my Talk page. rudra 10:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muck that a small group of people throw at each other cannot be used to paint entire populations with the brush dipped in the same muck. For all the hell that is being raised on wikipedia, the fact remains that 99.99%(I daresay) of practicing Hindus(that includes priests and sanskrit scholars) dont even know that a controversy of this nature even exists and are as oblivious to such names as Witzel and Sokal or whoever as they are about Frawley and Kak. 99.99% of them are even unaware that something called AIT was even proposed and the same can be said of their awareness of OIT. So in the absence of an audience willing to listen, branding a POV as 'propaganda' is far fetched. This issue if anything, is purely one that exists and is known only to people 'in the know' and should only be presented as such.

Just because all groups involved in this issue accuse each other of 'propaganda' doesnt mean we should have articles on their insinuations and counter insinuations. This is an article on such a POV and reads(as it was designed) as a POV fork. Just as having an article on, say, "Witzel's propaganda" is not right, having one on what Witzel characterises as "Hindu/tva's" propaganda is just not right. It is one thing to write articles by citing Witzel's(or Sokal's) scholarship and entirely another to write one by citing his gripe/angst/grievance/lamentations. In other words, to advance something like

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.[2]

I hope that, Sokal in his book, has

a) Established with notable and verifiable sources that there is indeed such a practice on the Hindu/tvavadi's parts to [....however obscure and irrational it might have been through its history, gets the honoric of "science"....] b) That this kind of claiming scientific sanction for their rituals etc., is not an isolated case and that it is more often than not, the rule and not the exception. c) That this pattern is found in an overwhelming percentage of Hindu/tvavadis.

If on the other hand, Sokal has only studied the habits of a handful of his adversaries(like say, Kak) for his 'sample size', then it is fair to say that his results are falsifiable. One of the reasons is also because he is supposing his sample size to be the true representatives of Hindu/tvavadis. Truth to say, there is no single person anywhere in the world who can claim that. Arya Samaj for all the currency it holds in these matters, is virtually a non entity in entire southern India and in several parts of the rest of India. Vivekananda fame stems not because of his opposition of AIT but simply as an 'elightened being'/saint and as Sri Ramakrishna's student. Infact, I daresay, even adherents of the handful of Vivekananda missions across India are not aware that he even had something to say about AIT. It will be news to them as will AIT/AMT/OIT itself.

Propaganda is what Hitler did during World War II. His theories, that covered the entire gamut of p-p-p and much more was certainly propaganda, in that, it was concocted for consumption of a public that would readily and happily gulp it down and ask for more. Propaganda was what periyar did with his visceral hate campaign against brahmins. In other words, there is an active propagandiser and a proactive propagandee. I could go on but I hope people get my drift and pardon for not putting all this very succintly. Sarvagnya 23:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I haven't read the article yet, but I certainly have read some benighted trash produced by Hindutva luminaries, among them Subhash Kak, B. B. Lal (once a great archaeologist, who alas, in his late retirement, parted company with rigor), and N. S. Rajaram. There is a latter-day cottage industry out there producing unmitigated cultural grandiosity in the name science. Readers need to be warned of that. Perhaps the name of the article could be changed to "Hindutva Pseudoscience" or something similar, but its usefulness is not in doubt. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only useful point that this article makes is that mainstream scholarship dismisses the claims made by Frawley, Kak et al. This point has already been made on several related articles ad nauseum.
Simply stating 'matter of factly' and dispassionately that 'mainstream scholarship' dismisses that of Kak et al., is 'warning enough'. This article, apart from making the said point, goes ahead and includes quotes by Witzel, Sokal etc., in a bid to underline and emphasise the contempt that that 'mainstream scholars' have not just for the opponent's 'scholarship' but also for the opponent. This, it does by cherry picking and quoting verbatim what is simply ad hominem cruft. As a student of the subject, I am only interested in the subject and not the ad hominem exchange of fire that takes place between people. An encyclopedia is simply not the place for such cruft.
Simply make the point of what the issue is, who holds what view of the issue and whose view has 'scholarly sanction' and whose does NOT and leave it at that. Readers are intelligent enough to read everything and make up their mind. We are here only to present the facts and not to engineer opinion.
Also once all views have been stated, there is no need to keep updating these articles with the latest scores everytime Witzel and Rajaram exchange fire. Newspapers and magazines and books and blogs will keep those scores for us.
And most importantly, characterising the views of a Kak and Rajaram as being the views of 'Hindutva/vadis' is a fantastic case of generalising to suit conveniences. Hindutva/vadi itself is a term that has no definition in black and white. It was coined by somebody who himself is not seen as representative of anything or anybody, leave alone Hindus. If Hindutva is defined simply as 'being Hindu' then I am a 'hindutvavadi'(sic). Needless to say, I dont see Kak or Savarkar or anybody as representatives of my faith. Not by any stretch of imagination. Nor do an overwhelming majority of hundreds of millions of other Hindus. Hindus have no high command like the pope or the catholic church. So ascribing to all Hindus, a view of someone that not even 1% of Hindus have even heard about, is simply nonsense.
Coz, truth be told, for all the zillion hours of editing and cpediting and 'POV fighting' that editors of these articles have put in, all these articles read as confused pieces with hardly any value for the dispassionate reader. Many of these articles have derailed so badly that it makes almost no sense to somebody who has no clue of the history of edit warring that has gone in to put the article together. In other words, believe me, these articles make no sense to anybody except the dabs and the Bakas. The very purpose of wikipedia as an encyclopedia is being defeated and compromised by both parties insisting on adding every ad hominem exchange of fire that takes place.
I think its high time we all get together at the village pump and hammer out a policy to explicitly deal with 'controversial' articles. The policy in a nutshell should read something like "Keep the facts in, keep the commentary(also read as 'ad hominem' cruft) out". Sarvagnya 05:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with some of the things you say. However, "Hindutva" is not the same thing as "being Hindu." Nor is it "Hindu nationalism." Although the word has supposedly been around since the 1920s, it is political word, linked very much to the resurgence of the BJP in India in the 1990s. In the 1960s if you had asked someone what the word meant, you would have likely elicited derisive laughter, not because of the political implications of the word which no one knew then, but because the word 'Hindutva" is a portmanteau of a Persian/Urdu word "Hindu" and the Sanskrit "tatva," which only a shabby scholar (like Savarkar) could have put together. Hindutva scholarship has not only continued this tradition of combining implausibles, and created fantastic nonsense (like the Vedic Aryans solving quadratic equations in 5000 BCE), but has also aggressively insinuated itself into school curricula and so forth. This last issue is worrisome. I think we need an article that keeps tabs on the mischief Savarkar's intellectual descendants are wreaking upon us. I am sure the article can say at the outset (if it doesn't already) that "Hindutva" is a political word and is not the same thing as "Hindu" etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
....which only a shabby scholar (like Savarkar)... - here lies the problem. It shouldnt be of any concern to the editor or the reader of an encyclopedia whether somebody is a 'shabby' scholar or a 'great' scholar. All that should matter is the facts. Leave the commentary out. Also if 'Hindutva' itself has no fixed meaning and depends heavily on the context and/or whose mouth it is coming from, how can terms like 'Hindutva propaganda', 'Hindutva p-p-p' or derivatives like 'Hindutvavadi' etc., have any meaning?
...Hindutva scholarship has not only continued this tradition of combining implausibles, and created fantastic nonsense (like the Vedic Aryans solving quadratic equations in 5000 BCE)...
'Hindutva scholarship now! Even if we were to assume that Savarkar was the high priest of Hindutva, how did you conclude that Kak and Frawley, for example, are carrying on from where Savarkar left off? It is not like say, Karunanidhi carrying on Periyar's work(that is a case where Periyar was the high priest and annadurai, karunanidhi et al form the unbroken shishya parampara). Kak and Frawley for heaven's sake were not even born when Savarkar was around! If Kak says something, ascribe it to Kak and nobody else. If Frawley says something, ascribe it to Frawley and no one else. If supporters of Kak's views want space for it on wikipedia, start an article for say, each of Kak's books where he has presented his views and present them there. Same holds for Frawley. Same holds for Rajaram. And in the AIT article, put all these articles in the ==See also== and also a SS prose under ==Criticism of AIT==. Now if you ask why Kak, who in your view is a quack should be given space in any of these articles, it is simply because he is a 'notable' critic of the AIT and associated theories. And how did I accord the status of a 'notable critic' to Kak, you may ask. I accorded the status because 'scholars' like Witzel have 'dignified' what you dismiss as drivel with responses. Witzel and co have unwittingly given Kak and co the 'notability' required for a wikipedia mention by choosing to respond! every bum has an opinion but then not every bum's opinion gets the audience and critical analysis of experts! go figure.
And btw, why should any claim that vedic aryans or their chinese or egyptian contemporaries or anyone for that matter solve quadratic equations be fantastic nonsense? If homo sapiens of modern day can solve quadratic equations, I dont see any reason why homo sapiens of 5000 years ago could not have. The science of logic and probability tells me not to dismiss the possibility as fantastic nonsense or even nonsense. Yes at the same time, do I believe that they did? No. Not until I see some proof. Do I believe that it might/could have been possible? Yes(I dont see any reason why not). So, for purposes of an encyclopedia we would have to leave commentary like fantastic nonsense out of the picture and simply state the facts. The facts in this case should read something like - "A claim has been made by so and so... that homo sapiens of 5000 years ago could solve quadratic equations. However, in the absence of any proof to support the claim (or because the proof provided in support of the claim do not measure up to scientific rigor), the claim has been dismissed by the scientific community at large." Sarvagnya 10:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is fantastic nonsense because the notion of negative numbers (a sine qua non for a general solution of a quadratic) didn't exist anywhere until the first millennium CE, and because special cases of quadratics like: are not called "quadratics," but simply "square roots." Even they require knowledge of negative numbers for a complete solution. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the notion of negative numbers didn't exist anywhere until the first millennium CE - that is per the historical evidence we have at hand at present. Present historical evidence cannot preclude the possibility that new evidence may be found tomorrow. So your shrill pitch of fantastic nonsense can only be seen as stupid and misplaced bravado stemming from curling up nice and cosy behind 'scholarship'. Sarvagnya 23:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dab, 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. This discussion obviously needs to continue, per Wikipedia norms for hotly contested AfDs. ॐ Priyanath talk 18:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support closing the AfD. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely the cabalist mentality of those voting "keep" is self evident. Amey Aryan DaBrood© 18:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is the most ridiculous suggestion - yes a few editors usually have routine issues being constructive, but this debate is legitimate and not a "mudslinging" venture. Have the patience to sit out the debate. Rama's arrow 16:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Debate of what? The article as it was when the AfD was started, or the article as it is now, after edits by people who have voted to delete? What a joke. rudra 16:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be woefully unaware that this is in fact a wiki, and that unless the page is full protected, the page can be mercilessly edited by you, me, George W. Bush, and any life-form capable of using a computer. There is no special reason to stop editing just because one's pet page is up for AFD, and that neither you nor any other editor owns the article.Bakaman 21:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I wasn't aware that sabotage by delete-voters during an AFD to sway later votes is perfectly acceptable, so much so that attempts to set the record straight for orderly discussion, far from having any merit, could in fact result in warnings if not disciplinary action. rudra 22:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The out of India hypothesis of Indo-European linguistics is a priori unrelated to Aryan mysticism, but has been conflated with pseudoscholarship.

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 and Steve Farmer in their debunking of the "Harappan horse seal" hoax of The Deciphered Indus Script

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. The debate on this AfD, the endless back and forth POV by a few obviously interested parties, is further confusing the issue. killing sparrows 21:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I meant when I said that this article(and a host of other related articles) make sense only to the dabs and the bakas who have been active participants in this fiasco. Sarvagnya 22:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The title Hindutva propaganda almost implies the entire Hindutva movement in based on propaganda. Regardless of whether it is or not, I ask those who voted keep to consider a more neutral title at least such as Propaganda/Pseudoscience in Hindutva Just like with every ideaology, there are moderates and extremes. Saying propaganda is central to a former ruling party in India is quite harsh, no matter who you are.
  2. If this article is kept, it will allow the creation of other "XYZ propaganda" articles. Possible which may be created is Indophobic propaganda, [[Islamofascist in opposition to this one. And here is something interesting. What does everyone here think of the Nazi propaganda article? Does it suffer the same problems of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV? I doubt anyone here approves of Nazism here but the WP:NPOV policy states all views have to be represented equally, no matter how evil they are. The French Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire once said, <quote>I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it</quote>
  3. I encourage both sides to simply state their reason for deletion/keeping rather than accuse the other side of stupidity. It doesn't matter whether the "other side" is stupid and politically motivated. Neither The people voting delete are all zealots nor The people voting keep have an anti-Indian agenda are sufficient arguments. It is best just to say I believe the article should be kept/deleted because it (/doesn't) adheres to Wiki's policies of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Leave it there. Any additional information is unneeded and probably not relevant to the discussion.
At the moment I am leaning towards a Merge to Hindutva, though still likely to change, mainly because I believe the term "propaganda" is too subjective. Propaganda is defined as providing misleading information to influence the opinion of people but what is misleading depends entirely on one's point of view. Similarly, I believe all propaganda articles should be deleted including Nazi propaganda unless the idealogical group which believes that it is propaganda is explicitly stated throughout the article. Here it is Western academics and scholars who support the AMT and dismiss Vedic Science as pseudoscience. Thank you, lets leave our emotions aside in this discussion. GizzaChat © 08:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A appreciate the concern over wanton "XYZ propaganda" articles. But the precedent is already in place anyway, with articles like Nazi propaganda and Soviet propaganda. This is similar to "persecution of XYZ" or "criticism of XYZ": A certain amount of vigilantism is required to prevent the creation of unwarranted articles. One example would be Historical persecution by Jews, which, it was argued, was "not pov" because we have Historical Persecution by Christians and Historical persecution by Muslims. But, it simply turned out that there was practically no material that fit the article title. Thus, deletion of "persecution by X" or "Y propaganda" must have a case by case basis. The article under discussion here presents plenty of academic sources that document the rise of "Hindutva pseudoarchaeology" since the 1990s, so that there can be no doubt that this article is valid. Other creations like anti-Hindu propaganda would need to meet similar standards of an academic basis. Surely, such an article cannot be justified by citing the propaganda/counter-propaganda machine itself. But if the phenomenon is substantiated by Cambridge, Rutgers, and Routledge publications, there can simply be no debate over article validity. Before we harp on the question of titling too much, note that I have moved the article and was reverted by AMbroodEY for taking away his pretext for calling for deletion. dab (𒁳) 13:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi & Soviet propogandas were not religious one.So, comparision is just not proper.See yourself that there is no article named Christian Propoganda or Muslim Propoganda on WP. Hindutva is IA term meaning "being Hindu" or Hinduness in English. And, to tell that `being Hindu' or Hinduness is propoganda ; is blatant lie for the world's oldest religion or spiritual force.

One should remember that it was `being Christian' feeling that got united to draw Islam out of Europe. Or it was `being Muslim' feeling that made all religious conversions out of Arabia. So, would you say that as Chritianness or Islamness Propoganda ? One can see that the creator & main writer is trying to do propoganda to denigrate Hinduism. First he should write Christian Propoganda article ( one who is not allowing traditional presentation of RigVeda and names section as `Vedantic and Hindu reformist views'. It misrepresents traditional Hindu views about Rig-Veda. And, telling traditional Hindu views as reformist is also misrepresenting the fact. If RigVeda is just ritual based text then Hindus would not have revered it as a seed of all Indian wisdom, be it spiritual or other sciences. Veda itself means knowledge in Sanskrit. So, I strongly object mis-undestanding & hence mis-representation of Hindu texts by materialistic goggles wearing western eyes. WIN 05:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi propaganda and Soviet propaganda are not valid analogies here. Both 'Nazi' and 'Soviet' are well defined entities. And there, the propaganda stemmed from the establishment. That it was propaganda is also well attested. Not just esoteric academic journals but every single newspaper and magazine and tabloid and TV channel has called it 'propaganda'. That said, an article about it in an encyclopedia should be balanced and present both/all sides.
otoh, here, neither is 'Hindutva' itself unambiguously defined nor has it been established or demonstrated beyond doubt that it is propaganda. And I cant imagine that it ever will be. For, if it is propaganda that Kak and Frawley are upto, they're doing a very bad job. Nobody outside academic circles even knows their names.
Further comments here Sarvagnya 18:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A sad state of affairs; one which is being skilfully remedied by those using Wikipedia to vote 'delete' on this article, and 'keep' for Nicholas Kazanas. Hornplease
To: Sarvagnya: Present historical evidence cannot preclude the possibility that new evidence may be found tomorrow. So your shrill pitch of fantastic nonsense can only be seen as stupid and misplaced bravado stemming from curling up nice and cosy behind 'scholarship'. Since I can't copy edit your English (on a talk page), let me just say that "preclude" means "to remove the possibility (of an event, etc.) occurring (OED)," so it is enough to say, "... cannot preclude that new evidence could be found tomorrow," or more correctly, "... preclude the event of new evidence being found tomorrow." Also, "might" is generally preferred over "may" when referring to events of such uncertainty. Given your poorly crafted first sentence, I will be more understanding with your pleonasm-ridden second sentence, which another editor might interpret as a personal attack. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
aah.. semantic cruft. as usual. should have known the moment you voted in support of a ridiculous call to close the afd. Nichalp, saravask, ragib and now dab. You've got yourself covered. Good for you. Sarvagnya 18:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confounding the uninformed eh? There is nothing i repeat no evidence except Witzel's shrill rants to link the revisionist scholarship with Hindutva parties. You guys cant even define Hindutva. AIT or historical revisionism dont even figure in Hindutva ideology per se. Amey Aryan DaBrood© 19:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case the support of NAIT by many Hindutva proponents is just accidental, true, "well informed" ? Many VOI publications are devoted to "revisionism" from Elst to Danino and others. It would be difficult for you to deny that. TwoHorned 12:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a Special Purpose ID, created only for voting on this article's deletion :-Anarya's contributions. Haphar 07:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Daleks are back ! TwoHorned 13:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vote bank politics, Haphar? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.73.145.231 (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Well at least I do not hide behind anonymous id's , and did not see you comment on the vote bank politics here. Selective highlighting to twist things ? Haphar 08:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vote bank politics? No, actually. Rather an opinion formed after coming across examples of the pseudoscience, which I think may seriously mislead some poor souls and which is a discredit to India, and after carefully reading what critics such as Sokal and Nanda have to say. Davy p 19:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt know deleting a cruft page was indicative of vulture-like behavior. Of course, nadirali (talk · contribs) would probably agree with you.Bakaman 02:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Is it your English language skills or your inductive logic skills that make you so compelling? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dont bother Baka... being called a 'vulture' by the lawyer of the Pakistani cabal is an honour. I've been slurred much worse.

Fowler four admins have voted delete, i trust them to know better than you abt what is good for wiki... Amey Aryan DaBrood© 07:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a more cutting comment would be the religion of ALL voting for delete. Shows a certain communal cabal. That applies to the admins too. Haphar 10:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True. Sysop is not a synonym for "more learned" in Wikipedia. It could be, but there is uncorrelation in the definition. TwoHorned 14:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - You're right twhorned, dab is not more learned than us, and if you think its about education then no one gives a hoot about your credentials.Bakaman 22:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, what is the religion of ALL voting for keep? Shows a anti-hindu communal cabal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.76.15.119 (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]


Er, WP's not about preventing affront. Sorry. Hornplease 06:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really!!! So has wikiepdia started allowing "open or intentional offense, slight, or insult" [5] now? This so cool, so sexy!! Wikipsycho 22:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the article is religious mudslinging, and that is of course a vio of WP:NPOV.Bakaman 22:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Scheibenzahl's Comment: Well, it may be that "Hindutva propaganda" is a term that is not widely used, but the subject of the article could still be noteworthy. Here is what I mean: the so-called Out-of-India or Indigenous Aryan perspective is to be found expressed (or at least attempted) on a number of Wikipedia pages. However, if you scour mainstream academic literature (peer-review internationally-recognized journals or internationally-known academic/university publishers) this perspective is conspicuous by its absence. None of the other tertiary sources (Britannica, Encarta, World Book Encyclopedia, Columbia Encyclopedia) say a word about Indigenous Aryans. Why is this the case? One could of course dream up conspiracy theories, that "Euro-centric" academia is anti-Indian etc., but from what little I know about the academic scene in the West, the competition for jobs, tenure, and the 15 minutes of fame is so great that if there were a realistic chance of the Aryans being indigenous, people would be lining up to write papers about them, regardless of the prevailing orthodoxy in the field. The alternate view is that the movement to claim the Aryans as indigenous to India is a partisan one, with more belief than hard facts on their side. That is what pseudoscience is. I quote from a paper of Sudeshna Guha that I just finished reading,[1]

Sudeshna Guha is a Lecturer in History at the University of Cambridge and her paper is careful and nuanced. That means that at least some mainstream scholars are worrying about these issues. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Guha, Sudeshna. 2005. "Negotiating Evidence: History, Archeology and the Indus Civilisation." Modern Asian Studies. 39(2):399-426.
  2. ^ Prinja, N. 1996. Explaining Hindu Dharma: A Guide for Teachers. Norfolk: Chansitor Publications Ltd. Page 10.
  3. ^ Lal, B. B. 1998. "Facts of History Cannot Be Altered." The Hindu. 1 July.
  4. ^ Gupta, S. P. 1996. The Indus-Saraswati Civilization: Origins, Problems, Issues. Delhi: Pratibha Prakashan. Page 142.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More