Talk:Koenraad Elst/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposed merge with Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society

Non notable book, following the AFD discussion this really ought to be a redirect. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose merger per Redtiger and FreeKnowledgeCreator. You also forgot to add the merger tag to the article, so that others can see it. I will do it now.

The outcome of the discussion was keep. The two articles should be kept separate, they are discrete subjects. --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Support merger As the closer of that AfD mentioned, it was only a weak keep that could have gone either way. The sources for that article are primary sources, with the exception of two passing mentions elsewhere. This happens a lot with authors; the man may be notable, but not every book he ever wrote. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Lean toward merger. I'm not sure there is more than one nontrivial review, and if this is correct, the book may fall short of the "multiple nontrivial reviews" threshhold for notability. In particular, the review by Rao is nontrivial. But another linked review currently in the article is to a different book. And the mention by Larson (p340) is trivial. Calypsomusic has complained that some changes to add references have been reverted. Unless those changes included additional nontrivial reviews, I am in favor of merger. As far as I'm concerned, Calypso would be welcome to summarize any such additional reviews below this comment. If they are offline, perhaps Calypsomusic could supply an extensive quotation that would show how the review is nontrivial. --Presearch (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Support merger not notable enough to warrant their own articles. Cwobeel (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I have expanded the article. I'm sure that Darkness Shines will again think about reverting all of my edits. Can I ask him as a matter of courtesy not to make a blanket revert, but just remove the pieces he thinks should not be in the article?

The fuller version of the article is at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayodhya_and_After:_Issues_Before_Hindu_Society&oldid=604631172

Many additional sources are in the deletion discussion : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society --Calypsomusic (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: As predicted, a revert was made, but some changes were left. I don't understand the "edit commentary by Darkness Shines. What has it to do with BLP? --Calypsomusic (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, this merger proposal is not supposed to be a simple "cover" for a deletion. You have converted two book articles into redirects to the author's page, but not added any material to the author's page, and it's been a long period of time. This is poor practice and gives the impression that it's OK to do a deletion masquerading as a merger. I will restore the book articles per WP:BRD. Next time, if you want to implement the merger, then to be a "straight shooter", as well as compensate for this current move, I would urge you to add the merged material to the author page before turning the book page into a redirect. --Presearch (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Support merger: not notable enough, can only be related to the books he wrote, and inside their respective articles. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 07:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Merger this article has sufficient content to exist on its own. This author article should not be merged into one of its books. The proposer User:Darkness Shines has been blocked for two months. The suggestion of merging more content into lesser content article is so inconsistent to me! Jyoti (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The result of discussion for deletion of Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society was keep, I have restored it. I do not see a consensus here and at least one other editor had reverted it earlier too making it controversial. A merge proposal discussion is not a yes/no count. Jyoti (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed by a non-neutral involved editor: Results of merge proposal

According to the discussions on the two merge proposed, the results are:

• merge with The Saffron Swastika. Results: 2 oppositions, 4 supports for the merge;
• merge with Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society. Results: 2 oppose, 4 supports.

Conclusion: the consensus is for merging. Consequently, the Elst article will be merged this week to either book article; - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 17:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

TwoHorned your conclusion is not in accordance with the guidelines, please do not present it as a conclusion, that may mislead other editors. Quoting from WP:MERGE:

• If you propose a merger, and nobody objects within 30 days, then you or any other interested editor may boldly perform the merger at any time. This is not the case here.
• In more unclear, controversial cases, the determination that a consensus to merge has been achieved is normally made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merger proposal or the discussion. I consider that you are not a neutral editor. You have been directly involved in the merger proposal above and on your talk page there are earlier discussion involving the article going as back as 2006: Bizzare Allegations, Another try, Defamation on Koenraad Elst; really ?, etc.

Also to note: This page was nominated for deletion on 7 April 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Also to note: The proposer had flaunted the rules of merger and it has been mentioned on this talk page above also s/he has been banned for two months (for another abuse). Jyoti (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• More input from other, preferably editors without an ax to grind would be helpful. There is no rush to get this done.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Two kinds of pork. Projecting that there is a 'conclusion' is deterrent to ongoing discussion, it should not be done prematurely -- it is misleading to say the least. And such discussion should preferably go in the respective section, not here. Jyoti (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

As a compromise, could we merge half the article (the main biography including the "praise") into the first book article, and the second half (with all the criticism and BLP attacks) into the second book article. Then TwoHorned could concentrate his edits in the second book article, and leave the first book article containing the main biography alone. The only problem would be that the second book article could be deleted because of OR/BLP/NPOV violation? --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you can't separate criticisms from a main article, this is never seen and counter-encyclopedic. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 10:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with The Saffron Swastika

The book is not notable enough for it`s own article, a redirect is suitable given the AFD results. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Saffron Swastika conclusion was "the book is deemed reliable and important enough". There are Afds which are closed as Redirect explicitly. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I know that, however I am of the opinion that the books are not notable, and the closing admin has said he has no issue with these being redirected, I figured rather than just redirect w merger discussion would be preferable. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose merger - keep as stand-alone article.(Refactored by self to: Support merger - see comment directly below) The book does seem notable. I corroborated some of the mentions or reviews ("heavily lined copy", Menon review mentioned in deletion discussion). DarknessShines' "reason" is therefore a non-reason. Perhaps there is some other motivation for the merger proposal that hasn't been disclosed. I find some of the book's ideas implausible but WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a valid Wikipedia reason to eliminate a separate article about the book. The Menon review that has been discovered should be intergrated into the stand-alone article, since it can indeed help to fill out the article further. And the online "heavily marked" should also be linked into the article.--Presearch (talk)

I have changed my view to support merger, so I refactored my comment above. For explanation, see my discussion below with Mezzo, and my comment beginning "Yikes". In a nutshell, blog/web forum reviews fail to count for minimum 2 reviews needed for WP:NBOOK. --Presearch (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose merger per Redtiger and FreeKnowledgeCreator and Presearch. I agree with the first two that some users need to learn to accept the outcome of deletion discussions. Not all of his deletion nominations are accepted by wikipedia admins, his deletion nomination for Anti-Hinduism and Category:Anti-Hinduism and Ilsaghat massacre and Captivity of Nairs at Seringapatam and Captivity of Kodavas at Seringapatam and Sanaullah Haq and Decline of Hinduism in Pakistan and 1971 killing of Bengali intellectuals, 2013 Bangladesh riot and Sex Jihad were not. I agree with the other editors that he should accept these outcomes, and I also agree with some of other editors who said he has been renominating the article for deletion a second or even third time after the outcome was keep or has been asking for them to be merged after the outcome was keep. But instead DS has personally attacked the admin who closed the discussion with keep, calling him a tit and **** dense. --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Another link I found (not about this book though, [1]). --Calypsomusic (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Calypsomusic, fucking dense as I may be according to some, I still don't look kindly on what appears to be a promotional effort in the Elst department. I did say that these articles were very tenuous keeps: they may well be mentioned and thus become more or less notable, but if there isn't enough published on them to write an article, then a redirect may be the best choice. These are editorial decisions and should be taken collaboratively; you cannot say that policy mandates that there be an article that is little more than the title + plot. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: Forgot I had written that, was shitfaced at the time, so this is a belated apology. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Support merger As stated, the keep was tenuous and less than ideal. Even with every source that has currently been found, the article cannot be expanded beyond what it currently is and it actually needs to be cut down, as the long block of quoted text from the author himself seems like a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE (though the entire article seems that way, but I digress). Once that is cut out, it will never be able to move beyond a stub; the given non-primary sources (there are only a few) would serve better here in this article in a section about reception of the author's work. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Merely asserting "it can't be expanded further" does not make it true, and verges on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. In my comment above I suggested that the article could be expanded by citing (and mentioning content from) the currently uncited Menon review. If you disagree that this is a resource for expansion, it's incumbent on you to explain why. --Presearch (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Honestly User:Presearch, what more text could be added with that? This isn't rhetorical, I really don't see what could be written beyond "TM Menon also gave the book a good review." Unless we throw in another block quote, but then we run into the quotefarm problem. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The Menon review is lengthy and largely positive, but it is nontrivial, which is the key criterion for book notability. Book notability nowhere says that a book is only notable if reviewers disagree. A lot of the Menon review is simply summarizing the material in the book, but it does have various other types of commentary, and it can also be enlightening to show (within limits) what a reviewer saw fit to point out as contained in the book. For a nontrivial review such as Menon, some of the most representative, important, or thought-provoking commentary could be either quoted or paraphrased. For example, near the end Menon says "Not many would agree with the author; but then, books are as much to read as for disagreeing with their content, if one strongly feels about [it]." Finding ways to adequately bring in material from the Menon and other reviews poses essentially the same challenge as is posed in writing any book review article where most or all reviews are of approximately the same valence. It's not as easy as assembling two opposing phalanxes of oppositely-valenced quotes (or quote farms), but it's usually doable, and I've seen no reason to think it can't be done here. Plus, the primary prescribed remedy in WP:QUOTEFARM is reworking the article, not article deletion. Describing the reviews is clearly not risking being a "repository of loosely associated topics". --Presearch (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

So this in-depth review could give us maybe two lines plus a paraphrase/quote. I don't mean to be terse because I can see that you did take the time to read through it and write a thoughtful answer. But if, theoretically, we keep this article then some of the current text needs to be cut for the reasons stated above; when adding material with the single source of the Menon review, we would still be looking at a stub whose citations and material would better serve as an enhanced section to this main article here. I can't rule out the possibility that I am wrong, though. Maybe more feedback from a larger net of users would help. I apologize in advance if my comment seems flippant, that isn't my intention. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever written book articles? Or looked at the relevant BOOK ARTICLE STYLE GUIDE? The article can and indeed should (to the tune of about 400 to 700 words) be fleshed out with a synopsis of the book. You've cited nothing but generic arguments that could be applied to almost any book with relatively few reviews. If you disagree with the very long-standing notability threshhold of 2 nontrivial reviews, that's a different issue, but not one to be decided here. Frankly, I suspect that I'd find myself in great disagreement with many arguments and conclusions in the book (even if the facts are largely accurate, and I can't vouch one way or the other). But the presentation of generic arguments that could be used to oppose virtually any book article lacking a superabundance of reviews strikes me as giving the appearance of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT perhaps an argument that would hold appeal at first glance, but one that is ultimately weak, and should be rejected, my friend. --Presearch (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've created book articles before. I have never heard of this threshhold of two nontrivial reviews, though. I would ask where this threshhold is, but I know that many of these community consensuses are not necessarily written explicitly but are known through a long set of common outcomes. Though if it is written somewhere then that would be great; I understand if it isn't. I have to be honest though, for modern works my impression of the threshhold is at the top of WP:NBOOK under the "in a nutshell" part. There are five criteria there, and this book doesn't meet a single one as far as I know. It has been reviewed, nontrivially, but it hasn't been the actual subject of other books which are independent of this book itself. Whenever books come up on proposals for merging or whatever, that is the principle on which I have always operated. If there is another policy which would modify this in someway then I'm not aware of it (which is theoretically possible). MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yikes, this is embarrassing. I have egg on my face. I too was thinking of the WP:NBOOK criterion, which reads "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3]" And footnote 2 states "'Non-trivial' excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable...." Thus, while the reviews need not be in "other books" (your phrasing) -- they can be in published journals and such things -- personal blogs as for Rao, and also for Menon are not adequate. And I think that nixes notability. Thus I stand corrected. You have won me over to your point of view. I will change my "vote" to merge. As a bit of apology/explanation, the approximately 25 book articles I've written were mostly more than a year ago, and all had multiple reviews actually published in real journals or similar sources (that's the type of book that interested me) -- but clearly my memory of the criterion, which I must have known, had faded. Apologies for taking your time, it would have been more efficient if I'd reread it. Best regards -- Presearch (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• 'Support merger per nom. Cwobeel (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment : I cannot be bothered anymore to expand the article, when Darkness Shines is reverting all of my edits in these and other articles. But I believe that another editor can easily expand this article.

For more sources, see the informative comments above by User:Presearch, and my summary from the AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Saffron Swastika:

So in summary this book has multiple reviews (R.N. Rao, Christian Bouchet, TM Menon, and maybe more) (note that Darkness Shines has removed references from the article, so they might not show up), it is quoted in several newspaper articles (Outlook India, Telegraph, Times of India), it contains parts of his Ph.D. thesis, the book is quoted by very prominent politicans like the home minister and deputy prime minister L.K. Advani, professor Edwin Bryant writes it is one of his notable works, it is a major source (in entries on India) in "World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia" by Cyprian Blamires and ‎Paul Jackson and in "Racism: A Selected Bibliography" by Albert J. Wheeler, it is cited in history professor Arnold P. Kaminsky encyclopedia "India Today: An Encyclopedia of Life in the Republic", in Tom Brass book "Latin American Peasants" and many other books/papers, it is quoted in official political statements (in statements made after an appeal by the Dalai Lama, was used to prove the home minister L.K. Advani's innocence during a cross-examination at the commission,...) , etc. This book meets clearly notability criteria.--Calypsomusic (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: The Outlook India quotes Elst quite extensively. It can be found online in several places by googling "outlook india elst saffron swastika advani"

Menon said in a book review on this book: "Not many would agree with the author; but then, books are as much to read as for disagreeing with their content, if one strongly feels about [it]."

And the review by Rao was orignally published (among other places?) at the India Star Book review journal (edited by C. Wallia of the University of Berkeley). http://web.archive.org/web/20060528235634/http://www.indiastar.com/rameshrao.html --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Calypso, I just changed my "vote", as you can see above, so I think if the Saffron book is to survive as an independent article, you'll need to make a strong case for notability, and fast. If you think the article can be reworked to make it very clear that it passes WP:NBOOK, one place you might do that is in your own sandbox, where presumably no-one will revert your changes, but other people could see clearly what you've done, and they won't have to deal with walls of text (like this one!).

I would urge you to concentrate on demonstrating that some one sufficient criterion of WP:NBOOK is satisfied. Perhaps you think there are 2 nontrivial and substantive reviews? If so, please show us very clearly in your sandbox those 2 reviews. Since people are tired of your walls of text, perhaps you could create an individual page that contains ONLY those 2 real reviews, and very clearly quotes enough text that makes them substantive/nontrivial, and also very clearly establishes them as published in the right kind of publication (see my quote above -- Rao and Menon seem out because they are essentially in blogs). Now you say that Menon was originally published in an "India Star Book review journal". I strongly suspect that people here will want more info than just that link to show it is a real published journal. For example, when I go to Worldcat, I find no record of a journal called "India Star" that matches your website. Thus maybe it's never been carried by any libraries. This would, I think, tend to undermine it as a source that would count towards establishing notability. But if you could establish that 2 reviews appeared in sources catalogued in Worldcat, then you'd be a long way towards doing what you need to do. Other stuff about being mentioned briefly by politicians is irrelevant to the book review criterion. Choose one criterion, and show us, cleanly, without lots of distractions, exactly how it is satisfied. --Presearch (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, this merger proposal is not supposed to be a simple "cover" for a deletion. You have converted two book articles into redirects to the author's page, but not added any material to the author's page, and it's been a long period of time. This is poor practice and gives the impression that it's OK to do a deletion masquerading as a merger. I will restore the book articles per WP:BRD. Next time, if you want to implement the merger, then to be a "straight shooter", as well as compensate for this current move, I would urge you to add the merged material to the author page before turning the book page into a redirect. --Presearch (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Neither was this discussion finished yet, was it? So I agree with Presearch's restoration, untill this discussion is finished. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Support merger: not notable enough, can only be related to the books he wrote, and inside their respective articles.. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 07:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC).

Merge. Book doesn't meet notability criteria. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: This is a merger discussion, not a second AFD discussion. Not one of the pro-merge voters have argued on the basis of WP:Merging. I argue against merging because The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short.--Calypsomusic (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: One of the book reviews was published at the India Star Book review online journal (edited by C. Wallia of the University of Berkeley). While it is not an academic journal, it is also not just a personal blog. The Menon review was published 10 years ago, as were other reviews, and after 10 years it is difficult to track down where they were published in India. But the lenghty size of the reviews indicates that they must have been published somewhere. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Calypso, you say "While it is not an academic journal, it is also not just a personal blog". But as I noted in my earlier comment, I was unable to find any record of "India Star" in Worldcat. How is it possible to verify that "India Star" -- even if it isn't just a blog -- is a "nontrivial" web presence? Merely having sponsorship by a professor at a prominent university is not enough by itself to distinguish it from a blog. --Presearch (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think that Worldcat contains a complete list of all journals from all countries? The India Star Review of books is not the authors' personal website or blog. [2] It has a publisher and editor C.J.Singh,Ph.D., and CJS Wallia of the University of Berkeley. Book reviews that were published are reviews written by prominent authors like Prof. Meenakshi Mukherjee, , a renowned litterateur and Sahitya Akademi award winner, and "India's leading literary critic" and Prof Subhash Kak. In my opinion, this is a nontrivial web presence. (See also [3]) --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Presearch, I have made an article on Meenakshi Mukherjee (still very short), there were at least 3 reviews by her published in that journal. What do you say regarding the contribution the book made in politics, as shown in newspaper articles in Telegraph/Times of India/Outlook, as I gave some examples on this in this and in the AFD discussion (LK Advani/BJP/Dalai Lama/Ayodhya/Liberhans/etc.)? --Calypsomusic (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: The book is also notable because of criterion 3: The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to an event or political or religious movement. In addition to what was said in the AFD discussion and already demonstrates notability, I have found that L.K. Advani, former Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the opposition, wrote about the Saffron Swastika in his autobiography "My Country, My Life":

"Dr. Koenrad Elst, in his two-volume book titled The Saffrron Swsatika, ... an incontrovertible array of facts to debunk slanderous attacks on the BJP by a section of the media. About the Yatra he writes: ...(*lenghty excerpts*). "

"Towards this end, I took an important initiative at a function in New Delhi on 13 August, while releasing Koenraad Elst's book Ram Janmabhoomi vs Babri Masjid: A case study in Hindu Muslim conflict. I offered to the the Muslim leaders that I would personally request leaders of the VHP to relinquish their demand on the Hindu shrine in Mathura and Varanasi if the Muslim claim over Ramjanmabhoomi was voluntarily withdrawn, paving the way for the construction of the Ram Temple. I was deeply disappointed when Muslim leaders rejected this offer. I had proposed the compromise after much reflection. Therefore (... )was a major goodwill gesture towards Muslims. By refusing (...) the ABIMAC leaders once again showed their obstinacy, ... and fanaticism. " (pp. 371-379)

If such statements were made by the corresponding political function in the US or the UK, it would also indicate notability of the book. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Merger this article has sufficient content to exist on its own. This author article should not be merged into one of its books. The proposer User:Darkness Shines has been blocked for two months. Jyoti (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge As far as I can tell, this book fails to meet any of the six required elements for WP:NBOOK. The text of which follows, and please note the emphasis added (mine) for bullets 1 & 3:

1. The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4]
2. The book has won a major literary award.
3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[5]
5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.

I notice some editors feel items 1 + 3 have been met, but I strongly disagree. From the sources that I've perused, I fail to see multiple references that provide sufficient critical commentary For #3, a PM making mention of the book in his own work does not even come close to have made a significant contribution to anything.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• This WP:BLP was nominated for deletion and the result was keep. The relevant policy is WP:BIODELETE.
• The book was nominated for deletion and the result was keep.
• As per WP:MERGE The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles.
• If the book's WP:NOTABILITY is contested why propose to merge author's WP:BLP into it? Makes no sense! Jyoti (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Overview of disputed contents

Lead

Under discussion (removed by Calypsomusic)

TwoHorned:"Koenraad Elst (born 7 August 1959) is a Belgian writer and independent orientalist. He was an editor of the New Right Flemish nationalist journal Teksten, Kommentaren en Studies from 1992 to 1995, focusing on criticism of Islam, various other conservative and Flemish separatist publications such as Nucleus, 't Pallieterke, Secessie, or the neoconservative The Brussels Journal and Middle East Forum. He also wrote for the business weekly Trends and for Inforiënt, a monthly issued by the Asian Studies Department of his home university. Elst has authored fifteen English language books on topics related to Indian politics and communalism, and is one of the few western writers to have written extensively and taken position in favour of Indian nationalism and politics, so-called "revivalism"; he participated actively in the controversed debate on Aryan Invasion Theory. His writings are frequently featured in right-wing publications and many of his books are published by Voice Of India publishing house."

Calypsomusic: "Koenraad Elst (born 7 August 1959) is a Belgian author, orientalist and Indologist. Elst has authored more than twenty books on topics related to Indian politics, Hinduism and history, some of which were translated into other languages. He writes in English and Dutch."

References

Comments

Quotation of Meera Nanda article (Economic & Political Weekly, XLIV, 28, 2009):

One such admirer of the Hindu nationalism who has his other foot in Flemish nationalism in his native Belgium is Koenraad Elst. Elst is a protégé and intellectual heir of Ram Swarup and Sita Ram Goel. His interest in New Age and neo-paganism brought him to India where he wrote his doctoral dissertation on Hindu revivalism which was later published as a popular book, Decolonising the Hindu Mind. In this book he advocates the tough line against Islam and Christianity favoured by the Swarup Goel school. Even as he was advocating hard line Hindutva, Elst was sympathetic to the European Right: from 1992-95 he served as the co-editor of TeKoS, the journal of the Belgian New Right. TeKoS has been described as “a sister organisation of [de Benoist’s group] GERCE and loosely associated with the Flemish extreme right-wing, anti-immigrant party Vlaams Belang” (Bar-on 2007:102). Indeed, the editor-in-chief of TeKoS, Luc Pauwels, was one of the founding members of Vlaam Belang, the extreme right wing, anti-immigrant party of Belgium. Elst claims that he has rejected the new right philosophy of de Benoist even though he admits that he occasionally attends their gatherings. Be that as it may, he remains deeply involved in anti-Islamic causes. He is a regular contributor to The Brussels Journal, a right wing blog which the Belgian government has repeatedly charged for fomenting racism and violence.

and

Going by his essays posted on Brussels Journal, Elst is using the writings of his VOI mentors to peddle the worst kind of Islamo- phobia imaginable.

- TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 11:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

JJ: One source for all this stuff in the lead, that's indeed undue, I think. At best Nanda can be mentioned in the article: "According to ..." etc. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Nanda's article is an essay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I support Calypsomusic's lead. KE's support for Hindu revivalism/nationalism can be mentioned in the article, where necessary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

(Independent) Orientalist

Comment by JJ: "Independent" may be better; he's unemployed, isn't he, because of his "independent" views on India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Teksten, Kommentaren en Studies

On KE contributions to TeKOS and TEKOS colloqium. See for instance

"Het zesde colloquium van TeKoS, “Rechts op antwoord! Tegen de dictatuur van het ‘politiek correcte’ denken” vond plaats op 11 november 2000. Voordrachten waren er van Jacques Claes, Koenraad Elst, Rolf Falter en Grégory Pons"; ‘De TeKoS-reeks’, Tekos, XXII, 2001, 102, p.58."

If you want, we can add his articles in Trends in the lede also. TwoHorned - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 14:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely not lead material. It is also UNDUE, because these are minor journals he published maybe 40 years ago. You only want to add it for a guilt for association exercise, which is unfounded (compare with Elsts comments in the linked article and below). Add it to the bibliography if you must. He also published in Communist journals, apart from of course scholarly journals. These are also UNDUE.

Elst's reply:

"This is only partly untrue, but even where true, it clearly biased by being very partial. For instance, in exactly the same years when I was on the editorial board of TeKoS, meeting 6 or 7 times in the said period, I also wrote for the business weekly Trends. Though one article in Trends had far more readers than all my TeKoS articles combined, you fail to mention this. Given your eye for selective detail, it is also remarkable that you omit my leftist period, from far-leftist camp follower at 15 to occasional anti-NATO demonstrator at 24. Not that it is that important, but then neither is my having written for this paper or that. In an article that pays far more attention to my alleged opinions than to what I have actually done, it remains at any rate remarkable that you omit a turn of opinion that would add some perspective to my ideological development.

Around 1990, well before joining TeKoS, I also wrote regularly for Inforiënt, a monthly issued by the Asian Studies Department of my home university. This was a non-political scholarly paper, and clearly some pseudonymous contributor decided that this was not the association he wanted for me.

Anyway, name me a single lemma that starts out with a living author’s membership of the editorial board of a trimonthly paper 18 years ago, which met 6 or 7 times in this period, and where no decisions whatsoever were taken; when the same author has written more than 20 books, some of them best-sellers or otherwise remarkable..

Actually, even when I occasionally published in a Nouvelle Droite paper (TeKoS), I never endorsed Nouvelle Droite viewpoints, such as their anti-Liberalism, their anti-Americanism, or their championing “identity”, or the “Traditionalism” which some of its leading lights espouse. The only time I wrote in a real Nouvelle Droite publication (Nouvelle Ecole 2000), it was to defend the Out-of-India Theory against the Aryan Invasion Theory, central to the Nouvelle Droite worldview and defended in that same issue by both Prof. Jean Haudry and Alain de Benoist. Recently I have written some skeptical comments on the Nouvelle Droite, but throughout, I have absolutely never expressed any kind of agreement with it or, when it still mattered, even just an opinion on it. You or your sources are simply inventing this. If not, show me. And I don’t mean the gossip by my enemies, quoted on your talk page as authoritative, but an actual text by me. As the writer of thousands of pages of well-considered findings, I have a right to be evaluated on what I have actually written rather than on some vague rumours propagated by my self-declared enemies.

After I had become somewhat well-known as an Islam critic, I accepted a fully non-committal post on the editorial board of TeKoS at the request of the general editor Luc Pauwels, who wanted a counterweight to the heavy pro-Muslim presence with their fantasies of a “Euro-Arab alliance against the US” on his editorial board. It took some time before I knew what it was all about, and by the time I did, I left.

Apart from TeKoS, I only contributed a single article to any Nouvelle Droite publication, viz. to their flagship publication Nouvelle Ecole, where in 2001 I contributed a defence of the Out-of-IndiaTheory, directly flying in the face of the Nouvelle Droite position (which is very pro-AIT) and answered on the spot by both Alain de Benoist, their mastermind, and Jean Haudry, their specialist on Indo-European matters. It is a good thing that they are more open-minded than the Indian secularists, but that shouldn’t obscure our differences.

That can be generalized: though I published in the Nouvelle Droite publication TeKoS, Meera Nanda and her friends will have a hard time finding articles of mine where I develop the typical Nouvelle Droite themes, such as identity. There are even articles where I lambast the Nouvelle Droite (or the Vlaams Belang, for that matter), but they are in Dutch, which I surmise Meera Nanda does not read. Note however that it is her own unsolicited conceit that she is a specialist on the thoughts of Koenraad Elst.

--Calypsomusic (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

All this prodomo reply and complaining is no value in wp. TeKOS, Nucleus, and other flemish separatists publications are markedly ideological and when an author publishes there, it is for his account. This will be reintroduced also, with all other (communist) KE publications if you will. But they will be mentionned. And stop presuming my editorial motivations, this is personal attack. TwoHorned - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 17:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again, the source needs to be something other than Elst's own publication in those journals. If it just those publications, then they can go in the Bibliography, but that's it. If it is something else, then it is certainly worthy of mention. I have not yet read the Meera Nanda article, but it certainly meets RS criteria, if it does in fact contain the statement from the article. I will check up on that soon. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@TwoHorned: Please write the exact sentence that you propose to add to the article. And do this also for the other sections.--Calypsomusic (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

JJ:' Undue for lead, maybe fit for article, when supplemented with KE's commentary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Disagree: these fit for the lead, according to external source Meera Nanda. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 11:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the article. That's not the same as summarizing one essay by one critic in the lead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Conservative and Flemish separatist publications

JJ: Undue for lead, maybe fit for article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Disagree: referenced at many times in external source Meera Nanada. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 11:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

JJ: place it onder "Works" (maybe change the header to "publications"). Same for the rest of this kind of info in the lead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, why do you refuse to say in the Rene Guenon article that he also published at "Regime Fascista" and in conservative publications, and that Brussels Journal has published articles about Rene Guenon? This is not consistent. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Trends and Inforiënt

JJ: Undue for lead, okay for article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. Must be mentionned (according to Elst response on his blog) with other flemish separatist sources as mentioned in Meera Nanda's article. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 11:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Let KE participate here, if he's got an opinion on this article. It's part of his works, and not an essential part; therefor, it does not belong in the lead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, why do you refuse to say in the Rene Guenonarticle that he also published at "Regime Fascista" and in conservative publications, and that Brussels Journal has published articles about Rene Guenon? This is not consistent. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Books Indian politics and communalism

JJ: prefer: "more than twenty books on topics related to Indian politics, Hinduism and history, several of which are published by Voice Of India publishing house, and some being translated into other languages." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Indian nationalism and politics

JJ: prefer: "more than twenty books on topics related to Indian politics, Hinduism and history, several of which are published by Voice Of India publishing house, and some being translated into other languages." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Aryan Invasion Theory

JJ: noteworthy, at least for the article itself. New section? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe change the current section "Opinions" to section "Publications and Opinions" (similar to the Martha Nussbaum article), and discuss there his opions and books in the same section. There could be subsections for AIT, Indian politics, Islam and Christianity, .... --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Right-wing publications

JJ: doublure. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Disagree: central point according to Meera Nanda article. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 11:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That's one critic. You're depending too much on this one critic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Voice Of India publishing house

JJ: noteworthy for the lead, given the controversy. Maybe pair it to "twenty books" etc. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. Why not mention in the lead as well that some of his books were published at Les Belles Lettres and at Rupa, among others? This is extremely UNDUE for the lead, and in my opinion also UNDUE for the article. Please show me other encyclopedic articles which mention this type of information before arguing for it here. (As a compromise, a neutral sentence could be added when discussing his publications or in the bio section, but not in the lead.) --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, KE's notability lays mainly in his extreme points of view. Otherwise, he's not notable. So, something on it has to be mentioned. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That is your opinion, that many others would disagree with. We can mention his points of view, but this not necessitate discussing one of his publishers (which also publishes books on mediation, Yoga, philosophy and Aurobindo). But as a compromise, I would be ok with a sentence like this (but not in the lead): "Many of his books were published at Voice of India, which is well known for its publications by Hindu revivalist writers on Indian politics, history and philsophy." --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Quoting Meera Nanda article:

The second feature that unites the VOI-affiliated triumphalists is they stand on right of the RSS. They have nothing but contempt for the old-guard of RSS and the Bharatiya Janata Party who they consider to be too soft on Islam. They accuse RSS and the Sangh parivar of two fundamental weaknesses: one, that it is not fanatical enough, and two, that it is not smart enough. The two weaknesses are linked: RSS is not fanatical enough because it has not been “intellectual” enough.

- TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 11:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Biography

Under discussion (removed by Calysomusic)

"Several of his books on communalism and Indian politics are published by the Voice of India publishing house."

References

Comments

His main publishing house. Not even mentioned in User:Calypsomusic new version. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned}

Because it is not encyclopedic and UNDUE. Can you show me any other article which discusses where an author has published? --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding ? VOI is a controversed publishing house, and all KE books are published there. The controversy is sourced; Consequently, this will be re-introduced in the article. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 17:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Why are you not able or willing to show me another encyclopedic article that discusses the author's publishing house. Please write the exact sentence that you propose to add to the article. And do this also for the other sections.--Calypsomusic (talk) 10:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hinduism and Indian politics

Hindu nationalism

Under discussion

TwoHorned: "lst is one of the few western writers (along with François Gautier) to defend the Hindu nationalism movements, though he makes some secondary criticisms about particular points."

Calypsomusic: "Elst is known to be sympathetic to Hindu nationalism movements, although with reservations."

References

Comments

JJ: I prefer Calypso's version; more neutral. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

RSS and AIT

Under discussion

TwoHorned: "Elst views the RSS as an interesting nationalist movement, while addressing some secondary critics, in which Elst criticizes the RSS for not going far enough in the nationalist realm." (Ref: Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam. 1992. ISBN 81-85990-01-8.)
TwoHorned: "On the subject of "Indigenous Aryanism", Elst's views on the Aryan Invasion Theory have been debated by number of writers, including Edwin Bryant George Cardona and Michael Witzel."	Calysomusic: "Unlike many proponents of "Indigenous Aryanism", Elst believes in the comparative-linguistics approach. Elst's views on the Aryan Invasion Theory have been debated by number of writers, Including Edwin Bryant George Cardona and Michael Witzel."

References

Comments

JJ: prefer Calypso's version; wpuld like to expand it a little bit. Koenraad Elst is a favorite of Indian revisionists; a little bit more expalanation makes clear that his views are not accepted by scholars. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

On the AIT, there could be added more - quoting his critics Witzel, Bryant, Cardona, among others, and his supporters like Talageri. Mentioning what his contributions and opinions are.

Islam

Under discussion

TwoHorned: "Some of his books or articles contain harsh criticisms of Islam as a whole (among others "Wahi: the Supernatural Basis of Islam", "From Ayodhya to Nazareth"), an article written in the form of an open letter to the Pope and Indian church Bishop Alan de Lastic, whom Elst calls "Your Eminences", and in which he invites them to ask Muslims for repentance towards Christians, or "Ayodhya And After", a book in which he delves into the realm of establishing a purported link between Ayodhya and the conflict between Palestinians and Israel, not an isolated attempt in some far-right European movements (section 2.2 Jerusalem and Ayodhya, similarly, section 13.2 of that book is called Islam and Nazism)."	Calypsomusic: "He ctiricizes some aspects of Islam in his works, including "Wahi: the Supernatural Basis of Islam", and "From Ayodhya to Nazareth"."
TwoHorned: "More precisely, Elst argues often that "not Muslims but Islam is the problem"."	CalypsoMusic: "Elst says that "not Muslims but Islam is the problem"."
TwoHorned: "His views on Islam are in line with the neoconservative think-tank "Middle East Forum", to which he has contributed.(Ref: [http://www.meforum.org/395/the-rushdie-rules Koenraad Elst, The Rushdie Rules, Middle East Quarterly, June 1998)"

References

Comments

TwoHorneds version contains OR and is a blatant misrepresentation of sources. "harsh criticisms" is OR, "not an isolated attempt in some far-right European movements " is OR, and the sources are falsified, they don't support these OR claims about this.

Criticism

JJ: prefer Calypso's version; more neutral, less suggestive. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not about suggestion, it's about sourcing. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 08:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It's about the way you summarize sources. Yours is suggestive, I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Problem

JJ: prefer "argues". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Middle East Quarterly

Addition of these two sentences on the MEF:

• His views on Islam are in line with the neoconservative think-tank "Middle East Forum", to which he has contributed.

• He was an editor of [...] Middle East Forum. (in the LEAD)

The first sentence about MEF is violating OR, you cannot say his views are in line with the MEF, only because one or more of his articles appeared there. That is OR. You can mention that he published there. But not in the lead, for gods sake. The second sentence does not belong in the lead (and please make a separate subsection for each of the other allegations in the sentence that are not about MEF). --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this is also UNDUE. You can add the MEF publications in his bibliography, you can add something about his opinion on Islam, but to add a sentence that he published in some minor journals is very much UNDUE. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No, this is not UNDUE: KE has written a postscript to MEF's Daniel Pipes book "The Rushdie Affair" + an article in MEF. Moreover, The Brussels Journal, having KE as a regular contributor, is supported by MEF's Daniel Pipes see here. So there is sufficient sourcing for linking KE with these milieux. Moreover, you deleted the MEF link. So your answers, for the moment, are null. I am waiting the answers to other points. But I will not wait too long, believe me. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 13:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It is still OR, even if it were true that Elsts writings are in line with the MEF, because the statement is not supported by a secondary source. To add sentences mentioning he published in the MEF and other even lesser known outlets is UNDUE. I cleaned up the ext links section, but it wasn't me who cleaned up the bibliography. you can add the MEF source to the bibliography. You have to wait at least 3-4 days for a talkpage discussion to get consensus, and on a BLP page it should rather be a week at least. Please add a subsection for all your other proposed contentious additions. It is your responsiblity to do that . The burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, it is not OR, because two refs, the article of KE in MEF plus the postscript to a book source it. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 14:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It is OR. The references are all primary sources. You need a reliable secondary source. It is your interpretation that Elsts views are in line with the journal where he published less than a handful of articles. And the Brussels Journal link you gave is not an article by Pipes, but about Pipes. It does not prove anything, least of all about Elst. --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

A book is not a primary source. The Rushdie affair is a book. The links between the Brussels Journal and MEF are evident. Just an example here. Consequently there is no BLP violation (you admit it) nor OR. I am adding the deleted parts now, with deletion of prodomo material and corrected sentence. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 17:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Two Horned here; nonetheless, the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koenraad_Elst&action=edit&section=9#statement that Elst has published in a certain book/journal requires sources besides that book or journal, because in this case those would, indeed, be primary sources. That said, it should not be difficult to find such a source; I am sure there are academic reviews of his books somewhere, I will get around to finding such eventually if nobody else does. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You cannot say that Elsts views are in line with or are expressed in the MEF. As a compromise, you may propose: Elst has also written a postscript to a book by neoconservative and Islam-critical scholar Daniel Pipes, and has published articles critical of Islam in the Middle East Forum and other publications. I think it is UNDUE, but as a compromise it is ok. You can also add those to the bibliography. --Calypsomusic (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It can't be UNDUE because KE's publications are focused, for a good part of it on islam "criticism", past and now. Meera Nanda article + MEF publication + connections with Daniel Pipes (and with the Brussels Journal, which is a neoconservative internet publication) are enough for sourcing the framework of his views on islam. The sentence presently written is "His views on Islam are, among others ...". Neither BLP violation, OR nor UNDUE there. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 21:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

OR indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Not OR since sourced by at least one primary source. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 08:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

So, where does KE say that "His views on Islam are in line with the neoconservative think-tank "Middle East Forum""? And which source says that he was an editor of MEF? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Nouvelle Droite and Vlaams Belang

Nouvelle Droite

Under discussion (removed by Calypsomusic)

"Elst contributes to nationalist New Right Flemish publications, and has shown sympathy to the Nouvelle Droite movement since the early 1990s.(Ref: Meera Nanda) He has criticised that movement in relation to particular topics. He said that the collaborationist aspects of the careers of two Belgian writers were covered up in Nouvelle Droite articles, and that he suspected that "its critique of egalitarianism in the name of 'differentialism' could at heart simply be a plea against equality in favour of inequality, Old-Right style".(Ref: http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/fascism/Nazi5Poewe1.html)

However, his claims to have no hostility towards the people involved with Nouvelle Droite:

Wisely or unwisely, I have not taken my scepticism to be a reason for any active hostility to the Nouvelle Droite people, some of whom I count as friends... Time permitting, I accept invitations from that side, so that I spoke at their conference in Antwerp in 2000, if only as a stand-in for an announced speaker who had cancelled at the last minute for health reasons (Pim Fortuyn, no less, the Dutch liberal sociology professor who criticized Islam, subsequently went into politics, and ended up murdered by a leftist).(http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/fascism/Nazi5Poewe2.html)

References

Comments

JJ: highly suggestive. At best, the following might be used: "He has criticised the Nouvelle Droite movement in relation to particular topics. He said that the collaborationist aspects of the careers of two Belgian writers were covered up in Nouvelle Droite articles. However, his claims to have no hostility towards the people involved with Nouvelle Droite." Quite different, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

JJ, you're completely out of it. Writing an article on KE by following his blog where he says that he criticized Nouvelle Droite, instead of using external sources like M. Nanda where it is said that he is linked with these milieux is fully opposite tp wp's basic recommendations. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 08:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Hadn't noticed that. Butteh... wasn't this some text removed by Calypso? Anyway, if you want to use it, you'll have to attribute it: "According to Meera Nanda ..." And then it's also fair to give KE's response. Otherwise it's unbalanced. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Vlaams Belang

Under discussion (removed by Calypsomusic)

"Jan De Zutter criticized Elst for being too close with the Vlaams Belang, as in June 1992, Koenraad Elst gave a speech directed against Islam at the Vlaams Blok Colloquium.(Ref: De Zutter, Jan (2000). Heidenen voor het blok - Radicaal rechts en het moderne Heidendom" (Heathens in favour of the Blok - the radical Right and modern Heathenism) (in Dutch). Antwerpen / Baarn: Uitgeverij Houtekiet. p. 17. ISBN 90-5240-582-4.) Elst said that he spoke there because it was the only party where the "problem of Islam" was brought up, but that he also explicitly said that he did not agree with the party's solution for that problem, and disapproved of their xenophobia.(Ref: "Het VB en de islam" (in Dutch).) He stated that the VB can not be and was never his party because of its xenophobia and ethnocentrism. (Ref: "Wat is racisme?" (in Dutch).) Though he himself denies any affinity to the party program,(Ref: Elst, Koenraad (October–November 2001). "Het VB en de islam" (in Dutch). Nucleus.) he admits to "lukewarm" sympathy for the Flemish cause (of independence).(Ref: Elst, Koenraad (2001). "Vlaanderen, Kasjmir, Tsjetsjenië, Kosovo... Het ene separatisme is het andere niet (Flanders, Kashmir, Chechnya, Kosovo: one separatism does not equal another)". Antwerpen: Secessie.)"

Comments

JJ: maybe, just maybe, under criticism, together with Meera Nanda. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to check the source; it's a book on neo-paganism, which says that a small part of the neo-pagans has right-extremist political viewpoints. The book gived 19 9nineteen!) hits at Google. What's the relevance of this publication?!? If it is to be used, then within a proper context. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

JJ, please read about that Zutter stuff here. It does not belong in the article. --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Influences

Under discussion (removed by Calypsomusic)

"Elst has published in English and Dutch. He contributed for example to the conservative magazine Nucleus.(Ref: Nucleus on Dutch Wikipedia)(Ref: "Beeldenstorm in Afghanistan" (in Dutch). bharatvani.org. 9 March 2001.) He is also a contributor to the conservative internet magazine The Brussels Journal, the Flemish satirical weekly 't Pallieterke and other Belgian and Dutch publications. He has also written for mainstream Indian magazines like Outlook India. He wrote a postscript to a book written by Daniel Pipes (The Rushdie Affair: The Novel, the Ayatollah, and the West). He has also published critiques of Islamism in the West.(Ref: Elst, Koenraad (June 1998). "The Rushdie Rules". Middle East Quarterly.) According to Sanjay Subrahmanyam, he has connections to the far-right Vlaams Blok.(ref: "Sanjay Subrahmanyam". The Times of India. August 22, 2006.) though Dr. Subrahmanyam did not provide any supporting evidence."

Comments

JJ: part of the former lead can be merged with this subsection, though under another name; something like journalistic work or so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

And Sanjay Subrahmanyam's comment can be left out; not substantiated, and polemical. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

JJ, please read about that Sanjay stuff here and here. It does not belong in the article. --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Astrology

Under discussion (not in article now or before)

This link seems to provide information about KE's involvment in astrological milieux and "workgroups". I'm not sure the link can be used in wp however. But KE's name appears at many places there. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 09:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Please write the exact sentence that you propose to add to the article. And do this also for the other sections. --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

All I can see in the link provided by TwoHorned is Elsts academic research on the origins of Hindu astrology and astronomy. Unsurprsingly, TwoHorned is using this to claim that Elst is in the "astrological milieu and workgroups". --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ahem, "Elsts academic research on the origins of Hindu astrology" you said.. ? In an obscure privately-held non-academic gathering (just have a look of the main home page) in which "specialists" of UFOs meet Nostradamus followers... Your vision of the academic world needs to be re-adjusted, believe me. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 17:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well, what can I say. Dougweller could back me up, but their Dutch is terrible. Yes, that outfit is way past FRINGE, that's a fact, and that's all I'll say about them--but describing it as such based on a reading of their own website is original research. In addition, it is not a reliable (besides primary) source to use on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

JJ: irrelevant topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Late to the party. Some truly weird stuff on that website (thanks Chrome). It says a lot that Elst seems to be happy there, but we can't write that in the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

BLP/N

A notice concerning this article has been posted at the BLP noticeboard. You should expect several uninvolved editors like myself weighing in on the article and editor proposals. I've not an inkling who Elst is, nor will I expect most of the new editors opining here will either. Easy does it please.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The seriousness of the NPOV violations were explained in great detail by the subject of the lemma here, I recommend everyone to read it:

• The wikipedia lemma on "Koenraad Elst": a textbook example of defamation
• Meera Nanda against Hinduism

TwoHorneds edits can be summarized as this:

• Edit warring to add his personal OR on Elst in the Koenraad Elst article
• With his OR he aims to prove that Elst is a fascist, and wants to link him to the far-right, to extremism, to pseudoscience (astrology), and every other allegation he can think of.
• He also tries to link Elst to neoconservatism. Other editors editors have pointed out that TwoHorned is promoting anti-semitic conspiracy theories, including on Jewish involvement in neo-conservatism.
• The same is being done with other Hindu revivalist writers like Gautier and with neo-conservative or Islam-critical writers like Pipes, Ibn Warraq and Bat Ye'Or and her husband.
• Some of his edits seem partly influenced by Rene Guenon, another editor has said he is a disciple of Guneon, and funny enough, in the Guenon article he is very keen in removing all information on Guenon's strong influence on fascists (the most well known case is Evola, but there are others as well).--Calypsomusic (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again: the supposedly BLP violation sources you are mentioning are to articles in Koenraad Elst's blog: such pro domo blog sourcing must be put in perspective with external sources. For this, we have Meera Nanda article for instance. Here is a quotation of Meera Nanda's "Hindu triumphalism and the clash of civilizations" (Economical and Political Weekly, XLIV (28), July 11, 2009): "One such admirer of the Hindu nationalism who has his other foot in Flemish nationalism in his native Belgium is Koenraad Elst. Elst is a protégé and intellectual heir of Ram Swarup and Sita Ram Goel. His interest in New Age and neo-paganism brought him to India where he wrote his doctoral dissertation on Hindu revivalism which was later published as a popular book, Decolonising the Hindu Mind. In this book he advocates the tough line against Islam and Christianity favoured by the Swarup- Goel school." . And here is another quotation from the same article: "Going by his essays posted on Brussels Journal, Elst is using the writings of his VOI mentors to peddle the worst kind of Islamophobia imaginable." Moreover, Elst's past publication in right-wing and neo pagan publications is established. All of his books are published in VOI, a very controversed publishing house in India (and the controversies are sourced, by external source Meera Nanda among others. I never wrote Elst is a fascist, we just have to mention his publications and the ideological ambiances of his edits. The Brussels Jurnal, whom Elst is a regular contributor, is a neoconservative publication. KE wrote a postscript to a book of D. Pipes, a leading neocon. He published in MEF, a neocon think-tank. KE is actively participating in curious astrology workgroups. And son on. All the rest in your above paragraph is personal attacks on antisemitism and out of focus, like R. Guenon, whose works you don't have the slightest notion. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 09:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

His blog may not be used as a source for information in the article itself. However, criticisms posted in his blog may be valid just like anything we post on the talk page may be valid. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 16:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• If anyone has a specific BLP violation, please post them here. Don't refer us to some third party site. So far this isn't passing the smell test.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The blog post was from 2013, and the previous wikipedia article version was chock full of BLP attacks. Currently the article is fairly neutral apart from the OR that TwoHorned introduced in his latest edit-warring stint. --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Having gone through all the disputed parts, I think that Calypso's version is to be preferred. Meera nanda's criticism can be mentioned in the criticism-section, and the contributions to various jornals can be mentioned in the works/publications section. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. Calypso's version is entirely made of Elst's own blog quotations. A neutralized version must prefer external sources and a description of KE's editorial activities. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 08:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Your version depends largely on one critic and a suggestive overview of KE's work. And could you please fix your signature, as asked two times before? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

An article about one author cannot rely on his own blog. If primary sources for counter-critics are missing, this may come from the lack of academic visibility of the author, but not from a non-neutral description. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 17:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• This needs to stop If someone is saying there is contentious, unsourced claims being made about Elst, make your case as to why or go away. This means you need to cite the proposed or disputed contentious claim and whatever sourcing is attached. It does not mean "hey, go look at this blog and see whats wrong with this article". The needs to be discussed here or at the BLP noticeboard.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The blog post was from 2013, and the previous wikipedia article version was chock full of BLP attacks. Currently the article is fairly neutral apart from the OR that TwoHorned introduced in the Islam section. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source by TwoHorned

TwoHorned edit-warred to include this:

Some of his books or articles contain harsh criticisms of Islam as a whole (among others "Wahi: the Supernatural Basis of Islam", "From Ayodhya to Nazareth"), an article written in the form of an open letter to the Pope and Indian church Bishop Alan de Lastic, whom Elst calls "Your Eminences", and in which he invites them to ask Muslims for repentance towards Christians, or "Ayodhya And After", a book in which he delves into the realm of establishing a purported link between Ayodhya and the conflict between Palestinians and Israel, not an isolated attempt in some far-right European movements (section 2.2 Jerusalem and Ayodhya, similarly, section 13.2 of that book is called Islam and Nazism).

The paragraph contains OR, states that Elsts criticism os Islam is "harsh" (which is not according to the sources), and makes a link between an article ("Wahi") and a book ("Ayodhya and After") by Elst to "far right European movements".

The sources do not state this. The first link (a book review by Elst on the book "The Saffron Wave") does not include any of the statements. The second link (a book review on Elst's book "Decolonizing the Hindu Mind") does not include these statements either. TwoHorned wants to add his OR on Elst in the article. Since he has found out that they must be cited, he just adds a citation that is unrelated. --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"harsh criticism": this is acknowledged by Elst himself. The link with far-right european movement is easy to source, notably with certain right-wing conferences in Europe.Just have a look on the wikipedia article Counterjihad and you will find the Brussels's journal boss picture... Moreover you are wrong: all the books mentioned in my paragraphs contain harsh critics against islam. And the link with Palestine is expressely mentionned in the abovementioned book. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 17:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the sources do not support the statements "harsh" criticism, and link to "far right European movements" (and all the rest in the paragraph). This is a misrepresentation of sources.

The sources you falsely use are

• http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/reviews/saffronwave.html
• Sangh Parivar's Apologist", a review of Decolonizing the Hindu Mind: Ideological development of Hindu Revivalism". Rupa, Delhi. 2001 by Ayub Khan in Communalism Watch, 13 March 2003.
  • The second source is actually this link: here

TwoHorned just took two sources already present in the article, and used them to support his own OR.

--Calypsomusic (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. The sources used are a postcript written by Elst to a book written by one most prominent anti-islamic writer (D. Pipes) who is described by other sources as such, sources describing the Brussels Journal (to which Elst is a regular contributor), MEF article, MEF description by other sources... not to mention Elst's own words, when he writes that a good part of his works are devoted to islam's criticism. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 21:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no support in the sources for you claim about "harsh criticisms " and about "not an isolated attempt in some far-right European movements", and the whole thing is OR. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

What Elst has done

I'm pasting here some comments Elst made in some of his online articles. Not sure if they can be added to the article, but might be useful for ideas in the "Publications and Opinions" section. Source is here, and here and some other online articles

• I have crossed swords with Mira Kamdar, Christophe Jaffrelot, Meera Nanda, Amber Habib, MF Husain as well as his critics, Dwijendra Narayan Jha, Harbans Mukhia, William Dalrymple, Edward Said, Ramachandra Guha, Ashis Nandy, Edward Luce, Vikas Swarup, Martha Nussbaum etc. The record shows that I have not limited myself to the gullible and the already-converted.

Comment: This sentence gives some ideas on critics of Elst that could be cited in the article.

• ON Indian politics

Outsiders all learn two facts about the Hindu movement: that one of its members killed the Mahatma, and that Guru Golwalkar declared himself a Nazi. You can hide your head in the sand all you want and declare smugly that you don't have to care about these outsiders, but the hostility against the Hindu movement is very much a fact and determines the world in which that same movement has to function. It explains why successful Indians play down their Hinduism, why Narayan Murthy finances American anti-Hindu Sheldon Pollock's Sanskrit studies instead of many more competent Hindus, why the BJP hires secularists and when in power fails to pursue a Hindu (so-called "communal") agenda, etc. So, I have taken it upon myself to give a fair account of the Gandhi murder and Nathuram Godse's speech, and to analyse (and refute) the Nazi allegation against Golwalkar. There are 7 billion people on earth, yet in both these crucial cases I am the only one to have done so.

This is in line with my oft-stated criticism of Hindu nationalism or “Hindutva”. I have consistently argued that nationalism was understandable in the context of the anticolonial struggle, but had now become counterproductive and leads to a misstatement of legitimate Hindu concerns. In fact, this is one of the points that define the specificity of my analysis of the Hindutva movement and should certainly figure in a lemma on me.

It would be more appropriate to say that I am the only Westerner who criticized the Hindutva movement all while knowing the subject. I criticized it thoroughly in my book BJP vs. Hindu Resurgence and passim in Decolonizing the Hindu Mind and some other books. But the approved Western “experts” are just parrots of the Indian establishment, which in turn has historically been formed by an ideological interiorization of Western prejudices about Indian religions and society. Their position is that everything that conflicts with the conventional view must be “Hindutva”. I have explicitly analyzed and refuted that assumption at length, and if your contributor had actually read me, he would have known that and mentioned it.

Indeed, exposing the political bias in the dominant academic output on India has precisely been one of the cornerstones of my work, and a decent lemma on me would have to mention this.

I have analyzed the concept of Hindutva at length – to my knowledge, deeper than anyone else, including the “experts”.

The Saffron Swastika. On the Notion of “Hindu Fascism” (Voice of India 2001): A very ambitious 2-volume book, of which the only shortcoming is that it could have been even more complete. It dissects processes of slander and its application to the media’s hostile treatment of the organized Hindu movement. It is the only publication in the world (except for its sequel, Return of the Swastika) to analyze and refute the now-common allegation that Guru Golwalkar in his book We (1939) proves to be some sort of Nazi.

Then came Who Is a Hindu?, about whether tribals, Buddhists etc. are Hindus, also an item with important ramifications. I zoomed in on Buddhism in my Dutch book De Donkere Zijde van het Boeddhisme ("the dark side of Buddhism"), half of which is an analysis of the relations between the Buddha and Hinduism. This is a very consequential matter, as the Buddha has become a weapon against Hinduism and most scholars assume the "Hinduism bad, Buddhism good" principle. Again, I am the only one in the world to have thematized this issue.

• On Indian history

You might have specified in more detail what my position in this debate is. In particular, you might have mentioned that unlike 99% of the Aryan Invasion skeptics, I stand by the comparative-linguistic approach and have defended it in writing at some length. Though this specifies my position in the Aryan debate in a fundamental way, you choose to leave it unmentioned.

--Calypsomusic (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again Calypsomusic, Elst's own complains on his blog are not enough for throwing BLP violations if external sources are enforcing the point. If external sources, like the authors mentioned in the begining of your paragraph are criticizing Elst, this is not BLP violation. Counter-criticism can also be included of course, but only if it comes from reliable primary sources. As of today, Elst is not visible enough in the academic realm to trigger counter-criticism. So his blog's content cannot be invoked. This is a major drawback of your redaction: you overquote Elst's blog. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 17:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree here somehow with TwoHorned, but with a twist: people who are really interested in KE's opinions can read his blogs; Wikipedia is for an encyclopedic overview. But the same goes for TwoHorned: Wikipedia is not the place to expose all of KE's "wrong" views. You can both start a blog if you want to expose all of the failures of KE, or of each other; personally, I don't want to read those walls of text. I'm afraid that I'm the only one, apart from the two of you, who bothers to read this talk page, let alone participate. So, carry on, and let me have the final word . Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course people can read his blog, this is not the point, please refer toWP:V; a blog cannot be invoked in wp as a reliable source. The question is not to start a blog in favour or against Koenraad Elst. An article on him in Wikipedia, if it exists, must rely on external sources, not his own blog or anyoneesle's blog. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 23:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC) and he

I watch this page too, but I dont really know what to say. Elst's ridiculous whining on his blog is purely self-serving and largely uniformative. Yes, we can note his views when necessary, but essentially we have to rely on third party sources. Also, what is this ridiculous "lemma" nonsense. It's an ARTICLE, not a "lemma". Elst is clearly and understandably described as anti-Islamic in sources. He doesn't just criticise 'aspects of Isalm'. The way he presents things, he criticise aspects of Islam and he criticise aspects of Hinduism. Well we all know that's baloney. He's pro-Hindu and he's anti-Islamic. He's the only one who pretends otherwise. Independent sourses are well aware of that fact and we should be clear about it. Paul B (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is not mentioning his anti-Islamic or pro-Hindu views, the problem is the suggestive, OR and non-neutral wording that TwoHorned is using. On the whole, Elst is pro-Hindu and he's anti-Islamic, but I'm sure you are aware that there are nuances, he criticizes the fringe of pro-Hindus a lot and has been criticizes for it by them, for example in his most recent blog post he criticizes overzealous Hindus. --Calypsomusic (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say: very limited use of KE's blogs, and also a limited use of Meera Nanda's article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

JJ, I agree with that. But no need in repeating the * TwoHorned is saying. Elsts blog is not currently cited in the article (though it could be, in reply to his critics, and also by BLPSELFPUB). --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't suggest personal attacks as you do in your "the * TwoHorned is saying". You references in this TP are 99% made of Elst's blog. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 11:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

In summary, from the above discussion it is clear that there is no consensus to restore the BLP violations in the article, and there is a consensus that this article must adhere to the BLP policy.

Next steps could be to enlarge the bibliography to also include examples of his articles in the journals TwoHorned was referring to. To enlarge the discussion on Elsts views and publications on the AIT, Islam, and politics, but without violating NPOV. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Looking at the list of references I notice that half, perhaps more, are articles or opinion pieces written by Elst himself. That is generally avoidable because of a couple of reasons. First, it is impossible to verify statements made by a writer unless there is some other independent verification. For example, everything in the first three paras of "Biography" needs a secondary source and should go if no such source can be found. Actually, most of the biography section is sourced directly to Elst - a definite no-no. Second, using an individual's writings to construct a narrative about his or her opinions is classic original research. My suggestion is that all statements attributed directly to Elst that cannot also be attributed to someone else be removed from this article. I'd do it myself but perhaps there are secondary sources that editors more familiar with Elst are aware of. --regentspark (comment) 16:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:BLPSELFPUB: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field." --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately that does not apply here. The article is primarily based on self-published sources and a lot of the material is self-serving. Also, the idea behind WP:SELFPUB is to allow certain factual biographical statements. Not to build a narrative about a person and their contributions as this article does. Interpretation of a person's views, the ones on which their notability is based, is best left to secondary sources. When we construct that narrative using self-published statements made by the person, then that's original research. (Frankly, and with apologies because I'm sure you mean well, this article reads more like a personal website than an encyclopedia entry.)--regentspark (comment) 18:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB also says SPS may be used "If the material is not unduly self-serving" and "If the article is not primarily based on such sources." @Regentspark:; there has been a massive effort to remove any and all critical material from the article in the last couple of months, mostly by applying a very very rigid understanding of BLP, as well as some outright tendentiousness. I will not name names, but if you glance through the talk page you can see that for yourself....essentially, I believe it needs the attention of an unbiased editor who knows a lot about Elst, of which there are precious few. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with RegentsPark. I've been arguing this across a spectrum of articles, see for instance Talk:Jesus the Man (book) and Talk:Richard C. Hoagland. There are OR and NPOV issues to consider. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the worst excesses of OR already, (and not only of the critical sort), but there is probably still some left. The Islam section is pure OR, I have made it a bit more neutral, but good luck removing it (another user I won't name insists on keeping it in the article).--Calypsomusic (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a whack at it. Interesting chap, I found a bunch of mentions on JSTOR and seems to me that this article can be salvaged. --regentspark (comment) 14:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Joshua, why did you revert me here= Why can the lead not say he authored more than twenty books on topics related to Indian politics, Hinduism and history, that he also writes in Dutch? And he is not primarly known only for this issue. Only 3 of his books were on this issue. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but I know about Elsy because of his points of view on Indian history. The twenty books, that's still kind of peacock. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Calypsomusic, let's keep it simple if we can. On JSTOR, almost every reference associates him with the Out of India theory. Though he may have written other stuff, that's what he appears to be best known for. Perhaps also his support for Hindutva and I'll add that as secondary sources emerge. You seem to know a lot about Elst, which is a good thing and a bad thing. The good part is that you can help us find sources and fine tune the writing. The bad part is that you're too close to the subject and might be falling into the trap of orienting the article toward where you think his contributions are rather than what other secondary sources point to. I'd never heard of Elst before but he does seem an interesting chap and notable enough for an article here so let's try to write a good honest article rather than a puff piece. --regentspark (comment) 12:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This BLP article was for years (TwoHorned & Co. started his activities in 2006) an attack piece. Considering this, I don't think it could be turned into a puff piece, nor is it my intention. But thanks for your edits, the article is already improving. --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

He has written many books, the provided list is actually incomplete, I had written that before. But now, I can't do the same again. He has authored many books, that makes him established author. I don't think that lead is bad really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orientls (talk • contribs) 08:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit about the books on the AIT, which I explained like this: The first book was actually called "Indigenous Indians. Agastya to Ambedkar ". "Linguistics and the non-Aryan Invasion Theory" is a paper not a book. Better just mention his 2 main books on the debate. ?--Calypsomusic (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Had no intention. You can continue editing. Orientls (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 10:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Meera Nanda and other new edits

What you added from Meera Nanda's article was in large part refuted by Elst here:

• meera-nanda-against-hinduism-and-its.html
• hindu-and-flemish-nationalism.html
• meera-nanda-against-hinduism-and-its.html
• the-wikipedia-lemma-on-koenraad-elst.html

In particular, that he is linked to the New Right is incorrect. Please read my notepad here if you don't know what the New Right is. You will see that Meera Nanda is much closer to the New Right, with her criticism of neo-liberalism, globalization, modernism and her defense of the Aryan Invasion theory and Islamic traditionalism.

I think the Meera Nanda article should be cited in this article, but is it not possible to find something in it which is not clearly incorrect and misleading? If not, then Elsts' reply should also be given.

Here is what Elst said on it:

Actually, even when I occasionally published in a Nouvelle Droite paper (TeKoS), I never endorsed Nouvelle Droite viewpoints, such as their anti-Liberalism, their anti-Americanism, or their championing “identity”, or the “Traditionalism” which some of its leading lights espouse. The only time I wrote in a real Nouvelle Droite publication (Nouvelle Ecole 2000), it was to defend the Out-of-India Theory against the Aryan Invasion Theory, central to the Nouvelle Droite worldview and defended in that same issue by both Prof. Jean Haudry and Alain de Benoist. Recently I have written some skeptical comments on the Nouvelle Droite, but throughout, I have absolutely never expressed any kind of agreement with it or, when it still mattered, even just an opinion on it. You or your sources are simply inventing this. If not, show me. And I don’t mean the gossip by my enemies, quoted on your talk page as authoritative, but an actual text by me. As the writer of thousands of pages of well-considered findings, I have a right to be evaluated on what I have actually written rather than on some vague rumours propagated by my self-declared enemies.

Apart from TeKoS, I only contributed a single article to any Nouvelle Droite publication, viz. to their flagship publication Nouvelle Ecole, where in 2001 I contributed a defence of the Out-of-IndiaTheory, directly flying in the face of the Nouvelle Droite position (which is very pro-AIT) and answered on the spot by both Alain de Benoist, their mastermind, and Jean Haudry, their specialist on Indo-European matters. It is a good thing that they are more open-minded than the Indian secularists, but that shouldn’t obscure our differences.

That can be generalized: though I published in the Nouvelle Droite publication TeKoS, Meera Nanda and her friends will have a hard time finding articles of mine where I develop the typical Nouvelle Droite themes, such as identity. There are even articles where I lambast the Nouvelle Droite (or the Vlaams Belang, for that matter), but they are in Dutch, which I surmise Meera Nanda does not read. Note however that it is her own unsolicited conceit that she is a specialist on the thoughts of Koenraad Elst.

That he is primarily for his writings in support for the Out of India theory is also pov, only 3 of his books are on the debate. I suggest just writing in the lead that some of his writings were on the AIT debate, the article (not lead) should discuss his ideas and reception by Witzel and others. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The information on Elst's first book should not have been removed from the article. That his first book was released by the leader of the largest political party of the world's largest democracy at at political function which was also crucial to the Ayodhya debate (as told in Advani's autobiography), makes it notable I think? --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Calypsomusic, that doesn't fit in the biography section. Perhaps we could add a section "Relationship with the Hindu Right", or just "Hindutva" and include it there. I'm not done yet so hang on for a bit. Also, I've removed "new right" pending other sources. --regentspark (comment) 12:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Calypsomusic WP:AGF about User:RegentsPark. the set of info available to you and him/her may not be same. I think it is tending towards notable for the life of the author. I read the earlier text and there was lot of WP:PEACOCK words there. Can it be distilled into one or two smaller sentences? Jyoti (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments on rewrite

Some comments, if you can please reply to them, RegentsPark:

• We can say in the article that the OIT is controversial, not in the lead, this is COATRACK.
• Biography: Elst also had a leftist phase, but the only source I know of are his own writings. He became interested in neo-paganism after Ram Swarup recommended him to do so, again the source are his own writings. In any case, these interests, IIRC, were just a "phase" in his youth. Not sure if it needs to be in the bio.
  • This is Elsts comment: "Also, you say that I became “interested” in the Neopagan movement. Many people are interested in many things, without it being mentioned on their Wikipedia page. Here it is only mentioned as a way to do me harm. For your information: it was at the suggestion of Ram Swarup, who didn’t know the specificities of every Neopagan movement, that I became interested in the Neopagan associations locally available." And "What Meera Nanda writes about my Flemish nationalism is of one kind with so much that she writes, viz. vicious nonsense. " (From the links above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 11:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• Can we cite the Ph.D. to his own writings? I don't think this is a controversial statement. Ph.D. dissertation can be cited to Meera and Bryant, but maybe not the university.
• The Out of India theory is considered to be an extreme view of the origin of the Indo-European family of languages ... Isn't that COATRACK ??
• makes the case that for an enduring historical tradition associating the Ram Janmabhoomi site with the birthplace of Rama.... I think this is a bit a poor description (probably from the cited source). That "case" was actually just the pre-1990s consensus among scholars and Indians. A better description could be that he documented the debate surrounding the controversy.

But thanks again for your edits. The article seems to be improving. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we should keep the 'controversial' and 'extreme' labels for the out of India theory. That is a generally accepted academic view and this does qualify as "key information about a background detail". Otherwise the reader would not know that this theory is not a mainstream one.

I'll get rid of neo-paganism. As you say, that is sourced to only one writer and does seem to be an unnecessary negative label.

The Ph.D. should be independently cited. I'll remove the tag because I think there is sufficient circumstantial information that he does have a Ph.D. But, it would be nice if we could get a citation for the year and the university. I looked at the University site but couldn't find anything. Perhaps a department specific website in Flemish would have that information. --regentspark (comment) 13:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Could we make the section titles a bit more neutral (than "Hindutva sympathies")? I looked at other articles of controversial authors, and the section titles are more neutral there. Something like "Work on Indian history and politics", or "Work on Indo-European roots" and "Work on Hindu revivalism/nationalism" --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I tweaked it. I'm unwilling to use the first two of your titles because the theories are recognized as being fringe ones and we don't want to give his work a level of legitimacy that is not there in the real world. BTW, does he have an academic affiliation? If yes, that should be included somewhere. --regentspark (comment) 19:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The section title is still not neutral and also not in line with Elst's actual position. He has repeatedly said he is critical of Hindu nationalism and of nationalism in general. For example:

• This is in line with my oft-stated criticism of Hindu nationalism or “Hindutva”. I have consistently argued that nationalism was understandable in the context of the anticolonial struggle, but had now become counterproductive and leads to a misstatement of legitimate Hindu concerns. In fact, this is one of the points that define the specificity of my analysis of the Hindutva movement and should certainly figure in a lemma on me.
• It would be more appropriate to say that I am the only Westerner who criticized the Hindutva movement all while knowing the subject. I criticized it thoroughly in my book BJP vs. Hindu Resurgence and passim in Decolonizing the Hindu Mind and some other books. But the approved Western “experts” are just parrots of the Indian establishment, which in turn has historically been formed by an ideological interiorization of Western prejudices about Indian religions and society. Their position is that everything that conflicts with the conventional view must be “Hindutva”. I have explicitly analyzed and refuted that assumption at length, and if your contributor had actually read me, he would have known that and mentioned it.
• Hindutva is a fairly crude ideology, borrowing heavily from European nationalisms with their emphasis on homogeneity. Under the conditions of British colonialism, it was inevitable that some such form of Hindu nationalism would arise, but I believe better alternatives have seen the light, more attuned to the genius of Hindu civilization.

"Work" is fairly neutral, the "work" can still be controversial. How about we name the section just "Views"?--Calypsomusic (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Views is too meaningless. Everyone has views on all sorts of things but we're only interested in Elst's views on the Aryan stuff and the hindutva stuff. I'm going to revert your edit but, hopefully, others will chime in as well as to what the title of this section should be and we can get to a good place. --regentspark (comment) 14:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Everyone else on wikipedia is allowed to have neutral section titles. I have checked the wiki pages of some Rene Guenon influenced writers, all of which are fringe scholars, like Kevin Macdonald who has a Work on Judaism section for his fringe anti-semitic and Nazi views, or Jared Taylor who has a Views section for his fringe racist views or R. Duchnese who also has a neutral Ideas section for his eurocentric views.

I see a blatant systemic bias here, where Western scholars working in Western fields can have their ideas presented neutrally, no matter how fringe and politically incorrect these theories are, while in topics about India, everyone even suspected of being politically incorrect cannot be treated neutrally, and only if it is alleged support for nationalism (which in Elst's case is not even true), not for Marxism or other isms.

Or do you believe that Elst's writings are more fringe than those of Kevin MacDonald and of Jared Taylor? Unless you believe apologists of anti-semitism and nazism deserve better than an "alleged" (incorrectly labeled) Hindutva supporter like Elst. --Calypsomusic (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean that we sanitize everything. Elst is known for his work on Aryan migration and for his links with the Hindu right in India and that's what we should say. Reliable sources state that the out of India theory is a fringe one (discredited is the word often used), so we should say that. Is there a bias toward scholarly work on Wikipedia? Yes. We care about academic affiliations and peer reviewed work here and Elst, unfortunately, has little of both. Can we quote Elst directly? No. We're more interested in what other people say about his work than what he says in his writings. Quoting extensively from Elst's own writings, even on this talk page, is completely pointless. That's the way Wikipedia works. Like I said before, you're too close to the subject. (Revivalism is fine.) --regentspark (comment) 15:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Calypso, the policy on Self-published sources says very clearly that we can use them in a BLP only for non-controversial information. Secondary sources do contradict what Elst says about his own work, so his statements really cannot be used. There is some truth to the statement that there is differential treatment applied to Westerners; but this is a problem throughout Wikipedia, hardly limited to scholars. In any case, the fact that other articles have been sanitized does not mean this one should be as well. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

We can quote Elst directly in line with WP:BLPSELFPUB. Again there is a bias, articles like Martha Nussbaum quote the subject very much. Please stop alleging I'm too close to the subject. I have read several of his books (not all), and if anything, that makes me more competent to write on this article, as long as I'm not turning it into a fanpage (which I'm not.).

I'm interested though, because I could not find it, where is the policy if the writings of a BLP author can be used or not in reply to criticism on the wikipedia page, if the subject has replied to that criticism in his writings? --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The first condition listed under BLPSELFPUB is "If it is not unduly self-serving," and the consensus here appears to be that that particular blog post was self-serving, because he was denying rather pointed accusations against him. I am not sure if you're seriously asking for a policy about Self-published responses to Wikipedia articles, but I do not believe it exists. All of the issues are covered by BLPSELFPUB. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking for both: If the subject of the article is criticized for example by Meera Nanda, can we include Elsts reply to Meera Nanda? I think this would be fair and is done in other articles too. And if Elst has written about this wikipedia article, can we include a sentence on this too? I think we can (see for example the Deepak Chopra article, where this is done https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra#Position_on_Wikipedia). --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see much point in adding Nanda's criticisms and Elst's responses. I think the current version is a very fair one. Elst's work is presented and the only possibly negative comment is the factual one that the Out of India theory is considered an extreme view. What exactly is not neutral about this? --regentspark (comment) 17:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking for the inclusion of Nanda, I am saying the existence of Nanda's critique makes it impossible to include Elst's self published "rebuttal." I agree that the current version is neutral, at least as far as my understanding of the topic goes. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Praise and criticism

"Elst's work has drawn both praise and criticism". I'm not sure we're representing things accurately here. The praise seems to be entirely from non-academic sources while the criticism is from academic ones. However, this is not evident the way this section is written, it looks like the praise and criticism are even-handed. What's missing is the fringe nature of Elst's theories and we need to bring that out somehow. Ideas? --regentspark (comment) 23:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your statement of the problem, but don't have too many brainwaves as to the solution. One thought that does occur is to dump the Voice of India sources as being undue weight. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Fringe tag

@Kautilya3: Provide one or two reliable sources where "Out of India" has been called a fringe. There is nothing wrong with "controversial proposition" either, see the earlier article history.[4] D4iNa4 (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@D4iNa4 and Lorstaking: You have been edit-warring over the issue of fringe theory. Please familiarise yourself with WP:FRINGE and read the RfC Talk:Indigenous_Aryans/Archive_3#RfC:_the_.22Indigenous_Aryans.22_theory_is_fringe-theory.

If you have anything new to add, please state it here. Do not edit-war! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That RFC has no sources to indicate that theory has been called fringe. WP:TRUTH is not exactly WP:VERIFY. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:LABEL, one needs to have reliable source for the label, so far there are not any to call Out of Theory a fringe theory. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Labelling something as a fringe theory is something we do as encyclopaedia-writers, based on our assessment of the entire literature on the subject. You may or may not find the label in secondary sources that we use. The RfC is precisely the mechanism we use to reliably identify fringe theories. You are arguing against the Wikipedia consensus. This won't get you anywhere! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"fringe theory", can be found for other theories[5][6][7] thus its best to stick to sources. Recent article history is full of removing that specific wording, let it be removed unless there are sources. Lorstaking (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a clear concencus at Wikipedia that the Out of India "theory" is fringe. Pushing your point or view, c.q. censor information, is not acceptable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

NB: let's turn the burden of proof to where it belongs: show us that the OoI-"theory" is not fringe, c.q. a mainstream theory, or a theory propounded by a relevant minority of sound academics. That does not include Elst and his likes, to be sure. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Still it doesn't means that we should be using a term that isn't supported by source. "Controversial proposition" rather seem to be the correct phrasing for the theory that is not mainstream and a minor one. Since we can't rule out that source is needed for this term, we need to omit the term. This theory is not being presented as mainstream anyway. Lorstaking (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I have changed the lead to a better one. I can't find if he is more popular for out of India, it can be also that he is more notable due to his books on Ayodhya that received more academic views, as well as those on medieval period in India. And describing a "fringe" theory on lead is not fair :) Lorstaking (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Koenraad Elst. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060530210948/http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/books/pp/index.htm to http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/books/pp/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Intro

Hi, I don't know him having any official academic affiliation, so i doubt he can be called an "indologist" or "historian" on these matters. The LEDE is missing the fact that he was a major proponent of non-aryan invasion theory (this has been the subject of his studies some years ago), a theory which is highly controversial according to mainstream academics, to say the least. I've also re-included stuff about his political activities in Belgium, why remove that ?

Also, what is his influence in maintream academic indology ? Not very much I feel. He is mainly known for his political opinions about India, not much about Hinduism. His strong support to some crackpot indian writers and individuals who, even in India, have no authority on Hinduism have sidelined him quite a bit. Cheers, Xinheart (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the new lead is a definite improvement. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Me too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

You're right, it's more of an improvement than I thought it was after I first read it. It's still hedging in some ways, though; his views aren't supported or criticized, it should be and. Furthermore, I'm not sure the "supported by neocons" is due weight in the lead. You say you want to discuss his support for the Indo-aryan theory in the lede; fair enough, but right now the lede doesn't say that he was a proponent of these theories, it says he was involved in the controversy. Vanamonde (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've started neutralizing the lead. Xinheart (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Note to other editors, User:TwoHorned and User:Xinheart are the same guy who have extensively edited this biography since 2006 and tried to paint a negative picture of Mr.Koenraad Elst. Please bear in mind when any other new guy pops in to restart his dirty defamation campaign. Thanks. 117.241.3.2 (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

You state that the edits are unsourced. Which bits exactly? The Meera Nanda piece is also referenced in the Biography section. Please be clear. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

He was an editor of the New Right Flemish nationalist journal Teksten, Kommentaren en Studies from 1992 to 1995, focusing on criticism of Islam, various other conservative and Flemish separatist publications such as Nucleus, 't Pallieterke, Secessie, or the neoconservative The Brussels Journal and Middle East Forum.

This entire section is unsourced and slanderous. Please see Koenraad Elst's message to wiki editors.

These defamatory allegations are part of the campaign orchestrated by User_talk:TwoHorned#Bizarre_allegations and his sock puppet User:Xinheart who added it . Please remove them. Thanks. 117.241.3.2 (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Koenraad Elst himself says that he was an editor of TeKoS, so what's defamatory about that? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Nevertheless, BLP also applies to him. I've moved some info from the lead into the body of the article, and added some source-tags. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, the way it is worded it sounds as if the guy is some kind of islamophobe only criticising Islam, while he has criticised all groups from communists to hindu nationalists. Also the source you added only references his TeKoS claim. No references are provided for claims about his writing in The Brussels Journal and Middle East Forum. 117.241.3.2 (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Pre-sock consensus lead was stable for a long time. I have restored it, since it was actually sourced. Elst is mostly known for his work for Indian politics, and only those books are notable enough that they have Wikipedia articles. Hopefully this resolves concerns raised by IP. Orientls (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Stability is not everything. Writing a neutral article requires an adequate summary of all its points in the lead, not a bare-bones description of the individual. Vanamonde (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Cpt.a.haddock: Source does support South Asia, I have added the quote. Since migration route was Ukraine to India, use of "South Asia" speaks that IA-languages didn't originated in South Asia or it's Indus Valley Civilisation. Out of India says Indo-Aryan were languages of IVC (Afghanistan, Pakistan, India) but mainstream scholarship say it didn't originated in Afghanistan/Pakistan/India but entered after IVC. That's why South Asia is an accurate term, "India" lowers the scope. Orientls (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Lorstaking (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Orientls: I'm afraid that you're simply pandering to one of those editors who go around replacing India with South Asia. Koenraad Elst doesn't use South Asia and your quote is from some random page. The section dealing with Elst, barring one mention of South Asian homeland, largely only uses India as do the other two sources I've quoted. In his entire chapter on the Indo-Aryan controversy, Elst doesn't use South Asia. From what I can tell, he appears to make it a point to do so. And India encompasses the entire subcontinent in this context and the authors use it similarly. I think the scope is fine and offers the reader clarity vis-à-vis the use of "Out of India" as the name of Koenraad Elst's preferred theory. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

This issue directly and entirely concerns South Asia, not just India. You are doing WP:SYNTH and even then you can find sources that say Elst supports "South Asia" as origin for IA languages. "Since Sanskrit also has a term laksa, which means a very large number, Elst (1996), who argues for a South Asian homeland, has proposed that..."[8] and also read [9] It means we have sources for South Asia as well. "Out of India" the theory itself claims South Asia to be an origin of Indo-Ayran languages. Unless you have sources that IA languages originated in Pakistan or Afghanistan, you have no reason to limit the scopeto India. Orientls (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Capt. your edit summary makes no sense. We are talking about the mainstream academic views both on lead and section when we talk about major academic view, not Elst's views which are already noted in form of his support towards Out of India that covers South Asia, especially IVC as origin of Indo-European languages. But now I am seeing that even Elst supports "South Asian homeland" so what else we have got to do here? Lorstaking (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I simply take umbrage at the fact that editors seem to go out of their way to replace India with South Asia when India is just as right and stable. South Asia is a modern political construct synonymous with regional India and while the shift is probably inevitable, I'd much rather see it happen organically or via a site-wide consensus than the half-assed find-and-replace or selective-replace strategy that many editors seem to employ. Anyhow, in this case, I've already noted in my previous reply that "barring one mention", sections dealing with Elst prefer to use India, presumably in light of the "Out of India" context. Examples from the same book, Elst is extending this same logic to argue that all the Indo-Europeans could have been situated in India …, The animal was encountered in the steppe area by the northwesternmost border of the Indo-European language continuum that was expanding out of India., Elst raises the possibility of Proto-Indo-European evolving into Vedic in India itself, an evolution which involved, over time, the loss of certain archaic Proto-Indo-European traits. Meanwhile, other Indo-European languages left India at various stages … etc. And after quoting a random unrelated passage in his previous reply, Orientls now cites an example where Elst quotes Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke's book on Savitri Devi. Anyhow, I'm done.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I would vouch for "South Asia" here because the main article Vedic Period too says "speakers of an Old Indo-Aryan language who had migrated into the northwestern regions of South Asia". I will check this soon and edit the main article once I gather more information. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

South Asia is a post-Indian independence term, not used before solely to distinguish multiple countries post partition/colonization. The region was called India since 1800. Ngram confirms my hypothesis. Using south-asia in events post-1947 is irrelevant and non-sensible, as south-asia and India were same. Crawford88 (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Feb, 2018

Discussion about this edit.

cc. @Orientls:

1. The specific place of IE homeland is disputed. A cursory glance at Proto-Indo-European homeland is enough to confirm that. The lead says, "Currently, the majority of Indo-European specialists support the steppe hypothesis, which puts the PIE homeland in the Pontic-Caspian steppe around 4,000 BCE. A minority support the Anatolian hypothesis, which puts it in Anatolia around 8,000 BCE. A notable, though unlikely, third possibility is the Armenian hypothesis which situates the homeland south of the Caucasus. Several other explanations have been proposed, including Baltic origins, the Paleolithic continuity theory, and the Indigenous Aryans/Out of India theory; none of these enjoy a wide acceptance, or are considered to be fringe theories."

2. The specific homeland is WP:UNDUE here because Elst's position doesn't change if the scholarly consensus had been in Anatolia instead of Krugan.

3. This is a futile edit, with no potential for any further help in reading this article.

Crawford88 (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If they didn't originated in India, then where they did? I was clarifying that, because above argument (that ran for hours) was over "India" vs "South Asia", even if "South Asia" had replaced "India", still there would be a question about the actual origin. People believe in different hypothesis that they originated in Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. I think I did justice by providing the correct location as per mainstream scholarly opinion. Do you have problem with only lead or body as well? Think about proposing something more better instead of removing. Orientls (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I have a problem with you inserting Krugan as IE homeland instead of "outside India" at two places, one in lead and other in a section. Krugan is not the consensus, it's a majority opinion. Crawford88 (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No comments from the other side, which prompts me to revert to a (possibly) neutral edit. Crawford88 (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not neutral because it echoes the possibilities of origins other than India. When you are mentioning mostly accepted IE homeland, you just suppress such doubts. Orientls (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Note

• https://web.archive.org/web/20090723055700/http://ca.geocities.com/zydenbos2001/z2elst.html
• https://web.archive.org/web/20091027021513/http://ca.geocities.com/zydenbos2001/laermendepolemik.html
• https://web.archive.org/web/20091027021531if_/http://ca.geocities.com/zydenbos2001/elstprotest.html ∯WBG^converse 09:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2019

Koenraad Elst (born 7 August 1959) is often accused of being a right wing Hindutva activist by [Hinduphobic|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Hindu_sentiment] left wing activists. 212.164.64.24 (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. When discussing on the talk page, please be sure to cite reliable sources to support your statements. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Need to integrate

Flåten, Lars Tore (2012-09-01). "Hindu Nationalist Conceptions of History: Constructing a Hindu–Muslim Dichotomy". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 35 (3): 624–647. doi:10.1080/00856401.2011.642794. ISSN 0085-6401.. ∯WBG^converse 14:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Islamic literature.

The source does not say that "Elst is known for publication of anti-Islamic literature". Winged can you help me find such mention in the source? --Jaydayal (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Check my last edit-summary. Stuff in lead may not be cited, as long as they are cited in body. ∯WBG^converse 14:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The entire reception of his works in academia is centered around his corpus of anti-Islamic literature. Commentary by Blom Hansen (radical anti-Muslim persuasion), Meera Nanda (peddle the worst kind of Islamophobia imaginable), D. Anand (antagonistic to Muslims;not precisely quoted), Subrahmanyam (Islamophobia as the common ground). ∯WBG^converse 14:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you and also aware that it does not need to be referenced right there, but I also do not find "known for publication of anti-Islamic literature" in any of the reference you present now either. "Known for" is a key element in that statement too.If you could share some of the reference I would also like to check in detail and may conceded or find a amicable middle ground. But right now, it does not seem plausible that on this BLP we can say in the lede that he is "known for" anti-Islamic literature (which one?). --Jaydayal (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I will wait for t/p watchers to chime in ..... ∯WBG^converse 14:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I see "far right hindu fundamentalist" more appropriate summary of some unfavorable critics and less harsher summary from other few`er critics. I do not clearly see a strong consensus among scholars for known-for-anti-islamic-literature. Like Paul Beliën, François Gautier ,Daniel Pipes and Ramesh Nagaraj Rao do not advance this image. If there is a room for discussion we should have it on a BLP for sure? --Jaydayal (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Why do you deem Gautier (grad-school drop-out; another fellow traveler of the Hindutva fold who has been himself deemed as Islamophobic!) or Beliën (who has his own colorful history, much of which is not much mentioned at his article) or Rao (who has better qualifications than the other two but has no training in relevant academic fields and has an entirely negative reputation, on top of that) as scholars, is a mystery to me. ∯WBG^converse 15:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

They hold Phd and have published researched content. What about the other two you left out, what is your objection to them? --15:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I am stumped by your speed. You edited your response while I was replying and my reply has lost little context because your earlier reply changed. Nothing new with you and me. Back to topic, there is still Pipes to discredit. And I don't completely buy your argument about totally duscounting Rao. --Jaydayal (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Gautier holds a PhD? Please provide a source! Same for Belien. ∯WBG^converse 15:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Also dropping in Micheal Witzel:- There now exists a closely knit, selfadulatory group, members of which often write conjointly and/or copy from each other. Quite boringly, they also churn out long identical passages, in book after book, sometimes paragraph by paragraph, all copied in cottage industry fashion from earlier books and papers; the whole scene has become one virtually indistinguishable hotchpotch. :3 ∯WBG^converse 15:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I could not understand why you deleted long standing text with reference citing INTEGRITY, could you help me understand? --Jaydayal (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you click on the link and find out? I removed the part, because the cited source did not support the assertion, thus failing verifiability. ∯WBG^converse 02:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Propagandistic style

This article appears as if written by some propagandists or his harsh critics. This is evident in the tone of language and content of this article. Onkuchia (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Please make specific suggestions, or be bold and fix the issues yourself. There is a consistent lack of support for Elst among reliable sources, so the discussion of his work is going to be critical if it is written neutrally (no, that's not a contradiction). Vanamonde (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest not using Elst as a source. If there is anything interesting he has said, find reliable secondary sources instead (if they don't exist, then the material should not be in the article). I removed the recently added one but there are a couple of other uses of Elst writings in the article and someone with more knowledge about him should probably review those as well. --regentspark (comment) 17:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we must edit the description. Its better if the description calls him an Indologist/philologist instead of an "activist", a term which he denies. It makes Wiki look biased. He has an MA in indology. And PhD in Asian Studies

I have edited the description, making it neutral.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Biased Description

The description is biased. I have changed it. Please let me know if there are any issues with the changes rather than reverting them back to the original.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

To copy Vanamonde93, ..there is a consistent lack of support for Elst among reliable sources, so the discussion of his work is going to be critical if it is written neutrally (no, that's not a contradiction). Lead merely reflects the body. ∯WBG^converse 14:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

There's no need to notify you. You need to read WP:LEAD "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." You deleted material simply because you don't like it even though it should be there to comply with WP:LEAD. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

So an author of more than 20 books on Hinduism, Indian History and Politics is merely described as a "Hindutva Activist", what is the problem in adding "writer" in his description?IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Author is a more accurate term; need to think about adding that .... ∯WBG^converse 14:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Changing the lead

The lead says "Koenraad Elst (born 7 August 1959) is a scholar and author of Decolonizing the Hindu Mind. His work supports the revivalist theory of Hinduism and known primarily for his support of the Out of India theory and publication of Hindu Nationalist literature."

I would propose to edit the lead to "Koenraad Elst (born 7 August 1959) is a Belgian Indologist and author of more than 20 books on Indian history, politics and Hinduism."

The current description is inaccurate. Elst has himself written about the defamation in this article.To the editors of Wikipedia, particularly the lemma on Dr. Koenraad Elst IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The article has already been adapted in response to that article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I would not be comfortable with a description as an "Indologist" without an authentic source. I very much doubt his interest is really "Indology". It is just Hindutva. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, Indologist may not be the right description, not without an authentic source. However, this description by Daniel PipesElst is much better than what is currently written in the lead. IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes is not a reliable source for this. Eg see footnote 44 here Or[10] and [11]. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I couldn't find citation for phrases 'right wing' and 'activist'. Could you guide me or add relevant references? I also agree with Winged_Blades_of_Godric and IndianHistoryEnthusiast that 'author' is more appropriate term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koenraad_Elst&type=revision&diff=959613987&oldid=959580602 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhawangupta (talk • contribs) 09:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dhawangupta: activist replaced with "author, right wing is sourced here:

Elst was an editor of the New Right Flemish nationalist journal Teksten, Kommentaren en Studies from 1992 to 1995, focusing on criticism of Islam and had associations with Vlaams Blok, a Flemish nationalist far-right political party. See WP:LEAD, sources don't need to be in the lead. Doug Weller talk 13:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for the update and your response. Dhawangupta (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Warning template suggested

Certainly, the article deserves some kind of warning template. I suggest "Unbalanced", but are there other opinions? Maybe "exaggeration of his alleged right-wing affiliations" is a more proper description, but I suppose that is also covered by the term unbalanced. If you disagree, please suggest an alternative – not having a template seems unwarranted. --Sasper (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

No He is a strong right winger. What I say is that slander of him being a right wing by a strong leftist writer should be changed to proper qualitiative critcism of his works. No Adhominem. Mr IndianCotton (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)