Talk:David Frawley

Critic's accusations and hatemongering
Critic's accusations and hatemongering has no place in wiki, any accusations David Frawley has faced should go into a subsection of controversy. GhostIn$hell (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We tend to avoid criticism sections of WP:BLP. The criticisms are well referenced, what specifically do you object to and why? disagreeing is not enough. GimliDotNet (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously, this part. See WP:CENSOR. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * is this response aimed at me, if so I’m not sure why? GimliDotNet (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the censor-part at GhostIn$hell. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Guy Beck
Guy Beck is RS, see, but I removed the word "glowingly" and a nowiki tag from the paragraph which shouldn't have been there. 122.161.190.122 (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Beck has his PhD in religion and his scholarship centers on Hindu music; he has nil academic expertise to review a book that debates AIM. And, Yoga Journal is a pop-magazine. When all critics who have published in academic journals are so harsh, we cannot choose to introduce false balance using shabby publications. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you had said this on your initial edit then I wouldn't be reverting you. 122.161.190.122 (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Biased review and inaccurate labeling.
I think the overall article is biased towards David Frawley for his more right leaning view. He did after all give evidence to his claims for indigenous versus invasionist claims and provided valid criticism towards the theory. While he may have been more selective and not done a full analysis regarding what he wrote I don't think that condones him being a pseudo-historian as people tend to call him. 108.39.84.90 (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)