Talk:David Frawley/Archive 1

Looking for references regarding this subject
I am trying to locate references to David Frawley in books published by academic publishing houses (e.g, Oxford University Press, Harvard University Press, etc.) Can anyone assist me in identifying such titles? Currently the article lacks strong references for many points. Buddhipriya 05:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No one has replied to this question, but I am still trying to find references to Frawley in books published by academic sources. Are there any such references? Buddhipriya 20:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually did make an effort to find some. Other than the Bergunder work, which appears to be the major scholarly work on the subject of revisionist history of this ilk, academic references to DF are few. Hornplease 00:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If Frawley is mentioned in Bergunder, can you please add a citation to the article telling what it says about him? I assume you are referring to Michael Bergunder, "Contested Past", Historiographia Linguistica xxxi:1 (2004), 59–104. The dearth of academic citations in the article is the problem. Buddhipriya 00:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, thats the one. There's also a related article in a book: and . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) 01:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Editorial by Witzel on Frawley
I found the following editorial by Michael E. J. Witzel that is very critical of David Frawley and am wondering if this would be considered as notable criticism:. The dispute over this particular issue is mentioned on the article for Witzel where Frawley's side of the story is linked: Normally I am not a big fan of using web links as sources, but since I have been unable to find mentions of Frawley in academic books, turning to established sources such as The Hindu and opinion published therein by notable high-profile critics such as Witzel seems fair game. Do other editors agree? Currently there is no criticism section in the article for David Frawley which seems odd since he is in fact controversial. Buddhipriya 22:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is permissible under WP:RS, certainly. If nothing else can be found online, then it is a start. Hornplease 00:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been no objection to the addition of this material to the article, so I added a criticism section and put both the Witzel editorial and the Frawley reply into it. Buddhipriya 03:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nussbaum quote
Among other changes, Kkm5848 has removed the quote from Martha Nussbaum (I've just put it back) on the grounds that she's not an expert in this area. It's true that her academic expertise is not in ancient India, but the point she's making doesn't require expertise in Indology, but a knowledge of philological method generally. However, if we can find a comment by an expert in the field then we should replace Nussbaum's quote. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

BLP
Akhilleus' whitewashing (probably to protect Witzel) of Frawley counterattacks are unacceptable under BLP. BLP should definitely apply more to the subject of the page in this context than the criticizer. The characterization of Frawley's work by Witzel is POV also, so keeping only Witzel's vitriol violates NPOV. Baka man  20:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate, because I don't understand why you think these are BLP violations.


 * The Nussbaum quote: "Even David Frawley, the most determined opponent of the "Aryan Migration" theory, does not contest the linguists' most basic claims" is not a criticism. It's a characterization of Frawley's methodology. Why do you think it's a BLP violation?


 * Your preferred version of the Witzel bit reads: "Frawley replied to this criticism in an article of his own showing how Witzel's translation of Sanskrit was tainted by his own motivations." This isn't close to an NPOV summary of Frawley's response, nor is it particularly useful to a reader who wants to find out what's going on without reading Frawley's article. (The summary of Witzel's article isn't that helpful, either--Witzel's claim is not that Frawley has "weak knowledge of Sanskrit", as if Frawley doesn't know how to conjugate verbs or something--his claim is that Frawley reads certain texts in an anachronistic manner.) Can you explain why the version "Frawley replied to this criticism in an article of his own." is a BLP violation? If you think a more detailed summary of Frawley's response is in order, I agree--but that summary should be phrased in a NPOV manner.


 * By the way, when an editor speaks of such things as "Witzel's vitriol" and tries to insert obvious BLP violations into Witzel's biography, it's a reasonable conclusion that some protection is required. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed "tainted by his own motivations" to "motivated by his own biases", which I think is more neutral language. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

education
' Sorry to say but that biography is a bit of a joke. It does not outline his (post-school) education. Also all these "institutes" and "institutions" mentioned in the article are highly misleading, when it says he got all sorts of wonderful awards and postions and what not. If readers learn he is "professor" they are likely to assume he is on a similar position as say a professor of Sanskrit and Classical Indian studies at Princeton or London University. He does not have any training in modern western philological, historical, humanities subjects from any American or European University, as far as I know. Folks, he is a missionary with early contacts to an Indian sect cum mission society, and as a reward for his activities he gets some gifts by likeminded people. That's all. That should become clear to all readers, esp. "newcomers" to the field. I understand all sorts of people are eager to use WP for all sorts of advertising purposes of theirs, but that does certainly not contribute to it becoming a respectable encyclopedia! -- 147.142.186.54 (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced criticism
I removed the unsourced criticism, because criticism needs to be sourced (and it was also pov). --Rayfield 17:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Answer to the above:

Don't you think it would be reasonable to add some criticism? The article looks like a hymn to Dr. Frawley, as if it were written by himself. As I am not much acquainted with the Wiki system, I don't really get how to "source" something - at first glance the article on Frawley is also not sourced.

Anyway, as I am doing my thesis on the Rigveda and therefore (believe myself to) have at least some ability of judging the discussions (also involving Michael Witzel) - Dr. Frawley having an important part in them - I would appreciate it if someone could help to "source" the criticism, or explain to me how "sourcing" is done. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.221.87.219 (talk • contribs)


 * Negative information about living persons must always be sourced. To see how, read WP:REF. For neutrality issues, read WP:NPOV. --Rayfield 17:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * um, any information, on people both living or dead, must be sourced. At present, the introduction is a fawning eulogy. The article gives no source whatsoever. It won't do to just drop what you don't like and keep what you like. Care to source any of the extolling praise, or shall we remove that as unsourced too? In fact, the criticism was attributed, to Witzel. To whom shall we attribute the claim that Frawley's presentation is "lucid" and "recognized by the tradition"? dab (&#5839;) 13:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I was just following official Wikipedia policy, by which:


 * Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.


 * Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criteria A6).


 * Jimmy Wales has said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [1]


 * I removed the criticism because it was unsourced. --Rayfield 17:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, serious researchers studying Veda [four of them] should put these questions before themselves.

[1] Why Indra the principal God of the Vedas is not worshiped in India and why there are no Temples of Indra now in India. [2] Why Brahmins today do not perform Yagya [the fire worship] ritual of Vedas as it is described in the Vedas? For example an intoxicant drink soma ras has to be prepared and consumed by the performers of Yagya and an animal [bull] is to be sacrificed which is also to be consumed by the performers of the Yagya. [3] Is Ashwamedha Yagya a sane practice? Can we find any person who is willing to perform Ashwamedha'' today? [4] Why and where Zend Avestha [and the Gathas] of Persians differ from Rig Veda and other Vedas?

Rayfield can you get the answers from David Frawley?

Sane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.249.100.195 (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Height of speculation by Mr. Wiztel
Read the article at http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/op/2002/08/13/stories/2002081300020200.htm. One would see the height of speculation by Mr. Wiztel(especially 5th point).He cites facts from so many sources and tries to connect them according to his belief.It happens when someone can no longer keep the door of his mind opened and associates himself with a belief system.Moreover, many other explainations can be easily derived from all these facts.The facts and findings are immense and new findings such as genom research as cited in the article Indigenous Aryans are very well challenging established positions.So how one would explain incosistency.One should always be open in his views and assume good faith toward others' views especially when someone himself is prone to be debunked at any time by new line of reasonings or some new findings.196.1.105.91 (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

David Frawley, from which University he got Dr. title or any degree?
I read 1 what David Frawley wrote about Aryans. He is not telling any thing new but the same old Brahmanical story. The story is politically motivated. Rig Veda [Purusha Suktam precisely] gives the basis of the caste system which is worst than slavery. The caste system is elaborated 2 in Manu Dharma. Manu Dharma describes Sudra community of India [edit] Argument for Westerners to become Hindu

Frawley says, "[T]rue religion, whether it predominates in the Eastern or Western parts of the world, is not a matter of geography... Why should it be a problem for us if anyone finds spiritual benefit from a teaching that arises outside of their given cultural context?"... Before we think that we are Westerners or Easterners, we should know that we are human beings. "Identity is something that we are going to lose anyway."[3] [edit] who constitute 80% 0f Hindus as unholy slaves. During British rule of India Brahmins claimed that they are Aryans [example the work of B.G. Tilak] identified themselves with the British and the Germans. The introduction of democracy in India gave voting power to Sudra and Dalit communities. Brahmins are in no way in absolute power. In Tamil Nadu [erstwhile Madras state] Sudra communities established their own political parties [DMK and AIADMK] and seized power pushing Brahmanical forces out of Power. Similarly other backward caste leaders [ Mulayam Singh Yadav and Lalu Prasad Yadav for example] came to power through socialist movement started by late Ram Manohar Lohia. Followers of Dr. BR Ambedkar established their political party BSP [Bahujan Samaj Party] which is right now in power in the state of Uttar Pradesh.

The present day Hindu organizations [the political party Bharatiya Janata Party and its mentor RSS] created by Orthodox Brahmins [not all Brahmins] are surviving not on the strength of Hinduism but on the hatred they created against Muslims and Christians. Hindu extremists say that Islam and Christianity are from out side India and hence to be eliminated. These organizations killed thousands of Muslims in riots in Gujarat and tens of Christians in Orissa. Under these circumstances it is embarrassing for Hindu Extremists to accept the European connection of Vedas, Aryans and Brahmins. Any body researching Vedas or Hinduism 3 should read Dr. Ambedkar.

What is the truth? The recent research on the genetics of caste tells it all. The study conducted in Visakhapatnam in the state of Andhra Pradesh by Bamshad shows 4 that Brahmins carry Euopean genes via Y-chromosomes while their mtDNA is similar to that of other castes. It means that Brahmins are the descendants of European fathers and Dravidian [Proto Asian] mothers. That is Brahmins the Indo Europeans who wrote Vedas in Sanskrit an Indo European language, are as good as Anglo Indians.

Who are Aryans? In all possibility 5 they are Brahmins.

Coming to the credentials of Frawley the organizations which awarded degrees and honors are just unrecognized [by the Governments] private associations which can be created by any interested party! I hope the editor takes this note seriously to keep up the prestige of Wikipedia. David Frawley’s ideas about Aryans are cent per cent wrong!! Or some body else [Ghost writing] wrote on behalf of Frawley.

[1] http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley.html

[2] http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/hinduism/dharma/manusmriti.asp

[3] B.R. Ambedkar, “Who were Shudras?”, Thackers, Bombay, 1970.

[4] http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Bamshad2001.pdf

[5] http://knol.google.com/k/dmr-sekhar/aryan-and-arya/3ecxygf1lxcn2/9#

DMR Sekhar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.249.40.31 (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You are contradicting your positions by arguing in a way which is full of hatred towards a particular community especially when your genetic reference section is doubtful196.1.105.91 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are for discussion about improvements to the article, not general discussion about the subject itself. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * well, the anon's point is that Frawley is no authority on Indian prehistory or racial questions, and he is right. It appears that Frawley is recognized as an authority in traditional medicine and astrology, so let the article discuss his opinions in these fields, and not his occasional dabbling in others. --dab (𒁳) 18:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on David Frawley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071226025526/http://www.hinduonnet.com:80/thehindu/op/2002/08/20/stories/2002082000120200.htm to http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/op/2002/08/20/stories/2002082000120200.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Frawley. 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/20130530003829/http://www.ayurvedaacademy.com/academy/index.php/aboutus/board to http://www.ayurvedaacademy.com/academy/index.php/aboutus/board

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * DavidFrawley.jpg

Sourced Criticism
This wiki-biography has been clearly sanitized. Frawley is a known Islamophobic & Hindu nationalist provocateur. The fact that the term Hindutva has been completely removed from the article speaks for itself. I haven't reviewed all the criticisms of Frawley that have been deleted here as 'unsourced', however, I will just go ahead and provide just a few sources for you all to work with:

1. In an academic article titled 'Hindu Nationalism and Indigenist Neoracism' in Theories of Race and Racism: A Reader, Chetan Bhatt observes: It's "important to note the marriage between far- right- wing Hindutva ideology and western New Ageism in the works of writers like David Frawley (1994, 1995a, 1995b) who is ... a key apologist for the Hindutva movement..." (p.591)

2. Parita Mukta (2000) The public face of Hindu nationalism, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 23:3, 442-466 refers to "David Frawley and François Gautier, [as] the two foremost Western ideologues of Hindu nationalism in the world today" (p.450) Mukta goes on to point out that "Frawley’s written contribution to the RSS newsletter The Organiser was quoted extensively in the pages of GS, whereby he stated that foreign missionaries were intent on destroying Hinduism through mass conversions and that Hindus had been unsuccessful in resisting this due to their passivity" (p.451) "Proponents of global Hindutva today who want to make the ‘whole world Arya’ (Giri and see Frawley 1995) speak from within and out of the Hindutva formation" (p.455)

3. Meera Nanda, “Hindu Triumphalism and the Clash of Civilisations.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 44, no. 28, 2009, pp. 106–114. www.jstor.org/stable/40279263, also investigates the rise of "Islamophobia" on the Hindu right and refers to Frawley as one of the "leading figures" (p.111) in the Voice of India group of "militants" (p.110) that promotes this intolerance. 137.59.52.211 (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)R.E.D.


 * Also Les Back and John Solomos (2000), Theories of Race and Racism: A Reader, p.591, ISBN 9780415156714. "It is important to note the marriage between far-right-wing Hindutva ideology and western New Ageism in the works of writers like David Frawley (1994, 1995a, 1995b) who is both a key apologist for the Hindutva movement and the author of various New Age books on Vedic astrology, oracles and yoga."  Doug Weller  talk 09:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Appears to be the same as #1 above.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  00:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Frawley
has been amply described by scholars as a Hindutva idealogue. What's the issue? &#x222F; WBG converse 05:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral encyclopedia. If someone has been described as a "Hindutva idealogue" (sic) by sources then that can be mentioned as their opinion. Taking that negative opinion and presenting it in Wikipedia's voice as fact is an unambiguous violation of WP:BLP and as such must be reverted. There is zero doubt and zero ambiguity on that point. You failed to provide even one source that actually uses the term "Hindutva idalogue". Additionally, taking a bunch of cherry-picked negative quotations about Frawley and placing them in the lead is a clear violation of WP:LEAD - which is meant to be a short summary of the article as a whole. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You do not understand what neutrality is. Read WP:FALSEBALANCE and then, go and read the leads of Milo Yiannopoulos and Homeopathy. When all scholarly sources describe him as a Hindu nationalist/ Hindutva idealogue; we describe him as such in Wikipedia's own voice. You also need to read the sourcing that's already present at the article and Yyou are always free to add non-cherry picked quotes. &#x222F; WBG converse 07:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As to sourcing, read:-
 * (1) writes :--
 * (2) writes:--
 * (3) writes:--
 * (4) writes:--
 * (5)
 * (6) writes:--
 * (7) writes:--
 * (8) writes that:--
 * (9) and  writes :--
 * (10) writes that:--
 * (11) writes that:--
 * (12) writes that:--
 * (13) writes that:--
 * (14) writes that:--
 * Also, per Frawley's own tweet, he ought be hardly bothered. &#x222F; WBG converse 07:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And, I am *yet* to do a scan across Proquest databases. &#x222F; WBG converse 08:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * a couple of things. Are you saying that calling someone a Hindutva supporter is negative? I don't see how you can justify that. You have read the article on this way of life, right? This would be like calling, I don't know, someone a Greenpeace supporter and saying that's negative and you shouldn't call them that. I'm happy to drop the word ideologue, I wouldn't use it. There should probably be a paragraph in the article about this. We could even perhaps use his tweet, which I think confirms that he is a Hindutva supporter. That he is a Hindutva supporter is a fact, not an opinion. Doug Weller  talk 08:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am unsure about using his tweets; a bit hazy about the exact practice. Something about Hindutva must be there in the first line. Ambivalent about ideologue; I support it, since a lot many sources describe him as such or apologist. Hindu nationalist is also used in abundance. &#x222F; WBG converse 08:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of your preferred version of the article reads,


 * "David Frawley (Sanskrit title: वामदेव शास्त्री, IAST: Vāmadeva Śāstrī), born 1950, is a Hindutva ideologue, who has written more than thirty books on topics such as the Vedas, Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma), Yoga, Ayurveda and Vedic astrology."


 * You maintain that that is somehow compatible with BLP. No. There are a whole galaxy of people who could potentially be described as "ideologues" of one kind or another, but there is exactly no sense in which using the term "ideologue", in Wikipedia's voice, to describe someone is appropriate. It is still inappropriate here even if you happen to have a source that calls Frawley a "Hindutva ideologue". If you want to make comparisons, that is the equivalent of going to the article on Donald Trump and describing him as a "racist blowhard" in Wikipedia's voice, just because you have a source calling him that. I don't doubt that sources describing prominent people in extremely derogatory or contentious terms exist, but that's never an appropriate way of using them. At most, we would mention them as opinion only, assuming they merited mentioning at all. WP:FALSEBALANCE is not an excuse for removing the accurate and neutral statement that Frawley is an author; that's a textbook example of biased editing. It frankly disgusts me that it is even necessary to discuss all this. As for quotations, they should be in the lead only if they are both truly needed and truly representative of the article as a whole, as per WP:LEAD. The lengthy quotations you added from Bruce Lincoln and Meera Nanda (visible in this version of the article) were placed only in the lead and as such were obvious violations of the guideline. Anyone with a reasonable experience of editing (especially editing articles on living people) could have told you should have put them somewhere else. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have still more obvious remarks to make. You provided plenty of sources describing Frawley as a supporter of the Hindutva movement. I am perfectly prepared to believe that he is exactly that, and I see no objection at all to the lead of the article stating that he does support the Hindutva movement, provided that the mention can be added in a responsible, appropriate manner, a manner that does not make the article look like a so-childishly-biased-it-isn't-funny hit piece on its subject. His support for Hindutva is relevant, factual information that deserves mentioning in the lead, but there is no gain in encyclopedic terms by describing Frawley in Wikipedia's voice as an "ideologue", no matter how personally gratifying or satisfying some editors may happen to find it. There is quite a large difference between mentioning very relevant and salient facts, such as a given person's support for a given movement, and editors shoving their personal opinions and biases in the faces of unsuspecting readers and bringing Wikipedia's reputation as a serious encyclopedia into discredit in the process. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As for this edit by Guy Macon, I feel free to revert it, given that of the four editors who have commented two (myself and ) oppose using "ideologue", one (Winged Blades of Godric) is somewhat ambiguous and states that it is only one term he might use, and only Guy Macon himself is apparently committed to the shoving-my-opinions-in-your-face use of the term "ideologue". At the very least, there is no consensus in its favor. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above, I have to question whether Winged Blades of Godric has made appropriate use of the Bruce Lincoln book cited, Theorizing Myth: Narrative, Ideology, and Scholarship (1999). I have looked up the relevant passage of that book, which is available online. Page 215 is cited; however, that page fails to provide a discussion dedicated to Frawley. It discusses various opinions about Indo-European dispersal, and it is not concerned with discussing Frawley specifically - his name appears only in the footnotes. It appears disingenuous to take that passage from Lincoln's book and use it to support a statement such as, "Bruce Lincoln attributes Frawley's ideas to "parochial nationalism", terming them "exercises in scholarship ( = myth + footnotes)", where archaeological data spanning several millennia is selectively invoked, with no textual sources to control the inquiry, in support of the theorists' desired narrative". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * please don't use name to do a wholesale revert. It looks as though there is some consensus to calling him a Hindutva supporter and you should have fixed the way we do that, not just remove it entirely. I have no time now but hopefully will later. Doug Weller  talk 09:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not entirely sure what your comment "please don't use name to do a wholesale revert" is intended to mean. If you read what I wrote above, you will see that I do not object to having Frawley identified as a Hindutva supporter, so long as that is done in an appropriate manner. However, as per your comments and advice, I have restored the obviously, and painfully, biased version of the article, the content of which is clearly inappropriate. Satisfied? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * since I have said I wouldn't use the word "ideologue" and you've said that I oppose its use, I'm not satisfied at all, especially with an edit summary that suggested I wanted it in. It also needed a source. I've changed it to supporter and sourced it. I apologise for missing out the word "my" before name. Doug Weller  talk 09:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You indicated that I should not have made a "wholesale revert". I took that to mean that I ought to revert this edit, which was a reversion by me of an edit by Guy Macon. I did, despite disagreeing strongly with the wording that I thereby restored. It may be that I misinterpreted your comments, but I was trying to follow your suggestion. The edit summary, which I regret, was a product of irritation. I am only human. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, it's clear from my edit summary that I wasn't happy, so we're even there. And thanks for the thanks. I wish I'd had time yesterday but real life and Wikipedia nonsense took up too much time. We probably should enlarge on the Hindutva but I doubt I can do that today, I still have nonsense to deal with. Doug Weller  talk 09:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I am fine with whatever the consensus turns out to be. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * new to this discussion here. This is a living person's biography. Care has to be taken. The inclusion of the word " Hindutiva" is minor and not an issue. But, it is not right to include the "note" that links Frawly to Fascism ! Prodigyhk (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

lead
User:Winged Blades of Godric regarding to your recent edit [|here].

Biography of a living person has to be written with great care. There are many articles in WP/Help you can refer to understand. This statement does not fit into the lead and was be removed. If you have valid needs to include this, provide clear WP rules that allow you to have it included. Do not add it back without discussion and get consensus. thanks Prodigyhk (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will entertain you, once you get over with this vague hand-waving. The statement is an accurate summary of his image in the scholarly community. &#x222F; WBG converse 07:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Winged Blades of Godric I am also member of scholarly community. Basic guidelines for scholars are to discuss and come to an agreement. So, if you have any valid points, raise them here for discussion Prodigyhk (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't give a fuck about whether you are a scholar and your user-page does not suggest any relevant training in historiography. There is no need to rebut a variant of WP:IDONOTLIKEIT and pretty much every single scholar rejects his views and asserts him to be a pro-Hindutva revisionist. &#x222F; WBG converse 07:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is just WP. No need to use abusive language here. Relax :) Prodigyhk (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you just clarify your edits other than crying abuse of BLP? Can't you read the reception section at the article along with the host of sources provided in the above t/p thread? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 07:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons; Arbitration Committee's ruling WP:ARBBLP,Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached. Prodigyhk (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to leave this wiki-lawyering and actually clarify about it's inappropriateness. So far you can be summarised as:-- I do not like it. BLP forbids it. ArbVom has ruled that controversial thing stays out, unless there is a consensus in favor. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 07:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry, these are rules while editing biography of living persons. Prodigyhk (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Why
are you reverting my additions (and a bunch of citations) about scholarly perspective of Frawley (and his work) w/o any edit-summaries or attempt at discussion? It's already 3 times. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 11:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Taking a detailed look, you are removing my criticism and have thinned down Witzel's criticism. Textbook whitewashing. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Which of edits you do not understand ? Prodigyhk (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this some elaborate attempt at trolling? You have thrice reverted my additions of scholarly criticism of Frawley and his work without any attempt at t/p discussion or providing any minimal edit-summary whilst thinning down Witzel's criticism, to the point of not even mentioning the locus of his rebuttals. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an article on Frawley and not on Aryan invasion theory. Not require to provide elaborate arguments made by Witzel, etc. In any case, sufficient information on the arguments between these 2 gents is now included. Prodigyhk (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can't see that you have removed a whole lot of additions, made by me, across those 3 edits? You are either self-reverting or giving a rationale for your removal or I am going to ask for some sanction.  &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the exchange was between Frawley and Witzel, on aspects of Frawley's views. It certainly belongs here, to an extent somewhere between your writeup and the previous one. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * sufficient information is provided that these 2 gents argued on some obscure meaning each of these 2 gents hold to the word samudra, etc. If any reader is so excited and wants to learn more they can click to the references provided. Prodigyhk (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Given you u/p, your motivations are amply clear. At any case, I re-ask you about the rationale behind reverting my additions and the bunch of new cites. It's the third fime, that I am asking you about this and you are consistently evasive. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, why the hell, are you transposing random stuff to random places, given your sub-optimal skills with the language? This edit of your's represents Nussbaum's comments as a broad overview of Frawley's activities/works, which is plainly weird and pathetic, destroying the coherence/flow of the article. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * you have to blame yourself for this. Because of your mind less reverts, Martha comments got destroyed. Now have updated it. Prodigyhk (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh. And, how is this a reply to the question put before you? Why you have weirdly introduced Martha Nussbaum's opinion of a specific aspect of Frawley's work, at the top of the section, which is meant to contain a general overview of his reception (that has been already nicely documented by Bryant)? Shall I move the fact of his being described as a revisionist-fraud or ideologue, at the very top of the section? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * may be, Frawley is all that you claim him to be. But, we are WP editors and have rules on article for living person. Be nice. Be balanced. Prodigyhk (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * More stonewalling. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

, you cannot simply delete scholarly sourced content with vague claims of this and that. Please state your objections here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3 I suppose your refer to Frawley/Witzel issue. A debate in opinion coloum of a newspaper is really not worth any mention here. Since it is here, keep it brief. All the citations were retained. Only reduced the content length. Prodigyhk (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

And please treat scholars with due respect. They are not your high school buddies to call them "Martha" and what not. -- Kautilya3 (talk)
 * Kautilya3 Addressing a scholar by their first name is not disrespectful. In any case, we are just trying to communicate with each other. You have understand the person i am referring to. If there is an issue with edit, we can discuss. Prodigyhk (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Note-removal
Please explain your rationale. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 07:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations is a tertiary source, published by a highly reputed publisher. So, the explanatory footnote is apt. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 07:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) note misleading connection of Frawley and Fascism. This is a living person biography. Care has to be taken. 2) note is redundant. An interested reader by clicking Hindutva go to article page to read the updated information as agreed by editors of that article page. Prodigyhk (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No-body is saying Frawley is fascist. WP:CRYBLP. We routine use such foot-notes; you are yet to write any quality-content and/or any good/featured article to know 'bout it. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 07:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * the note does say that. And it is redundant. Prodigyhk (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The note states:-In India, Hindutva is the predominant form of Hindu nationalism. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations :- "Hindutva ... refers to the ideology of Hindu nationalists, stressing the common culture of the inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent. ... Modern politicians have attempted to play down the racial and anti-Muslim aspects of Hindutva ... but the term has Fascist undertones.". It nowhere says that Frawley is a fascist. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 07:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * the note provided link between Frawley to Fascism. This is not right manner to write. In any case, note is redundant. Reader can go to the Hindutva article page to learn about it. Prodigyhk (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion has died. - Any comments as to the edit in question?  &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 11:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinged here. It is unusual to explain what Hindutva is but, on the other hand, this article explains what an acharya is, so why not Hindutva also. The note certainly doesn't say Frawley is a fascist. If Hindutva is significant to his worldview (as I rather suspect it is) then it probably needs some sort of explanation in that context, if no other. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sitush Agree "It is unusual to explain what Hindutva ". So, not require to explain on this page what "Hindutva" is. Let interested readers click link Hindutva to read the page as editors there explain.  Prodigyhk (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood what I said - please do not selectively quote. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sitush Yes. I misunderstood what you said.
 * My reason for removing the []. Interested readers click link Hindutva to read about this subject as WP editors of that page have agreed. Prodigyhk (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

WBG's edits
Winged Blades of Godric (WBG) has made unsubstantiated and biased edits on Frawley.

The pattern in WBG's edits is to somehow introduce something by Michael Witzel in articles on individuals or subjects. Most often the citation is irrelevant or ambiguous, introduced to confuse the amateur reader, and this has been done in this article as well.

If WBG is doing it on his own, it is not helping Witzel's reputation for the citations are not appropriate or are not balanced by other material that presents another scholarly POV.

If WBG is Witzel's own handle, then it is clearly unethical and it is cheap way of getting noticed. Witzel would be much better off spending his time in rebutting Frawley in scholarly journals and not sneakily as here.

In Frawley's article, WBG had introduced Witzel in a section about an exchange of letters in The Hindu newspaper. This is a trivial matter that doesn't deserve to be in the article, and clearly has been done for Witzel's publicity.

WBG has also deleted the bibliography by Frawley. Why? So that people comparing Frawley to himself will not notice that Frawley has many, many more books. The idea of non-notable publishers is a red herring since Frawley has about the same number of Google Scholar citations as Witzel.

WilhelmBenjy (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * If wish to get your facts correct rather than throw random aspersions, you will note that the exchange-section,  in it's expanded form, has existed long long before I made any edit to the article and that the section was merely transposed from one place to another amidst my editorial interventions.
 * It's also highly amusing that I (who can be Witzel or wishes to spam him everywhere) notes in one of his edit summaries about heavily trimming the particular section.
 * A lot many editors ( et al) have deleted such extended bibliographies; we are not his catalog. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 07:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah "Lotus Press"--their website isn't very impressive. Google Scholar citations don't come into that, necessarily. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Drmies and WBG. Doug Weller  talk 19:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with WilhelmBenjy. Frawley is an author. Include bibliography. Prodigyhk (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * He seems to me to be a polemicist who sometimes promotes pseudo-history etc, which is certainly a form of authorship. But we don't routinely include exhaustive bibliographies even of academics who are generally considered to be mainstream, let alone someone who is not. Prodigyhk, you're entitled to your opinion but I think common practice, as well as a bunch of very experienced contributors (including two former arbitrators) is going to be against you here. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * would not label David as a polemicist. Do now see the few debates has got broader attention in the media. His books on spirituality & astrology are the primary reason for his fame and notability. Prodigyhk (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Someone explain the meaning of this.
"Whilst rejected by the academia as fringe sectarian scholarship, his works have been popular among the common masses."

What does "rejected by academia" implies? What does 'academia' mean in the context? DoomDriven (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody in the scholarly community (folks who have relevant academic training in these disciplines) takes him seriously &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody or a select few? The sentence gives the idea that his work has unanimously declared as 'fringe' by a majority of reputed indologist, which I find hard to believe. DoomDriven (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is one exception I believe. Not enough to carry any weight. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Who? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 08:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm... You lost the quiz already? Klaus Klostermaier. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * :-( Eh; I thought that Klaus was already in the article, and you were talking about someone else! Had inserted his praises over Kak's article but did not do the same, over here. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 10:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

David Frawley
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Rishang123 (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Note
Modern and Global Ayurveda : Pluralism and Paradigms

Cultural Anthropology source
The comment about Frawley's book is " The book she has read about Ayurveda (Frawley 1989) reads like many other self-help books published in the United States. It presents Ayurveda as a simple, elegant, and well-organized system. It translates Ayurveda into terms that are readily assimilable by experienced consumers of holistic health." "The book may be used as an Ayurvedic self-healing program or as preparation for visiting an Ayurvedic practitioner. My intent here is not to criticize the book itself: translations of Ayurveda into the terms of North American holism are inevitable, and as such translations go, this one is clear, inclusive, and respectful of intricacies. My intent is rather to locate the U.S. patient's interest in her prakrti within late-20th-century formulations of American individualism which have been discussed by several social researchers..." Nothing about culture, and the nutshell here is that it's a decent book as self-help books go. The article clearly supports Ayurveda but thinks it needs modernising, eg: " Langford explores the strategies of contemporary practitioners who reconfigure Ayurvedic knowledge through institutions and technologies such as hospitals, anatomy labs, clinical trials, and sonograms. She shows how practitioners appropriate, transform, or circumvent the knowledge practices implicit in these institutions and technologies, destabilizing such categories as medicine, culture, science, symptom, and self, even as they deploy them in clinical practice. Ultimately, this study points to the future of Ayurveda in a transnational era as a remedy not only for the wounds of colonialism but also for an imagined cultural emptiness at the heart of global modernity." Doug Weller  talk 12:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What's your objection about this source (besides your strong bias towards Dr. Frawley to downplay his positive contributions and bringing back the citations of Hinduphobic propaganda in the lead itself by labeling a popular Hindu scholar as Hindutva activist)? This paragraph you mentioned itself said that Langford et al. describes lot of his positive comments about Dr. Frawley book as easier translations of Ayurveda and how it will provide a easier self-help book for general Western masses ("It presents Ayurveda as a simple, elegant, and well-organized system. It translates Ayurveda into terms that are readily assimilable by experienced consumers of holistic health"). Also, in the last paragraph she mentioned that "as a remedy not only for the wounds of colonialism but also for an imagined cultural emptiness at the heart of global modernity". Now, on your notes of "My intent here is not to criticize the book itself" as you mentioned in the edits of May 3: if you read the whole few sentences with context, anyone can clearly see what Longfrad meant. She clearly said her point was not to criticize "AYURVEDA" per se and how it suits the modernity, etc.; rather she clearly mentioned that David was successful in explaining Ayurveda in vernacular terms as a "simple, elegant, and well-organized system". So, please do not bring things out of context to show your bias and hatred to a prominent scholar of 1.1 billion Hindus of the world. Sanjoydey33 (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

A “prominent scholar” who most actual academic scholars consider to be a fraud and low grade propagandist. Maybe instead of saying that he’s Hindu so only Hindus can criticize him you can listen to us Americans who say guys like this are unstable and left america for a reason. Puma6374 (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Occupation
Would it be okay if I added that he is an Indic scholar after "and a Hindutva author"? Indologist Edwin Bryant refers to him as a "scholar", and is it ok to add the adjective "Indic" because he does discuss Indic things? I realize that Bryant only referred to him as a "scholar", but I think that Bryant is assuming that the reader would assume that Bryant means Frawley is an "Indic scholar". Shakespeare143 (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No qualifications, no can do. Chariotrider555 (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No qualifications indeed. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Considering his highly influential contributions and prominence in the field and his notability, I think that this would qualify him as an Indologist. Even an Indologist according to collegiate degree (Edwin Bryant) categorizes him as a scholar, so having a degree in "Indology" is unessential to be an Indologist. Rather, he has received 2 Doctors of Letters in areas relating to Indology. He has published in peer-reviewed journals where he discussed Indology. Further evidence on how he is an Indologist can be found here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4479902/. Shakespeare143 (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Influential only among the uneducated (in regards to Indology) masses. He is completely discredited in academia and his works are of no value. Chariotrider555 (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Calling frawley anything other than a fraud and weirdo who fled America is committing lies to wikipedia Puma6374 (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * He is not a "weirdo" or a "fraud". Like all scholars he has criticism.Shakespeare143 (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Do we need to have 50+ publications?
Seems excessive. I've often wondered it there is guidance. And "forewords"? Doug Weller talk 09:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't recall with certainty but it was prob., who deleted such a long list of bibliography from someone's wiki-page. Is there any policy? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Normal policies apply. All material needs to be validated using WP:SECONDARY sources, lists of works are no exception. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding this edit diff, since the ISBN is mentioned, it pretty much verifies the publications of Frawley as the author. Also, there are "excessive" lists for other authors on Wikipedia too, just for time being, Devdutt Pattaniak for example. I don't think it's necessary for the publications to be removed. Wiki Linuz  ( Ping me! ) 20:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sourcing is required to establish notability. Wikipedia is not am WP:INDISCRIMINATE repository of information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Political Labeling
You must show first that David Frawley identities with Hindutva before writing that he is. Peppergoat23 (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

There are 14 references attached to the claim. What is wrong with them that you find them unacceptable? GimliDotNet (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)