Talk:In Search of the Cradle of Civilization

POV
Putting "National mysticism" in the See also section is pov. I removed it.--RF 23:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

um, this is a classical case of national mysticism, and the classification is well referenced. Hello? It is published by the Theosophical Society? It doesn't get any murkier than that. dab (𒁳) 10:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Sokal statement
granted, the quote is about communal violence and its connection to the "Vedic science" ideology in general, for which this very book is cited as a prime example. Thus the quote is perfectly relevant to the article. If you can provide any other reviews that focus on this book in isolation as opposed to putting it in its ideological context, feel free to cite them also. I also recognize the quote is somewhat partisan. I realize communal violence has (at least) two faces. But it is you who *alleges* it is "anti-Hindu" in general. This seems to imply that all Hindus are confused, undeducated, fanatical zealots, which, I put to you, is very much more "anti Hindu" than critically separating the fanatics from the bona fide population. I also put to you, "" that you are a sock, operated by a user who has indulged in endless disruption and bad faith campaigning in the past, and I ask you to finally stick to a single account and begin helping build Wikipedia in good faith if you are at all capable, or else find another forum to air your views. dab 10:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No. That is a false premise. Sokal attacks Hindus. All Hindus. He makes allegations that Hindus are prone to mob mentality, which mirrors Nazi propaganda against Jews (the exact claims made by Nazis in Der Sturmer). Therefore, the quote is inherently anti-Hindu, and inappropriate hatemongering. If Sokal said that Hindu Nationalists were mobbing theit would be different. In any case, Sokal clearly mentions this book only peripherally in his paper, and continues to make broad attacks against Hindus and the usual level of racism against Indian Americans that one expects from his group in Academia. While such supremacist propaganda is expected and, in on itself, very interesting, it does not belong as the criticism of a book which Sokal has probably not read anyways (he just parrotthe rhetoric of Meera Nanda, who in turn parrots the rhetoric of Islamists). In response to your ad-hominem attack on me. I put to YOU that, based on your edit history, that you belong to the same racialists who have nothing better to do than spread hatred against Hindus, and incite others to commit violence and atrocities against Hindus through articles such as this one. Anodeabout 10:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * maybe you would care to back up your claim that "Sokal attacks all Hindus"? Are you saying every Hindu believes in pseudoscientific nonsense and indulges in mob violence, or are you saying Sokal says this? Based on your presumed edit history of trolling and edit warring, I am assuming the former, I must say. Yes, Sokal is anti-religion (not anti-Hindu in particular, saying "he attacks all Hindus" is like accusing someone who said "I don't like television" of attacking the BBC), and he attacks this book because it presents religious fundamentalism in the guise of "scholarship". You may be "anti-religion" like Sokal, or "pro-religion", or you may have no opinion on the matter, but this doesn't change the fact that this book does misrepresent religious sentiment as "scholarship". Remember that this book is not openly about Hinduism at all. It pretends to discuss "Ancient India". Sokal exposes that it is in fact about ideological currents in Hinduism, something that you seem to take for granted, but the reader may not have your background knowledge on the topic. dab (𒁳) 10:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. I had by chance come across this page as I started researching on the "Aryan Invasion Theory". I became interested in this topic after a few initial conversations with my colleagues. But I must say, when reading this page, I was very much surprised to see "the Sokal statement" inserted into otherwise informative pages in the Wikipedia. Then after reading the Revision History and now this Talk Page, I am not surprised to see this particular aspect debated. First of all, when following the links for Sokal, I came to understand that he is not even an expert in this field. As a reader interested in India's history, why would I care about the opinion of a physics professor with little or no education in this area? After learning more about him, I am shocked to see him sited on this page. Secondly, the content of his statement itself bears little relevance to the book itself. A quote or opinion from any academician should not be blankly stated unless it has merit and is accepted by others. Otherwise, academic data would become superfluous and difficult to sort out the facts from the opinions/guesses. I strongly suggest we remove the Sokal statement altogether as it comes from a source that is not an expert in this area. Thanks! Nlibra 10:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)nlibra

Alan Sokal is well known for debunking pseudoscholarship. This article doesn't discuss "Indology" so much as a phenomenon of ideologically motivated pseudo-scholarship, hence the statement is perfectly justified. For information on the "Aryan Invasion Theory", refer to Indo-Aryan migration. If there are any academic reviews of the book, they should indeed be cited, but I am not aware there are any, the book qalifies as fringe literature. You may or may not be aware of Wikipedia's WP:RS policy: other views are most welcome, as long as they can be attributed to academic publications. dab (𒁳) 10:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC) A book consisting of unfounded 'opinions' on this subject, even if it is published by an academician, should not be sited as an academic publication on this topic. Nlibra 22:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)nlibra
 * why not? It is the entire point of academic publishing that if your opinions are "unfounded", they will be criticized by others. If you find an academic review of the Sokal article, feel free to add it. As it happens, the propaganda is so transparent that it borders on absurdity to state that Sokal's evaluation is "unfounded". dab (𒁳) 07:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)