Talk:Koenraad Elst

Right wing author
, This is supported by reliable sources in the article body. Why are you removing this from the lead? Please read WP:NOTCENSORED. And self revert yourself. --Walrus Ji (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The article discusses that repetitiously, It is best to avoid heavy words like right winger and Hindutva author. We have done that on Romila Thapar and Wendy Doniger though enough sources are available addressing them as leftist and Marxist. So, it is best to discuss the nature of an author's work in the article rather than declaring them as some ist in the very first line. LearnIndology (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , that is a flawed analogy. Only people associated with Hindutva refer to Romila Thapar and Wendy Doniger as leftist, not the mainstream. On the other hand Elst is called Right wing Hindutva by every Mainstream scholar and plenty have been listed as source. Wikipedia has to follow WP:MAINSTREAM and clarify the subject in the lead accordingly. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ad infinitum; see talkpage history. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol!!!! Mainstream scholar?? You mean the liberal leftist cabal who show zero tolerance for truth if it is not palatable to their ideology. Wikipedia has become woke and you have the cheek to ask for donation in order to promote your crap 49.204.130.82 (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well said. But you can no longer reason it out with this left wing woke Wikipedia 49.204.130.82 (talk) 05:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Here are some quotes:

LearnIndology (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Quotes not relevant to this article Moved to User Talk, according to WP:TALKOFFTOPIC --Walrus Ji (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * [In response to those quotes] Could you please stick to the subject? We're discussing Koenraad Elst, a marginal indologist only known because of his support for Hindutva and fringe theories, not Romila Thapar, an accomplished scholar. This is not the place to rehash Hindutva talking points. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This article begins with loaded words: "Hindutva ideology... Out of India theory.. universally.. pseudo-historical... mainstream scholarship...  accuse.. Islamophobia.".
 * That's before you know ANYTHING about him. The editors insist that this is fair and NPOV, but, as with lots of articles that relate to India, it tells you that this is the colonial WASP viewpoint. Believe it at your own risk.Sooku (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

"Who is a Hindu: Hindu revivalist views of Animism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and other offshoots of Hinduism" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Who is a Hindu: Hindu revivalist views of Animism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and other offshoots of Hinduism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

neutral policy on politics
The introduction was more of a negative statement, where as any political author would be first called, "american author" or "indian author" he was not even called a political thinker but a right wing individual and islamophobic. This is not a introduction but an allegation thus it needs to be corrected as per the policy of wikipedia, Ujjwaljha007 (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ujjwaljha007 We aren't neutral in that sense. We try to reflect reliable mainstream sources. Thus our articles on Creationism make it clear that its wrong, our articles on Nazis aren't neutral towards them. See NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content Doug Weller  talk 09:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * When the present mainstream is itself biased with leftist attitude with woke ideologies, then it could misrepresent the views of many Hindu authors and Hindu teachings itself. 108.39.84.90 (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Introduction
Lacks any proper source for 'harbouring Islamophobia'. Even the affiliation to RSS is not credible. 2405:204:148D:59EF:0:0:1B2E:28B0 (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * There are more than sufficient references to this in The God Market: How Globalization is Making India More Hindu alone - by writer and historian Meera Nanda, published by the New York University Press. What is lacking here? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not know about the RSS what I do know is that if you're going to write about current day organizations and authors it's best to separate their core beliefs and foundational values and the actions of that group and it's members. For example, inform people about the BJP and it's policies based on it's Manifesto and after that terms such as Islamaphobia and Hinduvta can be used to refer to the actions of that group or some individuals within it, unless of course their doctrines by that very nature is Islamaphobic. 108.39.84.90 (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)