Talk:P. N. Oak/Archive 1

Unacceptable
This is absolutely unacceptable in the English Wikipedia. --Wetman 09:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? What's wrong with it? --Coolsi 09:56, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen wikipedia criticising a person (historian) this much even if it's an article about a holocaust denier.

The article seems fine to me. As far as I can see, the first paragraph is non-biased to the extent that he would probably endorse it if he himself saw it on its own. The rest is a presentation of his peers opinions on him. If there's a vast body of historians who readily endorse his work and whose opinions have been cruelly rejected, I imagine someone will rectify the situation. --Cruci 15:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This dangerous charlatan is lucky that someone even took him seriously enough to dedicate a page on Wikipedia to him. At least it gives people some idea of the wilful idiocy of his views, and the contempt in which he is held by Historians. Excessive criticism my foot! Sikandarji 13:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe Purushottam Nagesh Oak does not deserve a listing on Wikipedia, who knows he might say Wikipedia is actually a Hindu King's Work that was originally known as "Wi Kunta Peta".(Anser Basheer) —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Emailtokhan (talk • contribs)

Wow, the comments above me are little more than baseless rants. "Dangerous charlatan"? Sounds like something Bangla Bhai would say. You may also want to look at WP:BLP.Bakaman Bakatalk

Interesting...but this entire bio is made up!
Interesting but this entire bio is made up!, and it seems strange that someone would go out of their way to do this on Wikipedia. There never was an "Institute for Rewriting Indian History" started by a Purshottam Nagesh Oak and there is no description of any other writing by an actual P.N. Oak who had written a controversial book about the Taj Mahal way back in 1965. I know when I was young back in the early 70's and never heard of a Hindutva movement, I had the opportunity to visit the great monument of the Taj Mahal and even then, there were legends about what could possibly be in the closed off sections of this monument. There was also the carbon dating that showed that some of the doors were three hundred years older than the palace's history. I am sure that Hindu Fanatics by this time have taken advantage of these mysteries but that does not mean that they don't exist. The Oak book may be speculation, but it isn't a reason to make up a completely fabricated bio of this author. This is just another mystery to add to it all. I am sure over time the world will find out, maybe once the religious people and political people back off of it.


 * I know I shouldn't be doing this but; "so his theories.". 88.238.41.230 22:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oak is a real person. No-one has made him up, sadly. We even link to articles by him. Here's a picture of him, and a bio. Paul B 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, thanks for the link, but I think that he could possibly be as "evil" as an African-American civil rights activist claiming that Central Park was once Seneca Village. Sometimes we have to look at all possibilities if we want to reach the truth.  Even Galileo was a heretic once. I just thought this must be fictional because this article is full of hyperbole and P.O.V.  What's wrong with asking questions?


 * Nothing's wrong with asking questions, it's the answers that can be the problem. The hyperbole, for the most part, is in Oak's own words. Paul B 09:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If someone tries to answer a question, and it is not hurting anyone, that is not a problem. But denouncing an answer without giving it a possible exploration is a form of censorship. As I said, Galileo views were considered heretical once.  He came up with some answers and these answers were a problem in the society he lived in.  There was fear that if his answers were considered, the Church would fall and anarchy and moral depravity would follow.  But in the end his answers proved closer to the truth.


 * So what, this guy writes a book. Some of what he says might be not so true, and some of it might have something to it.  I've read plenty of books like this in college.  I remember Aldou Huxley insisting we dream in black and white.  Maybe he does but I certainly don't. That does not mean that everything else he says is invalid or that I might not learn something from reading him.


 * The bigger question is that if all this is falsehood (and not don't construe me to say that I am actually claiming this -- I don't know), than what is the psychology behind propagating such a falsehood. What hurt or wrong feeling must P.N.Oak feel?  Afterall he is part of a universal feeling that many colonised people must feel.  Do they feel they need to exagerate claims? and if so why?  I was just at a Greek Diner where the menu said the first cook book was written in Greek by....so and so.  But this can't be verifyable proof. We don't know if one existed in Ethiopia that is being ignored in our perspective of world history.  But the more interesting note is that in this diner they had a need to claim it.  This is common in ethnic pride.


 * Many Irish have claimed that Churches were built over temples to the Goddess Shelanagig. It sounds crazy doesn't it?  Have you ever been to Irland?  Have you ever visited a church in an Irish village?


 * We are at a point where the world is getting smaller and a more universal perspective is reaching towards the common man. We are getting more diversified perspectives, being from different points of views even in the US by African-American, American Native, Jewish American, Sikh American, Arab Americans and yes even Indian Americans.  This is a good thing.  I think these questions being asked by Oak and company are good questions and this debate we are having is giving a better understanding.  I think there is no doubt that in the future, Hindu culture will be treated with much more respect, but just like for the Jews and the Irish and the African Americans, this respect must be earned over time.  And documents such as yours will be remembered of a less evolved and ignorant time in American history as much as Minstralsy, Cowboy and Indian movies and the suspicious "oriental" stereotypes of the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.101.224 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 8 June 2006


 * Oh please - Oak is only interested in either expelling all Muslims from India, or else forcibly converting them. Arguing that they have made no significant contribution to the History of the Subcontinent is part of this process. His writings are hate-filled bullshit with no credibility amongst serious scholars. This has got nothing to do with 'Orientalism' or allowing the voice of the 'colonised' to be heard. Oak is a Chitpavan Brahmin, a highly privileged group within Maharashtrian Society, and, in case you've forgotten, the Muslims whose achievements and contributions he is trying to write out of Indian history were also victims of colonisation, and are a poor and powerless group within Indian society today. Oak's books are not just 'speculation', they are actively malicious. As for carbon-dating doors - has it occurred to anyone that this, perhaps, indicates that the trees they were made from were already 300 years old when the Taj was built? Doh! Sikandarji 01:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Offtopic though it is - yes I have been to Ireland, and I have seen Sheela Na Gigs (they exist in England too, btw). No examples pre-date Christianity. They are a distinctive variant of the of the grotesques typical of medieval church architecture. Only someone filled with Da Vinci Code derived assumptions about Christianity's suppression of "pagan" fertility cults would see them as evidence that Irish churches were converted pagan buildings. Paul B 10:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, how can you trust the Church so much? There is ample evidence to show they edited the bible, and it took them 1900+ years to accept that the earth revolves around the sun. Some conspiracy theories make more sense than the "Church" view of history. Christianity borrowed quite a lot from paganism.

As for Sikandar, please see WP:BLP. Your rants are the kind people like the Bangla Bhai make. Bakaman Bakatalk 23:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

guys a nut! ti 23:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Other than "His claims are widely Rejected", no one presented any proof or logic behind "Rejecting" them - other than "feeling" that they are wrong [I went through the link that were "Rejecting" his claims]. Aryan Invasion Theory was widely accepted until few decades ago, even though its inception was based on a gross Christian bias. Your attempt can be termed HERE as "Hindus did nothing and everything came from West or Middle-east" - remember even Indians were Aryans from West! - Bhishma


 * What you call Aryan Invasion Theory has nothing whatever to do with "Christian bias" or indeed with Christianity. Also, the theory of Indo-European migrations is still generally accepted amongst scholars who are not preeoccupied with national self-regard. Paul B 22:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The unholy relationship of AIT and Chritianity/White supremacy ["Everything originated in West" theories] is well documented. I am not saying that, that unholy relationship is the complete truth, but it certainly is atleast a significant part of the truth - in any case, that is not the point of debate here.

The point of bringing the AIT here was to point out how a mere interpretation of the word "Aryan" as "white race" by Europeans [Non native Sanskrit speakers and people not belonging to the culture (Indian) that uses that word widely] was immediately accepted by people. What PN Oak presented here is neither based on his "beliefs" or "Godly texts" nor of "new found interpretation of words" - but pure sense of reason and rationality on whay Taj Mahal was Tejo Mahalaya. While he could be entirely wrong in his reason and/or rationality, that still requires people, who reject his ideas, to show WHY and WHERE he is wrong. The article presented here is grossly bias on that account. The section "His methods and his version of Indian history have been widely rejected", including the heading, misleads people into thinking that his claims are "proven wrong". But that is not the case - the 'quotes' that follow the heading shows that those people merely "rejected" PN Oak's claims simply because they didn't like him OR his conclusion OR his association with certain people/organizations. That is barely a reason to even mention about them - as it shows more about their lack of reasoning and puniness of their social attitude.

There are tons of other people who have supported his claims by often adding more information to his theory. For example, the information added by Stephen Knapp and similar such people need to be added in the main article - not in references! That would do more justice to this man's research [however wrong that one might believe it is] than simply quoting something like "Oak, Gautier and those of their ilk have a number of absurd theories. — (Faisal Kutty)" - as if Faisal states the Gospel truth requiring no reason or prooof to say why Oak and Gautier are incorrect.

The objective here should be to minimize the "bias". To achieve that, I think the article here needs to stick to FACTS supported by reason. When it comes to culture and ideology there are always "I love" and "I hate" groups. Such articles are best written when stuck to FACTS and reason. PN Oak is not a political leader. He is a researcher and his claims are based on his research. The article need to show respect to him atleast on that count.

Couple of elementary corrections - 1) "associated with the Hindutva movement" has no significance to what he claims. If he is a member or active participant of an organization, then mention it. 'Association' is an abstract word with prejudiced view - its not a FACT! Besides, that opening phrase is being clearly suggestive to the readers towards a negative bias. 2) "He claims M.A and L.L.B degrees from Mumbai University." Indicates that he is a potential lier even on simple things as having degrees such as MA and LLB [Which are plenty in India].

With these opening sentences, this article seems more like a hate article than a genuine one. - Bhishma


 * No it is nothing like the truth. It is a construct of Indian culture. Anywhere else in the world the concept of the spread of IE languages would not be thought to have anything whatever to do with Christianity - because it doesn't. Many of the major proponents of Aryanism were anti-Christian, like Nietzsche and Blavatsky. The fact is that no scholar of any serious reputation considers Oak's theories to have any merit at all. Stephen Knapp is not a serious scholar in any sense. If you can find anyone outside the world of Vaishnavite websites I'd be surprised. The word "associated" is perfectly reasonable Oak is the epitome of Hindutva ("Hinduness") - which is not an organisation, it's a viewpoint. As for his qualifications, I've no reason to doubt them. Oak's theories about the Taj are rejected by every scholar who has ever researched its history. Paul B 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Do a google search for "Aryan Invasion Theory Christianity" and you will get over 100,000 links. Many proponents of the relationship between AIT and Chr are ALSO Christians. So involvement of some anti-Christians and anti-white-supremacist in proposing AIT proves nothing. Like I said before, the link between AIT and Christianity is not the point of debate here.

"no scholar of any serious reputation considers Oak's theories to have any merit at all" => a fundamentally fallacious argument [Prajudicial Language] implying that any scholar who gives merit to PN Oak's theories is either "not a scholar" or doesn't have a "serious reputation". Further, "Stephen Knapp is not a serious scholar in any sense" <= this successfully concludes your argument.

The question here is still about the reason and rationality AND NOT about who and what people believe! That point is still not being addressed anywhere. Entire Christian world didn't believe Galileo when he said "Earth Revolved around sun" - So what general population "believes" and their "opinions" matter squat when people do research and pen down their observations and reasons for proposing a theory.

"If you can find anyone outside the world of Vaishnavite websites I'd be surprised"

Same goes with religion (without surprise) - people outside religion X dont consider God-of-X to be a true God. So do we use despicable language about them? Dump all their beliefs? Besides, PN Oak's claims is not based on 'belief' or God given wisdom!! Atleast respect a man for for his research - even if dont like his conclusions. Unless you believe in traditional Christian sense [ONLY true path] that anything outside Christianity [like Vaishnavite] are not worthy enough to express an opinion, less do a meaningful research, it doesn't matter what surprises you. The question still is that some research was done, an observation was made and a theory was proposed - this needs to be refuted with reason and not with opinions and beliefs.

"As for his qualifications, I've no reason to doubt them."

Thank you. I presume that you are the main editor of this page. Hence, please remove the word "Claims" for his degrees MA and LLB.

"Oak's theories about the Taj are rejected by every scholar who has ever researched its history."

You know that its a grossly incorrect statement.

Please provide the names of the scholars along with their reasons on why the observations of PN Oak are incorrect. Its that simple!

- Bhishma


 * Stephen Knapp is not a serious scholar because he has no academic qualifications in history and his work is not published by reputable academic presses. There are numerous studies on this history and documentation associated with the Taj Mahal dating back to the wrings of E.B.Havell. Vaishnaivite webites are no better nor worse than Islamist websites or Christian fundamentalist ones. They are not scholarship that is accepted by the academic community. Since the ancient Indo-European languages were - obviously - spoken by non-Christians and have nothing to do with Christianity the history of their advent in India has nothing to do with Christianity either. Paul B 14:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Few points
 * a) I agree that there are several studies on Taj Mahal, and PN Oak's is one such study. There is no reason to demean or belittle ones study simply because his work is largely appreciated by a certain group (Vaishnavite) OR because he doesn't possess an "academic qualification" OR simply because 'majority' dont like him or his conclusions! The merit of what a person says is in his reason and rationality and not in what the 'majority' believes.
 * b) Regarding Stephen Knapp - Its not our job here to judge whether a person is a 'serious scholar' or not. A 'serious scholar' is made based on the sincerety and rationality of their work, they are not just born out of degrees (only). A simple secular example would be that of the absence of financial and management degrees among some of the most successful businessmen. So, instead of prejudging a person's 'scholar' value based on their background, let us judge them based on the content and the rationality through which they arrive at their conclusions. That will do more justice to 'academics' and the people who use their sense and reasoning.
 * c) "Since the ancient Indo-European ... have nothing to do with Christianity the history of their advent in India has nothing to do with Christianity either" You completely ignore the white-supremacist angle (and its relation with Christianity) besides the AIT (and its relation with IE concepts) in your arguments. They are like a chain of beads - the first and the last are seperated by intermediate beads, and dont exist (never existed) on their own. In any case, this statement of yours is too naive and simplistic to be commented on. Besides, this is neither correct page nor the topic of debate here.
 * -Bhishma 16:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC).


 * ________

I have read about Kaaba vs Shiva shrine, Taj Mahal vs Tejo Mahalaya, Christianity borrowed vedic beliefs. Most of them had scientific proof and were factual. Even if some of them were correct, it strikes at the very foundation. To present PN Oaks biography in a derogatory way along with "subjective" opinions of a few people who disliked him reflects poorly on the author who put PN Oak's biography here. It looks like PN Oak struck at the belief dear to the author. User:gurudas 20:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Gurudas

I propose the following changes -

1) Provide a few word information about the people that were mentioned in the section "His methods and his version of Indian history have been rejected by some people". Then link the names to appropriate WiKi Pages - since their pages already exist in WiKiPedia.

2) Then, add a supporting section to the article - to give a balanced view.

Here is the text. You may modify the sentence construction to match the rest -

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_

His methods and his version of Indian history have been rejected by some people:

•	"From the 1970s onwards 'Social Studies' textbooks were written in Pakistan to reflect the official ideological line. For example, all history that concerned events prior to the arrival of Mohammad bin Qasim (711 AD) was eliminated. Such misrepresentation has been well documented in 'The Subtle Subversion', a recent study by the SDPI in Islamabad. In India this process began in the 1950s through private organisations like the Institute for Rewriting Indian History. Amongst many interesting claims made while distorting history is one stating that the Taj Mahal was originally a Hindu temple dedicated to lingam worship." — (Zeenut Ziad) [Author of the book “The Magnificent Mughals”]

•	"Oak, Gautier and those of their ilk have a number of absurd theories." — (Faisal Kutty) [a Canadian lawyer, writer and human rights activist]

•	"Poor old Erich von Däniken was clapped in irons and marched off to prison but Mr Oak would appear to be the guiding spirit behind a new school of Indian history, what might be called The Hindus Did Everything (But The Muslims Stole The Credit) school of HRD/NCERT scholarship. ... History is now no longer about telling us what really happened. It is about perpetuating a bogus view of the past to shore up a present-day political ideology." — (Vir Sanghvi) [a leading Indian editor and television personality]

Nevertheless, none of them provided any concrete reasons against the observations made by PN Oak.

However, his findings corroborate to the works done by several other researchers, who have added more information to PN Oak’s research. Some of them are - 1) Taj Mahal and Tejo Mahalaya:

a) “The question of The Taj” by P.S. Bhat and A.L.Athawale [Itihas Patrika, Vol. 5 1985] - "This paper attempts to place in perspective some of the pertinent questions that arise on the subject"

b) “Was the Taj Mahal a Vedic Temple? The Photographic Evidence” by Stephen-Knapp - "Author: These photographs are taken from an album that was found and then smuggled out of India. On the back of each photo there is a stamp mark that says, "Archaeology Survey of India." This signifies their authenticity and that they were the property of that institution. This means a number of things: That the Archaeology Survey of India (ASI) has been researching the evidence that proves the Taj Mahal and many other buildings were not of Muslim origin, and that they know this information but remain silent about it. It also shows that in spite of this evidence they refuse to open up further research that would reveal the true nature and originality of the buildings, and lead to understanding another part of the real history and glory of India."

c) “Taj Mahal and the great British conspiracy” By V.S.Godbole [itihas patrika, March 1982] - "My paper Taj Mahal- Simple Analysis of a Great Deception was appreciated by some prominent European scholars in 1980."

2) Christianity and Vedic roots

a) “The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ” by Nicholas Notovitch – This document reveals that Jesus Christ spent those "missing years" unaccounted for in the Bible, between the ages of 13 to 29, in India and Asia.

b) “The Autobiography of Jesus of Nazareth and the Missing Years” by Richard G. Patton - "Among his many travels, Jesus studies in India. Here he learns and masters the Vedic texts of the High-Caste Brahmins. ... [From Author] This novel is the cumulative work of almost twenty years. The material has been researched extensively, both through academic sources and in the countries of Israel, India and Egypt."

c) “Jesus Lived in India” Holger Kersten's - "Book Description: Presents irrefutable evidence that Jesus did indeed live in India, dying there in old age"

Besides these, abundant research has been done regarding the Vedic culture of Mithraism in Roman Empire which subsequently gave rise to the papal authority.

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_

In references, please add -

"Illustrated Handbook of Architecture" by James Fergusson

-Bhishma

WiKipedia should be in the business of stating facts insteads of opinions. It would have been the "right things to do" if the author who put PNOak's biography had simply stated Mr Oak's work. Let us not let WiKi also slip into the hands of biased Christians (who are running a lot of the media in the world). If you have to write the negative opinions then you might as well present the positive ones too. PN Oaks biography should have been written by someone who appreciates him and not by someone who hates him. Atleast, to be balanced, please go ahead and add Bhishma's modification. Leave the judgement to the people who read WiKi. Gurudas
 * I have just added the changes that I have mentioned above. It was deleted and reverted back to the original version. I am not sure who does this or what is the process of getting the changes into the main text. - Bhishma


 * The content that I added is valid and factual information. If you [Paul] think that the language is not compliant with the WiKi standard, edit the language and presentation. Do not delete the content because the information is backed with links and books written by people. They ALL are valid contents based on their research and reason!!Bheeshma 16:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Working a compromise?

 * May I suggest a way through this?
 * Delete the quotes, which portray Oak in a bad light. I don't know that these quotes add much information, but they are very opinionated.
 * State clearly that Oak's work is not accepted by most scholars. (PS: I do think 'MOST' rather 'MANY' is the right word.
 * Note that some researchers do find his work credible.
 * Place links and quotes to opinions, for and against, in a References section. They are relevant and useful additional bits of info, but not really apt for the main content of an encyclopedia article.--Nemonoman 17:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the quotes need to be removed simply because they are just 'opinionated' and dont add much information to what PN Oak did.
 * I will retain the sentence that states that his work was rejected by 'some people' and that none actually provided reasons for rejecting it. If there are any scholars who rejected his work, providing a reason for rejecting it, I would like to get the links so that it can be stated clearly.
 * That part, I think, already exists and please let me know if any more information can be added here.
 * The links to the opinionated quotes are already put in the reference section.
 * Thank you for the input. Please let me know if there are any other improvements that you can think of - like contents, sentence construction, presentation etc. Bheeshma 16:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Bheeshma, I reverted your edits because they turn the article into an apology for P. N. Oak. "Don't believe any of the following criticisms, because other people accept him." Let the critics have their say, without editorializing. Zora 02:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes and you replaced it with some character defamation. Baka man 


 * The 'criticism' need to be based on research and proof and not merely abuses like 'he is a crackpot' etc. You first need to understand what qualifies as 'criticism'! A mere 'opinion' of 'famous personalities' is not criticism! Its called abuse! "Galileo is a satan" is an abuse and NOT a criticism! Lets get valid FACTS based on RESEARCH and PROOF - this is 21st century!Bheeshma 13:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Purushottam Nagesh Oak and i Vishal1976
Purushottam Nagesh Oak is my Guru in history and i have seen him personaly. Vishal1976


 * Never mind. Paul B 17:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Character assassination? I don't think so
If the Oxford University Press publishes a book stating that P. N. Oak is a crackpot, then it is absolutely OK to quote that book. It is not a violation of WP:BLP to quote criticism of living people; it is only a violation if the criticism is not found in a reliable source. University presses are considered reliable sources. So, by the way, is History Today. Attempts to remove criticism from this article are censorship. Zora 03:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Who the hell is Faisal Kutty? And what does Vir Sanghvi know about anything? Baka man  03:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. I left those there, with the citation tags, waiting for whoever added them to add cites. If no page cites, then out. But I'm just as happy not to have them there. I think the academic cites outweigh them. Zora 03:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Vir Shanghvi is the editor of the Hindustan Times. He is at least notable. The other sources are completely unknown, and quote only privately-published, non peer-reviewed stuff. They must be deleted, and I am doing so. Hornplease 23:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He's not a historian. Baka man  01:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. He is however, notable as a columnist, and as the editor of the second-largest English daily in India; and mainstream comment on these marginal figures is rare. Hornplease 09:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is rediculous. Your comment says "Theories - rm nn non-academic unverifiable sources)" and you did precisely the opposite. What a columnist and few 'famous' media personalities says suddenly became 'academic and verifiable' to you. However, all the links to the books and papers written by researchers became 'non-academic'! Your criticism section was merely a bunch of opinionated quotes by people who have neither the knowledge of history nor did they do a spec of research on taj mahal or anythng that PN oak is involved with.Bheeshma 12:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

But he's an educated person. However, I think that the cites we do have, from historians, are sufficient to establish that professionals think Oak is a crackpot. The Bryant quote is nice in that it points out that there are some supporters of the Aryans-originated-in-India theory (what is the abbreviation we've been using?) who may not be widely accepted, but whom Bryant does not regard as crackpots. Zora 03:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But he's an educated person. 


 * No, he's NOT. --Nemonoman 03:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon? Could you explain that perplexing intervention? Hornplease 09:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What Hornplease did is precisely what qualifies as vandalism. This is because he removed all the links and information showing papers and books written that corroborate with PN Oak's research ad added a 'Criticism' section that has a bunch of idiots simply stating without proof that "He is a crackpot" and "He is a fanatic"! Adn who are exactly are those people? They are 'famous' media and other personalities who never shed a word of proof on why what PN stated is wrong - rather they used their abuse [without reason and proof against Oak's findings] and simply whipped up the passion of common man and teir beliefs.Bheeshma 13:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The simple and baseless, rather proofless abuses by famous personalities belon to references and I have put them there. Add information of valid research done by people ALONG with their reasons and proof of why they rejected PN Oak's theories. Every theory has people abusing the person - like what Christians did against Galileo. Opinions of such morons doesn't qualify as 'valid criticism' - atleast in 21st century. People need reasons, proofs and research to disqualify a theory. Not opinons and 'crackpot' abuses. Bheeshma 13:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Bheeshma, well-known academics, published by university presses, are not "personalities". They aren't morons. You can't just remove criticism because you don't like it.

No academic spends time refuting nutters because there are so many nutters. No one refutes Oak in any detail because the statements he makes are so bizarre that any educated person knows that they're wrong the minute that they're pronounced. For instance, the claim that Christianity was Krishna worship until Constantine hijacked it ... that is so fantastic as to be risible. We have many many thousands of surviving manuscripts, inscriptions, artifacts, all of the period that Oak claims for Krishna worship, that support the mainstream view that Christianity was a Jewish sect that spread outside Judaism into the Graeco-Roman world. Against the evidence of manuscripts, artifacts, archaeology, history, and 2000 years of Christian tradition, Oak offers what? what he sees as a similarity in sound between Krishna and Christianity, and a claim that the truth has been suppressed. Now why would millions of people, over the course of 2000 years, suppress such a "truth"? Why would thousands of historians and archaeologists, working with direct material evidence, fail to come up with Krisha theories of their own? Oak's claim is against all common sense and reason.

Furthermore, the material you keep presenting as "information" is not information, but claims in support of Oak by totally non-notable people. I think what we should do is present those claims by linking to their websites ... any reader who follows the links can decide for him or herself whether or not the supporters are nutters too. Zora 17:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That deosnt excuse blatant character assassination, and frankly vulgar behavior on the part of "eminent scholars". Adding sections like "There is no doubt that defending extreme Indocentric viewpoints results in the most absurd types of explanatory gymnastics (which have their counterparts in nationalist discourse from Tamil Nadu).", "he more extreme manifestations of anti-Muslim sentiment are visible in today's popular culture in Maharashtra; examples that come to mind include the Shivaji comic book that portrays Mughul soldiers as Islamic mullās" etc are merely useless off topic rants. Baka man  17:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your hitherto unsuspected ability to detect vulgarity stopped short at the ability to edit the relevant sentences so they excluded the 'off-topic rants', didnt it? Perhaps because parts of the quotes above provided essential context to the mention of Oak? Hornplease 11:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

'Earth revolves around the Sun' was also fantastically bizarre and people knew that it was wrong the second [not even minute] that it was pronounced - but guess what? Bible and its 'believers' turned out to be incorrect. What Oak has found is based on reason and his observations. It is rational by any sense of logic and scientific method - Carbon 14 dating is scientific! "what he sees as a similarity in sound between Krishna and Christianity, and a claim that the truth has been suppressed." This sums up how much of Oak's work you have actually read. Does the links and research/information provided like "Jesus lived in India" [Many links to this kind of work] make any sense to you? His work corroborates with that of many other people [As mentioned in the article] - except Christian and Muslim fanatics who already know that the entire truth was presented in a platter by God to just one man - including claims like it is sun that revolves around earth! "Now why would millions of people, over the course of 2000 years, suppress such a "truth"?" Ask Vatican on how many truth it actually suppresses - like the origin of Christmas which is now well known to be from Mithraism which AGAIN is part of edic culture! Why would Church suppress facts? Find out how much information was intentionally destroyed during crusades just to convert people to Christianity. What you are doing is in a sense the same thing - not letting a person present his research findings. If it is really bull shit, then why bother suppressing it? Why are you sweating over to delete all the work that corroborates to his? "Why would thousands of historians and archaeologists, working with direct material evidence, fail to come up with Krisha theories of their own?" Whic they DID and the links show how Jesus and his teachings are related to t vedic culture and India. THAT is exatly what you are trying to delete! "but claims in support of Oak by totally non-notable people" They are researchers nevertheless AND 'non-notable TO YOU. They have done some work to find out facts. Unlike the 'criticism' section who are (what?) A bunch of 'famous' media personalities? Give valid links to research that disaproves Oaks Theories - just like the links of researchers that corroborates to Pak's work. You have contradicted yourself by accepting that there ARE researches who agree to Oak's research - (however, they are not acceptable to YOU) - but initially you claim that NO ONE is taking him seriously. Incidentally, there are people who took his work seriously and added more value to it but tere are no one who could show reason enough to oppose it. Somehow, abusive statements by a bunch of Media morons is totally acceptable to you. We need research ad reason to show tat he is wrong just as it was shown by some that he was correct [whether you think they are non-notable or not]Bheeshma 19:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "No one refutes Oak in any detail because the statements he makes are so bizarre that any educated person knows that they're wrong the minute that they're pronounced."

I reworked it again
I removed some dead links, so some criticism is gone. I don't think there's any point in citing newspapers here unless the material is on the web. Journals and books yes, large libraries would have those. But without links, no one could verify the newspapers.

I removed a list of books with no publication data and no apparent relevance to P. N. Oak. I assume that they were put there because someone thought that they support Oak, but the titles don't make that clear, and without any cites from the books, we don't know if they're relevant or not.

I moved material from "References" to "External links" and re-organized into Supporting and Against categories.

Removal of material critical of P.N. Oak because it links him to the BJP, the RSS, and the Hindutva movement in general is an attempt to censor WP and is ultimately doomed. Zora 19:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The books section has te list of books that corroborate to Oak's research and was mentioned in the main article.Bheeshma 19:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just add references to valid research in criticism. Not to Rants of people who dont like him - JUST LIKE there are ALSO several quotes of people who LOVE him - but none of those are included either.


 * * Removed the rants of non-research people under Criticism and Added the links and information of research people who corroborate to Oak's research.
 * Added list of books tat corroborates to Oa's research or the ones that he referenced in his research.Bheeshma 19:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
Criticism related to research work is NOT - a bunch of 'famous' idiots making rants like "He is crack pot" or "he is fanatic"! THAT is NOT 'Criticism' - It is 'ABUSE'! It is very similar to another bunch of the theory lovers saying 'He is fantastic' or 'he is aazing'! Neither of these 'quotes' qualify as part of main article when writing about someone's research!

Criticism requires counter proof and arguments based on reason and research that show why the original research is incorrect!

All other rants and cheer-leading quotes by people, though are irrelevant to the main article, can be put in the links at the bottom of the article.Bheeshma 20:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * An interesting theory, but not sensible in this case. See below. Hornplease 11:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The critics referenced all have backgrounds and areas of study unrelated to Oak's work. Does their criticism really make any sense in relation to Oak? What authority makes their comments substantial? I think we should remove the section until someone comes and adds critics who are historians focusing on India or the Taj Mahal since that is what this article mostly refers to. Kkm5848 14:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You could give Big Brother a lesson in double-think. You delete references to criticisms by accredited academics on the grounds that they are not historians (!) and leave in supporting statements by non-entities who have no qualifications whatever. For that matter Oak himself has no qualifations whatever as a historian. If you look at the talk page of the Taj Mahal you can see that even his most notable theory has been exluded by consensus his other theories are so extremely fringe that they are not even taken sufficientky seriously to be even addressed by specialists. The evidence that he is controversial is everywhere. The evidence that he is Hindutva is the very definition of the word. He epitomises it. Paul B 01:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not so obvious to me that he is a subscriber to Hindutva. Hence, prove it to me.  And putting links that have nothing to do with him or have no authorship violates WP:RS.  If you can't, than you cannot make the allegation!  As far as I understand, it violates WP:BLV guidelines.  Kkm5848 21:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oak is obviously not a historian. But the correctness of your statement ends there. A Hindutva point of contention is that Christianity and Islam are foreign to India. If Christianity=Krishneeti and Islam=Ishalayam then what is the worry (hypothetically)? Apart from his Taj Mahal theory (the most plausible of the ones he has invanted) the majority of Hindus probably regard him as a lunatic. WP:BLP talks about guilt by association and this will relate to WP:LIBEL. The BJP/VHP are not subscribers to these rabid myths. Infact I wonder how Oak is even notable in his own regard. Baka man  02:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hindutva, as you know, is not a specific organisation, but a term used to refer to Hindu nationalism. That is exactly what he is associated with. That fact that he is at the ultra-extreme end of it is irrelevant. Can you think of a more appropriate descriptive term? Fred Phelps is at the ultra-extreme end of Christian fundamentalism, and of course normal political parties disassociate themselves from him. The BJP did court Oak for a while before breaking off official links. As for your claim that Oak regards Islam and Christianity as part of Hinduism, his own assertions in books like Islamic Havoc in India give the lie to that. He is vioently anti-Islam in particular. His only distinguishing feature is his claim that these religions arose from forms of Hinduism which they then turned against. Paul B 09:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal
Some people have worked on the 'Information' section. However, there isnt a thing there that meets WP:RS. Will any editor who wishes to reinstate it please read that policy and explain, first, on the talk page, how they do meet these things. About 'abuse', I have no opinion. I do know that occasionally academics call people crackpots. This is usually when those people are crackpots. If a lot of academics dont talk about Oak except to say he's a crackpot, that should be in the article, and people can make up their own minds as to whether its merely a bunch of Marxists being unconscionably rude. Hornplease 11:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Then regarding the section "Regarding Christianity and Vedic roots", the sources are compliant with WP:RS standard and their relevance comes in when the 'criticism' section makes it sound like PN Oak is the ONLY man in the entire world who found the relation of Christian origins and India's culture. Thats where the word 'CORROBORATES' with the work comes into picture. Without the section about the 'Corroborated' work, the 'criticism' simply indicates that he is the ONLY person who found that link and there are no other takers to that "Line Of Thought"!! Bheeshma 13:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding the section in information "Regarding Taj Mahal and Tejo Mahalaya", the people have directly talked about PN Oak's research and said here is some additional information to what PN Oak has said. May be we need to add quote that actually mentions PN Oak. However, the existing quotes by them give more information about what they did that CORROBORATES with PN Oak's work. Hence should also be retained. It IS in its entirety, to the last word, compliant with WP:RS!!


 * I fail to see how non-notable books that are self-published or published by non-notable presses satisfy WP:RS in this respect. Further, the fact that these works 'corroborate' PN Oak is not something that a WP article can pronounce on, in the absence of reliable sources - peer-reviewed academic work, or major sources of some other kind - indicating they do.
 * The criticism section nowhere says that Oak is the only person who believes these things. One of the removed quotes specifically says that "some people in India share this view".Hornplease 14:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * They are not 'self-published' fairy tales but are the books that are available in Amazon, B&N and other such places. They are research work and are presented with reason and proof based on their observations. Some of those books are infact 'best sellers' - I dont see where those references got get disqualified from WP:RS stand point.
 * Not just "some people in India" which again is biased non-sense - since many people in the referces are across the world. For example, Stephen-Knapp and Francois Gautier are not Indian. Deleting all the information that either corroborates to his work or have mentioned his name and presenting a biased and narrow 'opinion' and abuses of people will not automatically disqualify his work as being 'known to ONLY few/Indian'!Bheeshma 14:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what part of WP:RS you were reading. Note this section of that policy:
 * Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world.....
 * The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
 * Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred.
 * In articles on religions and religious practices, religious scholars (recognized authorities on the religion) are considered reliable sources for the religion's practices and beliefs, and traditional religious and academic views of religious practices should generally both be cited and attributed as such when they differ.
 * The books you cite do not satisfy these. Nor are they relevant as sources for the material in the biography. The quote says "it has acquired something of a popular following in India". Two Western journalists notable for their support of political Hinduism do not change the fact that no reliable sources indicate major support for Oak elsewhere, or indeed in India. Hornplease 14:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "I do know that occasionally academics call people crackpots. This is usually when those people are crackpots." You perhaps mean that the abuser is the 'crackpot' as its usually the loser who resort to abuses. It could be common in Academic circles to abuse one another, and perhaps every historian/academician gets abused by some other. However, that is not relevant to his work. Several 'famous intellectuals' or their time have actually called Galileo, Newton and even Einstein as morons and satans and idiots. But none of them relevant to their research or the work done by them. The opinionated abuses is the last thing that should ever enter into an encyclopedia because EVERY theory and person on the face of the earth faces such 'famous idiots' who resort to abusinve language when their popular belief's are challenged. It would be equally unprofessional and uncivilized to put those abuses in encyclopedia. Bheeshma 14:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am afraid you ignore the fact that very few people are in fact, in books published by academic presses, or in peer-reviewed work, specifically mentioned as holding 'crackpot' viewpoints; and those that do so are rarely tackled head-on. No astronomer would waste his time with the Flat Earth Society today. So it is with PN Oak; the opinions of the mainstream of historical thought on the totality of his work must be represented in order for balance in the article. Hornplease 14:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "No astronomer would waste his time with the Flat Earth Society today." Nice point, and the reason is simple - "Flat earth Theory" and "Sun revolves around earth Theory" of Bible and Quran were first disproved with logic and reason - not resorted to abuse. If and when Pope or Khomeini comes up "newer evidence" for such non-sensical theories, I can assure you that the academic community will bring them down with reasons and observations - "Evolution Theory" is one such subject. Discarding a theory with abuse, AFTER reading the theory, is a sign of defeat and desperation - its not new, but they certainly are not the ones to be glorified in encyclopedias.Bheeshma 14:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that the scholars quoted are (a) Annemarie Schimmel, Professor of Indo-muslim culture at Harvard; (b) Carl W. Ernst of UNC, Chapel Hill; (c) Edwin Bryant of Harvard and Rutgers; (d) Akbar Ahmed, "the world's best known scholar of contemporary Islam", according to the BBC. (Though the last quote was too long.)
 * These are notable scholars. If they actually mentioned Oak, what they said about him is notable.
 * As a courtesy to other editors, I am not re-inserting the quotes until I receive a (hopefully coherent and on-point) reply. Hornplease 11:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So these 'Scholars' took time to read Oak's work [Hopefully they read fully] and then resorted to abusive language rather than point out the flaws. Isn't that typical of a loser and crackpot who resorts to abuse as a defence when their beloved beliefs are challenged? On an analogy, look at the observations and questions raised (often dubbed as 'conspiracy theories') that were proposed when 9/11 occurred. The true 'Scholars' of the situation gave out the loop holes of the theories and was published in Time magazine WITH OUT a single abusive word. That is what need to be mentioned. The true Scholars never resort to abuse and the people who resort to abuse should not be glorified in encyclopedias - They need to be cut to half and show them that it is unprofessional to resort to abuse when they actually read the research and fail to find the loopholes. Bheeshma 14:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That is not the purpose of this encyclopaedia. WP attempts to represent the state of knowledge as represented in reliable sources, defined as in WP:RS. If those sources themselves are flawed, then this is not the place to fix it. Hornplease 14:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding critical section, stop glorifying the abusers in encyclopedia. Let the biography be presented with reasons and proof. NOT with Abuses!!!Bheeshma 14:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The references related to Tejo Mahalaya are published in Itihas patrika and the one presented by Stephen-Knaap comes from ASI. If that not a reliable source then nothing is. The references to Jesus and his relation to India are literally 10s of thousands. If they are not reliable then what is? I am restoring them.


 * The abusive Criticism without providing proof of reason for disqualifying Oak's work falles under "potentially libelous"!! Just as we dont present the quotes of his Cheer-leaders, we sould not be presenti8ng the quotes of meaningless abusers who provide no reason or proof.Bheeshma 14:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:LEGAL.
 * Also, if you can quote some reliable sources that have something good to say about Oak, I will be glad to see htem in the article. Unfortunately, WP's structure means that academic quotes about teh merits of Oak's work have to stay- we are not required to question the degree to which all these quotes failed to engage his work. That is the peer-reviewer's job, ours is to report what is said. Hornplease 14:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also see WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. Hornplease 14:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So we are back to square one on this. We need to keep the 'Information section with all the sections that mentioned Oak or corroborated to his work. I had also retained the criticism section along with the quotes of the 'historians' - though I disagree that an abuser should be glorified in encyclopedia by putting up their quotes. The quotes of Media personalities need to be removed - which was done. I assume that we are in sync at this point and we can get back to that point.Bheeshma 15:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We agree about the content of the criticism section, then. I agree that there can be a mention of those who have mentioned Oak; I disagree with the 'corroboratory' sources. We can discuss this further when Zora gets here, or someone from RfC.Hornplease 15:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I've changed my views slightly. Instead of a criticism section, we should have a "Responses to Oak's theories" section, AND this section should include both supporters and critics. Then the supporters bit can be rewritten to be neutral and coherent. As mentioned below, we should even have a quote by one of Oak's supporters claiming that there's a conspiracy to suppress him and that all academic criticsm should be disregarded. I think that will make Beeshma's points. Zora 18:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents
This is what I assume that we agreed -


 * [Introduction - as it is now]


 * Theories [Will remain as is]


 * Information [Add the portions back]


 * Criticism [Add the last portions back - which had the quotes of historians]


 * Latest Developments [The last paragraph - as is]


 * Notes [As is]


 * Books [As is]


 * Supporting Oak [As is]

Bheeshma 15:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Against Oak [As Is]

From your last post I assume that you are saying "Regarding Taj Mahal and Tejo Mahalaya" section that actually refer to and mention PN Oak's work can stay. Regarding corroborated work [section "Regarding Christianity and Vedic roots"], I think it is essential to show that there are others whose work corroborate to his - without which the Criticism section will look too biased with quotes from people like "Edwin Bryant" who makes it sound like Oak's findings are incorrect. The sentence that relates Mithraism and Roman empire is also vital because thats a fact and what Oak suggested is merely an extension of that.Bheeshma 15:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So I will restore the portions that we have agreed so far along the lines of the "Contents" mentioned above.Alright?Bheeshma 15:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * NO, we don't agree at all. The "books" section is not necessary. I think we should keep the section title I added, responses to Oak's theories, and use that for quotes from both supporters and critics. Adding notes re supporters under "information" implies that Oak's theories are true. I think it should be made very clear that the people who support Oak are Hindutvadis and people like Knapp who proselytize for Hinduism, and the people who oppose him are academics. We can even include a statement by one of the supporters implying that there's a Marxist/leftist/Christian/Muslim/imperialist conspiracy against Oak and that all criticism should be disregarded as bias. Zora 17:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So people who proselytize for Hinduism are automatically unqualified to be academics. The criticism section was full of anti-Hindu polemics written by followers of another religion. You have some explaining to do on why you chose to add irrelevant Muslim rants on how "India is now a land for Hindu hate" and stuff. I am perfectly aware that Oak is out there, however adding what amounts to Islamic propaganda is inexcusable. Perhaps you remember this ?. I dont think the two are separate and I'm starting to believe 3 out of those four assertions are false. Baka man  18:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * * The current books section has books written by PN Oak. The other books section is perhaps not necessary a I have said ok fot that.
 * "responses to Oak's theories" Responces need to be academic meaning technical and rational, and not hate rants.
 * "I think it should be made very clear that the people who support Oak are Hindutvadis and people like Knapp who proselytize for Hinduism, and the people who oppose him are academics" I assume you know what you are talking about and Please dont not assume that people are idiots and can not see though your statement or the ones presented in Oak's article. The responces show who are academics (giving coherent and rational information) and who are Islamic and Christian fanatics (Making public abusive rants without a speck of reason).* Like it was mentioned by Freedom Skies, we should ideally get rid of 'opinions' and abusive rants altogether. This is encyclopedia and we need to present facts when its realted to research and NOT opinions!Bheeshma 21:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Bheeshma, you can't define reliable sources as "sources that agree with me" and the University of Oxford Press as unreliable because it publishes books dismissing Oak as an eccentric. Your assumption that anyone who criticizes Oak is an Islamic or Christian fanatic is also bizarre and completely baseless.

You are right in thinking that academics can be culturally biased or hidebound, and that knowledge often moves forward by jerks and starts as old paradigms are abandoned and new ones are adopted. However, I don't think you understand the difference between someone like Alfred Wegener, whose ideas re plate tectonics were at first dismissed but who WAS a respected academic, and kooks like Erich von Däniken, whose theories are generally regarded as complete bosh and who has no academic training or standing whatsoever. Academics do bother to argue with the Wegener types, but tend to ignore the von Daniken types as much as they can. Arguing with someone who doesn't share the same standards of accuracy, proof, etc. is very frustrating. That's why the academics don't bother refuting Oak -- it's like shooting ducks in a barrel. Plus, many of the experts don't live in India and they don't have to live with the consequences of allowing historical fabrication to continue unchecked. Zora 23:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Zona Now - "Your assumption that anyone who criticizes Oak is an Islamic or Christian fanatic is also bizarre and completely baseless"

Just follow what you preach. Itihas Patrika is a valid journal whether you like it or not.
 * Zora right Before - "I think it should be made very clear that the people who support Oak are Hindutvadis and people like Knapp who proselytize for Hinduism, and the people who oppose him are academics"


 * Exactly what is your standard of validity here? Apparently the journal was founded in 1982 by Dr. V. V. Bedekar, in Thane, India, and it's associated with the Institute for Oriental Study, in Thane. Both journal and institute are Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) through-and-through. They have no academic standing, so far as I can tell. Dr. Bedekar is a medical doctor, not a PhD. Yes, I deny that this is a reliable source -- at least for Indology. It is a reliable source for the illustration of Hindutva beliefs. Zora 20:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Stephen Knaap did valid research and provided additional information stating why Oak is correct.


 * Um, he took a bunch of pictures and said, "See, see, that's a Hindu motif! Proving that the Taj Mahal was built by Hindus! For Hindu purposes!" That isn't considered research by any proper academic. He has no academic training or degrees. His article is self-published on his own website. All his books are self-published, through a print-on-demand press. He's a reliable source for what some Hindutvadis believe, but not for Indian history. Zora 20:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You obviously did not read what stephen-knaap said or his research. Dont make judgement about him based on your ignorance on that subject. Many people find his work useful, reasonable, rational, scientific and mosre importantly secular - unlike that of historians who wrote "Magnificient Mughals"!Bheeshma 20:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete the valid sources and put up abusive rants in criticism. When I can agree to retain the rants without reason, why do you find it so difficult to retain valid reasons and observations made by people - in VALID sources?Bheeshma 18:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * They are non-notable, and irrelevant. Please do not re-insert that discussion. Please read WP:FRINGE, and do not reinsert. WP is not a place for nn conspiracy theories. Hornplease 10:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is the abusive rants by 'known historians' that is irrelevant. This is his biography and about his work. We dont need wiki page for "Here is X and he is a nut head" kind of articles/biographies. please do not delete relevant research work that mentioned Oak and added more information to his work.Bheeshma 20:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nn when its in BBC? Thing like krishnaneeti and ishalayam are out there, but judging by the ASI report, the actual theory is quite plausible though the "Tejo Mahalaya" name itself is pure Oak. And "the expert on the Muslim world" took the time to try and refute it, though it was hard to sift through the rants that this Muslim polemicist had to offer. Baka  man  18:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is overwhelmingly surprising to me that the arguments you offer require mis-citation. Please note that you have linked to a blog hosted on the BBC website. As usual, your meticulous research mystifyingly missed the notice tacked up prominently on the page you linked saying "There are tens of thousands of h2g2 Guide Entries, written by our Researchers. If you want to be able to add your own opinions to the Guide, simply become a member as an h2g2 Researcher." This is the best you can do? Note that the 'information' here pertains to a certain controversy, and merely repeats the claim - unsubstantiated by reliable sources - that these non-RS books 'support' Oak's claims. On several points, therefore, it doesnt belong in the article. Hornplease 19:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The informations section has valid research done by people who mentioned Oak and added more infomation to his findings. They are published in Itihas Patrika and information obtained from ASI. Dont keep deleting that.Bheeshma 20:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:RS and WP:FRINGE again; Itihas Patrika is not a reliable source; 'obtained from ASI' needs RS confirmation; etc., etc. You have not answered the point made above: "Note that the 'information' here pertains to a certain controversy, and merely repeats the claim - unsubstantiated by reliable sources - that these non-RS books 'support' Oak's claims." Removing the section, please do not re-add without addressing these concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornplease (talk • contribs)


 * It doesn't break any of the rules. Itihas Patrika is registered with Govt of India. What goes into that journal is as valid per govt regulations as any other journal. It may be as famous as the journal 'Nature', but that doesn't perclude that from being 'valid'!Bheeshma 17:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The "books" section
That books section is simply not helpful.


 * It doesn't mean anything that Oak cited a book. Is that supposed to display Oak's wide learning? Is it supposed to imply that the author so cited would therefore approve of Oak? I don't think a book section with ten or so books implies wide learning. In fact, it's pitiful. Citations don't prove anything. I could quote the Bible, but that would be no proof that the anonymous authors of the Bible approved of me.


 * If the books are supposed to contain endorsements of Oak, then those endorsements should be quoted, and full publication information should be given. Otherwise, there's no reason to believe that these authors do support Oak. Zora 11:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Like it was mentioned it the braces, the books are (a) referenced by PN Oak (b) Corroborates to Oak's work. The reference to those books are important to understand his work. For example "Illustrated Handbook of Architecture, James Fergusson" gives indept understanding of the Architecture that is relevant to Taj Mahal wrt it being a Temple or burial palace! The word is not 'wide learning', its called 'references' - and every researcher sites references based on which they move the work to the next level. Such references are not just essential from academic point of view, but are vital to show the complete picture of the work done. Just FYI, every book and research paper has references and need to be mentioned to ALSO provide the complete picture of the work. Bheeshma 14:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This encyclopaedia is not the place for a full discussion of this source. It adds nothing to a biography of the man; please compare this to other similar biographies, and you will note that nowhere is such a list of non-notable 'corroboratory works' available. Hornplease 14:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There are many and I'll point some to you.Bheeshma 14:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The books section, like it is mentioned in the braces are the ones referenced by Oak. Without that it would make no sense - because those are 'references'!!Bheeshma 14:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not the book itself, but a biography. Adding the references Oak used does not mean that our statements of the positions Oak advances are made clearer. Hornplease 14:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The books that he referenced can be dropped.Bheeshma 15:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs of people
Paul, "No one believes this" is not a valid argument. Its about the contents and the logic through which it was arrived at that matters. Just "Majority of the wolrd doesn't believe that Bible is given by God" means nothing. If its contents are BS, then people will automatically reject it. Dont pre-judge te contents based on YOUR beliefs. Bheeshma 17:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Bheeshma, no one save the Hindutvadis accepts PN Oak's theories. They are not just wrong, they are laughable, in the eyes of all save the Hindutvadis. To say that there is a "mixed" reaction is to try to blunt the force of the outside condemnation. However, I'll try to rewrite that section slightly. Zora 18:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, quite a few "Hindutvaadis" regard Oak as a waste of time. Interestingly, qutie a few Muslim fanatics accept Zakir Naiks pseudoscience and none of his baseless assertions about prophet Muhammad being in the vedas is supported by mainstream scholarship, yet no mention of this in the Zakir Naik article. There is definitely a special bias against Hindus here. Rumpelstiltskin223 18:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I worked on the Zakir Naik article for a while, but gave it up when it began to seem that working on the article was just a proxy for arguments between pro and anti Naik forces. There seem to be a few committed Naik-ites against a crowd of people who think he's gloriously, hilariously, stupid and misguided. Since the Naikites consider that article proof that WP is biased against Muslims, I find it strange that you adduce it as proof that WP is biased against Hindus. Zora 18:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP is not biased against Hindus, this article is. Rumpelstiltskin223 19:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How is that? It's not about all Hindus. It's about Oak and his theories. Paul B 19:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is a forum form people to express hatred (based on the posts above) and illustrates a double standard against one (admittedly) fringe view when other fringe views are given more credence (Kevin B. MacDonald,Zakir Naik, David Irving spend less material on criticism than this article). Rumpelstiltskin223 19:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hatred of what? I certainly hate stupidity, ignorance and fundamentalism wherever it is to be found. Oak's views are so preposterous that the attempt to present them as legitimate is the problem. What is depressing is your wish to defend them. Your comments on other articles are inaccurate. The Naik article is plastered with dispute tags. The Irving article contains far far more criticism than this one. The whole of the second paragraph is a detailed attack and the rest of the article is filled with critiques. The article on Kevin B. MacDonald is more complex, but then MacDonald is a bone fide academic whose own arguments are complex. Oak's views have no relation whatever to legitimate historical research. The only people who defame Hinduism are those who try to defend him. Hinduism displays itself in a positive light by rejecting such stuff. Paul B 20:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For the most part, it does.Nobody regards Oak with any credibility except a minor fringe subset of the broader Hindutva movement.The problem is that the Naik article has a tiny out-of-the-way criticism section with no mention of his extremist partisanship in the introduction, violating WP:LEAD. The same is true for Ahmed Deedat as well (another Islamist lunatic).There is a definite pattern of bias at work here, against pseudointellectuals who are Hindu and in tacit favor of pseudointellectuals who are Muslim and especially pseudointellectuals who are anti-Hindu (Periyar, whose followers are warring in the article and who believe Periyar invented everything from fire to the rocket, cult of personality, anyone???). Thus, the Oak article does not follow the norm on wikipedia, since it sets him up to bash him down, which is clearly partisan, regardless of his fringe views. The only reason why some of the editors here are getting away with this is because of bullying tactics.Rumpelstiltskin223 21:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no "bias" of Wikipedia as such, only the accumulated bias of individual editors. It's meaningless to compare article X with article Y as evidence of Wikipedia bias in favour of one point of view rather than another. If there are lots of dedicated Islamist editors they will keep pushing their POV on pages on that subject, despite the efforts of those who oppose them. I have almost no interest in Islam, mainly because I'm too unsympathetic to it to say anything useful about the subject - so I really don't care what goes on on those pages. We can't all contribute to everything. In contrast, Zora regularly writes on Islamic topics - and is regularly accused of being anti-Islamic. I might point out that Swami Dayananda Saraswati also believed that Vedic sages "invented everything from fire to the rocket", and yet the totally uncritical article on him never even mentions his idiosycratic theories about Vedic steam-engines etc. So if you want to find uncritical articles on Hindu figures you can. If you want to compare an article on a writer with similar fringe theories see, for example, Erich von Däniken. It is structured in a similar way to this one. And by the way, look at articles like Dalitstan for sustained polemic against an anti-Hindu POV including blatant assertions of personal opinion. Paul B 00:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oak is hardly a notable figure and most of his talk is nonsense (Ishalayam, Krishnaneeti anyone?). The one thing he talks about that may as well be true is the Taj Mahal theory (albeit without the Tejomahalaya fluff). For some reason people like to whitewash the section on the most plausible of his theories (an the most notable) and add anti-Hindu polemic (in the guise of "criticizing Oak") discussing Hindutva and "Krishnaneeti". Baka man  02:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oak's "theory" on the Taj is contradicted by overwhelming evidence of documents and reports from the time of Shah Jahan. The style of the building is obviously Mughal. As for his other theories, obviously they should be included in an article about him. "Krishnaneeti" is his theory. It is only the insistance of his supporters that people who agree with his claims should be included that gives the impression that he represents what Hindus think. When you add the paranoid attitude that all criticism is part of "anti-Hindu polemic" then we get silly discussions like this. Paul B 08:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oak's "theory" on the Taj is contradicted by overwhelming evidence of documents and reports from the time of Shah Jahan.- This is precisely the problem that Oak is trying to point out. It is the documents and evidence from Shah Jahan's time that seem to entirely contradictory to present belief about Taj Mahal. You have simple stated it in reverse.Bheeshma 13:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there are hundreds of documents referring to the construction of the building. Oak's general attitude to documentation is so slapdash that it's often very difficult to know what he's referring to (for example the mysterious Vikramaditya inscription, "found inscribed on a gold dish hung inside the Kaaba shrine in Mecca"). Usually he just makes assertions, sduch as the claim that an unrelated text ("Bateshwar inscription") was "was removed from the Tajmahal garden at Shahjahan's orders." He just made that up! No evidence is given at all. There's masses of this stuff. Paul B 13:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Silly? No. Maybe if Oak's "critics" spent more time and energy debunking Oak's fantasies instead of going on a rampage against Hindus, seeing the "Saffron Blur" everywhere then we wouldn't have this problem.I am reminded of Der Sturmer whenever I read about Oak's "critics". Bheeshma above has a point. Nobody's actually debunking Oak but attacking Hindus using Oak as a scapegoat. This points to a pathology against Hindus coming from these so-called "academics".Rumpelstiltskin223 10:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, the double standard comes from the total absense of such righteous indignation when it comes to other non-Hindu pseudohistorians. Only Hindu ones are reserved for attack, which is anti-Hindu. Simple.Rumpelstiltskin223 10:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "I am reminded of Der Sturmer"? Are you mad? It's preposterous analogies like that that make me wonder what world you live in. Criticism of absurd ideas is what reasonable people do. In the case of Der Sturmer, it was they who had the absurd, nationalist and divisive ideology and it was reasonable people who criticised and condemned it. This page happens to be on my watchlist because I linked to if from another article and saw that it was a battle-ground. The first version looked like this, and that was replaced a few days later by this . That's why we have to keep it reasonable. What evidence do you have that an attack on Oak is an attack on Hindus? Is criticism of your bete noir Naik really just an excuse for "an attack on Muslims"? Is criticism of Jerry Falwell just an excuse for an "attack on Christians"? Paul B 11:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Am I mad? No. Are you? A statement like this:

The Taj has recently entered a controversy which reflects the politics of modern India. Hindu fundamentalists, wishing to deny any positive role of Muslims in India, argue that it was not built by Shah Jahan. They claim Hindu rulers in the fourth century built it. Books with titles such as Taj Mahal Was a Rajput Palace (P.N. Oak, 1965) further argue this position

Is not a constructive criticism of Oak but an attack on Hindus and is inherently opprobrious. Oak is barely mentioned in this guy's radical Islamist diatribe, which every "academic" seems to drool over.Apparently "Oak has acquired a popular following in India". Laughable! Few in India have even HEARD of Oak. he is a cult figure, pure and simple. Nobody in mainstream Indian society gives Oak any credence, including 98% of the 300 million Hindutvavadis in the country. This statement is a gross misrepresentation of the facts, and is anti-Hindu hate speech. Do you get my point? Rumpelstiltskin223 12:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * An article in History Today is a "radical Islamist diatribe"? Oh please! That quotation is a comment on the politicisation of fringe ideas, which is both accurate and legitimate. I am familiar with the way that the Taj/Shiva theory has been used in this politicising process. Our own Taj Mahal article is regularly rewritten by Oakists. The attitudes of the editors on this very page contradict your claims. There are also numerous articles which push a very pro-Hindu position and aggressively attack Indian anti-Hindu writers. Paul B 12:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What is interesting here is that "Nobody gives cerdence to his theories" is merely stated without reason when there MANY MANY other people whose work corroborates with that of Mr Oak. The corroborated work was entirely removed, then his theories are rendered useless based on 'popular beliefs' and false statements like 'no one believes him'! For a change, how about we put up a section for the list of people whose theories corroborates or concurs with that Mr Oak? I bet it be the largest section. In any case, I dont see why people are so desperately removing the references to his work made by other people. The haters had their way in "Critics' section by adding a bunch of abusive rants. Why should they desperately remove valid research done on Oak's work by other people? It is this 'Hindu haters', albiet in a sophisticated manner that Oak was talking about. False historians along with their supporters suppress the facts like it is done here. Suppressing information based on the editor's own beliefs is merely a reflection of what their revered 'genuine historians' do at the global scale. NOTE: Suppressing the freedom of expressing a thought based on NO reason is an act of desperation!! Try giving a freehand to reason and rationality regarding Bible and Christianity and watch the results. I am merely restoring the research work done by people that refer to Oak and his research.Bheeshma 13:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there are no serious researchers who corroborate his work, and you provided none. You only provided examples of writings from a fringe Hindutva publisher and from some websites. You have also referred to researchers who support his views on Jesus, but I know of none. There are some different fringe views about Jesus, which say that he came from or visted India and was influenced by Buddhism or Hinduism, but that's quite distinct from what Oak says. He claims that Christianity began as a devotion to Krishna. Paul B 13:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is overwhelming research material and people who have shown the link between Christianity/Jesus and India/Vedic philosophy. What Oak did was to show the link between Krishna and Christiality. FYI, Geeta is considered in content and spirit the essence of Vedic Philosophy and so its not a far off and unimaginable idea to see the correlation between Christianity and Geeta - given that Geeta existed several thousands of years before Chr came into being.Bheeshma 13:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Most historians would not accept that the Gita existed several thousand years before Jesus, but that's rather irrelevant. Jesus emerges in a context of mixed Judaic and Greco-Roman traditions, not Vedic. You can repeat your assertions as often as you like, but that does not alter the fact that the vast majority of historians disagree. Paul B 14:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mithraism IS Vedic system - God Mithra IS a sun god. Infact, there aren't any Historians, other than Chr vatican fanatics who oppose that idea. They even showed this link on History/Discovery channel. I still dont understand why r u editing the supporters section to the sloppy version. I have put the information more clearly on that section. I didn't add anything new. Bheeshma 14:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, there isn't ONE historian who says Mahabharatha [When Gita was told to Arjuna] happened AFTER Christ. That is rather the most rediculous statement ever. Not even Pope says that. This is how low the Christians get to actually cover up the history.Bheeshma 14:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not sloppy, it is concise and it conforms to the undue weight and notability criteria. I never said anything about the Gita being written after Jesus. Don't be silly. Mithraism uses the name "Mithras" derived from Indo-Iranian traditions (not the same as "Vedic"), but Mithraism itself was a Helenistic mystery religion with no relation to Vedic culture. You may as well say that the Romans were "Vedic" because they worshipped Jupiter (Dyaus Pita), or the Germans were "Vedic" because they worshipped Tyr. Mithraism may or may not have affected the growth of Christian theology, but once again it is only fringe writers who claim it had anything to do with Jesus himself. Paul B 14:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mitra in Vedic is Sun-God ... so it must be a pure devine coincidence that the Mithra of Rome is also a Sun-God. Thats rather naive. The criticism part is not of the 'concise' form. It actually quotes the abusers in detail. However, the research work done ON Oak's theories suddenly require 'concise' form. Nice. Either make both of them concise or make both sections give out actual quotes. I would prefer the latter.Bheeshma 12:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are too ignorant of religious history to understand what I'm talking about, read the relevant articles on Mithras and Mithraism. Paul B 13:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, please don't try to avoid 3RR by logging out. That's not very honest is it? Paul B 14:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont know what 3RR is about. It seems that you are trying to get people into some technical trap. Updating Wiki is not my full time job. I just put in my little bit of effort to contain the Chr and Isl fanatics from covering up history under various pretexts. Go to sections related to Moses or Jesus and you will suddenly see how their logic turns down into that of a 5 year old kid. Suddenly they need no proof of Moses other than what is stated in self-contradictory Bible. Removing the quotes and the description of the supportive work IS a cover-up. Especially when the criticism section has full description of the abusive rants.Bheeshma 12:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the words that were removed were just repetitions of assertions. I repeat - they were not from notable scholars or historians or reputable academic publishers. Paul B 13:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Bheeshma, please read Civility. The Christ/Krishna is bs because Christ is an English word. The Hebrew word for Christ is very different from Krishna. I am not sure but I think it is something like Ishai. And Rumpel, don't say 300 million Indias are Hindutvaadis. Supporters are BJP are not necessarily Hindutvaadis. In fact most aren't. You are mixing up Hindu pride are Hindu extremism or even those support BJP for non-religious reasons. I advise nobody to use the term "Hindu nationalism" because it can mean both Hindu patriotism and extremism in different contexts. Hinduism in most part is a pluralistic religion which respects all other faiths which goes against the one exception, Hindutva. GizzaChat  &#169; 00:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So that would make ishalayam the new krishnaneeti? DaGizza you seem blissfully unaware that Hindutva is pluralistic and is hardly a religious term. Also your continued use of the word as a pejorative smacks of ignorance as well as your unwillingness to realize that Hindutva means nothing other than Hinduness. Did you know that while "Hindus" were off massacring Sikhs in Delhi that it was only the Hindutvavadis that spoke out in support of the victims? Or how about the poor Buddhists in Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh? Back to the point, Bheesma, you are defending the most implausible theories. Did you know that his theories on Islam/xtians would debunk Hindutva? Imagine if his "theories" were true. Would that not make Afzal Guru a "devotee of god" and the Portuguese in India "the bringers of Krishna-bhakti"? Paul seems to be intellectually dishonest about my words too. Its quite plausible that the Taj Mahal was built on top of an existing structure not that it was a painted Shiva mandir. Baka man  01:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Intellectual dishonesty? I think we can see where that is really to be found. You wrote "The one thing he talks about that may as well be true is the Taj Mahal theory (albeit without the Tejomahalaya fluff)." The phrase "Tejomahalaya fluff" can only reasonably be taken to refer to Oak's derivation of the name. The rest of his theory is that the Taj itself was built by Hindus, not that it was built on the foundations of a demolished Hindu building. There's no evidence for that either of course, but that's the claim, and that what his followers want to believe. That is the essence of "the Taj Mahal theory". Paul B 13:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am little confused here. I am not sure if his theories will be counter productive - they very well could be in India. Just like the concept of Secularism and Pluralism is used by Chr and Mus in India [Who by definition are NOT pluralistic and Secular], to thrash up the pluralistic and secular philosophies of their own coined term 'Hindu'! So yes, I agree that if his theories about Isl and Chr having vedic roots proves to be true, then Indian could again be exploited on that basis. Like you said, anything is possible ... but first thing first, let us not cover up a person's research based on people's beliefs.Bheeshma 13:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * DaGizza, I dont understand what you r trying to say here. Are you saying the word Christ was picked from thin air in English and had no relation to the Hebrew word? In any case, the point here is not about having a theological debate. The point is about not covering up a person's research and his work. If its BS, then let people read it a decide that by themselves. WiKi editors dont have to make that decision. When I am fine with the abusive rants of 'genuine historians', what is the problem and desperation of people here to remove the quotes and research work done by people who support Oak?Bheeshma 12:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The word Christ comes from the Greek word Christos, which means "annointed". It is a Greek translation of the Hebrew word Messiah Paul B 13:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly, so the Hebrew word for "annointed" was the original title of Jesus Christ, which probably has no correlation with "Krishna," which literally means black, not annointed. Anyway I agree with you Bheeshma in that it is not up to Wikipedia what is right and what is wrong. We have to present an NPOV on any subject. I just find it amazing that someone can accept many of his theories. Look, I am a Hindu. I pray to Krishna, Shiv, Ganesh, Mata Devi, Hanuman and all the other devatas we have. And I am proud of what Vedic and Hindu civilisation has achieved. Aryabhata and Brahmagupta were some outstanding Mathematicians and Panini were far ahead of his time in linguistics and grammar. I just don't like someone who calls to make every worthwhile achievement of other civilisations as part of his own. Because the Taj Mahal is an example of beautiful Islamic architecture, he decides to make it a Shiv Temple. Oak can't accept achievement of a Muslim or a Christian just becuase of what they have to the Hindus for the past 500 years. Hindus aren't the only ones who do this. There are many Christian fundalmentalist websites which say Hinduism is a degenerated form of Christianity which started around 200 A.D. brought by St. Thomas. GizzaChat  &#169; 21:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually this belief is widespread among Christians, including Vatican priests who have "published" such rants in Vatican-issued "references". If I wrote an article about this and cited sources establishing it as bs, I'm sure it would be "speedily deleted" and not a peep out of all the "scholars" here. In fact, it is almost worth the time to test the "Neutrality" of WP for me to actually do this for real. Rumpelstiltskin223 00:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, I know a lot of Christians and I assure you not one of them thinks like this. If you don't like equating Hinduism or Hindutva with Hindu fundamentalism, don't do it for Christianity or for any religion. Out of the 2.1 billion Christians, very few of them believe in that type of nonsense just like very few Hindus believe in Oak's theories, most of which are nonsense. Sorry but you can't generalise 2.1 billion people. GizzaChat  &#169;</b> 01:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

i would like add on to what gizza commented. st.thomas spread christianity in the now kerala and tamil nadu. i, being a christian, can confirm that what we believe and what we are being taught from church is that our origin is from the hindu families who accepted christianity from st.thomas. later on, another saint named st.francis also spread christianity in kerala. both these saints were respected by the then hindu rulers and they recieved much help from them. any thought, which says that hinduism is a corrupt version of christianity, is not taught or preached in the catholic church,under the pope of rome. can u please give the references of vatican publications which say otherwise? the earliest churches in kerala were build on the land granted by the rulers of brahmins. if the whole family accepted christianity, their temples became churches, naturally. same things happenend with the people who accepted islam also, after the arrival of arab religious scholars in kerala.

i am not trying to say that there were no invasions or wars wherein the temples where forefully converted to churches or mosques. but everything started with the acceptence of other religions by the then hindus. i respect the vedas and believe that they contain the most valuable knowledges which would benefit the whole world. i wonder why the so called hindutva vadis are not interested in learning and propogating what the vedas say, n instead of doing that why do they run behind proving the authenticity of the ownership of buildings? does that make any sense? it would be more nice to think what made the hindus accept christianity or islam and share to the world what our vedas say,and it would be better way to propagate hindutva.Littleflowerkerala 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Theres a place to discuss what Hindutva people should/should not do. Its called a Shaka. Wikipedia is not a shaka. Baka man  22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Revert war
OK, lets be clear what the issues are here:

1. An editor is deleting all criticism on the grounds that critics quoted - all accredited scholars - are not experts in the relevant field. What relevant field? Religion? Achitecture? The scholars are historians with specialist knowledge of the history of Islam. That seems entirely pertinent.


 * I mentioned that Akbar S. Ahmed is an anthropologist scholar on contemporary Islam from Pakistan and you felt that that wasn't worthy of mention and reverted the change. However, being a scholar on contemporary Islam and makes him a valid critic of P.N. Oak's work on the Taj Mahal?  Carl W. Ernst is a specialist in Islamic studies, with a focus on West and South Asia. "His published research, based on the study of Arabic, Persian, and Urdu, has been mainly devoted to the study of Islam and Sufism."  Name calling by Carl Ernst and Annmarie Schimmel suddenly make them critics?  How about something they wrote that is actually about something that PN Oak wrote?  That would make valid criticism and I would welcome that.  I don't think that just because someone does name calling makes it worthy of mention in a biography of a living person.  In my mind, that simply violates WP:BLP. Having critics who criticize him on things that they have no knowledge about or make personal attacks doesn't make any sense to me.  Kkm5848 04:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Having written an article in History Today on the Taj makes him a reliable source, because History Today is a reliable source. It's one of the few articles in a legitimate history journal that even deigns to mention Oak's theory. The reality is that most scholars do not publish aricles on Oak in serious journal because he is not taken seriously enough to refute. Most critics, like most supporters are on informal fora like webpages. But you will cry "WP:RS" if they are listed, while applying double standards to supporters. Paul B 05:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Or they don't have the inclination to do the research to refute him...either way, are you qualified to state what their motivations are? as far as his detractors on self-published websites--are they making personal attacks or have they done any real work (or atleast claimed to have done real work) disproving Oak? Kkm5848 22:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)~


 * The only webites I added were from supporters saying his work was controversial. The fqct that a reliable souce is availible via the web is a separate matter.Paul B 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

2. The deletionist editor also seeks to delete material pointing to the fact that Oak's supporters (who have no known qualifications as historians at all) are mostly writing on Hindu websites (Knapp also self-publishes his writings). So, in his view, it seems that bona fide scholars must go, but unaccredited persons writing on websites can stay.


 * are you saying that his supporters should be deleted? Kkm5848 22:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * you seem to be missing the point. for WP:BLP, references need to be of substance from WP:RS, not tirades and personal attacks, simply because they are from WP:RS does not mean that they should be on WP.  The quote from Akbar S. Ahmed is only a personal attack. From the quote, it seems that he has nothing to say about Oak's actual work that would disprove Oak. Kkm5848 22:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is an attrzck on his scholrship, and that is all. That is not a personal attack by the WP definition. Paul B 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, by saying Stephan Knapp is a Hindu author only takes away from his credibility without any real reason to do so. He has been researching Vedic spirituality and comparative religious study for over 30 years in a variety of settings.  So that makes him have no qualifications?  He has been initiated into the Brahma-Madhava-Gaudiya sampradaya, or disciplic succession, under the sanction of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami and continued his research under him.  Does that mean he has no qualifications?  Accredited is a very narrow term and wikipedia does not stop people from being used as WP:RS just because they do not have a PhD from a university that you recognize.  Authentic researchers and authorities on topics w/o a PhD are also considered valid reliable sources. Kkm5848 04:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If they are recognised as researchers in their field yes. As far as I knoz, Knapp has no publications with reliable sources on history. The controversy here is purely about matters of historical fact, not spirituality. Paul B 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The why did you delete all references to the reigious affiliaion of his spporters add ones for his opponents (even claiming, without evidence that two were Christians!) . Knapp has no qualifications on history. Have you read Proof of the Global Orgins of Vedic culture? I have. Paul B 05:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Kkm5848 22:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * about them being christian--I realized the error and fixed it only to have you undo the correction. Yet you felt that having affiliations of his supporters and not his detractors was the correct course of action?!?! And what makes you qualified to judge Proof of the Global Orgins of Vedic culture?  If you are going to attack it on Knapp's entry, at least use a reference from someone who is qualified to criticize it.  As for Knapp himself, 30 years of research does qualify him.  So does working under the guidance of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami.


 * More untruths. I can say I have done 30 yeqrs of research. Self assertions do not qualify anyone. Reputable institutions and reputable publishers do. Since you are such an expert on WP:RS, you should know that. But of course, you only care about it insofar as you can use it as a weapon. I did in fact leave in the affiliations of the detractors, as a brief look at the history will show. Paul B 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are going to call Knapp a liar, atleast have the decency to do so with some sort of proof. Why do you insist on making things up? Kkm5848 02:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

3. The deletionist edtor also wants a "reliable source" for the claim that Oak is "contoversial". Contoversial is essentially a polite term for what are in fact extremely fringe views. That he is controversial there is no actual doubt, so the attempt to exclude this term - which is a minimum requirement for NPOV on this writer - seems to be pure "wikilawyering" and POV pushing. Paul B 00:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether I think PN Oak is controversial (which I do), if you are going to call him that, at least have some citations that show contradictions to PN Oak's work. People who have actually printed something that says, I have evidence to the contrary of PN Oak's statements and research!  You write that "a controversial Indian historian associated with the Hindutva movement."  For one, he is a writer and researcher, not a historian.  For another, you make that statement about him being associated with the Hindutva movement without citing any reliable source other than a blog.  How about something that conforms to WP:RS? Kkm5848 04:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)~


 * It is easy to find references to the connection, but the central point is that you want to remove something that you know to be true. No honest editor does that. Citation is there to ensure that untrue or highly dubious statements are not added, not as an excuse to remove inconvenient facts. It is difficult to find direct refutations of extrememy fringe views, because scholars do not publish peer-reviewed articles detailing arguments against them. Paul B 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "writer on history" and you restored historian! The critics you delete contradict his research. Every book ever published on the history of religion and of the Taj contradicts his research. Paul B 05:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Purushottam Nagesh Oak (born 2 March 1917), commonly referred to as P. N. Oak, is a controversial Indian historian associated with the Hindutva movement." -- Your Revision: as of 01:07, 9 April 2007. As far as every book published on the history of the Taj--why not reference one?  I would welcome that! Kkm5848 22:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well you either have a very poor memory or you are an outright liar. I changed it in this edit and you changed it back in the a couple of edits later one . So either you know that the edit you refer to was simply a case of getting slightly lost in the revert war in the revert war, or you are deliberqtely trying to mislead. Paul B 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I simply picked the last revert that you made. Simple as that. Kkm5848 02:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * edit summary: "Bhat and Athawale are scholars...so the removed statement is not correct". Could you please indicate the nature of their scholarly qualifications, affiliations? Itihas Patrika is a hindutva journal that has no status as a reliable source. Paul B 14:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A better question is if Oak is notable for anything other than shooting his mouth off and then starting from there. Baka man  23:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

notability

 * P.N. Oak is hardly notable in his own standing. Being a poster child of our global cabal of armchair nationalists is hardly a criteria for notability. Baka man  01:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are implying - that he shouldn't have an article at all? By all means file for deletion if you wish. Paul B 01:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, a colleague of mine who's grown up in the same town as Oak (Indore) tells me that he is notorious there for filing petitions against any newly released Hindi movie if it happens to contain anything remotely like a kissing scene. The man is NOT a historian but a lawyer and his *theories* should not be taken too seriously. Furthermore even as a lawyer, his contributions are frowned upon (his petitions are merely a waste of time to the judges). It is quite clear to alot of Indians that he is just working to propagate his idea of a Hindu nation which is to deny that anyone but Hindus have contributed in any way to the nation which is just plain ridiculous! The next step is to forcibly convert everyone and/or slaughter anyone who resists. Make no mistake about it - this kind of thing can and does happen, but thankfully people spreading this and similar hate are in a minority. Arjun (19th June 2007) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.187.143.161 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 19 Jun 2007 (UTC)

to be fair, he gets 185 google news hits. But what is he notable as? A crackpot? A lobbyist? I am not sure on what grounds we can claim he passes WP:BIO. dab (𒁳) 18:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hindutva
I fail to see why, after a reliable source was provided, this category was removed. In the continued absence of a reason, it will be replaced. Hornplease 23:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well again quoting BLP the accusation should be "be about the subject of the article specifically". Is this specifically about Oak? No. Its about what the left-wing editors of frontline (its an opinion piece) deem a "saffronization" of education in India.  Baka man  23:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The exact quote from BLP is "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association." You, unfortunately, seem to misunderstand this gleefully to mean that the entire article needs to be about Oak. Of course, given the marginality of the figure, this would mean that any discussion of Oak at all would be impossible, as there is never going be an entire article in a reliable source about him. Hornplease 00:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No you misunderstand the guideline. I have demonstrated how edits of your kind are not permissible under BLP. However it seems you are here to facilitate an agenda, also a no-no under BLP. Baka man  00:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You have demonstrated nothing of the sort, and in fact, have not replied to the point I just made. Please also note that I have no agenda to push, and that implying as much is offensive. Please discuss the article, not editors.Hornplease 00:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bakaman, your argument is bizarre. The guideline is about avoiding "guilt by association". It says that content should refer to an individual specifically. The intention is clearly to avoid statements of the order "so-and-so is associated with atheism. So-and-so has expressed support for Group X. Some members of Group X are atheists." Paul B 01:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree...Hornplease does look like he is pushing an agenda based on the types of edits that he makes on this and other articles. Kkm5848 05:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ri-ight. RfC is thataway.

"Professor" P.N. Oak
As an encyclopedia article, we need to look at the perception of P.N. Oak, and highlight errors that appear to exist.


 * Too many websites (and possibly some of his books as well) refer to him as "Professor". 2007-09-02: A Google search with ""Professor P. N. Oak" (in quotes): 328 pages; "Prof. P. N. Oak": 163 pages;
 * Solution: I am adding a disclaimer, early on, that he was not an academic.


 * Also, there is a BBC page that is often cited as a respectable source of his opinions; but this page is a user's blog page in their blog area, h2g2. Since this is also a widespread in a number of pages, I think it belongs in the article.
 * Googling for "Oak BBC taj mahal" yield 63K sites; going through the first 100 entries reveal about 70% to relate to P.N. Oak's claims; therefore it is clearly widely believed that BBC had a hand in his claim.
 * I am adding a sentence on this.

After presenting the theories, one usually has the critiques first, before presenting further suporting arguments. This follows a standard process of presenting any argument. I am switching these sections, and making them subsections of the "Theories" section.

Also, the lead does not do an adequate summary of the main points of the article (see WP:Lead). I am adding a sentence summarizing some of his main claims.

I am putting in citations wherever I am making changes. I trust these changes will be acceptable to the editors here. mukerjee (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "need to have critiques first, before presenting his supporting arguments." I'm not sure I follow you. It's normal to present the argument first, then the criticism. Are you referring to the order of the supporters / detractors sections? Paul B 15:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I felt it would be better to present both the critiques and the support as part of the "Theories" section. So, you are right - it is the order of these two sections (now subsections) that I have switched... I can see this has been a rather contentious page, hope others agree! mukerjee (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Namaz
'' Oak betrays his ignorance of Islam in similar fashion by tendering the following point in substantiation of the "dish" theory:

Also, the word Namaaz derives from two Sanskrit roots, Nama and yajna meaning bowing and worshipping.''

Namaz is indeed derived from an Indo-European word 'Nemase Te' which almost carries the same meaning as 'Namaste'.See here

http://www.persiandna.com/litav_hoshbam.htm

This Zoroastrian prayer called 'Hoshbam' contains the stanza '2. nemase-tê (hôsh-bâmî)(3).' which means 'Homage to you, Dawn'. -Ravichandar84 10:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"claims"
terms such as "claims" are appropriate as Oak's ideas which, to put it charitably, are disputed. Doldrums (talk) 08:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * see above: this seems to be some random journalist/lobbyist/nationalst-crackpot. It isn't made clear why we have an article on him. dab (𒁳) 18:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

why is my editing deleted
I would like to put the following text in the article on P N Oak. But someone is deleting it again and again. Who is doing it? WHY? What can I do about it??

Professor Marvin H. Mills, basically supports the massive data cited by Oak and writes "new information and analysis have come forth to constitute a compelling argument that the Taj Mahal was actually a former Hindu palace occupied and converted to a tomb by the Moguls" (see: AN ARCHITECT LOOKS AT THE TAJ MAHAL LEGEND, and SEPARATING THE TAJ MAHAL FROM LEGEND (www.marvinmills.com)).David Kung (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Professor Marvin H. Mills" is a self-published crank. His book is printed by iUniverse, a vanity publishing company. Mills also believes that the mosques in Spain were built by Phoenicians aided by survivors from Atlantis We learn of the "Piri Reis map" that "It lead Ivar Zapp and George Erikson in Atlantis in America (1998) to assert that an awareness of Antartica was known to an advanced civilization at the end of the Ice Age." And, yes, the published version of this book really does spell the second word of that sentence with an "a". Mills is not a reliable source. He is self-published and his views are fringe. Paul B (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Prof Mills articles which are refered to presents the relevant data and gives an "objective" and "intelligent" analysis. If you believe Prof Mills is wrong, or if you know of any "scholar" who has "objectively" refuted his analysis/interpretation please provide references so that the readers can judge for themselves. But throwing about epithets, and/or indulging in childish editing reflects poorly on your agenda. David Kung (talk) 06:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, taking Mills seriously reflects poorly on yours. My "agenda" is to respect the opinions of experts in the field. Their expertise is judged by a rule we have called WP:RS which concerns the reliability of sources. Read it. If you wish other editors with no personal interest in this subject to comment on your sources in an unbiassed way you can ask a question at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Regarding your other source, Itihas Patrika is the journal of Oak's own Institute for Rewriting Indian History, so of course it agrees with him. Paul B (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are obviously confusing the "messenger" with the "message". The discussion is not about the person Mills or Itihas Patrika. If a body of data is presented and analysed and interpreted it stands on its own merit, unless "objectively" refuted. Besides, why is it that this article contains references and citations which are ad hominen and not based on any reasonable grounds or data ????David Kung (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confusing nothing. We rely on Wikipedia policy (to which you have been pointed) and the mainstream views of experts. If you want to see what the experts say, look at the references in the Taj Mahal article. Paul B (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know where all these ridiculous cranks come from. I'm having the same trouble with Khalistani revisionists on Talk:Gandhi_Behind_the_Mask_of_Divinity that people here seem to have with the occasional Hindutva revisionist, except that the former are more organized, and command more "minority sympathy" than the latter.Goingoveredge (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I haven't come across that brand of South Asian hilarity before. May be worth its own note at WP:FTN. --dab (𒁳) 13:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oak's Supporters
Why is this section deleted ??? It contained a reference to P. S. Bhat and A. L. Athawale "The question of The Taj" which is a well researched paper presenting and analysing the relevant data in an "intelligent" and "objective" manner. While so much of text and notes, most of it ad hominem, from "laypersons" is allowed to reflect negatively on Oak why is this well documented reference deleted??

I suggest this section shoule be restored with the following entry. And "deletor" should please explain why this cant be done.

Oak's Supporters P. S. Bhat and A. L. Athawale in wrote "The question of The Taj" in "Itihas Patrika, Vol. 5 1985", a publication of the "Institute for Rewriting Indian History" in support of Oak, saying his writings "place in perspective some of the pertinent questions that arise on the subject."

Professor Marvin H. Mills, basically supports the massive data cited by Oak and writes "new information and analysis have come forth to constitute a compelling argument that the Taj Mahal was actually a former Hindu palace occupied and converted to a tomb by the Moguls" (see AN ARCHITECT LOOKS AT THE TAJ MAHAL LEGEND, and SEPARATING THE TAJ MAHAL FROM LEGEND (www.marvinmills.com). —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Kung (talk • contribs) 06:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please. Nobody in their right mind takes this stuff seriously for one minute, you are insulting everyone's intelligence. See WP:RS. But we can of course discuss the various issues of "Itihas Patrika" -- being the publication of Oak's "Institute", it would he on topic. --dab (𒁳) 07:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose you are talking for yourself, and not on behalf of "everyone". Well if you have the "intelligence", please provide reference(s) which counters the "analysis" and the "interpretations" provided by the references I have cited. After all it is the "message" that is at issue, and not the "messenger(s)". Besides the Oak article cites several references which give "ad hominem" criticism of Oak without providing an iota of "reasoning". So how are all these references allowed when you censor references which are very well grounded, interpreted and analysed ???David Kung (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Read the policy page I pointed you to. The burden is on you to show that your sources qualify as WP:RS (don't bother though: they do not). --dab (𒁳) 10:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:RS. (1) There is NO blaket ban on using "self-published" sources. (2)"extremist and fringe sources" can be used "as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities" and the "information used must be directly relevant to the subject."David Kung (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * DK, "extremist and fringe sources" can be used "as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities" is exactly what I am saying right above: "But we can of course discuss the various issues of "Itihas Patrika" -- being the publication of Oak's "Institute", it would he on topic". You are obviously not interested in meaningful discussion. Trust me, both Paul and I are fully aware of policy. It is for you as the "newbie" editor to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia basics, e.g. by heeding the information you were just given, or to walk away. I don't think anything more needs to be said here, it's up to you now. --dab (𒁳) 11:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no blanket ban, but self-published sources have to come from established experts, and as you say "extremist and fringe sources" can be used "as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities", which does not include 17th century architecture. Also see WP:REDFLAG. Paul B (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * yes. This is an article on 20th century Hindutva pseudohistory, not on 17th century architecture. Oak and Co. are primary sources for the purposes of this article. The article text should not give the impression that this stuff is taken seriously by anyone at all, it should just document this stuff as ideological fringe publications with some moderate notability in the larger topic of Hindutva propaganda literature. --dab (𒁳) 11:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why does it basically look like an article on P.N.Oak and his work ONLY. Besides, if this article is not supposed to give an "impression that this stuff is taken seriously by anyone at all" why does it primarily depend basically on ad hominem remarks of non-experts to criticise Oak's work. Also, not to mixup all of Oak's work, I have mentioned here that Oak's data on Taj Mahal has to very serious scrutiny, so if this too is not supposed to look "serious" where is the "expert" rebuttal ???? Or were you saying you wanted "meaningful" discussion?? David Kung (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No-one is disputing that Oak can be quoted to summarise his own views. You were proposing to quote other authors as authoritative "scholars" who support him, and you are repeating that claim now by asserting "Oak's data on Taj Mahal has been subjected to very serious scrutiny". But it has not. It has been ignored by all serious scholars. Paul B (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If Oak can be quoted to summarise his own views, and if it was done "objectively" then the result would not have been so one-sidedly negative as it is now. The references I have suggested are by 1:Bhat and Athawale, Historians; 2:Mills, architect, architectural historian and professor of theory and history of architecture. Yes the data Oak has used in his book on the issue of Taj Mahal were also subjected by the references I have cited to "serious scrutiny". It is rather stupid to assert otherwise, because any scholar studying the issue would scrutinise the same date: i.e. architectural details, Shahjahan's papers, eyewitness accounts etc. Now, have Bhat, Athawale and Mills scutinised these data "seriously"? The answer lies in the references given. Are there "scholars" who disagree with their analysis and interpretations, then let us see what they have to say. But then why should these authors be supressed and censored ??? David Kung (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The claims of these authors about their own professional status would need to be supported by more than their own websites. People with fringe views often exaggerate and outright misrepresent their qualifications. For example, a real 'professor of theory and history of architecture' would be expected to have published articles in academic journals, and books published by academic presses, and yet Mills lists no such publications. Scholars "who disagree with their analysis and interpretations" are not going to come to this webpage and present their evidence to you. You have to go and read their books for yourself. Paul B (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oak isn't an expert on anything, he is just mildly notable in the context of Hindu nationalist propaganda. Hence the only experts we want to discuss in this article are sociologists or politologists explaining how this is possible. There is no "serious scrutiny" of "Oak's Taj Mahal data", that's nonsense. "Serious scrutiny" would mean academic references discussing Oak in terms of his suggestions, as opposed to his role as a notable crank. --dab (𒁳) 14:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well said, judging by what you have said and your editing behaviour you are discussing Hindutva, or rather antipathy for it, and not Oak. You seem to be confused about "serious scrutiny", to me it means that the data Oak used e.g. in his analysis and interpretation of the Taj Mahal issue would be subjected to an "objective" analysis and interpretation. This is what I believe the references I have cited have attempted to do.David Kung (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You have not actually read WP:RS, have you. You ask But then why should these authors be supressed and censored ??? the answer is, because they are self-published cranks. Once they get their opinion published academically, feel free to come back and point us to it. Your beliefs are irrelevant, the question is, did this stuff pass peer-review? Where? --dab (𒁳) 16:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think your remarks are better adressed to your good self. Are the notes and references in the article by recognised "experts", have they passed peer-review? Where?David Kung (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize that you probably have no idea what this even means, but fwiiw, we are talking about publications by Oxford University Press, Routledge and Princeton University Press. If you do not see how this is different from self-publishing as the "Institute for Rewriting Indian History", I don't think you should be here. --dab (𒁳) 21:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your claim very clearly does not cover many of the citations in the article which are NOT from (relevant) experts, nor are in any way based on any kind of relevant "objective" research. But IMO since you consider this article on P.N.Oak to be an "article on 20th century Hindutva pseudohistory" you disqualify for any "meaningful" discussion.David Kung (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Tripping Nambiar
Tripping Nambiar, you have made many useful contributors in recent times. If you now revert to mindless revert-warring in an attempt to defend anything Hindutva, including all-out cranks like Oak, you are not doing yourself a favour. Please stick to the more reasonable approach you have managed to adhere to, and I will be happy to recognize you as a good editor. Don't let your ideology taunt you into knee-jerk reactions that make you look like a troll all over again. --dab (𒁳) 10:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk about adherence to WP:TALK and the personalization of WP by some editors. Trips (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * whatever. the above is a friendly recnition that not all your behaviour has been out of line. If you prefer to focus on the less glorious aspects of your WP career, no problem. I was only saying, this edit is abysmally below the standard you have shown to be capable of. --dab (𒁳) 14:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

if people keep removing the Hindutva qualification, we'll need to AfD this article. Oak is a completely unnotable clerk, except for his pseudohistorical delusions having been employed for Hindutva propaganda. That's why anyone has even ever heard of the man. Oak finds some mention in passing as an eccentric in academic literature on the Hindutva wing of Hindu Nationalism is the entire reason we keep this article around. "Marxist historians drain away India's great Vedic heritage" is exactly the stuff we need to clean out after Confused Desi tech students all the time, week after week, on Wikipedia today, thanks to Voice of India. If I could send an invoice to VoI for the time I spent cleaning up after the kids they indoctrinated, I could probably quit my day job. This article is solidly sourced. Read it, and then try to build some sort of coherent argument if there are issues you want to discuss. --dab (𒁳) 06:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may interject. I have some questions regarding the bizarre sentence synthesized from Faisal Kutty's article that you're using to bolster this view
 * Faisal Kutty (2003) noted a revival of interest in Oak's revisionism with the Hindutva campaign of pseudohistorical literature targeting Non Resident Indians, particularly in North America (Voice of India), finding support among some Western anti-Islamic writers such as Koenraad Elst or Francois Gautier, and the NCERT controversy in the context of Saffronization under the BJP government (1999-2004).
 * The article is not scholarly, not publised in any peer reviewed journals, but is, in fact an opinion editorial in a dubious internet site
 * Faisal Kutty is not a scholar of history, sociology or any humanities subject, he is a lawyer, and an advocate for Canada's CAIR, a highly questionable organization, to say the least
 * The synthesis in the sentence is that Hindutva revisionists tried to promote Oak's bizarre theories during their attempt to modify textbooks. I don't see that mentioned in the Kutty article. Kutty simply mentions Oak in passing, then goes on to talk about other things. In fact, I don't know of any attempt to introduce PN Oak's claims in Indian schools during the BJP"s somewhat disingenious attempts to interfere in pedagogical processes.
 * The synthesis in the sentence also says that two western people, Koenraad Elst and Francois Gautier, supported oak and that they are "anti-Islamic". Using a slur in a sentence like "anti-Islamic" without due attribution seems to be a WP:BLP violation. Also, Elst does not seem to support Oak's theories at all, but has, in fact, rubbished them in his books (look at chapter 15 in Elsts book here ("At present, the Hindu inferiority complex is still so serious. that all kind of funny attempts at compensation are in evidence. The best-known example is probably the contention that the Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple (Oak's claim). Of course, architecturally it is not Hindu at all"). Also, Kutty doesn't specifically associate Oak with Elst.
 * Thus, the sentence seems to be a major synthesis and a Coatrack, using Oak as a useful idiot to tangentially attack Elst. If you have issues with Elst then it's better taken up at the Koenraad Elst article. Apart from this matter, everything else in the article seems fair. Oak was clearly motivated by chauvinistic tendencies to "rewrite" history in favor of Hindutva, and all the other sources tht attest to this are either peer-reviewed or seem to come from notable academics.Goingoveredge (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that Elst or Gautier would see "anti-Islamic" as a "slur". They are more likely to consider "Islamic" a slur, and "anti-Islamic" a recommendation. It's in the eye of the beholder. Still, feel welcome to improve the presentation of this. We are agreed, I suppose, that Oak derives his notability from, in Elst's words, "the Hindu inferiority". You are right that the article is wrong in suggesting Elst supports Oak. Elst supports Hindutva, and takes a rather heterogenous stance in "explaining" obvious crackpots like Oak as the result of an "inferiority complex", while endorsing less obvious pseudohistory, which will of course look very sane compared to Oak. --dab (𒁳) 07:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well wikipedia should not be governed by what elst or gautier believes. WP:BLP is universal and objective as a policy. Because the term "anti-Islam" is almost universally used as a pejorative epithet, I would suggest that it be removed. Faisal Kutty is not notable enough for so much inclusion here, given that far more noteworthy criticisms from Akbar S Ahmed, R Brown and others are presented. I fail to see why the entire sentence should be there at all.Goingoveredge (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is the criticism from Akbar S Ahmed and R Brown Noteworthy ?? Is it just because they (may) have some academic credentials ?? Have they presented any arguments/data/iterpretations that we can check to validate their remarks ?? OR are their remarks not just ad hominem ??? David Kung (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand BLP. It does not prevent us from calling Alain de Benoist or Umberto Bossi neo-fascists or far right extremists, even though these epitets are "almost universally used as a pejorative". That's beside the point. BLP just says that all potentially controversial claims need solid attribution. If you look at the Koenraad Elst article, you will agree that it can hardly be disputed that much of his writing is motivated by anti-Islamic sentiment. This is beside the point. Elst is, of course, far too intelligent to tout Oak. He makes the ingenious move to use poor cranks like Oak as a "proof" of how badly the Hindu nationalists were treated by "arrogant Leftists". The argument goes something like, "look at the poor madman. Imagine how people must have been mistreated before believing idiotic stuff like that. It's the arrogant Leftists' fault. If they hadn't cracked down on RSS after Gandhi was killed, the poor Hindu nationalists would not need to fix their inferiority complex by believing random nonsense and burning down buildings today. Brilliant, isn't it? You get to blame even the most pathetic faults of your own side on the enemy." For the purposes of this article, your Elst quote only drives home the point that Oak needs to be discussed in terms of Hindutva. --dab (𒁳) 07:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just as a note to this fascinating conversation, I have added some legitimate criticism of Oak, including quite a juicy quote from Giles Tillotson (of the University of London). As for allegations of nonsense being bandied about, I think Hindutva hardly has a monopoly on nonsense-driven violence; in fact they may not even have the controlling share even in India of such activities.Pectoretalk 23:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)