Talk:The Astronomical Code of the Rigveda

NPOV
I neutralized the unsourced criticism that the work has little or no acceptance in mainstream Indology. Such statments should be sourced, and does the statement refer to the whole book? --RF 12:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Bachmann's Revisions
Mr Bachmann has done much good work for Wikipedia, but he is way out of line on the insistence that his view should prevail. Here's why:
 * 1 Witzel's essay appeared in EJVS, which is not a peer-reviewed journal; it is list serve that is controlled by him. This article is a rant, and not a scholarly assessment of the evidence. Further, Mr Witzel is not an expert on astronomy.
 * 2 Kim Plofker was a post-doc (not a professor) when she wrote her review; she is still a post-doc (hardly an authority). Also, her review was on the first edition, and the second edition appeared 5 years after this review.
 * 3 Assuming these opinions to be sound in themselves, we must realize that there are other scholars both in the West and India who don't agree with them, and Mr Bachmann should have the courtesy to let their views also be represented.
 * 4 Mr Kak's work in the book appeared first in peer-reviewed journal in the West and in India. Checking his chapter in Selin's book (that in on arXiv.org), I see papers that appeared in Vistas in Astronomy (UK), Mankind Quarterly (USA), Proc. of the Royal Astronomical Society (UK), Indian J. of History of Science, Puratattva (Indological j. from India0, and the many favourable reviews in journals.
 * 5 His analysis has been incorporated in essays in the Kluwer Encylopedia of Non-Western Science, Kluwer Encyclopedia of Non-Western Astronomy, and Stanley Wolpert's Encyclpedia of India (2006). The implication of this is that Western scholars generally support Kak's work on Rig Vedic astronomy.
 * 6This work forms several chapters in the 85 volume History of Science and Civilization in India that is being currently edited by Professor D.P. Chattopadhyaya.

It appears to me that the previous edits that let the Witzel reference (Plofker's should not even be there since it concerns an older, obsolete edition) in together with a couple of representative pro-Kak references is a more reasonable thing.


 * Also Bachmann is wrong in claiming that Kak supports the influx of Aryans into India in 7000 BC or pre-3000 BC. He is silent on this. His lone argument from his side is that the Rig Veda should be prior to 2000 BC or so.

DaveBorman 01:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)