Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindutva pseudoscience


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was '''No result. Closed as AfD was initiated by a sock of the banned User:Hkelkar'''. Aksi_great (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hindutva pseudoscience

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I would like to nominate this article for deletion.The reasons are many and I itemize them below Birdsmight 21:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) POV fork. The article is not much more than a copy-paste job from numerous other articles (themselves very dubious and biased against Hindus) like Hindutva, Fascism in India,Indigenous Aryans,In Search of the Cradle of Civilization,Aryan Invasion theory and Indo-Aryan Migration made by User:Dbachmann with an agenda of silencing criticisms of old theories by evocations of Godwins Law.
 * 2) The article was created immediately after Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_21 was filed,demonstrating an attempt to conflate and confuse readers by collecting numerous quotes and arguments and assembling them into an original research piece.
 * 3) Filled with factual inaccuracies. For instance, the article(s) implicitly claim that Hindus universally endorse the Indigenous Aryans theory, which is demonstrably false, as Savarkar was a vocal proponent of the opposite Aryan Invasion Theory (see Savarkars book "Hindutva" Page108, for instance)
 * 4) Selection bias. It states the opinions and allegations of controversial scholars (see this regarding Meera Nanda's perorations, as well as this article) as factual, and selectively quotes references to make extremely offensive remarks against Hindus in an attempt to foster hatred against them.In particular, claims of Aryan Race evocation are entirely false (as Aryan in this context is not perceive as a "race" but a class of nobility)
 * 5) It is an attempt to evoke Godwins Law and make an attack page against Hindus and Hindutva (see Articles_for_deletion/Indigenous_Aryan_Theory) with the epithet of "Hindus are Nazis" based on cherry-picking quotes from the works of Golwalkar, despite the fact that the Hindutva movement disowned those works a long time ago as shown by the posts of an ex-wikipedian who was a wiipedia administrator (User:Babub).
 * 6) Overall, it is a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:ATT, WP:NOR, WP:HOAX and numerous other policies
 * 7) Also see Requests_for_arbitration, Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann,Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-28_Indigenous_Aryan_Theory,Requests_for_mediation/Indigenous_Aryans,and Articles_for_deletion/Indigenous_Aryan_Theory Birdsmight 21:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) References that debunk the allegations made in this article (and mis-stated as factual) are "Smith, David James, Hinduism and Modernity P189, Blackwell Publishing ISBN 0-631-20862-3", Elst on Golwalkar , We withdrawn,preview to dissertation, and numerous others.
 * 9) The article(s) attack certain publication groups (such as VOI and VOD without any references to explicitly support such allegations). The rationale for this can be found at WP:V and WP:BLP inasmuch as WP:BLP can be expanded to include existent organizations. This article is a violation of that policy and the involved groups should be contacted to file OTRS with wikipedia is this is continued.
 * delete - on the grounds above.Any useful content already exists in other articles (from where this was copy-pasted). Birdsmight 21:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * what can I say :) even the nominator is a sock for edit-warfare. Still, this longer statement by our resident sock artist might be useful to guess at his identity. Of course this article was created under pressure and harassment from our Hindutva troll(s) and is far from finished. Scholarly references (not blogs) that dispel the "pseudoscience" allegations are most welcome. I don't quite see where this could be merged at present, so, speedy keep, bad faith nomination by sock. dab (𒁳) 21:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that you need to attack users with baseless accusations to argue your case bolsters the grounds for deletion. I am not a sockpuppet if that's all you have to discredit me. In any case, since accusations against VOI constitute institutional BLP violation, that is an important issue that effects wikipedia's credibility, and the accused can be involved if need be. Birdsmight 21:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * your first edit ever to Wikipedia was a revert two weeks ago, and now, with a few dozens edits to your name, you throw your weight around in afds? You are banned user and should be blocked on sight. dab (𒁳) 21:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My nomination is hardly "throwing my weight around". I read the Afd instruction page and followed it. This is merely a tactic to silence this matter as I detailed above. All your detractors are "Hindus", "Nazis", "Hindutva" or socks of somebody. I request you participate in this AfD without attacking people and turning wikipedia into a battleground. We can discuss other allegations as a separate matter. Birdsmight 22:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, I agree, ..  ( talk · contribs · [ logs ] · block user · [ block log ] ) 22:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I request that you detail your opinion on the fact that the article is a POV fork based on copy-pastes from Indigenous Aryans, Fascism in India, In Search of the Cradle of Civilization,Aryan Invasion theory and Indo-Aryan Migration. Birdsmight 22:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:See post by Dbachmann where he says "this article was created under pressure and harassment from our Hindutva troll(s) ". Is that a valid reason to create an article? It makes it impossible to assume good faith with this user. Birdsmight 22:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Most of the eight claims in the nomination are irrelevant or even patently false (such as #3). Appears to be a bad faith nom. (Note: the article is rather sketchy in nature and could use some work.) GregorB 22:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Claim #3 is not at all false. The article says that Savarkar put forth the IAT theory. THAT is a demostrably false claim as, I quote from Savarkar's book:"the Aryans who settled in India at the dawn of history already formed a nation, now embodied in the Hindus". So he supported the opposite of IAT, in resonance with so-called "mainstream" opinion of AIT. In addition, claim #5 is not made by me, but by a longtime (now left) wikipeia administrator (like Dbachmann). This administrator has supplie sources to assert his claim as well. If you feel that it is "irrelevant" or "patently false" then I can try to contact him so that he may argue his case better. Birdsmight 22:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - The term nets three google hits, all of which return to wikipedia, or associated mirrors. This article is also a Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position, and therefore violates WP:OR. The term Hindutva pseudoscience can then be described as dabcruft. Hindutva is a socioreligiopolitical movement, not some epithet to describe various unrelated scientists not even considered in the realm of pseudoscience. Baka man  23:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.   Baka  man  23:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Claiming that the nominator of this request is a sock puppet and thus the article should be kept, is Ad hominem circumstantial logical fallacy, and it does by no mean imply that the article should be kept. Same is the case with calling the nomination: "bad faith nomination". Regarding the article being sketchy and having potential to get increased, it tells me that the opinion is not coming from people who know anything about this subject. There are always people who want to sell you something by relating it to science. It does not mean we go on creating "XYZ pseudoscience" article on wikipedia. There is hardly any advertisement for skin/hair care which is scientific, but we don't have an article for it. As mentioned above, the term "Hindutva pseudoscience" is a visible case of original research and should be speedy deleted after performing a google search. Wether people think some thing is right or wrong should be discussed in 'criticism' section of that article, as I have already explained to User:Dbachmann.--Scheibenzahl 01:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Material on fringecruft contaminating other articles can (and should) be moved here, although 'pseudoscholarship' might have been a better choice of title than 'pseudoscience'.  rudra 03:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. And may Lord Shiva grant wisdom to bachmann so that he can see the error of his ways. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anarya (talk • contribs). ; and here are my views
 * The term Hindutva was coined by Indian nationalist Veer Savarkar to mean “The “essence of being a Hindu”. He used the term in a positive sense, and to this day the term carries decidedly positive connotations for hundreds of millions of people sympathizing with Hindu hopes and aspirations.


 * The word is broadly analogous to “Jewish” or “Islamic”, which mean Jew-ness or Muslim-ness respectively. You just have to ask yourself if Wikipedia will allow articles like Jewish propaganda or Islamic propaganda in itself. If not, then this article will have to go.


 * The distinction between the words Hinduism and Hindutva is tenuous at best. It has been perpetuated by some known anti-Hindu persons and organization to be able to bad-mouth Hindu religion while still being able make a farcical claim at secularism. To the millions of readers from India, this page is just a glaring example of blatant defamation of their religion. This article violates the spirit of Wikipedia while hiding behind a façade of play on words. I don’t believe for a moment that this page was not created out of spite. I invite everybody to judge for themselves if the article was born of hate or not. Anarya 04:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with Hindutva and Delete (no redirect). The nomination (and probably some of the Delete votes) might be seen as bad-faith, but the title "Hindutva pseudoscience" is certainly a neologism. "Hindutva pseudoscience" gets 0 Google results. As dab himself states, the article was created under "pressure and harassment from our Hindutva troll(s)". utcursch | talk 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. It is surprising that these pages/redirects are still lingering on in mutating forms even after almost three weeks since I first registered my complaint to admins. []. I was first told to take my complaint to the user’s RFC, then to some other places like arbcom pages, AFD discussion pages and similar chatting rooms. The end result is that we are still putting up with this bull**** plastered all over a supposed encyclopedia. Talk about bureaucratic inaction in the face of direct offence to a religion. Sisodia 04:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as an attack page, and certainly without any redirects. This criticism could be merged as appropriate into the actual article pages on the various subjects (actually, it is there on all of them already).  Whatever one might think of some of the hypotheses discussed,  it would still  not be right to use WP to express those personal views--and certainly not in an article deliberately so oriented and so titled. This is the very model of a POV fork, of the most blatant kind. (Subtler POV forks use subtler titles). It illustrates perfectly the importance of NPOV. DGG 04:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.