Talk:Subhash Kak

Let's look at Meera Nanda

A single purpose account has made a long list of complaints in April but not returned to defend them. One mentions "Leftist activist Meera Nanda. But they are not historians of science." Her article calls her just that, a "historian of science" " with a PhD in biotechnology from the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi and a PhD in science studies from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute." A critique by Michael Danino in what appears to be a Hindutva source isn't going to be

a reliable source. If anyone disagrees, go to WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

So Michael Danino isnt "reliable" because he is "Hindutva" but Meera Nanda is "reliable" as she is Leftist. Mr IndianCotton (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

See the other two comments I left for you on this page. Satisfy our policies on WP:RELIABLE, WP:VERIFY and WP:FRINGE. Full stop. Heiro 07:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Please Answer

From User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Please Answer:

Please explain how stating papers published in Science Journal and the Smithsonian Mag violates NOPV and the statement that is upheld today "Scholars have rejected his theories on these topics in entirety, and his writings have been heavily criticized." is compliant with policy?

I have provided sources citing that the "THEORY" stated is in question. I did not remove the previous statement. Why are newer evidences being rejected? Please explain in detail and cite all the sources in contention. Tapanchaudhary (talk • contribs) 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tapanchaudhary: you added diff the following text to the lead (in bold):

Kak has published on the history of science, the philosophy of science, ancient astronomy, and the history of mathematics. Kak has also published on archaeoastronomy, and advocated the idea of Indigenous Aryans. Scholars have rejected his theories on these topics in entirety, and his writings have been heavily criticized. New Research especially Evidence from "Rakhigiri DNA" has shed new light and doubt on the whole Aryan Invasion Theory.

References

I removed diff this addition from you for the following reasons:

• You dumped a piece of text in the lead; the WP:LEAD summarizes the article, which your addition clearly didn't do;
• "has shed new light and doubt on the whole Aryan Invasion Theory" is incorrect; Narasimhan's research has strengthened the Indo-Aryan migration theory. You obviously didn't read the Smithsonian article:

Genetic relationships to Steppe pastoralists, who ranged across the vast Eurasian grasslands from contemporary Eastern Europe to Mongolia, are ubiquitous among living South Asians as well as Europeans and other people across the continent. But Steppe pastoralist DNA is absent in the ancient Indus Valley individual, suggesting similarities between these nomadic herders and modern populations arose from migrations after the IVC’s decline.

this evidence provides information about the timing of arrival of this ancestry type, and their movement parallels the linguistic phylogeny of Indo-European languages, which today are spoken in places as far away as Ireland to New Delhi.” The authors suggest Indo-European languages may have reached South Asia via Central Asia and Eastern Europe during the first half of the 1000s B.C., a theory evidenced by some genetic studies and similarities between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages.

• "Aryan Invasion Theory" is an outdated term, used by polemicists.

Clearly, your intention in not to build an encyclopedia, but to build an argument. Wrong place; I removed it diff. See also Talk:Indo-Aryan migration/Archive 10#Shinde et al. (2019). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement in lede

The statement Some scholars have rejected his theories on these topics in entirety, and have heavily criticized his writings. is not ledeworthy, but this has been contested by an editor. I believe it should be removed. Is there a good reason to retain it? 183.83.146.183 (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

3 reasons. The content is reliably sourced. Scholarly criticism are lead worthy. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED Walrus Ji (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Walrus Ji: Ok, thank you. I initially found it strange why content was repeated. 183.83.146.183 (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Walrus Ji: One more issue has flared up. Only two sources have been cited for the statement, Scholars have rejected his theories on these topics in entirety, and his writings have been heavily criticized. so we cannot say that it is scholars in general. He has received praise, attested to in the article. The statement should read Some scholars have rejected his theories on these topics in entirety, and have heavily criticized his writings.. Could you clarify your revert? 183.83.146.183 (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:LEAD is the summary of the article body. I can see that the criticism related content in the body is large and has more than 2 sources, contrary to your claims. Walrus Ji (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Walrus Ji: Other than these , I do not see citations for this. On the other hand, he has been praised by Bryant, Klostermaier etc. (attested in the article with sources) and so, he is not unanimously or near-unanimously criticized on his theories. 183.83.146.183 (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

On account of this, I think the tendentious wording should be changed. 183.83.146.183 (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Walrus Ji: I hope this clarifies your worries. Thank you for taking the time to discuss; shall I wait a little more in case you still have any issues to raise? 183.83.146.183 (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Please wait for other page contributors to see your thread and reply. Walrus Ji (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Walrus Ji: You were the only editor to voice criticism, and the only editor who reverted. If there is no reason to revert, then WP:RULES say that I can restore the content. Is this not correct? 183.83.146.183 (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I have not vacated my objections. Walrus Ji (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Walrus Ji: But what are your objections? You have not given other citations, while the body contains well-sourced praise of Kak's works in addition to criticism. 183.83.146.183 (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Repetition in Argumentation should not be used. 183.83.146.183 (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Klaus Klostermaier has been heavily criticized by other scholars on his coverage of the Vedic period. Bryant has also been criticized by other scholars for giving the Indigenous Aryans idea a slimmer of legitimacy, despite it having a non-scholarly agenda. The consensus of scholars is that Kak is a Hinduitva revisionist, and is part of an un-scholarly agenda to further a Hindu nationalist agenda. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chariotrider555: All scholars are subject to some or the other criticism. Please provide proof that there is unanimous agreement or consensus among scholars that Kak is "part of an agenda". Saying that "this person who agrees with Kak was criticized" is WP:CHERRYPICKING - near

Criticism of Klostermaier's views on the Vedic period:
Criticism of Bryant giving legitimacy to Indigenous Aryans:
See the entire current article for the long list of scholars who have criticized Kak. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chariotrider555: Similarly, many scholars have criticized them. The only critics of Kak in the article are Romila Thapar, Koertge, Nanda, Fagan and Witzel, as opposed to Klostermaier, Bryant, Wolpert etc. who praise him. Just as they criticize Klostermaier and Bryant, they are also subject to criticism. Also, note that I am not denying critism of Kak - I am only saying that it is in no way unanimous among the scholarly community. As a compromise, I propose the following wording:

A number of scholars have rejected his theories on these topics in entirety, and have heavily criticized his writings.

This is still slightly negative, but as a compromise, I put this forward. The current wording is untenable, as it implies that all scholars disagree with him, which is factually incorrect. 183.83.146.183 (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like all the positive comments that could possibly be found are lumped together, giving a flattered and WP:UNDUE positive impression. Klostermaier's comment is no more than a quote, from "In search of the cradle of civilisation" itself; what's the original source? On the other hand, the criticisms are from reputed scholars; the qualifier "a number of scholars" is misleading, as if it's just a matter of 'opinions'. The opinions in question represent the scholarly status quo; Kak's archaeoastronomy, and the idea of Indigenous Aryans, belongs to the realm of fringe-theories, if not worse. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: It would be WP:UNDUE if the statement read criticism and praise or something to that effect. But that is not being suggested by anyone; the issue at hand is that the wording seems to suggest that scholarly opinion is unanimously against Kak. 183.83.146.183 (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, this is not about some of his more nutty theories in particular - those are indeed likely false. The current wording suggests that all his theories are false, and not just some of them. 183.83.146.183 (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Occupation

Can I add the following to the intro of the article saying that he is an Indic scholar? This source says he is an Indic scholar. Although he may not have a degree in Indology, he nevertheless has published about it and has contributed to it.

"and Indic scholar" Akella, Usha (2013). The Hindu https://www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/the-renaissance-man/article5478590.ece. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) Shakespeare143 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Without an education in Indology nor an academic position in that field, he cannot be a scholar of Indology. Yes, he is an published author on topics in Indology, but he is not an Indic scholar by any means. Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think he needs to have an official education in Indology or an academic position in the field to be an Indologist, although those would probably help him in the field. Indologist Edwin Bryant considers Kak to be an Indologist and a scholar in Indology. Bryant also calls him an intellectual. Shakespeare143 (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Without any qualifications, he is just another raving fringe author that commands no respect and little attention from academia. If he had qualifications, then he would be a fringe Indologist, but he doesn't. Chariotrider555 (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

He has made contributions to the field and is considered an Indologist. He does command respect and gets attention from academia. He is often criticized by ideologues. He is a part of academia, which also illustrates how he is not a "raving fringe author" - he's also not even a fringe author. Regardless, the Reliable Source describes him as a scholar. Shakespeare143 (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Use of Historical Revisionism as a Slur

The first sentence intends to make the subject look a particular way because (as we will discover reading the article) he holds a minority opinion about about an ancient people's location of origin, which we are to trust the findings of scholars as being invalid without their conclusions as to why that is provided.

Now the origin point of the ancient Aryans is not something in the historical record being reinterpreted by Mr. Kak, it preceeds the historical record and is instead his proposal of an alternative conclusion regarding archeology thus does not make him a historical revisionist and further more the coloring of his character with this charge implies political motives behind this characterization whatever the assumptions about the political nature of his opinion. We can at least try to appear objective on Wikipedia, I hope. ThomasLeonHighbaugh (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

From a read of the article and supporting literature, the description of Prof. Kak as a historical revisionist is warranted and correct. The tenor of this article is somewhat back and forth--those in support of his arguments seem to have plucked as many quotes as possible to add to the article. As someone with an anthropological background, the Indigenous Aryan hypothesis is not seriously discussed as a possibility. It is seen primarily as a branch of the Hindutva revisionist movement, similar to Prof. Kak's claims about ancient advanced astronomy. Honors from those powerful in the Hindutva movement, such as those delivered by PM Modi's government, do not grant him great credibility in that respect. TarnishedSteel (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)