This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Putting "National mysticism" in the See also section is pov. [1] I removed it.-- RF 23:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
um, this is a classical case of national mysticism, and the classification is well referenced. Hello? It is published by the Theosophical Society? It doesn't get any murkier than that. dab (𒁳) 10:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
granted, the quote is about communal violence and its connection to the "Vedic science" ideology in general, for which this very book is cited as a prime example. Thus the quote is perfectly relevant to the article. If you can provide any other reviews that focus on this book in isolation as opposed to putting it in its ideological context, feel free to cite them also. I also recognize the quote is somewhat partisan. I realize communal violence has (at least) two faces. But it is you who *alleges* it is "anti-Hindu" in general. This seems to imply that all Hindus are confused, undeducated, fanatical zealots, which, I put to you, is very much more "anti Hindu" than critically separating the fanatics from the bona fide population. I also put to you, " Anodeabout ( talk · contribs)" that you are a sock, operated by a user who has indulged in endless disruption and bad faith campaigning in the past, and I ask you to finally stick to a single account and begin helping build Wikipedia in good faith if you are at all capable, or else find another forum to air your views. dab () 10:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello there. I had by chance come across this page as I started researching on the "Aryan Invasion Theory". I became interested in this topic after a few initial conversations with my colleagues. But I must say, when reading this page, I was very much surprised to see "the Sokal statement" inserted into otherwise informative pages in the Wikipedia. Then after reading the Revision History and now this Talk Page, I am not surprised to see this particular aspect debated.
First of all, when following the links for Sokal, I came to understand that he is not even an expert in this field. As a reader interested in India's history, why would I care about the opinion of a physics professor with little or no education in this area? After learning more about him, I am shocked to see him sited on this page.
Secondly, the content of his statement itself bears little relevance to the book itself. A quote or opinion from any academician should not be blankly stated unless it has merit and is accepted by others. Otherwise, academic data would become superfluous and difficult to sort out the facts from the opinions/guesses.
I strongly suggest we remove the Sokal statement altogether as it comes from a source that is not an expert in this area. Thanks!
Nlibra 10:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)nlibra
Alan Sokal is well known for debunking pseudoscholarship. This article doesn't discuss "Indology" so much as a phenomenon of ideologically motivated pseudo-scholarship, hence the statement is perfectly justified. For information on the "Aryan Invasion Theory", refer to
Indo-Aryan migration. If there are any academic reviews of the book, they should indeed be cited, but I am not aware there are any, the book qalifies as
fringe literature. You may or may not be aware of Wikipedia's
WP:RS policy: other views are most welcome, as long as they can be attributed to academic publications.
dab
(𒁳) 10:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
A book consisting of unfounded 'opinions' on this subject, even if it is published by an academician, should not be sited as an academic publication on this topic.
Nlibra 22:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)nlibra
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Putting "National mysticism" in the See also section is pov. [1] I removed it.-- RF 23:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
um, this is a classical case of national mysticism, and the classification is well referenced. Hello? It is published by the Theosophical Society? It doesn't get any murkier than that. dab (𒁳) 10:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
granted, the quote is about communal violence and its connection to the "Vedic science" ideology in general, for which this very book is cited as a prime example. Thus the quote is perfectly relevant to the article. If you can provide any other reviews that focus on this book in isolation as opposed to putting it in its ideological context, feel free to cite them also. I also recognize the quote is somewhat partisan. I realize communal violence has (at least) two faces. But it is you who *alleges* it is "anti-Hindu" in general. This seems to imply that all Hindus are confused, undeducated, fanatical zealots, which, I put to you, is very much more "anti Hindu" than critically separating the fanatics from the bona fide population. I also put to you, " Anodeabout ( talk · contribs)" that you are a sock, operated by a user who has indulged in endless disruption and bad faith campaigning in the past, and I ask you to finally stick to a single account and begin helping build Wikipedia in good faith if you are at all capable, or else find another forum to air your views. dab () 10:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello there. I had by chance come across this page as I started researching on the "Aryan Invasion Theory". I became interested in this topic after a few initial conversations with my colleagues. But I must say, when reading this page, I was very much surprised to see "the Sokal statement" inserted into otherwise informative pages in the Wikipedia. Then after reading the Revision History and now this Talk Page, I am not surprised to see this particular aspect debated.
First of all, when following the links for Sokal, I came to understand that he is not even an expert in this field. As a reader interested in India's history, why would I care about the opinion of a physics professor with little or no education in this area? After learning more about him, I am shocked to see him sited on this page.
Secondly, the content of his statement itself bears little relevance to the book itself. A quote or opinion from any academician should not be blankly stated unless it has merit and is accepted by others. Otherwise, academic data would become superfluous and difficult to sort out the facts from the opinions/guesses.
I strongly suggest we remove the Sokal statement altogether as it comes from a source that is not an expert in this area. Thanks!
Nlibra 10:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)nlibra
Alan Sokal is well known for debunking pseudoscholarship. This article doesn't discuss "Indology" so much as a phenomenon of ideologically motivated pseudo-scholarship, hence the statement is perfectly justified. For information on the "Aryan Invasion Theory", refer to
Indo-Aryan migration. If there are any academic reviews of the book, they should indeed be cited, but I am not aware there are any, the book qalifies as
fringe literature. You may or may not be aware of Wikipedia's
WP:RS policy: other views are most welcome, as long as they can be attributed to academic publications.
dab
(𒁳) 10:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
A book consisting of unfounded 'opinions' on this subject, even if it is published by an academician, should not be sited as an academic publication on this topic.
Nlibra 22:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)nlibra